status. Those Brahmins claimed to be the offspring of
Brahma(the creator god), and thus to be conduits of
supermundane power (Brahman) in the human world.
When the seeker Siddhartha encountered these priests,
however, he did not find them upright or learned gods-
on-earth. To the contrary, Buddhist texts present them
as beguiled by the wealth and tumult of urban India.
They come across as greedy, foolish, proud men who
hide their fraud behind high-flown claims to su-
premacy based upon the ancient names of their clans
and caste.
By considering the institutional foundation of Bud-
dhism in its sociohistorical context, one finds S ́akya-
muni to have been a critic and innovator whose
institutional genius lay in his ability to legitimate new
rituals of social engagement appropriate to the eco-
nomic situation of his day through claims that he was
merely reforming a broken social-spiritual order. For
instance, verse 393 in DHAMMAPADA(Words of the
Doctrine) reads: “One is not a Brahmin because [one
wears] dreadlocks, or due to one’s clan or caste. It is
due to truth and dharma that one is pure, and is a
Brahmin.” This verse promises that Buddhist “Brah-
mins,” unlike the Vedic, are not frauds, for their brah-
minhood is guaranteed by the imprimatur of
S ́akyamuni himself, the teacher of true dharma. Vedic
priests, by contrast, were not only frauds, but danger-
ous frauds. For by denouncing these priests’ brahmin-
hood, S ́akyamuni also denied the efficacy of their
rituals. In their place he offered his own disciples, who
had realized FOUR NOBLE TRUTHSand become worthy
“Brahmins.” The multiple connotations of the word
arya—the ethnonym for India’s conquerors, the
adjective noble,a description of Buddhist truths—
connect S ́akyamuni’s religious innovations with hal-
lowed memories of the past. In sum, rather than spon-
sor elaborate Vedic rites or pay the fees of Vedic priests,
the laity were directed to make offerings of food, cloth-
ing, and medicine to S ́akyamuni and his SAN ̇GHA
(community of monks). This was presented as a truly
efficacious way to earn spiritual merit, ensuring a fam-
ily member’s favorable afterlife. As receivers of gifts,
Buddhist monks were ideally suited to the new urban
landscape of northern India.
The san ̇ ̇gha and social norms (fifth or fourth
century B.C.E.)
According to Buddhist lore, the san ̇gha was founded
when S ́akyamuni taught the Dharmacakrapravartana-
sutra(Turning the Wheel of the Law) to five men who
had been his companions when he undertook intense
ascetic rigors before he attained buddhahood. Swiftly,
S ́akyamuni attracted many more followers, ascetics,
and seekers to his community. As the san ̇gha’s repu-
tation spread, it earned support from wealthy mer-
chants and kings. Such patronage was necessary, for
this community was comprised of bhiksus (beggars liv-
ing on alms). Thus, monastic rule books represent
S ́akyamuni as fervent in his pursuit of a monastic “good
neighbor” policy. For as a social institution, Buddhism
was woven into a web of parallel institutions—
economic, political, familial, medical, cultural—that
had no necessary stake in the san ̇gha’s perpetuation.
Potential donors had definite expectations about how
bhiksus should comport themselves. If monks trans-
gressed those expectations, they stood to lose support.
It is thus crucial to recognize that although Buddhist
monks took the radical step of leaving their families,
the Buddhist san ̇gha was neither a radical nor an
antisocial institution. It did not strive to undermine
fundamental social canons. Indeed its rules often le-
gitimated and conserved those canons.
Tensions between the san ̇gha’s identity as a com-
munity of beggars, and its need to conform to public
norms of behavior, are exemplified by stories about
founding the order of NUNS. When asked to admit his
foster-mother, MAHAPRAJAPATIGAUTAMI, as the first
female bhiksunl,S ́akyamuni refused, even though he
admitted that women are as capable as men of be-
coming arhats. The rationale given for his reluctance
was that bhiksunlswould be like blight in a field of
sugarcane, weakening the san ̇gha’s vitality. S ́akyamuni
prophesied that if he founded an order of nuns the
san ̇gha would remain true to his teachings for five
hundred years only, whereas if he did not admit
women, his male brotherhood would survive one
thousand years without decay. Ultimately S ́akyamuni
relented, after pledging Mahaprajapatand all future
nuns to accept eight extraordinary rules, which thor-
oughly subordinated the female bhiksunlsto the male
bhiksus. In sum, the male institution’s reluctance to
grant unreserved legitimacy to its female counterpart
reflected a broader cultural ambivalence in India con-
cerning women, one that was misogynist in its value
judgments, even while it recognized the inevitability
of women’s social presence.The Buddha’s death and the First Council
(fifth or fourth century B.C.E.)
If the san ̇gha was founded with S ́akyamuni’s first ser-
mon, his death forced it to be reborn. Without a sin-
gle, universally accepted voice of authority, BuddhistINDIA