[Buddha-l] Non attached & mindful culinary triumphalism?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Interesting stuff, Artur.

> Is the list of physical marks (enumerated as characteristic for people
> like those candalas, nesadas, venas and pukkusas) not in part similar
> to the list of marks excluding one from being accepted into the
> sangha?

Some overlap, but let's see:

"he is of poor complexion, ugly, dwarf-like, frequently sick, or else he is
blind, deformed, or lame or a cripple; nor does he possess food,
drink, clothing, vehicle, garlands, scents and ointment, nor a bed, a
dwelling and a lamp plus things to light it with..."

Bad complexion will not keep one out of the sangha. Nor will simply being 
ugly (there are some ugly monastics mentioned in the scriptures). Not sure 
about "dwarf-like" -- I suspect if healthy in other aspects, merely being a 
dwarf would not exclude one, but not sure (any dwarf monk or nun stories 
come to mind, anyone? I vaguely remember having encountered some...). 
"Frequently sick" is too vague. Asthma would not keep one out, but leprosy 
would. So, that would depend on the type of illness(es) and degree of 
frequency. I don't think blindness per se is disqualifying (not sure, 
though; what about deafness? Wouldn't be able to 'hear' the dhamma, which in 
the preliterate period would have been crucial), but "deformed, lame or 
cripple" *could* be disqualifying, depending on the nature of the 
deformities, etc. Lack of food, drink, etc. would be largely irrelevant.

What this sounds like -- and thus probably reflects the authorial 
experiences, as you suggest -- is "beggars", suggesting that the extent of 
the exposure by the composers of this pericope to these downtrodden people 
would be the beggars who cross their path. Since sramanas were also beggars 
of a sort, at least early on, and probably also raggedy looking (lots of 
stories of monks sowing up their raggedy robes, cautions against accepting 
clothing that is too fancy or expensive, etc.), one would not imagine the 
early Buddhist community complaining about fellow beggars in that manner, 
unless the competition for food became intense.

It is probably too much to try to sort out in an email some of the 
hermeneutic problems re: sources when attempting to reimagine India social 
history of, let's say, 5th c BCE - 1st c CE. The Pali texts, in fact, have 
served as primary source material for many Indian historians of this period 
through most of the 20th c (with some supplement from Artha-sastra, etc.), 
so (1) our lack of solid stratified dating of the Pali corpus creates 
difficulties extracting reliable conclusions; (2) determining the ways in 
which the texts accurately, or in idealized fashion, or fictionally depict 
groups, situations, etc. remains largely a desirderatum (e.g., who, really 
were the Shakyas? Lots of theories, few definitive conclusions); (3) Are 
there reliable ways of identifying and unpacking the clues that may be 
hidden between the lines in the Pali texts? So far, seems largely ad hoc 
methodologically speaking.

One probably needs to be careful about the "theory of the week," esp. when 
it serves as a fairly mono-causal narrative, such as "deforestation." It's 
very sexy today to point to environmentalistic factors (not just in Indian 
history, but in Central and South American archaeology, etc.), and those 
'theories' are displacing the earlier generation of theories; with 'global 
warming' on many people's minds, and the crises of pollution, etc., 
environmental cautionary tales serve a purpose and have emotional resonance. 
Not that long ago leading theories about the formation of "untouchables" 
focused more on group migrations and immigration (newcomers get excluded). 
One suspects that as that issue heats up in Europe again, it will again 
become a 'theory of the week' when looking at India.

Fun to speculate, but first one has to decide what counts as evidence, and 
the best methods for using that evidence.

Have you formed any opinions you would like to share on these subjects?

Dan