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

[Jayarava]

--- 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