While I generally argue that Buddhist texts are just as useful as archaeological and epigraphic evidence, when investigating Buddhism in the first few centuries bce, textual sources are highly problematic. As discussed at length in Chapter 1, early Buddhist texts, while referring to events that allegedly occurred during the life of the Buddha and the centuries after his death, are best understood as describing the attitudes of a small number of elite monks and nuns in the early and mid-first millennia CE. That said, these later textual accounts should not be entirely discounted. While codified centuries later, they do purport to describe earlier periods, and some of the accounts compliment more robust lines of archaeological and epigraphic evidence. In other cases, particularly in regard to textual descriptions of Buddhist asceticism, there is little or no corresponding evidence found in the archaeology or epigraphy of the era. Here I review the existing textual scholarship of early Buddhism with an eye toward those accounts that have the greatest concordance with what is known from archaeological and epigraphic sources.
Given the centrality of stupas in almost all Buddhist institutions in India between 200 bce and 200 ce, the textual accounts of mortuary ritual have particular importance for understanding early Buddhist history. Buddhist textual accounts of mortuary ritual vary greatly in detail, depending upon the status of the person being memorialized. The most elaborate descriptions, found in the sutras, center on the treatment of the Buddha. There is progressively less detail concerning the burial of prominent monks, ordinary monks, and the laity, and those accounts that do exist are almost exclusively found in the vinayas. However, throughout the varying textual accounts is a consistent ambivalence concerning mortuary activities. This ambivalence is rooted in the emphasis on asceticism and corresponding dismissal of the mundane world (samsara) that pervades Buddhist literature from the beginning of the first millennium CE. This ambivalence is, perhaps, most clearly illustrated in textual accounts of the Buddha’s death and eventual veneration. In one account, preserved within the Mahaparinibbana-sutta (Davids and Davids [1910] 2007) of Sri Lanka, the Buddha is asked by one of his principal disciples, Ananda, what should be done with the Buddha’s body after death. The Buddha responded,
Hinder not yourselves, Ananda, by honoring the remains of the Tathagata [Buddha]. Be zealous, I beseech you, Ananda, in your own behalf! Devote yourselves to your own good! Be earnest, be zealous, be intent on your own good! There are wise men, Ananda, among the nobles, among the Brahmins, among the heads of houses, who are firm believers in the Tathagata, and they will do due honor to the remains of the Tathagata. (Davids and Davids [1910] 2007:154)
Subsequent passages state that the nobles should cremate the Buddha’s body and place the ashes within a stupa where those “who will take a garland or perfume or paint there, or will salute, or will cause their mind to be tranquil, that will be for their benefit and ease for a long time” (Davids and Davids [1910] 2007:156).
Traditionally, this account has been interpreted as contrasting the proper behavior of the Buddhist sangha and laity toward the Buddha’s remains (Coomaraswamy 1927; Lamotte 1988; Oldenberg 1882; but see Schopen 1997:99-113 for an alternative interpretation). The sangha, with their greater knowledge and sophistication, should abstain from venerating the Buddha’s relics, but instead should focus on their own personal achievement of nirvana through religious instruction and meditation. The laity, with their lesser understanding of Buddhism, could obtain merit through ritual directed toward the Buddha’s relics interred within stupas. It is clear that by at least the second century bce this traditional understanding of the sangha is wrong. As will be discussed below, in the second century bce through the second century CE, archaeological and epigraphic evidence unequivocally shows that both the sangha and the laity were heavily invested in veneration of stupas, though in different ways and for different ends.
Buddhist textual sources provide far less detail on the mortuary treatment of Buddhist monks. It appears that some of the most prominent monks were given similar treatment to the Buddha. Their remains were interred within stupas. Though the stupas of prominent monks were often smaller than stupas of the Buddha (mahastupas) and often omitted circumambulatory paths, they were still large structures, similar in most respects to mahastupas. The same cannot be said of the treatment of ordinary monks—those monks who did not warrant post-death veneration.
Textual descriptions of the funerals of ordinary monks do not occur in the same accounts as those of the Buddha or prominent monks. Rather, these funerals are typically addressed in the vinayas, texts that provide rules and procedures for monastic life. One account in the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya (Schopen 1997:217) reports that after the death of a monk the sangha dumped his body in a ditch outside the monastery. When the deceased monk’s relatives found the body, they complained to the Buddha. In response, the Buddha decreed that the monk should receive a proper cremation. In another account within the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya (Schopen 1997:210-214), after the death of a monk the members of the monastery went to his cell to redistribute his belongings. In the cell they found the dead monk’s ghost, who refused to part with his belongings until he received a proper funeral. This funeral was then described as including the removal of the body to the cremation ground, the washing of the body, the recitation of Buddhist scripture over the body, and the final cremation of the body. All participants were then required to ritually wash themselves and their clothes before returning to the monastery.
While this passage does provide a detailed account of a monastic funeral, it is important to note that this description is not the central point of the account. Rather, the account concludes by stating that only those who participate in a proper funeral are entitled to a share of the deceased monk’s belongings. By this account, then, the impetus for a proper funeral is not religious, per se, but rather pecuniary (Schopen 1997:204-237). As in the description of the Buddha’s funeral, there appears to be a general disinterest in the affairs of the body. Based on these accounts, it appears that the Buddhist sangha only held funerals because the communities in which they lived demanded them, and as a means to properly identify those who had a right to inheritance. As in the account of the Buddha’s mortuary treatment, it appears that monastic interest in mortuary practices had little to do with religious concerns, but rather with mundane practical concerns.
If accounts of monastic funerals are limited in Buddhist textual sources, discussions of lay funerals are almost nonexistent. In some Sri Lankan and Chinese vinayas (Schopen 1995:105-106), participation in lay funerals is listed as one of the few reasons that a member of the sangha may leave a monastery during the normally restrictive rainy season retreat. Otherwise, Buddhist texts are silent about lay funerals. The Buddhist sangha participated in lay funerals, but no details are provided of the funerals themselves.
Overall, the picture of Buddhist mortuary behavior that can be gleaned from texts is one of ambivalence. The deceased were given funerals grudgingly or, in the case of the Buddha, given to the laity for funeral rights and subsequent veneration. Funerals were a necessary chore, a distraction from the real focus of their actions, meditation, and learning. Funerals were more a social requirement than a religious obligation. If it were not for the additional information provided by Buddhist inscriptions and archaeological studies, this would be the end of it. However, archaeological and epigraphic sources provide a complementary view of the nature of Buddhist mortuary behavior.
World History
