[Buddha-l] A candid question

[Joy Vriens]

>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. 

In general I give more credit to events that seem less connected with the rest or stand out from the rest. The fact that such events have been recorded or left in is somehow significant. As an exemple, think of the retouched group pictures in the old USSR, where a foot of a persona non gratia, who had been erased, was forgotten and still present on its own thus showing a person originally stood there. It's a biased and desperate approach, but it can help one to new inspiration for one's speculations. And if you have such an event and if you notice references to immolation, a certain recalcitrant presence or acceptance of self-immolation, flame or fire samadhi, burning of pinkies, burning incens on your naked skull etc. then you can't but help noticing a certain thread.  
 
>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. 

Yes, I know this the general final image of the Buddha in many Buddhist traditions and one to which we added our own Western ideas.  What if the Buddha was sincerely teaching a path to the Brahman and on how to become a real Brahmin and not in some Westernally projected ironic sens. I am aware that I am looking at the whole thing from a biased perspective. But I am not a Hindu, so you can trust me :-). And let's forget about the strategy for one minute or about the omniscience that made the Buddha make exactly the right choices for the future spread of the teaching. I am not so sure about the intention to transgress. I don't know how many Brahmins the early movement had, but if they were fairly represented, then the intended transgressions can't have been that strong. The Buddha said himself that he wasn't in conflict with the world, but the world with him. 
  
>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. 

No, the contrary if I may believe the Paramahamsa-Parivrajaka Upanishad. Although for me and most modern Westerners any austerity would be severe. 
 
>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 goal of the third and fourth stage of life to me looks a bit like a reward after one has done one's duty for society. At last one can do whatever brings one closer to the Brahman or a better rebirth, providing one was a brahmin.  I am not so sure caste was spurned, but rather that the other casts wanted what the brahmins got and not necessarily at the last stages of life.    
 
>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).

Things seem to be changing around the time of the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanisad (Yajñavalkya's invitation to the kshatriyas). It may even have been fashionable (like the hippie era :-)) at the Buddha's time. As you say there were sramaneras of all types hanging out in the forest. 

> 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. 

Yes, very likely.
 
>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. 

What I think is that initially those forest dwellers etc. were Brahmins in the final stages of life. I don't know whether there were also Brahmins who didn't wait til the final stages to become a sanyassin. And at one point non-brahmins became sramaneras too. Something like that.