nifestation of Krishna in his divine
form is like the transformation scenes of the Lotus.[181] The chief
moral principle of the Bhagavad-gita is substantially the same as that
prescribed for Bodhisattvas. It teaches that action is superior to
inaction, but that action should be wholly disinterested and not
directed to any selfish object. This is precisely the attitude of the
Bodhisattva who avoids the inaction of those who are engrossed in
self-culture as much as the pursuit of wealth or pleasure. Both the
Gita and Mahayanist treatises lay stress on faith. He who thinks on
Krishna when dying goes to Krishna[182] just as he who thinks on
Amitabha goes to the Happy Land and the idea is not unknown to the
Pali texts, for it finds complete expression in the story of
Matthakundali.[183]

The idea of a benevolent deity to be worshipped with devotion and
faith and not with ceremonies is strange to old Buddhism and old
Brahmanism alike. It was a popular idea which became so strong that
neither priests nor Bhikshus could ignore it and in its ultimate
result it is hard to say whether Buddhist or Brahmanic elements are
more prominent. Both Avalokita and Krishna are Devas. The former has
the beauty of holiness and the strength which it gives, but also the
weakness of a somewhat abstract figure: the latter is very personal
and springs from the heart of India but to those who are not Hindus
seems wanting in purity and simplicity. The divine character of both
figures is due to Brahmanism rather than Buddhism, but the new form of
worship which laid stress on a frame of mind rather than on ceremonial
and the idea of Avataras or the periodic appearance of superhuman
saviours and teachers indicate the influence of Buddhism on
Brahmanism.

There is a similar parallel between the newer Buddhist philosophy and
the Vedantist school represented by Sankara, and Indian critics
detected it. Sankara was called a Pracchanna-bauddha or
crypto-buddhist by his theological opponents[184] and the resemblance
between the two systems in thought, if not in word, is striking. Both
distinguish relative and absolute truth: for both the relative truth
is practically theism, for both absolute truth is beyond description
and whether it is called Brahman, Dharma-kaya or Sunyata is not
equivalent to God in the Christian or Mohammedan sense. Just as for
the Vedantist there exist in the light of the highest knowledge
neither a personal God nor an individual soul,