Dharmic Tapestry Runs Deep in the East
A multi-part exploration and repudiation of modern ethnoreligious schisms in Asia
Post-colonial Asia’s story has a number of cultural similarities: a newly-freed nation, typically equipped with a knowledge of its own history that was determined by individuals deemed as “scholars” by the colonial establishment, eventually challenges these notions to determine its national identity. Culture runs deep in the East and the discoveries made are complex and sometimes downright inconvenient.
While most nations of the East are comprised of a relatively small number of ethnicities, the Republic of India is the current incarnation of a greater “Ancient India” described as Jambudwipa in the sacred texts of the three oldest currently-extant faiths in the world: Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.
As per Buddhist cosmology, Jambudwipa is the region of the universe where humans live and is the only place where a being may become enlightened after being born as a human being, receiving the gift of Dharma and ultimately realizing liberation from the cycle of repeated life and death. As per Jain cosmology, the center of the world - Mount Meru - is surrounded by Jambudwipa. The Hindu scripture “Markandeya Purana” states that on the summit of Mount Meru is the vast city of Lord Brahma, the Creator God of the Universe, around which are eight other cities - also of the Gods.
Home to more than 2,000 ethnic groups with deep historical and cultural ties - the retelling of India’s culture history has been egregiously besmirched by colonial-era deprecations and apocrypha that drew deep from the fetid waters of imperialist ignorance. Given the travesty that passes for early Western research about the East’s past, the ongoing reevaluation of India’s history and culture isn’t quite the political reshaping a diminishingly-relevant self-styled intelligentsia drinking deep from the subaltern’s trough would have its audience believe. Contemporary research has been ongoing by researchers from all over the world for over seven decades now. By no small measure, the accurate reframing of India’s culture lends to the righting of wrongs in the tale told of Asia’s history and culture.
Civilizational Threads and Pragma
In 1936, Hu Shih - a Chinese diplomat, philosopher, scholar, key contributor to causes such as Chinese liberalism and language reform and an eventual strident critic of the Chinese Communist Party as it climbed to power in 1949 - said of India in the Harvard Tercentenary Conference of Arts and Sciences and Independence, Convergence, and Borrowing in Institutions:
India conquered and dominated China culturally for two thousand years without ever having to send a single soldier across the border... Never before had China seen a religion so rich in imagery, so beautiful and captivating in ritualism and so bold in cosmological and metaphysical speculations.
And like a poor beggar suddenly halting before a magnificent storehouse of precious stones of dazzling brilliancy and splendour, China was overwhelmed, baffled and overjoyed. She begged and borrowed freely from this munificent giver. The first borrowings were chiefly from the religious life of India, in which China’s indebtedness to India can never be fully told.
- Dr. Hu Shih, “East and West: The Indianization of China: A Case Study in Cultural Borrowing”, 1936
Dr. Shih, perhaps influenced by the teachings of American philosopher John Dewey, contended that “indigenous China” was always factual and rarely bold in imagination prior to its “Indianization”. The most significant Indian influence on Chinese philosophy and culture was, of course, Buddhism. “Chinese Buddhism” was infused by the work of Kumarajiva (कुमारजीव; 鸠摩罗什), the grandson of an Indian prince and the son of a high priest in Kucha (in modern-day Xinjiang) who also became a monk. After entering the court of Yao Xing (姚興) - the emperor of the Later Qin Dynasty (后秦) who had long sought his presence - contextualized and transcribed numerous sutras and treatises emanating from India into the Chinese lexicon while laying the foundations for the “Hanyu Pinyin” (汉语拼音) - or simply “pinyin” - system of Latin alphabet romanization of the Chinese “Mandarin” language that was established nearly 1,700 years later. Incidentally, the term “Mandarin” itself is derived from the Sanskrit word “Mantrin” (मन्त्रिन्) which meant “wise or eloquent” in a reference to the distinctive linguistic style practiced by China’s nobility and functionaries.
Despite bouts of subsequent persecutions by emperors of various dynasties - who universally condemned it as a "barbarian” faith - and various influential schools of thought remaining insistent on ideas and language that couldn’t import itself into the “indigenous” worldview and speech patterns, Buddhism flourished. Indigenous belief system Daoism (道教) - with roots in the pre-Buddhist divination text “I Ching”(易經) - found great syncretism with Buddhist teachings in the Tang Dynasty (唐朝). Confucianism (儒家), another pre-Buddhist belief system largely quashed by the Qin Dynasty (秦朝), found revival as “Neo-Confucianism” (宋明理學) in the Song Dynasty (宋朝) after simultaneously denouncing Buddhist metaphysics and adopting both Daoist and Buddhist terminology concepts.
It bears noting that scholars (predominantly Western) seem to consider “Buddhism” as a fundamentally distinct faith relative to “Hinduism”. The phrase “Hindu” is derived the Old Persian term “𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐏁” (“Hindu”) which, in turn, was derived from the Sanskrit “Sindhu” - the Indian name of the Indus River. It is estimated that this name was gleaned by scholars from European merchants interacting with Arab traders who used this term to broadly describe the Indic people. The term “Sanatan Dharma” (सनातन धर्म), meaning “eternal order”, was formalized to describe the manifold duties and practices of the Indic people. The Buddha’s divergence lay not in the philosophies of the “Sanatan Dharma” but in his questioning of the efficacy of some practices and the social order brought by seeming adherence to the “eternal order”. In both the former and the latter, he was neither the first nor the last - the “eternal order” has always been to open to evolution via debate.
For instance, the Buddha has held the “Agnihotra” (अग्निहोत्र) - a fire ritual in almost every major Sanatan ritual - to be the foremost sacrifice and the “Gayatri Mantra” - a highly-revered (and commonly used) mantra from the Rigveda propitiating Savitr (सवितृ), a solar deity who is protector of all beings, a guardian of the divine realm and the son of Aditi (अदिति), the goddess of motherhood, unconsciousness, the past, the future, and fertility - to be the foremost meter. What the Buddha did do was challenge the norms of his time: for instance, rather than considering the “mantras” themselves as an invocation of the divine during rituals, he held them better suited for meditation in order to commune with the divine. Rather than believe in the inheritance of value by birth, he concluded that one must cultivate virtue in life.
Rather than differences, the dominant axioms indicate verisimilitude with Sanatana: for instance, the Buddha's teachings on karma, rebirth and moksha are a development of themes already revealed in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद्), a key treatise in Sanatana. Furthermore, unlike the assertions of latter schools of thought, “Early Buddhist” texts did not describe the Buddha as being omniscient or an eternal transcendent being. Instead, these texts suggest that the Buddha was a “sramana” (श्रमण) - a “toiler” for a higher religious purpose.
Many aspects of the Buddha’s divine visage are attributed to have originated from the “Mahayana Sutra” (महायान सूत्र) - a heterogenous genre of scripture (“sutra”) a few centuries after the Buddha’s lifetime. Through a contemporary process of deductive elimination, it has been hypothesized that the Mahayana order was “primarily a textual movement, focused on the revelation, preaching, and dissemination of Mahayana Sutras, that developed within, and never really departed from, traditional Buddhist social and institutional structures”.
Interestingly, while the “Mahayana Sutras” are accepted as canonical and as “Buddhavachana” (“Buddha’s word”) in Chinese and Tibetan practices, the 18-20 “Early Buddhist” Orders - now denoted as the “Nikayana” but historically referred in many texts as the “Hinayana” Orders1 which included the likes of the Theravada (“Way of the Elders”) Order, a direct recipient of Emperor Ashoka’s patronage - reject any claim made that the “Mahayana Sutras” are authentic or accurate with regard to the life and lessons of the Buddha. For instance, Theravada Buddhism - the dominant form of the belief system practiced in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and the rest of Southeast Asia - holds the Buddha’s disciple Sariputra to be a particularly important figure in their tradition and point to the inconsistency of his portrayal in the “Mahayana” tradition, wherein he alternates between being a great disciple of the Buddha in some texts to an ignorant disciple with insufficient understanding of the Buddha’s teaching in others, as proof of the “Mahayana Sutra”’s spiritual inauthenticity.
Caste, Class and the Transmigration of Deities
A popular perception cast by Western Orientalists, “thought leaders” and “intellectuals” who could best be described as schism-seekers in the face of evidence to the contrary suggest that the Buddha’s teachings was a threat to the Sanatan system that concentrated wealth and power on the basis of “caste”. This determination of “caste” as the source of generational wealth and power is a European colonial invention, which equated the “caste system” to the near-insurmountable “class system” in their homelands. As per Kevin Hobson, a Canadian historian focused on the British Empire, “the caste system extant in the late 19th and early 20th century has been altered as a result of British actions so that it increasingly took on the characteristics that were ascribed to by the British.” For instance, given that certain British-era Army regiments formed of Indians only recruited members of the Rajput “caste” into their ranks, a “caste” known as Mahtons was rejected leave to join these regiments - despite their claims that they’re an offshoot of the Rajputs - because an earlier British census labelled them as “hunter-gatherers”.
This insistence on “caste suitability” for combat arose from rather fanciful British colonial beliefs that Rajputs were descended from warring tribes from outside the Indian subcontinent. Thus, their warlike nature essentially made them a “Kshatriya” or “warrior/ruler” caste. In actually, contemporary historians have determined that nearly all Rajput clans are descended from peasant or pastoral communities who were quite assimilative in nature, absorbing “Shudras” (the lowest level of the caste system, as envisioned by Western Orientalists), “Brahmins” (the highest level of the caste system) and even tribals (who didn’t necessarily fit anywhere in this “iron-clad” caste system) in a bid to improve communal mobility. The one feature all absorbed clans did share was their adaptation for battle in the contentious northwestern frontiers of the Indian subcontinent.
Even in the Buddha’s time was there no evidence of the “kshatriya” caste being the default ruling class. While a number of Sanatana texts highlight the suitability of the “kshatriya” caste as being the only ones fit to rule, the fitness is further characterized in other texts as qualities such as service to society over one’s own family, patronization of arts and culture, support of religious/spiritual endeavours, et al - essentially leaving who qualifies as a “kshatriya” open beyond mere bloodlines.
For example, the founders of the Nanda Empire - which existed around the Buddha’s time - were considered to be “shudra”, the Mauryas - of which Ashoka was the third emperor of a dynasty whose founder faced off against the forces of Alexander the Great and caused them to mutiny rather than fight - were founded by either “Vaishyas” (the mercantile caste, or the “second-lowest”) or “shudras” and the Shunga Dynasty - which came into existence around 50 years after Ashoka’s death and eventually vanquished the Mauryas - were founded by “Brahmins”.
In the southern reaches of the subcontinent, various texts ascribed the founders of the Chola Dynasty - which built a 1,000-year empire that included many parts of Southeast Asia and was instrumental in enormous cultural exchanges with these regions and beyond - as being of “shudra” origin while eventual successor dynasties such as the Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas and Pallavas declared the Cholas to be “kshatriyas”.
By no means was this limited to the kings and their dynasties. While religious texts are largely silent on the origins of several noted sages influential to the millennia-spanning evolution of Sanatan philosophy, figures such as Agastya, Vyasa and Valmiki are considered to be not of exclusively “Brahmin” origin by an increasing numbers of scholars of various Sanatan orders. What’s evident, instead, is that the impact of their work had them deemed as “Brahmins” by scholars in successive periods. In other words, while Western Orientalists and their camp followers claim the Indic caste system to be “iron clad”, routes for social mobility across the divide had always existed in reality.
While the Buddha’s idealization of the divine was formless, early Buddhist arhats (अर्हत्) were largely unsuccessful in inveigling the masses into abandoning their millennia-spanning deities altogether. This led to yet another form of synergy between Sanatana and Buddhism: deities with shared names and qualities.
Either Lord Shiva or Lord Vishna - himself of many forms - becomes the many-formed Avalokitesvara (अवलोकितेश्वर) who goes on to become the many-formed Guanyin (观音) in China, Lord Shiva (also known as “Manjunatha”) becomes Manjushri (मञ्जुश्री) or Wenshu (文殊) in China, Lord Kartikeya became Skanda (室建陀) or Wei Tuo (韋馱) in China and Idaten (韋駄天) in Japan, and the prophesized Kalki (कल्कि) became the prophesized Maitreya (मैत्रेय).
God-king Indra (इन्द्र) has a particularly strong influence in Buddhism: while considered to have inspired Vajrapani (वज्रपाणि), he’s also venerated as Zhijingang Shen (執金剛神) in China in a dual manifestation: Jingang Lishi (金剛力士) and Renwang (仁王), two deities that usually stand at each side of a temple’s gates. Interestingly, the one on the right is traditionally named “Guhyapada” (密跡金剛, Mìjī jīngāng), while the one on the left is “Narayaṇa” (那羅延天 Nàluóyán tiān). Both are collectively referenced as Niō (仁王) in Japan. (Note: “Narayana” is another name for Lord Vishnu). Indra himself is the Buddhist deity “Sakra” (शक्र) who is also known as Shiti Huanyin (釋提桓因) in China, as Taishakuten (帝釈天) in Japan, and Hwanin (환인; 桓因) in Korea.
While the ruler of heaven in Japan and China, Hwanin is also grandfather to Dangun Wanggeom (단군왕검/檀君王儉), the founder of Gojoseon (or simply “Joseon”), the first kingdom of Korea.
Despite this juxtaposition of deities, Buddhism began a decline that roughly began a little before or after the demise of the 200-year-long Gupta Empire in the sixth century CE which reigned over much of the Indian subcontinent, barring the southern half. Within another six hundred years, Buddhism largely disappeared from the subcontinent.
While no single factor is considered to be definitive, the predominant impetus for the loss of influence in the subcontinent was quite simple: money.
Solitude In a Land of Choices
Many modern Orientalists steeped in the theories of their colonial-era predecessors single out Buddhism as being a response to the oppressive Sanatan caste system. However, a number of scholars in the present day have arrived at the conclusion that Buddhism's rise or decline is not linked to “Brahmins” or the caste system. This is simply because Buddhism was “not a reaction to the caste system” but was aimed at the salvation of those who joined its monastic order from the cycle of rebirths propounded in all Indic philosophies.
Contemporary historians note that “Early Buddhist” teachings considered politics to be a venue for the ego, thus holding that the pursuit of politics and the pursuit of enlightenment are conflicting life paths. Monastic renunciation for salvation resulted in monks being cloistered away from the populace. Given that the maintenance of a monastery and food requires money, the Buddhist Orders became dependent on the government for survival.
It bears mentioning that Buddhism wasn’t the only competitor against Sanatana in this period: another belief system - Jainism - with many of the same deities and a certain level of similitude in philosophies as both Sanatana and Buddhism had already been in place since the Buddha’s time on the mortal plane. India’s kings tended to be fairly even-handed in their largesse towards faiths practiced in their territories. Even Ashoka - the famed Buddhist emperor who backed much of the outreach made by Buddhist monastic orders into the rest of Asia - entreated Sanatan “Brahmins” in his edicts before the “shramanas” of Jainism and Buddhism.
Outside of the construction of shrines, temples and the like, further financial support was generally secured by according the tax revenues of a few villages or agricultural towns to the an Order at the pleasure of the king. This support was a double-edged sword: while the revenues would supplement the Order’s coffers, the latter was also required to administer the gifted region to an extent. Further donations were sourced from the laity as per the latter’s wherewithal or pleasure. In terms of reciprocation for support, Buddhism struggled on a number of fronts: as the level of discourse grew increasingly arcane and ritualistic, the Buddhist Orders became increasingly cloistered and distant from the laity. Management of the king’s largesse (i.e. the administration of the villages/towns) grew lax and revenues dipped.
In contrast, the Sanatan and Jain Orders continued to evolve in their relationship with the administration and the laity. For instance, Sanatan Brahmin Orders were willing and able to aid in local administration and provided advisors and literate staff to the rulers’ ministries. They also drew deep from millennia of texts relating to administration (e.g. “Arthashastra”) and social conduct (e.g. “Manusmriti”) to offer advice to the administration. Many leading Brahmins also pursued sciences like astronomy, calendrics, divination and even engineering, which the Buddhist Orders shunned as being “diversions”. Even kingdoms in Myanmar and Cambodia, despite then being almost completely Buddhist (which continues to the present day), depended on experts from these Sanatan Orders for all of these duties.
An important reason for the early ascendance of Buddhism in the Indian Subcontinent was due to its origin as a reformist movement in protest against the dogmatism and ritualism in Sanatan Orders. A contemporary re-examination of “Early Buddhist” texts before the Buddhist Orders formalized even has the Buddha receiving his monk’s robes from Lord Brahma (the Sanatan Lord of Creation) at the banks of the Anoma river as a mark of support for his quest. While the Buddha is considered to be son of a rather humble aristocrat of the Shakya republic, later texts - mainly “Mahayana” - depict his father as being a monarch of the Ikshvaku Dynasty, a legendary lineage of “kshatriyas”. What’s pertinent here is that Rishabhdeva - the first “tirthankara” (Supreme Preacher) of Jainism, a belief system centered around monastic solitude and self-realization - was of this dynasty as are 21 other subsequent “tirthankars”. Jainism was acknowledged even within the Vedas, which also recognized “Rishabha” as one of three founders. In the Theravada tradition, this dynasty was instead founded by Mahasammata 11 trillion years ago2, who himself was a Bodhisatta (“one whose goal is awakening”) in a previous life and a direct ancestor of the Buddha.
A dispassionate comparison of “Early Buddhist” accounts vis-à-vis subsequent Orders’ accounts can lead one to conclude that while the Buddha was possibly a reformist challenging the Sanatan Order’s inflexibility, the Buddhist Orders strove to be a distinct religious movement among the laity.
Given the fact that the Sanatan Orders were already treading paths invested with a millennium or so’s worth of contemplation, they responded to the reformist’s gauntlet with alacrity and ardour.
But more of that in the next part: “Crypto-Buddhist Myths vs Historical Truths”.
“Mahayana” means “great vehicle” while “Hinayana” means “small/deficient vehicle”. This definition was thought to have been introduced into the lexicon by the likes of Kumarajiva into Classical Chinese, possibility to signify ongoing frictions between the different Orders. Yijing, a Tang Dynasty-era pilgrim and monk from China reported that such delineations didn’t exist physically but monks in the same monastery could fall into either category, depending on what they accepted as venerable. In 1950, the World Fellowship of Buddhists declared that the term “Hinayana” should not be used when referring to any form of Buddhism existing today.
The massive time period is possibly a reflection of Jain tradition, which states that Rishabhadeva was born a mathematically-complex number of years ago and lived for 8,400,000 purva, i.e. 592,704,000,000,000,000,000 years. Many Jain and Sanatan scholars now consider at least some of the 22 “tirthankars” to be historical figures and thus concede that the biographical statistics likely indicate profundity or significance to discourse rather than actual chronological periods.