dvija varNa

[L.S.Cousins]

N. Ganesan writes:

>The foll. point is not mentioned so far in the
>discussion, and may be relevant.
>
>The situation in Ceylon and SE Asia is quite different in medieval
>times. Then, SE Asia had thriving Shaivism and kings professing
>Shaivaite religion are many. In Ceylon, no such recordings. Since
>ancient times from the east coast of India, Shaivism played a major
>role in SE Asia, but not among the Buddhists of Ceylon.
>By looking at the Brahmins in SE Asia, we cannot project many
>brahmins present in medieval Sinhala society.

When I referred to S.E. Asia, I meant the parts of S.E. Asia which
are Southern Buddhist today. Indonesia is irrelevant to this. We
should not read back a separation between 'Hindus' and 'Buddhists'
which was far less in ancient times, especially before the coming of
Islam, and completely anachronistic in the early period.

>Dr. Lance Cousens:
>>I doubt this. It seems much more likely that brahmins played some role in
>>the capital cities and courts, at least down until the arrival of the
>>Portuguese. Exactly as they do subsequently in South-East Asia. I agree
>>that there is no evidence that their numbers were ever very large.
>
>See above. Brahmins in SE Asia is due to Shaivism. In art, we have
>huge Shaivaite temples in Khmer, monumental Hindu bronzes in
>Thailand, Indonesia,

They are more important in the period when there is strong support
from aristocracy/royalty. I suspect that, as in Ceylon, popular
suspect remained largely with the Buddhist sangha.

>  the entire script of SE Asia shows South Indian
>influence.

Or, influence from Ceylon. Or, most likely, from both. And, of
course, from South India mediated by Ceylon.

Of course, there is no doubt that Shaiva religious activities were
carried out in Cambodia and had important influences on the incoming
Thais. At the same time, we now know that Buddhism using Pali as its
scriptural language was present in a large area from central Burma to
central Thailand from at least the early centuries A.D. I suspect
that there were some brahmins present at royal courts throughout this
period.

The same is true for the worship of various deities. The majority of
Buddhist laity do not reject the deities who have been worshipped or
at least recognized among them from the earliest beginnings of
Buddhism. This is especially true for Indra and Brahmaa (and a number
of lesser figures). As the importance of Vishnu and Shiva grew among
South Asians generally, so it grew among Buddhists - but, perhaps
less universally and less strongly than among others.

>In Indonesia, the word for moon is tiGkaL (a Drav. word
>in tamil, kannada; A. C. Burnell, vamza-brAhmaNa). There was a large
>syncretism between Mahayana Buddhism and Saivism in SE Asia
>happening for centuries.

I don't know whether syncretism is the right word, but certainly
there is some measure of this at times. But this was certainly
present in Ceylon also, if not on the same scale. Everywhere local
religious traditions are also very important, as indeed in the Tamil
country.

>Buddhists of Ceylon constructed myths of much antiquity in the first
>some centuries CE.

Myth constructing is a rather widespread human activity. So you will
have to be more specific. Which specific statements do you consider
to be myths constructed in Ceylon ? Are you arguing that the
Puraa.nas were written in Ceylon ?

>  This is projected back by the West and IE
>specialists onto Buddha legends, as Ven. Tantra indiactes.

That is nonsense. The Sinhalese and others could manage this by themselves !

>  The dating
>of Buddhist texts have vested interests,

Irrelevant. What is the actual evidence ? Which texts are we talking about ?

>  and are quite doubtful from
>a scholarly perspective.

Now that first century A.D. Buddhist manuscripts have been found in
Afghanistan, this position is very difficult to maintain in the
extreme form you are putting forward.

--
HEADINGTON, UK

CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
selwyn at ntlworld.com