Anti- Śaivism in Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra

Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra is one of the most important Mahāyāna texts, being noted as the first sources that mentioned oṃ maṇi padme huṃ, the famous six syllables mantra of Avalokiteśvara.

When I read Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra for the first time, I was struck by its descriptions of the Hindu gods. The sūtra has strong Hindu purāṇic elements, an indication that the text is composed under the influence, perhaps even during the time of bitter rivalry between Hinduism, particularly Śaivism and Buddhism. Maurice Winternitz proposed the text is composed in between 4^th century to the 7^th century.

In the beginning of the sūtra, Avalokiteśvara is described to descend to the Avīci Hell, extinguishing its fire. The astonished Yamarāja, ruler of Hell, did not know it is done by which divine being, and asked “Which heavenly being is so powerful? Is he Maheśvara or Nārāyaṇa?” Soon, Yamarāja found out it was Avalokiteśvara who turned the hell into a cool lotus pond. The aim of this story, other than showing the hell-conquering power of Avalokiteśvara, is to show that non of the devas can accomplish this deed, emphasizing the strength of the bodhisattva over the gods, including (or rather, especially) Śiva (Maheśvara) and Viṣṇu (Nārāyaṇa), signifying the supremacy of Buddhism over Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism.

After the extinguishing of the hell fire scenes ended, the sūtra then moves on to a very interesting part. Śākyamuni Buddha announced that Avalokiteśvara is in fact, the creator of the gods:

“Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva gave birth to the Sun (Āditi) and the Moon (Candra) from his eyes, Maheśvara from his forehead, Brahmā from his shoulder, Nārāyaṇa from his heart, Sarasvatī from his teeth, Winds (Vāyu) from his mouth, Earth (Dharaṇī) from his navel, and Water (Varuṇa) from his stomach”

Here Avalokiteśvara is presented as the puruṣa, the cosmic man that gave birth to the world, the source of all creation, similar to the puruṣasūkta hymn in Rigveda 10.90. Puruṣa is sometimes identified with Nārāyaṇa, but sometimes it is identified as Śiva, the masculine principle, and his consort Uma as prakṛti, the feminine principle.

Identifying Avalokiteśvara as the puruṣa is quite interesting, as the Buddhists are harsh critics of the belief of a creator god. Here, Avalokiteśvara is presented as the primeval man that emanated the gods, the īśvara (lord) of all, and īśvara is a common epithet of Śiva. C. Regamey argues that this can be understood as it is not a refutation of a creator deity, but that the identification of the wrong creator god, the true creator deity should be Avalokiteśvara, not Śiva.

As soon as Avalokiteśvara gave birth to the gods, he immediately rebuked Maheśvara:

“At the Dharma ending age in the future, in the realms of sentient beings, there will be some living beings attaching to the erroneous views, saying that you are the great dominator from the beginningless of time and can create all sentient beings. At that time, those living beings, who have lost the Way of Bodhi, are ignorant and perplexed, they will say that:

The universe is a vast body,
and the earth is his throne.
All realms and sentient beings,
were born from this body”

This is a blatant attack on the belief of Śaivism, of Śiva as the puruṣa and the īśvara. The later part of the sūtra also tells the story of Viṣṇu’s Vāmanāvatāra in length, subsequently attacked Vaiṣṇavism as a vain religion.

The view of Śaivism as an erroneous, degenerated religion is further emphasized in the following verses of the same sūtra:

“Suppose there are virtuous persons, in order to seek for liberation, they pay homage to and practice various non-Buddhist dharmas in many places. They may worship … Maheśvara or worship Nārāyaṇa… but they cannot be liberated from the ignorance and falsehood. They only have the name of cultivating but moil in vain.”

This is a clear statement that Buddhism is an exclusive religion, non-Buddhist religions, including Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism are considered as ‘falsehood’ that cannot liberate the seekers, even if they are “virtuous persons”. It is, thus not difficult to imagine the tension and uneasy relationship between Buddhists and Hindus in ancient and medieval India.

This often reminds me of the rivalry and hostility between Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al in the Books of Kings. But unlike Ba’al that was completely demonized in Judeo-Christianity, Śiva is considered as a devotee and worshipper of Avalokiteśvara, and that Avalokiteśvara himself will even assume the form of Śiva to preach the dharma if it is necessary.

It is not uncommon in India, for a sect to make other gods devotees of its deity, a perfect example would be in Bhāgavata Purāṇa, vaiṣṇavānāḿ yathā śambhuḥ, “among deities and Lord Śambhu (Śiva ) [is] the greatest of Vaiṣṇava”.

As we see, though with harsh criticism on Śaivism, Avalokiteśvara eventually absorbed many qualities of Śiva, including Avalokiteśvara as the puruṣa and the īśvara. In the later Buddhist texts, Avalokiteśvara is even given the epithet Nīlakaṅṭha or ‘the Green Neck’, taken from the epithet of Śiva when he swallowed the poison during the time of the churning of the ocean of milk.

In the Anti- Śaivite polemics, Avalokiteśvara himself actually becomes Maheśvara, the Great Lord of All, functioning as the īśvara in Buddhist context.