dvija varNa

[L.S.Cousins]

Dear Lynken Ghose,

I don't particularly object to the attempt. It is always interesting
to see what can be made of something. But I do think the method is
absurd.

Gombrich cites B.J.Gokhale here. He thinks that the data in the
commentaries may be based on earlier sources. It may be, but it is
precisely historical information about people that varies the most in
our sources. So we have good reason to suppose that such things are
added later.

It is basic to the understanding of historical processes that very
small, imperceptible changes in each generation add up to very large
changes over centuries. Any historical method which ignores this is
absurd.

>I don't think that I would use the word "absurd" to categorize Gombrich's or
>anyone's attempt to capture the composition of the early sangha. It is an
>attempt but admittedly not one that is faultless. I'm not sure that I was
>labelling it "scientific", nor does Gombrich in his study.

On the particular issue we can certainly say (on the basis of much
earlier sources) that some of the more well-known disciples of the
Buddha were brahmins and khattiyas. A few were of much more humble
origin. We do not know the social origins of many. This data is
compatible with the view that most of the disciples were brahmins and
khattiyas. It is also compatible with the view that many of the
leaders of the community were brahmins and khattiyas, but the bulk of
the community were of 'lower' class origin. In any case, we have no
reliable information on the detailed make-up of society at large in
this period. Brahmins and khattiyas could have been a very small
minority or a much larger percentage of the population.

Lance Cousins
--
HEADINGTON, UK

CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
selwyn at ntlworld.com