[Buddha-l] A candid question

[jkirk]

Hi Joanna,

>Joy, you wrote:
>>...but the legend seems to be pretty clear about the outcome of the
>>Buddha's practice, hadn't he stopped this "practice".  It seems to me that
>>what the Buddha was trying to "practice" was simply to fast to death."<

>Well, this outcome is not at all obvious to me. Isn't the generally 
>accepted
>rendering of this episode that the Buddha was trying to practice 
>austerities
>(e.g. starvation of the senses)  for the sake of moksha, as at that time he
>was practicing as an ascetic Hindu along with 5 other Hindu ascetics. As he
>finally realised that he was close to death, but no closer to bodhi (a 
>point
>against the idea that he initially tried 'fasting unto death'), he resolved
>to give up this starvation practice, ...........


>That is indeed the generally accepted rendering, but I would at least like 
>to try to look or think a bit further behind the legend. What is called 
>"practising austerities" seems to lead to a certain death. It is like those 
>who wanted to practice austerities had a very deep spriritual need and at 
>the same time a very sharp sense (obsession?) of their lack of access to 
>it. To simply kill oneself to obtain a better birth was out of question, 
>but some ritualised ways of sacrificing (killing) onself were accepted.


>I also think of various stories (Vinaya?) of monks killing themselves, of 
>Arhats turning into fire and... what we would call dying... Probably those 
>ascetics who would put themselves to fire, burn themselves, were considered 
>ipso facto Arhats and liberated. Couldn't this be a remnant of the very 
>early days of Buddhism, where the "ascetics" sought liberation by 
>incinerating themselves, starving themselves etc. And isn't the "Buddha" 
>putting an end to the practice of setting oneself to fire a sign of the 
>movement's gradual awareness that this wasn't such a good solution, because 
>too extreme? Aren't Chinese monks not still burning their pinkies? And by 
>not going/wanting to go to this extreme anymore and perhaps compensating 
>this by practises initially conceived rather for brahmins, they must have 
>been seen as going beyond the rights of their varna.
----------
Hi Joy------- as Franz pointed out, to which I agree, we don't know how much 
of the story of Buddha's enlightenment is fiction, built from legends, any 
more than we know about the factuality of the stories of self-immolation 
that you mention.

However, some scholars have written (don't ask me for sources this morning) 
that in the Buddha's time caste ascription was more variable than it became 
by the medieval period; perhaps the Brahmin category was the least variable. 
My impression of the teachings shows the Buddha speaking about how to be and 
how not to be a Brahmin more frequently than reference to any other caste. I 
see this strategy as part of the general social transgression which is 
signified by any monastic or wandering sramanera tradition, including 
transgression directed at brahmin socio-cultural superiority.  The Buddha 
did not hold with caste social boundaries and rituals as being conducive to 
bodhi, and so he could indeed be perceived, by Brahmins at least, as 
transgressing on caste culture, since he pointed out that behaving 
brahminlike is open to anyone, not based on birth.

But I disagree with your assumption that practicing severe austerities was 
reserved for Brahmins, at any time, or that it was also "meant" to lead to 
death. The aim was above all to curb domination of the mind by the senses 
and by bodily needs.

The attraction of becoming a renouncer of any kind was that caste was 
spurned.  Householders were not supposed to practice severe austerities 
until or unless they had entered the third period of life, when they left 
off responsibility for their children in favor of sons and entered the 
vana-prastha practices.  This idea was supposedly shared by all three of the 
twice-born varnas.

The renouncer gave up caste as well as family, and if he had worn a sacred 
thread (worn by the top two or three varnas, I forget which) he had to give 
that up too. There is also the view that in the Buddha's time there were 
sramaneras of all types hanging out in the forest and living on the edge of 
expanding urbs and burgeoning commerce. The Buddha being a kshatriya and not 
holding with the practices of his own caste by going forth, not only shocked 
his father and family but also intially attracted more of his own caste-men 
(and later women). So the tendency for caste social cohesion is found in 
this phenomenon as it was with the Jinas,
whose devotees arose from vaisya castes and attracted more of them. In other 
words, these were times of rapid socio-cultural change and economic 
development. Some historians speculate that these conditions led to social 
unrest and to the expansion of renouncers and their various movements that 
was going on in that century.

Meanwhile, Hindu ascetics of that period were busy practicing all kinds of 
asceticism. I doubt if they were all Brahmins, nor are they today. Thus, 
practicing severe austerities would not be regarded as transgressing (which 
is what I think you meant) the ascribed roles of varna, since one didn't do 
it until one had become either an old vana-prastha practicing person or a 
renouncer, a sadhu.
Cheers, Joanna


_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/760 - Release Date: 4/13/2007 
8:04 PM