ORIGIN AND NATURE OF ANCIENT INDIAN BUDDHISM K.T.S. Sarao 1 INTRODUCTION Since times immemorial, religion has been a major motivating force and thus, human history cannot be understood without taking religion into consideration. However, it should never be forgotten that the study of religion as an academic discipline is one thing and its personal practice another. An objective academic study of religion carried many dangers with it. The biggest danger involved in such a study is that it challenges one’s personal beliefs more severely than any other discipline. For most people appreciation of religious diversity becomes difficult because it contradicts the religious instruction received by them. For people experiencing such a difficulty, it may be helpful to realize that it is quite possible to appreciate one’s own perspective without believing that others should also adopt it. Such an approach may be different but certainly not inferior to any other. It must never be forgotten that scholarship that values pluralism and diversity is more humane than scholarship that longs for universal agreement. An important requirement of objective academic study of religion is that one should avoid being personal and confessional. In fact, such a study must be based on neutrality and empathy. Without neutrality and empathy, it is not possible to attain the accuracy that is so basic to academic teaching and learning. The academic study of religion helps in moderating confessional zeal. Such a study does not have anything to do with proselyting, religious instruction, or spiritual direction. As a matter of fact, the academic study of religion depends upon making a distinction between the fact that knowing about and understanding a religion is one thing and believing in it another. Acquisition of information without empathy has too often led to communal hatred, intolerance, and ethnocentric behaviour. For instance, someone who learns that in Buddhism images are often venerated in their painted or sculpted forms, without learning to understand as to why such a practice makes sense to the Buddhist, may actually do more harm than otherwise precisely because he has more facts at his disposal, but does not understand them accurately and empathically. Empathy often changes the way we think about religion. Some attitudes which one had earlier rejected may become more appealing, whereas others that had appeared quite correct may become less attractive. It is only natural that once one understands the point of view of the other, the claim that one’s belief is the only truth remains no longer as attractive or compelling. Many scholars consider neutrality and objectivity as more important than empathy in the study of religion. Though the importance of neutrality and objectivity for the academic study of religion cannot be denied, yet it would be impossible to adopt a completely value-free position. On closer examination, objectivity and neutrality simply turn out to be a propagation of the current conventions. In any case, the study of religion can never be value-free because its very existence depends on this value. Similarly, in the writing of history, it is not possible to maintain objectivity and neutrality. The preconceived notions and prejudices of the historian are bound to be interwoven into the delineation of the subject that he treats. However unscientific it might look, this has its own value and interest. It will be futile and waste of time, if the historian were to dig into the ever receding and irrevocable past, simply for the sake of the past. The historian has to evaluate the past in the light of the present as well as his own understanding of matters. Hence, it is not possible to write purely objective and impartial history. Those who claim otherwise have their own snags and tags. Anyhow it is more than obvious that any historical study should be of more than purely academic interest. Normally history is regarded as dry as dust, a jumble of dates, an unmeaning medley of wars and massacres. It should be a presentation of life, complete and whole. In lieu of 10 ORIGIN AND NATURE OF ANCIENT INDIAN BUDDHISM approaching history in the fashion of a colourless spectator, a good historian has to assume the responsibility of representing the people of whom he speaks and thus write history in which the masses are represented with full care. But the job is not an easy one. Unfortunately human language is too poor to express the real nature of many things. One finds oneself too often in a situation like the fish-telling the tortoise that he must have been swimming on the land, as she has never been on land. Certain things can only be realized and cannot be told or explained, as human language and emotions are not just enough to explain them. Words are symbols representing things and ideas known to us and these symbols do not and cannot convey the true nature of even ordinary things. Thus, language is often misleading and deceptive, and such disabilities are, at least for the time being, unavoidable, the historian having to work with them. When it comes to dealing with ancient scriptures, the task of the historians becomes even more difficult. C.A.F.Rhys Davids once remarked: šI am not so optimistic as to think that a mere reading of translated scriptures in the mass is of itself, sufficient to give an adequate knowledge of ‘Buddhism’. That reading will make a man familiar with what the monastic editors at different times have come to make of the dimly remembered, a half- forgotten mandate handed down through the ages. If he wished to get down to those mandates, if he would seek to dig up what the first Saxon probably did teach, he must do more than skim through rule after rule, sutta after sutta, poem after poem, catechism after catechism.›1 Other than the problem regarding the original doctrines, the date of the Buddha is also far from settled.2 The Sanskrit sources and their Chinese and Tibetan versions give only a legendary account of the Buddha’s career and the efforts to separate facts from legends have met with little success. In the case of the PÈli Tipi—aka too, we cannot say with certainty that it represents the earliest form of Buddhism. Mere survival of the PÈli canon does not prove its antiquity and relative priority. Moreover, we cannot deny the fact that there is a long-gap between the days of the Buddha and the formation of canonical literature, that the present three-tier division is artificial, made only after the actual production of the majority of the texts concerned, and that something must have existed as the original canon before the days of Asoka which we know nothing of. It must, therefore, be admitted that the Buddhist texts and the knowledge derived from them so far, are hopelessly unable to give any definite clue to the understanding of the actual happenings of the life of the Buddha. Most of the historical material which can be extracted from our texts is in the form of stories, similes, direct verbal statements and objective statements. Very little material is in the form of direct socioeconomic description and even that is highly formalized. It is also repetitive and occurs again and again to the extent of an obsession. But an important point worth noticing here is that the very incidental nature of the textual material increases its historical value. In this book, we have attempted to evaluate the origin and nature of Buddhism as reflected in the PÈli Vinaya and Sutta Pi—aka. Some scholars have called this form of Buddhism as primitive Buddhism, whereas others have called it early Indian Buddhism. We have called it ancient Indian Buddhism. When we move from the Vedic period into the age of the Buddha, agriculture had made a steady progress, though it is difficult to perceive the role of the so-called iron technology, as much as often has been claimed.3 The development of agriculture in the middle Ga×ga basin was mainly a rice phenomenon, since this area was eminently suited to rice cultivation, particularly due to the year long supply of water from the river Ga×ga as well as substantial amount of rains. Some scholars argue that this had far reaching consequences on the population as the increase in rice cultivation and the declining dependence upon cattle 1sC.A.F. Rhys Davids, Outlines of Buddhism: A Historical Sketch, 1 t Indian print, Delhi, 1978: 4. 2See, Chapter: 2, on the date of the Buddha. 3See, Chapter: 3, for details on the role of iron technology. INTRODUCTION 11 rearing resulted in major dietary changes.4 In fact, there is a suggestion that a definite relationship between rice growing area and a higher rate of fertility exists, because the consumption of rice gruel allows children to be weaned earlier so that the mother becomes ready to conceive again.5 The archaeological surveys as well as excavations also tend to prove this hypothesis. The increase in population is suggested by the substantial amount of increases in the number of settlements and their general distribution pattern6. Various narratives in the early Buddhist literature also speak of cities full of people jostling each other and of numerous settlements in the countryside, all of whom are an index of increases in population.7 The kingdom of Magadha is described as consisting of as many as 80,000 gÈmas.8 This is obviously, a typical Buddhist exaggeration, but is a hint toward the fact that the economy could support the population as it expanded.