The following post conflates two mails I’d written in October 2020, when I read Ashvaghosha’s Buddhacarit
Please remember, the c is pronounced as ch in “child” or “China”.
The translation is available online.
As it turns out the Sanskrit text of the Buddhacarita has been preserved, most conveniently, in only a single incomplete manuscript.
It contains the first 13 cantos and part of the 14th canto of the text.
Whatever has been written below, is based on the translations of this material.
I have not read the Cantos 15-28, which might offer more vital information, and reveal more insights.
I will stick to what I think is obvious: Buddha undoubtedly – and obviously – diverges from Brahmanical philosophy – but at least in these 14 chapters, he shows no outward disrespect to the Brāhmaṇas or the Vedas.
He rejects them – respectfully.
I have used the word “Brahmanical philosophy” for the sake of convenience.
The term “Brahmanism” was used most frequently by Europeans, in discussions about Ancient India, till the late 19th century.
For the present purposes, it is interchangeable with “Vedic philosophy”.
However, it’s not at all necessary that all paths, rites, rituals & sects were Brahmanical, or that Brāhamaṇas themselves didn’t follow different paths.
The term “Brahmanical” refers primarily to all sects that were built upon
the Vedas {Saṁhitās + Āraṇyakas + Brāhmaṇas (the texts, not the varṇa) + Upaniṣads},
the Purāṇas {much older than the ones we have today}, and to a lesser extent,
the Rāmāyaṇa and
the Mahābhārata.
It is assumed that everything that was Vedic was Brahmanical.
The text of the Buddha-Carita, so far as the 14 Cantos go, contains absolutely no declamatory, vilifying references to the caste-system – no reference to “caste-discrimination” or “caste-oppression”.
No references to Brahmanical “bigotry”.
Yes, at one point, Buddha rejects the sacrifices prescribed by scriptures.
Not a big deal, because Brahmanical philosophy itself rejects the Vedic sacrifices as a means to the highest, ultimate aim of life, i.e. Mokṣa.
The Brāhmaṇas {the educators, teachers, moral guides, priests, intellectuals of Ancient India, i.e.} never said that Vedic sacrifices lead you to Nirguṇa Brahman.
All the Upaniṣads are based on that idea.
There are certain peculiarities in the Buddhacarita, which I’d like to write about, but I can’t take them up right now.
One thing is very clear.
The whole corpus of the Vedas, Upaniṣads, the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Mahābhārata – and probably some of the Purāṇas too – were already established by the time Ashvaghosha wrote.
What no liberal intellectual would like you to figure out, is that these cardinal Hindu texts were already established by the time Buddha himself was born – as is given in the text.
Please note the difference.
1. Buddha was born centuries before Ashvaghosha.
2. The Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata are mentioned BY Ashvaghosha, but THROUGH Buddha & the people around him.
3. That is, Buddha & people in Buddha’s time are talking about the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata as if they {the texts} were already in the past.
4. Thus, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata predate, not just Ashvaghosha, but Buddha himself.
Ashvaghosha might have written in the 1st century CE, for instance.
That he keeps referring to legends & figures out of the Rāmāyaṇa, and even the Mahābhārata, certainly means they were written BEFORE the 1st century CE.
But the fact is, Ashvaghosha mentions all these legends & figures at the time of Buddha’s life itself – thus, they were written & established before Buddha himself.
It is like Milton mentioning Jesus mentioning Moses.
If Moses came AFTER Jesus, but BEFORE Milton, Milton could not have written about Jesus mentioning Moses.
Because Jesus could not have possibly known Moses, even though Milton knows both.
If Jesus mentions Moses in a writing of Milton, it means that Moses existed before Jesus {at least according to Milton}.
So: if Buddha was born in the 5th century BCE, both the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Mahābhārata were already written by then, otherwise how could Buddha himself & his father & his acquaintances & friends, refer to characters from the epics?
Why would Ashvaghosha make Buddha
Ashvaghosha certainly had a much better idea about whether the Rāmāyaṇa was written or not, by the time of Buddha!
The text itself proves that the Vedas, the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Mahābhārata, and probably the Manusmṛti, were all written BEFORE Buddha, not just before Ashvaghosha.
The text makes Shuddhodana & Buddha
It doesn’t surprise me that the text gives a somewhat simplistic & distorted view of Brahmanical philosophy.
At least in these 14 chapters, Buddha ultimately rejects the Sānkhya system, and Vedānta is not even mentioned.
But Sānkhya doesn’t represent the totality or the ultimate in Brahmanical philosophy.
So rejecting Sānkhya in itself doesn’t amount to much.
Vedāntists also reject Sānkhya.
Nevertheless, the sage expounding Sānkhya does come very close to the general, broad ideas Hindus had about Mokṣa.
Buddha rejects those ideas – and he’s most welcome to do so.
To put it simply: He rejects the idea that there is an eternal, unchanging core or essence to being, or existence.
He rejects the idea of the eternality or permanence of Self, i.e. Ātman.
Buddhists are atheists {not in the modern sense of the term}.
According to the summary of the 18th canto as given by the translator:
“From Kosala in the north comes a householder named Sudatta.
{Kosala was the Kingdom of Daśaratha & Rāma.}
He approaches the Buddha at night, and the Buddha teaches him the doctrine of impermanence and the lack of a permanent core called a soul.
The world is empty, and it was not created by someone, such as a Creator God.
He expounds the theory of causality and the impossibility of the world having a personal creator.
The Buddha also shows the fallacy of the doctrine that posits Nature as the source of creation; a single nature cannot produce the multiplicity of the universe.
The world could not have proceeded from some unmanifest source or from Man (puruṣa).
Nor could it have arisen without a cause, by accident or chance.”
These are very difficult, abstruse issues which take up volumes, and I obviously cannot get into them now.
But these are the crucial, most important, most vital points of difference.
Not “caste-oppression” or “mis
Though he rejects Sacrifice on the basis of compassion, we nevertheless see that this kind of compassion is already practised by Brāhmaṇas & Ṛṣis.
We are told that when Buddha arrives at the hermitage of Bhārgava {probably Shukra?} after his abandonment of his kingdom & family {6.2}:
“When he saw that hermitage,
with deer sleeping full of trust,
birds resting in perfect ease,
he felt as if he was refreshed,
as if he had attained his goal.”
This immediately reminds me of the beginning of Kalidāsa’s Abhijñānam Shākuntalam:
The King Dushyant is chasing a deer in the hunt – but when he arrives at a hermitage, a hermit, a compassionate, tender-hearted Brāhmaṇa, belonging there, asks him to desist from killing the deer.
“This deer, O King, belongs to our hermitage.
Slay it not! Slay it not!
Now heaven forbid this barbed shaft descend
Upon the tender body of a fawn,
Like tongues of fire upon a heap of tender flowers!
Can thy adamantine bolts no meeter quarry find
Than the warm life-blood of a harmless deer?
Restore, great Prince, thy weapon to its quiver.
More it becomes thy arms to shield the weak {or “distressed”},
Than to inflict anguish on the innocent.”
{Based on Monier-Williams Translation}
Isn’t this the very essence of Compassion to all beings?
And this has nothing to do with Buddhism!
Kālīdāsa couldn’t be less interested in Buddhism.
I doubt if Buddha is ever mentioned by Kālīdāsa.
There are many other similarities, which can be found if one knows where & how to look.
In the same play, when Dushyant enters Kaṇva’s hermitage, we are told:
“...all around, young fawns graze in their tranquil haunts,
free of all fear...”
Compassion towards all creatures is a fundamental tenet, in Hinduism.
King Shuddhodana, who is NOT a Buddhist, and completely subscribes to Vedic-Brahmanical philosophy, while lamenting Buddha’s departure from Kapila, says:
“Dharma is compassion toward all creatures” {9.17} –
“sarveṣu bhūteṣu dayā hi dharmaḥ”.
Demonstrably, this was not an idea invented by Buddhists, it is found in Hindu scriptures
{There are hundreds, many given on this blog, for instance:
https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2021/04/nine-duties-belonging-to-all-4-varnas.html
https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2021/03/no-pity-in-pagan-world-heres-wisdom.html
https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2021/02/on-forgiveness-in-sanatana-dharma.html
https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2021/01/on-how-householder-should-conduct.html
Randomly speaking, consider the quote “There is no severity in a Brāhmaṇa ... the Brāhmaṇa is said to be the friend of all creatures” from Chapter 27 of the Anuśāsana Parva, of the Mahābhārata.}.
The translator of the Buddha-Carita, does note that Ashvaghosha implicitly represents Buddha’s philosophy as “the consummation and fulfillment of the Brahmanical tradition”.
Throughout the text, Buddha shows utmost deference to “Brahmins” {usually called vipra or dvija}, while disagreeing with them.
“My respects to sacrificial rites—
but I do not covet joy that is sought
by inflicting pain on another being.”
{11.64, Buddha Carita}
“namo makhebhyo” – which basically means I bow reverentially before the Sacrifices (makha) – he recognizes them as something worthy of veneration – but he rejects them on the basis of compassion.
He doesn’t fall into a paroxysm of rage and spew any wrath & venom against “Brahmins”.
These words are spoken to a King, a family-friend as it were.
Buddha himself is compared in one passage to Shiva, and reference is made to the Sthāṇu vow of Shiva {Shiva is often called Sthāṇu}.
This is a universe steeped in Brahmanism.
Remember again & again what is written in the 3rd chapter of the Lalita-Vistāra:
“... a bodhisattva is not born into an inferior family (hīna-kula), like a family of caṇḍālas, flute makers (veṇu-kāra), cartwrights (ratha-kāra), or servants (puṣkasa).
A bodhisattva is only born into one of two families—a Brāhmaṇa family or a Kṣatriya family”.
If “Brahmins” were such evil oppressors & liars & frauds, this would never have been written.
Nevertheless, I don’t think the Buddhacarita presents Brahmanical philosophy accurately.
The metaphysics of the Vedas don’t seem to have been grasped by anybody who has written in English – and there are layers & layers of complex metaphysics to Vedic philosophy.
Whether or not the Vedic sacrifices involved animal slaughter, is something I cannot comment on, now.
There is much reason to think they did.
Nevertheless, there is so much mystery, there are so many abstruse secrets, there is so much hidden wisdom, such complex metaphysics behind it all, not to mention the Anti-Brahmanical, Anti-Hindu, Anti-Indian politics of 1,200 years – that it is difficult to say anything with unequivocal certainty.
Animal-sacrifice might have been meant for non-initiates, while initiates understood the same Sacrifice in a completely different light – the animal sacrifice – the karma-kāṇḍa – being merely an outward symbolic re-enactment of deeper philosophical ideas.
Or is it possible that by Buddha’s time the philosophical essence of the Vedas were forgotten, and the Vedic sacrifices were a falling away from a far more recondite, philosophical, spiritual original?
That by the time of Buddha, the Hindus themselves had forgotten their philosophical import?
I cannot say.
{I don’t think so.
There were people in the 20th century who did know; the original meaning wasn’t completely lost.
It is possible though, that the original Vedic-Brahmanical cult did see phases in which it waned, or got corrupted, or when the ancient, high esoteric knowledge was lost to many Indians themselves.}
Too much is muddled & messed up.
It is hypocritical though, that the people who use the Buddhist rejection of Vedic animal sacrifice as a stick to beat Hindus with, have no problems accepting it in Judaism, in Mithraism, in the Greeks, or the Romans, or the Confucians.
Or the avid non-vegetarianism of all contemporary Buddhist societies {China, Tibet, Japan, S.E. Asia, etc.}.
Hindu philosophy, as well as the Brahmanical concept of Yajña, is based on a very complex set of fundamental premises.
So far, nobody writing in a European language has shown any in-depth knowledge of these fundamental metaphysical premises.
And neither does Buddha.
They have not been codified & collated in a harmonious, integrated, systematic form in ANY text or book whatsoever.
All Brahmanical knowledge is scattered over hundreds of texts, most of which have simply vanished from view.
In other words, we are faced with the tragic truth that nobody really knows or understands the Vedas, or knows how to interpret them coherently & consistently.
Buddha shows no such in-depth grasp either, though we see his father & his entire background, is steeped in Vedism.
To me, so far, it appears he starts top-down, rather than bottom-up, and attempts to refute Brahmanical principles & practices by employing some sort of logic.
Thus, one class of ascetics practices a form of tapas in which ascetics eat only grass, like deer: so, Buddha asks, why won’t deer, who eat grass, acquire merit?
But isn’t there a difference between a human being eating grass, and a deer eating grass?
One is a volitional act consciously requiring a deliberate, systematic abandonment of worldly pleasures & delicious foods: the other is something inherent in the very being of a deer – it is “programmed” by Nature, to eat grass – it has no choice; there is no conscious decision to eat grass, nor is there any element of renunciation or mortification in this.
The deer has no conception of “pure food” – so its eating grass is not at all comparable to something done by a class of ascetics.
One is a very specific choice, made after the acquisition of knowledge, and a determined, prolonged abjuration of normal food required for ordinary health & longevity – the other is a purely mechanistic, instinctive, non-volitional process inbuilt into the system of a creature from the day it’s born.
Despite my profoundest reverence for him, Buddha’s “logic” is very superficial.
And do those austerities only involve eating grass?
Is it even plausible that people just sat around, plucking up grass, thinking that munching it would lead them to Eternal Bliss??
If at all some ascetics ate only grass, that might have been only one element or fragment of an entire array of activities, and part of a much larger “lifestyle”, which involved many OTHER “penances”, many other activities, which would lead them to some exalted psychic experiences.
I’m very sure that that particular form of tapas involved much more than merely eating grass.
It is also possible that the text actually misrepresents these practices: maybe the “grass”-eating is symbolic.
Tapas is one of the necessary means for the mastery of the senses & the mind: Brahmacarya is equally important, and to be known as distinct from Tapas.
Yoga, again, is to be understood as different from Tapas.
The text gives out very limited, very little information, and bases its refutation on the sparse tidbits of data.
Brahmanical philosophy is infinitely more complex, and one must study texts such as the Shatapatha Brāhmaṇa & Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, to grasp that.
Buddhacarita is a beautiful, fascinating book per se: at least the first 14 Cantos are.
Buddha comes from a typical Vedic-Ārya background, and everybody around him is deeply ingrained in the Vedas, the Shrutis, the Āgamas, in the sacrificial rites prescribed by the scriptures, in the entire social-ethical organization as defined by the Vedic texts & epics.
Buddha & the people around him – in his time – make repeated references to legends & figures from the Vedas, the Mahābhārata & the Rāmāyaṇa.
This means those texts were written well before he was born.
His father Shuddhodana, and his wife Yashodharā , as well as all the people associated with his court, all follow Brahmanical philosophy & share ideas & ethics enjoined in Brahmanical texts.
This can be proven from the text.
He breaks away from this matrix, from this foundation, from this environment, from this Vedic-Brahmanical world – and establishes a philosophy of his own – though this too is a tricky point: there are supposed to be Buddhas & Bodhisattvas before him.
I cannot quite comprehend his significance as a trailblazer: probably it has something to do with our era {Kali Yug}, or something.
Obviously, he has important differences with the Brāhmaṇas, and ultimately rejects their praxis – he is Buddha, after all, the founder of Buddhism, a whole new sect! – but he does so with utmost respect.
Though the first 14 Cantos reject Brahmanical ideas {rather unconvincingly & superficially, in my view}, they nowhere disrespect or slander Brāhmaṇas themselves.
They make no reference to the modern accusations of “inequality”, “caste-oppression” & “caste-discrimination”.
These issues are not of Buddha’s interest.
He never refers to them.
Finally, these 14 Cantos don’t show any meticulous, profound grasp of Brahmanical philosophy, especially the Vedic Yajña – there’s no in-depth examination of the finer points of Brahmanical metaphysics – and Buddha is ultimately shown encountering & rejecting the Sānkhya viewpoint – which is only one of 6 important schools within Brahmanism.
Why should Sānkhya represent the highest in Brahmanism, is not at all clear to me – because it doesn’t.
I also see that Buddha’s enlightenment is propped up by an astonishing number of grandiose miracles.
Why do you need such extravagant miracles to support a philosophy of apparent strict logic & rationality?
How is this not rank superstition?
We are told that once he goes back to his father {in Canto 19, only summarized in the translation}:
“The king is unsure whether to call him “Mendicant” or “Son,” and laments that his son has to eat almsfood when he should be ruling the world.
The Buddha, knowing his father’s mind, performs numerous miracles by flying into the sky & touching the chariot of the sun.
He plunges into the earth as if it were water & walks on water as if it were dry land.”
Really?
Fascinating.
Inspiration for Jesus walking on water?
{Matthew 14:22-27, Mark 6:45-52, John 6:16-21}
Not sure what he was trying to prove: that he is like some great, powerful divine being who can perform unimaginable feats of magic, someone whom we’re supposed to be afraid of, or be in awe of?
That he is now like a terrifying ruler of the world?
Buddhism is also very deep into relic-worship – something taken over by Christianity it seems – and again, something deeply unphilosophical.
Hieun Tsang – who probably never existed – wrote {Book 2} about a Kingdom located in present-day Afghanistan:
“Again, there is another little stupa, made of the seven precious substances, in which is deposited the eye ball of Tathagata, large as an Amra fruit and bright and clear throughout; this also is deposited in a precious casket sealed up and fastened.
The Sanghati robe of Tathagata, which is made of fine cotton stuff of a yellow-red colour, is also enclosed in a precious box.
Since many months and years have passed {like, 1,000 years!}, it is a little damaged.
The staff of Tathagata, of which the rings are white iron (tin?) and the stick of sandal-wood, is contained in a precious case (a case made of a precious substance).
Lately, a king, hearing of these various articles that they formerly belonged to Tathagata as his own private property, took them away by force to his own country and placed them in his palace.
After a short time, going to look at them, they were gone; and after further inquiries he found they had returned to their original place.
These five sacred objects (relics) often work miracles.”
No “blind superstition” – no “अन्ध विश्वास” out here, it seems – only pure, undiluted rationality!
But the point I want to emphasize again & again, is, I see no virulent hostility either towards the Brāhmaṇas, or the Vedas, in Buddha.
Indeed, in the very Chapter referenced above, Hieun Tsang writes:
“The king of Kapiśa has commanded five pure-conduct men (Brāhmaṇs – according to the translator) to offer continually scents and flowers to these objects.
These pure persons, observing the crowds who came to worship incessantly, wishing to devote themselves to quiet meditation, have established a scale of fixed charges, with a view to secure order, by means of that wealth which is so much esteemed by men.
Their plan, in brief, is this:
All who wish to see the skullbone of Tathāgata have to pay one gold piece;
those who wish to take an impression pay five pieces.
The other objects in their several order, have a fixed price; and yet, though the charges are heavy, the worshippers are numerous.”
Shady & dubious as it is, if this account is to be believed, why would five “Brahmins” be employed to worship the relics of Buddha?
Isn’t this the strangest choice?
Why aren’t Buddha’s body-parts or belongings looked after by Buddhist monks?
If there was such hatred between the two sects, how can “Brahmins” be given the charge of safeguarding Buddha’s relics, and be allowed to make money out of them??
Either there WAS NO conflict, or the original author, or some Commentator, or the Translator, is misrepresenting, or trying to cover-up something by defaming the “Brahmins” {making them look avaricious; Hieun Tsang himself seems to simply say “Pure Ones”}.
There is something fishy about the whole scenario which has developed in the past few centuries.
Undoubtedly, the Buddhists are a distinct group, so there will be differences, there will be crucial disagreements.
They exist between Jainism & Hinduism too, but nobody pits the Jains & the Hindus against each other, nor do Jains & Hindus fight each other.
Why would there be so much bitterness between Buddhists & Hindus?
But, apparently, there is no bitterness towards Brāhmaṇas, or denunciation ofthe caste-system – as yet.
I mention this specifically because the later Buddhist texts are vicious towards the Brāhmaṇas & slander them constantly, virulently.
This is evidently a later phenomenon – probably dates to the period after 1000 CE.
We have no reason to uncritically trust Hieun Tsang, who is rather sectarian, and it is difficult to imagine such hostility between Buddhists & Brāhmaṇas at the time the wonders of the Ellora Caves came up {as late as the 7th-10th centuries CE, according to modern historians}.
The alleged animosity ought to have emerged after the time of Ellora.
As we can’t help reiterating, Buddha himself came from a Vedic background.
He is said to belong to the Ikśvāku dynasty – the very dynasty to which Rāmachandra belongs – in the Rāmāyaṇa.
His father is steeped in Vedic-Brahmanical culture.
Thus, we read, about King Shuddhodana {2.37}:
“To cleanse his body he bathed with water from sacred fords (tīrtha),
and to cleanse his mind he bathed with the waters of virtue (guṇa);
he imbibed the Soma that is prescribed by the Vedas,
along with the tranquil bliss of heart produced by himself.”
All this is typically Vedic-“Hindu”-Brahmanical.
Keep telling yourself: Buddha comes from a Kshatriya family which follows all Vedic-Brahmanical rites.
His father even drank the Soma juice!
Further {2.45}:
“When that lord of the earth conducted himself thus,
His dependents & citizens acted the same way,
Like the senses of a vipra engaged in Yoga,
When his mind has become fully calm and tranquil {prasanna cetas, śamātmaka}.”
This shows that Yoga was established, known, practised, and respected, at least at the time Buddha-Carita was written.
vipra means a Brāhmaṇa – though modern Translators subverting or attacking Indian culture prefer NOT to use it in this sense while translating the Ṛg Veda!
The text itself says that all these elements of Brahmanical-Vedic culture existed before Buddha was born.
If there was no Yoga before Buddha was born, why would a Buddhistic text say it did?
This is like saying there was no Copernican-Heliocentric Theory before Newton!
All the concepts which are found in our Vedic-Vedantic literature, and epics, are found in the Buddha-Carita, and are all said to exist in Indian society, before the time of Gautama Buddha.
We are told, again, about Shuddhodana {2.52}:
“He laid down the weapon (śastra) and pondered over texts (śāstra);
He pursued Tranquility (śama) and bore rules of Restraint (niyama);
Like a sovereign, he was not enslaved to the realm of external objects (viṣaya),
Like a father, he regarded all the regions of his realm.”
This is incredibly interesting.
Thus, the father of Buddha, extolled as a sort of ideal king – very much like Daśaratha in the Rāmāyaṇa –
« quaffs the Soma prescribed by the Vedas,
« cleanses himself in the waters of tīrthas,
« is compared to a Yogi {not only he, but everybody in his kingdom}, and
« studies the Shāstras.
He is a Kshatriya of the most exalted category, following all Vedic rites, and living his life according to the Vedic system.
Where is the inveterate hostility between Buddhists & Brāhmaṇas, or between Buddhists & Brahmanical culture?
If Buddhists rejected Brahmanism out of sheer anger & hatred, would they have presented such a glowing image of a Hindu King, a Vedic-Kshatriya King, which is precisely what Shuddhodana is!
So far at least, in this text, it doesn’t exist.
There is as much hostility between Buddhists & Brāhmaṇas as there is between the followers of Sānkhya & the followers of Vedānta – two distinct schools within Brahmanical philosophy itself.
There is dissatisfaction, yes – otherwise why found a whole new school of thought? – but there is respect, & no issue about the caste-system.
They ultimately hew out different paths for themselves, but they come from a common source – and run parallelly to each other.
Indeed, Buddhism has been linked to Sānkhya, because the traditional propounder of Sānkhya is said to be the sage Kapila, and Buddha is said to belong to the city called Kapila {also called Kapilāvastu}.
So far, I have seen no objection to the Brāhmaṇas, in any ancient, original Buddhist text.
To repeat, that seems to be a much later phenomenon.
Buddhists reject the concept of Ātman, and Brāhmaṇas accept the existence of Ātman & Brahman.
This is the first fundamental difference.
The angle of sacrifices is very peculiar.
Though we’re told that Ashoka rejects animal sacrifice, no mention of Brāhmaṇas is made in THAT context.
Similarly, we’re told, of Buddha’s father {2.49}:
“Following the path of the early kings,
those mighty bulls among kings, of wide fame,
he performed ascetic toil (tapa)
without casting off his white clothes,
he offered sacrifices (yajña)
without injuring living beings (hiṃsā-rahita – devoid of any violence or injury).”
Clearly Buddha’s father Shuddhodana performed Yajñas devoid of hiṃsā.
What is most important, is that he is steeped in Vedic Soma-quaffing, in studying Shāstras, performing tapas, and bathing in tīrthas, all Vedic-Brahmanical acts!
Does that mean that the typical Vedic culture, and Vedic sacrifices, did NOT necessarily involve hiṃsā?
That there were both violent & non-violent sacrifices, within the Vedic system?
Or that, perhaps, sacrifices involving violence were NOT Vedic at all, as Hindu revisionists say today?
This angle needs to be examined further.
One possible conclusion is that the Vedic Brāhmaṇas did NOT engage in Yajñas involving bloodshed – there were OTHER Yajñas, which involved bloodshed, but those were NOT performed by Brāhmaṇas.
Remember, Ashoka also abjures animal sacrifice, but at the same time, treats Brāhmaṇas with utmost respect – which means that:
« either Brāhmaṇas did not engage in animal sacrifice at all, or
« only SOME Brāhmaṇas did – it wasn’t the universal Brahmanical practice.
Let there be no confusion.
Clearly, there were 2 types of sacrifice or Yajña in Ancient India:
1. Involving bloodshed/violence
2. Non-violent
It appears as though Vedic Brāhmaṇas practised only the 1st type.
This was the one practised by Shuddhodana.
That is why these texts don’t contain any Anti-Brāhmaṇa propaganda.
Buddha goes against BOTH, implicitly – but he explicitly rejects only the 2nd type of Yajña.
And though he rejects it, he treats it with reverence.
{And why keep singling out the Brāhmaṇas?
The Vedic sacrifices were meant for all the 3 higher castes.
The whole modern theory that priests have been fooling & hoodwinking & “exploiting” millions & millions & hundreds of millions of people for thousands of years, is utter nonsense.
Not to mention that the people who keep abusing “priests” are often the most corrupt, lying, deceptive charlatans themselves.}
Perhaps Buddhists saw Brahmanical philosophy as something penultimate, their own conceptions of Nothingness & non-eternality of the Ātman as something higher, because of which Buddha’s father is made to conform completely to Brahmanical culture, whereas Buddha himself goes deeper & further (according to the Buddhist point of view).
In other words, the whole structure of the tale may be symbolic, with the Father representing the highest in Brahmanism, and the Son stepping beyond it into Buddhism.
Because Shuddhodana clearly believes in the Ātman {2.53}:
“For he fostered his realm for the sake of his son,
his son for his family, family for fame,
scriptures (śabda—“The Word”) for heaven (svarga),
heaven (svarga) for the sake of self (ātman),
for dharma he sought the endurance of his self (ātma-sthiti).”
The translation is not so very satisfactory, but it is what we have, and we are profoundly grateful to the translator for his effort.
What is undeniable is that this is all Vedic, all Upanishadic, all Brahmanical.
And so far, NOT A WORD about “caste-oppression”.
Not a word about how Brāhmaṇas were “exploiting” the “lower castes”.
So far, there is no reason for Buddha to rise up AGAINST “caste-exploitation” & “caste-discrimination”.
Everybody in his realm seems to be pretty happy & content, like the inhabitants of Ayodhyā under Dasharatha.
Mind you, no revisionist can give much importance to modern historians & their interpretations.
We need to go back to the original texts themselves – study them ourselves – and draw our own conclusions from them.
That is precisely what I’m attempting to do.
The situation is more complicated than this, and I shall give more details later.
All the above information should suffice to show one important point:
Buddha was never against “Brahmins” per se – nor does he, nor does any of this early Buddhist literature – show any hatred towards, or overt anger against, “Brahmins”.
Remember, for the past 150 years, “Brahmins” are perpetually pitted against the Buddhists with respect to “caste-oppression” & “animal cruelty” .
As it turns out, “Brahmins” are never attacked {certainly not directly} on either count in this early Buddhist literature.
The exact opposite, if anything: they are clubbed along with the Shramaṇas, and Ashoka wants to protect & patronize them.
And it seems they not only believed in total compassion {the Soma-drinking, Non-Buddhist, Vedic-Kshatriya Shuddhodana says “Dharma is compassion toward all creatures” {9.17}}, but neither are they accused of practicing cruel, violent sacrifices, nor is there any criticism of the “caste-system”.
