Bronkhorst - BUDDHISM IN THE SHADOW

  • 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