Receptacle of the Sacred. Jinah Kim
Читать онлайн книгу.
for Haribhadra in particular. This king built in all about fifty centres for the Doctrine, of which thirty-five were centres for the study of the Prajñāpāramitā. He also built the Śrī Vikramaśīla vihāra.19
Tāranātha’s account is to be read with caution because, as a sixteenth-century Tibetan scholar, he tends to idealize the north–east Indian Buddhist world with nostalgic notions that lack accuracy. His historical details are not trustworthy, but this passage suggests that the Prajñāpāramitā texts (re)surfaced as one of the two primary doctrinal principles, paralleling the clearly esoteric teachings of the Guhyasamāja in the early ninth century. Tāranātha also records that there was a belief at his time that Dharmapāla was a reincarnation of a master of the pitaka who was reborn for the purpose of propagating the Prajñāpāramitā.20 According to our Tibetan source, the Prajñāpāramitā sūtra needed an official, royal boost in the ninth century to restart the support system. A revival of the doctrinal interest in the Prajñāpāramitā texts may also be seen from the dates of the major commentators of the AsP. One of the two major commentators, Haribhadra (the Abhisamayālaṃkāra), was active during the reign of King Dharmapāla at the beginning of the ninth century, while Abhayākaragupta, a famed scholar of the Vikramaśīla monastery, was active during the reign of King Rāmapāla at the beginning of the twelfth century.
The cult of Prajñāpāramitā was already in practice earlier in the fifth century, as reported by the Chinese pilgrim Faxian (ca. 377–422 CE), but it is difficult to ascertain what the focus of this cultic practice was, whether it was the goddess or the book. Faxian reports that he saw that Mahāyānists worshipped the Prajñāpāramitā in a monastery he visited in Madhyadeśa, somewhere between Mathura and Sāṃkāśya. This reference has been taken as evidence for the existence of the goddess Prajñāpāramitā in the fifth century, but what Faxian meant by “Prajñāpāramitā (
Contrary to the popular perception that identifies Prajñāpāramitā as a quintessential Buddhist mother goddess,21 Prajñāpāramitā’s goddess identity seems to emerge much later than the appearance of the Prajñāpāramitā text. Western scholarly understanding of Prajñāpāramitā as a Buddhist mother goddess originates from the analogies in the AsP text where the Buddha compares the relationship between Prajñāpāramitā and Buddhas to that of a mother and her children. But these references are metaphorical analogies that emphasize the importance of “Prajñāpāramitā” in achieving enlightenment.22 Her qualities in these passages do not fit the general conception of a mother goddess with a loving, nurturing, and sometimes wrathful character. For example, the AsP explains how the “Prajñāpāramitā” should be treated and respected like their mother by all the Buddhas because it is from her that enlightenment originates. Yet there is no mention about what she can do for her spiritual sons. If Prajñāpāramitā had ever been a mother figure, it would have been a very remote and reserved one.23 Such a simile played a role in determining Prajñāpāramitā’s anthropomorphic form as a goddess (fig.1–3). In a twelfth-century manuscript painting from Nālandā, a voluptuous goddess bedecked with ornaments sits in vajraparyanka (cross-legged posture), displaying the gesture of preaching. She is regal and serene, symbolizing the perfection of wisdom, the foremost requirement for one’s enlightenment. The mother analogy in the AsP comes to the forefront in understanding and representing the goddess Prajñāpāramitā with the development of Esoteric Buddhism in India, in which the female principles became important for one’s spiritual success.24 Surviving epigraphic and art historical evidence suggests that Prajñāpāramitā’s identity as the mother of all Buddhas was established by the tenth century.25 The fact that only the late-tenth-century Chinese translation of the AsP (Taisho 228) by Danapāla in 985 CE uses the term Fo-mu or “Buddha mother” in its title (Fo-shuo-fo-mu-chu-sheng-san-fa-zang-ban-ruo-bo-luo-mi-duo-jing,
FIGURE 1-3Goddess Prajñāpāramitā with Māyūrī (left), Jaṅgulī (right), and two bodhisattvas, folio 1v, center panel, AsP Ms, ca. 1151 CE (Gopāla IV’s 8th year), Nālandā monastery, Bihar. Pāla period. Ink and opaque watercolor on palm leaf. Asia Society, New York: Mr. and Mrs. John D. Rockefeller 3rd Acquisitions Fund, 1987.1 (95a). Image courtesy of Asia Society Museum.
LOCATING THE GODDESS AND THE BOOK AS CULTIC FOCI
Once the images of the goddess Prajñāpāramitā appear in the scene, we might expect to see her becoming the main focus of the Prajñāpāramitā cult. Yet, we do not find a dramatic shift of the cultic focus: most of the surviving images of the goddess found in Nālandā and in other eastern Indian monastic sites are made of bronze and are relatively small, with their heights less than 10 inches, most of which were made for personal devotional practices. Instead, we see the explosion of Buddhist book production, especially of the illustrated manuscripts of the Prajñāpāramitā, from the late tenth century, in the monastic sites in the ancient regions of Magadha, Gauda, and Varendra (modern Bihar, West Bengal, and Bangladesh). The goddess Prajñāpāramitā is featured prominently as a beautifully bejeweled voluptuous goddess in these manuscripts, marking the opening of the text and serving as a symbol of the entire manuscript (see fig. 1–3). But the object that actually garnered devotion and worship was probably the book, not the goddess. The goddess Prajñāpāramitā did not seem to have earned much cultic importance in Bihar and Bengal, especially after the booming of illustrated manuscript production there. Interestingly, in nearby Orissa where we do not find any surviving Buddhist manuscripts from the period, the goddess Prajñāpāramitā seems to have emerged as an important cultic deity, as exemplified by a number of stone images of considerable sizes (measuring between 30 and 65 inches in height) made in the eleventh century or later, some of which are still in worship.26 Although no Orissan Buddhist book survives, a book in worship is commonly included in these representations of the goddess. One such image, an eleventh-century image of the goddess Prajñāpāramitā from Orissa, contains a full-fledged ritual worship of a book.
The image was found in Mangalpur (Puri), Orissa, and is currently installed in the Orissa State Museum in Bhubaneshwar (fig. 1–4). It is a rectangular stele made of sandstone, a common format and medium used in early medieval sculptures from Orissa. The size of the image is considerably large, measuring 128 by 65 centimeters (with 31 centimeters in depth). It probably dates to the latter half of the eleventh century.27 A two-armed female deity sits in the center with her legs crossed (vajraparyanka-asana). The two arms of the stele are broken, but the remaining parts suggest that the deity held her hands in front of her chest in the preaching gesture (dharmacakrapravartana mudrā). She wears many ornaments, including a tall, bejeweled crown with ribbons flying upward on either side. Her shawls also fly upward from her arms, as if indicating her buoyancy. The trace of vermillion powder on her forehead and crown suggests that she was in worship as a cultic object before coming to the museum. She probably remained in worship as a local goddess even after the demise of Buddhist institutions in the region, partly because of her impressive size and sculptural quality.28 Despite some extensive damage to the surface, it is possible to see the gracious yet commanding presence conveyed in the image.
FIGURE 1-4Stele of Goddess Prajñāpāramitā with a scene of pustaka pūjā on the pedestal, found spot: Mangalpur (Puri), Orissa, ca. 11th century, Orissa State Museum.
The