"Theravada Buddhism: A social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo" is often regarded as the magnum opus of Richard F Gombrich, one of the most prominent scholars of Buddhism in the world. The first edition was published in 1988, the second (which I have read) in 2006. The book deals with two somewhat different topics: primitive or ancient Buddhism in India, and contemporary Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka. This blog post will deal with the former topic.
Gombrich is no "revisionist", never denies that Buddha was a real historical person, and clearly believes that historical information on both "Gotama" and early Buddhism can be teased out of the Pali Canon. Other evidence comes from the rock pillar edicts of Ashoka. The social context of early Buddhism can be stitched together, perhaps with some difficulty, from the Vedic and Jain scriptures, and from various archeological evidence.
In Gombrich´s estimate, Siddharta Gautama (the historical Buddha), lived circa 484 - 404 BC. He places the reign of Emperor Ashoka Maurya, the first powerful Buddhist ruler in India, at around 268 - 239 BC. Gombrich also accepts the tradition that the Buddha came from a small "kingdom" at the northern outskirts of the Vedic or Brahminical civilization, Kapilavastu in Nepal. His people, the Sakyas, had a "tribal" organization quite unlike the normative Vedic ditto, with a ruling council instead of a single autocratic ruler, and no varnas (although social stratification certainly existed). Presumably, this means that no Brahmin priesthood existed there. Since peoples in the Vedic-Brahminic orbit "translated" foreign class concepts into the language of varna, Buddha was defined as a "kshatriya", hailing as he did from the ruling stratum of the Sakyas.
Buddha´s new teachings could be seen as anti-Brahmin on a number of salient points. Thus, Buddha rejected the traditional Vedic sacrifices, carried out by Brahmins. Buddha believed that there were three root reasons to our suffering: greed, delusion and hate. Gombrich believes that this was a implied criticism of the three sacrifical fires! Instead of exoteric ritual, what is important is ethical intention and the working out of your own salvation, in other words, interior factors each individual could at least in principle attain. That is, each individual regardless of class or caste. While many members of the Buddha´s Sangha (monastic order) were ex-Brahmins, other social groups were certainly represented. There was also a small number of Buddhist nuns. Buddha´s preaching also contained criticism of kings, who are often compared with bandits or thieves.
However, Gombrich doesn´t believe that any of the above made Buddhism a radically egalitarian or revolutionary religion. Rather, Buddhism appealed to groups we would today consider "middle class", but also to some rulers. Above all, it was the religion of the vaishya merchant class. This was a period in Indian history marked by rapid urbanization, increased trade and improved agriculture. Classical Vedic civilization was very "rural" and socially conservative. In the urban centers and trade hubs, by contrast, other social mores came to the fore. The peasants improved their lot (at least materially), perhaps becoming more independent of traditional social hierarchies. The individualism and anti-ritualism (or anti-Brahminism) of Buddhism appealed to merchants and well-to-do farmers. Gombrich also speculates that since urban life was for centuries marked by disease, high mortality and suffering, the Buddhist idea that life is fundamentally unsatisfactory (unless cured by Buddhist practice) must have seemed more logical than the Vedic view, which is more positive towards earthly existence. As peasants migrated south along the Ganges, their lives also became harder in some ways (despite more surplus produce) due to new diseases. Everything really was "suffering"! The Buddha spent most of his time in north Indian cities, not in forest caves in the Nepalese wilderness, and the first monasteries were also founded in cities.
Gombrich seems to believe that the split between Buddhist monastics and lay people (which looks peculiar to, say, Protestants or Muslims) is of a very early date. The other-worldly Sangha is complemented by the more this-worldly lay people, who "only" want a better rebirth, rather than enlightenment or nirvana (nibbana). The monks bless the ethical this-worldly pursuits of the non-monastics, who in turn support the Sangha with food and other resources. This creates the curious situation that Buddhist monks may bless the pursuits of material riches by a merchant, while themselves presumably standing aloof of such things (note, however, that Buddhism may have spread outside India precisely through merchants and the monks accompanying their caravans).
Despite Buddha´s criticism of kings, the Sangha did quickly reach an accommodation with the royal power. I assume this was a new form of territorial power based on the emerging cities, rather than on the classical Vedic kings, who roamed the countryside with no defined boundaries between different kingdoms. The integration of the Sangha into the wider polity also blunted any tendencies towards social egalitarianism. Thus, slaves and debtors were barred from becoming monks, indeed, the Sangha itself became a slave-owner (and land-owner). Soldiers were also prohibited from defecting and joining the (pacifist) Sangha. In return, the kings helped the Sangha with expelling wayward monks. Without the backing of the royal power (and its bailiffs?), the Sangha would not have been able to force expelled monks from actually disrobing and leaving the monastic communities. The merchant-orientation of early Buddhism can further be seen in the advice given to kings, that they should hand over resources to merchants for investment! No Buddhist ruler is known to have done so.
Gombrich, perhaps controversially, believes that the standard interpretation of nirvana as some kind of cosmic suicide is simply "WRONG" (his caps). The Buddha was primarily interested in solving the problem of "suffering" (the Pali word really means something like "unsatisfactory") by practical techniques in the here and now. Through right conduct and meditation, the mind would become perfectly serene, cool and detached. It´s not clear what Gombrich thinks the Buddha believed about nirvana as an afterlife state. He does admit that the doctrines of nirvana and no-soul later became "metaphysical". But then, it´s surely difficult to avoid the impression that Buddhism is teaching a bizarre form of annihilationism...
Overall, a very interesting study, but perhaps written in a too dry and boring scholarly style? And perhaps with some implicit "Protestant Buddhism" tendencies? I may return to the Sri Lankan chapters in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment