Mayañhi, bho gotama, pubbe evaṃ jānāma – ‘ke ca muṇḍakā samaṇakā ibbhā kaṇhā bandhupādāpaccā, ke ca dhammassa aññātāro’ti? [M ii.176]
Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, translate this:
"Formerly, Master Gotama, we used to think: "who are there bald-pated recluses, these swarthy menial offspring of the Kinsman's feet, that they would understand the Dhamma?" [p. 785]
Note 893 refers to note 524.
"The Kinsman (bandhu) is Brahmā, who was called the kinsman by the brahmins because they regarded him as their primal ancestor. MA explains that it was in a belief among the brahmins that they themselves were the offspring of Brahmā's mouth, the khattiyas of his breast, the vessas of his belly, the suddas of his legs, and the samaṇas of the soles of his feet.
Interesting to see the Buddhists described in their own scriptures as lower in status than śudras! Suggests that Dr. Ambedkar might have had a point in theorising that the Buddhists might have been the original Dalits.
Patañjali was my first introduction to meditation, I just wasn't fond of his theism. Later, Buddhist meditation seemed very similar. This explains a lot.
Are their approx dates for the Shramana tradition? Do some think them independent but co-existent with Vedic religion or predating? ...
Well, there's Buddhist meditation and Buddhist meditation isn't there! 100's of varieties, many different approaches, and almost all Indian meditation technique shows the influence of Buddhism.
I'm not sure about absolute dates for the śramaṇa tradition. One book to check out is Bronkhorst's Greater Magadha (you'll probably have to use inter-library loan as it's very expensive). He argues that the early Upaniṣads show the Brahmins absorbing ideas from the śramaṇa traditions in North East India - he is not alone in arguing for two distinct cultures one based in the North West (the Kurukṣetra, north of modern Delhi) and one (possibly non-āryan) in the East centered around Magadha. Most people also now accept that Mahāvīra, the Buddha's older contemporary, was not the originator of the Jain tradition, but a successor to it.
This was my very first Rave. I cringe slightly at reading it :-) Check out my reprise: Hīnayāna Reprise
(1) I love if you could do a post on "How to Research Buddhism On-line" where you give resources I am sure you have compiled over the years. It sounds like you also have an extensive library or access to one.
(2) "I cringe slightly at reading it :-)" I cringe at all my past writings -- even my present ones. Such cringing makes me (a) realize how silly my attachment to systematization is and to knowledge in general (b) helps me to be easy on those my mind want to be hard on. :-)
(3) Wow, never heard of the East vs. North West stuff. So much to learn. I wonder if the Non-āryan stuff was preserved in any of the present Indian tribals -- I use to have a Munda tribal teacher for drum.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
There is no such thing as Hinayana. It is a slander made up by so called Great Wayists who were busy assimilating Hinduism in order to suck up to their high caste patrons whose money they couldn't do without, and who are ultimately responsible for the disappearance of Buddhism from India. Where do they get off being so arrogant?! The Brahmins had a far more sophisticated approach to religion, and a much better understanding of what religion does for people, and you'll notice that successive waves of Muslim iconoclasts, not to mention Muslim rulers did not wipe them out! The Mahayana sold itself out, and we would know nothing at all about it if the Chinese and Tibetans hadn't kept careful records.
One thing that has been becoming abundantly clear about Buddhists is that we are deluded as to the origins of our traditions. Apart from the idea of dependent-origination which is incredibly important, everything else was taken bodily from existing models of practice. They mainly drew on the Shramana tradition which had turned away from the Vedic tradition only a few hundred years before Gotama did his thing under the Bodhi tree, although you could argue that they had simply re-emphasized some of the original aspects of it - the quest for inspiration and insight was fundamental to early Vedic religion! What the Mahayana did which was interesting was to go back to the source and start incorporating Vedic ideas directly, assimilating Vedic and tribal gods where earlier Buddhists had tried to head off that kind of syncretism. Buddhist practice is essentially Vedic in origin,although the best of it is interpreted in terms of dependent-origination, I wonder at times whether this idea were not incipient in the Vedic world view in any case. It wouldn't surprise me. So all this talk of Hinayana/Mahayana is kind of meaningless. Mind you I've had some very unproductive arguments about this question with some Gelugpas!
The word hina is not a very nice one in Sanskrit. It was very frequently used to describe outcasts and people of low status. A contemporary translation might be "Nigger's Way" - I think it would have been that shocking to the people of ancient India. The assumption, as far as I can tell from the kinds of terms it's used in, is that the hina-people were not lesser in the ordinary sense (for which one might use the Pali word cula - there are frequently cula and maha versions of Pali suttas. ) but actually the untouchables and other people beneath contempt. It goes back to late Brahminical ideas of ritual pollution- the touch of these people is polluting! These are the hina-people. I suspect that it resulted from a Brahmin infiltration of the Buddhist monasteries. During India's golden age, the Gupta period,the rulers were all followers of the Brahminical religion! At the same time they started incorporating Vedic style mantras into their texts, but completely out of context. They also included worship of deities like Saraswati and Sri (see the Golden Light Sutra) in their texts without much if any conversion.
See also my update on this essay: Hīnayāna Reprise. 05 March 2010.
4 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formCame across this recently
Mayañhi, bho gotama, pubbe evaṃ jānāma – ‘ke ca muṇḍakā samaṇakā ibbhā kaṇhā bandhupādāpaccā, ke ca dhammassa aññātāro’ti? [M ii.176]
Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, translate this:
"Formerly, Master Gotama, we used to think: "who are there bald-pated recluses, these swarthy menial offspring of the Kinsman's feet, that they would understand the Dhamma?" [p. 785]
Note 893 refers to note 524.
"The Kinsman (bandhu) is Brahmā, who was called the kinsman by the brahmins because they regarded him as their primal ancestor. MA explains that it was in a belief among the brahmins that they themselves were the offspring of Brahmā's mouth, the khattiyas of his breast, the vessas of his belly, the suddas of his legs, and the samaṇas of the soles of his feet.
Interesting to see the Buddhists described in their own scriptures as lower in status than śudras! Suggests that Dr. Ambedkar might have had a point in theorising that the Buddhists might have been the original Dalits.
See also Ritual Purity
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Patañjali was my first introduction to meditation, I just wasn't fond of his theism. Later, Buddhist meditation seemed very similar. This explains a lot.
Are their approx dates for the Shramana tradition? Do some think them independent but co-existent with Vedic religion or predating? ...
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Hi Sabio
Well, there's Buddhist meditation and Buddhist meditation isn't there! 100's of varieties, many different approaches, and almost all Indian meditation technique shows the influence of Buddhism.
I'm not sure about absolute dates for the śramaṇa tradition. One book to check out is Bronkhorst's Greater Magadha (you'll probably have to use inter-library loan as it's very expensive). He argues that the early Upaniṣads show the Brahmins absorbing ideas from the śramaṇa traditions in North East India - he is not alone in arguing for two distinct cultures one based in the North West (the Kurukṣetra, north of modern Delhi) and one (possibly non-āryan) in the East centered around Magadha. Most people also now accept that Mahāvīra, the Buddha's older contemporary, was not the originator of the Jain tradition, but a successor to it.
This was my very first Rave. I cringe slightly at reading it :-) Check out my reprise: Hīnayāna Reprise
Regards
Jayarava
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Thank you !
(1) I love if you could do a post on "How to Research Buddhism On-line" where you give resources I am sure you have compiled over the years. It sounds like you also have an extensive library or access to one.
(2) "I cringe slightly at reading it :-)"
I cringe at all my past writings -- even my present ones. Such cringing makes me (a) realize how silly my attachment to systematization is and to knowledge in general (b) helps me to be easy on those my mind want to be hard on.
:-)
(3) Wow, never heard of the East vs. North West stuff. So much to learn. I wonder if the Non-āryan stuff was preserved in any of the present Indian tribals -- I use to have a Munda tribal teacher for drum.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010