The gift of the body and the gift of dharma. (Buddhism)
Reiko Ohnuma
History of Religions
Vol.37 No.4 (May 1998)
pp.323-359
COPYRIGHT 1998 University of Chicago
Indian Buddhist narrative literature of all ages and schools is full
of stories involving paradigmatic acts of generosity in which an
animal or human character gives away his entire body or a part of
his body to whomever requests it: King Sibi gouges out his eyes and
gives them to a blind man; Prince Mahasattva throws himself off a
cliff in order to feed a starving tigress; a hare jumps into a fire
in order to feed a hungry traveler; and an elephant removes his own
tusks and presents them to an evil hunter.(1) The majority of such
stories are jatakas, or accounts of the Buddha's previous lives, and
serve to demonstrate the great selflessness and compassion
cultivated by the Buddha during his long career as a bodhisattva. In
terms of the bodhisattva's cultivation of the perfections
(paramita), they are almost always classified as preeminent examples
of the perfection of generosity or giving (dana). Stories of the
bodhisattva's gifts of his body to others were extremely popular in
Indian Buddhism, appearing in innumerable variations throughout the
history of the literary tradition and exerting a profound influence
on Buddhist art, philosophy, and culture. They exist in the
literature of all Mainstream Buddhist schools(2) and (unlike many
other types of stories) seem to fully retain their popularity within
the literature of the Mahayana.
I refer to all such stories collectively as "gift-of-the-body" or
dehadana stories. I have borrowed the term dehadana from one such
story in particular, which refers to itself as a dehadanavadana, an
"avadana dealing with the gift (dana) of one's body (deha)."(3) As
far as I can tell, dehadana is not a common term in Indian Buddhist
literature, and gifts of the body are more frequently referred to
with other terms, such as atma-parityaga (self-sacrifice),
sarira-parityaga (renunciation of the body), or adhyatmika-dana
(internal gift). By using the term dehadana, I mean to focus
specifically on those stories in which a gift of the body (deha) is
emphasized or explicitly stated, and the predominant theme is
generosity (dana). In truth, however, the category is an artificial
one. Buddhist stories involving self-mutilation and self-sacrifice
fall into several different categories that should ultimately be
treated as one large and interweaving thematic group, with the
various types playing off each other in interesting ways. In order
to limit my material, however, I have chosen to focus on those
stories in which a gift of the body or a part of the body is
emphasized, and to designate such stories as gift-of-the-body or
dehadana tales.(4)
Perhaps what I have found most striking in the course of my research
on these tales is the incredible richness of the dehadana theme and
the sheer number of issues important in the study of Indian Buddhism
for which these stories open a door and offer a springboard.
Although generally presented and classified as if they were
straightforward illustrations of the virtue of generosity (dana)
these stories, in fact, touch on a wide array of topics, often
striking one as a melting pot of subtexts bubbling just underneath
the surface structure devoted to dana. In addition to the obvious
contribution they make to the Buddhist discourse on dana, I have
found these tales to be a rich source of material for Buddhist
conceptions of the body, of gender, of kingship, of sacrifice, of
ritual pollution and purification, of worship, and so forth.
But such interesting topics will have to wait for a future occasion.
In this article, I wish to deal with a single topic only, one that
is limited, moreover, to a particular subset of these tales. In the
course of my reading of many stories of dehadana it struck me that a
limited number of dehadana stories preserved in Sanskrit and Tibetan
seemed to be engaged in a particular project that was not
characteristic of dehadana stories in general. These stories seemed
to be using the theme of the bodhisattva's gift of his body in a
particularly interesting way that was unique to them alone. It is
this use of the theme that I wish to examine here.
It is my contention that within this particular subset of stories,
the bodhisattva's body is clearly intended to serve as a symbol for
the Buddha's dharma, and thus, the bodhisattva's gift of his body
(dehadana) is made parallel to the Buddha's gift of dharma
(dharmadana). Although scholars have long recognized the
paradigmatic status of these two gifts within the Buddhist discourse
on giving,(5) no one, as far as I know, has ever posited a parallel
or an identification between the bodhisattva's gift of his body in
the past and the Buddha's gift of dharma in the present. Yet it is
my contention that this is precisely what these particular stories
are doing. In the first half of this article, I will demonstrate
three different ways in which this parallel is suggested: through
the identification of past and present characters, through the
invocation of a group of characters known as the "good group of
five," and through a process that I call the "literalization of
metaphor." What I mean by each of these will become clear in the
ensuing discussion.
Taking the argument one step further, in the second half of this
article I will suggest that it is not merely the case that the
bodhisattva's body is a symbol for the Buddha's dharma, but also
that this dharma itself is implicitly conceptualized as a body of
dharma analogous to the bodhisattva's physical body. Thus, while the
bodhisattva gives away a physical body, the Buddha gives away a
"spiritual" body, the body of dharma. Making use of Buddhist
terminology, we might say that the bodhisattva's gift of rupa-kaya
(the body of physical form) is made parallel to the Buddha's gift of
dharma-kaya (the body of dharma, or collection of the Buddha's
teachings). I will also suggest that because the Buddha's dharma may
be seen as a body of dharma, the gift of dharma may thereby be
classified as a form of self-sacrifice (atma-parityaga) or gift of
the body (dehadana) on the part of the Buddha.
Finally, at the end of the article, I will address the issue of the
meaning and significance of these parallels. For now, let me
summarize my arguments in the form of a simple table. Within a
particular subset of gift-of-the-body stories, I contend, the
following parallels are either implicitly or explicitly invoked:
bodhisattva buddha past present physical rescue spiritual salvation
gift of the body (dehadana) gift of dharma (dharmadana) gift of
rupa-kaya gift of dharma-kaya literal deeds metaphorical deeds
It now remains for me to demonstrate the various ways in which such
parallels are drawn.
IDENTIFICATION OF PAST AND PRESENT CHARACTERS
It is a well-known feature of the Jataka genre that any particular
jataka story will often consist of two parts: a "story of the
present" (in Pali, paccuppannavatthu), in which some incident
occurs, causing the Buddha to tell the story of one of his previous
fives; and a "story of the past" (in Pali, atitavatthu), which is
the past-life story itself. At the conclusion of the story of the
past, there is usually a return to the story of the present, with
the Buddha making the requisite "identifications" (in Pali,
samodhanani) between past and the present characters. That is,
characters in the story of the past are identified as the former
births of characters in the story of the present or other well-known
figures of the Buddha's lifetime, always including the Buddha
himself. The story of the present thus constitutes a framing
narrative that surrounds and contextualizes the story of the past.
The types of relationship that obtain between the story of the
present and the story of the past are many and varied: sometimes
there is no discernible relationship; sometimes the suggestion is
made that people follow the same habitual karmic tendencies in-we
after life; while in other instances, the past/present framework is
used to suggest interesting parallels between different types of
categories.(6)
This third option, in fact, constitutes one major way in which
parallels are drawn between the bodhisattva's gift of his body in
the past and the Buddha's gift of dharma in the present. In some
gift-of-the-body stories that exhibit a past/present framework, a
particular pattern is established in which those who are physically
saved by the bodhisattva's gift of his body within the story of the
past are identified as former births of those who are spiritually
saved by the Buddha's gift of dharma within the story of the
present. The bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's gift of
dharma are thus made parallel by both being directed toward the
"same" recipient, and this is possible because of the karmic links
that connect a single individual's successive lives.
Let me offer two brief examples. Avadanasataka no. 37 (called the
Sasavadana)(7) opens with a story of the present in which a young
man becomes a monk but continues to live with his relatives and
associate freely with householders. The Buddha then prohibits him
from any association with householders and installs him in the
forest. This measure fails repeatedly, and the Buddha must admonish
the monk and return him to the forest again and again. Finally, the
Buddha delivers a sermon to the wayward monk concerning the faults
of association with householders and the virtues of life in the
forest. As a direct result of this sermon, the monk begins to apply
himself and soon attains arhatship.
When the other monks express amazement at the fact that such a
"repeat offender" could finally attain the highest goal, the Buddha
replies, "Why is it any wonder, monks, that I ... have now banished
this son of good family from the village borders up to three times,
installed him in the forest, and finally established him in
arhatship? For in the past, too ... by the sacrifice of my own life,
I prevented this son of good family from [descending to] the village
borders, and installed him in a dwelling in the forest. Listen to
this, and reflect on it well and duly; I will tell you all about
it."(8)
The Buddha then launches into a story of the past in which an
ascetic and a hare live together in the forest. When a severe
drought occurs and food is difficult to come by, the ascetic decides
to leave the forest and go down to the village borders. The hare,
being worried about the harmful influences of the village, beseeches
the ascetic not to go. After persuading him to remain in the forest
for one day, the hare, on the following morning, throws himself into
a fire in order to provide food for the hungry ascetic and prevent
him from descending into the village. Although the ascetic pulls the
hare out of the fire and thus prevents his death, the hare's mere
willingness to give his body away so moves the ascetic that he
resolves to stay put in the forest. As a further consequence of the
hare's virtuous gift, the god Sakra relieves the drought by sending
down a great shower of rain, which saves the ascetic from
starvation. Thus, even though the hare's gift of his body is not
technically completed, it is nevertheless treated as if it were, and
celebrated as the deed that ultimately saves the ascetic from
starving.(9) When the hare affirms that he performed this
magnificent deed in the hope of one day becoming a Buddha, the
ascetic says, "When you become a Buddha, pay heed to me as well!"
The hare replies, "It will be so."(10)
At the end of the story, of course, we learn the full import of
these prophetic words. Returning to the story of the present, the
Buddha reveals that the hare was a former birth of himself, while
the ascetic was a former birth of the wayward monk. Thus, we can say
that just as the hare saved the ascetic in the past, so, too, has
the Buddha saved the wayward monk in the present. Moreover, we can
also say that while the hare physically saved the ascetic through
undertaking a gift of his body, the Buddha has spiritually saved the
wayward monk through undertaking a gift of dharma--for it is, after
all, as a direct result of the Buddha's sermon that the monk
overcomes his wayward behavior and soon attains arhatship. I would
argue, then, that the past/present framework of the jataka is here
used to draw a parallel between the bodhisattva's gift of his body
and the Buddhas gift of dharma by having the "same" individual (the
ascetic/wayward monk) receive both gifts. Although the parallel is
not explicitly stated in these terms, it is nevertheless implicit in
the identifications made between past and present.
A second example of the same pattern may be found in the second
story of the Tibetan collection mdo mdzangs blun (commonly known as
the Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish).(11) Here, the story of the
present involves the Buddha saving two young thieves from execution
(at the prodding of their distraught mother), accepting them into
the monastic community, and establishing them in arhatship through
his preaching of the dharma. When Ananda expresses amazement at
their good fortune in encountering the Buddha, the Buddha replies,
"Not only have I benefited these three, the mother and her sons, at
this time alone; I also benefited them at a previous time as
well."(12) He then launches into a story of the past, which is a
version of the well-known tigress story. Here, a prince named
Mahasattva encounters a starving tigress who is ready to devour her
own newly born cubs. Prince Mahasattva slits his throat with a piece
of wood and allows the tigress to drink his blood and then devour
him completely, thus saving both the mother and her cubs. At the end
of the story, as expected, the Buddha reveals that he himself was
none other than Prince Mahasattva in a previous birth, while the two
men saved from execution and established in arhatship were none
other than the two young tiger cubs (their mother, of course, being
identified as the starving tigress herself). "Formerly," he
concludes, "a long time ago, I freed them from difficulty, saved
their lives, and made them happy. And now, having attained complete
Buddhahood, I have again freed them from difficulty and completely
liberated them from the great suffering of samsara."(13)
Once again, then, implicit in the identification between past and
present characters is the suggestion that just as the bodhisattva
physically saved the two tiger cubs through a gift of his body, so
the Buddha has spiritually saved the two young men through a gift of
dharma. The bodhisattva's gift of his body is made parallel to the
Buddha's gift of dharma by having both gifts be directed toward the
"same" recipients. Moreover, it is not merely the case that the
Buddha "helped" the same individuals in two different lives but,
more specifically, that a gift of his body in the past has become a
gift of dharma in the present. Again, although the term "gift of
dharma" (dharmadana) is not explicitly invoked, the wording of both
stories makes it clear that the characters in the story of the
present attain arhatship as a direct result of a sermon preached to
them by the Buddha, just as in the past, their physical lives were
saved as a direct result of the bodhisattva's gift of his body.
Thus, while the identifications posited between past and present
characters in many jatakas appear to be completely arbitrary, here
are two cases, I would contend, in which the past and present
stories have been paired in a conscious way, and the identifications
used to suggest specific parallels. I will address the issue of the
meaning and significance of these parallels at the end of this
article, but here, let me begin the discussion by suggesting that
such stories might be interpreted as functioning somewhat on the
level of metaphor. The events taking place in the story of the past
serve as extended metaphors for the concepts expressed in the story
of the present, lending to them a concreteness and physicality that
they would otherwise lack. The abstract notion of the suffering of
samsara is translated into the concrete situations of starvation
during a drought (in the hare story) or the possibility of being
devoured by one's own mother (in the tigress story). Likewise, the
Buddha's serene preaching of the dharma is transformed into the
gruesome deeds of throwing oneself into a fire (in the hare story)
or being devoured by a ferocious animal (in the tigress story). And
in both cases, the abstract notion of the dharma is translated into
the concrete physicality of somebody's bloody, burned, or mutilated
body. The Buddha's dispassionate and unknowable task of saving
living beings comes to life in the heroic and swashbuckling labors
of the bodhisattva, while at the same time, the Buddha's higher
status is yet maintained. For while the story of the past is the
focus of greater attention and appeal, the story of the present
retains a kind of status quo authority. Ostensibly, at least, the
spiritual salvation offered by the Buddha is far superior to the
physical salvation enacted by the bodhisattva.
I will revisit the issue of metaphor and what I call the
"literalization of metaphor" below. For now, let me further my
argument by focusing on one particular group of characters that is
continually invoked in gift-of-the-body stories, and that I contend
serves to emphasize further the parallels drawn between the
bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's gift of dharma.
THE "GOOD GROUP OF FIVE"
I have outlined above, and given two examples of, a pattern found
fairly frequently in gift-of-the-body stories, in which those who
are physically saved by the bodhisattva's gift of his body in the
story of the past are identified as former births of those who are
spiritually saved by the Buddha's gift of dharma in the story of the
present. Within the corpus of stories that follow this pattern, it
is striking to note just how frequently the number of beings saved
by the bodhisattva's gift of his body is purposefully set at five
(five yaksas, five tiger cubs, etc.), who are then revealed to have
been reborn as the "good group of five" (pancaka
bhadravargiya)--that is, the five monks headed by Kaundinya who were
the first five disciples to bear the teaching of the Buddha and
attain arhatship.(14)
Let me briefly offer a list of examples in order to demonstrate the
prevalence of this pattern. In the Sanskrit Suvarnabhasottama
Sutra's version of the tigress story, the five tiger cubs who are
saved by Prince Mahasattva's gift of his body to the tigress are
identified as former births of the good group of five.(15)
Similarly, in the Pancakanam Bhadravargikanam Jataka of the
Mahavastu--which, of course, derives its name from the good group of
five--the Buddha explains his spiritual rescue of this group by
means of the connections forged in a former birth, when the good
group of five were five shipwrecked merchants who were saved by the
bodily sacrifice of their leader--a former birth of the Buddha
himself.(16) The same is true of another, later version of the same
story, Sambhadravadanamala no. 4, except that in this instance,
Upagupta relates the story to King Asoka.(17) Again, in Jatakamala
no. 8, five yaksas are saved from starvation by King Maitribala's
gift of his flesh and blood.(18) Since the stories of the Jatakamala
lack a past/present framework, these five yaksas are never
explicitly identified as past births of the good group of five.
However, such an identification is clearly implied when King
Maitribala tells them that in the distant future, when he finally
attains enlightenment, "I will give the first share of the nectar of
the dharma of liberation to you alone."(19) This is further
confirmed by a Tibetan version of the same story (mdo mdzangs blun
no. 12), in which the five yaksas are explicitly referred to as
former births of the "five monks headed by Kaundinya."(20) Finally,
in mdo mdzangs blun no. 26, a king named Sudolagarne saves his
subjects from starvation during a drought by transforming himself
into a giant fish and allowing the people to feed on his flesh for
twelve years.(21) The first five woodcutters to cut and eat his
flesh are again identified as former births of the good group of
five, while those who subsequently ate his flesh are identified as
eighty thousand devas and the rest of the Buddha's liberated
disciples.
In these stories, again, we can say that those who are physically
saved by the bodhisattva's gift of his body within the story of the
past are identified as former births of those who are spiritually
saved by the Buddha's gift of dharma within the story of the
present. But why is there such a prevalent concern with identifying
these recipients as the good group of five? I would suggest that the
good group of five represent the quintessential recipients of the
Buddha's gift of dharma--since they were the very first to receive
it--and thus serve to further highlight the suggested parallel
between the bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's gift of
dharma. Thus, although these stories, too, never explicitly invoke
the specific term "gift of dharma" (dharmadana or some other
equivalent), this idea is at least more strongly suggested when the
recipients are the good group of five. Rather than depicting the
Buddha delivering a sermon to an anonymous monk (or monks), these
stories of the present instead invoke the good group of five, thus
reminding us of that crucial moment in the Buddha's biography when
he turned back toward the world after attaining enlightenment and
decided to bestow the dharma as a gift upon living beings.(22) The
good group of five were the first, and thus paradigmatic, recipients
of that gift.
This use of the good group of five in order to highlight the notion
of the Buddha's gift of dharma will become clearer, perhaps, if we
look more closely at what kinds of imagery are invoked within such
stories. In mdo mdzangs blun no. 26, the story of the present opens
with Ananda requesting of the Buddha, "I ask you to explain this.
Why is it that as soon as the Lord first turned the wheel of the
dharma in the world, the five monks headed by Kaundinya were the
very first to taste the nectar of the dharma?"(23) The Buddha then
replies, "Previously, these five monks were the first to eat my
flesh and be satisfied. Therefore, in this life as well, they were
the first to taste the flavor of the dharma and be liberated."(24)
He then relates the story of King Sudolagarne, who saved his
subjects from starving to death during a drought by transforming
himself into a gigantic fish and allowing them to feed on his body.
The first five people to partake of his body and be satiated were
five woodcutters who encountered him in a river. When the fish saw
the woodcutters, he told diem: "You will be the first to eat my
flesh and be satiated; therefore, later on as well, when I have
attained complete enlightenment, you will be the first to taste the
food of the dharma."(25)
Notice the way in which the good group of five are here consistently
invoked. They are not celebrated as the first members of the Samgha,
or even as the first arhats. Instead, they are celebrated as "the
first to taste the nectar of the dharma," "the first to taste the
flavor of the dharma" and "the first to taste the food of the
dharma." A direct parallel is thus drawn between the five
woodcutters' ingestion of the fish's flesh and blood and the five
monks' ingestion of the nectar of the dharma between the
bodhisattva's gift of his body as lifesaving food and the Buddha's
gift of dharma as soul-saving nectar, between physical satiety and
spiritual satisfaction. The same is true, to a lesser extent, in
other stories involving the good group of five, as well. In
Jatakamala no. 8, as previously mentioned, King Maitribala, after
feeding his flesh and blood to the yaksas tells them that in the
distant future, when he attains enlightenment, "I will give the
first share of the nectar of the dharma of liberation to you
alone."(26) Likewise, at the very beginning of mdo mdzangs blun no.
12, another version of the Maitribala story, Ananda exclaims in
amazement, "[What a great wonder it is that] the group of five monks
headed by Kaundinya accumulated so many roots of virtue that as soon
as the door of the dharma was opened, they entered; as soon as the
drum of the dharma was beaten, they were the first to hear, and they
were also the first to be satisfied by the nectar of the
dharma."(27) In all three stories, I would argue, the dharma is
likened to nectar in order to emphasize the parallel between
ingestion of flesh and blood and ingestion of the dharma, between
receiving the gift of the body and receiving the gift of dharma.
Once again, however, the Buddha's gift is depicted as a higher, more
perfect, and more "spiritual" form of "food" than the gift of the
bodhisattva; while the bodhisattva's recipients munch on flesh and
blood, the Buddha's recipients imbibe an ethereal "nectar," "taste,"
or "flavor."
In summary, I would contend that gift-of-the-body stories following
the pattern I have outlined above have a tendency to favor the good
group of five as those who have been saved by the bodhisattva's gift
of his body because of the natural way in which the good group of
five highlights the notion of the Buddha's gift of dharma and thus
helps to suggest both a parallel and a hierarchy between the two
gifts. For whatever reason, these stories, as far as I am aware,
never come out and tell us explicitly that a parallel is being drawn
between the bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's gift of
dharma. But as I have tried to demonstrate above, such is at least
suggested by the events of the stories themselves and the
identifications posited between past and present characters. This
suggestion only becomes stronger when the good group of five--the
paradigmatic recipients of the Buddha's gift of dharma--are invoked.
THE "LITERALIZATION OF METAPHOR"
The identifications posited between past and present characters and
the conscious invocation of the good group of five are two closely
related means by which the parallel between the bodhisattva's gift
of his body and the Buddha's gift of dharma is suggested. Let me
move on now to look in more detail at a few particular stories that
exhibit the same parallel in an especially interesting way,
sometimes in combination with one of the two methods described above
and sometimes independently of either one. More specifically, in
these stories the parallel is suggested through a process that I
call (for lack of a better term) the "literalization of metaphor."
What I mean by this term will become clear in the ensuing
discussion.
The Pancakanam Bhadravargikanam Jataka of the Mahavastu (already
mentioned briefly above) purports to explain why the Buddha was so
easily able to convert the pancaka bhadravargiya monks to his
teaching, even though they were initially opposed to him. The story
begins with the monks remarking to the Buddha: "The good group of
five once belonged to another sect and were being carried off by the
violent flood of false views. But then the Blessed One made them
turn away from the paths of false view, lifted them out of the
fearful and terrible ocean of samsara, and established them on
secure ground, in auspicious, tranquil, fearless nirvana."(28) The
Buddha then replies, "Monks, this is not the only time I conveyed
the good group of five across the ocean of samsara. On another
occasion also, by sacrificing myself, I rescued them from the great
ocean, when their ship had been wrecked, when they were without
refuge, protection, shelter, or last resort, when they had met with
calamity and come to misfortune, and I established them safely [on
dry land]."(29)
In the following story, the Buddha explains that a large group of
merchants were once crossing the ocean, when their ship was wrecked
by a monster fish. Only five of the merchants, along with their
leader, were able to swim. Realizing that they would never be able
to cross the ocean by swimming, the merchant-leader thought to
himself: "I have heard it said that the great ocean will not five
with a dead body for a single night. What if I were to sacrifice my
body and allow these five merchants to escape from the great ocean
and reach dry land safely?"(30) So he instructed the five merchants
to hang onto his body and then killed himself by slitting his
throat. The sea quickly cast his corpse onto dry land, and the
merchants were thus saved.
At the end of the story, as expected, the Buddha identifies the
merchant-leader as himself in a former birth, and the five merchants
saved by the gift of his body as the five bhadravargiya monks.
Following the line of argument I have advanced above, the
implication, of course, is that just as the bodhisattva physically
rescues the five merchants through the gift of his body, so the
Buddha spiritually rescues the five bhadravargiya monks through the
gift of dharma. The bodhisattva's gift of his body is made parallel
to the Buddha's gift of dharma by having both gifts be directed
toward the same recipients.
In this case, however, the story derives an additional significance
from the way in which it manipulates a traditional Buddhist
metaphor. For anyone who is at all familiar with the conventions of
Buddhist literature, it should be clear that the entire literal
story of merchants stuck in an ocean and being delivered to dry land
by the bodhisattva, derives from a common Buddhist metaphor
comparing samsara to an ocean, deluded beings to those who are
drowning, nirvana to the other shore, and the Buddha to one who
ferries beings across. The samsara-as-ocean metaphor is pervasive
throughout Buddhist literature and has wide currency within Indian
religious thought in general.(31) Here, the resonance of that
metaphor is taken full advantage of within the plot of our story,
which involves a real ocean, real beings who are drowning, and a
real "further shore" to which they are ultimately delivered. I noted
above that all of the stories I am dealing with here function
somewhat on the level of metaphor, with the concrete events of the
story of the past serving as an extended metaphor for the abstract
notions expressed in the story of the present. What is unique in
this case is that the metaphor is by no means a novel one but,
rather, one that carries the full weight of the Buddhist tradition
behind it. This gives the story an added significance that other,
less resonant stories might lack.
It is interesting to note, in fact, that in Avadanasarasamuccaya no.
2, which is a later and more elaborate versified version of the same
story,(32) the characters themselves seem to be aware of the role
they are playing within this extended samsara-as-ocean metaphor. The
first indication of this awareness occurs at verse 34, when the
drowning merchants are trying to dissuade the bodhisattva from
sacrificing his life for their sake. "Even if we were rescued from
this impassable flood of water," they argue, "who would rescue us
from the whirlpool of evil deeds in which we are sunk?"(33) The
merchants thus exhibit an understanding that the physical whirlpool
in which they are now drowning is nothing compared to the spiritual
whirlpool in which they have been drowning since beginningless time.
The ultimately metaphorical nature of the raging ocean becomes even
more explicit in verse 44, where the bodhisattva retorts, "If I do
not lift you out of this [ocean] so difficult to cross, how will I
rescue the world from the ocean of samsara?"(34) Finally, in verse
52, the samsara-as-ocean metaphor is considerably extended, for the
bodhisattva vows that in the future he will "rescue this entire
helpless world of beings who are sunk in the ocean of existence,
which has delusion as its whirlpools, death as its sea monsters,
pride as its stones, desire as its water, passion as its mud, and
anger as its creeping serpents."(35) In these three verses, then, we
clearly see the idea that the bodhisattva enacts a physical rescue
of beings that corresponds to the Buddha's spiritual rescue of
beings, or, from another perspective, that the bodhisattva enacts a
literal rescue, while the Buddha enacts a metaphorical one. The
story of the drowning merchants itself might be seen as a
"literalization of metaphor" (again, for lack of a better term), in
which a traditional Buddhist metaphor has been "literalized" and
turned into an actual, literal story involving the bodhisattva, who
performs in a concrete and literal manner those deeds enacted
metaphorically by the Buddha.
But how does this relate to my argument concerning the parallel
drawn between the bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's
gift of dharma? If we now look at the story again from this
"metaphorical" perspective, it is especially interesting to consider
the exact position inhabited by the bodhisattva's body. Within the
common Buddhist metaphor or trope comparing samsara to an ocean and
nirvana to the further shore, the dharma, of course, is always the
raft that one hangs onto in order to get to the other side. The
image of the dharma as a raft is pervasive throughout Buddhist
literature, its locus classicus being the long Majjhima Nikaya
passage in which the Buddha compares the dharma to a raft that
allows one to cross the ocean of suffering but that is no longer
needed once one arrives at the further shore.(36)
In any case, keeping in mind this traditional equation between the
dharma and a raft, it seems to me to be significant that the
particular way in which the merchant-leader saves the five merchants
is by having them hang on to his body as if it were a raft. In the
Mahavastu version of the story, he tells the merchants, "All of you
must hang on to me," and the text then tells us that "all five
merchants hung on to the merchant leader."(37) Here, the image of
the raft is not explicitly invoked. In the Avadanasarasamuccaya
version, however, the raft metaphor becomes explicit. Here, the
bodhisattva tells the merchants to "hang on to my lifeless body as
if it were a raft,"(38) and the text later informs us that the
merchants indeed "hung on to his body as if it were a raft."(39)
Further evidence for the body/raft equation may be found in a verse
from the Sanskrit Jatakastava, a text that celebrates and praises
fourteen previous births of the Buddha in one verse each.(40) Verse
13, which celebrates this very birth as the merchant-leader, reads
as follows. "The ocean was being struck by blows from the hoods of
angry serpents; it was garlanded by dreadful waves, and shaken up by
hosts of sea monsters. Yet you, out of love, rescued the shipwrecked
men [from this ocean] and brought them to shore with the great raft
of your body [kayamahaplavena]. Because of this preeminent deed, all
worlds have become subservient [to you]."(41) Although the reading
kayamahaplavena ("with the great raft of your body") is a
conjectural reading only (suggested by Shackleton Bailey),(42) it
seems to me to be the most likely possibility, and captures within
one compound the metaphorical linking of the bodhisattva's body to a
raft. Finally, it is somewhat surprising to note that even in
stories that have nothing at all to do with people drowning in
oceans, the body given away by the bodhisattva is fairly frequently
described as a raft. In the Sanskrit Suvarnabhasottama Sutra's
version of the tigress story, for example, Prince Mahasattva says of
his body that "it will serve for me as a raft for crossing the ocean
of birth and death,"(43) while in Jatakamala no. 30, an elephant who
sacrifices his body to provide food for weary travelers says that he
will "turn this body, a receptacle for hundreds of diseases, into a
raft for crossing [the ocean of I misfortune for these men who are
seized by suffering."(44)
In all of these instances, then, the bodhisattva's body is compared
to a raft, and because of the salience of the traditional
dharma-as-raft metaphor, this highlights its symbolic equivalence
with the Buddha's dharma. Thus, just as the ocean is a concrete
image of samsara, the further shore is a concrete image of nirvana,
and the drowning merchants are a concrete image of deluded beings,
so also the bodhisattva's body, as a raft, is a concrete image of
the Buddha's dharma. The bodhisattva's gift of his body is thus made
parallel to the Buddha's gift of dharma, and this parallel is
suggested through a literalization of the dharma-as-raft metaphor.
Let me demonstrate now that the same general strategy of having the
narrative of the bodhisattva enact on a literal level what doctrine
claims of the Buddha on the level of metaphor is apparent in another
traditional Buddhist tale as well, about a king who transforms
himself into a gigantic fish. I have already had occasion to discuss
one version of this story, mdo mdzangs blun no. 26, the story of
King Sudolagarne, who uses his fish-body to save his subjects from
starving during a drought. Now, however, I would like to focus on a
different version of the story, one that emphasizes slightly
different themes.
In Avadanasataka no. 31 (called the Padmakavadana),(45) the Buddha
is asked by his monks why he alone remain free of disease during an
epidemic that has stricken them all. In answer to this question, he
tells the story of his own previous life as King Padmaka. In this
tale, an epidemic breaks out in the kingdom of King Padmaka, and
many people fall prey to the dreaded disease and die. Although King
Padmaka gathers together the best doctors and medicines the country
has to offer, and himself tends to many of the victims, the disease
continues to take lives. When the king asks the best medical minds
of the kingdom why the epidemic is so difficult to eradicate, they
inform him that the only cure for the disease is the flesh and blood
of a rohita fish. King Padmaka then sends out innumerable spies to
hunt down and capture such a fish, but none of them are able to find
one. With more and more of his subjects falling prey to the disease,
King Padmaka makes a momentous decision. He gives away his wealth,
establishes his son in the kingship, climbs up to the roof of his
palace, and makes a solemn vow: "Seeing beings who have fallen into
great misfortune and are tormented by disease, I will sacrifice my
own cherished life. By these true words of truth, may I appear as a
great rohita fish in this sandy river!"(46) Throwing himself off the
palace, he dies and is immediately reborn as a gigantic rohita fish,
whereupon the people commence to cut up the flesh and devour it for
a period of twelve years, until the epidemic is completely
eradicated.
Although both mdo mdzangs blun no. 26 and Avadanasataka no. 31
involve kings who transform themselves into gigantic,
self-sacrificing fishes, there is a crucial difference between the
two tales: whereas Sudolagarne's kingdom suffers from drought and
starvation, Padmaka's kingdom suffers from an epidemic disease.
Thus, whereas Sudolagarne's fish-body serves as food, Padamaka's
fish-body serves as medicine.
This difference is important, for it means that only Avadanasataka
no. 31 plays upon a pervasive Buddhist metaphor involving the states
of illness and health. Within this metaphor, samsara, is compared to
a pernicious disease, whereas nirvana represents a state of
permanent health. Deluded beings are those who are sick (their
bodies being likened to wounds), while the Buddha is the wise
physician who knows how to effect a cure. Heretical teachers are
incompetent doctors, while the Samgha constitutes the Buddha's
faithful corps of nurses. The Four Noble Truths of suffering, the
origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path
leading to the cessation of suffering correspond, in medical terms,
to diagnosis, etiology, therapeutics, and medicaments. This extended
medical analogy is pervasive throughout both canonical and
noncanonical Buddhist literature.(47) As Demieville points out in
his masterful article on the subject, Buddhist writers "lose no
opportunity to glory in [the medical parallel] in order to impress
upon the multitudes, with a thousand patient analogies easily
accessible to all, the ideal they offer to them. Medicine then
appears as a sort of reduced image of religious therapeutics,
applicable to the physical domain alone."(48)
Now notice that within our story, we have a literal state of
disease, a literal state of health, and the bodhisattva King
Padmaka, who acts as the wise physician.(49) King Padmaka himself,
in fact, seems to be aware of the role he plays within this extended
metaphor, for after curing the epidemic, he announces to his
gathered subjects: "When I have awakened to unsurpassed perfect
enlightenment, I will liberate you from the supreme illness [of
samsara] and establish you in the supreme end of nirvana!"(50)
Implicit in this statement is King Padmaka's understanding that even
the worst physical illness is nothing more than a metaphor for the
true disease that is samsara. While the bodhisattva can cure the
former, only the Buddha will be able to cure the latter. The same
sentiment is expressed in another version of the same story,
Avadanakalpalata no. 99,(51) in which the Buddha himself is
described as "a physician for the illness of samsara."(52) Once
again, then, a traditional Buddhist metaphor for samsara, nirvana,
and the role of the Buddha has here been "literatized" and turned
into an actual, literal story of disease and its cure.
Now again, let us look more closely at the exact position inhabited
by the bodhisattva's body. Within the common metaphor or trope
comparing samsara. to a disease and nirvana to a state of health,
the dharma, of course, is the medicine that cures the disease and
restores one to health. In other words, the Buddha is a wise
physician because he dispenses the proper medicine, which is nothing
other than his dharma. This equation between the dharma and medicine
is either implied or explicitly stated in many passages making use
of the medical analogy. The Buddha is described in one text, for
example, as "a king of physicians who discerns the marks of
illnesses and knows the nature of medicaments. He gives medicaments
suited to the illnesses so that sentient beings take them gladly."
"By means of the doctrine," another text states, "he can treat the
most grave malady of the body--the three defilements [of passion,
hatred, and delusion]."(53)
Again, then, keeping in mind this traditional equation between the
dharma and medicine, it seems to me to be significant that the
particular way in which King Padmaka cures his subjects is by having
them feed on his body as medicine (once he has turned into a rohita
fish). This equation is made explicit early in the story when the
physicians of the kingdom tell the king that there is only one
effective medicine (bhaisajya) for the disease--the flesh and blood
of a rohita fish; once the king becomes the fish, the equation
between the bodhisattva's body and medicine is obvious. The
body/medicine equation is further highlighted in a verse from the
Rastrapalapariprccha Sutra that may be referring to this story (or
to another story very similar to it). "When I was a being called
Saumya," the Buddha recalls, "having seen how the world was
afflicted by hundreds of diseases, I changed my body into medicine
[bhaisajabhuta samucchraya krtva] and made the beings happy and
healthy."(54) Once again, we have the metaphorical linking of the
bodhisattva's body and medicine within a single phrase. Finally, let
us note that there are many other gift-of-the-body stories, too, in
which the bodhisattva's body serves explicitly as a kind of
medicine.(55)
Thus, just as we saw above that the story of the drowning merchants
was a literalization of the samsara-as-ocean metaphor, so we see in
this instance that the story of King Padmaka is a literalization of
the samsara-as-disease metaphor. In the story of the drowning
merchants, the bodhisattva's body serves as a raft, whereas in the
story of King Padmaka, the bodhisattva's body serves as medicine.
Since both images (raft and medicine) traditionally stand for the
Buddha's dharma, the bodhisattva's body is made equivalent to the
Buddha's dharma, and, by extension, the bodhisattva's gift of his
body becomes parallel to the Buddha's gift of dharma. We should
pause to note, however, that the story of King Padmaka is somewhat
more complex than the story of the drowning merchants, since the
character of King Padmaka is split into two different forms that
serve two different symbolic functions: As King Padmaka, the wise
physician, he stands for the Buddha, but as a fish whose body
constitutes the perfect medicine, he stands for the dharma. Since
King Padmaka and the fish are, in truth, the "same" person, this
story neatly suggests the further point that the Buddha is
equivalent to his dharma.
In any case, the general strategy used within these stories should,
by now, be clear. The actions of a Buddha are so abstract and
difficult to appreciate, we might argue, they can only be described
in terms of metaphors that bring them down to a level of concrete
physicality. It then becomes natural to literalize the metaphor by
means of a story, and to attribute the story's concrete physical
actions to the Buddha in a previous lifetime as a bodhisattva--when
he was not yet fully enlightened, and when his actions therefore
must have taken place on a grosser, more material level. Within such
"literalizations" of metaphor, whatever stood metaphorically for the
Buddha's dharma (such as a raft or medicine) is now equated with the
bodhisattva's physical body. In this way, the bodhisattva's body is
made parallel to the Buddha's dharma, and the bodhisattva's gift of
his body is assimilated to the Buddha's gift of dharma.
Rupa-kaya AND Dharma-kaya
Now that I have demonstrated a few different ways in which these
stories draw a parallel between the bodhisattva's gift of his body
and the Buddha's gift of dharma, I would like to take the argument
one step further by suggesting that it is not merely the case that
the bodhisattva's body is parallel to the Buddha's dharma, but that
it is also the case that this dharma itself is implicitly
conceptualized as a body of dharma directly analogous to the
bodhisattva's physical body. In other words, a suggestion is made,
in some stories at least, that the relationship between body and
dharma is not merely a metaphorical one, but that in fact, the
bodhisattva's body and the Buddha's dharma, are really two different
types of body. Making use of Buddhist terminology, we might say that
the bodhisattva's gift of rupa-kaya (the body of physical form) is
made parallel to the Buddha's gift of dharma-kaya (the body of
dharma, or collection of the Buddha's teachings).
Let me clarify from the outset the way in which I am employing these
two important terms. The subject of the Buddha's various "bodies" is
exceedingly complex and has been the focus of a relatively large and
contentious body of scholarship.(56) In general, however, although
scholars disagree about the historical development of the various
types of Buddha bodies, and about the exact connotations (within any
particular context) of the terms used to denote them, there does
seem to be agreement on two basic points: (1) The earliest
conceptual division between different types of Buddha bodies seems
to have been a division between rupa-kaya and dharma-kaya. (2)
rupa-kaya denoted the Buddha's physical body, while dharma-kaya, in
its earliest usage (and even in most later contexts, according to
Harrison), denoted the Buddha's dharma-body or body of dharma in the
specific sense of the collection of his teachings (or, by extension,
the collection of truths, realizations, or qualities embodied in the
teachings). I am using the terms with these general connotations.
Let me emphasize especially that I am not using the term dharma-kaya
in any metaphysical or Yogacarin sense, nor do I believe that such a
sense is intended by the stories I will deal with below. Let me also
emphasize that I am borrowing the terms rupa-kaya and dharma-kaya
from other contexts and making my own heuristic use of them. The
term rupa-kaya in particular, appears nowhere in any of the stories
I am dealing with here, and I am using it only because of the neat
symmetry it forms in association with the term dharma-kaya, and
because of its clear connotations of physical form.
My main argument here, then, is simply that the parallelism I have
posited above between a gift of the body and a gift of dharma can be
taken one step further and restated as a parallelism between a gift
of the physical body and gift of the dharma-body. Here, the term
dharma-kaya (in the sense of the Buddha's "collection of teachings")
does indeed come into play, and it is primarily on the basis of two
stories that explicitly invoke the term dharma-kaya that I will
substantiate my argument.
I have already had occasion above to introduce the story of King
Sudolagarne (mdo mdzangs blun no. 26), who saves his subjects from
starving to death during a drought by throwing himself from a tree
and vowing to be reborn as a gigantic fish who will feed the people
his flesh and blood for twelve years. As I have already noted, the
first five woodcutters to encounter the fish, cut up his flesh, and
be satiated are identified as former births of the good group of
five, and a direct parallel is thus drawn between the five
woodcutters' ingestion of the fish's flesh and blood and the five
monks' ingestion of the "nectar of the dharma," between the
woodcutters' salvation from physical hunger and the five monks'
salvation from spiritual hunger. By this means, an obvious parallel
is suggested between the bodhisattva's gift of his body and the
Buddha's gift of dharma.
Let us look now at an interesting statement made by the Buddha at
the very end of the story, after identifying King Sudolagarne as a
former birth of himself and the five woodcutters as former births of
the good group of five: "At that time, I gave [my body] to those
five men first and saved their lives. And therefore, at the present
time as well, I taught the dharma first to them, and by means of the
limbs of my dharma-body, I extinguished the fire of the three
poisons."(57) Here we clearly have a new element added to the mix:
The term dharma-body (chos kyi sku) is explicitly invoked and is
directly compared to the bodhisattva's physical body. While the fish
gives away his physical body, the Buddha gives away his
"dharma-body"; while the woodcutters make use of the physical body's
flesh, the five monks make use of the dharma-body's "limbs"; while
the fish appeases the fire of hunger, the Buddha appeases the "fire
of the three poisons." The parallel drawn between the bodhisattva's
gift of his physical body and the Buddha's gift of his dharma-body
here seems exceedingly clear. Thus, we can say, for this story at
least, that the bodhisattva's body is parallel to the Buddha's
dharma because the Buddha's dharma itself is metaphorically
conceived as a type of body.
A similar mention of dharma-kaya appears also in another story I
have mentioned before, the story of King Maitribala, again from the
Tibetan collection mdo mdzangs blun (where it constitutes story no.
12). Here, five yaksas, former births of the good group of five, are
saved from starvation by King Maitribala's gift of his own flesh and
blood. After cutting open his veins and allowing them to drink his
blood and eat his flesh until they are satisfied, King Maitribala
vows to the yaksas: "Just as I have now taken the blood from my
body, satisfied you, and made you happy, so also, in the future,
when I have attained complete enlightenment, may I purify you of the
three poisons by means of the morality, meditation, and wisdom of my
dharma-body. May I free you from the torment caused by desire and
establish you in blissful nirvana!"(58) Here again, the
bodhisattva's physical body is explicitly compared to the Buddha's
dharma-body (chos kyi sku). Just as the bodhisattva, gives away his
physical body, so the Buddha will give away his dharma-body. This
comparison between the two bodies extends even further, in fact, to
a comparison between the parts and pieces of these bodies. Not only
is the bodhisattva's rupa-kaya made parallel to the Buddha's
dharma-kaya, but in addition, the blood of the former is made
parallel to the morality, meditation, and wisdom of the latter. Just
as the bodhisattva feeds beings the various pieces of his rupa-kapa,
so the Buddha feeds beings the various "pieces" of his dharma-kaya.
The pieces of rupa-kaya are the various parts and limbs of a
physical body, whereas the pieces of dharma-kaya are the various
parts or aspects of the dharma, such as morality, meditation, and
wisdom.
This passage, in fact, might be useful in helping us to interpret
the previous passage cited (from mdo mdzangs blun no. 26), in which
the Buddha states that he has rescued the good group of five by
means of the "limbs" (yan lag) of his dharma-body, just as he
formerly satiated the five woodcutters through the various limbs of
his physical body. "Morality," "meditation," and "wisdom" (or other
such abstract concepts) perhaps constitute such limbs of the
dharma-body. It is well known, of course, that the Sanskrit term
anga--usually translated as "limb"--also has the meanings of "part,"
"member,7 "element," and so forth, and is commonly used in an
abstract or metaphorical sense, as in the Buddhist technical term
bodhyanga ("limbs or elements of enlightenment").(59) The term anga
is thus ambiguous, in many contexts referring abstractly to the
"parts," "elements," or "divisions" of something, while still
conjuring up the image of the limbs of a physical body.(60) The
ambiguity inherent in the word anga is also characteristic of its
Tibetan equivalent yan lag. Here, I would argue, this ambiguity is
played upon to further highlight the parallel between a gift of the
physical body and a gift of the dharma-body. Thus, not only is the
bodhisattva's body parallel to the Buddha's dharma, but this dharma
itself is a kind of "body" that is even outfitted with "limbs. "
What is true for the part, furthermore, is also true for the whole.
That is, the ambiguity inherent in the term anga is, of course,
parallel to the ambiguity inherent in the term kaya itself. As
several scholars writing on the Buddha's bodies have pointed
out,(61) the term kaya has the same ambiguous sense as our English
word body, referring both to a concrete, physical body, and, more
abstractly, to a collection or totality of parts. This ambiguity of
meaning built into the term kaya is fully played upon within the
various conceptions of the Buddha's dharma-kaya. Although
dharma-kaya may refer in different contexts to the collection of the
Buddha's teachings or the collection of qualities that constitute
Buddhahood, it is also spoken of poetically as a body of the Buddha.
In our stories, too, I would argue, the ambiguity built into the
term kaya naturally lends itself to the drawing of a parallel
between the bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's gift of
the body of dharma. Given the existence of three basic ideas--the
bodhisattva's gift of his body, the Buddha's gift of dharma, and the
conception of the dharma as a "body of dharma"--it seems only
natural to connect them all together.
In light of all of this, it is somewhat surprising to me that
gift-of-the-body stories have not attracted the attention of
scholars sorting through the tangled lines of development
surrounding the notion of dharma-kaya.(62) Although I am reluctant
to speculate what, if any, role these stories may have played within
the larger discourse on dharma-kaya (especially considering the
historical and textual problems surrounding the mdo mdzangs
blun),(63) I would at least point out that such stories suggest the
interesting and heretofore neglected possibility that what was once
the bodhisattva's kaya has now become the Buddha's dharma.
Past scholarship on the origins and earliest usages of the term
dharma-kaya has focused primarily on the contrast drawn between the
Buddha's rupa-kaya and the Buddha's dharma-kaya. The fundamental
intent of this contrast is often described as one of making a
hierarchical distinction between the Buddha's physical body and the
teaching he left behind; while the physical body perishes, the
teaching endures, and thus, the "true" Buddha is to be seen through
his teaching rather than through his physical form. No doubt, this
is the fundamental message of many of the passages cited repeatedly
in the scholarship on dharma-kaya.(64)
Our stories, however, suggest an additional and slightly different
possibility. Perhaps an equally meaningful contrast can be drawn
between the bodhisattva's rupa-kaya and the Buddha's dharma-kaya. In
other words, perhaps the Buddha's physical form is to be treated as
insignificant in part because he has left behind the kinds of
physically salvific deeds more characteristic of the bodhisattva.
(As far as I know, for example, the Buddha himself is never depicted
as giving away his physical body.)(65) This way of looking at the
rupa-kaya/dharma-kaya contrast does not negate or contradict the
former, but it does have a slightly different emphasis. By
suggesting that the distinction between rupa-kaya and dharma-kaya is
not only hierarchical but also chronological, a contrast is drawn
between the past and the present-between the Buddha-less age, when
the most one could do was offer one's head or eyes or flesh to
appease the suffering of hungry beings, and the age of Buddhadharma,
in which true salvation of others by means of the dharma, becomes
possible. By means of this contrast, the revolutionary
transformation entailed by Buddhahood is celebrated and affirmed.
Further evidence that the rupa-kaya/dharma-kaya contrast may, in
some contexts, be a contrast between the bodhisattva and the Buddha
can be derived from the Sanskrit tradition as well. Thus far, I have
been unable to find any gift-of-the-gody stories preserved in
Sanskrit that explicitly compare the bodhisattva's gift of rupa-kaya
and the Buddha's gift of dharma-kaya in the way demonstrated for the
Tibetan passages examined above. There are, however, isolated
passages within some Sanskrit gift-of-the-body stories that invoke
or suggest the notion of dharma-kaya in a slightly different way,
one that still supports my contention that these stories draw a
meaningful contrast between the bodhisattva's rupa-kaya and the
Buddha's dharma-kaya. What these passages seem to suggest is that
the gift-of-the-body is itself used as a mechanism of exchanging the
debased rupa-kaya of an ordinary bodhisattva for the glorious
dharmakaya of a Buddha (although the exact meaning of dharma-kaya
within such passages is not always clear).
In the Sanskrit Suvarnabhasottama Sutra's version of the tigress
story, for example, Prince Mahasattva states, "By abandoning my
body, a veritable boil, impelled by hundreds of existences, full of
excrement and urine, as insubstantial as foam, full of hundreds of
worms, driven forward by its acts, I will obtain a dharma-body
[dharma-kaya], free of grief, free of change, free of attachments,
pure and stainless, full of hundreds of virtues, fully endowed with
virtues such as meditation and so forth."(66) Similarly, in
Avadanasarasamuccaya no. 2, in which the bodhisattva uses his body
to rescue a group of shipwrecked merchants, he states, "By using
this body to produce the joy that consists of rescuing all of you, I
will surely acquire a dharma-body [dharma-sariram] that cannot be
split apart, cut up, or taken away, that is imperishable, unscarred,
and unsurpassed."(67) Rather than drawing a parallel between the
bodhisattva's gift of rupa-kaya and the Buddha's gift of
dharma-kaya, both of these passages suggest that the bodhisattva
uses the gift-of-the-body to exchange rupa-kaya for dharma-kaya (or,
in the latter case, dharma-sarira).(68) Although this is somewhat
different from the suggestion made by the Tibetan stories examined
above, the existence of such passages at least demonstrates that a
basic contrast between the bodhisattva's rupa-kaya and the Buddha
dharma-kaya is made in Sanskrit gift-of-the-body stories, as well.
Furthermore, just as we saw above, this contrast again seems to
extend to individual "limbs" or elements. There are many passages in
Sanskrit and Pali gift-of-the-body stories in which an individual
body part is "traded in" for some specific dharmic quality, which
might perhaps be interpreted as a limb of the dharma-body. In the
Sivi Jataka (Pali Jataka no. 499), King Sivi gives away his physical
eye in hope of acquiring the "eye of omniscience:"(69) just as in
the Chaddanta Jataka (Pali Jataka no. 514), the elephant Chaddanta
gives away his physical tusks in hope of acquiring the "tusks of
omniscience."(70) In the Manicudavadana, King Manicuda gives away
the jewel attached to his head in hope of acquiring the "jewel of
enlightenment";(71) and in the Karunapundarika Sutra, King Ambara,
gives away his hands and feet in hope of acquiring the "excellent
hands of faith" and the "excellent feet of morality."(72) Thus, the
physical body becomes a template or map of the spiritual qualities
valued in the Buddhist tradition, resulting in a corresponding
"dharmabody" favored over the ordinary physical body, with the
gift-of-the-body perceived as a mechanism of exchanging one for the
other. The process is the same as we have seen in regard to the
whole body but is here limited to specific limbs and specific
spiritual qualities. Again, although such passages are somewhat
different in implication from the Tibetan passages examined above,
they do at least demonstrate the existence in some gift-of-the-body
stories preserved in Sanskrit and Pali of a basic contrast drawn
between the bodhisattva's rupa-kaya and the Buddha's dharma-kaya.
From here, it is only a short step to say that such stories also
implicitly contrast the bodhisattva's gift of rupa-kaya and the
Buddha's gift of dharma-kaya.
Thus, while the notion of the Buddha giving away a dharma-body made
up of limbs becomes explicit only in the two Tibetan passages I have
cited above, I would suggest that it is at least implied in the
larger group of stories I have dealt with. One could speculate, in
fact, that the stories of the Tibetan mdo mdzangs blun merely
attempt to make explicit that which must have been obvious to their
original Indian Buddhist audience. This hypothesis is strengthened
when we consider the complex origins of the mdo mdzangs blun itself.
The original Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish (Hsien-yu ching)--of
which the Tibetan is clearly a translation-is a Chinese collection
of stories that are said to have been heard in Khotan by a group of
eight Chinese monks who then translated the tales into Chinese.
Though clearly based on Indian sources, the tales themselves appear
to have been told to the Chinese monks orally (perhaps in
Northwestern Prakrit pronounced with a Khotanese accent?), and there
is no evidence that those who were telling them were basing
themselves on a specific, written text. In a recent article on the
subject, Victor Mair hypothesizes that "oral Khotanese exegeses,
paraphrases, and translations/interpretations of the
Sanskrit/Prakrit source-texts might have been given
extemporaneously"(73) and further notes the relative length of the
tales and their "composite, lecture-note nature."(74) What all of
this suggests, one might argue, is that ideas that were only
implicit in the Indian source texts (and most likely obvious to an
Indian Buddhist audience) had to be explicated, expanded on, and
made explicit for the Chinese monks, whose understanding of the
language must have been minimal. Within such a context, one can
speculate, at least, that the Tibetan passages suggesting a parallel
between the bodhisattva's gift of rupa-kaya and the Buddha's gift of
dharma-kaya merely render explicit that which is already implied in
the larger group of stories I have dealt with.
Let me adduce one final piece of evidence in support of this
assertion, this time from a Sanskrit gift-of-the-body story I have
already discussed above, the Pancakanam Bhadravargikanam Jataka of
the Mahavastu. As already noted, this story involves five
shipwrecked merchants who are saved from drowning by the bodily
sacrifice of their leader. At the end of the story, the Buddha
reveals that he himself was that leader in a former birth, while the
good group of five were the five merchants who were saved. Thus,
just as the leader saved the five merchants through a gift of his
body, so the Buddha saved the five bhadravargiya monks through a
gift of dharma.
Now, if it is true that the parallel between the bodhisattva's body
and the Buddha's dharma extends further to a parallel between the
bodhisattva's physical body and the Buddha's dharma-body, then
perhaps we can say that the Buddha's gift of dharma in fact
constitutes a form of "selfsacrifice" (atma-parityaga) or "gift of
the body" (dehadana) on the part of the Buddha. No doubt, this is a
rather strange assertion. What does it mean to say that the Buddha's
gift of dharma constitutes a form of "selfsacrifice," or that the
Buddha "sacrifices" his dharma-body for living beings? Yet this is
precisely what is suggested by an interesting statement made at the
very end of the Pancakanam Bhadravargikanam Jataka. After revealing
that he himself was the merchant-leader and the five bhadravargiya
monks were his five companions, the Buddha makes the following
statement: "At that time, by sacrificing myself, I rescued them from
the great ocean and established them safely on dry land. And at the
present time, too, by sacrificing myself I have rescued them from
samsara, led them across, and established them in nirvana."(75) The
crucial element in this passage is the Buddha's claim that he has
performed atma-parityaga ("self-sacrifice") both in the previous
birth and in the present birth. The term atma-parityaga (which could
be rendered variably as "self-sacrifice," "gift of oneself" or
"renunciation of oneself") is a standard way of referring to the
bodhisattva's gift of his body to living beings and appears
frequently in gift-of-the-body stories. Here, however, the term is
consciously invoked twice. The Buddha performed atma-parityaga not
only in his previous fife as a bodhisattva, but also in his present
life as the Buddha. So what was his atma-parityaga in his present
life as the Buddha? I would suggest that it was the sacrifice of his
dharma-kaya as opposed to his rupa-kaya In other words, it makes no
sense to speak of the Buddha's gift of dharma as a form of
"selfsacrifice" unless the dharma is conceived as a body of dharma
somehow capable of being "sacrificed" or "given away" in the same
manner as the bodhisattva's physical body.(76) Thus, even though the
term dharma-kaya is not explicitly mentioned here, the implication
of this passage is virtually the same as we saw for the Tibetan
passages examined above. Not only is the bodhisattva's body parallel
to the Buddha's dharma, but more specifically, the bodhisattva's
rupa-kaya is parallel to the Buddha's dharma-kaya, and thus, the
gift of dharma may be said to constitute a form of self-sacrifice
(atma-parityaga) or "gift of the body" (dehadana) on the part of the
Buddha.
Let me end this discussion by pointing out that there is at least
one scholastic discussion of dana that seems to suggest--albeit
rather obliquely--much of what I have been claiming here. In one of
the Ta chih tu lun's many rich discussions of dana,(77) different
types of gifts are classified into the three categories of
"inferior," "medium," and "superior" gifts. "Food and other gross
objects" are cited as "inferior" gifts; "clothes and other precious
objects" are cited as "medium" gifts; and "head, eyes, blood, flesh,
kingdom, riches, wife, and children" are cited as "superior" gifts.
Although "kingdom, riches, wife, and children" are included in the
description of superior gifts, it is notable that in the fist of
illustrative stories that immediately follows this passage-and in
all further passages dealing with superior gifts-only gifts of the
body are cited. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the author of
the passage perceived the category of superior gifts largely in
terms of gifts of the body.
In any case, the text then goes on to say that the bodhisattva
progresses from one type of gift to the next, and provides examples
of such progression. The first two examples read: "At first, they
give [beings] food; then, their generous intentions progressing,
they give them the flesh of their bodies. At first, they give them
all sorts of excellent drinks; then, their generosity progressing,
they give them the blood of their body."(78) Here, it seems, food
and drink would constitute inferior gifts, whereas flesh and blood
would constitute superior gifts; medium gifts do not seem to be
represented.
Assuming that the same pattern continues to be followed, let us look
now at the third example cited: "At first, they give them paper,
ink, and canonical texts; then they make to the masters of the law
the quadruple offering of cloth, clothing, drinks, and food;
finally, having obtained the dharma-body (dharma-kaya), they preach
all sorts of sermons to innumerable beings, thus practicing the gift
of dharma (dharma-dana)."(79) Here, presumably, paper, ink, and
canonical texts would constitute inferior gifts; the quadruple
offering of cloth, clothing, drinks, and food would constitute a
medium gift; and the gift of dharma (dharma-dana) would constitute a
superior gift. But as we have seen above, superior gifts are gifts
of the body, and the passage in question specifically states that
this superior gift is made only after one obtains the dharma-body
(dharmakaya). Implicit in this discussion, then, are the very claims
I have been making in regard to the stories discussed above. Since
the dharma may be spoken of as a body of dharma, the gift of dharma
thus constitutes a gift of the body on the part of the Buddha (or,
perhaps, the advanced bodhisattva). Although the message is stated
rather obliquely, the existence of a scholastic discussion that
mentions both the Buddha's dharma-kaya and the Buddha's dharma-dana
within the context of gifts of the body provides independent
confirmation of the contentions I have advanced for the stories
discussed above.
I hope that these far-flung examples have sufficed to establish my
argument. Before moving on to a consideration of the meaning and
significance of these parallels, let me summarize the major points I
have made.
1. In a particular subset of gift-of-the-body stories, those who are
physically saved by the bodhisattva's gift of his body in the "story
of the past" are identified as former births of those who are
spiritually saved by the Buddha's gift of dharma in the "story of
the present." By means of these identifications, the bodhisattva's
gift of his body is made parallel to the Buddha's gift of dharma
(even though this parallel is never explicitly stated).
2. Moreover, it is frequently the case that those who have been
saved by the bodhisattva's gift of his body in the past are
identified as former births of the "good group of five." This use of
the good group of five further highlights the parallel drawn between
the bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's gift of dharma,
since the good group of five constitute the quintessential
recipients of the Buddhas gift of dharma.
3. Another means of drawing the same parallel that is found in some
stories may be called the "literalization of metaphor." That is, a
traditional Buddhist metaphor for the Buddha's spiritual salvation
of beings is "literalized" or turned into an actual, literal story
involving the bodhisattva, who performs in a concrete and literal
manner those deeds enacted metaphorically by the Buddha. The
bodhisattva's physical rescue of beings thus corresponds to the
Buddha's spiritual rescue of beings, or, from another perspective,
the bodhisattva's literal rescue corresponds to the Buddha's
metaphorical one. Within such literalizations of metaphor, whatever
stood metaphorically for the Buddha's dharma is now equated with the
bodhisattva's physical body. In this way, the bodhisattva's body is
made parallel to the Buddha's dharma., and the bodhisattva's gift of
his body is assimilated to the Buddha's gift of dharma.
4. Taking the argument one step further, in two Tibetan
gift-of-the-body stories from the mdo mdzangs blun, an explicit
parallel is drawn not merely between the bodhisattva's gift of his
body and the Buddha's gift of dharma, but more specifically, between
the bodhisattva's gift of his physical body and the Buddha's gift of
the body of dharma. Using Buddhist terminology, we might say that
the bodhisattva's gift of rupa-kaya is parallel to the Buddha's gift
of dharma-kaya.
5. In a somewhat similar way, in several Sanskrit gift-of-the-body
stories, there are passages that suggest that the bodhisattva uses
the gift-of-the-body to exchange rupa-kaya for dharma-kaya. Thus,
these stories, too, suggest that a meaningful contrast is to be
drawn between the bodhisattva's rupa-kaya and the Buddha's
dharma-kaya.
6. On the basis of the above points, the Buddha's preaching might
perhaps be described as a "gift" or a "sacrifice" of his dharma-kaya
to living beings. This is confirmed by a passage in the Pancakanam
Bhadravargikanam Jataka that describes the Buddha's preaching as a
form of "self-sacrifice" (atma-parityaga).
7. Finally, there is at least one scholastic discussion of dana that
implicitly suggests all of the above by speaking of the Buddha's
gift of dharma as a gift performed by means of the dharma-kaya, and
by relating it to other gifts of the body.
CONCLUSIONS
Now that I have established the nature of these parallels, let me
conclude with a brief consideration of their meaning and
significance. What is the purpose of drawing such parallels between
the bodhisattva's gift of his body and the Buddha's gift of dharma?
In an earlier section of this article, I have already posited one
possible answer by suggesting that such stories function somewhat on
the level of metaphor. Within each story-as-metaphor, the Buddha's
gift of dharma may be seen as the "tenor," or the idea being
expressed, while the bodhisattva's gift of his body may be seen as
the "vehicle," or the image through which the idea is expressed.(80)
Although the relationship between tenor and vehicle may vary from
metaphor to metaphor, it is generally the case that the tenor is
more abstract than the vehicle, with the vehicle lending to the
tenor a concreteness and physicality that it would otherwise lack.
This is certainly true in the case of our stories. The bodhisattva's
gruesome and intensely physical gift of his body, I would argue, is
used to concretize, instantiate, and "embody" the more abstract and
bloodless notion of the Buddha's gift of dharma to living beings. It
is easy to hazard a guess, at least, as to why this should be so.
Despite its importance as a concept, and despite being extolled over
and over again throughout Buddhist literature, the Buddha's gift of
dharma remains a fairly abstract notion that seems to lack emotional
appeal. Because the Buddha is so perfected and so detached, we do
not get a sense that the gift of dharma really costs him anything
From a doctrinal perspective, of course, perhaps there is no mason
why it should, and yet, as human beings (and as readers), I believe,
we demand that sense of cost, of deprivation, of sacrifice. Thus, I
would argue that the Buddha's gift of dharma is not only concretized
but also given the emotional weight it truly demands when it is
symbolized by the bodhisattva's miraculous and unbelievable deed of
sacrificing his own body. What these stories suggest, in fact, is
that the Buddha's gift of dharma to living beings should be greeted
with the same awe and reverence we might reserve for someone who
slices up his own body and gives his flesh away. The Buddha's
unemotional and rather "bloodless" gift of his
dharma-kaya--described in the Suvarnabhasottama Sutra, in fact, as
"a body bereft of blood and bone"(81)--is given gravity and
emotional weight by the spectacle of the bodhisattva's bloody form.
So compelling is the image of the self-mutilating bodhisattva,
however, that in this case, the vehicle sometimes seems to overwhelm
the tenor and relegate it to near obscurity. While the Buddha's gift
of dharma is ostensibly the major concept being expressed by means
of the story, it is the gruesome story itself that becomes the
primary focus of the jataka and garners all of our attention. In a
sense, it is because the bodhisattva's story is ultimately
allegorical in nature that we are free to indulge in its sensual
excesses--the excruciating physical pain of the bodhisattva, the
crying and lamenting of his loved ones, the wicked nature of the
villain who demands his body, and the physical mess left behind by
his remains. The notion of the Buddha's gift of dharma strikes us
almost as an afterthought as we become embroiled in the melodrama
and gore of the bodhisattva's bodily sacrifice. It is clearly his
gruesome gift--and not the Buddha's--that we care about, and that
the texts so lovingly dwell upon.
Ultimately, however, one could argue that the tenor maintains its
tenuous authority over the vehicle. Although the bodhisattva's gift
is the focus of greater attention and appeal, the point is
ultimately made that the Buddha's "spiritual" gift is a higher and
more perfect form than the bodhisattva's mere "physical" gift, and
that the Buddha can do in the present that which the bodhisattva
could not do in the past. This is evident even in the physical
layout of the texts. The story of the past consumes the most space
and attention, while the story of the present is generally shorter
and less developed. Yet at the same time, the story of the present
physically encloses and frames the story of the past in a way that
suggests its ultimate authority. Thus, despite its more limited
relevance and salience within the tale as a whole, the Buddha's gift
of dharma ultimately takes precedence over the bodhisattva's gift of
his body. As is true in so many other contexts, the bodhisattva and
the Buddha here dance a complicated dance of interdependence in
which the emotional appeal of the bodhisattva is clearly favored,
while the Buddha's higher status is yet maintained.
Perhaps the shifting perspective one can take on these stories is,
in part, indicative of the difference between a literary perspective
and a religious perspective. From a literary perspective, we might
see these stories functioning as extended metaphors in which the
inherent power of the vehicle causes it to dominate over the tenor.
But from a religious perspective, of course, these are not metaphors
but literal deeds. The relationship that obtains in a metaphor
between the vehicle and the tenor is here expressed chronologically
as a relationship between past and present deeds. The bodhisattva's
body is not only a symbol for the Buddha's dharma; it is also that
entity that seems to have become the Buddha's dharma. From a
literary perspective, the gift of the body symbolizes the gift of
dharma, but from a religious perspective, the gift of the body
transform itself into the gift of dharma, and the revolutionary
transformation entailed by the attainment of Buddhahood is thereby
celebrated and affirmed.
I would like to thank Gregory Schopen for helpful comments and
corrections on an earlier draft of this article. Any errors that
remain are wholly mine.
(1) For a full list of references for each of these four stories,
see Leslie Grey, A Concordance of Buddhist Birth Stories (Oxford:
Pali Text Society, 1990), s.v. "Sivi," s.v. "Vyaghri" or
"Mahasattva," s.v.v. "Sasa" and "Sasaka," s.v. "Saddanta" or
"Chaddanta," and s.v. "Hastaka" or "Saddanta."
(2) I borrow Paul Harrison's term "Mainstream Buddhism" to refer to
non-Mahayana Buddhism (see Paul Harrison, "Is the Dharma-kaya the
Real `Phantom Body' of the Buddha?" Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 15, no. 1 119921: 44-94, pp. 77-78,
n. 2).
(3) The story in question is the Sarvamdadabhidanamaharajavadana
(Mahajjatakamala no. 45), which involves a king who offers his head
to a Brahmin supplicant. The story has been edited in Michael Hahn,
Der Grosse Legendenkranz (Mahajjatakamala): Eine mittelalterliche
buddhistische Legendensammlung aus Nepal (Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1985), pp. 532-50; the phrase dehadanavadana appears
on p. 550.
(4) For example, not included in the category of dehadana would be
the following, closely related types of tales. (1) Stories involving
the altruistic self-sacrifice of one's life for someone else, but
without any explicit conception of the act as a gift of the body;
e.g., the Nigrodhamiga Jataka (Pali no. 12), in which a deer-king
offers his fife to the king of Benares in order to spare a pregnant
doe. (2) Stories involving the loss of a body part and its religious
ramifications, but without explicitly conceiving of this loss as a
gift; e.g., the Kunalavadana (Divyavadana, chap. 27), in which
Asoka's son Kunala has his eyes gouged out at the command of his
evil stepmother and thereby attains enlightenment. (3) Stories in
which a character gives away his body in exchange for a Buddhist
teaching; e.g., the Surupa Jakata in the Mahavastu, in which the
deer-king Surupa offers his body to a hunter in exchange for a
Buddhist verse. (4) Stories in which a character uses his body to
make a religious offering; e.g., chap. 22 of the Lotus Sutra, in
which a bodhisattva burns his body as an offering to a Buddha. I
reserve the term dehadana for those stories in which the gift of the
body is explicitly stated or otherwise emphasized, and the
predominant theme is generosity. Such stories can generally be
classified into two types. (1) One type involves the spontaneous
gift of the body or part of the body to whatever recipient asks for
it, the recipient usually being someone who is not particularly
worthy, which serves to highlight the themes of generosity and
compassion. Classic examples include Prince Mahasattva's gift of his
body to a starving tigress; an elephant's gift of his tusks to a
hunter; King Maitribala's gift of his flesh to cannibalistic yaksas;
and King Candraprabha's gift of his head to an evil Brahman. (2) A
second type proceeds similarly to the first, except that the
recipient of the gift is really the god Sakra in disguise, the
request for the body part being intended by Sakra as a test of the
donor's generosity. Classic examples include King Sibi's gift of his
eyes to a blind man, King Sibi's gift of his flesh to a pigeon, and
the hare's gift of his body as food to a weary traveler. For a
fuller discussion of the category of dehadana, see Reiko Ohnuma,
"Dehadana: The `Gift of the Body' in Indian Buddhist Narrative
Literature. (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1997), pp. 35-43.
(5) The distinction between "material gifts" (amisa-dana) and the
"gift of dharma" (dharma-dana) is of canonical origin, appearing,
for example, in Anguttara Nikaya, I, 91, and Itivuttaka, 98 (all
references to Pali canonical texts are to the standard Pali Text
Society editions). Material gifts are further divided up into
"external gifts" (bahira-dana), which are gifts of external objects,
and "internal gifts" (adhyatmika-dana), which are generally gifts of
the body. This distinction appears, for example, in the Sivi Jataka
(Pali no. 499) and in many later Buddhist texts as well, such as the
Bodhisattvabhumi (see Nalinaksha Dutt, Bodhisattvabhumih [Patna: K.
P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1978], p. 80, lines 15-20). (6) On
the past/present framework and structure of the jataka (particularly
in regard to the Pali collection), see, e.g., T. W. Rhys Davids,
Buddhist India (1903; reprint, Delhi: Indological Book House, 1970),
pp. 85-95; Maurice Winternitz, "Jataka," in Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (New York: Scribner's,
1908), 7:491-94, and A History of Indian Literature, vol. 2,
Buddhist Literature and Jaina Literature, trans. S. Ketkar and H.
Kohn (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1933), pp. 113-56; and K. R.
Norman, Pali Literature, Including the Canonical Literature in
Prakrit and Sanskrit of All the Hinayana Schools of Buddhism, A
History of Indian Literature, ed. Jan Gonda, vol. 17, fasc. 2
(Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), pp. 77-84. In general, the
types of relationship that obtain between the "story of the present"
and the "story of the past" and the literary uses made of the
past/present framework have not been adequately explored in the
scholarship on Buddhist literature. Most scholars writing on the
jataka gem have treated the past/present framework in historical
terms, addressing themselves primarily to the relative age of the
"past" and "present" stories, and seeing the past/present framework
itself largely as a practical means of "assimilating" and
"incorporating" non-Buddhist material into the Buddhist fold. Within
such a perspective, the story of the past tends to be depicted as
authentic, ancient Indian folklore, while the story of the present
is often treated as a recent, superfluous, and nonessential addition
to the whole; Winternitz's description of the Pali stories of the
present as "silly inventions of the commentator" that are of "little
value" is all too typical (Winternitz, "Jataka," p. 492). Virtually
no one has made use of existing scholarship on the literary features
and functions of framing and framed narrative in reexamining the
structure of the jatakas. (For theoretical discussions of framing
and framed narrative, see Barbara A. Babcock, "The Story in the
Story: Metanarration in Folk Narrative," in Verbal Art as
Performance, ed. Richard Bauman [Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland,
1977], pp. 61-79; Mieke Bal, "Notes on Narrative Embedding." Poetics
Today 2 [1981]: 41-59, and Narratology: Introduction to the Theory
of Narrative, trans. Christine van Boheemen [Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1985], pp. 134-49; and the many citations listed in
Gerald Prince, A Dictionary of Narratology [Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1987], s.v. "embedding.") Nevertheless, in my own
research on dehadana stories, I have found that the story of the
present and the story of the past am often juxtaposed in a very
conscious way in order to draw parallels between different religious
notions. See Ohnuma.
(7) J. S. Speyer, ed., Avadanacataka: A Century of Edifying Tales
Belonging to the Hinayana, 2 vols., Bibliotheca Buddhica, no. 3
(1902-9; reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992), 1:206-12.
Translated into French in Leon Feer, Avadana-Cataka: Cent legendes
(Bouddhiques), Annales du Musee Guimet, vol. 18 (Paris: Ernest
Leroux, 1891), pp. 138-42.
(8) kim atra bhiksava ascaryam maya ... ayam kulaputro yavat trir
api gramantan nivaryaranye niyojito yavad arhattve pratisthapito yat
tu mayatite `dhvani ... ayam kulaputrab svajivitaparityagena
gramantan nivaryaranyevase niyuktas tac chrnuta sadhu ca susthu ca
manasi kuruta bhasisye // (Speyer, ed., 1:208, fines 1-7). All
translations in this article are my own, unless otherwise stated.
(9) The fact that the hare's gift of his body is never actually
completed is nothing unusual. In my research on gift-of-the-body
stories, I have found this to be a relatively frequent feature of
such tales. In some cases, the gift is not completed because its
intended recipient is so moved by the donor's mere willingness to
give that he puts a stop to the gift before it is made, while in
other cases, the gift is not completed because of some kind of
magical intervention that interrupts the gift while proving the
donor's sincerity. In either case, the donor's met willingness to
give functions like the gift itself, and the need for an actual gift
is thus obviated (see Ohnuma, pp. 46-53). Perhaps this avoidance of
depicting an actual gift is one more instance of the ambivalence
often displayed by the Buddhist tradition toward the ideal of
dehadana. Them are many passages in Buddhist texts, in fact, that
suggest that the idea of giving one's body away made many Buddhist
thinkers uncomfortable; on this ambivalent attitude, see Ohnuma, pp.
106-13.
(10) yada tvam buddho bhavethasmakam api samanvaharetha iti // sasa
uvacaivam astv iti (Speyer, ed., 1:211, lines 1-2).
(11) The mdo mdzangs blun is a collection of jatakas and avadanas
whose provenance is uncertain. It exists in Chinese, Tibetan,
Mongolian, and Oirat versions, but no Sanskrit or Prakrit original
has been found. It is clear, however, that the tales are based on
Indian tradition, as most of them have parallels in other jataka and
avadana collections. According to legend, the tales were heard in
Khotan (although what language they were heard in remains
uncertain), and collected and translated into Chinese by eight
Chinese monks, with all other versions ultimately descending from
the Chinese. For the many historical uncertainties surrounding this
text, see J. Takakusu, "Tales of the Wise Man and the Foot, in
Tibetan and Chinese," Journal of the Royal Asiatique Society (1901),
pp. 447-60; Sylvain Levi, "Le sutra, du sage et du fou dans la
litterature de l'Asie Centrale," Journal Asiatique, set. 12, 6, 207
(1925): 305-32; and, more recently, Victor Mair, The Linguistic and
Textual Antecedents of the Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish,
Sino-Platonic Papers, no. 38 (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 1993).
The Mongolian version his been translated into English in Stanley
Frye, The Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish (mdo bdzans blun) or the
Ocean of Narratives (uliger-un dalai) (Dharamsala: Library of
Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981). The Tibetan version I am relying
on is from the Derge recension of the canon (hereafter cited as
Derge, followed by section, Tibetan volume number, and Tibetan folio
numbers). It appears at Derge, mdo sde, a, 129a1-298a7. The tigress
story is found at 138a5-140b7.
(12) ma smad gsum po `di ni ngas da Itar `di `ba' zhig gi dus su
bsos par ma zad kyi / sngon `das pa'i dus na yang `di bka' drin gyis
gsos so // (Derge, mdo sde, a, 138b7-139a1).
(13) ngas sngon yang yun ring po nas bgegs las that bar byas te srog
skyabs nas bde bar byas so // da mngon par sangs rgyas nas kyang
bgegs las thar bar mdzad nas / `khor ba'i sdug bsngal chen po las
yongs su grol lo // (ibid., 140b5-140b6).
(14) The Sanskrit term is bhadravargiya, -vargiya, -vargika, or
-vargika, regularly preceded by pancaka or panca; the Pali
equivalent is pancavaggiya or -vaggika, with or without bhikkhu. The
standard Sanskrit names of the five monks are Ajnatakaundinya,
Asvajit, Vaspa, Mahanaman, and Bhadrika. For citations and
variations, see Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar
and Dictionary, 2 vols. (1953; reprint, New Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1985), vol. 2, s.v. bhadravargiya; and T. W. Rhys
Davids and William Stede, Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary
(1921-23; reprint, New Deli: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1989), s.v.
panca-vaggiya.
(15) The Sanskrit Suvarnabhasottama Sutra is in Johannes Nobel, ed.,
Suvarnabhasottamasutra: Das Goldglanz-sutra, Ein Sanskrittext des
Mahayana-Buddhismus (Leipzig: Otto Harassowitz, 1937), where the
tigress story constitutes chap. 18 and appears on pp. 201-40. The
text has been translated into English in R. E. Emmerick, The Sutra
of Golden Light, Being a Translation of the Suvarnabhasottamasutra,
Sacred Books of the Buddhists, vol. 37 (London: Luzac, 1970), where
the tigress story appears on pp. 85-97.
(16) Radhagovinda Basak, ed., Mahavastu Avadana, 3 vols., Calcutta
Sanskrit College Research Series, nos. 20, 31, and 63 (Calcutta:
Sanskrit College, 1963-68), 3:470-75. Translated into English in J.
J. Jones, The Mahavastu, 3 vols-, Sacred Books of the Buddhists,
nos. 16, 18, and 19 (London: Pali Text Society, 1949-56), 3:350-54.
(17) This story can be found in Ratna Handurukande, ed., Five
Buddhist Legends in the Campu Style from a Collection Named
Avadanasarasamuccaya, Indica et Tibetica, no. 4 (Boon: Indica et
Tibetica Verlag, 1984), app. 2, pp. 187-95.
(18) P, L. Vaidya, ed., Jatakamala, Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, no. 21
(Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1959), pp. 43-54. Translated into
English in J. S. Speyer, The Gatakamala or Garland of Birth Stories
by Arya Sura, Sacred Books of the Buddhists, vol. 1 (London: Oxford
University, Press, 1895), pp. 55-71; and in Peter Khoroche, Once the
Buddha Was a Monkey: Arya Sura's Jatakamala (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 47-57.
(19) yusmakam eva prathamam karisye vimoksadharmamrtasamvibhagam //
(Vaidya, ed., Jatakamala p. 53, lines 1-2).
(20) kau ndi nya la sogs pa'i dge slong lnga (Derge, mdo sde, a,
155b4-156b3).
(21) Ibid., 2 18a4-219a5.
(22) In a scene found in all of the traditional Buddha biographies,
the newly enlightened Buddha hesitates to preach the dharma and must
be persuaded to do so by the god Brahma. This scene is always
immediately followed by the Buddha's decision to make the "good
group of five" the very first recipients of his dharma. For English
renderings of this scene, see, e.g., I. B. Horner, The Book of the
Discipline, 6 vols., Sacred Books of the Buddhists, nos. 10, 11, 13,
14, 20, and 25 (London: Luzac, 1938-66), 4:7-10 (for the Pali
Vinaya); T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth Stories (London:
Trubner's Oriental Series, 1890), pp. 206-7 (for the Nidanakatha);
E. H. Johnston, The Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha, by
Asvaghosa, new enlarged ed., 3 parts (1936; Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1984), pt. 2, pp. 215-17 (for the Buddhacarita); and
Jones, 2:302-9 (for the Mahavastu).
(23) kau ndi nya la sogs pa dge slong lnga po `di ci'i rgyu / ci'i
rkyen gyis bcom ldan `das kyis `jig rten du chos kyi `khor lo bskor
ma thag tu chos kyi bdud rtsi sngar myong ba bstan du gsol / (Derge,
mdo sde, a, 218a5-218a6).
(24) dge slong lnga po `di dag sngon yang nga'i sha sngar zos te bde
bar gyur bas `dir yang chos kyi ro thog mar myong ste / rnam par
grol bar gyur to // (ibid., 218a6-218a7).
(21) khyed kyis sngar nga'i sha zos te `grangs pas na / phyis mngon
par sangs rgyas nas kyang / thog mar khyod chos kyi zas myang bar
bya'o // (ibid., 218b7-219a1).
(26) See n. 19 above.
(27) kau ndi nya la sogs pal dge slong lnga We dge ba'i rtsa ba ci
bsags na / chos kyi sgo rnam par phye ma thag tu 'jug par gyur /
chos kyi rnga brdungs ma thag tu thog mar thos par gyur / chos kyi
bdud rtsis thog mar ngoms par gyur / (Derge, mdo sde, a.
155b5-155b6).
(28) pamca bhadravargiya anyatirthikasamsrita darunena drstioghena
vuhyamana tato drstigatisu vinivartayitva bhayabhairavato
samsarasagarato uddharitva ksemasthale give game abhaye nirvane
pratisthapitah / (Basak, ed. [n. 16 above], 3:470, lines 6-8).
(29) na bhiksavah etarahim eva pamcaka bhadravargika maya
samsarasagarato tarita anyadapi maya ete mahasamudrato
bhagnayanapatra alena atrana asarana aparayanah krcchraprapta
vyasanam agata atma-parityagam krtva mahasamudrato svastina
pratisthapitah / (ibid., line 9, to p. 471, line 1).
(30) srutam ca me mahasamudro mrtakunapena sardham ratrim na
prativasati / yam nunaham dehaparityagam krtva imam pamca vanijam
ito mahasamudrato svastina sthalam prapeyam / (ibid., p. 471, lines
9-10).
(31) Because of its generality, this type of Statement is inherently
difficult to substantiate. I might briefly note, however, the
plethora of Sanskrit compounds denoting "the ocean of samsara"
(samsara-samudra, -sagara, -abdhi, -arnava, -udadhi, etc.); the
constant use of verbal forms deriving from the root tr--whose
primary meaning is to cross over a body of water--to denote the
attainment of liberation (as well as the use of its causative forms
to denote the granting of liberation to others); and the constant
use of the Sanskrit term para--whose primary meaning is the further
bank or shore--in expressions denoting the state of being liberated.
Whole parables comparing the attainment of liberation to the
crossing of a river or ocean are also common in Buddhist literature;
see, for one example, the Culagopalaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya
(English translation in Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The
Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. A New Translation of the
Majjhima Nikaya [Boston: Wisdom 19951, pp. 319-21), in which
people's varying abilities in attaining liberation are compared to
different types of cows crossing over a river.
(32) The Story IS here Called the Sarthvahajataka, and is the second
story in the avadana collection known as the Avadanasarasamuccaya.
The first five stories of this collection have been edited and
translated into English in Handurukande, ed. (n. 17 above), where
the Sarthavahajataka appears on pp. 34-57. This version of the story
of the shipwrecked merchants is similar in outline to the Mahavastu
version but is much longer and more elaborate. Another major
difference between the two tales is that the Avadanasarasamuccaya
version has no story of the present, and thus, no mention of all of
the good group of five. It is interesting to note, however, that
there is a third version of the same story--the
Sarthavahajanmavadana, no. 4 of the Sambhadravadanamala
(Handurukande, ed., app. 2, pp. 187-95)--that bears an interesting
relationship to the other two. While it is heavily reliant on the
Avadanasarasamuccaya version (repeating fifty-eight of its sixty-one
verses verbatim), like the Mahavastu version, it, too, contains a
story of the present invoking the good group of five, although the
dialogue hem takes place between Upagupta and King Asoka, rather
than between the Buddha and his disciples. Thus, the
Sambhadravadanamala version, while heavily reliant on the
Avadanasarasamuccaya version, also seems to be drawing on the older
tradition represented by the Mahavastu version. See Handurukande,
ed., pp. 16-20, for a fuller comparison of these three tales.
(33) uttirnan api toyaughad asman asmad duruttarat / magnan
duscaritavarte kah samuttarayisyati // (ibid., p. 44, verse 34).
(34) yadi nabhyuddharisyami yusman asmad duruttarat / katham
uttarayisyami lokam samsarasagarat // (ibid., p. 46, verse 44).
(35) The whole verse reads: mohavarte maranamakare manapasanagarbhe
trsnatoye madanakaluse krodhasamsarpisarpe / magnam lokam
bhavajalanidhau sokavatavadhute punyad asmad aham asaranam krtsnam
uttarayeyam // (ibid., p. 52, verse 52).
(36) Majjhima Nikaya, I, 134-35 (Alagaddupama Sutta). English
translation in Nanamoli and Bodhi, pp. 228-29. See also Majjhima
Nikaya, I, 260: "O Bhikkhus, even this view, which is so pure and so
clear, if you cling to t, if you fondle it, if you treasure it, if
you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching
is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for
getting hold of" (translation borrowed from Walpola Rahula, What the
Buddha Taught, rev. and expanded ed. [1959; New York: Grove, 19741,
p. 11).
(37) mama sarve lagnatha; sarve pamcaka vanijakah sarthavahasya
lagna (Basak, ed., 3:471, lines 12-13).
(38) madiyam udgatapranam sariram plavam ivalambya (Handurukande,
ed., p. 48, line 5).
(39) alambya plavam iva te 'tha tacchariram (ibid., p. 54, line 17).
(40) The Sanskrit text is written in Tibetan characters and
accompanied by an interlinear Tibetan gloss. It is kept in the
library of the Tohoku Imperial University, Sendai. The text was
first edited in H. W. Bailey, "The Jatakastava of Jnanayasas,"
Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 9, no. 4 (1937-39):
851-59. Subsequently, the Sanskrit text was again printed (with
corrections to Bailey's edition), along with an English translation,
in D. R. Shackleton Bailey, "The Jatakastava of Jnanayasas," in
Asiatica: Festschrift Friedrich Weller, ed. Johannes Schubert and
Ulrich Schneider (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1954), pp. 22-30.
(41) samrambhat phaninam phanahaticalad bhimormimalad apam patyur
yan maka(ra)cchatavilulitat paryastanauka narah / premna
kayamahaplavena bhavata tirantam apaditas tatkarmatisayena tena
nikhila lokah kalatrikrtah // (Shackleton Bailey, p. 25, verse 13;
emphasis added). The literal meaning of nikhila kalatrikrtah would
be "all worlds have become [your] wife- or "all worlds have been
married [to you]." I believe that the image of the Indian wife is
here being used as an image of subservience, and have translated the
passage loosely in this sense.
(42) The phrase kayamahaplavena appears in the manuscript as
-mahapmabena, for which Bailey suggested -mahabhavena (Bailey, p.
857, verse 13 and n. 2). Shackleton Bailey, however, emends it to
-mahaplavena, and in a note (p. 28). he says, "The correction
appears to me practically certain though the origin of rib, rgyal
chen pos (= mahajayena) remains obscure, mahabhavena (Prof. Bailey)
is dubious Sanskrit and palaeographically unconvincing."
(43) tan me janmamaranasamudrottaranapotabhuto bhavisyati (Nobel,
ed. [n. 15 above], p. 211, lines 23).
(44) The story is the Hastijataka, and the verse reads as follows:
karomi tad idam deham bahurogasatalayam / esam duhkhaparitanam
apaduttaranaplavam // (Vaidya, ed., Jatakamala [n. 18 above], p.
211, verse 14).
(45) Speyer, ed. (n. 7 above), 1:168-72.
(46) yena satyena satyavacanena mahavyasanagatan sattvan
vyadhiparipiditan drstva svajivitam istam parityajamy anena satyena
satyavakyenasyam valukayam nadyam mahan rohitamatsyah pradurbhaveyam
/ (ibid., p. 171, lines 1-3).
(47) Many examples have been collected and discussed in Paul
Demieville's article on byo (illness) from the Hobogirin
encyclopedia. See Paul Demieville, Hobogirin: Dictionnaire
encyclopedique du Bouddhisme d'apres les sources chinoises et
japonaises, 4 vols. (Paris: Librarie d'Amerique et d'Orient, Adrien
Maissonneuve, 1929-67), vol. 3, s.v. byo; for an English translation
of this article, see Mark Tatz, Buddhism and Healing: Demieville's
Article "Byo" from Hobogirin (Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 1985). See also Raoul Birnbaum, The Healing Buddha, rev.
ed. (1979; Boston: Shambhala, 1989), pp. 1519.
(48) Tatz, p. 2.
(49) It is clear that King Padmaka is depicted as a sort of master
physician. "The king gathered together all of the doctors residing
within his territories," the text states, "observed the motives,
dispositions, and inclinations of the beings [afflicted by illness];
and himself began to assemble all kinds of medicines and care for
the sick" (. . . sa raja sarvavisayanivasino vaidyan samnikpatya
tesam sattvanam nidanam asayanusayam copalaksya svayam arabdhas
cikitsam sarvausadhasamudanayan ca kartum, //; Speyer, ed., 1:169,
lines 13-15). It is interesting to note that the compound
asayanusaya ("dispositions and inclinations") is usually used in
Buddhist literature when the Buddha is examining the mental
condition of someone to see whether or not they are ripe for
conversion (see Edgerton [n. 14 above], vol. 2, s.v. anusaya as well
as s.v. nidana, for a discussion of this specific passage). Thus, we
might say that the Buddha examines asayanusaya to determine whether
someone is worthy of spiritual healing, whereas the bodhisattva King
Padmaka examines asayanusaya to determine whether someone is worthy
of physical healing.
(50) yadaham anuttaram samyaksambodhim abhisambhotsye 'ham tada
yusman atyantavyadheh parimocyatyantanisthe nirvane
pratisthapayisyamiti / (Speyer, ed., 1: 17 1, line 15, to p. 172,
line 2; emphasis added). Feer's translation of the second line
garbles the clear order of events established by yada . . . tada,
and misses the contrast being drawn between the bodhisattva's rescue
of beings from bodily illness and the Buddha's rescue of beings from
spiritual illness: "lorsque je me serai assimile la Bodhi parfaite
an dessus de laquelle il n'y en a pas, moi qui vous ai delivres de
la supreme maladie, je vous etablirai dans la fin supreme, le
Nirvana" (Feer [n. 7 above], p. 116). (51) This story is also called
the Padmakavadana, and is very similar to the Avadanasataka version.
It is in P. L. Vaidya, ed., Avadana-kalpalata of Ksemendra, 2 vols.,
Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, nos. 22-23 (Darbhanga: Mithila Institute,
1959), 2:544.
(52) samsaravyadhivaidyena sugateneti bhasitam (ibid., verse 13a).
(53) The first quote appears at T (Taisho) 276: 384c, cited in Tatz,
p. 14. The second quote appears at T 100: 13: 462c-463a (in a
version of the Samyuktagama), cited in Tatz, p. 11. For further
passages, see Tatz, pp. 9-20.
(54) I have borrowed Ensink's translation of this passage (see Jacob
Ensink, The Question of Rastrapala [Zwolle: N. V. Drukkerij En
Uitgeverij Van De Erven J. J. Tijl, 1952], pp. 26-27; emphasis
added). The Sanskrit text reads: vyadhisatabhihatam jagadiksya
bhaisajabhutasamucchraya krtva / satva krtah sukhita nirujasca
pranaku saumya tada ca yadasit // (L. Finot, Rastrapalapariprccha:
Sutra du Mahayana, Bibliotheca Buddhica, vol. 2 [1901; reprint,
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 19921, p. 26, lines 9-10; however.
Ensink [pp. 26-27] correctly suggests that bhaisajabhuta and
samucchraya should be interpreted as two separate words). I should
note here that the pairing of this verse with the
king-who-turns-into-a-fish story (i.e., Avadanasataka no. 31.
Avadanakalpalata no. 99, and mdo mdzangs blun no. 26) is very
uncertain. Both Ensink (p. 26, n. 157) and Finot (p. viii) paired
the king-who-turns-into-a-fish story with the verse immediately
preceding this one in the Rastrapalapariprccha, which reads: "When,
going the way to enlightenment, I was a fish, living in the water, I
gave away my body for the benefit of the beings and was eaten by
hundreds of thousands of living beings" (Ensink, p. 26). However,
Ensink (p. 26, n. 147), noting that this verse never explicitly
mentions a king turning into a fish, speculates that it could, in
fact, be the following verse (i.e., the one cited above) that
properly refers to the king-who-turns-into-a-fish story. In any
case, whether or not this verse is referring to the story I am
dealing with here, it remains true that there are many stories in
which the bodhisattva gives away his body in the form of medicine
(see following note), and that this verse makes such a body/medicine
equation explicit.
(55) Many examples could be cited here, but a few will have to
suffice. In the Ratnakuta collection, Prince Sarvarthadarsana cures
a sick man with his own blood, and Prine Utpala cures a sick man
with his own bone marrow, while in the Ta chih tu lun, both deeds
are attributed to Prince Candraprabha (see Etienne Lamotte, Le
traite de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nagarjuna, 5 vols.,
Bibliotheque du Museon, no. 18 (Louvain: Bureaux du Museon,
1944-80), 2:715-16 for the story of Prince Candraprabha, and p. 715,
n. 1, for citations to the Ratnakuta stories and other parallels).
Likewise, in the Rastrapalapariprccha Sutra, two verses refer to the
bodhisattva's gift of his blood and bone marrow in the form of
medicine (although it is uncertain which specific stories are being
referred to). In one verse, Sarvadarsin cures a sick man with his
blood, and in the following verse, King Kusuma cures a sick man with
his bone marrow (Finot, p. 24, lines 7-10; English translation in
Ensink, pp. 24-25; neither Finot nor Ensink offers a specific
reference for either verse). Finally, in the Sanskrit Jatakastava of
Jnanayasas, verse 17 refers vaguely to the bodhisattva "accepting
bondage to animal reincarnation" in order to use its flesh to cure
disease, perhaps a reference to the Padmaka story itself (see
Shackleton Bailey [n. 40 above], p. 26, verse 17; in the
corresponding notes on p. 29, Shackleton Bailey fails to identify
this verse as referring to any particular story).
(56) See, e.g., the following: Louis de La Vallee Poussin, "Studies
in Buddhist Dogma: The Three Bodies of a Buddha (Trikaya)," Journal
of the Royal Asiatique Society (1906). pp. 943-77; D. T. Suzuki,
Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism (1907; reprint, New York: Schocken.
1963), pp. 217-76; M. Anesaki, "Docetism (Buddhist)," in Hastings,
ed. (n. 6 above), 4:835-40; Louis de La Vallee Poussin, "Note sur
les Corps du Bouddha," Le museon: Revue d'etudes orientales 32
(1913-14): 258-90, Chizen Akanuma, "The Triple Body of the Buddha,"
Eastern Buddhist 2 (1922): 1-29; Otto Stein, "Notes on the
Trikaya-Doctrine," in Jha Commemoration Volume, Poona Oriental
Series, no. 39 (Poona: Oriental Book Agency, 1937), pp. 389-98;
Demieville (n. 47 above), vol. 3, s.v. busshin; Gadjin Nagao, "On
the Theory of Buddha-Body," Eastern Buddhist 6, no. 1 (1973): 25-53;
Frank E. Reynolds, "The Several Bodies of Buddha: Reflections on a
Neglected Aspect of Theravada Tradition," History of Religions 16,
no. 4 (1977): 374-89; Nalinaksha Dutt, Mahayana Buddhism (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1978), pp. 136-70; John J. Makransky,
"Controversy over Dharmakaya in India and Tibet: A Reappraisal of
Its Basis, Abhisamayalamkara Chapter 8," Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies 12, no. 2 (1989):
45-78; Paul William, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations
(London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 167-84; Harrison (n. 2 above); and
Paul J. Griffiths, On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of
Buddhahood (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1994).
(57) de'i tshe sngar mi lnga po la byin te / 'tsho ba'i srog skyabs
pas 'dir yang sngar chos bstan te / chos kyi sku'i yan lag gis / dug
gsum gyi me zhi bar byas so // (Derge, mdo sde, a, 219a4-219a5;
emphasis added).
(58) da ltar nga'i lus las khrag phyung ste / khyod ngoms shing bde
bar byas pa Itar / phyis mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas nas / chos
kyi shu'i tshul khrims dang ting nge 'dzin dang / shes rab kyis
khyod kyi dug gsum bsal te / 'dod pas gdungs pa las shin tu bde pa'i
mya ngan las 'das pa la 'god par shog ces smras so // (ibid.,
156a7-156b1; emphasis added).
(59) The seven elements of enlightenment (bodhyanga or sambodhyanga
in Sanskrit; bojjhanga or sambojjhanga in Pali) are smrti,
dharmapravicaya, virya, priti, prasrabdhi, samadhi, and upeksa. For
citations, see Edgerton (n. 14 above), vol. 2, s.v. bodhyanga
(60) A good sense of this ambiguity may be gained by scanning the
entry for anga in Sir Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English
Dictionary, new ed. (1899; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979),
s.v. anga.
(61) See, e.g., Demieville, 3:174; William , p. 170; and Harrison,
p. 56.
(62) This is true, at least, of those works cited in n. 56 above.
(63) See n. 11 above.
(64) These include both passages that explicitly mention rupa-kaya
and/or dharma-kaya and passages that suggest the distinction without
mentioning it. Some classic examples follow. (1) The passage at
Samyutta Nikaya, III, 120, where the Buddha says to Vakkali, who is
desperate to view the Buddha's physical form: "What is the point of
your seeing this corruptible body? Whoever sees the dhamma, Vakkali,
sees me; whoever sees me sees the dhamma." (2) The passage in the
Mahaparinibbana Sum (Digha Nikaya, II, 154) in which the Buddha
advises his monks that the dhamma will be their leader when his
physical form has perished. (3) The passage in the Agganna Sum
(Digha Nikaya, III, 84) in which the Buddha is described as
dhamma-kaya, brahma-kaya, dhamma-bhuta, and brahma-bhuta ("having
dhamma for a body," "having brahman for a body," "having become
dhamma," having become brahman"). (4) The passage in the
Milindapanha (V. Trenckner, The Milindapanho with Milindatika [1880;
reprint, London: Pali Text Society, 19861, p. 73), which states that
it is not possible to point to the Buddha after his nibbana either
here or there, but it is possible to point to him by means of the
dhamma-kaya, since it was he who taught the dhamma. (5) The passage
in the Divyavadana (E. B. Cowell and R. A. Neil, The Divyavadana: A
Collection of Early Buddhist Legends 11886; reprint, Amsterdam:
Oriental Press, 1970], p. 19) in which Srona Kotikarna says dial,
through the grace of his teacher, he has seen the Buddha's
dharma-kaya and now wishes to see his rupa-kaya.
(65) Buddhist narrative literature contains many instances in which
the Buddha makes a gift of some nonliving part of his body. In the
Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, for example, he gives away his hair, nails,
and teeth (see W. Woodville Rockhill, The Life of the Buddha and the
Early History of His Order, Derived from Tibetan Works in the
Bkah-hgyur and Bstanhgyur [1884; reprint, Varanasi: Orientalia
Indica, 1972], p. 118). Similarly, there are two episodes in the
Nidanakatha in which the Buddha makes a gift of his hair, once to
the gods in heaven and once to the first laymen, Tapassu and
Bhalluka (English translation in Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth Stories
[n. 22 above], pp. 177-78 and 206). It is quite clear that such
gifts constitute gifts of "instant relics" rather than gifts of the
body, for the following reasons: (1) they are always nonliving parts
of the body (such as hair, teeth, and nails) and thus participate in
the character of real relics; (2) removing them does not cause the
Buddha any pain (whereas pain is a standard feature of the
bodhisattva's gifts of his body); and (3) in most cases, they are
immediately interred in stupas and worshipped. In the case of the
Nidanakatha, in fact, it is instructive to compare the two "gifts of
hair" he makes as a Buddha to the "gift of hair" he makes as a
bodhisattva earlier in the same text. As Sumedha, he lays his hair
down on the mad and allows Dipamkara Buddha to trample on top of it
(Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth Stories, pp. 92-93). Despite the fact
that exactly the same body part is again involved, this latter gift
seems to me to be of a totally different order than the first two,
and is much more in keeping with the idea of the bodhisattva's gift
of his body. (66) tyaktvaham gandabhutam bhavasatakalitam
vidmutrabharitam nihsaram phenakalpam krmisatabharitam kayham
krtanudam / nihsokam nirvikaram nirupadhim amalam dhyanadibhi gunaih
sampurnam dharmakayam gunasatabharitam prapsyami virajam // (Nobel,
ed. [n. 15 above], p. 211, lines 4-7).
(67) bhavatparitranamaye sukhodaye niyojya kayam niyatam mayapsyate
/ abhedyam acchedyam aharyam avyayam niruttaram dharmasariram
avranam // (Handurukande, Five Buddhist Legends [n. 17 above], p.
46, verse 47).
(68) On the use of the term dharma-sarira and its relationship to
dharma-kaya, see Harrison (n. 2 above), pp. 54-55.
(69) sabbannutananakkhim (V. Fausboll, The Jataka Together with Its
Commentary, Being Tales of the Anterior Births of Gotama Buddha, 6
vols. and index [London: Trubner, 1875-97], 4:407, line 23).
(70) sabbannutananadanta (ibid., 5:53, line 2).
(71) bodhiratna (Ratna Handurukande. Manicudavadana, Being a
Translation and Edition, and Lokananda, a Transliteration and
Synopsis, Sacred Books of the Buddhists, vol. 24 [London: Pali Text
Society, 19671, p. 76, line 8).
(72) prakrtamamsacaksus, anuttaram dharmacaksuh (Isshi Yamada,
Karunapundarika: The White Lotus of Compassion, 2 vols. [London:
School of Oriental and African Studies, 1968], 2:351, tines 10 and
11); anuttarasraddhahasta, anuttaram silapadam (Yamada, 2:380, line
15, and p. 379, line 17).
(73) Mair (n.11 above), p. 16.
(74) Ibid., p. 8.
(75) tadapi te ete maya atmaparityagam krtva mahasamudrato svastina
sthale pratisthapita etarahim pi maya atmaparityagam krtva samsarato
tarita nirvane pratisthapitah / (Basak, ed. [n. 16 above), 3:475,
tines 2-4; emphasis added).
(76) This is true even if we translate atma-parityaga as "gift of
oneself" or "renunciation of oneself" rather than as
"self-sacrifice." For no matter how the term is translated, it
remains the case that the term itself is normally used in
association with the bodhisattva's gift or sacrifice of his physical
body.
(77) I am relying on Lamotte's French translation; the discussion in
question is found in Lamotte (n. 55 above), 2:750-52.
(78) Ibid., p. 752.
(79) Ibid.
(80) The "vehicle" and the "tenor--are the two elements that make up
a metaphor. The tenor is the idea being expressed, while the vehicle
is the image through which the idea is expressed. In the metaphor
"Love is a red, red rose," for example, love is the tenor and the
image of the rose is the vehicle. These terms were devised by I. A.
Richards; see his The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936; reprint, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 89-138; see also C. Hugh Holman
and William Harmon. A Handbook to Literature, 5th ed., based on the
original edition of William Flint Thrall and Addison Hibbard (1936;
New York: Macmillan, 1986), s.v. "metaphor" and s.v.v. "tenor" and
"vehicle.
(81) anasthirudhire kaye (S. Bagchi, Suvarnaprabhasasutram Buddhist
Sanskrit Texts, no. 8 [Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1967] p. 9,
line 3).