dvija varNa

[Lynken Ghose]

Dear Lance Cousins:

You stated:

"It is basic to 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 follow your reasoning processes here. I don't see how either
Gombrich or I fit into the category you have described. I think that you
have jumped to a lot of conclusions without fully explaining your train of
thought. That makes for an unclear discussion.

Gombrich offers some information from a study, which I quoted, in the
interest of shedding some light on the composition of the early Buddhist
community. In his description of the information Gombrich clearly mentions
that this commentary is from circa 500 CE (although perhaps based on earlier
material) and is therefore not entirely reliable.

I don't recall ever stating that this was infallible information, nor does
Gombrich. Nevertheless, it is interesting and it does state that there were
people of lower castes involved in early Buddhism: that's all that was
offered. In this commentary, according to Gombrich, there is information
about 328 monks and nuns and the various castes that they belonged to. 21
are listed as from the s'uudra and outcastes.
While we do have to be skeptical, because of the late date etc., the
information cannot be entirely dismissed as "absurd." Instead, I think that
we should try to consider every piece of information carefully and not rule
out any possibility.

Sincerely,

Lynken Ghose



>From: "L.S.Cousins" <selwyn at NTLWORLD.COM>
>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 07:37:22 +0000
>
>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

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