Buddhism in India

Transitoriness and Transformations 99

in the south can be found from inscriptions of the Satavahanas and

their successors in Andhra which show a high proportion of

women donors, from both commoner and royal families.

The distinction between monk-renouncers and householders,

and the form of the relationship between them, also underwent

changes. In the earliest period, frequent wandering and individual

begging for food fostered a close relationship and a dependence on

the laity. However as the local monasteries became richer, with

more donations from royalty or the wealthy, connection with the

poorer sections may gradually have weakened. By the time of the

Satavahanas and Guptas, many of the local monasteries in north-

ern and western India were surviving on land grants, though else-

where, for example at Nagarjunakonda in Andhra, there is no

evidence of land grants (Dutt 1988: 132). The reliance on land

grants indicates not only support of the wealthy and of royalty, but

also a less intimate connection with popular individual giving.

The distinction in early Buddhism between bhikkhus and lay

followers seems to have gradually developed into a clearer separation

with the consolidation of Theravada Buddhism. The goals of religious

effort were distinguished, with a better rebirth taken as a goal for

householders and nibbana as the goal for the monks. It then

became a matter of ‘good karma’ to give great gifts or donations to

the monasteries, while the dualism of teaching itself encouraged a

rather watered-down version of the Dhamma for preaching to lay

followers.

The monasteries themselves, or at least some of them, also became

more luxurious. The Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang, who visited these

monasteries in the 7th century, gives an evocative description:

The sangharamas are constructed with extraordinary skill. A three-

storied tower is erected at each of the four angles. The beams and the

projecting heads are carved with great skill in different shapes. The

doors, windows and low walls are painted profusely; the monks’ cells

are ornamental on the inside and plain on the outside. In the very

middle of the building is the hall, high and wide. There are various

storeyed chambers and turrets of different heights and shape, without

any fixed rule... (Beal 1983: I, 74).

The scope for comfortable living in the Sangha may have become

considerable, though this may have varied by region and by time.

Imagine what would happen if an analysis of the social composition
of a village (or, say, a church or synagogue) were drawn from a list
of names mentioned in the official history of that village!
A more realistic depiction of membership of the Sangha may be
that in Buddhaghosha’s famous commentary written around in the
fourth or the fifth century on the Vasetthasutta, the Visuddhimagga:

Why does the Buddha mention the farmer caste first? Because farm-

ers have the least pride and they are largest in number. Often the

monks from a Ksatriya family are proud of their learning; those from

low castes...are unable to continue long in the order. But the young

farmers plough their land while all their bodies are running with

sweat...Therefore they are not proud.... From the other families not

very many become monks; from the farmer’s, many.

Generalisations about well-known monks and scholars being
Brahmans are also questionable since the Buddhist texts used the
word ‘Brahman’ as a term of praise, and not in a caste sense. For
instance, Asvaghosha and Buddhaghosha are among the famous
Theravada monks of the early centuries of the Common Era who
are described as ‘Brahmans’. However, Dharmanand Kosambi and
Sukumar Dutt both doubt that Buddhaghosh was a Brahman, with
Dutt arguing that he was from a Telugu farming family (Bapat
1997: 188; Dutt 1988: 257). Similarly, in one Tibetan version of
Asvaghosha’s life, his father is a Brahman from the eastern region
who married the daughter of a merchant (Dutt 1988: 245). This
would mean either that ‘Brahman’ is used in a non-birth sense, or
caste had not solidified in the area and at the time Asvaghosha
lived and worked. Many scholars have noted that the stories of the
lives and origins of these famous monks have a legendary quality
and argue that in many cases several people of the same name are
taken as one person.
Given all this, any generalisation about the ‘social origin’ of
Buddhist monks or lay supporters becomes questionable. In regard
to women, Mair notes that in China, where much more documen-
tation is available and studies of the composition of the Buddhist
community yield a more accurate picture, scholars ‘are finding that
it included a high proportion of widows, orphans and other types
of individuals who did not fit in the usual pattern of social rela-
tionships’ (Mair 1994: 720). There is little similar scholarship as yet
in India. However sufficient evidence of the predominance of women

98 Buddhism in India