Forest Bodhisattvas: Forest Tradition Origin of the Mahayana

Mahayana Buddhism may have arisen out of the Forest Tradition of India. A growing body of  scholarship by Reginald Ray, Gergory Schopen, and Paul Harrison, state that the Mahayana tradition was an outgrowth of the monastic forest tradition, who were critical of the domestic comfort, laxity, wealth, accommodation of the settled village monks.

The Chan (Zen) tradition introduced into China by Bodhidharma may also be seen as a forest tradition, emphasizing meditation practice rather than sutra-scholarship.

The book by Daniel Boucher, Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahayana: A
Study and Translation of the Rastrapalapariprccha-sutra, outlines this research.

The Rastapala clearly preaches the ideal of rigorous ascetic practices, dhutanga, in the wilderness.

Primary sources for study of forest tradition in Mahayana Buddhism include Rastrapalapariprccha-sutra (short: Rastrapala). Other Mahayana texts of the forest tradition are  Ratnarasi, Kasyapa-parivarta, and Uprapariprccha, which share a pro-forest-dwelling ideology with the Rastrapala.

Paul Harrison, in “Searching for the Origins of the Mahayana: What are We Looking For?” says – “Far from being the products of an urban, lay, devotional movement, many Mahayana sutras give evidence of a hard-core ascetic attempt to return to the original inspiration of Buddhism, the search for Buddhahood or awakened cognition…They also display a strong and positive emphasis on the dhuta-gunas (extra ascetic practices) and aranya-vasa (dwelling in the forest or jungle), which is surely rather strange in the documents of a supposedly lay-dominated movement.”

The practice of dhutanga in the forest was an important part of the early Mahayana.

The Shier toutuo jing (Sutra on the Twelve Dhutagunas) is a Mahayana text translated into Chinese in the early sixth century.

“There can be no doubt that living in the wilderness in order to practice a rigorous form of reclusion was central to the orientation of the Rastrapala. Over and over again the authors of the Rastrapala exhort those on the bodhisattva path to ‘take pleasure in the wilderness’ and ‘dwell alone like a rhinoceros’, to ‘not abandon residence in the wilderness’, to take ‘pleasure in lodging in secluded hinterlands’, to ‘always dwell in forests and caves’, and to ‘frequent the wilderness and manifold hinterlands.’ Specific dhutaguna practices are listed in the story of Punyarusmi’s going forth after the death of the Buddha: “having gone forth he became a wearer of the three robes; he always practiced begging for alms and he only sat, never lying down.”

“Even when they are reviled on all sides, these sons of mine, remembering my words now during the final period of the Dharma, will dwell in forests in the hinterland at that time.”

“Those who are disciplined in morality and virtue will be despised in the last period of the Dharma. Abandoning villages, kingdoms, and cities they will dwell in the wilderness and forest.”

The Ratnarasi sutra vigorously promotes the dhutangas. Jonathan silk has translated and studies this sutra. The Sutra praises the sramana who “follows the yogic practice of cultivating the path,” “who delights in dwelling in the wilderness,” “who abides in the dhutagus,” and “who wanders alone like a rhinoceros.”

The true monks is “alone, unaccompanied, with nothing on which to rely, without possessions, without chattels”. He is entreated to take his alms systematically, in conformity with standard dhutaguna practice, showing no preference for generous patrons or disfavor toward those who give nothing. Although he practices alms begging, he should refrain from intimate contact with specific patrons or dropping hint s as to what he might prefer in his bowl. The monk should acquire his robes from the refuse heap, taking no delight in adorning his body with new robes.

Kasyapa-parivarta sutra, in the Maharatnakuta collection of Chinese and Tibetan cannons, is similar to the Ratnarasi says “There has never been a bodhisattva who dwells in the household and who has awakened to unexcelled, perfect enlightenment. They all, moreover, having gone forth from the household, fixed their thoughts on the wilderness with a predilection toward the wilderness. Having gone to the wilderness, they awakened to unexcelled, perfect enlightenment. And it is there that they acquired the prerequisites [sambhara] for enlightenment [bodhipakkyadhamma].”

The Ugrapariprccha marks the wilderness dwelling as a necessity, even if frightening; a requisite for all who set  out for Buddhahood.

When we start to look for the Forest Tradition explicitly in Mahayana literature, we begin to notice how wide-ranging the wilderness-dwelling motif  is within the Mahayana sutra literature, even when it is not the central preoccupation of any give text. In fact, wilderness dwelling shows up in places where we might least expect it, including texts that are overtly hostile to the monks who practice it. That even some Mahayana sutras qualify or oppose the wilderness for its members reminds us that we are witnessing one dimension of  the dialectic of tradition. 

Even the etymology of the words for Buddhist monastery reflect the root origin of forest dwelling. The word arama implies gardens filled with lush vegetation, flowers, birds - a sort of “garden of eden”. Buddhist monks refer to mandapas (groves) as components or constructions at monastic sites, and although this term is usually translated as a "hall" or "pillared hall." The most prominent architectural structures in gardens were bowers (mandapa nikunja), which could either take the form of a clump of trees which formed a sort of enclosure, or just as typically, were fashioned by arranging vines and other creeping plants around the structure of a roofed pavilion (mandapa).

The function of these "bowers" or mandapas was to provide shade, but that they were also "places of shelter and rest from the games and pursuits of the garden . . . places of seclusion--places where lovers could conduct their amorous liaisons in secrecy".

The early Indian garden, while full of flowers, flowering and fruit trees, and flocks of all sorts of birds, was a natural space, cultivated and carefully tended by gardeners called aramikas,  a category of lay workers who do the manual labor of the "monastery."

The Mulasarvdstivdda-vinaya of north India in the early centuries of the Common Era were fully aware of "the institution of the garden." Buddhist monks viewed their establishments as gardens, parks, groves. Buddhist monks had a detailed knowledge of the Indian garden.