Ritual Purity or Rank Superstition?

Many Indian ideas about ritual purity, especially with respect to the body, have made their way into contemporary Buddhism. I want to look at a few examples of this. An examination of the origins of these ideas in Brahminical thought may be cause to re-assess the relevance in contemporary Buddhism.

Feet
A couple of years ago I was showing a friend of a friend (a follower of Tibetan Buddhism) some of my thangka paintings. One of these hung at the foot of my bed so I could see it first/last thing. "You don't sleep with your feet pointed at that do you?" - there was a note of shock in the question. "It's very bad karma" she said. I pondered this for some time before coming to any understanding of it. I knew already that Buddhists were not supposed to point their feet at shrines. But why? Because in India the feet are considered ritual impure. But again why? The feet are ritually impure partly because they are in contact with the earth, and the dirt and shit that cover it. But again why the ritual impurity? I think it goes back to the famous Purisa hymn in the Rig Veda. In this cosmogonic myth the four social groups - Brahmins, Ksatreyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras - are born from the various parts of Brahma's body. It later versions it is Prajapati's body. The Shudras, serfs, are born from Brahma's feet. The Shudras are not the lowest rung on the Hindu scale, but they are the lowest rung of the people who are not considered outcasts or untouchable. Shudras are not permitted to enter temples, nor to hear the sacred mantras. This is so much a part of Indian culture - one touches the feat of a respected elder in greeting for instance - that even the new Buddhists honour it though they are frequently from backgrounds which high caste Hindus consider beyond the pale, so ritually polluting that their touch requires elaborate purification rituals involving ironically cow shit and piss. When in 1923 Dr Ambedkar drank from a tank in a Brahmin village, they tipped a load of cow shit into it to "purify" it!

But feet are not ritually polluting in Western cultures. Although foot odour is universally considered uncool at best, it is the odour not the foot itself that offends. The foot is by contrast sometimes even an object of desire in the west! Where I come from it is de-rigour, and completely natural, to go about in bare feet in summer. So why am I adopting this Brahminical value into my practice of Buddhism, which if anything denies the validity of notions of ritual purity?


Right shoulder to stupa
In the centre of the warehouse I worked in two years ago is a 7m high stupa which is both beautiful and impressive. Buddhists traditionally keep a stupa, or any revered object or person, to their right-hand side. Some people who work in the warehouse go to elaborate lengths to go around the stupa clockwise, to keep right shoulder to the stupa. Some go about it quietly, while others are (at times) vocally critical of people who dare to go anti-clockwise, showing their left-side to the stupa. But why I asked? What is the point? Because, I was told, it is traditional. I am not superstition person and I found this puzzling. Again I think this goes back to Brahminical ideas of ritual purity. Even today in India the left hand is impure because it is used for cleaning the anus after taking a dump. The Indians use water and not toilet paper for this. So the left hand is unclean, often quite literally, and one eats with the right. Hence if you revere someone you keep your left hand away from them. Additionally the outcastes were required to dress with their left shoulder uncovered, while the higher castes uncovered their right shoulder - this uncovering the right shoulder is a constant, if entirely incidental, theme of the Pali Canon.

Now I'm right handed and I wipe my arse with my right hand. So by the logic of ancient India my right side is impure and I should either go clockwise around the stupa, but walk backwards; or go the other way. But after I wipe my bum I wash my hands and consider them clean at that point. No literal or ritual pollution! My own belief that it is the quality of awareness of the significance of the stupa which is important - and I can go any way around the thing if I have the right attitude.

Tantra and ritual impurity.
My other example emerges out of the antinomian practices of the Tantra. Antinomian means "released from moral obligations". It originates in a Christian context, but with reference to Indian religion it relates to actions which are ritually impure. So the tantric yogin chooses a consort from the untouchable castes, frequents a cremations ground and messes about with bones and skulls, and consumes meat, alcohol and sexual fluids. These are some of the most polluting things a caste Hindu could do. The point is that the Buddha does not make distinctions like pure/impure . So the yogin experiences these intensely polluting activities with a view to maintaining their equanimity in the face of very strong provocation, to overcome their cultural conditioning around the notion of pollution. For the first time there is a sense of cross-over with western culture. We too have taboos around death that mean human remains are disposed of very purposefully, and according to laws and special customs. However contact with death is not ritually polluting as it is for the Brahmin - it does not require lengthy ritual cleansing for instance. Meat eating, drinking liquour, and even the odd mouthful of sexual fluid, are not particularly taboo in western society. Having sex with a low class person might be seen as tacky in some circles, but again not ritually polluting in a way that requires ritual cleansing.

So it would seem that adopting Indian antinomian practices which are entirely "nomian" (if there is such a word) in the west is a bit pointless. And yet the shrines of Westerners, and Westerners themselves, are adorned with skulls, and bones, and other reminders of death - although I think the significance is lost on most people who simply see them as reminders of impermanence. We make a big deal about the "left handed" tantra, which once again invokes the Indian left-hand-bum-wiping thing and involves acting out polluting actions, and contrast it with right-handed tantra in which one only imagines doing the dirty thing. But to us those things aren't dirty, we aren't ritually polluted by them. Some things we may find unethical, and in that case we may feel remorse if we eat meat or drink liquor, it is not the same thing as ritual pollution.

I doubt that traditional Buddhists reading this are going to want to change the tradition. Some of these things go very deep - are embedded in our canons of scripture for instance. But the Buddha was quite critical of superstition (mangalikā) and we can read for instance the Mangala Sutta as a critique of superstition and a call to just practice the Dharma - i.e. to make yourself pure by good behaviour, not through rituals; have good fortune (also mangala) through reaping the benefits of good behaviour, not through omens, divination, or other superstitions and/or rituals. Let us not turn back the clock on the age of reason in adopting this ancient religion, let us investigate the origins of superstitions and decide whether they are still relevant, and move on if they are not.


image: www.clear-vision.org

Locating Tantra in Historical Narratives

Scholars are still at odds with each other, and with traditional Buddhist narratives, on the issue of when tantric Buddhism came into being. This essay is an overview of an emerging narrative which relocates Tantra in history, away from representing it as the death throes of Buddhism, but without accepting traditional stories which trace Tantra back to the time of the Buddha in 5th century BCE Indian.

From probably the 2nd century sutras began to appear which contained and were focussed upon a form of protective magic. These "dharani sutras" were to prove very popular in China. A little later, perhaps the 4th century, dharani style mantras began to be interpolated into well known Mahayana Sutras, particularly the Lotus, Lankavatara, and Golden Light Sutras. The Golden Light Sutra contains an obvious predecessor of the five Buddha mandala. Indeed there is an alternative version of the Golden Light, which was translated into Chinese earlier than the version which formed the basis of the English translation by Emmerick, and in that alternate and possibly older version, it is clear that a visualisation meditation is intended. By the early 5th century a more or less clear version of a tantric initiation appears in the Karandavyuha Sutra, and mantras were aimed at gaining rebirth in the Pure Land. However scholars agree that a fully formed Tantra definitely can be found in the mid 7th century - this being marked especially by the composition of the first systematic tantric text the Mahavairocana Abhisambodhi Tantra in which mantras are properly a tool for Awakening for the first time.

The early presence of various elements, such as mandalas and mantras (of a sort) which were later adopted by tantric Buddhists, has given rise to the misleading nomenclature "proto-tantra". If for instance the use of mantras constitutes "proto-tantra" then the entire Vedic tradition is proto-tantric. The term is meaningless. It makes more sense to just say that the mantra is Vedic. Similarly Tantra incorporated aspects of Shaiva practice - which is not proto-tantric, it is Shaivite. Ronald Davidson argues in his book Indian Esoteric Buddhism that despite the presence of some elements of tantric Buddhism in earlier periods, that a fully formed tantric movement came into being, quite suddenly, in the mid 7th century. This, he argues, was a response of Buddhism to the political and social chaos resulting from the destruction by the invading Huns of the Gupta Empire with it's extensive trade networks and many wealthy lay merchants.

Early Western scholars struggled to understand the history of Buddhism in India and came to some conclusions, that in retrospect look quite suspect. Some contemporary scholars have argued that this is because those 19th and early 20th century people were applying ready made historical narratives to India rather than observing what was there. The argument is that protestant critiques of the Catholic Church, which were in turn based on the understanding of the story of the Roman Empire were in operation. English and German scholars especially were expecting to find a three act narrative: an original Buddhism based on the founders own words and preserved in a canon of texts; a mature period of consolidation and missionary activity; and a period of decline and descent into idolatry and moral turpitude. Theravada Buddhism was shoe-horned into the first category largely, perhaps, because they had an intact canon and celibate clergy. Mahayana Buddhism was seen as a degeneration, for introducing elements of devotion, but did at least coincide with the spread of Buddhism to Central and East Asia. Tantra however was not even Buddhism, it was a distortion of the rational message of the Buddha, and the "pure" conduct of the Theravada monks.

However as research has filled in the gaps in history, and as methods especially in anthropology have become more sophisticated another picture emerges. There have been streams of Theravada Buddhism which have remained vital, and these fortunately have flourished in the west. However generally speaking the Buddhism of traditional Theravadin countries is moribund: the bhikkhus do not seek Awakening or even meditate; and when not lost in the abstruse categories of abhidhamma they are meddling in politics. This is not to say that early Buddhist methods (don't mention the 'H' word) were not effective if practised, only that the keepers of the texts ended up preferring to chant them as protective spells rather than put the contents into practice (a tendency that can be seen in every type of Buddhism in every county). Where they are practised the most ancient methods are as effective as any that came later, and some of the most inspiring Buddhists in contemporary times have roots in Theravadin reform movements.

The Mahayana is said to have emerged in part as a response to the formalism of early schools of Buddhism which emphasised scholasticism and had drifted into thinking of dhammas as actually existing (a subtle form of eternalism). A closer look tells us that there were many often competing Mahayanas. Arguments continue on exactly when and where Mahayana ideas began to emerge, but Gandhara with influences from Greek, Persian and Central Asian invaders must be at the top of the list of contenders - Indian writing kicked off here, as did making images of the Buddha, both of which had enormous effect on the Mahayana. Many Mahayana ideas - especially regards the Perfection of Wisdom - display links with this part of the world. Ironically some scholars have begun to refer to early, non-Mahayana, Buddhism as "mainstream", when that name more properly belongs to the Mahayana as it was amongst these communities that the Buddha's message was kept alive and constantly renewed, whilst conservative early schools preserved their canon, they did nothing with it.

Finally, and in full contrast to the Western view of it, tantric Buddhism was a reinvigoration of a waning Indian Buddhism which was reeling from incursions from the Huns - whose cousins were heading west to wreck Rome. Trade networks broke down and with it large scale support for monasteries where Buddhism was centred. Social chaos meant a change in priorities and required something new from the religious communities of India. The result was a brilliant synthesis of many existing elements providing both an invigorated search for Awakening, and a powerful protective magic - the two essential elements of (Indian) religion, which despite rationalist views had been present in Buddhism right from the beginning (to judge by our scriptures anyway). Buddhism, let alone Tantric Buddhism, did not survive the subsequent invasion of the Islamic Arabs and Turks that followed the collapse of the Guptas, and when Nalanda was sacked in the 12th century Indian Buddhism was already dead on it's feet. But Buddhism continues to thrive in adjoining areas such as Ladak, Bhutan, and Tibet right down to the present. The Chinese eventually ousted Tantric Buddhism, but it did survive in Japan in part by syncretising with Pure Land Buddhism and creating a strong power base in the laity.

Contra the views of scholars in the 19th and early 20th centuries then, a new view is emerging which looks at Buddhist history in a different light. Theravada far from being pure "original" Buddhism is a quiet, stagnant backwater; Mahayana carried the spiritual impetus of Buddhism forward and out of India into Central and Eastern Asia, and west as far as Persia as well! However it foundered in the breakdown of post Gupta Indian society. Tantra in this view, far from being a degeneration, was a vitally needed renewal in times of maximum upheaval and uncertainty - a positive revitalising response to changing times, rather than a fall into decay. While Buddhism in for example Sri Lanka mouldered (and the ordination lineage died out twice!), Buddhism in Tibet churned out saints and seers by the dozen.

The "original" spirit, the living heart of Buddhism was never situated in formalised rituals and preserved texts, though this view exists in Buddhism and helped to reinforce Protestant presumptions: it was and is in the hearts and minds of Buddhist practitioners striving for Awakening. Some of that spirit has been transplanted into "Western" soils now and we will see whether it can continue to grow.