[Buddha-l] A candid question

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Franz,

>Joy writes, "If the Buddha weren't a man but a movement, I would say  
>that an important motivation of that movement was to give access to  
>more inspiring paths of liberation to all varnas, but particularly  
>Kshatriyas, and at earlier stages of life." I agree entirely with the  
>latter half of the statement, but I'd add that "the Buddha," as we know  
>him, *was* a movement. Yes, there probably was one single person who  
>did some parts of what we attribute to "the Buddha," but what matters  
>now, what we all look back to, what we discuss, what we draw on, what  
>we even revere, is a movement. As you so delightfully say, a "soft  
>reformist movement within Brahmanism." 

It could even be that they weren't even aware of being reformists...  Like there was a shift in e.g. the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanisad from a practise meant for Brahmans being taken up by Kshatriyas (episode with Yajñavalkya), this shift could have become generalised. "If it is possible for Kshatriyas, it must be possible for us too". There must have been a general tendancy towards a more universalist approach. And I don't think that "Buddhism" initially wanted to be a different path (it is access to the same they must have wanted), but it simply grew that way through a play of action and reaction. I expect the "split", the rejection, must have come initially from the Brahmins.   
 
>If you can find them, Joy, you might want to take a look at Winston  
>King's _The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga_ for discussion of  
>meditative techniques. And G.S.P. Misra's _The Age of Vinaya_ for a  
>sense of the proliferation of schools in competition at the time of the  
>Buddha. These books are both decades old; no doubt there are more  
>recent works on the topic; I'd love to hear about them. 

Thanks for the reference. Thanks to Stephen too.


Joy