The Brahmanical Critique of : A Sociological and Historical Perspective

The aim of my dissertation is to trace the lines of the Buddhist-Briihmat;ta philosophical debate and 10­

cate it in its social and historical context as clearly as I can. The debate between exponents of Buddhdar­

sana and upholders of Brahmanical orthodoxy has been presented almost entirely in both Indian and

Western histories of as a matter of doctrines and arguments divested of their social re­

lations. This debate is immensely interesting in itself, representing as it does one of the great achieve­ , ments of sustained human in'luiry, remarkable in its ingenuity, subtlety, and depth. A good part of my

work will involve simply unfolding it. It is evident, however, that this debate also has a social signifi­

cance, a contour and direction shaped by the course of South Asian history. This social, economic, and

political shaping can be delineated in a way that illuminates an important and neglected aspect of the

meaning of these doctrines and arguments. After surveying in more precise detail the field of the Bud­

dhist-Brahmava debate, its chronology, periodization, affiliations and oppositions, the point and counter­

point ofargumentation, and the threads of similarity and divergence, I will then try to map the field of the

debate onto politico-economic changes to determine to what extent it can be seen to track them.

My dissertation is therefore intended as a contribution to the sociology of knowledge in and an effort at historicization that begins with the question, what was the ideological function and significance

of the Buddhist-Brahmanical debate, the social dynamic at work in it, the materiality of intellectual pro­

duction supporting it, and the reasons why the Buddhists appear to have lost it? I will look at several kinds of texts: a preliminary survey ofreports by Chinese and Tibetan pilgrims to

the Holy Land, literary and dramatic descriptions of Buddhists, mostly of a critical and often satiric na­

ture, and smarta references, that give us a vivid picture of Buddhism in practice, how Buddhists were ac­

tually living, and how they were viewed by their critics; but primarily, through the most important iistika

refutations of Buddhist ideas in . This will be the centerpiece of my dissertation, presenting a de­

tailed critical analysis of the main lines of sastric argumentation, outlining its dialogical interaction with

Buddhist thought. I will translate the essential sections ofthe relevant Nyi:lya, Si:lmkhya , Mimi:lmsi:l,

and Vedi:lntic texts, sticking to the big names among siitrakaras, bha~akaras, varttikakaras, and samgra­

hakaras. These texts will be discussed together with the relevant Buddhist texts and a wide range of his­

torical and cultural evidence to socially and historically contextualize the symbolic-ideational contest as it

develops between the Buddhists and their Brahmanical critics.

The period from Nilgarjuna in the second century C.B. to Si:lntarak~ita in the 8th century C.E. is. the

greatest age of philosophical creativity in Indian philosophy. The only comparable one is the ferment of

the sramana movement of 700-400 BCE, out of which emerged the sages of the , the Bud­

dhists, the Jains, and the Ajrvikas. After 200 C.E. we see the crystallization ofthe , concentrated tex­

tual production in the commentarial form, and the appearance on the scene of named personalities. The

reason for this is clearly the expanding use and standardizing effect of writing and large-scale manuscript

production and dissemination, which was superceding oral transmission. The circulation of manuscripts

gives rise to a symbiotic attention space of shared protocols, codes of discourse, and problems in which

intellectual exchange and argument is carried on. The language of this discursive space is Sanskrit. A

classical Sanskritic education becomes the price of entry. The material bases that support this space of

intellectual activity are laid down during the Gupta era. The Hindul challenge to Buddhist thought and the

Buddhist response is the energizing stimulus driving the burst of creativity that follows from 400-800 C.B.

The problem with the standard histories of Indian philosophy is that they are not sufficiently historical.

This is mainly due to the poor documentation and lack of evidence for the lives and times of Indian phi­ losophers. We simply don't have the sources of information-----;-letters, memoirs, and biographies-to re­

construct the, intellectual history of early India in the depth and detail possible for many philosophers

from Plato to Wittgenstein. What we do have are mostly fragments of anecdotal lore and the legends of

iconic figures. The personal lives and affiliations of Indian philosophers are almost completely lost to us.

We know little of the personal relations of and the influences on writers of sastras, how their texts are

produced and consumed, the public fora and schools, vihtlras, tlsramas and ghatikas, in which they stud­

ied, taught, and debated, the social status and reputation of pandits, the forms of patronage and remunera­

tion, and the whole social milieux in which the Brahmin intelligentsia moved and interacted.

Compounding the difficulties, all of these social forms were changing over the 2000 years of Indian

intellectual life. Some figures are clustered together in time and place and seem to have personal contact;

most are separated by decades, if not centuries, and linked only by textual traditions. Texts circulate in

different channels of transmission and a pan-Indian, synoptic, encyclopedic view of all darsanas, al­

though anticipated by Bhavaviveka, 5th cen. C.B. and Haribhadra, 8th cen. C.B., comes very late with Mad­

hava, 15th century C.B., and other compilers ofsamgrahaktiras. The period from the 14th century to 18th cen­

turies, understudied because regarded as stagnant and derivative, in fact sees the greatest outpouring of

Sanskrit textual production.

Neat paradigms such as the 'six darsanas' became popular during the later scholastic period of hand­

books and compendia when the long, tangled grow of sastric traditions is compacted into discrete and

static forms for students. Indian philosophic traditions have passed through several periods of retroactive

reformulation and reformation that can obscure or erase the earlier phases. Following the model of six

darsanas, standard accounts of Indian philosophy have tended, until very recently, to split up develop­

ments, treating each system or school separately as a self-contained entity. This approach misses the in­

terplay of social networks and the intertextuality that invigorates creative thought.

The symbiotic development of Buddhist-Brahmanical thought has been particularly ill-served by this compartmentalized treatment by lifting it out of the field of oppositional interaction that generated it and this lack of narrative histories that chart the evolving sequence of argument and recover the earlier phases

overlaid by subsequent systematization. Partial sketches of dynamics and interactions among schools are

3 to be found in older masters such as Theodore Stcherbats~ and Erich Frauwallner , and more recently in

Stephen Phillips' exposition of the interactions of and Advaita,4 and in Richard King's thematic

approach to Buddhist-Hindu thought.5 My study of the Brahmanical-Buddhist debate is meant as a contri­

bution to these efforts.

More work needs to be done to recover the materiality of intellectual production in the first millen­

nium C.B. Ancient Indian producers of "philosophic" texts were almost exclusively members of educated

elites. Even the Buddhists are largely Brahmins or of well-born ~atriya origins. Far too little attention

. has been paid to this fact. Brahmin intellectuals may not have conceived their work in terms of the sharp

demarcation modern philosophers make between the religious and the philosophic (although Neo-Nyaya

began to resemble Logical Positivism in its rigorous technical and unmetaphysical character), but they did

not regard their work as having any more to do with the impure realms of the social or political than a

modern academic philosopher does. Indeed, that ideas have a social or historical dimension fell largely

outside of their conceptual horizon, notwithstanding that the Buddha had much to say about Brahmans,

and other social and political matters and Buddhists were palpably seen by Brahmans as a challenge to the

varntisrama social order legitimated by Vedic tradition and ~tika metaphysics. Modern philosophers

have mostly treated Buddhadarsana and Brahmanical counter-arguments as pure philosophy, and thus have colluded with and subscribed old Brahmin gurus in the occlusion of the social-symbolic significa­ tion of their texts. It is, therefore, a useful and interesting endeavor to recover this social dimension. For it is also true to say that "Buddhism" as a religion apart from the state, society or economy is another of

2 Th. Stcherbatsky, 1930, Buddhist , 2 vols. Bibliotheca Buddhica, XXVI, Leningrad, 1930; 1956, The Central Conception ofBuddhism, Calcutta. . 3 Erich Frauwallner, 1974, History ofIndian Philosophy, intro. Leo Gabriel, tr. V.M. Bedekar, New York: Humanities Press. 4 Phillips, Stephen H. 1995, Classical Indian Metaphysics: Refotations ofReali.sm and the Emergence of "New LoJjc," Chicago: Open Court. those Orientalist conceptual boxes that probably have little or no correspondence to how Buddhists in 700

C.E. imagined themselves or actually lived their lives.6

Caste is another insufficiently explored aspect of the social-symbolic of Indian Philosophy. Indeed,

caste might be described as the social unconscious of the Buddhist-BrahmaJ;1a debate. Defense of the

varqasrama order is clearly a strong motivation in astika thinkers as they expound conceptions of selfand

world that authorize it. The Buddhist critique of caste is a more complex case. The common view that

Buddhism was a revolt against caste is highly problematic. The evidence suggests that, like the Jains of

today, the Buddhist thinkers denied caste in theory, but were or became well-integrated into the caste sys­

tern in day-to-day life. Within the vihara there was a soteriological equality that did not translate into the

outside world. I wi1llook at a few of these theoretical manifestos, such as the Vajrasflcf. Buddhist monas­

ticism succeeded because of its multi-functionality in Indian society, mediating between resistance and

legitimation. Buddhists not only lived in accord with caste, they played a key role in the conception and

propagation of the ideas of and rebirth, shaping both the ,problem and its solution. The ideological

force of Buddhist philosophy in this regard needs more study than it has received. At bottom, both Bud­

dhist and Brahmanical thought were competing theorizations ofhow social life should be conducted. The

Buddhist denial ofjati in both the social and philosophic sphere is not incidental. Social meaning and

practice is the real unavowed content of metaphysical ideas. In actuality, it is not that unavowed, given

the loud and clear insistence on the astika-nastika distinction.

Buddhism emerged out of the sramana movement, but was co-opted and brought within the fold of

varnasrama, very quickly losing whatever equalitarian edge it might have initially had. Bauddhas became

a wealthy, worldly elite concerned with money, status, and property. The tables are turned. Whereas

Brahmans had earlier been the objects of criticism, ridicule and humor in the Suttas and Jatakas of the

PilIi Canon, now Buddhist monks become the objects of satire for their vices and hypocrisy.

6 The Dumontian view of both Western and Indian scholars that Indian culture has been shaped more by the religious than the Dolitical or economic. i.e. the here ofhi tOry' involv man ro ems c n ver ies c nce in Orie alism and ideali BrahmaJ)a philosophy begins in the opposition of Brahmans as lay householders, serving as teachers

and ritual specialists, to the consolidation of Buddhist and Jain monastic organization and patronage by

the Mauryan and Ku~ana states. This opposition was based on the formation of an orthodox lay culture

from 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. This took place by three related processes: ftrst, by the recuperation of Brah­

manical education around Upanishadic traditions and the capture and control of lay education in Indian

culture; second, by the deftnition of a distinct social identity codifted in dharmasastric canons laying out

( the duties and prohibitions for all social transactions; var1!iisrama becomes the theory, if not practice at

this early stage, for all social life, which is increasingly ritualized with Brahman priests becoming the of­

ftciating links in economic and property relations; third, the formation of an orthodox self-identity in op­

position to the niistika movements prompts intellectual challenge and the conftguration of philosophical

traditions through debate with the Buddhists.

The early stages of this formation occurred from 200 B.C.E. to 200 C.E., the Siitra period to which are

dated the founding texts of Nyaya, Vaise~ika, Mimamsa and and their legendary authors, Gau­

tama, Kaqada, , and B1ldarayana. The resistance only comes fully into view out of this opaque pe­

riod with the spread of writing. In the period from 400-800 C.E. we see' the Buddhist-Brahma1).a debate

reach its acme of sophistication and intensity. The brilliant new achievements of Mahayana-based

thought, Madhyamika and Yogacara are met by an equally astute orthodox response. Up to this point

Buddhists, in a culturally ascendant position, have largely been absorbed in the inter-sectarian differences

of the nikiiyas and the refmements of Abhidharmic analysis. The Sarvastivadins, Sautrantikas,

Mahasanghikas, and Andhakas were busy with the controversies out of which Mahayana would emanate.

Thereafter they begin to turn their attention to the new challengers.

Nyaya logic, which begins as the art of rhetoric--how to win an argument and influence people, so to speak-is the first tool invented to counter the Buddhists and remains the most impressive instrument of contestation. It is hard to underestimate the impact Nyaya has on the course of the Buddhist-BrahmaJ)a debate as both sides adopt it. Nyaya shifts the debate onto the terrain of logic and epistemology, to ques­ consequences for Buddhism, as it moved the contest onto the enemies' field of assumptions and prob­

lems, accepting the terms of pramiirlavada.7 On the other hand, this led to the most celebrated accom­

plishments in Indian philosophy. The brilliant logical and epistemological advances of Dignaga and

Dharmaklrti become the main targets of attack as the debate builds to great heights of technical virtuosity

and culminates in the Advaita tipping point.

In the cosmopolitan Gupta and Harsha eras, 300-700 C.E., one interlocking philosophical field emerges

as Buddhist and Brahmat,la opponents come to share the same intellectual space. The great lights of

Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and on the Buddhist side are matched in distinction by an

orthodox intelligentsia: Vatsyayana, Sabara, Vyasa, Uddyotakara, and Kumarila. There is much crossing

of lines by figures such as BhartJ;'hari and GaueJapada and cross-fertilization of ideas. After 700 C.E.,

things acquire a more sectarian edge as the astika begin to direct a fierce and unrelenting attack on Bud­

dhist thought and gain the upper hand in the Mimamsa reaction of Kumarila, the Advaita revolution of

Sankara, and the theologies of Rarnanuja and Madhva. The Madhyamika-Yogacara summa of Santa-

rak~ita's Tattvasa1!lgraha is a last rear-guard defense of Buddhism in retreat. With the comprehensive

works of Vacaspati MiSra, Jayanta Bhat{:a, Udayana and Srrdhara orthodox philosophy consolidates its

intellectual dominance. 8

7 Ronald Davidson, 2002, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History ofthe Tantric Movement, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 99-105. B A preliminary survey ofthe critique mounted by each ofthe classical schools discloses interesting features. Lines ofcriticism fall into patterns that attain an almost ritual character. Later Brahmanical writers frame Buddhism as a set offour vadas which attract excl.usive attention: V aibh~ika, Sautrantika, Vijfianavada and Siinyavada. A subset ofBuddhist doctrines draw their fire; the Sautrantika theory ofmomentariness and related problems ofcausality; VijfilinavDda anti-realism and the apparent denial of an external world; the supposed nihilism ofMlidhyamika sunyatii and the denial ofsvabhiiva, and the Buddhist denial ofa self. Post-Dignttga and Dhannakrrti philosophers concern themselves with the intricacies oftheories ofperception, cognition, error, negatiotl, and universals. Brahmana philosophers establish themselves as the champions ofrealism about the existence ofthe soul, the external world, substance, universals and cognition against Buddhist anti-realism, falling at points, 1 will argue, into a fundamental misconstrual of Buddhist phenomenalism. Each school develops distinct lines ofcritique. The Nyiiyasil.tras and Vatsyayana in his bh~a criticize SarvlistivDda doctrines and take note ofNttg1irjuna. Uddyotakara wrote his Nyayaviirtttika it seems solely to refute Dignaga and the 'bad logicians'. He also criticizes Vijfianavlida according to the Sautrantika exposition ofVasubandhu's Abhidharamkosa. Uddyotakara in turn is criticized by DharmakIrti, Santarak!lita, and Kamalasila. Vacaspatl Misra in the Nyiiyaviirttikatiitparyatfkti and Jayanta Bhana in the Nyiiyamanjarfvindicate in magisterial style the Nyaya position and attack Sautrantika-Vijfianavada in the formidably logi­ cized form expounded by Dharmakirti and Dhannottara. Vacaspati Misra is himself assailed by JiiiiSrimitra and RatnakIrti. Fi­ nally. Udayana is regarded as having the last word on this exchange, refuting Jfianasrimitra in the Atmatattvaviveka. Vaisesikas aooears not to engage with Buddhist ideas until very late when Sridhara addresses Viiiianavada as presented by I want to show how these intellectual events are not just happening in a vacuum, but reflect changes in

the balance of social forces underwriting them. Roughly sketched, the Buddhists move from the intellec­

tual ascendancy they enjoyed under the· internationalizing empires of the Mauryans and Ku&anas into the

cosmopolitan world of the Gupta-Harsha eras where Buddhists still receive state patronage and exist

symbiotically with an orthodoxy revitalizing with Saivism and Vi&nuism, then into a period of"medieval"

feudalization, 700-1200 C.E., when the independent political-economic bases of Buddhism were eroded.

"Medieval" is in scare quotes, because I will question the appropriateness of such historiographic periodi­

zation. After 1200, Vedantists, sparring now with the Naiyayikas of Mithila, will continue to deploy the

time-tested refutations against the ghosts ofa defunct Buddhadarsana, although, presumably, it is entirely

extinct on the peninsula. Madhava, for instance, places Bauddhamata above Carvaka as the second lowest

of 16 systems in his Vedantic hierarchy.

The Buddhist-Brahman debate has been seen by scholars as one of the factors contributing to the de­

cline of Buddhism in India insofar as the Buddhists were declared to have lost it by their Brahmanical

opponents. This is putting the cart before the horse. Buddhists ideas in themselves were never conclu­

sively and irrevocably refuted, although subject to over a millennium of ritualized attack and defense. The

Buddhist only lost the ideological struggle in India proper as shifts and displacements in the political economy of the subcontinent eroded the material support for Buddhism and Buddhist intellectual pro­ ducion. My investigation of these, shifts and displacements as they impinged on the social and material bases of Buddhadarsana, will be supplemented by reassessments of the narrative of Buddhism's decline as it has been constructed in modem historiography, the changing position of South Asia in the world sys­ tern from the Mauryan Empire to the Muslim Sultanate, the imperial and international role of Buddhism, and Buddhism in the evolution of caste society. The objective is a global perspective that understands that

Indian philosophical ideas cannot simply be reduced to the social or the ideological; they develop within a

Regarding Yoga, some ofPataiijali's siitras appear to be referring to Buddhism, and again, in many respects to have been influ­ enced by or co-developed with it. Vyllsa's bha!!ya makes brief but interesting references to Buddhism. In the Tattvavaisiiradr of the polymath Vacasapati Misra we get a fuller discussion ofBuddhamata from the Yoga position. Sankhya criti ue as we find it in Ka ila's siitras the authorless Yuktidr ikii Aniruddha in the San 'asutravrtti and Vrfianab­ structured autonomy as a sovereign, self-regulating domain of cultural production. My sociological

method is much indebted to Randall Collins' Weberian conflict theory of philosophy and Pierre

Bourdieu's model of cultural production.1o

Regarding the question of the disappearance of Buddhavacana in India itself, the view which I will

elaborate is that the overwhelmingly most important factor was the changed politico-economic state of

affairs in the subcontinent between 1200-1800 C.E. brought about by Muslim conquest and rule. The in­

ternational interconnections in which Buddhism has always flourished were cut off and suppressed in an

unprecedented way. Once these conditions changed again and international networks and cultural circula­

tion were restored, there was a brilliant resurgence. Islam supplanted Buddhism in South and Central Asia

as the international, imperial religion and dominant cultural force, playing the hegemonic role that Bud­

dhism had formerly played from Asoka to Harsha as the ideological currency of expanding empires of

trade.

The role of caste absorption and religious assimilation must be considered in this regard. I believe that

it had the effect that it did mainly in conjunction with the coup de grace of Muslim conquest and rule.

Bauddhas had gradually been coalescing with Brahma:va society since the Guptas. That was not new. This

process was intensified from 700 -1200 C.E. by the pressures of feudalization and the consequent tantriza­

tion and bhaktization of the cultural landscape. It was Muslim domination and the response of Hindu po­

litical retrenchment and caste consolidation that almost completely eliminated the social space for inde­ pendent Buddhist institution and thought in the sub-continent. Buddhists found a submerged existence and sheltering niche within the encompassing edifices of emergent especially in the fomier Piila realms as Tantric Siddhas, Sahajiyas, Vai~ava worshippers of Buddha, the ninth avatar of Vi~u, Niitha yogis, and devotees ofDharma-Cult. In the absence ofroyal patronage, the life-blood ofreligious support,

Buddhists were not in a position to recover and sustain their unique cultural institutions-viharas and in­ ternational universities-in the face of Muslim devastation and iconoclasm.

9 Randall Collins, 1998, The Sociology ofPhilosophies: A Global Theory ofIntellectual Change, Cam­ brid"e. Mass: Belknao Press ofHarvard Universi . Buddhist thought has survived repeated ups and downs, peaks and troughs of efflorescence and de­

cline: Mauryan, Ku~ana, Gupta, Harsha, and Pala. The post-Pala interruption by the Sultanate and Mughal

Empire was only the longest and most devastating before its current world-wide renaissance. Without the

swathe of destruction wrought by the iconoclastic fury of her rival Buddhism would no doubt have per­

sisted in the form it had assumed under the Palas and continued to have in Nepal: a stable Buddhist-Hindu

Tantric syncretism. 11 In the 19th and 20th centuries transmission to Euro-America and the interest of West-

em scholars, archaeologists, and spiritual seekers has led to renewal in its homeland. Ironically,

Buddhasasana's capacity for cultural adaptation, which has made it so extraordinarily successful around

the world, contributed heavily to disabling it for five centuries in the land ofits birth.

!lOne might consider the fact that even in the supposed dark age of Buddhism, 1200 to 1700 C.E. Buddhasiisana lived on in the nearby peripheries of Himachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal, Tibet, Ceylon, and Burma. Diplomatic and trade mis­ sions were exchanged, pilgrims, holy men, and travelers from these countries still continued to visit and revere the holy places of the Buddha and had contact with Buddhist teachers there. Buddhist siddhas like Buddhagupta in the 16th century were still wan­ dering around South Asia just as missionaries and pravriijakas had before him for centuries. Although it is commonly believed that after the sack of NaIanda Buddhism was totally eradicated and nothing of its religious traditions survived in the Indian sub-continent, there is an increasing body of evidence to show that this was not the case. In cer­ tain areas, in Bengal, Assam, Orissa, the Northeast territories, the Western Himalayas, Lahul, Spiti and the areas adjoining Ladakh, Buddhism survived, in fact, at late as the 17th century. Caste identity, ethnic resistance, and the simple facts of geo­ graphical remoteness and inaccessibility oxygenated these survivals, as must have ongoing cultural contacts with Buddhists in Tibet, Nepal, Ceylon, and Burma. The Hindu-Mahayana- of the Nepalese Newari, within access of these remnant Bauddhas, and Tibetan Vajrayana, exerting its influence on the cultures of the Himalayan kingdoms, were a continuing living presences for North Indians as was Theravada of Ce Ion for the South. It does not make sense to s eak of the total demise of Outline of Topics Covered and Tentative Table of Contents.

I. Introduction: The Brahmanical critique ofBuddhavacana historicized.

II. Review of the Scholarship.

III. Cultural Contestation.

A. The Buddhists lose the ideological battle.

B. Smiirta Bauddhas: Buddhists in Dharrnasastra, Pural).a, and Epic.

C. What literary satire tells us about Buddhists.

1. Selected translations and studies oftexts.

a. BhavabhUti, Malatlm1idhava.

b. Dal).Q.in, Dasakumiiracarita.

c. Kr~narnisra, Prabodhacandrodaya.

d. Caturbh(ini or Sringarahata.

e. Ksemendra, Narma-Miilii.

f. Kaviraja Sankhadhara, Lataka-Melaka.

g. Mahendravarman I, Mattaviliisaprahasana.

h. Bodhayana, Bhagavadajjukam.

i. Kalidasa, Miilavikiignimitra.

D. Observations of Buddhists in India by Chinese and Tibetan pilgrims: Fa-Xien, Xuan-Zang, I-tsing, Bu-ston, Tiiraniitha, Dharmasvarnin, Buddhagupta.

IV. Philosophical Counterattack and Co-option.

A. Discussion and translation of relevant passages.

1. Nyaya critique ofBauddhamata.

a. Vatsyayana, Nyayabhallya.

b. Uddyotakara, Nyiiyaviirtika.

c. , Nyiiyamanjari.

d. Vacaspati Misra, Nyiiyaviirttikatiitparyayatrkii.

e. Udayana, Atmatattvaviveka. a. Sabara, SabarabhC4ya.

b. Kuma.ri1a, Slokavarttika.

c. Prabhakara, Brhatf.

3. Vedantic critique ofBauddhamata.

a. Badarayana, Brahmasiitras.

b. Sankara, Brahmasiitrabh~ya..

4. Sankhya-Yoga critique ofBauddhamata.

a. Patafijali, Yogasiitras.

b. Vyasa, YogabhC4ya.

c. Vacaspati Misra, Tattvava"iSaradi

d. Yuktidrpikii.

e. Vijf!linabhik~u, SiinkhyaprCIVacanabhiiflya.

B. The problem-space and trajectory ofthe Buddhist-Brahmanical debate.

V. The Buddhist-Brahmanical Controversy as Ideology and Ritual.

A. The defensive synthesis ofBuddhist thought.

1. The dialectic ofphilosophical networl}s from Nagiirjuna to Santarak~ita.

B. Erosion and collapse ofthe political-economic base ofBuddhist philosophy.

C. Materiality of Buddhist intellectuaYproduction: monasteries, universities, libraries, state subsidy and patronage.

D. Tantrization and feudalization oflate Buddhism.

E. Brahmanical thought, caste, and feudalization.

VI. Buddhist Thought and Caste.

A. The Buddhist critique ofBrahmanism.

1. Suttanipata, Vaseltha Sutta, Madhura Sutta.

2. Siirdulakarf/iivadiina.

3. Vajrasiicf.

4. Kiilachakratantra, Vimalaprabhii, Paramiirthasevii. C. Brahmanical reaction and the defense ofvan;tasrarna.

1. Evidence for the caste subordination ofremnant and assimilated Buddhists.

D. The social unconscious ofthe Buddhist-BrahmaI}.a debate.

V. World System and Socio-Econornic Shift.

1. Islam displaces Buddhism in the international networks oftrade.

2. Charkravartin: The wheel-turning monarch and the withering ofBuddhism's imperial and interna­ tional role, 700-1200 CEo

3. Buddhism as ideological currency.

"VI. Under the Crescent Moon: The Impact of Muslim Conquest and Occupation on Hindu­ Buddhist Thought.

A. Loss ofan independent social space.

B. Expropriation ofBuddhist cultural capital.

VII. The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Making of Mystical India 1500-1900 CEo

1. Retrenchment oforthodox darSanas in the space vacated by Buddhism

A. Madhava and Vijayanagara: Brahmanism under siege.

B. The analytic philosophy ofthe Mithila Naiyayikas.

C. Vedanta bhaktized and bhakti vedantized

VIII. The Relics of the Buddha: Bauddhamata, the Six dadanas, and Late Brllhmava Philosophy.

IX. The Buddha's Footprints: The Survivals of Buddhamata after the Sack of Nlilandli, 1200-1750.

A. Siddha, Cult, Sahajiya, and assimilation.

B. Buddhist communities in Bengal, Orissa, Northeast India, and the Western Himalayas up to the 18th cell. .

1. Achyutananda, the Sunya Purii1J.a. and Vai!!:Qava-Buddhist syncretism

Coda: The Death and Rebirth of Buddhist Thought. Bibliography

Sanskrit, Indic, and Tibetan Texts

Achutananda Dasa, Sunya Samhita Madhavavacrya SarvadarSanasamgraha Asvaghosa, Vajrasuci Mahendravarman I, Mattaviliisaprahasana. Badarayana, Brahmasiltras. Patafijali, Yogasiltras. Bhavabhilti, MiilatImadhava. Prabhakara, Brhan. Bodhayana, Bhagavadajjukam. Sabara, SabarabhiiSiya. Caturbhijni or Sringarahata. Sankara, BrahmasutrabhiiSfYa. DaI)Qin, Dasakumiiracarita. Siirdulakarl;lavadiina, in the Divyiivadlina, A Collec­ Drgha Nikiiya, 1890-1911, 3 vols., ed. T.W. Rhys tion ofEarly Buddhist Legends, ed. Edward B. Cow­ Davids and J.E. Carpenter, Pali Text Society, Lon­ ell and Robert A. Neil. Amsterdam: Philo Press Pub­ don: Luzac. lishers, 1970, XXXIII, pp. 625-630.

Jayanta Bhatta, Nyiiyamafijarf. Sutta-Niplita, 1985, tr. H. Saddhatissa, London: Cur­ zon Kiilachakratantra with the Paramiirthasevii and Vi­ Press. malaprabhii Udayana, Atmatattvaviveka. Kalidasa, Miilavikiignimitra. U ddyotakara, Nyiiyavlirttika. Kaviriija Sankhadhara, Lataka-Melaka. Vacaspati Misra, Nyiiyaviirttikatiitparyatrkii. Kt{!namisra, Prabodhacandrodaya. Viicaspati Misra, Tattvavaisiiradi Ksemendra, Narma-Miilii. Vatsyayana, NyayabhaV'a. Kumiirila, Slokaviirttika. Vijiliinabhi~u, SlinkhyapravacanabhiiSf)Ja. The Long Discourses ofthe Buddha: A Translation of the Digha Nikaya, by Maurice Walsh, Boston, Mass.: Vyasa, YogabhiiS/ya. Wisdom Books, 1995. Yuktidfpikii. Madhurli Sutta in the Majjhima Nikiiya, 1951, 3 vo1s., ed. Lord Robert Charlmes, Pali Text Society, London: Oxford University Press. Secondary Sources

Almond, Philip C., 1988, The British Discovery ofBuddhism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ahir, D.C., 1991, Buddhism in Modern India, Delhi: Sri Sat Guru Publications.

Basham, A L., 1989, The Origins and Development ofClassical Hinduism, New York: Oxford Univer~ sity Press.

Bailey, Greg and Mabbett, Ian, 2003, The Sociology ofEarly Buddhism, Cambridge University Press.

Bechert, Heinz and Gupta, Amit Das and Roth, Gustav, 1978, "Hindu Element in the Religion ofthe Buddhist Barnas and Chakmas in Bengal", Buddhism in Ceylon and Studies on Religious Syncretism in Buddhist Countries, Heinz Bechert, ed., Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 199~213.

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1993, The Field ofCultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal John~ son, N ew York: Columbia University Press.

Briggs, G.W.,1982, Gorakhnath and the Kanphata Yogis, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Chakravarti, Uma, 1987, The Social Dimensions ofEarly Buddhism, Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad, 1972, Indian Philosophy, Delhi: People's Publishing House.

1979, Studies in the History ofIndian Philosophy, 3 vols. Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi.

Collins, Randall, 1998, The Sociology ofPhilosophies" A Global Theory ofIntellectual Change, Cam­ bridge, Mass: Belknap Press ofHarvard University.

Conze, Edward, 1959, Buddhism: Its and Development, New York: Harper.

---1962, Buddhist Thought in India, Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

Das, Rahul Peter, 1987, "More remarks on the Bengali deity Dharma, its cult and study", in Anthropos, v. 82, n. 1-3,221-251.

Das, Sri Paritosh, 1988, Sahajiya Cult ofBengal and Pancha Sakha Cult ofOrissa, Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Ltd.

Dasgupta, Surendranath, 1922-1955, History ofIndian Philosophy, 5 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press.

Davidson, Ronald M., 2002, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History ofthe Tantric Movement, New York: Columbia University Press.

Davies, C. Collin, 1949, An Historical Atlas ofthe Indian Peninsula, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dharmasvamin, 1959, Biography ofDharmasvamin (Chag 10 tsa-ba Chos-Ije-dpal) a Tibetan monk pil­ grim; Original Tibetan text deciphered and translated by George Roerich, with a historical and critical introd. by A. S. Altekar, . Historical researches series, 2, Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute.

Dutt, Sukumar. 1988, Buddhist Monks and Monasteries ofIndia, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. sityPress.

Encyclopedia ofIndian Philosophies, 1997, Vol 2, Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Tradition ofNyaya-Vaisesika up to Gangesa. 1981, Vol. 3, up to Samkara and His Pupils. 1987, Vol. 4, : A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy. 1990, Vol. 5, The Philosophy ofthe Grammarians. Vol. VI, Indian Philosophical Analysis: Nyaya-VaiSesikafrom Gang,!sa to Raghunatha Siromay/i. Vol. VII, Abhidharma Philosophy to 150 A.D., Vol. VIII, Buddhist Philosophy from 100 to 350 A.D. ed. Karl Potter et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Eliot, Charles, 1954, Hinduism and Buddhism, 3 vols. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Frauwallner, 1974, Erich, History ofIndian Philosophy, intro. Leo Gabriel, tr. V.M. Bedekar, New York: Humanities Press.

Gokhale, B.G., 1976, Buddhism in Maharashtra: A History. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Gombrich, Richard, 1988, Theravada Buddhism, London: Routledge.

Guenther, Herbert, 1972, Buddhist Philosophy, Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Halbfass, Wilhelm, 1988, India and Europe, Albany: SUNY Press.

--- 1991, Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought, Albany: SUNY Press.

---1992, On Being and What There Is: Classical Vaisesika and the History ofIndian Ontology, Al­ bany: SUNY Press.

Hallisey, Charles and Reynolds, Frank, 1989, "Buddhist Religion, Culture, and Civilization," in Bud­ dhism and Asian History, Joseph M. Kitagawa and Mark D. Cummings, eds., New York: Macmillan, 3-49.

--- 1989, "The Buddha," in Buddhism and Asian History, Joseph M. Kitagawa and Mark D. Cum­ mings, eds., New York: Macmillan, 3-49.

Hazra, Kani Lal,. 1995, The Rise and Decline ofBuddhism in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.

Hirakawa, Akira, 1990, A History ofIndian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana, Honolulu: University Press.

Isayeva, Natalia, 1993, Shankara and Indian Philosophy, Albany: SUNY Press.

--- 1995, From Early Vedanta to Kashmir , Albany: SUNY Press.

Jacobi, Hermann, 1911, "The Dates of the Philosophical Sutras," vol. 31, Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

Joshi, Lal Mani, 1983, Discerning the Buddha: A Study ofBuddhism and the Brahmanical Hindu Attitude to It. New Delhi: Munishiram Manoharlal.

Kalupahana, David, 1986, Nagarjuna: The Philosophy ofthe Middle Way, Albany: SUNY Press.

---1992, A History ofBuddhist Philosophy, Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press.

Keay, John, 2001, India: A History, Harper Collins. Kher, Chitrarekha V., 1992, Buddhism As Presented by the Brahmanical Systems, Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.

King, Richard, 1995, Early Vedanta and Buddhism, Albany: SUNY Press.

--- 1999, Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni­ versity Press.

--- 1999, Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and 'The Mystic East', London: Routledge.

Kosambi, D.D., 1986, 'The Decline ofBuddhism in India,' in Exasperating Essays: Exercises in the Dia­ lectical Method. Pune: RP. Nene.

Krishna, Daya (ed.) What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian Philosophy? Waltair: India, Andhra Uni­ versity Press.

--- 1991, Indian Philosophy' A Counter Perspective, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lamotte, Etienne, 1988, History oflndian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era, tr. Sara Webb­ Bonn, Universit6 Catholique de Louvain, Institute Orientaliste, Louvain-Paris: Peeters Press.

Ling, Trevor, 1978, "Buddhist Bengal and After", in History and Society, ed. D. Chattopaddhya, 317-375.

Mann, Michael, 1986, The Sources ofSocial Power, vol. 1 New York: Cambridge University Press.

Matilal, B.K., 1985, Logic, Language, and Reality: An Introduction to Indian Philosophical Studies, Delhi: Motilala Banarsidas.

--- 1986, Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theories ofKnowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

--- 1990, The Word and the World: India's Contribution to the Study ofLanguage, New York: Ox­ ford University Press.

Misra, Pramatha , 1993, An Outline History ofMUMla, Calcutta: Arnar Bharati.

Nakamura, Hajime, 1973, Religions and Philosophies ofIndia, Tokyo: Hokuseido Press.

--1980, Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. KUFS Publication, Japan.

O'F1aherty, Wendy Doniger, 1980, Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Oxford History ofIndia, 1981, 4th ed. Edited by Percival Spear, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Omvelt, Gail, 2003, Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Pandey, Kanti, Chandra, 1986, An Outline ofHistory ofShaiva Philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Patra, Chittarajan, 1991, Present Buddhist Tribals and Viharas in West Bengal, Calcutta: Sarkar & Co.

Phillips, Stephen H. 1995, Classical Indian Metaphysics: Refutations ofRealism and the Emergence of "New Logic," Chicago: Open Court. ---, Creel, Austin and Gerow, Edwin, 1988, Guide to Indian Philosophy, Boston, Mass.: G.K. Hall.

Quigley, Declan, 1993, Interpretation ofCaste, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Raju, P.T., 1985, Structural Depths ofIndian Philosophy, Albany: SUNY Press.

Rani, Vijaya, 1982, The Buddhist Philosophy as Presented in Mimamsa-Sloka-Varttika, Delhi: Parimal Publications.

Ray, Himanshu, 1994, The Winds ofChange: Buddhism and the Maritime Links ofEarly South Asia, Delhi: OUP.

Rubin, Walter, 1954, Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Sahu, N.K, 1958, Buddhism in Orissa. Bhubaneswar: Utkal University.

Sastri, K. A.N., 1999, A History ofSouth Asia: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall ofVijayanagar. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Searle-ChatteIje, Mary and Sharma, Ursula, eds., 1994, Contextualizing Caste: Post Dumontian Approaches, Oxford: Blackwell.

Sharma, R.S., Indian Feudalism, c. 300-1200. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.

Shastri, Dharrnendranatha, 1964, Critique ofIndian Realism, Agra: Agra University.

---1976, ThePhilosophy ofNyaya-Vaisesika and its Conflict with the Buddhist Dignaga School, Delhi: Bharatiya Vidhya Prakashan.

Smith, Brian K., 1994, Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste, New York: Oxford University Press.

Staal, Fritz, 1988, Universals. Studies in and Linguistics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stch~rbatsky, Th., 1930, Buddhist Logic, 2 vols. Bibliotheca Buddhica, XXVI, Leningrad, 1930.

--- 1956, The Central Conception ofBuddhism, Calcutta.

Subrarnaniam, V., 1993, Buddhist-Hindu Interactionsfrom Sakyamuni to Sankaracarya, ed. V. Subramaniam, Delhi: Ajanta Publications.

Tiiraniitha 's History ofBuddhism in India, 1990, tr. Lama Chimpa Alaka Chattopadhyaya, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas,

Templeman, David (1997) "Buddhaguptanatha: A Late Indian Siddha in Tibet." In Helmut Krasser, Mi­ chael Torsten Much, Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher (eds) Tibetan Studies. Proceedings ofthe 7th Seminar ofthe International Association o/Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, Vol.Il pp.955-966.Wien: Verlag der Dsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Dsterreichische Akademie der Wissen­ schaften, Philosophisch-Historisch Klasse. Denkschriften, 256. Band. Beitrlige zur Kultur- und Geist esgeschichte Asiens, Nr.21.)

Thapar, Romila, 1966, A History ofIndia, Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Tucci, G., 1931, "The Sea and Land Travels ofaBuddhist Sadhu in the Sixteenth Century", in The Indian Vasu, Nagendra Nath, 1986. Modern Buddhism and its Followers in Orissa, Delhi: Gian Publishing House.

Walters, Jonathan, 1998, Finding Buddhists in Global History, Washington D.C.: American Historical Association.

Weber, Max, 1996, The Religion ofIndia. Delhi: Munshiram ManoharlaL

Willis, Janice Dean, 1979, On Knowing Reality: The Tattvartha Chapter ofAsanga 's Bodhisattvabhumi, New York: Columbia University Press.

Wink, Andre, 2002, AI-Hind: The Making ofthe Indo-Islamic World, 3 vol. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Zurcher, Erik, 1959, The Buddhist Conquest ofChina, Leiden: E.J. Brill.

---1962, Buddhism: Its Origins and Spread in Words, Maps, and Pictures, London: Routledge.