[Buddha-l] Jayarava's Rave Jan 30th--Rethinking Indian History

[Bruce Burrill]

This response is so badly formatted, it is impossible to read.

At 02:47 AM 2/2/2009, you wrote:
>--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Bruce Burrill 
><brburl at charter.net> wrote: > Gombrich, among 
>others, has taken this old notion to task, > 
>showing quite nicely that the Buddha had good 
>knowledge of early > brahmanical literature, 
>such as the Brhadaranyaka Up Well to be fair I 
>think all that Gombrich has shown is that the 
>Pāli texts show an awareness, and that the 
>awareness is not of the "literature" per se 
>(since they were oral in any case), but simply 
>that certain themes from BU show up and are 
>lampooned. Evidence for knowledge of other texts 
>is even more sketchy. This is leaving aside the 
>vexed issue of *when* either set of texts were 
>composed btw - Gombrich accepts the Buddhist 
>texts to have broadly been composed by the 
>Buddha. Details are lacking, but the parodies 
>are usually of the belief in a creator God 
>(brahmā) - and since this is very much a 
>minority view (mentioned only in one section of 
>BU for example) compared to brahman as cosmic 
>principle, one could argue that the Buddha was 
>in fact *not* familiar with mainstream Vedic 
>thought. Despite his surname - gautama - the 
>Buddhist tradition is that the Buddha was not a 
>Brahmin, and I accept this. So how could he have 
>had any intimate knowledge of the esoteric 
>teachings of the Brahmins, passed on in secret, 
>in a language he didn't understand? Don't get me 
>wrong I think Gombrich is on the right track, 
>and I owe him a great debt of gratitude, but you 
>are over claiming for what he has said in those 
>papers - scintillating though they are. In an 
>earlier blog post I cited a verse from the old 
>part of the Sn where the Buddha not only is 
>familiar with the Gāyatrī mantra, but clearly 
>understands it well enough to make a pun to 
>tease the Brahmin he is talking to. So maybe he 
>did know Sanskrit. But all other evidence is 
>against this idea. Bronkhorst on the other hand 
>has no time for Gombrich. He argues (with 
>citations even Piya) that the suttas which most 
>obviously show awareness of Vedic themes, are 
>precisely those that are clearly 
>post-parinibbana - i.e. he argues that they 
>don't prove anything about what the Buddha might 
>have known. He is also overly critical of the 
>parodies pointed out by Gombrich, which makes me 
>wonder if it's personal. The fact that the Pāli 
>texts are aware of themes from the BU as opposed 
>to other texts we believe to have been written 
>then, such as Chāndogya or Aitareya (perhaps), 
>is itself supporting evidence for Bronkhorst and 
>the two cultures argument generally. It is 
>precisely BU we would expect to be familiar in 
>Māgadha. The geography of the Upaniṣads is a 
>result of research by Michael Witzel, and is 
>referenced by Bronkhorst. Samuel's version of 
>the two cultures theory relies on different 
>evidence - both textual and archaeological. That 
>two authors citing different sources come to the 
>same conclusion makes it seem all the more 
>plausible. > Also, it has been pointed out by 
>others at the time of the Buddha > notions of 
>karma, moksha, reincarnation and such were 
>characteristic > of the non-Vedic forest 
>tradition and were being imported into the > 
>brahmanical traditions, with the Bhagavad Gita 
>exemplifying this > adopting and adapting by the 
>Brahmins of the forest traditions ideas. This is 
>interesting. References? Bronkhorst also seems 
>to see BG as a mature form of the doctrines 
>which are in the process of being assimilated in 
>BU. Best Wishes 
>Jayarava 
>_______________________________________________ 
>buddha-l mailing list buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com 
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l