dvija varNa

[Lynken Ghose]

In response to Yashwant Malaiya's comments -

You state that "Buddhism did not arise as a protest against the Brahmins but
because Siddhartha attained bodhi."

It may well be true that the Buddha's main goal was not to one of protest
against the Brahmins; however, the Vaaset.t.ha Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaaya
and the Dhammapada etc. clearly state that the Buddha did not believe that
one should be called a Brahmin by birth but by conduct.

I am quoting B. Nanamoli's translation (Vaaset.t.ha Sutta):

"One is not a brahmin by birth
Nor by birth a non-brahmin.
By action is one a brahmin,
By action is one a non brahmin."

Also, from the Dhammapada (385, Ross and Carter trans.)

For whom the farther shore or the nearer shore
Or both does not exist,
Who is free of distress, unyoked
That one I call a braahman.a


You also state the following: "Buddhist texts clearly convey the impression
that Brahmins were highly regarded (not because they were born so, but
because of their learning and conduct)".

The texts I have read merely state that someone should only be called a
Brahmin if they are of good conduct. This is a slightly different statement
that what you have said above, unless you are referring to other types of
statements than the ones I have quoted above.

You seem to be saying that the Buddha believed in the idea of Brahmin by
birth but did not respect them because of this, but rather, because of their
learning and conduct. In contrast, based on the scriptures I have quoted
above, I would argue that the Buddha (as quoted in the Pali Canon) did not
accept the caste system at all, as the caste system is something you are
born into.

Lynken Ghose


>From: Yashwant Malaiya <malaiya at CS.COLOSTATE.EDU>
>Reply-To: Indology <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
>Subject: Re: dvija varNa
>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:59:05 +0000
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.