Welcome to the homepage of the Shantideva Society, a research fellowship and academic trust commissioned by the regents of the Mahabodhi Sunyata Seminario and the lineage holders of the Chinese Madhyamika tradition in Tarragona, Spain.

Embracing the Bodhisattva Dharma as a means in and of itself, the members of the Shantideva Society are dedicated to the realization of the Bodhisattva spirit as it existed within the early Buddhist community and the development of that spirit through the teachings of Acharya Shantideva, the author of the Bodhicaryavatara.

The Bodhisattva spirit is an inclusive, life-affirming spirit which transcends not only ethnicity, gender, and the cultural variations of practice, but one which transcends Buddhism, as the Bodhisattva spirit can recognize the appropriateness to be found in the practices and traditions of other faiths that are inclusive and life-affirming.

Although there has been quite a bit of confusion in regard to the historical Acharya Shantideva, including questions about the original number of chapters and various dates assigned to the Bodhicaryavatara, this is more related to a politically motivated preference for the Tibetan tradition and a failure within Buddhist scholarship to examine the history of southeastern Bangladesh, the region which has always been associated with Acharya Shantideva.

Because of this, the Ven. Master Shan-jian Da-shi and the regents of the Mahabodhi Sunyata Seminario de España established the Bodhicaryavatara Historical Project (BHP), not only to document what is known about the historical Acharya Shantideva and the composition of the Bodhicaryavatara, but also to evaluate the academic research of the Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project, with the Ven. J.M. Dharmakara Boda (Shan-tao Shi-Xiong), the guardian of the Shantideva Society, serving as the project's exectutive director.

Offering not only a documented history, but also an anchoring point in the development of Mahayana Buddhism, there were two different individuals in the Samatata territory of southeastern Bangladesh named "Shantideva" and both would leave their mark on Buddhism as it was practiced in the region.

The first to appear within Bengal history is the Acharya Shantideva of the Indian Madhyamika tradition, the founder of the Avaivartika Sangha in the 6th century, and he should be considered the author of the Bodhicaryavatara in it's original composition of nine chapters, while his namesake, the later Shantideva who is identified within the Tibetan tradition as a student at the university of Nalanda in the 8th century, could only have expounded on the Bodhisattva ideal from within the understanding of his predecessor and should be considered the author of the post-dedication which would become the tenth chapter of the Bodhicaryavatara.

The Bodhicaryavatara actually offers evidence of the tenth chapter as a post-dedication in the opening verse of the chapter itself: "May all sentient beings be graced with the Bodhisattva way of life by the virtue I have obtained while reflecting on the Bodhicaryavatara", which refers to an existing composition at the time that the tenth chapter was added, but this verse, as well as others, suffered in the Tibetan translation due to linguistic limitations and is only apparent in the Sanskrit original.

While many of the variations found within Tibetan versions of the Bodhicaryavatara are minor, as shown above, they become critical in the eighth and ninth chapters, where even Stephen Batchelor has rejected his English translation derived from Tibetan sources and voiced concerns over the erroneous footnotes which continue to appear with each reprint of the edition which bears his name.

Upon a closer examination of the Tibetan tradition, one immediately notices a re-assessment of the importance of the Bodhicaryavatara, beginning when the first Tibetan lamas came to the West and discovered two very popular books already in print: the Tibetan Book of the Dead (Bardo Thodol), which actually has nothing to do with Buddhism, and the Bodhicaryavatara translated from Sanskrit.

It is only at this point that the Tibetan claim of possessing an indepth realization of the Bodhicaryavatara comes to the surface and takes on a life of it's own, not before. This is also evident when one compares Acharya Shantideva to Atisha Dipankar, where the latter's historical writings can barely be distinguished from the apocryphal and tantric literature attributed to him within Tibetan Buddhism, but there is no such literature attributed to Acharya Shantideva.

Such statements should not be taken out of context, as there are many excellent Tibetan commentaries related to the practice of Bodhisattva Dharma, but it needs to be stated that no tradition withstands historical truth, not even under the guise of expedient means.

With this in mind, the Bodhicaryavatara Historical Project would also undertake a critical examination of the Dharma Treasury of the Golden Mouth of the Buddha, which represents not only the early transmission lineage that was later incorporated within Chan Buddhism, but it provides a rare glimpse into the earliest tradition regarding the last three adopted "patriarchs" of this lineage:

By all accounts Simhabodhi's martyrdom occurred in the middle of the first decade of the 6th century (505/506 CE) and this evil King Dammira can be none other than Mahir-Gul of the Huns, as he is the only tyrant recorded in this period of Kashmir history. To say that Mahir-Gul was "evil" would be an understatement, as he would have been a kindered spirit and suitable role model for Vlad Tepes, better known as Vlad the Impaler, the historical prince of Wallachia who served as the inspiration behind Bram Stoker's "Dracula".

Mahir-Gul's arrival in Kashmir in 501 CE is recorded with the description of thousands of vultures and crows in the sky, feeding on the bodies of those being massacred by his encircling army, as well as his infamous depravity in having pushed a herd of one hundred elephants off of the Pir Panchal Pass outside of Kashmir, just so he could hear their agonizing screams as they lay dying at the bottom.

It is within this history that we find not only the world in which Acharya Shantideva lived, as well as the catalyst that would lead to the composition of the Bodhicaryavatara, but also a timely confirmation that a realized Bodhisattva is not "made" or created through empowerments and rituals, but that he or she is forged in the fires of human suffering --- the same fires which continue to ravish the world today, fueled by ignorance, intolerance, and greed.

The tradition in regard to Acharya Shantideva is quite specific among the Chan Ssu Lun of the Chinese Madhyamika School of Four Treatises --- that he was allowed to establish an independent community with the permission of the Indian Madhyamikas, who had cited Arya Rahulabhadra's much earlier encouragement of diversity, and as such it was outside of the lineage and control of the university of Nalanda.

It should also be noted that the Chan Ssu Lun considers the Bodhicaryavatara to be a "primer" for the instruction of novices, the same purpose as the Siksasamuccaya, also attributed to Acharya Shantideva, and that any transmission, direct or otherwise, would have been the profound understanding of Nagarjuna and not the Bodhicaryavatara:

"There is nothing here that has not been said before, nor do I have any skill in composition. Thus, I have no concern for the welfare of others, and I have composed this solely to season my own mind." (BCA 1:2)

This understanding of the Bodhicaryavatara is related to Master Fa-tsang (643-712 CE) and the belief that he carried an unintroduced branch of the Madhyamika school into China, a belief not only shared in common by most Chinese Buddhists, but the existence of this new school is clearly reflected within Fa-tsang's Commentary on the Mahayana Awakening of Faith (Qixinlun Yiji).

During Fa-tsang's lifetime road travel between China and Bangladesh was impossible, not to mention dangerous because of invading armies and unlawfulness, and the only safe passage was by sailing into the Sea of Bengal, then crossing through the heartlands of the Samatata territory. Even the dispersion of the Bodhicaryavatara and other Buddhist writings were affected by this, as traveling through Gandhara would have been willful suicide.

Any questions in regard to the differences between the Tibetan and Chan Ssu Lun traditions were answered through a series of archaeological discoveries, beginning with the Gunaighar Grant Copperplate in 1925, which records not only the donation of land to the Avaivartika Sangha, but it also mentions Acharya Shantideva by name in the 188th Year of the Gupta Era (506 CE).

Although the first published report on the copperplate contained several errors --- with the most obvious one being "Va [ya] vartika", designating the difference between Buddhist Non-Duality and that of the Brahmic (to not fall back in illusion) --- it appears that the author of the report was aware of the tradition of an independent Madhyamika school, but he was clearly more familiar with the Tibetan pseudo-biographies, the historical value of which would be later challenged by academia in general:

The plate records a gift of land from the camp of victory at Kripura by Maharaja Vainyagupta made at the instance of his vassal Maharaja Rudradatta in favour of a Buddhist congregation of monks belonging to the Vaivarttika sect of the Mahayana, which was established by a Buddhist monk, Acaryya Santideva in a Vihara dedicated to Avalokitesvara.

The name seems to have reference to the doctrine of Vivarta (Illusion), which found so much currency in post-Sankara Vedantism, but the term is never used in Buddhist philosophy as far as we know.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting fact that in the far Eastern corner of India, Mahayana Buddhism flourished under the broad patronage of both Buddhist and Brahmanic kings fully a century before the time of Yuan Chwang and allowed one of its teachers to found a new and distinct school of monks. It is tempting to identify Acaryya Santideva of our plate with the famous Mahayana teacher of the same name who wrote the Siksasamuccaya and the Bodhicaryavatara. There is nothing however to show that they are identical.

Excerpted from:
The Indian Historical Quarterly
Vol 6:1 /1930/ pp. 45-60

The keyword within the above excerpt is "identical" because the author of the report was not aware of, nor looking for, two different Shantidevas who would not only leave distinctive marks, but who were clearly related to the same ancestral family, with their lives and histories interwoven in ways which otherwise would have been impossible, as they occured within the environs of the same lands donated to the Avaivartika Sangha.

Contrary to the Tibetan tradition, the later Shantideva who is claimed to have studied at Nalanda did in fact become a king within the Samatata territory, having been shown through archaeological discoveries which record him as the first king of the Deva dynasty, a line of Buddhist rulers (approx. 750 - 850 CE) who considered the Bodhisattva ideal to be the highest Dharma and made the welfare of all sentient beings the law of their lands.

Although it cannot be said with certainty whether the tenth chapter was added before or after he became the ruler of the Samatata territory, the same cannot be said about the dynamics that would bring the Deva dynasty into existence, as their family lands were instrumental in maintaining the independence of the region because of their location on the Mainamati Ridge. The Deva dynasty was a kingship of necessity, during a time when lawlessness ruled over Bangladesh and the country had been overwhelmed by repeated foreign invasions, which included both the Tibetan and Mongolian armies in the North.

Spanning over four generations and establishing a culture of peace and prosperity in the Samatata territory, the succession of the Deva dynasty can be traced through several copperplates in the possession of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta, the respected publishers of the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh: beginning with Shantideva; then his son and successor, Viradeva; followed by the latter's son and successor, Anandadeva; and finally the latter's son and successor, Bhavadeva, the last known king of the dynasty.

Of the Deva dynasty, it would be Anandadeva, the grandson of Shri Shantideva, who would leave the most extensive legacy behind, including a monastic university that would not only cast it's shadow over the university of Nalanda, but more than likely became a contributing factor in the older institution's fall into disrepair, as the newer university continued to thrive during the same time period.

In comparison with the life-spans of other ruling families, the Deva dynasty was short-lived, but the very culture and society they gave birth to would survive for years after them, shown not only through the peaceful transfer from one ruling dynasty to another, but also through the reports of travelers of the time who continued to comment on the region's unique expression of the Dharma, ending only when the region ceased to be a seat of authority in the 11th century, followed later by the eventual fall of Bangladesh to the conquering armies of Islam.