[Y-Indology] What anomosity? (On Mr. Malaiya's comments)

[Guest guest]

At 11:35 PM 09/12/2002 +0000, Yashwant Malaiya wrote:

 

>

> It is very widely believed that there was animosity between Buddhist

> monks and brahmins.

>

> It would be interesting to investigate the origin of this view.

 

_____________

 

 

The post below, from 6 years ago, might be of interest to those following this

discussion.

 

Luis González-Reimann

 

 

INDOLOGY

Wed, 8 May 1996 08:30:05 -0400 (EDT)

Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh

Early Buddhist rejection of the Vedas

 

 

The clearest evidence from the early Buddhist texts for the

rejection of

the Vedas, not just of the caste of the Brahmans or their sacrifices, is found

in the TevijjaSutta of the Diighanikaaya among other sources. It specifically

refers not only to the three Vedas, but to a number of specific Vedas and

their

Shaakhaas: Addhariya, Tittiriya, Chandoka, Bahvarijjha. These are brought up

in the context of the Brahmans belonging to these Vedic schools teaching paths

"into a state of union with Brahmaa" (brahmasahabyataaya maggam

pa~n~naapenti),

which is a reference to the Upanizad-like teachings of these different

branches. The specific Rizis mentioned are ATThaka, Vaamaka, Vaamadeva,

Vessaamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhaaradvaaja, VaaseTTha, Kassapa, and

Bhagu.

These Brahmans and their Rizis are then ridiculed as claiming to show a

path to

the union with Brahmaa which none of them have ever seen: "Verily, VaaseTTha,

that Braahmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a

state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen - such a

condition of things has no existence. Just, VaaseTTha, as when a string of

blind men are clinging one to the other, neither can the foremost see, nor can

the middle one see, nor can the hindmost see - just even so, methinks,

VaaseTTha, is the talk of the Braahmans versed in the Three Vedas but blind

talk: the first sees not, the middle one sees not, nor can the latest see.

The

talk then of these Braahmans versed in the Three Vedas turns out to be

ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing." (Rhys Davids, Buddhist

Suttas, p. 173). "And you further say that even the Rizis of old, whose words

they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen

where,

or whence, or whither Brahmaa is." (Ibid, 178).

The positive significance of expressions like Vedagu and Vedantagu in

early Nikaaya texts is more like the positive significance of a redefined term

like BraahmaNa = baahitapaapadhammo, not in reference to any presumed Vedic

texts or traditions for which either the Buddha himself or his followers had

great respect, not unlike the redefinition of a good sacrifice (ya~n~na) as

daana in the Nikaayas. In all likelihood the terms Vedagu and Vedaantagu

indicate the early Buddhist appropriation of current terms, with redefined

content.

The Tevijja Sutta interestingly has an assertion of the ThreeSiilas

(ibid, p. 188). Rhys Davids suggests in his note: "These three Siilas may

perhaps have been inserted in the Sutta as a kind of counterpoise to the Three

Vedas."

 

Madhav Deshpande

___________________