The present paper is focused on a couple of apparently contradictory Bcar passages. On the one hand there is the attribution of the pre-classical pattern of constituting kings in the sacrificial arena, implying a cyclical exchange between asceticism and warrior sovereignty, to Buddha’s father and his ancestors, who possibly ignore the varnasrama-system. On the other hand King Suddhodana himself wishes that his son would not choose asceticism as a permanent way of life, i.e., that he adheres to the ordered succession of asramas, in accordance with the Brahmanical inclusivistic varnasrama-system. The interpretation proposed here consists in assuming a specific Asvaghosa’s intellectual reading of the potential relation between Buddhist- and Brahmanic-dharma, based on a shared past, denoted by the expression suksma dharma. The poetic allusion to this epic expression might have denoted an uncertain common dharma-path which was to be overpassed by both parts, respectively by means of the true Buddhist dharma and through the brahmanical srauta-reform. The two questioned verses are assumed to be a further fragment of the history of the Brahmanic-Buddhist debate dating back to the Itihasa and Mahakavya age reconstructed by Hiltebeitel over these last ten years.
The Debate on Asceticism as a permanent Choice of Life: some late clues from Mahakavyas
PONTILLO, TIZIANA
2013-01-01
Abstract
The present paper is focused on a couple of apparently contradictory Bcar passages. On the one hand there is the attribution of the pre-classical pattern of constituting kings in the sacrificial arena, implying a cyclical exchange between asceticism and warrior sovereignty, to Buddha’s father and his ancestors, who possibly ignore the varnasrama-system. On the other hand King Suddhodana himself wishes that his son would not choose asceticism as a permanent way of life, i.e., that he adheres to the ordered succession of asramas, in accordance with the Brahmanical inclusivistic varnasrama-system. The interpretation proposed here consists in assuming a specific Asvaghosa’s intellectual reading of the potential relation between Buddhist- and Brahmanic-dharma, based on a shared past, denoted by the expression suksma dharma. The poetic allusion to this epic expression might have denoted an uncertain common dharma-path which was to be overpassed by both parts, respectively by means of the true Buddhist dharma and through the brahmanical srauta-reform. The two questioned verses are assumed to be a further fragment of the history of the Brahmanic-Buddhist debate dating back to the Itihasa and Mahakavya age reconstructed by Hiltebeitel over these last ten years.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
