“Middle Path,” explicitly avoiding the extremes of asceticism as well as the
indulgence of ordinary life. Meditation was turned into a practice of inward
concentration, regulated to facilitate insight based on doctrinal understanding.
Buddhists turned away from the more typical shramana path, which followed
traditions of tapas, extremes of self-denial and torture. Such austerities were
perhaps shamanistic in origin, referred to occasionally as far back as the early
Vedas. Tapas were believed to bring visions or magical powers; in the compe-
tition among the shramanas, they served as the most visible item of social
identification. In the eyes of ordinary people, the ability to undergo wondrous
self-inflicted hardships was the source of the shramanas’ emotional appeal, and
was a prime motivation for giving them alms. In rejecting tapas, the Buddhists
risked undercutting their own social charisma. This was compensated in sev-
eral ways.
The shift to a moderate meditation practice must have greatly widened the
recruitment base by making life as a monk more appealing. The rejection of
tapas also shifted the focus from magical or charismatic impressiveness toward
the ethical purpose of the monastic life. On these points the Buddhists and
Jainas divided the turf. The Jainas continued more closely the tradition of
austerity, taking propertylessness to the extreme of going naked and contempt
for life to starving oneself to death. But the Jainas also went beyond tapas for
magical purposes, emphasizing the moral point of their practices: to burn away
the accumulated karma of evil action.
The trump card of the Buddhists was their accommodation with the lay
world. Although they were themselves withdrawn from the world into their
monastic communities, at the same time they made a place for a continuing
relationship with their lay supporters. This was not just a matter of living off
the alms of laypeople, as did all shramanas. The Buddhists were the only
movement which explicitly promoted missionary activities and made preach-
ing to laypersons a central religious duty.^23 The Buddhists were concerned
to allow a modus vivendi between lay supporters and the world-denying
monks; their rules held that a monk could not join without parental permis-
sion, and required that at least one son should remain to care for the family.
This also ensured that lay families would be available to give alms to the
monks. In this same vein were the good relations that the Buddha, as well as
Mahavira—themselves members of the aristocracy—kept up with kings and
wealthy donors.
Most important, Buddhism formulated not only a practice and a philoso-
phy for monks but also a simpler morality for laypeople. Killing, lying, stealing,
and sexual improprieties were described as producing bad karma and a bad
rebirth. Moral behavior, as well as giving alms to the monks, produced good
karma and good rebirth. Buddhism elevated the karma doctrine into a prop
204 • (^) Intellectual Communities: Asian Paths