Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Nalanda
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:35 am

Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Nalanda »

IF YOU PRACTICE WITH A STRONG BELIEF IN WHAT
YOU ARE DOING, THEN THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT
YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR PRACTICE.

CHAKUNG JIGME WANGDRAK RINPOCHE

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7064
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she is a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Kim O'Hara »

Wikipedia tells you who she is.
Whether she is 'a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon' depends on what standards you want to apply. Has she ever been revered by any Buddhists anywhere? or, Is she revered by your own school? or, Is she revered by all Mahayana schools? or ... etc. That becomes quite subjective, doesn't it?

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she is a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Zhen Li »

Yes, she is valid and is a very popular figure to be depicted in Indian art from around the 9th to 12th centuries. She is essentially a representation of the dispensation of the Dharma, and her mudras and iconography in many ways, imitate those of Śākyamuni. In fact, at the height of her popularity, we see more Prajñāpāramitā Devī images than Śākyamuni images.

As for who she is, she is not in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. She appears in the Sādhanamāla, the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra, and the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi, so her rise in popularity coincides with the development of Vajrayāna. Because of her iconographic similarity, she has been mistaken for Cundā but they are distinct. So, she is a Vajrayāna level identification of the Prajñāpāramitā, which on the non-Vajrayāna level can be identified with the book. So, iconographically, she can be taken to embody the Dharma maṇḍala, which has the Prajñāpāramitā at its core.

There's a book on this topic "Imagining Wisdom: Seeing and Knowing in the Art of Indian Buddhism" by Jacob Kinnard. It might answer some of your questions in more depth.
Nalanda
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:35 am

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she is a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Nalanda »

Zhen Li wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:15 am Yes, she is valid and is a very popular figure to be depicted in Indian art from around the 9th to 12th centuries. She is essentially a representation of the dispensation of the Dharma, and her mudras and iconography in many ways, imitate those of Śākyamuni. In fact, at the height of her popularity, we see more Prajñāpāramitā Devī images than Śākyamuni images.

As for who she is, she is not in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. She appears in the Sādhanamāla, the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra, and the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi, so her rise in popularity coincides with the development of Vajrayāna. Because of her iconographic similarity, she has been mistaken for Cundā but they are distinct. So, she is a Vajrayāna level identification of the Prajñāpāramitā, which on the non-Vajrayāna level can be identified with the book. So, iconographically, she can be taken to embody the Dharma maṇḍala, which has the Prajñāpāramitā at its core.

There's a book on this topic "Imagining Wisdom: Seeing and Knowing in the Art of Indian Buddhism" by Jacob Kinnard. It might answer some of your questions in more depth.
Thanks.

How do you know a lot.

I want to be like you.
IF YOU PRACTICE WITH A STRONG BELIEF IN WHAT
YOU ARE DOING, THEN THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT
YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR PRACTICE.

CHAKUNG JIGME WANGDRAK RINPOCHE

User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she is a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Zhen Li »

Nalanda wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:21 am
Zhen Li wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:15 am Yes, she is valid and is a very popular figure to be depicted in Indian art from around the 9th to 12th centuries. She is essentially a representation of the dispensation of the Dharma, and her mudras and iconography in many ways, imitate those of Śākyamuni. In fact, at the height of her popularity, we see more Prajñāpāramitā Devī images than Śākyamuni images.

As for who she is, she is not in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. She appears in the Sādhanamāla, the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra, and the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi, so her rise in popularity coincides with the development of Vajrayāna. Because of her iconographic similarity, she has been mistaken for Cundā but they are distinct. So, she is a Vajrayāna level identification of the Prajñāpāramitā, which on the non-Vajrayāna level can be identified with the book. So, iconographically, she can be taken to embody the Dharma maṇḍala, which has the Prajñāpāramitā at its core.

There's a book on this topic "Imagining Wisdom: Seeing and Knowing in the Art of Indian Buddhism" by Jacob Kinnard. It might answer some of your questions in more depth.
Thanks.

How do you know a lot.

I want to be like you.
Thank you, I just dedicate my life to Buddha Dharma, and my wife.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Zhen Li »

By the way, here is a verse in praise of Prajñāpāramitā as a Devī:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 25451.html
Nalanda
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:35 am

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Nalanda »

Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:59 pm By the way, here is a verse in praise of Prajñāpāramitā as a Devī:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 25451.html
What does "as a Devi" mean? I couldn't find that term Devi in that link.
IF YOU PRACTICE WITH A STRONG BELIEF IN WHAT
YOU ARE DOING, THEN THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT
YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR PRACTICE.

CHAKUNG JIGME WANGDRAK RINPOCHE

User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Zhen Li »

Nalanda wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:43 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:59 pm By the way, here is a verse in praise of Prajñāpāramitā as a Devī:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 25451.html
What does "as a Devi" mean? I couldn't find that term Devi in that link.
Devī is what we mean by "goddess." I believe that god and goddess are terms that shouldn't be used in Buddhism due to the preconceptions people hold about these ideas, the same goes for "sin."
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:04 pm I believe that god and goddess are terms that shouldn't be used in Buddhism...
It results in strained sadhana translations. For devas, asuras, and pretas, these terms are preferred over gods, titans, and ghosts, but in a sadhana, when we are describing an offering goddess, for example, washing water, I think goddess is preferable to devi. But it is a fairly arbitrary choice.
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Miorita »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:29 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:04 pm I believe that god and goddess are terms that shouldn't be used in Buddhism...
It results in strained sadhana translations. For devas, asuras, and pretas, these terms are preferred over gods, titans, and ghosts, but in a sadhana, when we are describing an offering goddess, for example, washing water, I think goddess is preferable to devi. But it is a fairly arbitrary choice.
It doesn't. It's called a deity.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Malcolm »

Miorita wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:18 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:29 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:04 pm I believe that god and goddess are terms that shouldn't be used in Buddhism...
It results in strained sadhana translations. For devas, asuras, and pretas, these terms are preferred over gods, titans, and ghosts, but in a sadhana, when we are describing an offering goddess, for example, washing water, I think goddess is preferable to devi. But it is a fairly arbitrary choice.
It doesn't. It's called a deity.

Can you imagine, "the female deities of washing water...." :rolling: Thanks, I'll keep "goddesses."

Anyway, goddess is a fine English word, as is god:

goddess (n.)
mid-14c., female deity in a polytheistic religion, from god + fem. suffix -esse (see -ess). The Old English word was gyden, corresponding to Dutch godin, German Göttin, Danish gudine, Swedish gudinna. Of mortal women by 1570s. Related: Goddesshood.

god (n.)
Origin and meaning of god
also God; Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." The notion could be "divine entity summoned to a sacrifice."

But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound; see found (v.2)). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. See also Zeus. In either case, not related to good.
User avatar
Karma Dorje
Posts: 1415
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Karma Dorje »

Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:04 pm
Nalanda wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:43 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:59 pm By the way, here is a verse in praise of Prajñāpāramitā as a Devī:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 25451.html
What does "as a Devi" mean? I couldn't find that term Devi in that link.
Devī is what we mean by "goddess." I believe that god and goddess are terms that shouldn't be used in Buddhism due to the preconceptions people hold about these ideas, the same goes for "sin."
That just means they will have to google “devi” first before projecting their Jesus-conditioned hangups on a new gimmick. Ten minutes in any ashram or yoga center will convince you of that. Far better to confront and disrupt confused thinking around well known words than to introduce new obscure loan words imho.
"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Zhen Li »

I would have opted for deity since it's from the western Indo-European cognate of deva, deus. But there's no English feminine, as Malcolm points out, so this becomes limited. However, a deity also has different connotations and obviously Prajñāpāramitā is not a deal. She does not have the same personal characteristics as a dea, she's nirvikalpa, amita, beyond the limits of temporal and spacial boundaries that western deities were conceived of having—i.e. they were born, and live in specified places. While there are exceptions to this also in the western tradition, maybe like the Stoic conception of Zeus, it is just easier to not have to explain the differences and use a "new" word for western ears. Also, the Buddha is clearly called devātidevaṃ in plenty of sūtras, but Buddhists are usually fairly adamant in their assistance that the Buddha is not "god." If we are going to call PP devī a goddess, we have to start saying "our god is Buddha"—no thanks.

The idea that Buddhists need to look up deva or devī is a problem is no issue—we use bodhisattva, skandha, anātman, and so forth in everyday speech in Buddhist forums and temples. Also, to suggest that English doesn't need loanwords is to misunderstand the nature of English—English is all about loan words.

As for whether devī is a new obscure loan word, OED lists it starting in 1800 and has quotes going up to 2002 and denotes it as "in current use." Deva, likewise, is in current use. So these are neither new nor that obscure. It's frequency is in "Frequency Band 4," meaning the word occurs "Between 0.1 and 1.0 times per million words in typical modern English usage." Other examples include "overhang, life support, register, rewrite, nutshell, candlestick, rodeo."
Nalanda
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:35 am

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Nalanda »

Devi and Deva, just go confuse the ashram centers. :jumping:
IF YOU PRACTICE WITH A STRONG BELIEF IN WHAT
YOU ARE DOING, THEN THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT
YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR PRACTICE.

CHAKUNG JIGME WANGDRAK RINPOCHE

Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:00 am, but Buddhists are usually fairly adamant in their assistance that the Buddha is not "god." If we are going to call PP devī a goddess, we have to start saying "our god is Buddha"—no thanks.
I was referring to offering goddesses, not major figures, even so, in Tibetan Buddhism we refer to the creation stage as Deity Yoga. And in that context PP is a deity, like Tara, etc. but thus all an argument over nothing.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Zhen Li »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:10 am
Zhen Li wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:00 am, but Buddhists are usually fairly adamant in their assistance that the Buddha is not "god." If we are going to call PP devī a goddess, we have to start saying "our god is Buddha"—no thanks.
I was referring to offering goddesses, not major figures, even so, in Tibetan Buddhism we refer to the creation stage as Deity Yoga. And in that context PP is a deity, like Tara, etc. but thus all an argument over nothing.
Even deity, I have noticed, has been something that many newcomers to Mahāyāna/Vajrayāna have found to be a confusing term. If we clarify that it stands for deva or devī, which is used simply to refer to a respected and honoured figure (including monarchs) and not necessarily only those non-human higher realms, then any term is fine. This is the same with the use of the term "noble" and "lord" in translations, they have no necessarily feudal connotations in their Sanskrit equivalents.

At the end of the day, this is the prerogative of translators and everyone has their preferences. Translators can expect more or less of readers, and I think if we expect openness to cultural terms and ideas that are not necessarily present in the west, as well as a slightly above average intelligence, retaining terms like prajñā, devī, bhagavān, is fine.

I tend to agree with Xuanzangs' five guidelines for not-translating a term. This is translated by Martha Cheung in "An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation" (i.157–8) as follows (keep in mind that the Pinyin pronunciation she gives is not reflective of pronunciation in Middle Chinese, which would be far closer to the Sanskrit):
... In the Tang Dynasty [618–907 CE] the eminent Xuan Zang set down five guidelines for not-translating a term [and using a transliteration instead].
First, if a term partakes of the occult, it is not-translated. For example, “tuóluóní” [pronounced “tuó-luó-ní” in Chinese, meaning “mantra” or “magic spell”; “dhāraṇi” in San- skrit].
Second, if a term has multiple meanings, it is not-translated. An example is “bójiāfàn” [pronounced “bó-jiā-fàn” in Chinese; “bhagavat” in Sanskrit]. In the Fàn [Sanskrit] language, this term has six meanings [namely sovereignty, glory, austerity, name, fortune and honour].
Third, if the object represented by a term does not exist in this part of the world, that term is not-translated. An example is “yánfú shù” [pronounced “yán-fú-shù” in Chinese, the character “shù” being the Chinese generic name for “tree”; “jambu” in Sanskrit]. In actual fact, no such tree exists in our land [China].
Fourth, if a past rendering of a term has become established and accepted, the term is not-translated. An example is “ānòu pútí” [pronounced “ā-nòu-pú-tí” in Chinese; “anubodhi” in Sanskrit]. The term is not untranslatable, but ever since the time of Kāśyapa-Mātaṅga [d. 73 CE] [who, according to tradition, accompanied the first envoys back to China in 64 CE], its Fàn [Sanskrit] pronunciation – “ā-nòu-pú-tí” – has always been kept.246
Fifth, if a term elicits positive associations, it is not-translated. An example is “bōrě” [pronounced as “bō-rě” in Chinese; “prajñā” in Sanskrit], which carries a sense of authority and has weight. But when the term [“prajñā”] is semantically translated into “zhìhuì” [meaning “wisdom”], its meaning becomes lighter and shallower. There are other similar examples of benightedness. “Shìjiāmóuní” [pronounced “Shì-jiā-móu-ní” in Chinese; “Śākyamuni” in Sanskrit, the name of the historical figure of the Buddha] is translated as “Nengren” [literally “(the) able (and) benevolent”], but such a name is inferior in status to the Duke of Zhou [d. 1105 BCE] and Kongzi [both great sages in ancient China]. Another example, “ānòu pútí” [pronounced “ā-nòu-pú-tí” in Chinese; “anubodhi” in Sanskrit] is translated as “zhèngbiànzhī” [literally “correct and all-embracing knowledge/awareness”], but this makes its meaning indistinguishable from the teachings of Laozi, a philosopher of this land, who preached the first and highest, correct and true Way. Yet another example is the term “pútísàduǒ” [pronounced as “pú-tí-sà-duǒ” in Chinese; “bodhisattva” in Sanskrit], which is often translated as “dàdàoxīn zhòngshēng” [literally, “all-beings-with- a-mind-for-the-truth”]. All these names are mundane and bad; they should be covered up and not-translated [remaining in transliteration as “shì-jiā-móu-ní”, “ā-nòu-pú-tí” , and “pú-tí-sà-duǒ” respectively]... .
As for Deva, the Chinese were equally divided as English speakers. There's both transliteration (提婆, 提波, 提和, 提桓, etc) and simple translation (天 and 天神). So, it's up in the air for them as well.
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Miorita »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm
Miorita wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:18 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:29 pm
It results in strained sadhana translations. For devas, asuras, and pretas, these terms are preferred over gods, titans, and ghosts, but in a sadhana, when we are describing an offering goddess, for example, washing water, I think goddess is preferable to devi. But it is a fairly arbitrary choice.
It doesn't. It's called a deity.

Can you imagine, "the female deities of washing water...." :rolling: Thanks, I'll keep "goddesses."
No, I cannot! Goddesses don't make offerings. They take offerings.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:37 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:10 am
Zhen Li wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:00 am, but Buddhists are usually fairly adamant in their assistance that the Buddha is not "god." If we are going to call PP devī a goddess, we have to start saying "our god is Buddha"—no thanks.
I was referring to offering goddesses, not major figures, even so, in Tibetan Buddhism we refer to the creation stage as Deity Yoga. And in that context PP is a deity, like Tara, etc. but thus all an argument over nothing.
Even deity, I have noticed, has been something that many newcomers to Mahāyāna/Vajrayāna have found to be a confusing term.
Well, given that newcomers to Mahayana and Vajrayana are usually completely confused about everything, there are only so many training wheels which be provided. A lot they have to sort out themselves.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Zhen Li »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:44 am
Zhen Li wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:37 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:10 am

I was referring to offering goddesses, not major figures, even so, in Tibetan Buddhism we refer to the creation stage as Deity Yoga. And in that context PP is a deity, like Tara, etc. but thus all an argument over nothing.
Even deity, I have noticed, has been something that many newcomers to Mahāyāna/Vajrayāna have found to be a confusing term.
Well, given that newcomers to Mahayana and Vajrayana are usually completely confused about everything, there are only so many training wheels which be provided. A lot they have to sort out themselves.
Agreed, regardless of the term used. Anyway, this discussion probably should be split off in a separate thread, since it doesn't have anything to do with Prajñāpāramitā specifically.
Anders
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Who is Goddess Prajnaparamita and is she a valid part of the Buddhist pantheon?

Post by Anders »

On another note, that statue from Java in the OP is absolutely gorgeous.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”