Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Uposatha and posaha in the early histories of Jainism and Buddhism

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search




This paper, completed in Fall 2010, was published in Śramana, the journal of Parshwanath Vidyapeeth Jain Research Institute at Benares Hindu University. I have not seen the printed copy myself, and the journal has limited circulation, so I am making it available on Academia.edu. My thanks to Shugan Jain and the International School of Jain Studies, Washington and Lee University, and to the Parshwanath Vidyapeeth Jain Research Institute, for their support. 

Uposatha and posaha in the early histories of Jainism and Buddhism

CHRISTIAN HASKETT,

Washington and Lee University


In the study of India’s ancient history, the notion of the primacy of the Vedas and of them as the source of virtually all Indic religions has played a role entirely out of proportion to its reliability. We are told that, just as the Vedas are the source of all truth and of all

Hinduism (the latter, at least, demonstrably false) they are the source for all other religions in India, with the notable exceptions of Islam and Christianity. This theory, an accepted fact within much of the Hindu tradition and community, has led us to accept suggestions such as Jain as a Hindu caste, and Buddhism as a reform and heretical offshoot of Hinduism. Recent scholarship has challenged this view as a whole and piecemeal from the perspectives of the Hindu tradition and from the perspective of Buddhism and Jainism.3 The present paper further advances the challenge to Vedic origins theories by arguing that the Jain posaha and the Buddhist uposatha differ from one another in ways sufficient to rule out the possibility of a mutual source such as the Vedas and their

upavasatha . Instead, I will argue for posaha as a broader cultural phenomena which was gradually adapted and factionalized by Buddhists and Jains. Throughout, I propose that the development of uposatha and posaha prove the theory that Vedic and Śramaṇic culture emerged, grew, and evolved independent of one another for a very long time, and that Buddhism and Jainism are each more properly viewed as outgrowths of an earlier Śramaṇic culture than as reforms or offshoots of Hinduism. This culture, which I will call early Śramanism, lacked texts, institutions, or formalized rules, and we may also be sure that it was fairly amorphous and not very coherent or contiguous. We also have very little direct evidence of it or its character, but we shall hope to detect the echoes of it in the earliest Jain and Buddhist literature.

Some problems with the upavasatha -> posaha / uposatha theory

In earlier research (Haskett 2010a, 2010b) I have considered the question of uposatha and posaha descending from upavasatha more fully, and of course this paper also offers an alternative explanation for the derivation of posaha. Thus, I will only briefly review some of the arguments that have been made by myself and others against sourcing the Buddhist and Jain observances in the Vedic ones.

1. The Vedic tradition does not necessarily hold historic precedent. The earliest mention of upavasatha is in the Brāhmaṇas, which are roughly contemporaneous with the births of Buddhism and Jainism.

2. Linguistically, we cannot derive uposatha from upavasatha because while in Pāli ava does become o, it only does so in the case of an upasarga verbal prefix. There are no other cases where an ava occasioned by the union of a + va produces an o. This holds true in cases where the a is a precative as well as when it is not.

3. The Pāli uposatha occurs frequently beside the verb upavasati. If the o of uposatha is the result of a samprasāraṇa, why did the same samprasāraṇa not take place in upavasati, thus giving us uposati?

4. As Schonthal argued (57-60), the content of the uposatha day much more closely resembles the posaha. In each, laypersons take temporary vows which approximate those of their monastic counterparts as a means of generating virtue and eliminating bad karma. The upavasatha is a fast with some abstentions, but in preparation for a pending sacrifice. The Buddhist and Jain days include no preparatory aspect whatsoever.

An additional problem is raised by Johannes Bronkhorst in his book Greater Magadha (2007) which shows that the Brahman migration eastward did not reach the Magadha region until some time after the advent of Buddhism and Jainism. We have evidence that posaha / uposatha was practiced at the time of Aśoka, and no reason to suspect that it was not a part of the earliest manifestations of both Buddhism and Jainism. posaha->upavasatha?

Two paths offer a way out of a connection between the Vedic upavasatha and the śramaṇic posaha/uposatha: a linguistic argument separating the terms, and a historical argument concerning the contents and function of the rites. By one we can vitiate the connection between them, but by the other we can demonstrate an alternate causality. Ultimately a full revision of the history should involve both; however, an alternate causality already exists which must be examined, tested, and verified, and in the process we may have a chance to learn something important about the history of the ‘early’ śramaṇic movement. In point 4. above I mention Schonthal’s theory that the Buddhist uposatha derives from posaha, and in this section I examine this theory more closely. No matter what the outcome of this investigation, though, we should observe that even if we show that uposatha evolves from posaha, we still have the possibility that posaha came from upavasatha and then subsequently gave rise to uposatha, and that is a theory that I ultimately want to critique, if not discard, for reasons already mentioned.

The posaha -> uposatha argument rests on two points: the Buddhist uposathavastu in the Pāli vinaya and poṣadhavastu in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya both acknowledge that the Buddhists borrowed the idea for the uposatha from another sect of renunciates. Schonthal gives this perfectly serviceable translation of the relevant passage:

At that time wanderers (paribbājakā) from other sects (titthiyā) gathered on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the lunar fortnights and spoke of dharma. People went to them to hear dharma [and] they acquired affection (pemaṃ) for wanderers of other sects; they acquired faith (pasādaṃ) [in them]; [and in turn] wanderers of other sects acquired adherents. Then when king, general Bimbisāra of Magadha, had gone into seclusion and was meditating, thus a consideration arose in his mind that, “wanderers of other sects now assemble on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the lunar fortnight and recite dharma. People approach them to hear dharma. They acquire affection for wanders of other sects; they acquire faith [too]. Wanderers of other sects acquire adherents. Well now, those noble ones, as well, should meet on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth of the lunar half-month.” (Oldenberg 1977, 1:101, 2; translation Schonthal 2006, 56)

Let us pause here. The proposed proof should be transparent enough—the Buddhists take their observance from other sects, and these are even called titthiyā, or tīrthāḥ. However, note that these are here only paribbājaka (Skt: parivrājaka), which is a generic name for renouncers. Both the Pāli vinaya and the early Jain literature suggest that there were plenty of other renouncer groups operating in the Magadha area at this time, and in fact, we know that they were long after as well (see Harṣacarita for example). Thus, there is no reason (yet) why we should think of these particular renunciates as Jains—and in fact, there is a good and important reason for us to suspect that these are not Jains, or if they are, they are not doing posaha.

In the above vinaya passage we see the other renouncers observing the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth day ceremonies, and also that these are attended by laity. The dates pose no difficulty, except inasmuch as they are also potential dates for the Vedic observance. This description does not square with the Jain version of the posaha, though, when it has the monks as the main actors, and the laypeople as passive observers. The Jain posaha is now and always has been a lay observance.

Jain doctrine holds that only renunciates can maintain perfect and complete morality, or even a version of it, in the form of the mahāvrata Great Vows; laypeople can only hope for an approximation of these in the form of the anuvrata Lesser Vows. The posaha gives the laity an opportunity to live, at least morally, as monks for a defined period of time:

The Venerable One spoke thus: “There are some followers of Śramaṇas who have made this declaration: we cannot submit to the tonsure, renounce the life of a householder and enter the monastic state, but we shall strictly observe the Posaha on the fourteenth and eighth days of each fortnight, (on the new-moon, and) full-moon days, we renounce gross illusage of living beings, grossly lying speech, gross taking of things not given, (unlawful) sexual intercourse, (unlimited) appropriation of property; we shall set limits to our desires in the two forms and the three ways. They will also make the following renunciation: “neither do nor cause anything (sinful) to be done for my sake.” Having (on Posaha-days) abstained from eating, drinking, bathing and using beds or chairs may they, on their decease, be said to make a (righteous) end of their life?

“Certainly, they do make such an end of their life.” (SK, trans. Jacobi 1968, 2:429-31)

It is for this very reason that the posaha becomes a śikṣa anuvrata, or training vow for the laity, but never appears anywhere as an obligation for monks. In fact, for Jains the posaha always involves laity and we see no mention whatsoever of monks actively participating in posaha in any canonical text or any other writing, even into the early modern period. In the next section I will present a range of evidence from various Jain literary sources which should serve to cement that fact. proṣadha: a śrāvaka observance

The above citation from the oldest strata of the Jaina āgama clearly makes the posaha a layperson’s observance. Modern iterations of posaha also indicate that it is a lay holiday.

Is there any evidence to indicate that, at any point in time, the posaha was observed in some way by renunciate members of the Jaina tīrthas?

To date, I have not identified any scriptural sources which portray renunciate participation in posaha. Earlier I alluded to Schonthal’s proposal, based on Deo (1956, 153) that on the posaha monks recited their vows in a fashion similar to the Buddhist prātimokṣa, but that portion of Deo only mentions the monastic pratikramaṇa, and that it can take place fortnightly. That fortnightly recitation mostly likely did take place on the same dates assigned for the posaha, and there is even some evidence to suggest that monks sometimes made confessions using laity as confessors (Caillat 1973, 126), but nowhere do we find any use of the word posaha in this context, nor any indication that this was thought of as part of the posaha. On the other hand, we have abundant direct and indirect evidence from several different periods of Jain literary history that householders should observe the posaha.

The Ratnakaraṇḍaśrāvakācāra is one of the earliest Jain texts, dating to 2nd c. CE, and is also remarkable for being one of the few documents accepted by both Digambara and Śvetāmbara authorities. Locating a description of the posaha there already serves to show that it was a lay observance, since the text teaches the path of conduct proper to householders. When the RKŚ says that the practitioner should abandon perfume, flowers, and other adornments, as well as bathing, in addition to food restrictions , it can only be speaking of householders, because these have already been forbidden for monks and nuns. Similarly, when it takes the fast of the posaha to mean only eating once, it would make little sense to prescribe such restrictions for monks and nuns who are already restricted to a single daily meal.

Ācārya Kartikeya, writing in the third century, makes a similar point in writing that the śrāvaka who always, on both holy days, abstains from bathing, unguents, ornaments, association with women, perfume, incense, lamps, etc; and, who ornamented with the ornaments in the form of passionlessness, fasts or eats only once, or eats only ‘blameless’ (nirvikṛti) food, his is the so-called posaha training vow.

The Pāiasaddamahaṇṇavo also specifically terms the posaha and posahovavaso as śrāvak kā, or ‘of or belonging to the householders’ in each of its entries, citing over a half dozen texts in support of this position. The posaha is the twelfth vow of householders. Thus, we find a total unanimity in all the literature we have seen so far indicating that the posaha is a rite for householders.

We should next, however, entertain the objection that we have only considered Digambara sources, and largely those which specifically address the conduct and concerns of householders. This literature also belongs to a later strata, having been actually composed from the first century onward, whereas the Śvetāmbara canon, whatever its date of redaction, purports to derive from the time of Mahāvīra, and was passed down orally until its final rescension. Close attention to detail will not only reveal that the Śvetāmbara and Digambara texts concur almost exactly, but will also reveal a number of points that allow us to triangulate the Jain posaha vis-à-vis other fortnightly ritual observations of other sects in ancient India.

Let us first return to the Sūtrakṛtāṅga passage we reviewed earlier: The Venerable One spoke thus: “There are some followers of Sramanas who have made this declaration: we cannot submit to the tonsure, renounce the life of a householder and enter the monastic state, but we shall strictly observe the Posaha on the fourteenth and eighth days of each fortnight….(SK 2:249, transl. Jacobi 1968).

The juxtaposition could demonstrate more if differently worded, but even as it stands, we can see first that in this oldest layer of Jain literature, the posaha was observed by laity and not by monastics. In fact, the phrasing further alerts us to the posaha as an opportunity for śrāvakas, who cannot maintain full monastic discipline, to temporarily approximate it. As with the iterations we discussed earlier, it makes little sense for monks to observe a day of avoiding things which they have already promised to avoid for life. Observe here as well that the practitioners that Mahāvīra identifies are not necessarily Jains, but followers of the Śramaṇas. Here we have the first direct suggestion from the Jain side of the posaha as a rite shared with other sects, a fact which will eventually become crucial to my total argument. The Uttarādhyayana, in V.23, also says that faithful householders ought never miss the observance. We still seem to have a total agreement on the exclusive participation of the laity in the posaha.

Another early source, the Kalpa Sūtra, attempts a separate and, I propose, wholly innovated and novel explanation of the source of the posaha: In that night in which the Venerable Ascetic Mahāvīra died, &c. (all down to) freed from all pains, the eighteen confederate kings of Kāśi and

emendations may have crept into the Jain literature in the years after it was written down, we can be much more certain that they did not make their way into memorized texts before that. Kośala, the nine Mallakis and Licchavis, on the day of new moon, instituted an illumination on the Poshadha, which was a fasting day; for they said: 'Since the light of intelligence is gone, let us make an illumination of material matter!' (KS trans. Jacobi 1974 [1884] 266)

It seems that the Jains accept the existence of an already-founded posaha at the time of Mahāvīra. I do not know of any claim that Mahāvīra instituted the posaha, and in fact, in later literature it is claimed to have also existed at the time of Supārśvanātha, the 9th Tīrthaṃkar, as well. Further research into the biographies (cariya) of earlier tīrthaṃkaras might undergird the notion that the Jains understand the posaha to be an ancient, or perhaps eternal part of their religion. This would not be surprising, since Jains understand Jainism itself to be eternal, even if some components do vary from the teaching of one tīrthaṃkara to the next.

Are there, then, any remarks at all about renouncers and the posaha? Does the Jain canon never mention them, except as a foil for the imperfect laity in the emulation of whom the posaha is conducted? Obviously, a conclusive and exhaustive search of the total canon is beyond both my capabilities and the scope of this paper; however, we can find at least one source that mentions monks and their involvement with the posaha, but only in a very negative light. A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, &c., in the following case: when, on the eighth or paushadha day, on the beginning of a fortnight, … many Śramaṇas and Brāhmaṇas, guests, paupers, and beggars are entertained with food, &c., out of …pots, baskets, or heaps of food ; such-like food which has been prepared by the giver, &c., (all down to) not tasted of, is impure and unacceptable. But if it is prepared by another person, &c. (see first lesson, 13), one may accept it; for it is pure and acceptable. (ĀS, trans. Jacobi 1964 [1884], 92)

The relevant portion of the Prakrit passage reads se bhikkhu vā gāhāvatikulaṃ piṃḍavātapaḍiyāe aṇupaviṭṭhe samāṇe se jjaṃ puṇa jāṇejja asaṇaṃ vā aṭṭhamiposahiesu vā. We can observe a few things from this passage, which gives us a rare glimpse into the culture of ancient India and its operations. First, monks quite obviously can eat on the posaha day, so long as they observe certain restrictions which are the standard ones about not eating food which has been prepared with them in mind. The separation of the preparer from the donor evidently places enough distinction in intention to suffice. Secondly, and quite remarkably, it looks as though at this point in time, whenever that may have been, members of several religious groups joined together to be feted at the posaha, in the form of a great festive meal to feed all types of recipients of donated alms. The observance, and thus presumably the corresponding sociological formations, were not separated into the communal divisions we have at present. Our assumption that those sectarian formations were in force, or would have to have been, is an uncareful projection of later and present situations into the past.

The Hindi commentary which accompanies the Acārāṅga is noteworthy here as well, because it says, regarding ‘samaṇa’ (Skt: śramaṇa), ‘there are five types of śramaṇas:

Knotless (Jain), Śākyan (Buddhist), Ascetic, White, and Ājīvika (followers of Gośālaka’

(śramaṇa pāṇc prakār ke hote haiṇ: (1) nirgranth (jain), (2) śāky (bauddh), (3) tāpas, (4) gaurika aur (5) ājīvika (gośālakamatīya)). In addition, the ĀS lists brāḥmaṇas (the Hindi commentary calls these ‘those who show up for food’!), beggars, the destitute, and guests, thus depicting an activity which more closely resembles the later celebrated mahādāna than anything else. In light of all this, the posaha appears to have been a community-wide festival of donations to the less fortunate, or to worthy recipients of alms without any regard for sectarian identity. We might also surmise, then, that it was celebrated by the greater community at large, and if that is the case, we have some serious reconfiguration of our account of the descent of the posaha ahead of us.

Lastly, we might wonder what the Brāhmanas mentioned both in the root text and in the Hindi commentary are doing at the posaha, since they are supposed to be off somewhere keeping busy with their own upavasatha? Even if we give the Vedic view as charitable a treatment as we can, and suppose that the observance described here is the Brahman upavasatha, we still have to wonder why the Ācārāṅga has the Brāhmanas eating at the posaha, since the upavasatha requires them to fast?


Some conclusions

The early posaha, as it is remembered in the ĀS, was not a Jain posaha, or a Buddhist posaha, or any other sect’s. This may reflect as well that no one thought of the members of these and other various sects as necessarily distinct from one another, at least not in the sense that we think of them today. Indeed, the ancient Indian conception of ‘religion’ may well have viewed all ‘dharmik’ strivers as unitary in one sense, even though they followed different teachers and thus observed different customs. Jains and Buddhists as such, and Jain and Buddhist fast day observances as such, emerged much later.

This being the case—that there was a broader understanding and pervasion of the ideals of sramanic culture and not one bound to any one tradition or religion—we can actually confirm what the Jain and Buddhist sources have claimed for over 2,000 years. The Buddha studied with other ascetics. Mahāvīra continued a tradition that stretched back far before him. Whether or not we can accept Pārśvanātha as an historical personage (and I do not think we can, simply because we don’t have sufficient evidence from the putative time period), we have mutually confirming accounts from two ancient sources which show a widespread, well-established śramanic culture which had rites and rituals, holidays and festivals, and—perhaps ironically given later contention between śramaṇas and brāḥmaṇas from all sides—a peaceful coexistence and integration between this culture and that of the Brāhmaṇas.

The Vedic argument turns on the point, or at least assumes and require, that on a vast and open landscape, there existed only the Vedic religion, and then along came Jainism, as a total and unitary reified entity, which then appropriated the upavasatha and renamed it. The evidence simply does not support this sort of situation. What seems far more likely is that this śramaṇic culture, or the śramaṇic movement and a culture which gradually grew to be influenced by it, had flourished and developed in the Magadha area for at least some centuries before the time of Mahāvīra and the Buddha, and it was the Brahmanas who migrated into this cultural region. The Vedicism we have today, including its upavasatha, developed in the context of Śramaṇism—not the other way around.

This seems like a radical proposition, but I would suggest that it only seems that way because of our consistent and untested presumption that the Vedas are primary. That assumption has a history, and it is a recent one. When the supremacy of the vedas is held to one side, perhaps a clearer, more accurate picture of ancient India and her history may emerge, as I hope it may have begun to here.


Abbreviations


ĀS Ācārāṅga Sūtra
JSK Jaina Siddhānta Kośa
KĀ Kārtikeyānuprekṣā
KS Kalpa Sūtra
MDhŚ Mānavadharmaśāstra
MIA Middle Indo-Aryan
PSM Pāiasaddamahaṇṇavo
RKS Ratnakaraṇḍaśravakācāra
SK
Sūtrakṛtāṅga


Bibliography
 
Primary Sources
 
Ācaraṅga Sūtra. Beawar, Rajasthan: Sri Agama Prakashan Samiti, p. 22.
 
Jacobi, Hermann. 1964-68 [1884]. Gaina Sûtras, The sacred books of the East ... vol. XXII, XLV;. Oxford, The Clarendon press. Reprint by Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
Karttikeyasvamin. 1974. Svamikarttikeyanupreksa. Chabara, ed. Jaipur: Vira Pustaka Bhandara.
Olivelle, Patrick. 2005. Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmaśāstra. New York: Oxford University Press.
 
Samantabhadra. 1981. Ratnakaranda-Sravakacara: Samskrta / Sadasukha. Solapur: Jivaraja Jaina Granthamala, Marathi vibhaga, Jaina Samskrti Samraksaka Samgha.
Varni, Jinendra. 1985. Jainendra Siddhanta Kosa. New Delhi: Jñanapitha Murtidevi Jaina granthamala.
 
Secondary Sources
 
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 1993. The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism. Schweizer asiatische
Studien. Monographien ;; Bd. 13 =; Etudes asiatiques suisses. Monographies ;; vol. 13; Variation: Schweizer asiatische Studien.; Monographien ;; Bd. 13. Bern ; New York: P. Lang.

———. 2007. Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. Leiden: Brill.
Deo, Shantaram Bhalchandra. 1956. History of Jaina Monachism from Inscriptions and Literature. Deccan College dissertation series,; 17;. Poona [[[Deccan]] College Post-graduate and Research Institute].
 
Gombrich, Richard. 1990. “How the Mahāyāna Began.” The Budddhist Forum 1: 21-30.
 
Hargovind Das T. Sheth, Pāiasaddamahaṇṇava: a Comprehensive Prakrit Hindi Dictionary. Calcutta, 1923-8.
 
Haskett, Christian. 2010a. “Upavasatha, uposatha, poṣadha and posaha.” Unpublished paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Oriental Society. St Louis, MO, March 16, 2010.
———. 2010b. “Revealing Wrongs: A history of confession in Indian Buddhism.” (unpublished diss.) Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Przyluski, Jean. "Uposatha," Indian Historical Quarterly 12 (September 1936), 383-90.
Schonthal, Benjamin. 2006. “Untangling Uposatha: Indology, Etymologic, History in Buddhist Studies.” Sagar 10: 51-65.







Source