Asceticism in Buddhism and Brahmanism: A Comparative Study

·期刊原文

Asceticism in Buddhism and Brahmanism: A Comparative Study

by SHIRAISHI, RYOKAI

Reviewed by Patrick Olivelle

The Journal of the American Oriental Society

Vol.118 No.1 Jan-March 1998 pp.124-125

COPYRIGHT 1998 American Oriental Society

　
Originally the author's doctoral dissertation at the University of
Delhi, this study is intended "to depict and ascertain the style and
nature of ascetic life during the period of Sakyamuni Buddha and his
immediate disciples" (p. 1), and to recover "the incipient stage of
original Buddhism" (p. 7). This goal is reiterated throughout the
book: "the principal aim of this study is to depict Sakyamuni Buddha
and his immediate disciples within the context of the society and
world in which they lived" (p. 2). The author wants to discover the
"Buddha's original preaching" (p. 2) in order to distinguish it from
subsequent developments. The methodology proposed is to study
Buddhist asceticism "not exclusively from the Buddhist point of view
but rather from that of general Indian thought," an approach the
author believes "has never been sufficiently taken into
consideration" (p. 2).

Three chapters are devoted to Brahmanical modes of asceticism:
historical background and development of the asrama theory, the life
of vanaprasthas, and the life of parivrajakas. The author covers
"the life of Buddhist monks" in one chapter, and devotes the final
chapters to "a comparative study of asceticism" and "the meaning of
asceticism."

Shiraishi's aim of studying Buddhism not in isolation but as part of
the larger history of religions in ancient India is laudable,
although not as groundbreaking as he appears to think. Shiraishi's
method, especially his use of literary sources for historical
reconstruction, however, is deeply flawed. In the case of Buddhism,
the author, while acknowledging that "there exist no canonical texts
written down by Sakyamuni Buddha himself," nevertheless believes
that "the core of these texts was, however, acknowledged by the
disciples of Sakyamuni Buddha as his true teaching at different
councils" (p. 138). based on this assumption, he thinks that "the
majority of the aforementioned Buddhist canonical texts may be
employed as sources of reference to examine the life of the Buddha
and the early Buddhist monks" (p. 140). The "canonical texts"
Shiraishi uses are the texts of the Pali canon.

In the case of Brahmanism, the author uses almost exclusively the
Dharmasutras and the Dharmasastra;(1) he does not address the
problems inherent in using normative texts for historical purposes.
Given that his method is to compare the "original" Buddhist ascetic
practices with their Brahmanical counterparts, there is a tacit
assumption that the Dharma literature is contemporary with the Pali
canon, and that both bodies of literature depict life more or less
contemporaneous with the Buddha and his immediate disciples. These
are major historical claims and Shiraishi appears to take them as
self-evident and offers no evidence in support.

Shiraishi's account of the history of the asrama system is,
likewise, flawed, as when he says that the samuccaya system
requiring a person to pass through all four asramas is found in
Apastamba (p. 17). He has not taken into account any of the recent
publications on the subject.(2) His descriptions of vanaprasthas and
parivrajakas simply reproduce the information given in the Dharma
texts.

There are also serious problems with Shiraishi's understanding of
the Sanskrit texts. He translates iti ardhvaretasam prasamsa (ApDh
2.9.21.20), for example, with impossible syntax as "Thus, keeping
the semen above is tranquil" (p. 69); a glance at Buhler's
translation would have provided him the proper meaning: "Thus are
praised those who keep the vow of chastity." Commentaries are
obviously difficult to translate, but his translation (p. 74) of
Medhatithi (on Manu 6.32) bears only a vague resemblance to the
Sanskrit text. Haradatta's comment, moreover, on the term anicayah
(GauDh 3.10; acc. to Buhler 3.11) - nicayo dravyasamgrahas
tadrahitah syat, he translates as: "holding the object of possessing
should be quitted" (p. 87). Besides the atrocious English, the
translation makes no sense. Haradatta's comment simply means:
"Possession (nicaya) is [or, means] the accumulation of things; he
should be without that [i.e., he should not accumulate things]." A
much easier passage anityam vasatim vaset (VasDh 10.12) is
translated: "He should infrequently dwell at the residence" (p. 94);
obviously the author did not consult Buhler, who translates
correctly, though not literally: "Let him frequently change his
residence." Finally, godohanamatram akankset (BauDh 2.18.6) is
translated: "He should ask for [alms] only at the time of milking
the cows" (p. 99), taking this injunction as referring to the time
when an ascetic should beg. If he had consulted Buhler, he would
have found the correct answer: "Let him stand begging no longer than
the time required for milking a cow." Such frequent and serious
misunderstanding of even previously translated texts is especially
regrettable in a study that so heavily depends on the interpretation
of texts.

Examples of misunderstanding of texts and the misuse of texts for
historical construction can be multiplied. This is obviously a book
that has gone from the stage of a thesis written by a graduate
student to the stage of a published book without revision or the
benefit of editorial intervention. It is surprising that it was
chosen to be included in a series published in England with numerous
distinguished scholars on its editorial board, none of whom, in all
likelihood, was asked to read it prior to its publication.

1 Sometimes the author appears not to make a distinction between
these two classes, as when he speaks of "Dharmasutric estimation
such as MDh" (p. 85).

2 Although Shiraishi cites my book on the asramas (Oxford University
Press, 1993) in the bibliography, he acknowledges (p. 25, n. 92)
that he "was unable to make full use of this book," possibly because
he saw it after the completion of his study. This is certainly
understandable. Less excusable, however, is that fact that he is
unaware of numerous other studies on the subject, including the many
articles and the book on Samnyasa published several years ago by
Sprockhoff.
PATRICK OLIVELLE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS