Upload
dmont
View
91
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
BUDDHISM IN THE SHADOW OF BRAHMANISM
Citation preview
JB-BB 1
27.10.2010
BUDDHISMINTHESHADOWOFBRAHMANISM
by
JohannesBronkhorst
JB-BB 2
27.10.2010
I.INTRODUCTION:BUDDHISMBEFORETHENEWBRAHMANISMThe original context Interactions Imperial help
II.BRAHMANISMII.1ThenewBrahmanismII.2ThespreadofSanskritII.3ThebrahmanicalcolonizationofthepastII.4Thebrahmanizationofborrowedfeatures
III.BUDDHISMCONFRONTEDWITHBRAHMANISM
III.1AcourtlychallengeIII.2ScienceandreligioninclassicalIndiaIII.3AnewlanguageAppendix to chapter III.3: Jainism, Mathur and Sanskrit III.4BuddhistHybridSanskrit,theoriginallanguageIII.5Buddhismsanskritized,BuddhismbrahmanizedIII.6PhilosophicalencountersIII.7TherelicsoftheBuddhaRelic worship What happened to the body of the Buddha? Appendix to chapter III.7: What happened to Mahvras body? III.8AdjustmenttopoliticalrealityReferencesAbbreviationsIndex
JB-BB 3
27.10.2010
I.INTRODUCTION:BUDDHISMBEFORETHENEWBRAHMANISM
The original context
Buddhism,weareoftentold,wasareactionagainstvedicBrahmanism.Vedic
BrahmanismisthereligionthatfindsexpressionintheVeda,animmensecorpus
oftexts.VedicBrahmanism,wearemadetounderstand,ismucholderthan
BuddhismandwasindeedthedominantreligioninnorthernIndia,includingthe
areainwhichBuddhismarose.
Idonotsharethisopinion.Idonotdenythatmanyvedictextsexisted
already,inoralform,atthetimewhentheBuddhawasborn.However,the
bearersofthistradition,theBrahmins,didnotoccupyadominantpositioninthe
areainwhichtheBuddhapreachedhismessage,andthismessagewasnot,
therefore,areactionagainstbrahmanicalthoughtandculture.
IhavearguedthispositionatlengthinabookGreater Magadhathat
cameoutin2007.Inthisintroductionnofulljusticecanbedonetothearguments
therepresented.Inordertounderstandwhatfollows,itisyetnecessarytobe
acquaintedwithsomeofitsfindings.Thesewillherebebrieflyreviewed.Further
information,argumentsandreferencescanbefoundinGreater Magadha.1
WedonotknowexactlywhenthehistoricalBuddhadied.Foralongtime
Buddhistscholarsthoughttheyknew.MostWesternscholarsagreeduponadate
closetotheyear480BCE.Fewscholarsstillacceptthisdate.Astudyinwhich
1GeoffreySamuel,inarecentpublication(2008:48ff.;also61ff.)whichhoweverrefersbacktoanearlierunpublishedmanuscriptofThomasHopkins,presentsonthebasisofprimarilyarchaeologicalevidenceanotionoftwoculturalprocessesmovingmoreorlessconcurrentlytowardtheuseofironandurbanizationfromtwoseparatesources:oneintheeasternPunjab,Rajasthan,theDoab,andnorthwardtotheHimalayaswestof81longitude,identifiedwiththePaintedGreyWarecultureandtheAryans;theotherbasedontheEasternGangeticculturewithitsapparentinitialconnectiontotheMalwa-typeculturalcomplexintheregionofPatna,inthevalleysoftheGhagaraandGandakriversnorthwestofPatna,andwestwardtotheregionaroundthelowerDoab.ThetwoareascorrespondtothosedistinguishedinGreater Magadha.Tothelistofaspectsinwhichthetwoworldsmayhavedifferedfromeachother,Samuel(p.89ff.)addsgenderattitudes.Samuelisnodoubtrightinconcluding(p.343):ItseemstomethataninitialtensionbetweenthevaluesofthevedicsocietyofKuru-PaclaandthoseoftheCentralGangeticregioncanbesensedthroughmuchoftheearlydevelopmentofIndicreligions,andinvariouswayscontinuesintomuchlatertimes.
JB-BB 4
27.10.2010
manyparticipatedhasnotledtoaresultuponwhichscholarsagree.2However,
manyofthemapproveofadatenottoodistantintimefromtheyear400BCE,
giveortakeafewdecadesineitherdirection.400BCEmeansbeforethe
incursionintoIndiabyAlexanderofMacedoniainthesecondhalfofthefourth
centuryBCE,alsobeforethecreationofalargeempireinnorthernIndiabythe
NandasandtheMauryaspresumablyfromthemiddleofthefourthcenturyBCE
onward,andmuchbeforetheSanskritgrammarianPatajali,whomweknowto
havelivedaroundtheyear150BCE.
ThisSanskritgrammarianprovidesuswithsomeinterestinginformation
abouttheheartlandofBrahmanisminhistime.Hecallsitlandoftheryas
(ryvarta),andsituatesinessentiallyintheGangesplain,betweentheThar
desertinthewestandtheconfluenceoftheriversGanges(Gag)andJumna
(Yamun)intheeast.3ExactlythesameexpressionisusedagainintheMnava
Dharmastra,atextthatwascomposedthreetofourcenturieslater.4Here,
however,thelandoftheryas(ryvarta)extendsfromtheeasterntothe
westernsea,andisthereforemuchlargerthanPatajalisryvarta.This
suggeststhatanimportantchangehadtakenplacebetweenthesecondcentury
BCEandthesecondorthirdcenturyCE:TheBrahminsofthesecondcentury
BCElookedupontheeasternGangesvalleyasmoreorlessforeignterritory,the
BrahminsofthesecondorthirdcenturiesCElookeduponitastheirland.
ThischangeconcernstheeastwardspreadofBrahmanism.Thisshouldnot
beconfusedwiththemoveeastwardofindividualBrahmins,eventhoughthetwo
areconnected.Brahminscarrytheclaimofbeingsuperiortoothermembersof
society.AregionthathasanumberofBrahminslivinginitbutwhichdoesnot
recognizetheBrahminsclaimtosuperiorityisnotbrahmanized.Itbecomes
2Bechert,1986;1991;1992;1995;1997.3Interestingly,thejainatext(Bhat-)Kalpastraalsospeaksofryancountries,inthefollowingmanner:MonksornunsmaywandereastwardasfarasAnga-Magadha,southwardasfarasKosamb,westwardasfarasThandnorthwardasfarasKula.Theymaywanderthusfar,(for)thusfarthereareryancountries,butnotbeyondunlesstheDhammaflourishesthere.(Bolle,1998:xxiv).EventhoughitisdifficulttoidentifyTh,itseemslikelythatthejainaryancountrieslaytotheeastofthebrahmanicallandoftheryas.4SeeBronkhorst,forthcoming,foradiscussionofManusdate.
JB-BB 5
27.10.2010
brahmanizedwhenthisclaimcomestobeaccepted.Untilthattimetheregion
concernedisnotbrahmanicalterritory.
Thepassagesconsideredsuggestthattheregioneastoftheconfluenceof
theGagandtheYamunwasnotconsideredbrahmanicalterritoryatthetime
ofPatajali.ThisdoesnotexcludethattherewereBrahminslivingthere.Rather,
itsuggeststhattheBrahminslivinginitdidnotreceivetheesteemwhichthey
deemedthemselvesentitledto.InPatajalisryvarta,ontheotherhand,we
mayassumethattheydidreceivethisesteem,atleasttosomeextent.
TheregioneastoftheconfluenceoftheGagandtheYamunisof
particularinterestforthestudyofBuddhism.ItistherethatBuddhismarose,itis
therethattheBuddhalivedandpreached.Ifthisregionwasnotyetbrahmanical
territoryatthetimeofPatajali,itwascertainlynotbrahmanicalterritoryatthe
timeoftheBuddha,forPatajalilivedtwoortwoandahalfcenturiesafterthe
deathoftheBuddha.ThebrahmanizationoftheeasternGangesvalleyis
thereforeatopicofthegreatestinterestforthestudyofearlyBuddhism.
Thatthisregionwasnotbrahmanicalterritoryduringthecenturies
separatingtheBuddhafromPatajaliissupportedbythelittleweknowaboutits
politicalhistory.Itisherethatthefoundationswerelaidfortheempirethatcame
tocoveralargepartoftheSouthAsiansubcontinent.Ifoursourcescanbe
believed,noneoftherulersinvolvedwereespeciallyinterestedintheBrahmins
andtheirideas.5TheearlykingsofMagadhareikaBimbisraandAjtaatru
areclaimedastheirownbybothBuddhistsandJainas.TheNandas,whomay
haveconsolidatedimperialpoweratPaliputraaround350BCE,appeartohave
beenzealouspatronsoftheJainas.CandraguptaMauryaoverthrewtheNandas,
butmayhavehadnomoreinterestintheBrahminsthanthosewhomhereplaced.
HehimselfissaidtohaveadoptedJainismanddiedajainasaint.Hisson
Bindusraisbelievedtohavepatronizednon-brahmanicalmovements,
particularlythejvikas.AokawasinterestedinBuddhism;hisimmediate
successorsinjvikismandJainism.Itisonlywiththeugas,whosupposedly
5Forfurtherdetails,seethefinalpartofthisintroductionandchapterII.3,below.
JB-BB 6
27.10.2010
wereBrahminsthemselves,6thatBrahminsmayhavebeguntooccupytheplace
insocietywhichtheythoughtwasrightfullytheirs.Thishappenedaround185
BCE.Fortyorfiftyyearslater,Patajalithegrammarianwasstillnotreadyto
lookupontheGangesvalleyeastoftheconfluencewiththeJumnaasbeingpart
ofthelandoftheryas.UntilPatajalisdateandperhapsforsometimeafter
him,oursourcessuggest,theregioneastoftheconfluenceoftheGagandthe
Yamunwasnotbrahmanical.IcallthisareaGreater Magadha.Greater
MagadhacoversMagadhaanditssurroundinglands:roughlythegeographical
areainwhichtheBuddhaandMahvralivedandtaught.Withregardtothe
Buddha,thisareastretchedbyandlargefromrvast,thecapitalofKosala,in
thenorthwesttoRjagha,thecapitalofMagadha,inthesoutheast.Thisareawas
neitherwithoutculturenorwithoutreligion.Itisinthisareathatmostofthe
secondurbanizationofSouthAsiatookplacefromaround500BCEonward.Itis
alsointhisareathatanumberofreligiousandspiritualmovementsarose,most
famousamongthemBuddhismandJainism.Alltheseeventstookplacewithin,
andweremanifestationsof,thecultureofthatpartofnorthernIndia.
Vedicandearlypost-vedicliteraturecontainslittletoinformusaboutthe
cultureofitseasternneighbours.However,apassageoftheatapatha Brhmaa
speaksaboutthedemonicpeopleoftheeastwhowereinthehabitof
constructingsepulchralmoundsthatwereround,unlikethefour-corneredones
usedbythefollowersoftheVeda.Theseconstructionswerenodoubtthe
ancestorsofthestpas,well-knownfromBuddhism.Jainism,too,hadandhasits
stpas,ashadjvikism,itseems.7Wemustconcludethatstpa-like
constructionswereafeatureoffunerarypracticesinGreaterMagadha.
AnotherfeatureofthespiritualcultureofGreaterMagadhaisespecially
important,viz.itssharedspiritualideology.Knowingitisnecessaryifonewishes
tounderstandthebackgroundofearlyBuddhism.Thisideologycomprisedthe
6Foradiscussionoftheevidence,seeTsuchida,2009:14f.Bhandare(2006:97),onthebasisofnumismaticevidence,statesthefollowing:ugas,iftheyeverexisted,wereprobablyaslocalizedastherestofthegroupsweknowfromcoinsintermsoftheirpoliticalprowess.McClish(2009:326),referringtoBhandare,suggeststhatitwastheveryinsignificanceoftheugasthatmadethemresorttopoliticalBrahmanismasawaytobolstertheirpoliticalpower.7SeefurtherchapterIII.7,below.
JB-BB 7
27.10.2010
beliefinrebirthandkarmicretribution.Thisbeliefwasinterpreteddifferentlyby
differentreligiouscurrentsofthearea.Thedifferenceofinterpretationdidnot
primarilyconcernthebeliefinrebirthandkarmicretributionassuch,butrather
whatonecandoaboutit.Buddhismstoodoutininterpretingthebeliefitself
differently(seebelow).Allothercurrentsthatweknowofsharedthebeliefthat
alldeedsbringaboutkarmicretribution;thosewhowishtoavoidkarmic
retributionarethereforeconfrontedwiththechallengetoputanendtoall
activity.ThiscanbemosteasilyshowninthecaseofearlyJainism.
ThemostcharacteristictraitofearlyJainismisthatitteachesawayof
asceticisminwhichsuppressionofallactivityiscentral,especiallyinitsmore
advancedstages.Abstainingfromallactivityhastheobviousconsequencethat
therewillbenonewdeedsleadingtokarmicretribution.Whatismore,the
painfulnatureoftheseasceticpracticesinwhichpractitionersremain
motionlessforverylongstretchesoftime,inspiteofheat,cold,exhaustion,
attacksbyinsectsandinterferencebymeddlesomebystanderswasinterpreted
tobringaboutthedestructionofthetracesofearlierdeedsthathadnotyet
sufferedretribution.Thepractitionerwhoisclosetothegoalstarvestodeathina
stateoftotalrestraintwithregardtoallactivityandmovement.Itisthe
culminationofalifeoftrainingandpreparation.
Thisdescription,thoughshort,givesusaclearandintelligiblepictureof
thewaytoliberationinearlyJainism.Activitybeingthesourceofall
unhappiness,themonktriestostopitinamostradicalmanner.Heabstainsfrom
foodandpreparesfordeathinapositionwhichisasmotionlessaspossible.
EarlyJainism,then,hadastraightforwardanswertotheproblemposedby
thebeliefinrebirthandkarmicretribution.Thosewhodidnotwanttobereborn
hadtoabstainfromallactivity,bodilyaswellasmental.Theresultwouldbe
twofold.Ontheonehandtherewouldbenomoredeedsthatwouldclamourfor
retribution;ontheother,earlierdeedswouldberenderedineffectualbythose
sameasceticpractices.Togetherthesetwoaspectsofasceticismmightleadthe
ascetictothepointwhere,atdeath,nomorekarmicretributionisrequired.This
asceticwouldthennotbereborn:hewouldbefreedfromthecycleofrebirths.
JB-BB 8
27.10.2010
Obviouslythecompleteimmobilizationpractisedbytheearlyjaina
asceticsonlymakessenseontheassumptionthatalldeeds,bothbodilyand
mental,weredeemedtoleadtokarmicretribution.Itwasevidentlynotsufficient
tomerelyabstainfromcertaindeeds,e.g.,immoraldeeds.No,eventhemost
innocentactivities,rightdowntobreathingitself,hadtobestoppedbythosewho
seriouslyaspiredforliberation.
BesideJainism,therewereotherreligiousmovementswhichoriginatedin
GreaterMagadha,mostnotablyjvikismandBuddhism.Thereishoweverone
reactiontothebeliefinrebirthandkarmicretributiononemethodastowhat
onecandoaboutitwhichwecannotassociatewithanysingleknown
movement,butwhichwecansafelyacceptasbeingaproductofthespiritual
cultureofGreaterMagadha.Itistheconvictionthatacertainkindofknowledge
ofthetruenatureoftheselfcanbringabout,orassist,liberation.Theself,
accordingtothisteaching,isnottouchedbygoodorbadactions.Theadvantages
inknowingsuchaselfagainstthebackgroundofthebeliefthatalldeedshave
karmicconsequenceswillbeobvious.Theselfiswhatonereallyis,different
fromonesbodyandfromonesmind.Thiscoreofonesbeing,thisself,does
notact.Itiseasytounderstandthat,seenfromthevantagepointofthis
knowledge,allkarmicretributionis,intheend,basedonacolossal
misunderstanding.Deedsarecarriedoutbybodyandmind,neitherofwhichare
tobeidentifiedwiththeself.Theselfisdifferentfrombothofthemandcarries
outnoactivitieswhatsoever.SinceIammyselfratherthanmybodyormymind,
Icannotbeaffectedbykarmicretribution.
Knowledgeoftheself,seeninthisway,offersextremelyinteresting
perspectivesforthosewhowishtoescapefromkarmicretribution.Numerous
brahmanicalsourcesadoptedthisidea,whichsometimespresentsitselfasa
competitorofthepathofextremeasceticism.
Interactions
JB-BB 9
27.10.2010
ThisknowledgeoftheculturalandspiritualbackgroundofBuddhismcanhelpus
tounderstandBuddhismaswefinditinitscanonicaltexts.8
Considerfirstthenotionoftheself.Recallthatanumberofreligious
thinkersofGreaterMagadha(orinfluencedbyideascurrentinthisregion)
postulatedtheexistenceofaselfwhichisfundamentallyinactive.Theself,they
maintained,doesnotparticipateinanyactionswhetherbodilyormental.Since
theselfistheinnermostkernelofasentientbeing,itcanbeclaimedthatsentient
beings,asfarastheirinnermostkernelisconcerned,donotparticipateinactions.
Karmicretributionisthereforestrictlyspeakingnotapplicable.Asaresult,those
peoplewhoacquireknowledgeofthetruenatureoftheirinnermostselfhave
madeamajorsteptowardliberationfromrebirthandkarmicretribution.
BuddhismaroseinGreaterMagadha,i.e.,intheregionwheretheseideas
heldsway.ItseemsreasonabletoexpectthatBuddhismwasinfluencedbythis
notionoftheself.Wasit?Doesthenotionofaninactiveselfhaveitsplacein
earlybuddhistthought?Orattheveryleast,wasearlybuddhistthought
acquaintedwiththisnotion?
Theansweristhatearlybuddhistthoughtwasacquaintedwiththisnotion,
butdidnotacceptit.Thiscanbemostclearlyseeninthefollowingpassage,
whichispartofthesecondsermonwhichtheBuddhaissupposedtohave
deliveredafterhisenlightenment,inBenares.Hereheappliesthefollowing
analysistothefiveconstituentsoftheperson:
Whatdoyouthinkaboutthis,monks?Isbody(rpa)permanentorimpermanent?Impermanent,Lord.Butisthatwhichisimpermanentpainfulorpleasurable?Painful,Lord.Butisitfittoconsiderthatwhichisimpermanent,painful,ofanaturetochange,asThisismine,thisamI,thisismyself?Itisnot,Lord.Isfeeling(vedan)[...]perception(sa,Skt.saj)[...]arethehabitualtendencies(sakhra,Skt.saskra)[...]isconsciousness(via,Skt.vijna)permanentorimpermanent?Impermanent,Lord.Butisthatwhichisimpermanentpainfulorpleasurable?
8Fordetails,seeBronkhorst,2009,part1.
JB-BB 10
27.10.2010
Painful,Lord.Butisitfittoconsiderthatwhichisimpermanent,painful,ofanaturetochange,asThisismine,thisamI,thisismyself?Itisnotso,Lord.Wherefore,monks,whateverisbody,past,future,present,orinternalorexternal,orgrossorsubtle,orloworexcellent,whetheritisfarornearallbodyshould,bymeansofrightwisdom,beseen,asitreallyis,thus:Thisisnotmine,thisamInot,thisisnotmyself.Whateverisfeeling[...]whateverisperception[...]whateverarethehabitualtendencies[...]whateverisconsciousness,past,future,present,orinternalorexternal,orgrossorsubtle,orloworexcellent,whetheritisfarornearallconsciousnessshould,bymeansofrightwisdom,beseen,asitreallyis,thus:Thisisnotmine,thisamInot,thisisnotmyself.
Underlyingthispassageanotionoftheselfmanifestsitselfassomething
permanent,unchangingandpleasurable.Indeed,onlythatwhichisnot
impermanent,notpainful,andnotofanaturetochangeisfittobeconsideredas
Thisismine,thisamI,thisismyself.Thisisawayofsayingthatonlythat
whichispermanent,unchangingandpleasurablemightbesuitablyconsideredas
Thisismine,thisamI,thisismyself.Thepassagedoesnotsaythatitaccepts
theexistenceofsuchaself;itmerelystatesthatanythingwhichisimpermanent,
painful,andofanaturetochangecannotbetheself.Thisrulesoutthefive
constituentsofthepersonhereenumerated.Sincenoothercandidatesare
mentioned,thismayimplythattheexistenceofaselfofthisnatureisimplicitly
rejected;thisisnothoweverexplicitlystated.
TheaimoftheteachingoftheBuddhaisevidentlynottodiscoverthereal
self.Inhisteaching,theinsightthattheselfdoesnotplayapartintheactivities
ofbodyandminddoesnothelptoattainliberation.Onthecontrary,the
preoccupationwiththetruenatureoftheselfhastobegivenup.Onlythenoneis
readytofollowthepathshownbytheBuddha.Seenfromthispracticalpointof
view,thequestionastotheexistenceoftheselfisofminorimportance.Themain
thingisthatknowledgeoftheselfplaysnousefulroleontheBuddhaspathto
liberation.
TheearlyBuddhists,then,wereacquaintedwiththenotionofaself
(permanent,unchanging)which,byitsverynature,cannotbetouchedbythe
activitiescarriedoutbyitsbodyandmind.Thisnotionplayed,however,norole
JB-BB 11
27.10.2010
inthesoteriologicalschemeoftheearlyBuddhists.Whetherornottheyaccepted
theexistenceofsuchaself(andIwouldsaythattheyprobablydidnot),they
assignedtoitnosoteriologicalfunction.Knowledgeofsuchaselfwasnotpartof
thebuddhistwaytoenlightenment.
ItfollowsthatBuddhism,thoughacquaintedwithatleastsomeofthe
religiousnotionscurrentinitsearlyenvironment,didnotacceptthemall.Unlike
otherreligiousseekersofitsageandregion,Buddhismdidnotpreachthenotion
ofaninactiveselfwhoseknowledgesupposedlyleadstofreedomfromkarmic
retribution,andthereforetofreedomfromrebirth.
Whatabouttheotherresponsetokarmicretributionthathadfound
followersinGreaterMagadha?RememberthattheJainaswereamongthosewho
hadchosenanasceticpath.Topreventkarmicretribution,theyhadoptedfor
asceticpracticesthatlaidemphasisonphysicalandmentalimmobilisation.The
earlybuddhistdiscoursessometimesrefertoJainas,whomtheycallNigahas
(Skt.nirgrantha,freefromfetters).Theirmethodsareconsistentlyrejectedin
thebuddhisttexts.Thisshows,onceagain,thatearlyBuddhismdidnotacceptall
theideasandpracticesthatwerecurrentinitsareaofbirth.Buddhism
distantiateditselffromthemostprominentideaofthisarea(thatofaninactive
self)andfromitsmostprominentpractice,orratherformofasceticism
(immobilisationofbodyandmind).Buddhism,itappears,taughtadifferentpath
toliberation.
ItfollowsthattheBuddhamadeadistinctionbetweenhisownteaching
andtheasceticmodeoflifeprimarilyfollowedbytheJainas.However,ifwe
acceptthis,weareconfrontedwithapuzzle.Elsewhereintheancientdiscourses
themodeoflifethatishererejectedispropoundedbytheBuddhahimself,
sometimesinexactlythesamewords.Thispeculiarsituationprovidesan
importantkeytoahistoricalunderstandingoftheancientbuddhistcanon.This
canonandthediscourses(Stra,Sutta)inparticulardescribeand
recommendvariouspracticeswhicharepresumablynecessaryforreachingthe
goal.However,notalloftheseweretaughtbytheBuddha.Anumberofthemcan
beidentifiedasreallybelongingtootherreligiouscurrentsthatexistedinGreater
MagadhaandwithwhichBuddhismwasincompetition.
JB-BB 12
27.10.2010
Itiseasytounderstandhowsuchnon-buddhistpracticescouldfindtheir
wayintothebuddhistcanon.TheearlyconvertstoBuddhismweredrawnfrom
GreaterMagadha,someofthemfromreligiouscurrentssuchasJainism.Already
beforetheirconversion,thesepeoplewereinterestedinthegoalofliberation
fromrebirthandkarmicretribution.Someofthemhadperhapsalreadyengaged
innon-buddhistasceticorintellectualpracticestoreachthatgoal.TheBuddha
taughtamethodtoreachthesamegoal,oratleastsomethingthatlookedvery
similartoit.Histeachingsharedanumberofpresuppositionswiththoseother
movements,mostnotablythebeliefinrebirthandkarmicretribution.Itgoes
almostwithoutsayingthatanumberofthoseconvertsbroughtalongwiththem
someotherbeliefsandpractices,someofwhichdidnotagreewiththevisionof
Buddhismsfounder.Someconvertskeptinthismannertheconvictionthatthe
bestwaytoremedykarmicretributionwastoabstainfromallactivity.Thelink
betweenmeansandendinthiscaseseemedsoobviousthatonecanhardlyblame
themforhavingpreservedtheseformsofasceticism.
Itisonethingtoknowthatthebuddhistcanoncontainsamixtureof
authenticandnon-authenticbuddhistpracticesandideas,itissomethingdifferent
altogethertodeterminewhichareauthenticandwhicharenot.However,our
acquaintancewiththeideasandpracticesofothercurrentinGreaterMagadha
allowsustodoso:Ideasandpracticesthatarebothrejectedandrecommendedin
thebuddhistcanonandthatcorrespondtotheculturalandreligiousfeaturesof
GreaterMagadhashouldbeconsideredborrowingsintoBuddhism.Ontheother
hand,ideasandpracticesthatarenotcontradictedintheancientcanonmaybe
acceptedasauthentic.Wethusfollowthegeneralrulethattheteachingsthatthe
ancientdiscoursesascribetotheBuddhacanindeedbeascribedtohim.Only
wheretherearereasonstodoubttheauthenticityofacertainteaching,for
examplebecauseitcontradictsothercanonicalstatements,shouldwedeviate
fromthisrule.
Themethodherepresentedhastheadvantageofallowingforthe
possibilitythatearlyBuddhismintroducedinnovationsintotherealmofideasand
practices.Thisisanadvantage,forthebuddhisttextsstaterepeatedlythatthe
Buddhataughtsomethingnew,somethingthathadnottheretoforebeenknownin
JB-BB 13
27.10.2010
theworld.ThemethoddoesnotdenythattheteachingoftheBuddhashared
certainfeatureswithothermovementsfromthesameregion.Asexampleswe
havealreadymentionedthebeliefinrebirthandkarmicretribution.Onlythose
featuresthatitshareswiththoseothermovementsbutthatarealsorejectedinthe
canonmustbelookeduponwithsuspicion.
ItwillbeclearthatourinitialpurposetounderstandBuddhisminits
originalcontextleadstoamethodologicalprinciplethatmayhelpusdiscoverthe
originalteachingoftheBuddha.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthismethodmustbe
appliedwiththegreatestcareandthatitsresultsmustbeconsideredwitha
healthydoseofscepticism.Toomanyscholarshaveusedtheobscuritythat
surroundsearlyBuddhismasanexcusetoproposemoreorlessfancifultheories.
Wedonotneedmoreofthose.Itisatthesametimeclearthatresearchmoves
forwardbywayofconjecturesandrefutations.Thismeansthatthosewhoare
notwillingtopayattentiontoserioushypothesescontributetoaprocesswhich
rendersaninterestingandlegitimatefieldofinquirysterile.
ThequestionwhatmayhavebeentheoriginalteachingoftheBuddhahas
beendealtwithinthefirstpartofmybookBuddhist Teaching in India(2009).9
Thisquestionwillnotbefurtherpursuedhere.However,onemisunderstanding
aboutthisteachingmayherebementioned,becauseitwillcomeuponceagain
laterinthisbook.Whateveritsdetails,ourexplorationsofarsuggeststhatthe
originalteachingoftheBuddhawasinvariousrespectsradicallydifferentfrom
otherteachingsthatwerecurrentinitstimeandregion.Thebuddhisttexts
themselvesinsistthattheBuddhahaddiscoveredsomethingnew,andthathe
thereforetaughtsomethingnew.Scholarshavenotalwaysbelievedthis,buttheir
scepticismwasnotjustified.SomehaveclaimedthatBuddhismisaspecialtype
ofYoga.TheyassumedthataformofYogasimilartoBuddhismexistedalready
atthetimeoftheBuddha.10Theywerewrongonbothcounts.Itistruethat
9InPartIIofmybookAbsorption: Two studies of human nature(2009a)thedataaresubjectedtofurtheranalysisandreflection.10ThisopinionisfirstfoundinSenart,1900;theninBeck,1916:136f.;inFrauwallner,1953:173;furtherreferencesinDeJong,1997:34-35;finallyKing,1992;contraKloppenborg,1990.Angot(2008:32:plusieurssiclesavantle[Yogastra],duyogataitpratiquparleBuddha,leJinaetdautresavantouaveceux)repeatsanoldmistake.
JB-BB 14
27.10.2010
classicalYogahasseveralpointsincommonwithBuddhism,butthisisdueto
theinfluenceofBuddhismonYogaseveralcenturiesafterthedeathofthe
Buddha.TherearenoindicationsthatclassicalYoga,orsomethinglikeit,existed
athistime.Oneoftheaimsofpre-classicalYogaaswefinditintextslikethe
Mahbhratawas,liketheaimofthepracticeoftheJainas,tosuppressbodily
andmentalactivities;11ithaslittleincommonwiththepracticetaughtbythe
Buddha,anditappearsthattheBuddharegularlytriedtomakethiscleartono
avail.However,wewillseeinalaterchapterthatBuddhismitselfcameto
believethattheBuddhahadpractisedsomekindofYoga.12
Itappears,then,thatalreadytheBuddhismthatweknowfromitsearliesttextsis
aBuddhismthathasbeendeeplymarkedbyitssurroundings.Theseearly
surroundingsdidnotprimarilyconsistofBrahmanism,butratherofthespiritual
ideologyofGreaterMagadha,stillfreefrombrahmanicalinfluence.Brahmanism
cametoplayanimportantroleinthehistoryofIndianBuddhism,andmostofthe
presentbookwilldealwiththis.ItsinfluenceontheBuddhismwhichwefindin
theearliestbuddhisttexts,however,isminimal.
Imperial help
Buddhismwasstillyoungwhenpoliticaleventstookplacethatweretohavea
decisiveinfluenceonitsdevelopment,andonthewayitwasgoingtointeract
withotherreligions.Abriefoutlineofsomeofthesepoliticaleventsisessential.
TheregioninwhichtheBuddhapreachedconsistedathistimeofa
numberofcompetingsmallstates.Thisishowtheregionisdepictedintheearly
buddhistdiscourses,andwehavenoreasontodoubtitsveracity.Oneofthese
stateswascalledMagadha,andthisisonereasonwhyIrefertotheregionasa
wholeasGreaterMagadha.AnotherreasonisthatMagadhawastooutdothe
otherstatesandtobecomethecentreofavastempire.
11Cf.Bronkhorst,1993a:45f.12ChapterIII.5,below.
JB-BB 15
27.10.2010
ThefirstdynastyofempirebuilderswasthatoftheNandas.Littleis
knownaboutthem,exceptthattheirempireatitsheightappearstohaveextended
fromPunjabinthewesttoOrissaintheeast,withitscapitalinPaliputra,in
Magadha.ThelastoftheNandaswasdethroned,intheyear320BCEor
thereabouts,byCandraguptaMaurya,thefounderoftheMauryaempire.
CandraguptawasthegrandfatherofAoka,particularlywell-knownforhaving
leftalargenumberofinscriptionsalloverthesubcontinent.Itappearsthatthe
empirereacheditsgreatestextentunderhim.13
AslittleasweknowaboutthedifferentrulersoftheNandaandthe
Mauryadynasties,onethemecomesbackwithgreatregularity:mostofthem
werewelldisposedtowardthereligionsofGreaterMagadha,primarilyJainism
andjvikism.ThemainexceptionisAoka,whoconvertedtoBuddhism.The
Nandasarerememberedfortheiranti-brahmanicalstance,andwewillseethat
theMauryasappeartohavefollowedtheminthis,too.Perhapsthispreferencefor
thereligionsofGreaterMagadhashouldnotsurpriseus.Afterall,boththe
NandasandtheMauryashadtheircapitalinPaliputra,andthereforein
Magadha,intheheartofGreaterMagadha.14
Inspiteoftheirpersonalpreferences,therulersoftheNandaandMaurya
dynastiesdonotappeartohavemadeattemptstoconverttheirsubjectstotheir
religionsofchoice.ThiscanbeshownmostclearlyinthecaseofAoka,because
inhiscase,andonlyhere,wehavelonginscriptionswhichinformusaboutthe
intentionsoftheemperor.Letusconsidertheseinscriptionsinsomedetail.Ill
takeaspointofdepartureachapterinarecentbookbyK.R.Norman,calledA
Philological Approach to Buddhism(2006).ThechapterconcernedisBuddhism
andAoka.
Inhisinscriptions,AokaregularlyemphasizestheimportanceofDharma
(Normanandtheinscriptionshavedhamma).15ThisDharma,Normanargues,
cannotbeidentifiedwiththeBuddha-dharma.Putdifferently,whereAoka
13Smith,1958:83f.;Kulke&Rothermund,1998:56f.14Paliputramayhavebeenthelargestcityoftheancientworld;Schlingloff,1969:29f.SeefurtherChakrabarti,1997:209ff.15AccordingtoOlivelle(2004:505),Aokausesthetermabout111times(excludingtherepetitionsfoundinthemultipleversionsofthesameedi[c]t).
JB-BB 16
27.10.2010
speaksaboutDharma,hedoesnotspeakaboutthebuddhistreligion.Whatthenis
hetalkingabout?NormansremarksaboutthenatureofthisDharmaprovidean
answer(2006:151f.;spellingadjusted):
AokasDharmaissetoutclearlyinseveralinscriptions,e.g.inaconciseforminthesecondMinorRockEdict:Obeyonesparents;obeyoneselders;bekindtolivingcreatures;tellthetruth.Allthisissaidtobeinaccordancewithancientusage(porn pakati)[...]Elsewhere,inthethirdRockEdict,aslightlyexpandedversionofthisisgiven:Obediencetomotherandfatherisgood;liberalitytofriends,acquaintances,andrelatives,toBrahminsandramaasisgood;abstentionfromkillinganimalsisgood;moderationinexpenditureandmoderationinpossessionsisgood[]. Theseriesofsevenedictsonpillars,whichwecallthePillarEdicts,isdevotedtoanexplanationofAokasDharma,withanaccountofhowhehimselfhascompliedwithit,byplantingtreesforshadebytheroadsideanddiggingwellsandbuildingfire-placesformenandanimals.PillarEdict1tellsofgovernmentbyDharma.PillarEdict2statesthatDharmaconsistsofdoinglittlesin,doingmuchgood,showingcompassion,makingdonations,tellingthetruth,andpurity.Aokahasdonemuchgoodbynotkilling.PillarEdict3tellsofgoodandevil,andidentifiedthelatterasfierceness,cruelty,anger,pride,andenvy.PillarEdict4emphasisestheneedforequalityofjusticeandtherehabilitationofprisoners.PillarEdict5prohibitsthekillingofanumberofanimalswhicharespecifiedbyname.PillarEdict6statesthattheaimistobringhappinesstoall.Allsectsaretobehonoured,especiallybypersonalvisits.PillarEdict7seemstobeasummaryofallthatAokahasdone.HeexplainshowkingsinthepasthadsoughttoincreaseDharma.Aokahaddecidedtodoitbypreachingandinstruction,andhadinstitutedDharma-pillars(dhammathambhas)andDharma-ministers(dhammamahmtras)toputthisdecisionintoeffect.The[Dharma-ministers]wereconcernedwithallsects.Dharmaisdefinedagainas:obediencetoparents,obediencetoteachers,respecttotheold,andproperbehaviourtowardsBrahminsandramaas,tothepoor,andtoslavesandservants.TherehadbeenanincreaseofDharmaasaresultofAokaslegislation,e.g.aboutkillinganimals,butalsobecauseofanattitudeofmind,i.e.personalconsciences(nighati).Inthiswaythenextworldisgained. Elsewhere,intheseriesofmajorRockEdicts,wereadthatonemustobeytheDharmaandconformtoit[].ThegiftoftheDharmaisdefinedasthepropertreatmentofslaves,obediencetoparents,etc.,generositytoBrahminsandramaas,andnon-killing.TheDharmagivesendlessmerit[].
Normanconcludesthat,withtheexceptionofsomefewpassages,itisveryclear
thatAokasreferencestoDharmadonotrefertotheBuddhasDharma,and
JB-BB 17
27.10.2010
AokasDharmawasnotthesameastheBuddhasDharma(p.153).Indeed(p.
155),
thosewhotalkofhimmakingBuddhismthestatereligionareverywideoffthemark.Inhisedicts,AokasayslittleornothingaboutBuddhism.ThereisnoreferencetoanyofthebasictenetsofBuddhism,e.g.sasra,mokkha,nibbna,anatt,theeightfoldpathorthefourNobleTruths.IntheSeparateEdictshestatedthathisaimwasthehappinessofall[],andanumberofinscriptionsincludethestatementthathisaimwasthathispeoplemayattainhappinessinthisworld,andheavenintheotherworld.
NormanconcludesthatAokasDharmaisexclusivelyamoralone(p.153),
andobserves:Exceptinsofarasthemoralideasarequiteinconformitywith
buddhistmoralteachings,thereisnohintofanythingexclusivelybuddhistin
them,andintheinsistenceonnon-killing(ahis)histhoughtcloselyresembles
thejainemphasisonthis.
AokasDharma,then,isnotidenticalwithBuddhism,norwithanyother
specificreligionforthatmatter.Inspiteofthat(orshouldwesay,becauseof
that?),Aokasinscriptionsbetrayapositivelymissionaryspiritwithregardto
thisDharma.VirtuallyallhisRockEdictsdealwiththepropagationofDharma
withinandbeyondhisempire.The13thMajorRockEdict,forexample,states
(Thapar,1963:256):
TheBelovedoftheGodsconsidersvictorybyDharmatobetheforemostvictory.AndmoreovertheBelovedoftheGodshasgainedthisvictoryonallhisfrontierstoadistanceofsixhundredyojanas[i.e.about1500miles],wherereignstheGreekkingnamedAntiochus,andbeyondtherealmofthatAntiochusinthelandsofthefourkingsnamedPtolemy,Antigonus,Magas,andAlexander;andinthesouthovertheCoasandPyasasfarasCeylon.LikewisehereintheimperialterritoriesamongtheGreeksandtheKambojas,NbhakasandNbhapanktis,BhojasandPitinikas,AndhrasandPrindas,everywherethepeoplefollowtheBelovedoftheGodsinstructionsinDharma.EvenwheretheenvoysoftheBelovedoftheGodshavenotgone,peoplehearofhisconductaccordingtotheDharma,hispreceptsandhisinstructioninDharma,andtheyfollowDharmaandwillcontinuetofollowit.
AboutAokasconcernwithdifferentreligions,Norman(2006:159-160)states
thefollowing:
JB-BB 18
27.10.2010
AokadevotesthewholeofthetwelfthRockEdicttomakingitclearthatheisequallyconcernedwithadherentsofallreligions,andhehonoursthemallwithgiftsandothersortsofhonours.AllsectsmustlistentoeachothersDharma[...]ThentherewillbeanincreaseineachindividualsectandanilluminationofDharma[...]Aokawishesthemalltoliveinharmonytogether,withoutself-aggrandizementordisparagementofothersects.
[...]
HisencouragementofallsectsmustmeanthathedidnotstopfeedingBrahmins,and[...]hisDharmainfactspecificallyincludesgivingtoramaasandBrahmins.HisdonationofcavestothejvikasinhistwelfthyearisadditionalevidencethathewasnotdevotedexclusivelytoBuddhism.
LetusconsidersomewhatmorecloselywhateffectAokasmeasuresmayhave
hadontheBrahmins.AlreadythefirstRockEdictshowsthattheirwayoflife
wasnotmadeeasierbythesemeasures.HereAokastates:Herenolivingbeing
mustbekilledandsacrificed.16Theformmustbesacrificedprajhitavya,
pajohitaviye,etc.isderivedfromtheverbalroothutosacrifice,offer
oblations,whoseconnectionwiththevedicsacrificeiswell-known.Thefirst
RockEdict,then,forbidstheBrahminstocarryoutsacrificesinwhichanimals
arekilled.17Thisedict,itmayberecalled,washewnintorockatatleastnine
differentplacesscatteredoverthewholeofAokasempire.18Theprohibitionto
sacrificelivingbeingshadthereforemorethanmerelocalsignificance.
AokaoftenmentionsBrahminsinhisinscriptions.Theyarerespected,
butplaynorolewhatsoeverintheadministrationoftheempire.19Thethirteenth
RockEdictstatesthatthereisnocountrywherethese(two)classes(nikya),
(viz.)theBrahminsandtheramaas,donotexist,exceptamongtheGreeks
16Tr.Hultzsch,1925:2;cp.Bloch,1950:91;Schneider,1978:21.17Onthekillingofanimals,includingcows,invedicsacrifices,seeJha,2002:27f.18SeeFalk,2006:111-138.19Lingat,1989:36:nullepart[intheinscriptionsofAoka]lesbrahmanesetencoremoinsunpurohitaouunmoinebouddhisteminentnapparaissentcommedesforcescapablesdinfluencerlapolitiqueroyale,oucommeuncontrepoidssonautoritarisme.Cp.Ruegg,1995:62f,
JB-BB 19
27.10.2010
(yona).20ThismaynotjustifytheconclusionthattherewereBrahminsinall
partsoftheempire,forthecombinationramaasandBrahminsorBrahmins
andramaasisafixedexpression,oftenintheshapeofacompound,whichcan
alsobeusedwhereonlyoneofthetwoismeant.21Itisyetclearthatallofthem,
includingBrahmins,wereforbiddentokillanimalsandsacrificethem.Thisgives
risetothesuspicionthatAokasimpartialitywithregardtodifferentreligious
currentswasnotperfect:hemayhavebeenmoreimpartialwithregardtosome
thanwithregardtoothers.
ThissuspicionmayfindsupportintheninthRockEdict.Thisinscription
ispositivelyrudeaboutwhatitcallsmagalaceremonies.Itsays:Menare
practisingvariousceremoniesduringillness,oratthemarriageofasonora
daughter,oratthebirthofason,orwhensettingoutonajourney;ontheseand
other(occasions)menarepractisingvariousceremonies.Butinsuch(cases)
womenarepractisingmanyandvariousvulgaranduselessceremonies.Now,
ceremoniesshouldcertainlybepractised.Butceremonieslikethesebearlittle
fruitindeed.22Aokarecommendsdhamma-magalaDharmaceremonies
instead.Weareatpresentmoreinterestedinwhatherejects.Aglanceatthe
DharmastrasandothertraditionaltextswillmakeclearthattheBrahminswere
mastersofsuchkindsofceremonies(eventhoughthetermmagalatodesignate
themappearstoberareintheirtexts).23Itseems,therefore,thatAokasninth
RockEdictiscriticizingcertainbrahmanicalcustoms,oralsobrahmanical
customs,withoutsayingsoexplicitly.
20Tr.Hultzsch,1925:47,modified;cp.Bloch,1950:128;Schneider,1978:73;Parasher,1991:238.21AnexampleisthebeginningoftheDevadaha Sutta(MNIIp.214),whichfirststatesthatcertainramaasandBrahmins(eke samaabrhma)holdacertainopinion,whichisthenspecifiedasbelongingtotheJainas(nigaha).SeealsoFreiberger,2000:53,56n.124.22Tr.Hultzsch,1925:16-17;cp.Bloch,1950:113-114;Schneider,1978:52-54.23NotethatAvaghoasBuddhacarita(1.83)enumeratesmagalaalongwithjapaandhomainacompoundwhichclearlyreferstobrahmanicalpractices;seechapterIII.5,below.Gautama Dharmastra11.17enumeratesmagalaalongwithntiandabhicra(ntimagalasayuktny bhyudayikni [a]bhicrayuktni ca kuryt);theselattertermsaresometimesassociatedwiththeAtharvanritual(Bloomfield,1899:8,25).
JB-BB 20
27.10.2010
Whatwelearnfromtheaboveisthefollowing.Notsoverylongafterthedeathof
theBuddhathenorthofIndiaandmuchofthesouthbecameunitedinanempire
strictlyspeaking,asuccessionoftwoempiresthatcreatedalmostperfect
circumstancesforthepropagationofthereligionsofGreaterMagadha.Itseems
likelythatinitiallyJainismandjvikismprofitedmostfromtheseexceptional
circumstances,partlybecauseboththeNandasandtheearlyMauryasfelt
favourablyinclinedtowardsthesetwo,partlyperhapsbecausetheyhadmore
adherentsatthattime.OnlywithAokadidBuddhismattracttheattentionand
allegianceoftheemperorhimself,whichmayhaveresultedinsomespecific
advantages.Weshouldnothoweverforgetthatwehavenoreasontothinkthat
anyoftheNandaandMauryarulersdiscriminatedagainstoneormoreofthe
religionsofGreaterMagadha.Theonlyreligiononwhichrestrictionswere
imposed,atleastbyAoka,perhapsalsobyhispredecessorsandsuccessors,may
wellhavebeenBrahmanism.AndyetAokaadvocatesliberalityalsoto
Brahmins.
ThisgenerositytowardtheBuddhistsmayhaveresultedincertainchanges
withintheorganisationofthereligionitself.Wehavesomeideaastohow,and
why,thischangetookplace.ThisweoweonceagaintoaninscriptionofAoka.
ThisemperorhadapillarerectedinLumbin,thevillagewherehebelievedthe
Buddhatohavebeenborn.Thispillarhasbeenfound,andcarriesthefollowing
inscription:24
WhenKingPriyadarin[i.e.,Aoka],deartothegods,wasconsecratedforthis20thregnalyearhecameinpersonandpaidreverence.BecausetheBuddha,thekyamuni,wasbornatthisplace,hehadastonerailingmadeandastonepillarerected.BecausetheLord(oftheworld)wasbornatthisplace,heexemptedthevillageofLumbinfromtaxesandgrantedittheeightshares.
Donatingtherevenueofavillagetoaworthyrecipientbecamearegularfeature
inmorerecentcenturiesinIndia.Hundreds,probablythousandsofvillageshave
beengivenawayinthismannerinthecourseoftime,andinnumerable
inscriptionshavebeenfoundtocommemoratesuchgifts.However,Aokas
24Falk,2006:180.
JB-BB 21
27.10.2010
inscriptionisuniqueinthatitdoesnotgiveavillagei.e.therevenueofthat
villagetoaworthydonee,buttotheinhabitantsofthevillagethemselves.This
ispuzzling.Whywasthegiftnotgrantedtoabuddhistmonastery,ortoa
monasticgroup?Theselatterembodiedthememory,andtheteaching,ofthe
BuddhainamuchmoreconcreteformthantheinhabitantsofLumbin,whomay
ormaynothaveknownwhatwassospecialabouttheirvillage.Iagreewith
GregorySchopen(2006:316;2007:61)thatthisstrangestateofaffairsmay
meanthatAokadidnotknowanythingaboutbuddhistmonasteries,which
indeedmaynotyethaveexistedatthattime.WeknowthatBuddhismstartedoff
asagroupofmendicants,andAokasinscriptioncountsasevidencethatthis
groupwasstillnotinapositiontoreceivecollectivegiftsathistime.25
Itisonlyrealistictosurmisethatatleastcertainmembersofthebuddhist
communityconsideredthis,orsimilardonationselsewhere,amissedopportunity.
Thissurmiseisconfirmedbythefactthatthesurvivingauthoritativetextscontain
ruleswhichmaketheacceptanceofsuchgiftshenceforthpossible.Buddhist
literaturereportsthatthemerchantAnthapiika(Skt.piada)putaparkin
rvastcalledJetavanaattheBuddhasdisposal.26Thecanonicalaccountdoes
notsaythatthisparkwasgiventotheBuddhaortohiscommunityoffollowers,
butthismaybearelativelyminordetail.ThegiftoftheVeuvanabyKing
Bimbisraleavesnosuchdoubts:theparkispresentedasastraightforward
25ComparethiswithSchopen,2004:219:Theearliestbuddhistinscriptionsthathavesurviveddonotrefertomonasteries(vihra).Infact,thenumerousmonksandnunswhomadedonationsatSc,forexample,identifythemselvesnotbyreferencetoamonasteryorOrder,butexactlyaslaymenandwomendonorsdobyreferencetotheirplaceofbirthorresidence.Thewordinghereexactlyparalleltothewordingintherecordsoflaydonorswouldappeartosuggestthatthesenunsandmonkslivedinvillages.FurtherSchopen,2007:61:EveninthelaterinscriptionsfromBharhutandSanchitherearenoreferencestovihras,andtheybegintoappearthoughstillrarelyonlyinKharohrecordsofalittlebeforeandalittleaftertheCommonEra,aboutthesametimethatthefirstindicationsofpermanentmonasticresidentialquartersbegintoappearinthearchaeologicalrecordfortheNorthwest,andthisisnotlikelytobemerecoincidence.Buddhistliteraturealsopreservestracesofanoppositionbetweenmonkswholivedinmonasteriesandthosewholivedinthewild;seeFreiberger,2006.Ray(1994:399ff.)suggeststhatbuddhistmonasticismaroseinemulationoftherivalbrahmanicaltradition;bothsharedtwocentralpreoccupations:aconcernforbehavioralpurityandapreoccupationwiththemasteryofauthoritativereligioustexts.26VinIIp.158f.ThisistheplacewheretheBuddha,accordingtotradition,passedmostoftentherainyseason;seeBareau,1993:21.Onthesignificanceofsuchtraditions,seeSchopen,1997a.
JB-BB 22
27.10.2010
donationtotheBuddhaandhiscommunityofmonks,andterminateswiththe
Buddhaspermissiontohismonkstoacceptsuchgifts.27Schopen(2006:317)
drawstheobviousconclusion:IfthecompilersofthevariousVinayas
consideredithighlyimportanttoregulatethelivesoftheirmonkssoastogive
nocauseforcomplainttothelaity,andifconsiderationsofthissortcouldonly
haveassumedhighimportanceafterbuddhistgroupshadpermanentlysettled
down,then,sincethelatteralmostcertainlydidnotoccuruntilwellafterAoka,
itwouldbeobviousthatalltheVinayasthatwehavearelate,preciselyasboth
WassilieffandLvihavesuggestedahundredyearsago.
Thehistoricalevidencedoesnotallowustodeterminewithprecision
whenbuddhistmonksandnunssettleddownpermanentlyinmonasteries.28The
firstepigraphicevidenceforthedonationoflandtomonasticestablishmentsin
continentalIndiamaydatefromthefirstcenturyCE.29InSriLankalandgrants
werepresumablyalreadygiventobuddhistmonasteriesinthelatterpartofthe
secondcenturyBCE,30whichmaynotbeanunlikelydateevenforcontinental
India.Butwhateveritsexactdate,whenthisimportanttransitiontookplace,
Buddhismbecamemorethaneverbeforedependentuponrichandpowerful
donors.Thisinitsturninvolveditinextricablyinpoliticalandsocialissues.We
willhaveoccasiontostudytheconsequencesofthisnewsituationinlater
chapters.
LetusreturntotheempireoftheNandasandtheMauryas.Inwhatotherways
didithaveaneffectonBuddhism,andonthereligionsofGreaterMagadhain
27VinIp.39;Bareau,1963:336-339.Bareau(1993:32)states,withregardtothestoryofthismeetingoftheBuddhaandKingBimbisra:Saralithistoriqueestplusquedouteuse28Onmonasteriesfornuns,seeSchopen,2009a.29Ray,1989:444.Schopen(2006a:487n.1)concludes:Sincetextsaswehavethemalreadyknowthekindoffullydevelopedvihrathatappearsinthearcheologicalrecordonly[atthebeginningoftheCommonEra],thetextsapparentlycannotbeanyearlier.ElsewhereSchopen(2004:79)referstosomepublicationsbyJ.Marshallandconcludes:Thestandardized,orderedvihra,then,begantoappearalmosteverywhereinthearchaeologicalrecordjustbeforeandjustafterthebeginningoftheCommonEra.Itwasthen,too,thatbuddhistmonasticcommunitiesappeartohavehadaccesstotheeconomicresourcesthatwouldhaveallowedthemforthefirsttimetobuildonawidescaleindurablematerialslikestoneandbakedbrick.30Gunawardana,1979:53f.;cp.XinruLiu,1988:106-07.
JB-BB 23
27.10.2010
general?Wemaytakeitforgrantedthattheexistenceofthisimmensepolitical
entitygreatlyfacilitatedthepossibilitiesoftravelwithinitsboundaries.The
religionsofGreaterMagadhacouldthereforespread,anditappearsthattheydid.
TheJainaspreserveatraditionaccordingtowhichCandraguptaMaurya,toward
theendofhislife,movedtoKarnatakainthesouthwithalargenumberofJainas.
Thismightbediscardedasalatetradition,wereitnotfortheepigraphicevidence
fromTamilNaduthathasrecentlybeenmadeavailable.Theearliestcave
inscriptionsshowthattherewereJainasinthatregionfromatleastthe2ndcentury
BCEonward.TheseJainas,moreover,probablyarrivedfromKarnataka.31
BuddhismandBrahmanismappeartohavecomelater.32
TheJainasmayhaveprecededtheBuddhistsinotherregionsaswell,and
itseemsclearthattheJainas(andsometimesthejvikas),ratherthanthe
Brahmins,werethemaincompetitorstheBuddhistshadtoface.Therewere
howeversomeareasinwhichBuddhismsucceededingainingastrongfoothold
alreadyatanearlydate.33Perhapsnotbychance,theseincluderegionsfar
removedfromGreaterMagadha,faralsofromthebrahmanicalheartland.Oneof
theseisSriLanka;anotheronetheregionofGandhrasituatedinthefar
northwest,ontheborderbetweenwhatarenowPakistanandAfghanistan.34
31Mahadevan,2003:126f.32AccordingtoSchalk(2002:238-347),Buddhismarrivedmuchlater,butGros(2009:xxvi),referringtotheworksofShuHikosakaandsomeotherpublications,hashisdoubts:AsfarasTamilNaduisconcerned,aftertherecentJapaneseinventorieswhichwereeagertouncoverallthe,ifpossibleancient,traces,PeterSchalk,onthecontrary,insistsondemolishingallthepseudoevidenceforasignificantbuddhistpresenceinTamilNadubeforethePallava,eventhoughsomearchaeologicalfindingsandthetestimoniesofSriLankaobviouslygiveusanotherimage.SeefurtherChampakalakshmi,1996:99f.:Institutionalforceslikethebuddhistmonastery,withtheirimpressivemonumentsandcohesiveguildorganizationsasfociofurbandevelopmentarenotattestedtointhearchaeologicalandepigraphicrecordsofearlyTamiakam,thusmarkingamajorpointofdifferenceinthenatureandformsofurbanism.Theonlynotablebuddhiststructures(ofbrick)havebeenunearthedintheporttownofKvrippmpaiam,andthesearedatedtothefourthandfifthcenturiesAD,whiletheearlierperiodhasnosignificantarchitecturalremains.Cf.Hikosaka,1989;Murthy&Nagarajan,1998.33Foranoverview,seeKieffer-Plz,2000:308-321.34Fussman,1994.AccordingtoFaccenna(1980:32),astpawasbuiltinButkara,Gandhra,alreadyatthetimeofCandraguptaMaurya,inthethirdcenturyBCE;Fussman(1994:19)issceptical,butdoesnotexcludethatitmaybelongtothesecondcenturyBCE.SeefurtherFalk,2005.ndhrainparticularcouldbementionedasa
JB-BB 24
27.10.2010
Thesetworegionscametoplayamajorroleinthepreservationanddevelopment
ofBuddhism:theformer(SriLanka),beingrelativelyisolated,contributed
primarilytothepreservationoftheBuddhismithadreceived;thelatter
(Gandhra)todevelopmentsthatweretogivenewimpulsestoBuddhismin
India.Iwillconcentrateontheseprimarilyintellectualdevelopmentsinthe
northwest,inGandhraanditssurroundings.Scholarssometimesspeakabout
GreaterGandhra,andIwillfollowthispractice.
InordertounderstandtheintellectualdevelopmentsinGreaterGandhra
itisnecessarytorecallsomepoliticalfactswhichinvolveadifferentempire.A
fewyearsbeforethecreationoftheMauryaempirepoliticaleventshadshaken
thenorthwesternregionsofthesubcontinent.Thesenorthwesternregionshadso
farbeenpartofanempirewhosecentrewasthecityofPersepolesinwhatwe
nowcallIran.ThiswastheAchaemenidempire,whichextendedfromIndiain
theeasttoGreeceinthewest.Thedownfallofthisempirecamefromthewest,
andthestoryiswell-known.KingAlexanderofMacedonia,betterknownas
AlexandertheGreat,invadedtheAchaemenidempire,killeditslastemperor,and
createdanempireofhisownthatcoveredtheearlierempireandmore.Inasmall
numberofyearsheandhisarmysubjectedalloftheformerprovincesofthe
Achaemenidempire,andcreatedGreeksettlementsinvariousplaceswiththe
purposeofkeepingthoseregionsundercontrol.Alexandersconquestextended
rightintothenorthwesternpartsoftheIndiansubcontinent,andincludedthe
wholeofwhatisnowAfghanistanandpartofPakistan.
Alexandersempiredidnotsurvivehimforlong.Whatdidsurvive,was
thepresenceofGreekcolonistsinplacesfarawayfromtheirhomeland.There
wereinthiswayGreeksinnorthwesternIndiawhoheld,withvaryingdegreesof
success,politicalpowerforsometwocenturiesfollowingthedeathof
Alexander.35Theirculturalinfluencelastedevenlonger,asistestifiedbythefact
that,evenafterthedisappearanceofthelastGreekkingdomontheIndian
subcontinentinthemiddleofthesecondcenturyBCE,subsequentrulers
regionwhereBuddhismappearstohavearrivedwellbeforeBrahmanism;seeRameshChandraBabu,2006:10f.;furtherFogelin,2006:100;Arundhati,1990:203ff.35TheseGreekswerenotconfinedtonorthwesternIndiaandevenappearforawhiletohaveoccupiedPaliputra,theex-capitaloftheMauryaempire;seeWojtilla,2000.
JB-BB 25
27.10.2010
continuedthehabitofprintingtheirnameinGreekcharactersononesideoftheir
coins,untilitfinallycametoanendaround400CE.36
Whyarethesepoliticaldevelopmentsimportant?Theytellussomething
abouttheculturalcontextwhichtheBuddhistswhohadsettledinGreater
Gandhraencountered.ThisregionhadbecomepartoftheMauryaempire
around305BCE.However,atthetimeofthecollapseoftheMauryaempire,
around185BCE,ithadonceagainfalleninthehandsoftheIndo-Greeks.37This
meansthattheBuddhistsofthispartofthesubcontinent,atthatdateifnot
alreadyearlier,were,onanintellectuallevel,notconfrontedwithJainasand
representativesofotherIndianreligionsoftheirregionoforigin,norwerethey
confrontedwithBrahmins.RecallwhatAokasaidinhisthirteenthRockEdict:
thereisnocountrywherethese(two)classes,(viz.)theBrahminsandthe
ramaas,donotexist,exceptamongtheGreeks.Well,thesebuddhist
emigrantsnowfoundthemselvesamongGreeks,andindeedruledbyGreeks,far
fromtheBrahminsandfromramaasdifferentfromthemselves.Their
intellectualandreligioussurroundingshadcompletelychanged,andthiswas
goingtohaveaneffectontheirownideas.38
Thesurvivingtextsfromthosenorthwesternregionsconfirmthattheideas
oftheBuddhistswhosettledtheredidindeedchangeradically.39Themost
strikingchangesconcernthewaybuddhistdoctrinewasreinterpreted.Unlike
earlierBuddhists,andunlikeBuddhistselsewhereinoroutsidethesubcontinent,
thosefromthenorthwestusedtraditionalelementstocreatesomethingnew
altogether,viz.,anelaborateandsystematizedontology.Inotherwords,these
Buddhistsusedpreexistinglistofwhatwerecalleddharmastoclaimthatthese
dharmasareallthereis.Whatismore,theyinventedathorough-goingatomism,
startingfromtheassumptionthatallcompositeobjectsconsistofultimate
constituents.Thisatomismwasextendedtotimeaswell:thebuddhistscholiasts
36Hein,1989:229.ThissamepublicationproposesthetermYavanismtodesignatetheforcesunderwatered-downGreekinfluencethatopposedBrahmanisminthethirdcenturyCE.37Falk,2008;Salomon,2005.38ForamoredetaileddiscussionoftheabsenceofBrahmanisminthenorthwesternpartsofthesubcontinent,seechapterIII.7,below.39Fordetails,seeBronkhorst,2009,part2.
JB-BB 26
27.10.2010
fromthenorthwestthoughtoftimeasasuccessionofultimate,indivisiblesingle
moments.
Themostremarkableaspectofthisontologyisitsclaimthattheultimate
constituentsofcompositeobjectsaredharmas.Compositeobjectsthemselvesare
notdharmas.Itfollowsthatcompositeobjectsdonotreallyexist.Thesamecan
besaidaboutobjectsextendedintime:suchobjectsdonotreallyexist,theyare
nothingbutasuccessionofmomentaryobjectswhicheachhaveadurationof
exactlyonemoment.
Whenwejoinupthesedifferentideas,weendupwiththeclaimthatthe
onlythingsthatreallyexistaremomentarydharmas.Thefamiliarobjectsofour
ordinaryexperienceare,strictlyspeaking,nomorethancollectionsof
successionsofdharmas.Thisatfirstsightrelativelysimple(ifsurprising)wayof
visualisingtheworldgainsunimaginablecomplexitybythefactthatthebuddhist
doctorsfromthenorthwestfeltcalledupontodetermineingreatdetailshowthe
differentdharmasinteract,whatexactroleeachofthemplays,etc.etc.We
cannotdealwithallofthis,butavoluminousliteraturehassurvived(though
mainlyinChinesetranslation)inwhichtheseideasareelaborated.
Thereisonefeatureofthisontologythatwecannotpassoverinsilence.If
theobjectsofourordinaryexperiencesuchasthehouseinwhichwelive,the
chariotweuseforourjourneys,thejarfromwhichwedrinkwaterdonot
reallyexist,whydowebelievetheydo?Theanswerthatisofferedisthe
following.Theseobjectsarenothingbutwords.Wetravelinachariot,butwhen
wethinkaboutitwediscoverthatachariotisnothingbutthecollectionofits
parts,whicharenothingbutcollectionsoftheirparts,andsoonuntilonereaches
theultimateconstituents.Inrealitythereisonlyacollectionofdharmas,butthe
wordchariotmakesusbelievethatthereisachariotaswell.
Onefinalquestionneedstobeasked.DidtheBuddhistsofthe
northwesternregionsinventthisontologyoutofnothing?Didtheyjustmakeit
up?Thecorrectanswerisprobablybothyesandno.Anythingremotely
resemblingthisontologyiscompletelyforeigntoallweknowaboutearlier
Buddhism.Atthesametime,thedoctorsfromthenorthwestmadeaneffortto
anchortheirideasintraditionalbuddhistconcepts.Theoldrejectionofaself,for
JB-BB 27
27.10.2010
example,hadbecometherejectionofapudgalapersonthoughtofasthe
collectionofallthatmakesupahumanbeing.Theconclusionwasdrawnthatthis
collectiondoesnotexistbecausenocollectionsexist.Thelistsofultimate
constituentsoftheseBuddhistsweretheslightlyadaptedlistsofimportant
elementsintheteachingoftheBuddhadrawnupbyearlierBuddhists.The
momentarynatureofallthatexistswasdeducedfromdeclarationsbytheBuddha
totheextentthateverythingisimpermanent.Thenewphilosophyofthese
Buddhistsclaimedtocontinuetraditionalbuddhistteaching.Inrealityitdidno
suchthing.
Ihavealreadysuggestedthatforanexplanationofthisnewwayof
thinkingwehavetoconsiderthespecialculturalandpoliticalcontextinwhich
theseBuddhistsfoundthemselves.TheconfrontationwithGreeks,withtheir
establishedtraditionofdebate,mayhavebeenofparticularimportance.40Forina
debateideasarechallengedbyoutsiders.Toholdonesgroundinadebate,one
hastomakesurethattheideasonepresentsareinternallycoherent.Thechanges
inbuddhistthoughtjustdescribedallboildowntoonething:theyareattemptsto
bringcoherenceintoasetofreceivedideas,toweldthemtogetherintoacoherent
systemofthought.41Thisiswhatonewouldexpecttohappeninasituationwhere
theBuddhistswerechallengedindebate,andthisiswhatweseedidhappen.
ItisperhapsnocoincidencethattheMilinda-paha,atextwhichclaimsto
recordadiscussionbetweentheIndo-GreekkingMilinda,i.e.Menander,andthe
buddhistmonkNgasena,containsapassagewhichclarifiestherulesofa
scholarlydebate.ItreadsasfollowsinthetranslationofT.W.RhysDavids
(1890:46):
Thekingsaid:ReverendSir,willyoudiscusswithmeagain?IfyourMajestywilldiscussasascholar(paita),well;butifyouwilldiscussasaking,no.Howisitthenthatscholarsdiscuss?
40Fussman(1994:24f.)arguesthattheinfluenceofBuddhismontheGreekswasminimal.41Franco(2007:76n.4)states:Themeremetaphysicalprinciplesofaphilosophicalsystemarelikeadeadbody;itisthephilosophicalargumentationwhichbringsittolife.Itmaybemoreprecisetostatethataphilosophicalsystemowesnotjustitslifebutitsveryexistencetophilosophicalargumentation,i.e.,debate.
JB-BB 28
27.10.2010
Whenscholarstalkamatteroveronewithanotherthenisthereawindingup,anunravelling;oneorotherisconvincedoferror,andhethenacknowledgeshismistake;distinctionsaredrawn,andcontra-distinctions;andyettherebytheyarenotangered.Thusdoscholars,Oking,discuss.Andhowdokingsdiscuss?Whenaking,yourMajesty,discussesamatter,andheadvancesapoint,ifanyonedifferfromhimonthatpoint,heisapttofinehim,saying:Inflictsuchandsuchapunishmentuponthatfellow!Thus,yourMajesty,dokingsdiscuss.
Itisnotclearwhathistoricalconclusionscanbedrawnfromthispassage.It
describesscholarlydebatesintermsthatareperhapsuniqueinIndia.Contraryto
theotherdescriptionswehavefromIndiansources,debatesareherepresentedas
relaxedeventsinwhichparticipantsdonothesitatetochangetheiropinions
wherenecessary,moreorlessasinSocraticdebates(withduerespectforthe
differences).Weareherefarremovedfromthesituationinwhichwinninga
debatewasalmost,andsometimesliterally,amatteroflifeanddeath.42When,
then,Halbfass(1988:19)statesthatthereislittleinthe[Milinda-paha]which
isGreek,asidefromthenameoftheking,hemayhaveoverlookedanimportant
feature.43
ThedevelopmentssketchedsofaraffectedBuddhismindependentlyof
brahmanicalinfluence.Thiswasgoingtochange.Thefollowingpageswillstudy
someofthewaysinwhichBrahmanismdidinfluenceBuddhism.Thiscannot
howeverbedonewithoutknowingsomethingmoreaboutsomecrucial
developmentsBrahmanismitselfhadgonethrough.Thatisthereforewhatwe
willturntofirst.
42SeechapterIII.6,below;furtherBronkhorst,2007a;Angot,2009:88ff.43Thisobservationistobereadwithcaution,forNyya,asarguedbyNicholson(2010),hasundergoneashiftfromagonistictonon-agonisticdebate.
JB-BB 29
27.10.2010
II.BRAHMANISM
ThepoliticaldevelopmentsthathadbeensofavourabletoBuddhismhadbeen
muchlessfavourabletoBrahmanism.Aokasinscriptionsleavenodoubtthat,
eventhoughheshowedrespectforBrahmins(orratherforBrahminsand
ramaas),hehadnoplacefortheminhisimperialadministration.Sincehis
empirealsocoveredtheareasinwhichBrahminshadtraditionallybeenlinkedto
localrulersthroughofferingritualsupport,traditionalsacrificialBrahmanismhad
lostitseconomicbasiswiththeinstallationoftheMauryaempire;presumably
thishadalreadybegunundertheNandas.TheMauryaempirewasgoverned
centrally,whichmeansthatgovernorsreplacedthetraditionallocalkings,and
thattraditionalformsofcohabitationbetweenrulersandBrahminpriests
collapsed.Andifthiswasnotyetbadenough,wehaveseenthatAokaalso
forbadeanimalsacrifices.Itseemsfairtostatethattheunificationofnorthern
IndiaundertheMauryas(andpresumablyalreadyundertheNandas)wasa
disasterfortraditionalBrahmanism.
Allthismighthavesignalleditsend,butitdidnot.Brahmanism
recovered,beitinadifferentform.Itcreatedthemeanstoconqueritselfanew
placeintheworld,anditendedupbeingextraordinarilysuccessful.A
millenniumafteritsmostdesperateperiod,undertheMauryas,Brahmanism
exertedaninfluenceoverlargepartsofSouthandSoutheastAsia.Boththe
transformationofBrahmanismanditssubsequentdevelopmenthavetobe
correctlyappreciatedifwewishtounderstandhowBuddhismcametobe
influencedbyit.Afullinvestigationofthesemomentouschangesarebeyondthe
scopeofthisbook.Onlysomeselectedaspectscanbediscussedinthechaptersof
PartII.
II.1ThenewBrahmanism
VedicBrahmanismwasnotthebackgroundoutofwhichBuddhismarose.Vedic
BrahmanismhaditsheartlandinaregiontothewestofGreaterMagadha,anddid
JB-BB 30
27.10.2010
notprovidetheideologicalandreligiousbackgroundinandagainstwhichthe
Buddhapreachedhisnewmessage.Inevitably,BuddhismandvedicBrahmanism
cameincontactandthiscontactwastohaveprofoundconsequencesforboth.For
Buddhismitmeant,toputthematterinanutshell,alongdrawn-outconfrontation
thatendedinitsalmostcompletedisappearancefromthesubcontinent.
TheGermanEgyptologistJanAssmann(2003)usesaninteresting
distinctionbetweendifferenttypesofreligion.44Writinginthefirstplaceabout
thereligionsoftheancientMiddleEast,Assmanndistinguishesbetweenprimary
andsecondaryreligions.45Primaryreligionsareeachindissociablylinkedtoone
singleculture,toonesinglesocietyand,mostcommonly,toonesinglelanguage.
ExamplesaretheancientEgyptian,BabylonianandGreco-Romanreligions.
Unlikeprimaryreligions,secondaryreligionshaveuniversalclaims.Theyclaim
tobe,atleastintheory,applicabletoall,andtobeinthepossessionofaunique
truth.Primaryreligionsdonothavesuchexclusivetruthclaims.Indeed,the
ancientMiddleEasthadnoqualmsabouttranslatingthenamesofthegodsofone
cultureintothoseofanother:listsofcorrespondingnameshavebeenfound.
Amongthefirstexamplesofasecondaryreligion,Assmanncountsaspectsofthe
JewishreligionthatstartmanifestingthemselvesincertainbooksoftheBible.
WithChristianityandIslamsecondaryreligionsbecomethenorm,atleastinthe
Westernworld.
Thisdistinctionbetweenprimaryandsecondaryreligionsmaybeuseful,
becauseitencouragesustolookattheearlyreligionsofIndiawithnewquestions
inmind.Primaryreligionshavenoexclusivetruthclaims.Theydonottherefore
havetheurgetoconvertothers,andtheydonotsendoutmissionaries.Secondary
religionsdohaveexclusivetruthclaims.Theymayeitherkeepthesetruthsto
themselves;theiradherentsmaythenconsiderthemselvesthechosenpeopleof
God(thiswasthepositionadoptedinJudaism).Alternatively,theymayfeelthe
urgetoconvertothers,bywhatevermeanstheyconsiderappropriate.
44ThedistinctionwasintroducedbyTheoSundermeier,butisnotidenticalindetailswiththewayinwhichAssmannusesit;seeDiesel,2006.45Assmannsviewshavegivenrisetoanextensiveandinpartpassionatedebate;seeWagner,2006andthereferencesinWagner,2006:5-6n.12.
JB-BB 31
27.10.2010
ThereligionsofGreaterMagadhaasweknowthemmaybeconsidered
secondaryreligionsinthesensethattheyhaveuniversalclaims(not,beitnoted,
inthesensethattheyarederivedfromprimaryreligions).Theseclaimsarenot,
ornotprimarily,truthclaimsofthekindwefindinthemonotheisticreligionsof
theWestandtheMiddleEast.Buddhism,forexample,doesnotmaintainthatthe
godsofotherreligionsarefalsegodswhoultimatelydonotevenexist.46Quiteon
thecontrary,someofthegodsfromthevedicpantheonregularlymaketheir
appearanceintheearlybuddhisttexts,beitinrolesthatareadjustedtotheirnew
context.47Otherdeities,spirit-deities,someofthemlocal,arementionedinits
textsanddepictedinitsart.48No,theuniversalclaimsofthereligionsofGreater
Magadhaarenot,ornotprimarily,truthclaims.Aokasuniversalclaim,aswe
haveseen,wasamoralone.HewantedtospreadtheDharmahiskindof
Dharma,closetothesharedmoralityofthereligionsofGreaterMagadhato
allpeoplebothwithinandwithouthisempire.TheclaimsofBuddhismand
Jainismwentfurther:theyclaimedtopresenttheway,theonlypossibleway,to
becomeliberatedfromthecycleofrebirths.Thebuddhistwaywasdifferentfrom
thejainaway,tobesure.ButbothBuddhistsandJainastookthepositionthat
onlytheirwaywascorrect,theotheroneincorrectanduseless.Andthecorrect
waydidnotonlyapplytotheinhabitantsofsomespecificregions,ortomembers
ofsomespecificgroup.No,itappliedtoeveryone,allovertheworld.
Brahmanismisdifferent.Itwasatfirstnodoubtaprimaryreligion.Itwas
apriestlyreligion,notunlikethepriestlyreligionsofancientEgyptand
Mesopotamia.Assuchitwasindissociablylinkedtoonesingleculture,toone
singlesociety,andtoonesinglelanguage.Ithadacloseassociationwiththe
rulersofthesocietytowhichitbelonged,forwhomitprovidedritualservices.49
IfMichaelWitzelcanbebelieved,thevedicpriesthoodprimarilybelongedtoa
singlestate,theKurustate,whichwasalsothefirstIndianstate,formedduring
46Indeed,itappearsthatBuddhismcouldlivewithbrahmanicalancestorworship,whichitsubsequentlyabsorbedintheformoftransferenceofmerit;seeHerrmann-Pfandt,1996.47Perhapsweshouldsay,withRuegg(2008),thatthesegodsweretakenfromacommonsubstratum.48DeCaroli,2004.49SeeRau,1957:87f.;Proferes,2007.
JB-BB 32
27.10.2010
theMiddleVedicperiod.50VedicBrahmanismhadnoexclusivetruthclaimsofa
religiousnature,anddidnottrytomakeconverts.Likeotherprimaryreligions,it
dependedforitssurvivalonthecontinuedexistenceofthesocietytowhichit
belonged.
Vedicsocietydidnotcontinuetoexist,atleastnotasbefore.Wedonot
knowwhenexactlytherotsetin,butitislikelythatthecreationoftheNanda
empirefollowedbytheMauryaempiresignalledtheendoftraditionalvedic
society.Wehaveseenthattherearegoodreasonstobelievethatnoneofthe
rulersofthesetwoempiresfeltclosetothistraditionalsacrificialcult.Itisalso
importanttorememberthat,eventhoughtheseempireswerenot(andcould
hardlybe)fullycentralized,thepoweroftheemperorwasapparentlyfeltinthe
differentregionsoftheempire,sothatearlierhierarchicalstructurescouldnot
normallysurviveasbefore.51Indeed,intheinscriptionsofAoka,[t]heformer
kingdoms,whichthebuddhistchroniclesmentionandwhichtheMauryashad
includedintheirEmpire(Avant,Kosala,Aga,etc.)arenotnamed;theyseemto
havedisappearedaspoliticaloradministrativeentities(Fussman,1987-88:49).
Itismoreoverclearfromthelanguageusedinvariousinscriptionsthatinthe
southandintheeastofhisEmpireAokaused(andattimesintroduced)a
bureaucracyofforeignorigin,ingreaterpartMagadhan,butperhapsalso
GandhranorPunjabi(ibid.,p.59);thesamemightbetrueofthebrahmanical
heartland(noneoftheinscriptionsareinSanskrit).52Withoutregularand
50Witzel,1995;1997.51OntheadministrativestructureofAokasempireinparticular,seeFussman,1974;1982;1987-88.Fussman(1987-88:71f.)reachesthefollowinggeneralconclusion:theMauryanEmpirefunctionedaccordingtothesamerulesasotherIndianempiresofcomparablesize(Gupta,MughalandBritish),withacentralabsolutepower,personal,thatis,dependentonthepersonalactivityofthesovereign,relyingonthearmyandonefficientofficers;witharegionaladministrationorganizedinanon-systematicfashionexercisingroyalauthority,withmorelibertythefurtherawayitwasfromtheroyalpowerandputtingintopracticethekingsordersonlywhentheyfittedinwiththelocalreality52Fussman(1987:59f.)reachesadifferentconclusionwithregardtothenorthwest:AokaallowedthesurvivalatKandaharandLaghmanofabureaucracywritinghisactsinAramaic,whichheprobablyinheritedfromthePersianEmpire,andatKandaharofaGreekbureaucracywhichheinheritedfromtheSeleucids.So,innorthwesternIndianone of the Mauryan rulers had interfered with local habits.(Fussmansemphasis)
JB-BB 33
27.10.2010
systematicsupportfromtherulers,thevedicritualtraditionwasthreatened.
VedicBrahmanism,ifitwantedtosurviveatall,hadtoreinventitself.
LatevedicliteraturesuggeststhatBrahmins,alreadyinthegoodolddays,
hadthecustomoftravellingaroundandofferingtheirservicestokingswho
neededthemforthisorthatspecificritualevent.Fromtimetotimethey
participatedincompetitiveencounterswithotherBrahminsattheroyalcourt,and
occasionallythekinghimselfmightshowanunderstandingofthevedicsacrifice
onaparwiththatoftheBrahmins.Thosegoodolddaysdidnotlast,andwehave
alreadyseenthattheimperialunificationofnorthernIndiabyrulersfrom
Magadha,farfromthevedicheartland,probablyacceleratedthedecline.
TravellingBrahminswerehenceforthlikelytobefacedwithadiminished
demandfortheirhabitualservices,especiallyoutsidethevedicheartland.What
theydidinresponsewasbroadeningtherangeofservicestheyoffered.They
werestillwillingtocarryoutelaboratesolemnvedicsacrificesintheserviceof
theking,buttheyalsomadeapointofacquiringtheskillsrequiredtocounsel
kingsinthemorepracticalartsofstatecraftandgoverning;wemayassumethat
thiswasnomorethananextensionofwhattheyhaddonebefore.Beingin
essencepriests,theyfurtherusedtheirfamiliaritywiththesupernaturaltopredict
peoplesfuture,interpretsigns,pronouncecursesorblessingswhereneeded,and
othersuchthings.53Andwherevertheywent,andwhatevertheydid,theyalways
madetheclaimthatthey,theBrahmins,wereentitledtothehighestpositionin
53BrianBlack,intheConclusionofhisstudyoftheearlyUpaniads(2007:171),observes:theearlyUpaniadsstronglycriticizethesacrificeandfocusonotheractivitiesasthepracticeswhichmostgiveknowledgeauthority.ThismovementawayfromsacrificeatatextuallevelindicatesthatthecomposersandeditorsoftheUpaniadswereattemptingtodefinetheirrolesasBrahminsindifferentwaystoaudienceswhonolongerfoundthesacrificefavorable.Infact,notonlydoBrahminsdefinethemselvesasteachersandcourtpriestsratherthanasritualists,butalsotheidealkingisonewholearnsphilosophyandhostsphilosophicaldebatesratherthanonewhoisthepatronofthesacrifice.Chndogya Upaniad7.1containsanenumerationofbrahmanicalskillscontaining,inOlivellesinterpretation,thefollowingitems:gveda,Yajurveda,Smaveda,Atharvaveda,thecorpusofhistoriesandancienttales,ancestralrites,mathematics,soothsaying,theartoflocatingtreasures,dialogues,monologues,thescienceofgods,thescienceoftheritual,thescienceofspirits,thescienceofgovernment,thescienceofheavenlybodies,andthescienceofserpentbeings.
JB-BB 34
27.10.2010
society,54anddisposedofgreatbutsecretpowerswhichenabledthemtoimpose
theirwillincasethatweretobenecessary.Theseclaimsfurtherencompassedan
elaboratevisionofsocietyinwhichtherearefundamentallyfourcaste-classes
(vara).IndescendingordertheseweretheBrahmins,theKatriyas(primarily
kings),theVaiyas(merchantsetc.),andatthebottomthedras.55
This,then,wasthesituationatthetimeofAoka.Imentiononcemorehis
inscriptionthatstatesthatthereareBrahminsandramaasinallcountries,
exceptamongtheGreeks.Wehavealreadyseenthatthisdoesnotnecessarily
justifytheconclusionthatBrahminshadsettledin,orvisitedmoreorless
frequently,manyormostoftheprovincesofAokasempire,butpresumably
theywerepresentinanumberofthem.Thisdoesnothowevermeanthatalltheir
claimswereacceptedintheprovincesinwhichtheywerepresent.Aokaand
manyotherswithhimwerenodoubtwillingtopayrespecttoBrahmins,butnot
togivethemtheprivilegedplaceinsocietywhichtheyaspiredto.Notethatthe
inscriptiondoesnotstatethatthereareBrahmins,Katriyas,Vaiyasanddras
allovertheempire.Thelastthreeofthesefourtermsdonotfigureinanyof
Aokasinscriptions.WemustassumethatthevisionofsocietythattheBrahmins
promotedwasacceptedneitherbyAoka,norbythemajorityofhissubjects.
RecallfurtherthatBrahmins,unliketheJainas,arenotmentionedintheearliest
inscriptionsofTamilNadu,aspointedoutintheintroduction.Thissuggeststhat
eithertherewerenoBrahminsinthatpartofthesubcontinentatthattime,orthat
theydidnotreceivesupportfromitsrulers.56
54Seee.g.MNIIp.84:TheBrahminssaythus:Brahminsarethehighestcaste-class(vaa,Skt.vara),thoseofanyothercaste-classareinferior;Brahminsarethefairestcaste-class,thoseofanyothercaste-classaredark;onlyBrahminsarepurified,notnon-Brahmins;BrahminsalonearethesonsofBrahm,theoffspringofBrahm,bornofhismouth,bornofBrahm,createdbyBrahm,heirsofBrahm.(tr.amoli&Bodhi,1995:698)55Thissocialdivisionwasnotyetallthatrigorouseveninlatevedicdays;seeRau,1957:62f.Staal(2008:59)thinksthatthePuruamyth,whichmentionsthesefourcaste-classes,isalateadditiontothegveda.56Champakalakshmi(1996),speakingaboutTamilNaduuntil300CE,states(p.93):ItissignificantthattheimpactofthevaraideologyinsocialstratificationishardlyvisibleintheTamilregionexceptinitsnascentstageandinarestrictedzone,viz.theeco-zoneofmarutam(plains/rivervalleys).Andagain(p.97):Despitethepresenceofbrhmaahouseholdsthereisnoevidenceoftheimpactofthevaraideology,althoughalatesectionoftheTamilgrammarTolkppiyam,i.e.thePoru atikramshowsthat
JB-BB 35
27.10.2010
AokasremarkifinterpretedtobeabouttheomnipresenceofBrahmins
inallpartsofhisempireexceptamongtheGreeks(aremarkthat,aswehave
seen,cannotbetakenatitsfacevalue)contrastsinaninterestingmannerwitha
nodoubtmuchyoungerpassagethatoccursinthethirteenthbookthe
AnusanaparvanoftheMahbhrata(13.33.19-21).Thispassageenumerates
anumberofpeopleswho,thoughoriginallyKatriyas,hadbecomedras(the
wordusedisvala),because no Brahmins were seen among them.Thepeoples
enumeratedincludetheGreeks(yavana),butalsoothers:theakasandKmbojas
fromthenorthwest,furthertheDravidians(dramia)fromtheSouth,theKaligas
fromtheEast,andsomeothers.Thesesamepeoplesoccurinasimilar
enumerationintheMnava Dharmastra(Manu10.43-44):theretootheyhad
becomedrasbecausenoBrahminswereseenamongthem.
TheSanskritexpressionswhichItranslatebecausenoBrahminswere
seen[amongthem]arebrhmanm adarantintheMahbhrata,
brhmadaranenaintheMnava Dharmastra.Theeditorsofthe
Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles,whichisbeing
preparedinPune,apparentlydonotfeelateasewiththistranslation,forthey
proposeforthesepassagesaspecialmeaningforadarananotseeing,viz.
failuretoseeormeet,neglect,disregard,nottakingnoteof(EDSvol.2p.1353
no.6B).InthisinterpretationitistheirneglectofBrahminswhichledtothe
downfalloftheGreeksandothers.Thisinterpretationhasnodoubtbeeninspired
bythepriorconvictionthattherewereBrahminsamongallthepeoples
enumerated.Thereishowevernoneedforaspecialinterpretationofadaranain
thesepassagesifwearewillingtoconsiderthat,atthetimewhenthesepassages
werecomposed,therewereregionsofthesubcontinentinwhichtherewerefew
ornoBrahmins.ThiscanwithoutdifficultybeacceptedfortheGreeksandthe
akasfromamongthepeoplesenumeratedabove,andforthePersians(prada),
Parthians(pahlava)andChinese(cna)addedbyManu.Thereisnoreasonto
varanormswereimposedatalaterstageasatheoreticalframeworkonwhatwasbasicallyanon-stratified,clanorkinshipbasedorganizationwithevidenceofrankingonlyamongthechiefsandrulinglineages.Palaniappan(2008)arguesforanunintendedinfluenceofJainismonthedevelopmentofcasteinpost-classicalTamilsociety.
JB-BB 36
27.10.2010
thinkdifferentlywithregardtotheotheridentifiablepeoplesmentionedbyManu:
theCoasandtheDraviasfromSouthIndia.57Thesepassagesclearlysuggest
thatthebrahmanicalinfluenceinSouthernIndiawasstillweakornon-existentat
thetimewhentheAnusanaparvan(commonlyregardedalateportionofthe
Mahbhrata)andtheMnava Dharmastrawerecomposed,i.e.probably
duringtheearlycenturiesoftheCommonEra.
WhatoccupationsdidBrahminsaspiretoinregionswheretheirvisionofsociety
andtheirpre-eminenceasagroupwasnotrecognized?Wehaveverylittle
evidencepertainingtotherolewhichBrahminsplayedinregionsthatwerenot
brahmanized.Perhapsourmostimportantsourceofinformationistheearly
buddhistcanon,whichoftenmentionsthem.However,thissourceistobeused
withgreatcare,forthebuddhistcanonwasnotcomposedinoneday.Oskarvon
Hinberdescribesitsformationinthefollowingwords(1995:187):
ThereisnodoubtthattheBuddhaformulatedhisteachinginoralinstructiontohisimmediatepupils.TheextentofthiscorpusoforiginalBuddhisttextsisasunknownasisitsactualshapeduringthedaysoftheBuddha.Thesetextswerelearntbyheart,transmitted,andtoanunknown,butprobablyfairlylargeextentshapedandreshapedbythosewhohandedthemdown,andtheywentthusthroughaconsiderabletransformationbeforetheyreachedthestageofPliandbecamecodifiedasthecanonoftheTheravdaschoolwrittendownforthefirsttimeduringthereignofVaagmaAbhaya(89-77B.C.),orthatoftrueBuddhistSanskritasusedbytheMahsghikalokottaravdaschool,GndhrorevenPaicandotherlanguagesnowlost.
Thepracticalconclusionwecandrawfromthisstateofaffairsisthatweknow
thatportions,perhapsmajorportions,wereaddedtothebuddhistcanon,others
changedoredited,butthatitisvirtuallyimpossibletofindoutwhathappenedto
eachseparatepericope.
57AninscriptioninthesouthernmostvillageofIndia,Kanykumri,claimsthatthefounderoftheCoadynasty,findingnoBrahminsonthebanksoftheKver,broughtalargenumberofthemfromryvartaandsettledthemthere.HisremotedescendantVra-RjendracreatedseveralbrahmadeyavillagesandfurnishedfortythousandBrahminswithgiftsofland.SeeGopinathRao,1926.
JB-BB 37
27.10.2010
Inspiteofthesecomplications,theancientcanonisrelatively
homogeneousintheinformationitprovidesaboutthepositionofBrahminsand
theirvisionofsociety.Tobeginwiththelatter:thebrahmanicalvisionofsociety
israrelyreferredtointheancientdiscourses.Societyisherenotnormallydivided
intothefourbrahmanicalvaras,viz.Brahmins,Katriyas,Vaiyasanddras.
Thebulkofsocietyisdescribedasconsistingofhouse-holders(Pligahapati),
withoutinternaldistinctions.58Thiscategoryshouldnotbeseparatedfromthatof
theBrahmins,atleastnotinprinciple,becauseBrahmins,too,canbehouse-
holders,andarethensometimesreferredtoasbrhmaa-gahapati.59The
occupationmostfrequentlyassociatedwiththegahapatiisthatofmerchantor
guildleader(Plisehi),butthePTSPali-EnglishDictionary,whichmakesthis
observation,addsthatagahapaticanalsobeakassakafarmerora
drukammikacarpenter.60Thereisnoreasontoassimilatethegahapati(Skt.
ghapati)totheVaiya,assomemoderninterpretersareinclinedtodo.61Indeed,
thebuddhistschemeofkhattiya,brhmaa,andgahapati,isneverclassifiedas
eithervaaorasjti.62TheVaiyaispartofthebrahmanicalvisionofsociety,
whichthegahapatiisnot.Thisisnottodenythatthesehouse-holdersareoften
presented,alreadyinthePlicanon,asmenofsubstance,butthismaybedue
tothepropagandistictendencyofthetextstodepicttheBuddhaasbeingin
interactionwithimportantpeopleratherthanwiththeproletariat.Notefurther
thatthesamehouseholderfiguresfrequentlyininscriptionsdatingfromthe
centuriesjustbeforeandafterthebeginningoftheCommonEra.63
Therearerelativelyfewexceptionstothisinthebuddhistcanon.The
discoursesthatareawareofthebrahmanicalvaras(Plivaa)dealmostoften
58Wagle,1966:69;Chakravarti,1987:66f.;2006:101f.59Chakravarti,1987:72f.ThiscompounddoesnotalwaysneedtomeanBrahminswhoarehouse-holders,andmayalsobeusedtomeanBrahminsandhouseholders;seeWidmer,2008:437n.29.Notehoweverthatsometimesbrhmaagahapatik(Brahminswhoarehouse-holdersorBrahminsandhouseholders)aresubsequentlyaddressedasgahapatis,whichshowsthat,independentlyoftheinterpretationofthecompound,Brahminsarehereconsideredhouse-holders;soe.g.MNIp.285-86;290-91;IIIp.291.60PTSDp.248.61Fick,1897:164;Nattier,2003:24.62Chakravarti,1987:100.63Chakraborti,1974:14f.
JB-BB 38
27.10.2010
withsituationsinwhichtheBuddhaconverseswithaBrahmin64andargue
againstthem.AnexampleistheAssalyana Sutta.HeretheBuddhapointsoutto
theBrahminAssalyanathatamongtheGreeksthefourvarasdonotexist,that
therearethereonlytwovaras,viz.,masters(ayya,Skt.rya)andslaves(dsa),
andthatmastersbecomeslavesandslavesmasters.However,thetermvaa
appearsonlyinthecontextofabstractdivisionsofsocietyintovarioussocial
categories.Wehavenoevidenceofitbeingusedinanyconcretesituation.It
seemstohaveremainedatheoreticalconceptwithoutanyparallelinactual
practice.65
TheexampleoftheAssalyana Suttaisofparticularinterest,becauseitis
possibletomakeareasonableestimateastoitsdate.ThereferencetotheGreeks
showsthatthisaccountwascomposedaftertheinvasionofAlexander,afterthe
timewhenGreekshadsettledintheborderlandsoftheIndiansubcontinent.
Perhapswecangoonestepfurther.RememberthatAokahadstatedinoneof
hisinscriptionsthattherewereBrahminsandramaasinallcountries(ofhis
empire)exceptamongtheGreeks.Aokahadnotsaidawordaboutthe
omnipresenceofthebrahmanicalvarasinhisempire,andindeed,heneveruses
theexpressionsKatriya,Vaiyaanddra.Itseemsmorethanplausiblethatthe
Assalyana Sutta(oratanyratethispartofit)isnotonlymorerecentthanthe
invasionofAlexander,butalsomorerecent,perhapsmuchmorerecent,thanthe
inscriptionofAoka.66
Alsootherbuddhistdiscoursesthatdealwiththebrahmanicalvisionof
society,orwiththeclaimedsuperiorityofBrahmins,containindications
suggestingthattheywerecomposedatalatedate.Thisisnottheoccasionto
enterintoadetailedanalysis.67InsteadIproposetolookattwospecificBrahmins
whoarepresentedinthetextsasoccupyingtwodifferentbutcharacteristic
positionsinsociety.
64Chakravarti,1987:98;cf.Mertens,2005:239f.65Chakravarti,1987:104.66AttemptstodatetheAssalyana SuttabeforeAlexander(e.g.,Halbfass,1995)mustthereforebeconsideredwithsuspicion.67Formoredetails,seeBronkhorst,2007:353f.
JB-BB 39
27.10.2010
ThefirstoneisAsita,thebuddhistSimeon.Asita,itmayberecalled,is
theoldBrahminwhoseesthenew-bornGautamaandpredicts,onthebasisofhis
physiognomy,thatthisbabywilleitherbecomeaworld-ruleroraBuddha.
SimilarpredictionshadbeenmadeatthecradleofearlierBuddhas,andofthe
presentBuddha,againnormallybyBrahmins.68Thereislittlereasontobelieve
thatthestoryrepresentshistoricalreality.Theverynotionofaworld-ruler
suggeststhatitwasinventedafterAoka,orinanycaseaftertheunificationof
northernIndiaintoanempirebytheNandas;atthetimeofthehistoricalBuddha
therewasnoworld-ruler,andtherehadneverbeenoneinIndia.Butwhateverits
exactdate,theepisodeofAsitashowsthatpredictingthefuturewas,orbecame,a
typicallybrahmanicaloccupation.
ThesecondBrahmintobeconsideredisVarkra(PliVassakra),
whomthetextspresentastheministerofaking,KingAjtaatru.ThisBrahmin
hasadiscussionwiththeBuddhatowardtheendofthelatterslife,askinghim
forpoliticaladvice.69Therearevariousreasonstothinkthatthismeetingbetween
theBuddhaandVarkranevertookplace,andthatthestoryisalater
invention.70Thisdoesnotchangethefactthatwefindherethenotionofa
Brahminwhohasmadehimselftheministerofakingwhoisnototherwise
knownforbeingpartialtotheBrahmins.WeareofcourseremindedofCakya,
supposedlytheministerofCandraguptaMaurya.Inthislattercase,thereare
reasonstothinkthatthestorywasinventedinthelightofanincreasingly
influentialbrahmanicalideology(chapterII.3,below).Itseemspossiblethat
Varkraowedhis(invented)existencetothebrahmanizationthatBuddhism
underwentinsubsequentcenturies(chapterIII.5,below).
68Bronkhorst,2007:272f.;Bareau,1962:13f.69Forapresentationandanalysisofthisadvice,seeBechert,1966:6f.70Bareau,1970:67f.;Schmithausen,1996:67;1999:50.ThestoryalsocontainsthepredictionbytheBuddhaofthefuturegreatnessofPaliputra;Schlingloff(1969:42)comments:InunseremFallescheintwenigereinehistorischeberlieferungdenAnstosszuderLegendenbildunggegebenzuhaben,alsvielmehrdieTendenz,dieerstaunlicheGrssedieserStadtmiteinerProphezeiungdesReligionsstiftersinVerbindungzubringen,unddarberhinausihrenNamenzuerklren:ausPali-Dorf(-grma)wurdePali-Stadt(-putra).GeradediesabererschttertdieGlaubwrdigkeitderLegende,denndaszweiteGlieddesStadtnamensputra(Sohn)kannniemalsdieBedeutungStadtannehmen.
JB-BB 40
27.10.2010
VarkraisdescribedasbeingtheministerofKingAjtaatru,notashis
Purohita.ThePurohitaroyalchaplainisyetanimportantfigureinthe
brahmanicalvisionoftheworld.71ThePurohitaconductstheceremonialritesof
theking,andishiscloseadviser.Thewordisknowntothebuddhistcanon,but
notfrequentinit.AnanalysisofitsoccurrencesinthePliSuttasprovidessome
interestingdata.
IntheDgha Nikyathewordoccursinthisfunction72onlyinthree
discourses:theKadanta Sutta,theMahpadna Sutta,andtheMahgovinda
Sutta.73Inthefirstandthelastofthese,thePurohitaconcernedistheBuddha
himselfduringanearlierexistence,whouseshisprivilegedaccesstothekingto
inspirethelattertodogoodworks:intheKadanta Suttatoperformasacrifice
inwhichnolivingbeingsareslain,intheMahgovinda Suttatorenouncethe
world.TheMahpadna SuttaisaboutearlierBuddhas,mostspecificallythe
BuddhacalledVipassin.Vipassinwasaprince,sonofakingwhohadaPurohita.
ThisPurohitaplaysnorolewhatsoeverinthestory,ishoweverthefatherofason
whoisamongVipassinsfirstconverts.
TheMajjhima NikyausesthewordPurohitainonesinglepassage,which
ishoweverrepeatedinthreedifferentdiscourses:theKandaraka Sutta,the
Apaaka Sutta,andtheGhoamukha Sutta;74itisrepeatedafourthtimeinthe
Aguttara Nikya.75InthispassagetheBuddhadistinguishesfourkindsof
persons:(i)thepersonwhotormentshimself,(ii)thepersonwhotormentsothers,
(iii)thepersonwhotormentshimselfandothers,and(iv)thepersonwho
tormentsneitherhimselfnorothers.TheBuddhathenexplainsthatthethirdkind
ofperson,clearlytheworstbecausehetormentsbothhimselfandothers,ishe
whoperformsbrahmanicalsacrificesalongwithhisPurohita.ThePurohitais
heretheco-perpetratorofdisreputableactivities.
NoneoftheseSuttasdescribe,orevenpretendtodescribe,thesituationat
thetimeandintheregionoftheBuddha.Theydonotsuggest,muchlessstate,
71See,e.g.,Spellman,1964:72f.;Willis,2009:169ff.72DNIIpp.272and275havethewordintheexpressionkya brahma-purohita,apparentlywithoutanysemanticconnectionwithourroyalchaplain.73ThereisabriefreferencetothisatANIIIp.373.74MNIp.343f.;412;IIp.161f.75ANIIp.207f.
JB-BB 41
27.10.2010
thatthekingswhomtheBuddhametduringhisperegrinationsinGreater
MagadhahadPurohitasattheircourt.Allofthem,withtheexceptionofthe
Mahpadna Sutta,whichistotallyuninformativeinthismatter,criticizetheway
oflifethePurohitastandsfor,eitherbyinvolvinghimdirectlyinactivitiesthat
aretoberejected,ormoresubtlybysuggestingthattheonlygoodPurohitaisa
buddhistPurohita(toadaptawell-knownexpression).Eitherwaythese
discoursescanbeunderstoodasreactionstoabrahmanicalchallengewhichmade
itselffeltduringthecenturiesfollowingthedemiseoftheBuddha.
Wehavealreadyseenthatsomeofthecanonicaltextsthatdealwith
brahmanicalideasandpracticesappeartoberelativelylateadditions.Perhapsall
ofthemare.Quiteindependentofthisquestionistheobservationthatthe
buddhistcanonoftenmentionsBrahmins,evensometimesBrahminswhoare
engagedintypicallybrahmanicalactivities.However,theseBrahminsare
presentedaslivinginaworldwhichremainsfundamentallynon-brahmanical.
Ourreflectionssofarallowustogainsomeinsightintothewayinwhich
Brahminscopedwiththechangedpoliticalcircumstancesthathadarrivedwith
thecreationofempireinnorthernIndia.Someofthemmovedbeyondtheareas
wheretheymighthopetobeengagedaspriestsintoregionsthatdidnotaccept
theirvisionofsociety.Inthoseotherregionstheyofferedservicesadjustedtothe
newenvironment.Theycouldnotexpecttheretobeaskedtocarryoutmajor
vedicsacrifices,andindeed,certainbrahmanicaltextsadmitthatthetimeshave
changed:sacrificeisherestatedtobethedharmaoftheDvpara-yuga,nowpast,
whilegiving(dna)isthedharmaofthepresentKali-yuga.76Brahminscould
howeverperforms