What do you think?
Rate this book
Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism
For many centuries Buddhism and Brahmanism coexisted in the Indian subcontinent. This book concentrates on the way in which the two, after an initial period of relative independence, confronted each other, both in and around the royal courts and in society at large. In this confrontation, Buddhism was strong in philosophical debate, but could not compete with Brahmanism in the services it could provide to the centres of political power, primarily ritual protection and practical advice. Buddhism evolved in both areas, providing practical advice to lay people and rulers from early Mahayana onward, and ritual protection in its Tantric developments. Some of these developments came too late, though, and could not prevent the disappearance of Buddhism from the subcontinent.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
3 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
About the author
Johannes Bronkhorst
51 books15 followersJohannes Bronkhorst is a Dutch Orientalist and Indologist, specializing in Buddhist studies and early Buddhism. He is emeritus professor at the University of Lausanne.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 24, 2018
Among all the ideas this book introduced to me, the one that I am going to spend a long time chewing over is the convincing hypothesis that Brahmanism was just another religion in the Greater Magadha region; and that it played no role in the Indian polity under the Nandas, Mauryas and Ashoka and later rulers till the first centuries of the 1st millennium CE. A consequence of this hypothesis is the rejection of the idea of resurgence of Brahmanism in the 2nd half of the first millennium CE after some stiff competition with Buddhism. That’s because it was not a predominant feature in the landscape in the first place, and in fact only now did it spread all over the subcontinent and beyond for the first time.
Also as a consequence of the hypothesis, Buddha’s teachings were not a rebellion against Brahmanism (the earliest recorded sayings make no mention of Brahmanism). If it did rebel against an existing order, it could have been against Ajivikism or Jainism or other prevailing mores of Greater Magadha. The earliest epigraphical recording we have in the subcontinent in Sanskrit (Rudradaman I's Junagad rock inscription, 150 CE) was also the first one to make note of the varna system. None of the older indo-aryan inscriptions mention the caste system because it was not a feature of the society under the Mauryas and Ashoka and likely before that. Buddhism competed with Brahmanism and lost in the subcontinent, even while initially having the patronage of kings that Brahmanism did not have till later. And these final centuries BCE, when Brahmanism almost died, reshaped it into the form we know today, and spread all over South/East Asia. And what an extraordinarily successful transformation it was - an ideology that predominated in an immense area, from Vietnam and Indonesia to Afghanistan, a not tiny portion of the earth(a phenomenon that has been called the ‘Sanskrit cosmopolis’ by Sheldon Pollock).
This book tries to answer why Buddhism lost, why it had to adopt Sanskrit as a means of propagating ideas after successfully using Pali/Prakrit for half a millennium, and how that led to the reframing of how Buddhists in India saw themselves. An most excellent sort of detective work by Bronkhorst, and eminently readable to boot.
Lots to chew over. These are just my initial thoughts, will write a detailed review after I spend some time thinking about it.
P.S: The way Bronkhorst uses Brahmanism through the book is specific, and I will let him define it: “For all those who are not practising Brahmins themselves, Brahmanism is not, or not primarily, the religious culture which finds expression in the vedic texts. Brahmanism, as we have seen, implies for them a socio- political order. Rulers can adopt this order without “converting” to Brahmanism. Strictly speaking, Brahmanism did not make converts, at least not religious converts. It promoted a vision of society, and brahmanical influence will manifest itself through this vision as much as, if not more than, through the performance of sacrifices.”
This socio-political order is, of course, the varna system with a pre-eminent place for Brahmins at the top.
Also as a consequence of the hypothesis, Buddha’s teachings were not a rebellion against Brahmanism (the earliest recorded sayings make no mention of Brahmanism). If it did rebel against an existing order, it could have been against Ajivikism or Jainism or other prevailing mores of Greater Magadha. The earliest epigraphical recording we have in the subcontinent in Sanskrit (Rudradaman I's Junagad rock inscription, 150 CE) was also the first one to make note of the varna system. None of the older indo-aryan inscriptions mention the caste system because it was not a feature of the society under the Mauryas and Ashoka and likely before that. Buddhism competed with Brahmanism and lost in the subcontinent, even while initially having the patronage of kings that Brahmanism did not have till later. And these final centuries BCE, when Brahmanism almost died, reshaped it into the form we know today, and spread all over South/East Asia. And what an extraordinarily successful transformation it was - an ideology that predominated in an immense area, from Vietnam and Indonesia to Afghanistan, a not tiny portion of the earth(a phenomenon that has been called the ‘Sanskrit cosmopolis’ by Sheldon Pollock).
This book tries to answer why Buddhism lost, why it had to adopt Sanskrit as a means of propagating ideas after successfully using Pali/Prakrit for half a millennium, and how that led to the reframing of how Buddhists in India saw themselves. An most excellent sort of detective work by Bronkhorst, and eminently readable to boot.
Lots to chew over. These are just my initial thoughts, will write a detailed review after I spend some time thinking about it.
P.S: The way Bronkhorst uses Brahmanism through the book is specific, and I will let him define it: “For all those who are not practising Brahmins themselves, Brahmanism is not, or not primarily, the religious culture which finds expression in the vedic texts. Brahmanism, as we have seen, implies for them a socio- political order. Rulers can adopt this order without “converting” to Brahmanism. Strictly speaking, Brahmanism did not make converts, at least not religious converts. It promoted a vision of society, and brahmanical influence will manifest itself through this vision as much as, if not more than, through the performance of sacrifices.”
This socio-political order is, of course, the varna system with a pre-eminent place for Brahmins at the top.
August 5, 2022
What a superbly fascinating read! I could not put this down! This book was recommended by my teacher Bhante Shravasti Dhammika, who is a Buddhist monk, author and teacher.
I am sorry this is going to be a long review! I write reviews for my own sake – so I can refer to each book at a later stage as my memory is pea-sized. So be forewarned, but read on if you think this is useful for you.
*A copy of this book is available for download if you search Google Scholar.
---------start------------------
I read this mainly to find out if there is a plausible hypothesis why Buddhism disappeared from the land we call India today. There is no conclusion, and the author Prof Johannes Bronkhorst (who is Emeritus Professor at the University of Lausanne and an Orientalist and Indologist) was clear about this in the summary, as there is currently insufficient evidence to answer this question.
But there is a lot of evidence to show how Buddhism and Brahmanism influenced each other in South Asia and Southeast Asia especially in the first millennium of the common era, and how complex their relation was. Interestingly, this book also showed how tantric elements made inroads into some schools of Buddhism and how the Sanskrit language inevitably influenced some aspects of Buddhist thoughts which are still part of some Buddhist traditions today.
First - to set some important points in context. "Brahmanism" here does not refer to the complex creature expressed as Hinduism as we know today. Brahmanism before the historical Buddha, and a few hundred years after (even up to the time of Asoka and immediately after) was not a religion but a social-political ideology of four castes with the Brahmins ranked first. Brahmins performed important rituals in society, served as advisors to kings, and claimed the early Vedic texts as their sacred texts. Prof Johannes said that Brahmins then did not even practise the religious culture of the ancient Vedic texts but focused mainly on socio-political ideology. And that Saivism, the cult of Shiva, was only incorporated by Brahmanism at a later date!
Brahmins originated from north-west India, and dominated in areas that are called the “Land of the Aryas” which was not part of the area of Greater Magadha in north-eastern Indian where Buddha operated and where early Buddhism flourished. While Brahmins could be found in north-eastern Indian, and early Buddhist scriptures recorded Brahmin presence (suttas where Buddha discussed the dhamma with Brahmins), a society is not considered Brahmanised unless its members accepted the Brahmin’s vison of society (four castes with the Brahmins as numero uno). Brahmins were just one of the many groups in Greater Magadha, including Buddhists, Jains and Ajivikas. So the development of Buddhism was not a reaction to Brahmanism as is commonly believed, and Brahmanism had little influence on early Buddhism.
Brahmanism in Greater Magadha faced set-backs from the time of the Mauryan empire from Chandragupta (from 322 BCE). The formation of the empire meant disappearance of the local kingships/lordships to whom the Brahmins served as advisors and performed ceremonial duties. Things got worse at the time of Chandragputa’s grandson, Asoka. While Asoka was accepting of all religious groups, he promoted the dhamma and Buddhism. His edicts explicitly forbade ritual animal sacrifices, which impacted Brahmin's role in ritual ceremonies.
But the “New Brahmanism” eventually responded to these set-backs by trying to "colonise the past" according to Prof Johannes. They claimed that their beliefs and practises were as old as time, including claiming that the Classical Sanskrit that they used was the same as the Vedic language (apparently it was not) and laid claim to secret knowledge and all things sacred. Later Vedic texts such as the Arthasasthra (a political, economic and military trestise) even claimed that Chandragupta’s minister Canakya/Kautilya was a Brahmin. Prof Johannes noted the obviously propagandistic value of this claim and said that scholars are in agreement that the later Vedic literature such as the Mahahbharata and Ramayana were written to solidify Brahmin's roles as advisors to the kings, and that the Bhagavadgita (part of Mahabharata) played a key role in Brahmanical legitimisation of war.
But Brahmanism had a few things going for them that strengthened their position later, which Buddhism was not able to offer. Brahmins had long experience as advisors to kings, had a clear ideology on socio-political order, and was not adverse to advising military interventions if needed. So they were skilled in politics, statecraft, and military strategies – everything useful to kings with ambition. They also had a "trump card" - a claim to secret sacred texts, mantras, astrology, divination and magic - which can be used to advance the interests of the powers of the land.
In contrast, Buddhist teachings are oriented towards living an ethical life (secondary goal for laity) and renunciation (primary goal for monks and nuns) which are at odds with mundane worldly affairs. Buddha frowned upon occupations that involved astrology and palmistry, calling them "base arts", and did not encourage the display of psychic abilities developed as a result of a meditative life. So what did early Buddhism had to offer on statecraft, politics and military strategies? Nothing! (It was quite hilarious reading this portion, because those who understand Buddhist precepts clearly know why).
I found the section on the use of Classical Sanskrit pretty fascinating. After making inroads into royal courts, Sanskrit became dominant in the courts (even through Brahmanism was not dominant in Greater Magadha society yet) and was used in legal courts. For any faith groups to survive, they would at least need some royal protection and donations.
By the first few centuries of the common era, Buddhism had grown and would have built more monasteries through donated land and monies. As such, it would have more real estate to care for. There may be times that they might have needed to put forth their cases in the legal courts, and they can only defend their interests well if they were adept in the use of the official language to argue their cases – Sanskrit. So they had to adapt and adopt Sanskrit, not because of the prestige of Sanskrit but for practical reasons.
As Sanskrit was essentially the sacred language of the Brahmins, closely tied to their world view and ideas - it would also play a role eventually to influence Buddhist thought. One interesting development was that Buddhist texts that were eventually written in Sanskrit emphasised the notion of kingship, a vision of socio-political order in society, and statecraft - more than those written in the Magadhi language of Buddha's time (aka "Pali").
It was also interesting to note how Buddhism may also have been a the victim of its own success. While Buddhists were unable to convert to Brahmanism (one has to be born a Brahmin), Brahmins could, and many did, covert to Buddhism. Brahmins that had converted to Buddhist ideology were still referred to as Brahmins and continued to use Sanskrit to write about Buddhist teachings. It would not be surprising if some of their Brahmanical ideas and worldview also permeated these writings.
As Buddhism is less compatible with worldly existence, the Prof Johannes' hypothesis is that people may have been left in a limbo in a very real world, and that it was likely that lay people adapted by focusing on accumulating merits (the ancient Buddhist philosopher Nagajuna advised this too; and this is still a key aspect of Buddhist life today) while still part of the world, and Buddhist leaders started to play roles as advisors to kings (taking reference from the Jatakas, a later Buddhist collection of stories. It is interesting that the later Jatakas, written in Sanskrit, depicted Buddha in his past lives as a Bodhicitta in roles such as kings, princes, and ministers to kings – that is, in real world roles and jobs. They took on the Brahmanical world view that emphasised the behaviour of an ideal king or leader. So it became more acceptable for Buddhists to play these worldly roles too, similar to Brahmins. But such emphasis is absent in older versions of Jatakas written in Pali; and the oldest version of the Jatakas written in Sanskrit (the Jatakamala) is even critical on matters of statecraft or "niti").
All these narrowed the gaps between Buddhism and Brahmanism. So how did Buddhism respond to Brahmanism's “trump card” – the use of mandalas, magic and spells? Apparently, some Buddhist traditions soon adopted such practises - not from Brahmanism but likely from Saivism, the cult of Shiva (which apparently Brahmanism incorporated later as part of its pantheon). This is evident in the Vajrayana tradition (today known as Tibetan Buddhism) and Mahayana tradition. (I understand from another scholar that blood and sexual sacrifices were in fact practised in the distant past in Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhism school which a major transgressions of Buddhist precepts, and that these are only symbolic in Tibetan Buddhism today). Buddhists also started to use mandalas (esp Vajrayana tradition), which places the image of Buddha at the centre. This represents a political order of the world with the Buddha in the centre, which was absent before, and an adaptation from Brahmanism.
The culture in Greater Magadha value relic worship (vs Brahmins who consider the corpse as impure, and the eastern practise of relic and stupa worship as barbaric). According to Prof Johannes, there seemed to be some adoption of Brahmin ideas of purity in later times, as there was a shift from worshiping relics, to venerating the "container" of the relics (i.e. the stupa), to venerating the image of the Buddha instead. Apparently, this shift did not happen in areas where Brahmanism had least influence eg in Southeast Asia eg Cambodia/Angkor Wat).
By the time the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang visited India in the 7th Century CE, he noticed that there were social distinctions and castes within some Buddhist society. This was in contrast to the earlier records by the Greek Magasthenes, the Greek diplomat and explorer who visited India around 322 BCE to 288 BCE - he mentioned 7 classes of people by jobs - philosophers, farmers, shepherds and hunters, artisans and tradesmen, warriors, inspectors, and advisers and councillors. Not the Brahmanical four castes (or "varnas").
So how did Buddhism influence Brahmanism? Buddhists are adept at debating ideas, and their view of the non-reality of phenomenon was later adopted by the Brahmins in their Upanishad (later Vedic texts esp in the Advaita Vedenta). Brahmanism also borrowed the idea of hermitages from both Buddhism and Jainism, creating an idyllic “ashramas” ideal (in contrast with the traditional Brahmin agrahara which was a royal grant of land strictly for religious rituals) as these ideals of peace, spiritual places attracted more patrons who may provide donations and further gifts of land. I found it interesting that in early Vedic culture, gifts of land was seldom mentioned and was in fact frowned upon. Prof Johannes even said that eventually the terms "agrahara" and "ashramas" were later used interchangeably in Brahmanism, but it did not start out that way. Also, Brahmins adopted the Greater Magadha practise of entombment of the dead, specifically for sannyasins or ascetics, who were considered "pure" and those who attended their funerals need not go through cleansing rituals. (Typically, the ritual purity obsessed Brahmins cremated the dead.)
Lastly, interesting facts related to yoga. Many, including myself, assumed that a form of yoga similar to Buddhism existed already at the time of the Buddha. The author said this was not true. That while classical yoga has several points in common with Buddhism, this is due to the influence of Buddhism on yoga several centuries after the death of the Buddha. There are no indications that classical yoga, or something like it, existed at his time. No wonder Patanjali’s 8 limbs of yoga in his Yoga Sutras have so many similarities with Buddhism! (Patanjali lived after Buddha’s time).
Having said all these, I would add that these hypotheses and points by Prof Johannes are based on many scholarly works and ancient manuscripts, including references outside of Buddhism including Brahmin literature and Jain literature, as well as inscriptions in Southeast Asia to make his inferences. I am aware that some people may feel offended as they feel that their faith is not depicted well. But we need to be aware that culture and society change over time and space, and absorb and drop different ideas. Even in short time from 1900 to now, there has been so many changes and ideas – what more over 2500 years across so many lands! So the current version of our religion has seen many changes over time, and it is useful to see what these might have been so that we learn to be more open-minded and not cling on to concepts and practises and fight wars over them.
More often than not, culture and religion are influenced by worldly things such as politics (especially identity politics), pragmatism and power struggles. It is a fact of human nature – the less savoury do often accompany the more elevated. Most of all the world's political problems are stirred by identity politics, as a way to strengthen the sense of "us vs them", to divide. And the notion of "self" and clinging to self and identity is exactly what Buddha taught us to be wary of - as he said that it is a delusion but yet we cling and that, he said, is how the whole mass of suffering comes from.
Nothing is ever static, so we should not hold on to our current understanding of our faiths, whether different branches of Buddhism, or Hinduism or Brahmanism as “untainted” and “perfect”. Nothing ever is, except a kind and compassionate heart, wholesome intentions, and a wisdom that guides one to see into the true nature of reality - which is impermanent and conditional. Even Prof Johannes’ hypotheses may be subject to change in 100 years, if there are new scholarship, manuscripts and fresh archaeological discoveries.
Happy reading!
I am sorry this is going to be a long review! I write reviews for my own sake – so I can refer to each book at a later stage as my memory is pea-sized. So be forewarned, but read on if you think this is useful for you.
*A copy of this book is available for download if you search Google Scholar.
---------start------------------
I read this mainly to find out if there is a plausible hypothesis why Buddhism disappeared from the land we call India today. There is no conclusion, and the author Prof Johannes Bronkhorst (who is Emeritus Professor at the University of Lausanne and an Orientalist and Indologist) was clear about this in the summary, as there is currently insufficient evidence to answer this question.
But there is a lot of evidence to show how Buddhism and Brahmanism influenced each other in South Asia and Southeast Asia especially in the first millennium of the common era, and how complex their relation was. Interestingly, this book also showed how tantric elements made inroads into some schools of Buddhism and how the Sanskrit language inevitably influenced some aspects of Buddhist thoughts which are still part of some Buddhist traditions today.
First - to set some important points in context. "Brahmanism" here does not refer to the complex creature expressed as Hinduism as we know today. Brahmanism before the historical Buddha, and a few hundred years after (even up to the time of Asoka and immediately after) was not a religion but a social-political ideology of four castes with the Brahmins ranked first. Brahmins performed important rituals in society, served as advisors to kings, and claimed the early Vedic texts as their sacred texts. Prof Johannes said that Brahmins then did not even practise the religious culture of the ancient Vedic texts but focused mainly on socio-political ideology. And that Saivism, the cult of Shiva, was only incorporated by Brahmanism at a later date!
Brahmins originated from north-west India, and dominated in areas that are called the “Land of the Aryas” which was not part of the area of Greater Magadha in north-eastern Indian where Buddha operated and where early Buddhism flourished. While Brahmins could be found in north-eastern Indian, and early Buddhist scriptures recorded Brahmin presence (suttas where Buddha discussed the dhamma with Brahmins), a society is not considered Brahmanised unless its members accepted the Brahmin’s vison of society (four castes with the Brahmins as numero uno). Brahmins were just one of the many groups in Greater Magadha, including Buddhists, Jains and Ajivikas. So the development of Buddhism was not a reaction to Brahmanism as is commonly believed, and Brahmanism had little influence on early Buddhism.
Brahmanism in Greater Magadha faced set-backs from the time of the Mauryan empire from Chandragupta (from 322 BCE). The formation of the empire meant disappearance of the local kingships/lordships to whom the Brahmins served as advisors and performed ceremonial duties. Things got worse at the time of Chandragputa’s grandson, Asoka. While Asoka was accepting of all religious groups, he promoted the dhamma and Buddhism. His edicts explicitly forbade ritual animal sacrifices, which impacted Brahmin's role in ritual ceremonies.
But the “New Brahmanism” eventually responded to these set-backs by trying to "colonise the past" according to Prof Johannes. They claimed that their beliefs and practises were as old as time, including claiming that the Classical Sanskrit that they used was the same as the Vedic language (apparently it was not) and laid claim to secret knowledge and all things sacred. Later Vedic texts such as the Arthasasthra (a political, economic and military trestise) even claimed that Chandragupta’s minister Canakya/Kautilya was a Brahmin. Prof Johannes noted the obviously propagandistic value of this claim and said that scholars are in agreement that the later Vedic literature such as the Mahahbharata and Ramayana were written to solidify Brahmin's roles as advisors to the kings, and that the Bhagavadgita (part of Mahabharata) played a key role in Brahmanical legitimisation of war.
But Brahmanism had a few things going for them that strengthened their position later, which Buddhism was not able to offer. Brahmins had long experience as advisors to kings, had a clear ideology on socio-political order, and was not adverse to advising military interventions if needed. So they were skilled in politics, statecraft, and military strategies – everything useful to kings with ambition. They also had a "trump card" - a claim to secret sacred texts, mantras, astrology, divination and magic - which can be used to advance the interests of the powers of the land.
In contrast, Buddhist teachings are oriented towards living an ethical life (secondary goal for laity) and renunciation (primary goal for monks and nuns) which are at odds with mundane worldly affairs. Buddha frowned upon occupations that involved astrology and palmistry, calling them "base arts", and did not encourage the display of psychic abilities developed as a result of a meditative life. So what did early Buddhism had to offer on statecraft, politics and military strategies? Nothing! (It was quite hilarious reading this portion, because those who understand Buddhist precepts clearly know why).
I found the section on the use of Classical Sanskrit pretty fascinating. After making inroads into royal courts, Sanskrit became dominant in the courts (even through Brahmanism was not dominant in Greater Magadha society yet) and was used in legal courts. For any faith groups to survive, they would at least need some royal protection and donations.
By the first few centuries of the common era, Buddhism had grown and would have built more monasteries through donated land and monies. As such, it would have more real estate to care for. There may be times that they might have needed to put forth their cases in the legal courts, and they can only defend their interests well if they were adept in the use of the official language to argue their cases – Sanskrit. So they had to adapt and adopt Sanskrit, not because of the prestige of Sanskrit but for practical reasons.
As Sanskrit was essentially the sacred language of the Brahmins, closely tied to their world view and ideas - it would also play a role eventually to influence Buddhist thought. One interesting development was that Buddhist texts that were eventually written in Sanskrit emphasised the notion of kingship, a vision of socio-political order in society, and statecraft - more than those written in the Magadhi language of Buddha's time (aka "Pali").
It was also interesting to note how Buddhism may also have been a the victim of its own success. While Buddhists were unable to convert to Brahmanism (one has to be born a Brahmin), Brahmins could, and many did, covert to Buddhism. Brahmins that had converted to Buddhist ideology were still referred to as Brahmins and continued to use Sanskrit to write about Buddhist teachings. It would not be surprising if some of their Brahmanical ideas and worldview also permeated these writings.
As Buddhism is less compatible with worldly existence, the Prof Johannes' hypothesis is that people may have been left in a limbo in a very real world, and that it was likely that lay people adapted by focusing on accumulating merits (the ancient Buddhist philosopher Nagajuna advised this too; and this is still a key aspect of Buddhist life today) while still part of the world, and Buddhist leaders started to play roles as advisors to kings (taking reference from the Jatakas, a later Buddhist collection of stories. It is interesting that the later Jatakas, written in Sanskrit, depicted Buddha in his past lives as a Bodhicitta in roles such as kings, princes, and ministers to kings – that is, in real world roles and jobs. They took on the Brahmanical world view that emphasised the behaviour of an ideal king or leader. So it became more acceptable for Buddhists to play these worldly roles too, similar to Brahmins. But such emphasis is absent in older versions of Jatakas written in Pali; and the oldest version of the Jatakas written in Sanskrit (the Jatakamala) is even critical on matters of statecraft or "niti").
All these narrowed the gaps between Buddhism and Brahmanism. So how did Buddhism respond to Brahmanism's “trump card” – the use of mandalas, magic and spells? Apparently, some Buddhist traditions soon adopted such practises - not from Brahmanism but likely from Saivism, the cult of Shiva (which apparently Brahmanism incorporated later as part of its pantheon). This is evident in the Vajrayana tradition (today known as Tibetan Buddhism) and Mahayana tradition. (I understand from another scholar that blood and sexual sacrifices were in fact practised in the distant past in Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhism school which a major transgressions of Buddhist precepts, and that these are only symbolic in Tibetan Buddhism today). Buddhists also started to use mandalas (esp Vajrayana tradition), which places the image of Buddha at the centre. This represents a political order of the world with the Buddha in the centre, which was absent before, and an adaptation from Brahmanism.
The culture in Greater Magadha value relic worship (vs Brahmins who consider the corpse as impure, and the eastern practise of relic and stupa worship as barbaric). According to Prof Johannes, there seemed to be some adoption of Brahmin ideas of purity in later times, as there was a shift from worshiping relics, to venerating the "container" of the relics (i.e. the stupa), to venerating the image of the Buddha instead. Apparently, this shift did not happen in areas where Brahmanism had least influence eg in Southeast Asia eg Cambodia/Angkor Wat).
By the time the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang visited India in the 7th Century CE, he noticed that there were social distinctions and castes within some Buddhist society. This was in contrast to the earlier records by the Greek Magasthenes, the Greek diplomat and explorer who visited India around 322 BCE to 288 BCE - he mentioned 7 classes of people by jobs - philosophers, farmers, shepherds and hunters, artisans and tradesmen, warriors, inspectors, and advisers and councillors. Not the Brahmanical four castes (or "varnas").
So how did Buddhism influence Brahmanism? Buddhists are adept at debating ideas, and their view of the non-reality of phenomenon was later adopted by the Brahmins in their Upanishad (later Vedic texts esp in the Advaita Vedenta). Brahmanism also borrowed the idea of hermitages from both Buddhism and Jainism, creating an idyllic “ashramas” ideal (in contrast with the traditional Brahmin agrahara which was a royal grant of land strictly for religious rituals) as these ideals of peace, spiritual places attracted more patrons who may provide donations and further gifts of land. I found it interesting that in early Vedic culture, gifts of land was seldom mentioned and was in fact frowned upon. Prof Johannes even said that eventually the terms "agrahara" and "ashramas" were later used interchangeably in Brahmanism, but it did not start out that way. Also, Brahmins adopted the Greater Magadha practise of entombment of the dead, specifically for sannyasins or ascetics, who were considered "pure" and those who attended their funerals need not go through cleansing rituals. (Typically, the ritual purity obsessed Brahmins cremated the dead.)
Lastly, interesting facts related to yoga. Many, including myself, assumed that a form of yoga similar to Buddhism existed already at the time of the Buddha. The author said this was not true. That while classical yoga has several points in common with Buddhism, this is due to the influence of Buddhism on yoga several centuries after the death of the Buddha. There are no indications that classical yoga, or something like it, existed at his time. No wonder Patanjali’s 8 limbs of yoga in his Yoga Sutras have so many similarities with Buddhism! (Patanjali lived after Buddha’s time).
Having said all these, I would add that these hypotheses and points by Prof Johannes are based on many scholarly works and ancient manuscripts, including references outside of Buddhism including Brahmin literature and Jain literature, as well as inscriptions in Southeast Asia to make his inferences. I am aware that some people may feel offended as they feel that their faith is not depicted well. But we need to be aware that culture and society change over time and space, and absorb and drop different ideas. Even in short time from 1900 to now, there has been so many changes and ideas – what more over 2500 years across so many lands! So the current version of our religion has seen many changes over time, and it is useful to see what these might have been so that we learn to be more open-minded and not cling on to concepts and practises and fight wars over them.
More often than not, culture and religion are influenced by worldly things such as politics (especially identity politics), pragmatism and power struggles. It is a fact of human nature – the less savoury do often accompany the more elevated. Most of all the world's political problems are stirred by identity politics, as a way to strengthen the sense of "us vs them", to divide. And the notion of "self" and clinging to self and identity is exactly what Buddha taught us to be wary of - as he said that it is a delusion but yet we cling and that, he said, is how the whole mass of suffering comes from.
Nothing is ever static, so we should not hold on to our current understanding of our faiths, whether different branches of Buddhism, or Hinduism or Brahmanism as “untainted” and “perfect”. Nothing ever is, except a kind and compassionate heart, wholesome intentions, and a wisdom that guides one to see into the true nature of reality - which is impermanent and conditional. Even Prof Johannes’ hypotheses may be subject to change in 100 years, if there are new scholarship, manuscripts and fresh archaeological discoveries.
Happy reading!
September 14, 2019
We knew very well that brahmanism copied so many things from Buddhism..But after reading this book I came to know that even Buddhism in order to sustain in India accepted few things from Brahmanism like introducing rituals,accepting Varna system to some extent.
July 31, 2024
Much like Greater Magadha, JB manages to propose untenable associations and via omission of alternatives based on his own specious theories, manages to thrust in "paradoxes" as inevitable and only alternative.
1 reference from the Shatapatha Brahmana seems to be lynch pin of this entire thesis - Greater Magadha as well as this one.
Having concluded with some degree of certainty that G Buddha's body was not cremated (good arguments here), JB makes very spurious claims about same being the case of Jina Mahavira. While the later Jaina texts cannot be taken to ascertain claims either way, negation of those claims is made very poorly.
How did Brahmanism counter Buddhism ? It became new Brahmanism.
What is new Brahmanism (Brahmanism 2.0) ? -> It colonised the past, kept giving advice to rulers and made sanskrit elite wannabe language.
Basically Brahmins across Aryavarta did a retrospective via their knowledge of Mantras and Veda during the fag end of Mauryan rule and came up with mitigations and whispered them in the ears of Pushyamitra Shunga and ushered in the era of Brahamnism 2.0.
Buddhism had to accept Brahmin colonisation of past because of their love for sanskrit. Buddhists tried giving advice to rulers but could not as they did not have any interest in it.
The short summary above may appear reductive, but does explain the shortcoming of the whole argument.
1 reference from the Shatapatha Brahmana seems to be lynch pin of this entire thesis - Greater Magadha as well as this one.
Having concluded with some degree of certainty that G Buddha's body was not cremated (good arguments here), JB makes very spurious claims about same being the case of Jina Mahavira. While the later Jaina texts cannot be taken to ascertain claims either way, negation of those claims is made very poorly.
How did Brahmanism counter Buddhism ? It became new Brahmanism.
What is new Brahmanism (Brahmanism 2.0) ? -> It colonised the past, kept giving advice to rulers and made sanskrit elite wannabe language.
Basically Brahmins across Aryavarta did a retrospective via their knowledge of Mantras and Veda during the fag end of Mauryan rule and came up with mitigations and whispered them in the ears of Pushyamitra Shunga and ushered in the era of Brahamnism 2.0.
Buddhism had to accept Brahmin colonisation of past because of their love for sanskrit. Buddhists tried giving advice to rulers but could not as they did not have any interest in it.
The short summary above may appear reductive, but does explain the shortcoming of the whole argument.
April 27, 2015
Buddhism had to change to accommodate political needs of the rulers in order to gain favor and protection; since Brahmanism started to offer services in political matters, rites and spells long before Buddhists did, it's no wonder that the later development in Buddhism include a lot of Brahmanic elements, ie the rites and rituals in Tantric Buddhism.
January 14, 2024
The most entertaining read recently. especially the part on what happened to the buddha's body; but seriously, the lengthy discussions on the complicated brahminization processes and their ramifications are super informative.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews