dvija varNa

[L.S.Cousins]

Dear Lynken,

I have made no comments about either you or Richard Gombrich. I am
simply addressing the method.

>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.

We know that new materials are often created. Especially, people
elaborate story material. So, if there is no story, they invent one.
If nothing is said about the author of the verses, sooner or later
someone will put in a plausible name and background. You have to
remember that the people concerned were not interested in history.
What they wanted was material for teaching dhamma which would
motivate and please the hearer so as to advance them in their pursuit
of the way. Perhaps some less worthy motivations sometimes too. They
would have seen nothing wrong in adding names and dates. Accuracy in
our sense would only matter in preserving the letter (dhamma) and
spirit (attha) of the Buddha's teaching.

To defend the traditions, you have to argue that they are based on
texts written down in the Sinhalese dialect of Prakrit in the first
century B.C. on the basis of earlier traditions brought from what we
now call India or Pakistan in the third or second century B.C. This
is not impossible, but it seems rather unlikely. There is no reason
to suppose that the early followers of the Buddhist way were
interested in such matters. Moreover, we consistently find that the
traditions of other Buddhist schools vary both from the Pali
traditions and among themselves. This suggests strongly (although it
does not absolutely prove) that all traditions about such matters
tell us more about Buddhism in the early centuries A.D. than about
the earlier period.

If I call the method of relying on unsupported sources from many
hundreds of years later absurd, it is because the historicity of all
sorts of legends can be defended in this way. The progress of
historical research has consistently shown that late information (no
matter how detailed) cannot be relied upon without supporting
evidence.

Lance Cousins
--
HEADINGTON, UK

CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
selwyn at ntlworld.com