DEIFICATION OF THE

BUDDHA
IN THERAVADA
BUDDHISM

ANKUR BARUA

The Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong

Kong, Hong Kong

Corresponding address:
Dr. ANKUR BARUA
BLOCK – EE, No. – 80, Flat No. – 2A,
SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR -2,
KOLKATA – 700 091

1
WEST BENGAL, INDIA
Tel: +91-33-23215586
Mobile: +919434485543
Email: ankurbarua26@yahoo.com

2
 DEIFICATION OF THE
BUDDHA
IN THERAVADA
BUDDHISM

Introduction

Buddhism is commonly described as a "spiritual philosophy", because it

discards the notion of an Absolute Creator God or any self-entity. The denial

of the existence of a creator God has been seen as a key point in

distinguishing Buddhist from non-Buddhist views.1 In the Four Noble Truths,

the Buddha analyzed the problem of suffering, diagnosed its root cause and

prescribed a method to dispel suffering. He taught that through insight into

the nature of existence and the wisdom of "not-self" or "selflessness" (anatta)

all sentient beings following the noble eightfold path can dispel ignorance

and thereby suffering. Thus, Buddhism stresses upon the personal practice of

ethics, meditation, and wisdom1,2. Considering the deep implications of these

thoughts of the Buddha, the renowned scientist, Albert Einstein had predicted

Buddhism as the “Cosmic Religion of Future”.3,4 However, in all Buddhist

traditions, veneration of the Buddha as a teacher of Dhamma is significant

and an important part of spiritual development. Though the Buddha objected

deification according to Theravada Buddhism, but in some streams of

Buddhism, the Buddha is worshipped essentially as an omniscient divinity

3
possessed of many supernatural attributes and qualities. Though the process

of deification of the Buddha started from the Pāli Cannons in early Buddhism,

but it gained greater momentum in the later commentaries.5

God Concept in Early Buddhism

The Buddha had clearly stated that reliance and belief in creation by a

supreme being leads to lack of effort and action from individual perspective

which poses a significant hindrance in the path to liberation. 6 It should be

noted that the Buddha did not criticize veneration of the noble, veneration of

the wise and learned, but only discouraged the acceptance of a Creator God

which causes lack of individual initiatives for any action and restraints the

mind to samsara. However, the presence of some of the Brahmin gods was

found in early Buddhism. But it is important to keep in mind that gods in

Buddhism have no role to play in liberation. It is certainly true that the

dhamma had very little to do with devas. Though their existence is assumed

in early Buddhism, but the truths of religion were not dependent on them.

Attempts to use their influence by sacrifices and oracles were deprecated as

improper practices.5,6

Brahma was among the common Brahmin gods found in the Pāli Canon. All

other devas, including Brahma, are subjected to change, final decline and

death, just like all sentient beings in samsara. All gods are considered as

heavenly beings and are in reality not yet free from self-delusion and the

processes of rebirth. Samsara is considered to be the plane of continual

4
reincarnation and suffering. According to the Buddha, the world of gods

presents with many pleasures and distractions. It is not in an aptly suited

realm of the world of radiance where beings could exist without form.6,7

Often as the Devas figure in early Buddhist stories, the significance of their

appearance nearly always lie in their relations with the Buddha or his

disciples while explaining the Dhamma. The gods, though freely invoked as

accessories, are not taken seriously. The Kevaddha Sutta of Pāli Canon relates

a story on how a monk was puzzled by a metaphysical problem applied to

various gods and finally accosted Brahma himself in the presence of all his

retinue. After hearing his question pertaining to where do the elements cease

and leave no trace behind, the Great Brahma took him by his arm and led

him aside and confessed that he did not know the answer to his question and

advised him to refer the Buddha instead.6,7,8 This story is an evidence of

deification of the Buddha who was hailed superior to the Brahmin Creator

God Brahma.

However, the Pāli Canon confirms that omnipotence cannot be ascribed to

any being. So, one should keep in mind that no god or an enlightened being

(including the historical Buddha) is ascribed with the powers of creation,

granting salvation and judgment. In Theravada Buddhism, there are no lands

or heavens where a being is ensured nirvana. In Early Buddhist tradition,

there is no equivalent of the Mahayana "Pure Land" or magical abode of

Buddhas where one is destined to be enlightened. Therefore, instead of

believing in the existence of a Creator God, it is wise for human beings to

5
practice the Dharma (spiritual truth) of the Buddha and follow the Noble

Eightfold Path which would lead to the spiritual Liberation and Awakening.1,7,8

Attitudes towards theories of Creation

The basic fallacy in the concept of a Creator God is, if we presume that he

had created the universe, then the questions arise as to who had created

him, where does he come from and why did he create the universe? If human

beings start believing in the existence of a Creator God, then no one would

have any moral responsibility and motivation to undertake any initiative or

activity and every duty and moral responsibility would be dumped upon the

Creator God. Since, Buddhism believes in the doctrine of Dependent

Origination and Kamma, it is indifferent to all theories related to the origin of

the universe. It is important to note that the Buddha did not categorically say

that creation did not occur or there was no creator. The Buddhist attitude

towards every belief is one of critical examination from the perspective of

what effect the belief has on the mind and whether the belief binds one to

samsara or not. So, mere speculation about the origin and extent of the

universe was discouraged in early Buddhism.2,6,7

Brahmins and their close association with God

The Brahmins apparently claimed that they were the link between humans

and devas. They tried to place the priestly class at an advantageous position.

6
But the Pāli suttas dismiss the folly of these religious practitioners, who lead

others to what they themselves do not personally know.6

7
Biography of the Buddha from Pāli Canonical Texts

The biography of the Buddha is not presented in the canonical texts in a

chronological and systematic order. The earlier disciples of the Buddha

apparently did not feel any need of compiling the Master’s biography. This

would probably because of the fact that they were repeatedly admonished by

the Buddha himself that the Dhamma be first emulated. The Buddha had

often emphasized the fact that one, who sees the Dhamma, sees the Buddha.

He wanted his disciples to remember him through the correct interpretations

of his doctrines.2,9

However, the Buddha occasionally referred to his personal life during the

course of giving discourses or prescribing disciplinary rules for his disciples.

According to H.Masutani, the Buddhists had a separate but unofficial tradition

of collecting events and anecdotes associated with the Buddha’s life from the

earliest times. This tradition was the hypothesis behind the origin of a third

collection besides the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka, which was never

recited at the First Buddhist Council. Literary evidences show that attempts

were made only several centuries after the demise of the Buddha to compile

a systematic and coherent biography of the Buddha including the genealogy

of the Sakya clan. The sources utilized for the purpose were not only those

scattered in the canonical texts, but also those collected as a result of the

interaction with other religionists. Thus, the works of the Nidanakatha of the

Jataka Atthakatha came into existence and later considered to be the

standard biography of the Buddha in Theravada Buddhism.7,9

8
The Buddhavamsa, one of the late canonical texts, is unique in the study of

the biography of the Buddha. It contains probes into the past existences of

Gotama Buddha from the time of Dipankara Buddha from whom he received

a definite assurance. He made a vow front of him to become a Bodhisatta. By

fulfilling the Perfections (parami) for an immeasurable length of time, he

finally attained Buddhahood. The Buddhavamsa also describes the number

of past Buddhas is twenty-four as against the six previous Buddhas

mentioned in the Canon; and provides a list of ten Perfections (parami) that

must be fulfilled by Gotama Bodhisatta for the attainment of Buddhahood.

All these concepts associated with the career of Gotama Bodhisatta were

never mentioned in the Canon before the Buddhavamsa. Later canonical

texts such as the Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka in which some Perfections

(parami) are detailed, etc., seem therefore to have been meant to unravel a

long career of Gotama Bodhisatta. This is a markedly late development in the

Canon, which made the followers understand the fact that it was very difficult

to achieve the Buddhahood than thought earlier.2,6,9

This was how the Buddhological development steered its course towards

higher amplitude of deification in subsequent times and the Bodhisatta

concept came into prominence. However, E.J.Thomas had expressed that the

Bodhisatta doctrine in Theravada Buddhism was introduced from another

school. He had emphasized that the Buddhavamsa existed in a Sanskrit form,

and it was probable that the doctrine in this developed form was introduced

along with this work. After comparing the stories of Mangala Buddha depicted

in the Buddhavamsa and the Mahavastu, the scholar Nanavasa observed a

9
striking resemblance in phraseology between the two versions. These

circumstantial findings might suggest the possibility that there existed a

common source or sources from which both the Pāli and Sanskrit traditions

derived their materials.9,10

Human Nature of the Buddha

Through a comparative study, it had been convincingly brought out that the

Buddha in early sources was depicted simply as a religious mendicant.

Though at the beginning, he vigorously undertook the austere practices in

order to lead a higher religious life, but he finally abandoned such a course of

practice and adopted the middle way, without physically torturing oneself or

indulging too much in self comfort. He was just one of mendicants who

followed a similar method of practice in India at that time. He was addressed

as ‘marisa’ (sir, or one like me) by a Brahmin youth and some mendicants or

‘bho’ (friend), or was simply called ‘Gotama’, the term used even by the

Buddha’s own disciples.1,2,10

Epithets given to the Buddha provide a good glimpse into the historical

development of his personality. According to Nakamura, such epithets as isi,

muni, naga, yakkha, kevalin, ganin, mahavira or vira, cakkhumantu, etc., are

equally applicable to other mendicants and there is no distinction between

the Buddha and others as far as these epithets are concerned. He further

stated that the gathas in which they are included would have been composed

not later than the time of King Asoka. He expressed that the Buddha was

10
then respected only as the founder of a religion. But faith in miracles or

supernatural powers of the Buddha was not particularly emphasized in the

oldest stratum of Buddhist texts.9,11

In the earliest phase of Buddhism, the Buddha exemplified by leading a

virtuous and austere life to other mendicants who merely thought him to be

one of them as they could see and listen to him in person. When the

community of such mendicants became larger, the Sangha came to be physi-

cally divided into small groups for the convenience of movement and the

leader of such a group was chosen from among eminent persons in that

group. The Buddhist monastic development began to provide opportunities

for non-Buddhists to form the opinion that the leader of the Sangha was not

the Buddha but someone else. One instance of this misrepresentation can be

seen in the Isibhasiyaim, a Jaina source, which claims Sariputta to be the

leader of the Buddhist community instead of the Buddha. This could be due

to the fact that they had probably never seen the Buddha in person and had

only maintained their close contact with Sariputta.9,10

Evolution of the Buddha-Concept in Theravada Buddhism

Early Buddhist sources persistently depict Gotama Buddha as an ideal human

being. He was a lover of silence (muni) and led a simple life uncharacteristic

of any superhuman being. He was respected by all who followed him not only

as a teacher, but also as an excellent human being. This sentiment can be

gathered from some epithets and attributes given only to the Buddha as

11
purisuttama, isisattama, sabbasattanam uttama, appatipuggala,

devamanussa settha, sadevakassa lokassa agga, etc.9,10

The Buddha was regarded as a sage during the earlier part of his life after

attaining Nibbana. In a study on the development of notion of “Buddha” (as a

term), Nakamura had classified the evolution of the term “Buddha” into six

phases, which are as follows:9

(1) In early Janism as reflected in the Isibhasiyaim, all sages irrespective of

their faiths were called ‘buddhas’. Uddalaka, Yajnavalkya, Mahavira,

Sariputta, etc., are all buddhas.

(2) Emphasis is laid on the fact that Sariputta was the only “Buddha” in the

eyes of the Jains.

(3) In the old gathas of the Parayana vagga of the Suttanipata, no mention of

the word ‘buddha’ is found. This could be due o the fact that the disciples

of the Buddha during that time did not specially think of Sakyamuni as a

Buddha. They also did not aspire to be called buddhas themselves.

(4) The next phase was the time when those who should be respected in

general were called buddhas, isi (sages) or brahmanas.

(5) As time went on, however, ‘buddha’ came to be thought as an especially

eminent person and the term was used as an epithet for such a person.

(6) Finally, ‘buddha’ came to be used for no one other than Sakyamuni (or

anyone equal to him). This tendency persists prominently in the new

strata of gathas of the Suttanipata.

12
The Buddha identified with the Dhamma

After attaining enlightenment, the Buddha not only exemplified his teachings,

but also endeavoured to show people the way leading to the emancipation

from the cycle of births and to the attainment of the supreme bliss of

Nibbana. The life of the Buddha was an expression of the Dhamma he had

preached. The Buddha once said: “Whosoever sees the Dhamma sees me.

Whosoever sees me sees the Dhamma” (Yo dhammam passati so mam

passati. Yo mam passati so dhammam passati).2,11 Though he had expressed

this to make his disciples understand the importance of his doctrine rather

than worshipping him as God, but this was accepted in a different way by his

followers and later used for the glorification.

The Supernatural Elements in Buddhism

Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings like “gods” or

“devas”). But it does not ascribe powers to them for creation, salvation or

judgment. They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in

much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as

humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world

more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, none of

them are absolute or unsurpassed. Like humans, the gods are also suffering

in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. Gods have

not attained nirvana, and are still subject to emotions, including jealousy,

anger, delusion, sorrow, etc. Thus, since a Buddha shows the way to nirvana,

a Buddha is called "the teacher of the gods and humans". According to the

Pāli Canon the gods have powers to affect only so far as their realm of

13
influence or control allows them. In this sense therefore, they are no closer to

nirvana than humans and no wiser in the ultimate sense. A dialogue between

the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha

reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism.1,8,10

The Pāli Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings

(Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king

Ajatasattu and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supernormal

powers (like human flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind

reading, recollection of past lives of oneself and others. According to the

Buddha, an enlightened person realizes the uselessness of these mundane

powers and instead unbinds himself completely from samsara through

discernment. The Arahants were never allowed to exhibit their supernatural

powers in public.1,8

Evidences of Glorification of the Buddha from Arahant

It should be kept in mind that the Buddha too was an Arahant and in the

earliest sources, the Buddha was presented more closely to the Arahant in

terms of attainments. The sole difference between them is often described

that the Buddha is the discoverer of the path to enlightenment, while his

disciples were the followers of that path. Namikawa in his study had shown

that some of the expressions used for the Buddha were equally applicable to

the Arahants such as Sariputta, but some were not. The words like

cakkhumantu, lokanatha, sugata, appatipuggala, adiccabandhu, etc., were

14
used only for the Buddha even in the gathas of texts like the Suttanipata,

Sagathavagga of the Samyutta Nikaya, Dhammapada, Theragatha and

Therigatha which were considered to belong to the old stratum of the Canon.

But if the question is raised on whether or not any Arahant has the same

depth of knowledge of the world as the Buddha is supposed to possess, then

the answer is negative.9,10

In the early Buddhism, the simile of simsapa leaves was specified to

elaborate the difference between the Buddha and Arahants. It was mentioned

that the Buddha had illustrated the vastness of his knowledge with the simile

of simsapa leaves. One day, he picked up a handful of leaves in a wood of

simsapa trees and told his disciples that things the Buddha had known by

direct knowledge were like simsapa trees in the forest, whereas what he had

taught to bhikkhus was like the few leaves in his hand. This episode proved

that the Buddha revealed only a fraction of his knowledge to others, because

he knew that it was sufficient for anyone to attain Nibbana. According to De

Silva, the Buddha is far superior to other Arahants regarding knowledge

about extra-nibbana oriented matters. ‘Sabbannu’ was another epithet

attributed only to the Buddha. The first four Nikayas taken as a whole also

discuss such distinction between the Buddha and the Arahant. 2,9,11 But there

is no evidence available to verify this statement as to whether this was

actually expressed by the Buddha himself or later added by the contributors

of Buddhist texts.

15
Veneration of the Buddha

Although an absolute “Creator God” is absent in most forms of Buddhism,

veneration or worship of the Buddha and other Buddhas does play a major

role in all forms of Buddhism. All the schools of Buddhism taught that being

born in the human realm is best for realizing full enlightenment, whereas

being born as a God presents one with too much pleasure and too many

distractions to pose hindrance for serious insight meditation. In Buddhism,

one venerates Buddhas and sages for their virtues, sacrifices, and struggles

for perfect enlightenment, and as teachers who are embodiments of the

Dhamma. This supreme victory of the human ability for perfect

enlightenment is expressed in the concept of “Arahant” which means "worthy

of offerings" or "worthy of worship" because he overcomes all defilements

and obtains Nibbana.5,7

Probable Reasons for Deification of the Buddha

Religion is an outcome of the psycho-socio-cultural needs of the community.

It serves as a means of human existence and influence the confidence and

motivational levels of individuals along with their moral upliftment. So, a

religion can never be separated from its psycho-socio-cultural background

and community needs. While probing into the various reasons behind the

deification of the Buddha, we must keep in mind that all the factors analyzed

so far are subjected to mere speculation and nothing could be proved in the

light of absolute evidence. Whatever efforts had been made for deification

had some psycho-socio-cultural relevance related the historical background

16
of India at a given point of time. There was definitely some justification in

undertaking these activities to meet various social and cultural causes. But

due to the haphazard arrangement of old and new texts in the Pāli Cannons

and commentaries, it is now difficult to correlate a particular instance of

deification with its corresponding historical background.9 However, some of

the probable psycho-socio-cultural factors responsible to deification of the

Buddha are mentioned below:

(1) At the very beginning, we should keep in mind that there is no authentic

autobiography or biography of the Buddha available till date. All we have

for reference are the Pāli Cannons and commentaries composed by many

of his renowned disciples. The oral tradition of transmitting the Dhamma

from one person to the other was carried on for many years till the final

compilation of the Cannons and some commentaries after the conclusion

of the third Buddhist council during the 3rd century CE.2,10,11 Since many

people had added many texts at different points of time, there is a high

possibility that sometimes, the personal opinions and emotions of the

contributors were incorporated as original teachings of the Buddha. There

was no single editor or a panel of editors to edit these texts and arrange

them in chronological order of appearance at the time of compilation. So,

the initial glorification elements in early Buddhist texts could be a result of

unintentional bias from the part of these contributors.

(2) However, the bias of glorification of the Buddha could be intentional also.

While compiling the Pāli Cannons, the senior disciples of the Buddha who

17
 had close association with him for many years, could have intentionally

deified him, as a gesture to express their profound respect and gratitude.

This trend might have been amplified later in the Pāli commentaries.

(3) After the mahaparinabbana of the Buddha, when the sanga was still large,

there were many new disciples who had never seen the Buddha in person.

It would have been difficult to describe the appearance of the Buddha to

them.2,11 The senior monks might have felt the need of constructing

statues of the Buddha which would give visual satisfaction to the followers

to see the Buddha in front of their eyes and perceive that the teachings

were directly coming from him. This attempt would have helped in

familiarizing the appearance of Gotama Buddha to those who knew little

about him in person and also to exalt him, by adding extraordinary

happenings associated with his life, for popularizing his teachings.

(4) Some of the disciples might have found difficulty in concentrating their

minds in an abstract vacuum during meditation.2,11 So, an image of the

Buddha could have served the purpose of enabling the followers to

concentrate their minds during meditational practices.

(5) In absence of the Buddha, a large sangha might have faced stiff

challenges from ego centric issues related to various group leaders and

could have faced administrative problems due to the lack of unity of

command. The deification of the Buddha could be a probable outcome in

order to counter this problem. The disciples might have thought that if the

Buddha was deified and his image was kept at the centre of the sangha,

18
 then it would create some visual impacts on the minds of disciples. Thus,

his active physical presence would be felt all the time. As a result, no one

would rebel in presence of the Buddha and the sangha would still remain

united in spite of differences of opinions.

(6) There could be a possibility of intense competitions from the followers of

other religions in India. All the gods of Brahmanism were believed to have

superhuman powers and were omniscient. All the spiritual leaders of

Jainism were also considered as omniscient. So, it must have been difficult

for the Buddhist sangha to convince the common people that the Buddha

was an ordinary human being without any supernatural power or

omniscient knowledge.10 In an attempt to ensure the continuity of the

sangha and influence common people to adopt Buddhism, the ancient

Buddhist monks must have intentionally deified the Buddha, to match the

powerful Brahmin gods and spiritual leaders of Jainism.

(7) There might have been a keen initiative taken by the sangha to spread

Buddhism in every nook and corner of the Indian subcontinent after the

mahaparinabbana of the Buddha. In this attempt to expand the sangha,

many uneducated and lay people might have been included in the

sangha. There could be a possibility of lapse on part of the sangha to

correctly assess the intellectual capacities of these new devotees and

decide on who should receive how much knowledge at a particular stage

of training. As a result, these people might have lacked the intellectual

capacity and failed to decipher the correct interpretation of the doctrines

19
 of the Buddha.2,11 They might have misinterpreted the Dhamma and tried

to glorify the Buddha like all other Brahmin deities. We must not forget the

fact that there were many Brahmins among the disciples of the Buddha.

Since, by birth they were Brahmins and were brought up amidst the

Brahmin traditions and cultures, there is a high possibility that they were

unable to give up their earlier beliefs of the Brahmin religion. Some of

them might have failed to interpret the true essence of Buddhism and

could not understand the difference between Buddhism and

Brahmanism.10 They might have hailed the Buddha as one of their

Brahmin gods and started praying to him instead of devoting time to

understand the true meaning of his doctrines.

(8) Buddhism never went for any outright conflict with the existing culture

and traditions of the society and easily got mixed with them by retaining

all their core aspects.1,7,8 So, there is a high probability that common

people mistook the teachings of the Buddha as the same messages of

Brahmanism Doctrine, but in a different brand name. In order to influence

lay people to accept Buddhism, some members of the sangha could have

added supernatural stories related to the life of the Buddha which became

identical with the stories related to the popular Brahmin deities. This

irrational act had opened the door for the Brahmins, who took the

complete advantage of this situation and started incorporating many of

the finer aspects of Buddhism into their own system so as to win over the

"lower" caste Buddhist masses. However, they made sure that this

selective appropriation and incorporation of Buddhism, did not undermine

the Brahminical hegemony. This process went on for many centuries and

20
 nearly around 12 CE, Buddhism completely lost its individual identity and

became a part of Brahmanism in India. As a result, the Buddha was

accepted by the Brahmins as one of the incarnation of the ancient Vedic

God Vishnu and was thus, transformed into just another of the countless

deities of the Brahminical pantheon. 10

(9) It should be borne in mind that no religion could prosper in ancient India

without the initiative of royal patronage. The Buddha himself had sought

the confidence of royal patronage to preach his doctrine. On many

occasions he had to seek permission from these powerful rulers before

inducting some their followers to the sangha.8,10 So, there is also a high

possibility that the sangha might have tried to glorify the Buddha to

influence the existing rulers in order to gain their trust and support. This

would have helped them in ensuring protection for the sangha and also to

practice and propagate the Buddhist doctrines in the society. The Buddha

might have been glorified as a protector of wellbeing, harmony and peace

throughout the empire of these powerful rulers. Thus, the possibility of

deification of the Buddha as a result of social insecurity perceived by the

sangha could not be ruled out.

(10)The glorification of the Buddha was followed by the glorification of the

Bodhisattas. The glorification of Bodhisattas was more in Mahayana than

in Theravada traditions. Here, we must remember that the Sakya clan was

completely destroyed by that time and no image of Siddhartha as a price

was found to start with. As a result, the visual form of Maitreya Bodhisatta

21
 was based on mere imagination.12,13 So, the images of Maitreya Bodhisatta

in Theravada Buddhism could have an influence of the existing rulers who

acted as patrons for the propagation of Buddhism. Portraying the rulers

and royal patrons as Bodhisattas would have helped in satisfying their

egos and kept them in good confidence. This would have also made the

rulers become more compassionate and understanding and helped them

to solve most of their administrative problems in a non-violent and

peaceful environment.

Since, there is no documentation available till date as authentic proof of

reasons behind the deification of the Buddha; we need to consider all these

above psycho-socio-cultural factors as probable reasons of deification. Some

of these factors would have operated in isolation, while others acted

synergistically during specific time frames for a particular place and

community. The notion of insecurity on existence and the urge of meeting

social needs and cultural demands might have hastened the deification of the

Buddha.

Social Impact of Deification of the Buddha

Though the effect of deification of the Buddha made Buddhism lose its

identity in India and finally merged with Brahmanism, but it had served some

good purpose as well. Since the Buddha was strongly against deification, the

initial images of the Buddha during the early part of the 1 st century CE were

symbolic with the Bodhi tree, wheel of the Dhamma, lotus and scenes from

22
the deer park of Saranath. But following the strong current of deification, the

images of the Buddha, followed by the Bodhisattas and other attendants

came into existence from the early part of the 3rd Century CE. Monasteries,

stupas and several works of Buddhist art reflected the artistic tastes, skills,

culture and religious practices of the society during different stages of

civilizations. It provided occupation and source of income for many

architectors, artists and sculptors during the Buddhist era. So, we must

appreciate the fact that Buddhist art was the golden outcome of the process

of deification of the Buddha.12,13

Many powerful rulers and emperors, who became patrons of Buddhist Art,

took pride in making Buddhist monasteries, stupas and giant status of the

Buddha in an attempt to accumulate merits for the path of Nibbana. These

giant structures of architectural excellence had projected their pride and

valour and served as places of attraction for travellers and pilgrims during

the subsequent period of time.12,13

Buddhist Art has become a subject of interest to many modern scholars and

archaeologists. The giant Buddha statues all over the world in modern era are

considered as holy places of pilgrimage for Buddhist followers. They also

provide an opportunity of social gathering of people from different

communities in the world. Providing historical evidence and serving as great

works of art for tourist attraction, indirectly they helped the global economy

to prosper.12,13

23
Many people throughout the world, who are non-Buddhists and do not accept

Buddhism as their own religion, are often found collecting expensive statues

of the Buddha as works of art and showing keen interest on studying the

Buddhist doctrines and philosophies. Many modern scientists are also

influenced by the early Buddhist teachings and uphold Buddhism as having a

modern scientific platform.3,4,8 Thus, we find that the process of deification

had indirectly helped in the spread of Buddhism throughout the world and

made it popularize among other communities.

24
Conclusion

Before we arrive at any finite conclusion, we should always keep in mind that

the data, from major portions of the Canon on which we had attempted to

analyse the Buddha-concept, belonged to the last phase of its development

according to Nakamura’s classification (i.e. No.6). By the time the Canon was

put to writing, Buddhism had already undergone several phases of

transformations. The Buddha concept had already undergone significant

deification by that time. What we have today in the Canon is a mixture of old

and new materials. If the sources quoted for any conclusion are mixed up

haphazardly, then such a conclusion would be unconvincing and more likely

to be misleading.9

So, our first and foremost important work would be to systematically arrange

the data in a chronological order and review its historical and psycho-socio-

cultural background. The methods already adopted for stratification of the

canonical texts by some scholars in the past must also be re-examined for

their content validity and reliability. A strict and clear methodology of the

stratification of sources is therefore indispensable before arriving at any

conclusion with regard to the development of the Buddha-concept. Though

the concept of deification was never desired by the Buddha, but it had

attracted various communities across the world for centuries and served as

an invisible and inseparable bond of unity and harmony in the society.

25
References

1. Wallace, A. 2007. Contemplative Science. Columbia: Columbia

University Press: 97-8.

2. Sayadaw, M. 1983. Thoughts on the Dhamma. Kandy, Sri Lanka:

Buddhist Publication Society: The Wheel Publication.

3. Bharucha, F.P. 1992. Buddhist theory of causation and Einstein's theory

of relativity. Delhi, India: Sri Satguru Publications.

4. Jammer, M. 1999. Einstein and religion: physics and theology.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

5. Xing, G. 2005. The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and

Development of the Trikaya Theory. Oxford: RoutledgeCurzon, The

Oxford University Press.

6. Kalupahana, D. 1975. Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.

Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii:111-2.

7. Lopez, D.S. 2005. Critical terms for the study of Buddhism. Buddhism

and modernity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

8. Wallace, B.A., ed., 2003. Buddhism & science: breaking new ground.

New York: Columbia University Press.

9. Endo, T. 2009. The Buddha Concept in Theravada Buddhism. Hong

Kong: The Centre of Buddhist Studies. The University of Hong Kong.

10. Glasenapp, H.V. 1978. Vedanta and Buddhism: A comparative study.

Kandy, Sri Lanka: The Wheel Publication.

11. Carter J.R., Pālihawadana, M. 1992. Sacred Writings, Buddhism: The

Dhammapada. New York: Quality Paperback Book Club: 13-89.

26
12. Narain, A.K., ed. 1985. Studies in Buddhist Art of South Asia. New

Delhi, India: Kanak Publications.

13. Bhattacharyya, B. 1958. The Indian Buddhist Iconography. Calcutta,

India: 2nd edition. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay.

27