[INDOLOGY] Publication Announcement

[Walser, Joseph]

Matthew,
I am particularly interested in Buddhism up to the beginning of the Gupta Dynasty. When I look at the Nikayas and the Agamas, I notice a handful (less than 10) of very carefully worded critiques of sacrifice -- some of which appear to be quite close to criticisms that brahmanical communities were already making. On the other hand, the rejection of yajna and hotara defined as wrong view can be found in the following sutras DN 23 MN 60, 76, 110, 114, 117 AN 3.117, 3.118, 3.119, 10.176, 10.211, 10.212, and 10.217 (sorry no page numbers, I cut this from my notes). I do not disagree with you that rejection of Vedic sacrifice BECAME important for some Buddhist communities later. But to say that from the time of the Buddha onward there was a blanket rejection of Vedic sacrifice across the board by all Buddhists on the basis of a few sutras assumes that all communities used all the sutras that are available to us now. It seems more likely that the anti-brahmanical sutras were enjoyed by non-brahmin communities and that communities of Brahmin Buddhists wouldn't pay much attention to them. 

This is part of a much larger argument that I hope to send off in a few months. 


Joseph Walser

Associate Professor

Department of Religion

Tufts University

________________________________________
From: Matthew Kapstein [mkapstei at uchicago.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Walser, Joseph; Andrew Nicholson; Indology List
Subject: RE: [INDOLOGY] Publication Announcement

But, Joseph,

"The Nastika is one who denies the existence of karma and the efficacy of yajna and hotara"
surely implies that Buddhists were nāstika-s in the sense that they did deny the efficacy of the
Vedic sacrificial cult.

As i recall, however, Kamalaśīla, in the TSP, does take the Buddhists and Brahmanical traditions
to be both āstika-s in that they both affirm the doctrines of karma and mokṣa.

I find it easier to make sense of these shifting uses of āstika and nāstika if we understand the terms not
as fixed categories of types of believers, but in their literal sense as meaning "yeah-sayers" and "nay-sayers".
The precise usage may then be allowed to shift according to just what the yeah or nay are about in
any given context. Of course, a more or less fixed use did set in, but as you've all rightly suggested,
this was a relatively late development.

best,
Matthew


Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études,
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago

________________________________________