dvija varNa

[Yashwant Malaiya]

I thank  L.S.Cousins for his comments.

>Lynken Ghose comments:
>
>According to R. Gombrich's "Theravada Buddhism" (pp. 55-56), there were
>people of all castes in the community.

I agree.

>Gombrich quotes a study done on a 5th cent. commentary to the
>Theragatha and Therigatha hymns, in which it is clear that the
>majority of the disciples were Brahmin, but certainly far from
>all. Are you concluding, from this study, that the most of the
>leaders were Brahmin? This connection is not made, as far as I
>know, in Gombrich.

> From what I have come across, it seems that a majority of the
leaders of the Buddhist Sangha in India were Brahmin. It is
possible that some of them were not Brahmin, but somehow they
tradition paints them as Brahmin. In any case it is clear that
Buddhism did not arise as a protest against the Brahmins, but
because Siddhartha attained Bodhi. Many Brahmins supported
Buddhism. It is my guess that a large fraction of the students
in various Buddhist viharas were Brahmin (Another large fraction,
specially in Magadh must have been Kayasthas). The last teacher
of Nalanda was supported by a local wealthy brahmin.

The brahmins have always belonged to different philosophical
schools. Just like a brahmin can be a shaiva, vaishnava, saibaba
devotee etc, he can be a Buddhist or Jain.

Buddhist texts clearly convey the impression that brahmins were
highly regarded (not because they were born so, but because of
their learning and conduct). It appears that brahmins did not
lose any prestige during the time Buddhism was popular. One
notices that by the time Buddhism peaked in India, it was common
for gods and princes to be shown wearing an upavita.

>More to the point, this is all data from eight or nine hundred years
>later. To analyse it as 'scientific' information is absurd. Probably
>some of the information about well-known figures is correct, but as a
>whole it is likely to be part of the natural evolution of traditions.
>It cannot be used to reconstruct the social composition of early
>Buddhism.

True. But we can easily reject the view that Brahmins and Buddhism
were mutually exclusive.

Lance Cousins wrote:
>As regards Buddhas, of course, the claim that some were brahmins and
>some khattiyas is derived from the Mahaapadaana-suttanta (D II 2f.).

For some information see:
http://209.198.49.230/livres/001-28-bouddhas.htm

Yashwant