Taranatha's History of Buddhism in India
By Unexhibited
Summary
Taranatha's *History of Buddhism in India* outlines Buddhist developments in India during the reigns of four successive kings following Ajatashatru: Subahu (10 years), Sudhanu (23 years), Mahendra (9 years), and Camasa (22 years). These rulers are not corroborated by the Sinhalese *Mahavamsa* or Brahmanical *Puranas*, which instead list different successors. Taranatha’s account highlights the role of Sanavasika, a key figure in Northern Buddhist tradition, who received teachings from Ananda and transmitted them to Upagupta. Sanavasika’s activities in Sravasti and interactions with figures like Madhyantika—who preached in Vardhasi and later on Usira Mountain—are detailed, including miraculous events such as subduing Yakshas causing epidemics. The text also describes conflicts between monks and laypeople, emphasizing the spread of Buddhism despite challenges. Discrepancies exist between Taranatha’s chronology and other traditions, such as the *Mahavamsa* placing Madhyantika during Asoka’s era. The narrative underscores the interplay of religious teachings, miracles, and political contexts in shaping early Buddhist history.
Conclusion
Taranatha's *History of Buddhism in India* reveals critical discrepancies in early Buddhist chronology, highlighting the challenges of reconstructing historical timelines from later sources. The text contrasts Taranatha's account of rulers following Ajatashatru with Sinhalese and Brahmanical traditions, exposing potential fabrication in filling historical gaps. It underscores the significance of figures like Sanavasika and Madhyantika in spreading Buddhist teachings, despite conflicting timelines across traditions. The narrative of Madhyantika's miraculous conversion and the spread of Buddhism in northern India emphasizes the role of charismatic teachers in institutionalizing the Dharma. Taranatha's work, while valuable for its internal coherence, raises questions about the reliability of source materials and the evolution of Buddhist historiography, particularly in reconciling divergent regional accounts. This analysis underscores the complexity of early Buddhist history and the need for cautious interpretation of hagiographical elements within historical frameworks.