The 8th International Conference Buddhism & Australia
will be held on 7-9 February, 2019 in Perth, Western Australia.

Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia Illustrations
Some of the Buddhist Illustrations created by Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia
FREE for everyone to use

We would also appreciate your feedback on Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia. Please write feedback here
Here you can read media articles about the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia which have been published all over the world.

Articles by alphabetic order
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

The Ironic Assumptions of Gregory Schopen

From Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please consider making little donation to help us expand the encyclopedia    Donate Paypal-logo.jpg    Enjoy your readings here and have a wonderful day  

Bhikkhu sujato.jpg


The meth­ods and assump­tions of Buddhist text-critical stud­ies have come under chal­lenge, indeed frontal assault, by the influ­en­tial aca­demic Gregory Schopen. His writ­ings are delib­er­ately pro­voc­at­ive and some­times bril­liant. His basic approach in under­stand­ing Indian Buddhism may be summed up as a change in method, lead­ing to dif­fer­ent results.

In method, he cri­ti­cizes the assump­tion of mod­ern schol­ars that the study of Buddhism may be equated with the study of its texts, and instead pro­poses that the archae­olo­gical evid­ence should be gran­ted pri­or­ity. I think all would agree that he has a point here, but it is not obvi­ous to me that pre­vi­ous schol­ars have been so neg­li­gent in this regard. As just one ran­dom example, Lamotte’s dis­cus­sion of King Milinda occu­pies about seven pages.1 The first three pages mainly sur­vey the evid­ences of the coins and other mater­ial evid­ence, summed up as ‘as few frag­ment­ary inscrip­tions’; the next three pages dis­cuss the Milindapañha, an import­ant work of the Middle Period pre­served in Chinese and Pali; and the final page men­tions a few ref­er­ences in later works. This seems reas­on­able to me; if any­thing I would have liked to see more dis­cus­sion of some of the philo­soph­ical points raised in the Milindapañha, whose stance tends to be inter­me­di­ate between the canon­ical doc­trines and the developed pos­i­tions of the schools.

As far as the res­ults of research are con­cerned, Schopen says that the record of the bones and stones depicts a very dif­fer­ent type of Buddhist mon­astic, one who is more worldly and human than the cari­ca­ture of the ascetic hero striv­ing for Nib­bana alone in the forest.
What Schopen gets right

Taiwan Today.jpg

Many of Schopen’s con­clu­sions, I think, are obvi­ously true. He is primar­ily inter­ested in the ‘Middle Period’ of Indian Buddhism, that is, the five hun­dred years or so from the begin­ning of the Com­mon Era. He uses the rem­nants of mon­as­ter­ies, stu­pas, graves, etc., together with Vinaya mater­ial, primar­ily from the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya in Tibetan (he makes little use of the Chinese sources), which he says stems from the same period and depicts much the same activ­ity. These sources speak to us of monks and nuns who accu­mu­late wealth, make sub­stan­tial dona­tions from their own wealth for build­ing pro­jects, pro­mote devo­tional activ­ity such as wor­ship of stu­pas, images, and rel­ics, are engaged in busi­ness trans­ac­tions, con­tracts, and lend­ing on interest, and are fre­quently at the beck and call of the lay fol­low­ers for per­form­ance of rituals such as wed­dings, house bless­ing, and so on. All of this pic­ture is quite con­vin­cing and needs little dis­cus­sion here.

But while it is obvi­ously true, I would also con­tend that it is truly obvi­ous. All the activ­it­ies that Schopen depicts may be plainly seen in the activ­it­ies of the major­ity of the ordained Sangha in all tra­di­tions in the present day. Schopen merely points out that these con­di­tions also obtained in the Middle Period of Indian Buddhism as well. While this may come as a sur­prise to aca­dem­ics with little con­tact with Buddhism in the real world, and con­sti­tutes an import­ant cri­tique of the fal­lacy of equat­ing Buddhism with the ideal­ized por­trait in the sac­red texts, it will come as no sur­prise for those of us who encounter Buddhism in the world every day.


Another of Schopen’s argu­ments that is well taken is that the aver­age monk or nun, not to speak of the lay fol­low­ers, may hardly even know of the scrip­tural texts. The scrip­tures may have only been known to a small elite of schol­ars, and the ideas therein might not be rep­res­ent­at­ive of the range of Buddhists. A few years ago I was stay­ing in a forest hut belong­ing to a devoted, intel­li­gent Thai Buddhist, who, when he was young, had been in robes for two and a half years. Once I vis­ited a local mon­as­tery and bor­rowed cop­ies of some of the Sut­tas. When I men­tioned it to my friend, he looked abso­lutely blank: he had never even heard the words ‘Majjhima Nikāya’ or ‘Dīgha Nikāya’. Again it seems plaus­ible that this situ­ation, observ­able today, could have obtained two thou­sand years ago in India. But the argu­ment should not be over­stated. The Buddhist scrip­tures are big works. They must have required a sub­stan­tial organ­iz­a­tion of monk-&-nun power to main­tain, whether in oral form or even in the later writ­ten form, and so a large num­ber of people must have known them. The num­ber of inscrip­tions from ancient India is only a few thou­sand, and so can only rep­res­ent a tiny frac­tion of scraps of ideas of all the Indian Buddhists. And those who are wealthy enough to donate reli­gious monu­ments are hardly likely to be rep­res­ent­at­ive of the full spec­trum of the Buddhist com­munity. Any­way, as Schopen emphas­izes, many of the donors are monks and nuns (accord­ing to Schopen, most of the donors are mon­astic, and in the Middle period, about half the mon­ast­ics are nuns) who state that they are versed in the ‘Sut­tas’ or ‘Vinaya’ or ‘Tripiṭaka’ or ‘Nikāyas’; in other words, they are the same people as those who passed down the scriptures.
‘Prot­est­ant Buddhism’ and subjectivity

Schopen is scath­ing in his assess­ment of the ‘assump­tions’ made by vari­ous Buddhist schol­ars. He char­ac­ter­izes the work of early, Vic­torian, schol­ars such as Olden­berg and Rhys Dav­ids as ‘prot­est­ant’, and sug­gests that they have read their own biases into the Buddhist texts, depict­ing the Buddha and his Sangha much like rational, cul­tured European gentlemen.

Sri Madhvacharya.jpg

This, too, is true, but it is hardly a valid cri­ti­cism. Any­one famil­iar with Buddhist thought should accept that our under­stand­ing is always col­oured by our beliefs and val­ues. Fine, let’s point this out—but let’s not assume that we are an excep­tion. I am a forest monk, and I believe that the Buddha and his early gen­er­a­tions of ordained dis­ciples were also forest monks and nuns. So when I look at the her­it­age of Buddhism, I nat­ur­ally focus on this aspect.

Gregory Schopen is a highly paid aca­demic from an over­whelm­ingly mater­i­al­istic soci­ety, and so when he looks at the her­it­age of Buddhism he sees money, rocks, and mater­ial remains. When he does look at the texts—as any scholar, whatever their beliefs, must even­tu­ally do, for the inform­a­tion con­tained in the inscrip­tions is scanty—he focuses on the Vinayas, since they deal most dir­ectly with the mater­ial aspects of mon­astic life—buildings, etc. But the Vinayas them­selves rep­res­ent a move­ment from the spir­itual to the material—they are about what monks and nuns do when they mis­be­have, and so taken by them­selves they are mis­lead­ing. We would not expect to gain an accur­ate vis­ion of how an ordin­ary per­son leads their daily life today by read­ing law books.

Schopen con­trasts the wealthy, developed mon­as­ter­ies with the poor, simple vil­lages nearby. His agenda is, in the broad­est sense, Marx­ist. I do not mean that in the slight­est pejor­at­ive sense—I think it’s sweet that he ded­ic­ates his books to the ‘work­ing men and women’ whose ‘labor paid for my schol­arly leis­ure’. But he has little interest in the spir­itual aspect of Buddhism, which puts him in a minor­ity of those, at any time, who wish to learn the Dhamma.

It should be obvi­ous that Schopen’s assump­tions influ­ence his con­clu­sions, just as the assump­tions of earlier schol­ars influ­ence their con­clu­sions. Whole­some states of mind leave no scar on the rocks. Med­it­a­tion attain­ments are air­ily eph­em­eral. Insights into real­ity hap­pen in the wispy world of the mind. If we were to accept Schopen’s meth­ods uncon­di­tion­ally, we would have to aban­don the very reason that most of us became inter­ested in Buddhism. There would be no more reason to study ancient India than any other ancient cul­ture. This may not be a prob­lem for Schopen, but it is a big one for most stu­dents of Buddhism.


My primary interest is in spir­itual prac­tice, and my interest in the Āgama Sut­tas stems from this: they describe a spir­itual prac­tice that I find inspir­ing, prac­tical, and pro­found. I have tried, to my lim­ited best, to live up to the ideals taught in that lit­er­at­ure, and have invari­ably found that, when prob­lems arise, they are due to my own inad­equa­cies, not those of the teach­ings. I have also had close con­tact with a num­ber of human beings whose inner radi­ance test­i­fied to the power of the Dhamma when lived to its fullest. Since this tra­di­tion that I belong to claims to stem from a genu­ine his­tor­ical indi­vidual called the Buddha, it is import­ant to invest­ig­ate what truth there might be to this claim.
On the rhet­oric of dates

Schopen’s work con­tains much that is inter­est­ing and inform­at­ive, but little that could be called inspir­ing. His writ­ing is char­ac­ter­ized by wit, scan­dal, and good yarns. Unfor­tu­nately, it is not always char­ac­ter­ized by con­sist­ency, and we should exam­ine some of his frac­ture lines. He rests his argu­ments heav­ily on the author­ity of the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya, a text he cheer­fully admits to not hav­ing fully read. This Vinaya is ‘mon­strous’ in size, per­haps 4000 folios in the Tibetan, and most schol­ars have taken it to be late, per­haps 500 CE. Schopen would like to see this Vinaya dated earlier, around the begin­ning of the Com­mon Era. On the other hand, the Theravāda Vinaya has been taken by most schol­ars to be early, but Schopen would also like to date that around the begin­ning of the Com­mon Era. Thus the battle-lines are drawn. Schopen says that the dis­cus­sion of the date of the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya has been:

    ‘… badly mis­dir­ec­ted by a very red her­ring and the inat­ten­tion of those who are sup­posed to be fol­low­ing the trail. In 1958 the great Bel­gian scholar Etienne Lamotte declared that this Vinaya, or code, was late, that “one can­not attrib­ute to this work a date earlier than the 4th–5th cen­tur­ies of the Chris­tian Era.” This pronouncement—even at its incep­tion based on very shaky grounds—still proved almost fatal, for Lamotte was forced by his own fur­ther work to change his position—and he did so sev­eral times—but few schol­ars seem to have noticed. By 1966, Lamotte was in fact refer­ring to the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya as a source of inform­a­tion for the first or second cen­tury of our era. Iron­ic­ally, other schol­ars then, and for a long time after, con­tin­ued to quote only the Lamotte of 1958.’2

Pragyananda statue.jpg

I must also con­fess inat­ten­tion, for I have not fol­lowed the trail of Lamotte’s argu­ments and so must declare my incom­pet­ence to pro­nounce on the date of the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya. It might be noticed in passing, though, that the two pos­i­tions ascribed to Lamotte in this pas­sage are not neces­sar­ily con­tra­dict­ory. Given the evid­ently long period it would take to com­pile a vast com­pen­dium like the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya, it is not unreas­on­able to main­tain that the final redac­tion was in the 4th–5th cen­tur­ies C.E., but that it con­tains mater­ial inher­ited from a much earlier time. In fact, some­thing of this sort could be said for almost all Buddhist lit­er­at­ure. This is a phe­nomenon known as ‘intra­tex­tu­al­ity’, the ongo­ing life of a given text through a par­tic­u­lar stream of tra­di­tion, which reflects the con­ser­vat­ive nature of reli­gious lit­er­at­ure: the redact­ors val­ued ancient author­ity over cre­at­ive expres­sion and thus ten­ded to work with mater­ial already to hand rather than invent­ing new mater­ial.3 In any case, there is noth­ing ‘iron­ical’ in the fail­ure of some writers to notice Lamotte’s change of views: if schol­ars con­tinue to quote from earlier, dis­cred­ited the­or­ies this is a mis­take, not an irony.

An example of true irony could be bet­ter seen from Schopen’s own work. In the same book as the above quote, he says this:

    ‘… this lit­er­at­ure, the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya, is itself con­sidered by many to be late—Lamotte, for example, thinks it is the latest of the vinayas and says “we can­not attrib­ute to this work a date earlier than the fourth–fifth cen­tur­ies of the Chris­tian Era” …’4

Note that here Schopen says that Lamottethinks’ (present tense), thus pre­clud­ing any later change of mind. This clanger needs little com­ment, apart from remind­ing us that Schopen, like the rest of us, is some­times guilty of see­ing what he wants to see.

Piya 2006.jpg

While I am not com­pet­ent to date the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya, I must say that the pas­sages quoted by Schopen him­self fre­quently give me the impres­sion of late­ness. The elab­or­ate­ness of the text may be partly explained, as Schopen argues, by cul­tural or other factors rather than by date, but the examples he gives fall well short of estab­lish­ing this. As for spe­cif­ics, we notice that the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya fre­quently men­tions books and writ­ing, while the Theravāda Vinaya men­tions them rarely. This was one of the clas­sic reas­ons the early European Buddhist schol­ars con­cluded (not ‘assumed’) the Theravāda was earlier, and as far as I can see the argu­ment still holds good. Sim­ilar con­sid­er­a­tions apply when we see that the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya refers to wor­ship of Shiva and Vishnu, while, as is well known, these deit­ies are vir­tu­ally unknown in the Theravāda canon. Schopen also argues that the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya evid­ences the influ­ence of the Hindu Dharmaśāstras (legal codes), while the Theravāda does not. He says that this may be explained by the lack of influ­ence of the Dharmaśāstras)] in Sri Lanka, and is there­fore evid­ence that the Theravāda Vinaya was com­posed in Sri Lanka. While I agree, for other reas­ons, that the Theravāda Vinaya shows some minor Sri Lankan influ­ence, I don’t think this par­tic­u­lar argu­ment is very con­vin­cing. The Dharmaśāstras them­selves evid­ently date from well after the Buddha’s time, and the situ­ation might as well or bet­ter be explained by the simple hypo­thesis that most of the mater­ial in the Pali was com­posed in India before the Dharmaśāstras became influ­en­tial, and, because of the unim­port­ance of the Dharmaśāstras in Sri Lankan cul­ture, the Theravāda Vinaya did not have to be extens­ively revised.

Another tar­get of Schopen’s cri­tique is the vague­ness or ambi­gu­ity of some Vinaya rules, which he sug­gests may have been delib­er­ate.5 It seems that the poor old Vinaya just can’t win: if it is defin­it­ive, it is rigid, and if it is flex­ible it is dec­ad­ent. Again we might com­pare this with one of Schopen’s own little ‘ironies’:

    ‘In most cases, we can place the Vinayas we have securely in time: the Sar­vāstivāda Vinaya that we know was trans­lated was trans­lated into Chinese at the begin­ning of the fifth cen­tury (404–405 CE). So were the Vinayas of the Dharmagup­ta­kas (408), the Mahīśā­sa­kas (423–424), and the Mahāsaṅghikas (416). The Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya)] was trans­lated into both Chinese and Tibetan still later, and the actual con­tents of the Pali Vinaya are only knowable from Buddhaghosa’s fifth cen­tury com­ment­ar­ies.’6


Does this remark­able asser­tion assume that the date of a text may be determ­ined by know­ing the date of its trans­la­tion or com­ment­ary? That would cer­tainly solve a lot of prob­lems: I have beside me a trans­la­tion of the Saṁyutta Nikāya dated 2000 CE, so we can place that ‘securely in time’. Of course, the phrase is so vague—deliberately?—that Schopen escapes actu­ally assert­ing that the dates of com­pos­i­tion of the Vinayas may be determ­ined from their trans­la­tion or com­ment­ary. If that was the case, how­ever, we would have to con­clude, con­trary to Schopen’s pos­i­tion, that the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya was later than the oth­ers, for its trans­la­tion was later. Regard­ing the Theravāda Vinaya, it has been accep­ted, so far as I know, by all the schol­ars who have looked into the mat­ter that Buddhaghosa was primar­ily a trans­lator and editor, who worked with mater­ial stem­ming from a much older time, no later than 100–200 CE. If the com­ment­arial mater­ial dates from then, the Vinaya itself must be con­sid­er­ably earlier.7
What makes a monastery?

An import­ant part of Schopen’s argu­ment is that there is little or no early—pre-Common Era—evidence for Buddhist mon­as­ter­ies of the developed sort that are depic­ted in the Vinayas. This is, for him, a sign that the Vinayas were com­piled in the ‘Middle Period’. He notes that the words vihāra and āvāsa, which are com­monly used of mon­as­ter­ies, really mean little more than ‘dwell­ing’, and give us little inform­a­tion about what kind of insti­tu­tion is being dis­cussed.8

How­ever he neg­lects to notice that the main terms used of a mon­as­tery in the Pali Sut­tas are vana (wood­land grove) and ārāma (park); the fact that they are used together in the name of the most fam­ous mon­as­tery of all (‘Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park’) sug­gests that they may be syn­onyms. These, of course, have a much more spe­cific meaning—evidently the main form of Buddhist mon­ast­i­cism in the Sut­tas was the forest monastery.

Even today, the typ­ical forest mon­as­tery con­sists of small huts or caves scattered through the forest, with a lar­ger wooden sala for com­munal activ­it­ies, and some build­ings for stores, kit­chen, etc. Such an insti­tu­tion would leave little or no evid­ence for an archae­olo­gist to uncover.


Schopen does not con­sider the pos­sib­il­ity of a ‘middle way’ between the large, insti­tu­tion­al­ized vihāras that are such a fea­ture of the archae­olo­gical record of Buddhism, and the life of the lonely sage in the forest. It would seem that the forest mon­as­tery offers such a ‘middle way’. Forest mon­as­ter­ies can evolve to a high degree of soph­ist­ic­a­tion in their internal organ­iz­a­tion, such as is described in the Vinayas, and usu­ally have a high regard for authen­tic prac­tice of the Vinaya. They often do not engage in large build­ing pro­jects, not because they do not have the resources or the know-how—forest monks are often more edu­cated and bet­ter sup­por­ted than the city monks—but because they want to live simply.

This is just a sug­ges­tion, and more care­ful work on the Vinayas—including the Chinese — has to be done to see if this sug­ges­tion has any cogence. It is obvi­ously tenu­ous to draw such par­al­lels between Buddhist prac­tice in such far-distant times and places. But Schopen him­self draws many instruct­ive par­al­lels between prac­tice in Buddhist and Chris­tian mon­ast­i­cism, which would seem to be no less dis­tant. And as I have noted above, many ofSchopen’s more accept­able find­ings do find clear par­al­lels in con­tem­por­ary Buddhism.

Schopen dis­misses the ‘per­ish­able mater­i­als’ argu­ment for the lack of early mon­as­ter­ies, say­ing that the earli­est archae­olo­gical evid­ence we do pos­sess shows us a mon­as­tery in the time of Asoka that is ‘poor and unim­press­ive’, ‘crudely made of “rubble”.’9 He asserts that: ‘the earli­est extant remains of mon­astic res­id­en­tial archi­tec­ture, like the earli­est cult images in stone, show a tra­di­tion still strug­gling, in this case towards order, still lack­ing a sense of func­tional organ­iz­a­tion and struc­tured use of space. Such a tradition—again like that which pro­duced the early extant cult images—does not sug­gest a long period of devel­op­ment or dir­ec­ted exper­i­ment­a­tion in wood or other per­ish­able mater­i­als pre­ced­ing it.’10


But this argu­ment is also cir­cum­ven­ted by the forest mon­as­tery hypothesis—when liv­ing in widely scattered dwell­ings in the forest it is not neces­sary to develop such a struc­tured sense of space. What seems to be hap­pen­ing here is that the mon­ast­ics are, for the first time, liv­ing in close prox­im­ity. This might be due to a num­ber of factors—perhaps there were too many Buddhist mon­ast­ics in that period. But some of the early sites men­tioned by Schopen also share another sig­ni­fic­ant fea­ture: the mon­astic dwell­ings are near a stupa. This might sug­gest that these are the first mon­as­ter­ies for whom the devo­tional prac­tices described by Schopen are becom­ing important.

What is per­haps more rel­ev­ant for our cur­rent pur­poses, how­ever, is that this argu­ment exposes yet another of Schopen’s ‘iron­ies’. He assumes that the emer­gence of soph­ist­ic­ated archi­tec­ture or fine arts requires a sub­stan­tial prior period of development—a most reas­on­able assump­tion. But is not the same the case in lit­er­at­ure? Schopen wants to put very soph­ist­ic­ated lit­er­ary tracts like the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya in the early Middle Period. But surely such works must have required a lengthy evol­u­tion. Sim­il­arly, we know for cer­tain (from the dates recor­ded for the Chinese trans­la­tions) that the earli­est Mahāyāna Sūtras date from no later than the begin­ning of the Com­mon Era. These too are soph­ist­ic­ated lit­er­ary and philo­soph­ical products, which are, to a large degree, a crit­ical response to some aspects of the early schools, espe­cially the (Sar­vāstivāda) Abhid­hamma philo­sophy, and also to such mon­astic prac­tices as are detailed in the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya, as Schopen him­self argues.11 The Abhid­hamma texts them­selves are soph­ist­ic­ated lit­er­ary works that are in turn based on the mater­ial found in the early Sut­tas. So the early Sutta material—not neces­sar­ily the exact col­lec­tions in the form we have them today, but the main doc­trinal material—must be sev­eral philo­soph­ical gen­er­a­tions before the Mahāyāna Sūtras. Again, this con­clu­sion, not ‘assump­tion’, was one of the clas­sical reas­ons for assign­ing a rel­at­ively early date to the Nikāyas/Āgamas, and noth­ing Schopen says really affects this.


Schopen tries to show that the forest mon­astic life was little dif­fer­ent from settled mon­astic life in gen­eral. He does this by quot­ing a pas­sage from the Vinaya that describes the lovely, lux­uri­ous forest dwell­ing of a cer­tain Ven­er­able Udāyin, where many people would go to visit him. Schopen says that this is appar­ently how the com­pilers of the Pali Vinaya saw the forest life.12 Incred­ibly, he makes no men­tion of the fact, known to every Grade 1 Vinaya stu­dent, that Udāyin is the archetypal ‘bad monk’, whose appalling beha­viour promp­ted the for­mu­la­tion of many Vinaya rules. On this occa­sion, Udāyin gropes and sexu­ally har­asses a woman who comes to visit him, prompt­ing the lay­ing down of yet another rule on his behalf. This part of the story, how­ever, is dis­creetly omit­ted by Schopen as he tries to depict Udāyin as a reg­u­lar forest monk.
Sort­ing out the relics

While it is obvi­ous that the cult of rel­ics and so on played a large part in Buddhist prac­tice from the Middle Period, Schopen wants to dis­credit the received opin­ion that the early texts, and hence early Buddhism, do not include the relic cult. He ends up clutch­ing at some embar­rass­ingly flimsy straws.

For example, he points to a pas­sage in the Satipaṭṭhāna-saṁyutta where the novice Cunda, after the passing away of Ven­er­able Sāri­putta, takes his bowl and robes and goes to tell Ven­er­able Ānanda.13 Schopen says that the PTS edi­tion (which I do not have) has a vari­ant read­ing from a Burmese edi­tion that includes the phrase dhātu ­parib­hāvana.14 Schopen admits that the mean­ing is obscure, but it ‘almost cer­tainly con­tains a ref­er­ence to rel­ics’. This is dubi­ous, for dhātu rarely if ever means ‘relic’ in this strata of lit­er­at­ure. The VRI CD that I am using does not have dhātu ­parib­hāvana, so it seems that this read­ing does not rep­res­ent the main­stream Burmese tra­di­tion. Thus far Schopen’s argu­ment is flimsy, but not neces­sar­ily wrong. But then he goes on to say that the com­ment­ary appears to have a ref­er­ence to rel­ics, since it includes the term dhātuparissāvaṇa. Parissāvaṇa means ‘water strainer’, and dhātu here means ‘rel­ics’, though the com­pound ‘relics-&-water strainer’ does seem a little odd.

Tiantai8 o.jpg

Any­way, the mat­ter is cla­ri­fied by the very next sen­tence of the com­ment­ary, which is ignored by Schopen. This says: ‘But in the text (pāḷī) it just says “Here are his bowl and robes”.’ In other words, the com­ment­ary expli­citly states that the ori­ginal text did not men­tion any­thing other than the bowl and robes. Thus it seems almost cer­tain that parib­hāvana was not in the ori­ginal text; it was prob­ably read back into the text by garb­ling the com­ment­ary (by a monk whose read­ing rivals Schopen in carelessness).

Schopen does not refer to the Chinese par­al­lel, which is very close to the Pali, and which sim­il­arly men­tions just the bowl and robes. He says that the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya ver­sion of the incid­ent does refer to rel­ics, although he admits that the phrase is not a cog­nate of either of the Pali terms with dhātu in them. This makes it seem like an inde­pend­ent later devel­op­ment, not a com­mon inheritance.

Schopen is right on the mark when he says that ‘this will require fur­ther study to sort out’. It has now been sor­ted out. Rather than being ‘vir­tu­ally cer­tain’ that the Pali here has suffered loss—or as Schopen insinu­ates, delib­er­ate suppression—it is abso­lutely cer­tain the Pali and the Chinese and the Theravāda com­ment­ary all agree that the ori­ginal account of Sāriputta’s death does not men­tion rel­ics. Much later the Mūlas­ar­vāstivāda Vinaya and per­haps the Pali com­ment­ar­ies added the men­tion of rel­ics. Thus this con­text, as with many oth­ers, sug­gests that the Mulas­ar­vāstivādin Vinaya has more in com­mon with the Theravādin com­ment­ar­ies than with the canon.
An infu­sion of Dhamma


Schopen’s work offers us fur­ther les­sons in ‘irony’ in the dis­cus­sion of the term parib­hāvita.15 He shows that sev­eral inscrip­tions and late tex­tual sources describe the rel­ics of the Buddha as beinginfused’ or ‘per­meated’ (parib­hāvita) with such qual­it­ies as eth­ics, samadhi, under­stand­ing, and release. This sug­gests a quasi-magical con­cep­tion of rel­ics in this period. Schopen dis­cusses the term in some detail and offers sev­eral ref­er­ences from the Pali canon show­ing a nat­ur­al­istic usage of the term, for example a chicken sit­ting on eggs and ‘imbuing’ them with warmth. But, incred­ibly, he avoids all men­tion of the most well known occur­rence of the term: the fre­quently repeated state­ment of the Buddha in the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta:

    ‘Samadhi imbued with eth­ics is of great fruit, great bene­fit; under­stand­ing imbued with samadhi is of great fruit, great bene­fit; the mind imbued with under­stand­ing is rightly released from defile­ments.’16

Not only does the term parib­hāvita appear repeatedly, but it does so spe­cific­ally describ­ing a list of dham­mas sim­ilar or identical to those repeatedly men­tioned in the inscrip­tions quoted by Schopen.


The implic­a­tions of this are slightly wor­ry­ing. Schopen has built a suc­cess­ful career largely on his pion­eer­ing research into the nature of the cults of the stupa and rel­ics in Indian Buddhism. The prime canon­ical ref­er­ence for these prac­tices is the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta, which describes the dis­tri­bu­tion of the Buddha’s rel­ics. One of the most fam­ous and prom­in­ent pas­sages in this text repeatedly uses the term parib­hāvita in con­nec­tion with eth­ics, samadhi, under­stand­ing, and release. Schopen dis­cusses at length the use of parib­hāvita in inscrip­tions to describe rel­ics that are imbued with eth­ics, samadhi, under­stand­ing, and release. He gives sev­eral ref­er­ences to unre­lated uses of the term in the Pali canon, but avoids all men­tion of the usage in the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta.

What is going on? Has Schopen not even read the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta, the main source text in his own spe­cial field? Or might we con­spir­at­ori­ally won­der whether Schopen has delib­er­ately sup­pressed the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta ref­er­ence (just as Schopen alleges the redact­ors of the Pali canon sup­pressed men­tion of rel­ics and stupas)?

Once the con­nec­tion with the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta is noticed, it is obvi­ous that the inscrip­tions are, in fact, quot­ing from or refer­ring to this spe­cific text. Note that the pas­sage on eth­ics, samadhi, under­stand­ing, and release in itself has no con­nec­tion with the relic cult. If it exis­ted as an isol­ated frag­ment or in another con­text there would be no reason to asso­ci­ate this pas­sage with rel­ics. Only when taken as part of the over­all nar­rat­ive of the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta would it be pos­sible to form an asso­ci­ation between the pas­sage and the Buddha’s relics.


To be sure, the implic­a­tions of the usage in the inscrip­tions is rad­ic­ally dif­fer­ent from that in the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta. In the dis­course it describes spir­itual qual­it­ies to be developed by a liv­ing per­son, whereas in the inscrip­tions it seems to mean the magical infu­sion of rel­ics with mys­tic power. This obvi­ously sug­gests that the earlier, rational, psy­cho­lo­gical teach­ing has been altered—dare I say ‘corrupted’?—by magical con­cep­tions. This is a straight­for­ward read­ing from the evid­ence, not an impos­i­tion of ‘prot­est­ant pre­sup­pos­i­tions’. Of course, this con­clu­sion would be impal­at­able to Schopen, because it would sug­gest, firstly, that the dis­courses, or at least the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta, were actu­ally known to a vari­ety of Indian Buddhists and influ­enced their beliefs; and secondly that the pic­ture he paints of the Middle Period is rep­res­ent­at­ive of Buddhism in its dec­ad­ent, mater­i­al­istic phase, rather than the psy­cho­lo­gical spir­itu­al­ity of the early teachings.

Schopen’s key inscrip­tional and tex­tual sources for this quasi-magical use of parib­hāvita are dated to around the first cen­tury of the Com­mon Era. By this time, the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta must have been com­posed, and already be well-known and influ­en­tial. This must have happened long enough for some of the cent­ral mes­sages to be rad­ic­ally rein­ter­preted, and for these rein­ter­pret­a­tions to have gained wide cur­rency. The Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta evid­ences later elab­or­a­tion, and, des­pite the fact that sev­eral sec­tarian ver­sions are known, most schol­ars do not place it among the earli­est strata of the Sut­tas. So if the Mahā Par­in­ib­bāna Sutta was in exist­ence sig­ni­fic­antly before the Middle Period, many other dis­courses must be even earlier. So we must be grate­ful to Schopen for, yet again, inad­vert­ently offer­ing us another proof of the exist­ence of the early Sut­tas well before the Middle Period.
Rocks are not facts

Schopen’s fail­ure to notice this stems from his wil­ful enslave­ment to his own meth­od­o­lo­gical pre­sup­pos­i­tions. He has a reli­gious faith in ‘hard facts’, things that ‘actu­ally’ exist in stone and bone. As nor­mal, when a par­tic­u­lar means of know­ledge is given abso­lute pri­or­ity in this way, it leads to philo­soph­ical dis­tor­tions and a blind­ness to the broader per­spect­ive. Schopen cas­tig­ates those who would render archae­olo­gical evid­ence sub­ject to texts, since archae­olo­gical evid­ence can be loc­ated in place and time, and rep­res­ents what was said by ‘actual’ people (as if those who wrote the texts were not ‘actual’ people).


One of his per­vas­ive unex­amined assump­tions is the reli­ab­il­ity of archae­olo­gical evid­ence. I am no expert, but it does seem to me that archae­olo­gists, like those in any field of sci­ence, are engaged in push­ing back the fron­ti­ers of know­ledge, and to do so must rely on some­times tenu­ous infer­ences. Schopen remarks sev­eral times that the sites he is refer­ring to have not been fully excav­ated, or were poorly repor­ted, or that there is uncer­tainty as to dat­ing. There is no reason why the infer­ences derived from such meth­ods are more reli­able than those derived from tex­tual sources.

Just one example will suf­fice here. Schopen quotes an inscrip­tion that refers to the set­ting up of an image of the ‘Blessed Lord, the Buddha amitābha’ (bhagavato buddha amitābhasya).17 He says that this is the only inscrip­tional ref­er­ence to Amit­abha in India, and con­sti­tutes one of the few ‘hard facts’ we know about his cult in India.

The inscrip­tion is inter­est­ing, and it is use­ful that Schopen brought it to light. But what does it mean? The inscrip­tion says an image was set up by a cer­tain Nāgarakṣita or Sāmrakṣita, who wishes that ‘by this skil­ful root may all beings attain unex­celled know­ledge’. Such ref­er­ences to ‘all beings’ and ‘unex­celled know­ledge’ are typ­ical of Mahāyān­ist inscrip­tions; but the present inscrip­tion is very early, appar­ently 200 years prior to the wide­spread appear­ance of Mahāyān­ist inscriptions.

Schopen assumes that amitābha refers to the Buddha of that name in the well-known Sūtras so pop­u­lar in China. Thus, as usual, he is unable to say any­thing mean­ing­ful about the inscrip­tion without the con­text provided by the texts.


His assump­tion is reas­on­able, but is not neces­sar­ily true. ‘Amit­abha’ means ‘infin­ite light’, and is vir­tu­ally identical with a word used in the Pali tra­di­tion to describe an order of deit­ies: appamāṇābhā devā, the ‘deit­ies of meas­ure­less light’. It is pos­sible that amitābha was used of cer­tain deit­ies, and from there became an epi­thet of the his­tor­ical Buddha, and only later the human and divine ele­ments were fused into ‘Amit­abha Buddha’. In other words, the inscrip­tion might not be a ref­er­ence to ‘the’ Amit­abha, but might simply be a descript­ive epi­thet of Śakyamuni, rep­res­ent­ing a stage in the devel­op­ment towards Mahāyāna ideas.

I am not arguing that this is in fact the case, but am merely point­ing out that, in the absence of con­text, it is impossible to know which inter­pret­a­tion is cor­rect. Any mean­ing­ful state­ment on the mat­ter must be based on an infer­ence, on what we think is the more reas­on­able inter­pret­a­tion, not on the ‘hard facts’.

I beg leave here to give an example from my own exper­i­ence. Once I was stay­ing at a forest mon­as­tery where the prac­tice was to inter the cremated remains of the mon­as­tery sup­port­ers in the mon­as­tery wall. A hole was made in the wall, and with a simple cere­mony, the ashes were placed in and covered with a brass plaque. Someone, per­haps an archae­olo­gist of Schopenesque bent, might come at some time later and notice a pecu­liar fea­ture of the plaques. In a cer­tain sec­tion, that closest to the entrance and dated earli­est, the plaques say ‘Rest in Peace’, a typ­ic­ally Chris­tian say­ing. The later plaques, how­ever, say ‘May she attain Nib­bana’, which is obvi­ously Buddhist. What is going on? Did the mon­as­tery change from Chris­tian to Buddhist? Is this evid­ence of an obscure sect of anti­podean ‘Buddho-Christians’? Might we sus­pect dark­ling intrigue, a hid­den tussle for power between two opposed groups of monks, vying for the funds from the dif­fer­ent reli­gious communities?


Hap­pily, I was there at the time, and can answer ‘none of the above’. These plaques were ordered from a shop whose nor­mal busi­ness, this being in a pre­dom­in­ately Chris­tian coun­try, was to make plaques for Chris­tian buri­als. So they came with a typ­ic­ally Chris­tian burial slo­gan. The monks simply didn’t give the mat­ter any thought, until it was poin­ted out that a Buddhist say­ing would be more appro­pri­ate, and so one was inven­ted. That’s all there was to it.

Incid­ent­ally, we did not really believe that say­ing ‘May she attain Nib­bana’ on the burial plaque would really help the lady con­cerned to attain Nib­bana; it just seemed like a nice sentiment.

Now com­pare this con­crete, date­able, place­able, ‘actual’ evid­ence with, say, some of my own essays that are avail­able on the inter­net. They have no date, no place, no con­crete exist­ence at all. Yet I regard them as a more reli­able and accur­ate guide to my beliefs and prac­tices than those mes­sages on the plaques at the mon­as­tery where I stayed.
Were the texts stand­ard­ized later?

Schopen dis­misses the idea that shared pas­sages in a text are evid­ence of early, pre-sectarian mater­ial. He prefers the hypo­thesis that shared mater­ial is evid­ence for later shar­ing, lev­el­ling and stand­ard­iz­ing of mater­ial. Thus he appar­ently believes that when the Buddhist mon­ast­ics lived in close prox­im­ity in the Ganges val­ley, speak­ing a com­mon lan­guage, and regard­ing each other as being all of one com­munity, they developed dif­fer­ent diver­ging scrip­tures, but when they were spread widely over ‘greater India’, speak­ing dif­fer­ent lan­guages, and regard­ing each other as belong­ing to dif­fer­ent com­munit­ies, they ‘lev­elled’ and ‘stand­ard­ized’ their scrip­tures. This is not inher­ently plaus­ible, or even vaguely rational. He has no real evid­ence for this from the Indic con­text, and so attempts to jus­tify it with ref­er­ence to Chris­tian his­tory; but the Bible is accep­ted with slight vari­ations as canon­ical by all Chris­ti­ans, whereas the writ­ings of later theo­lo­gians and teach­ers are accep­ted only by cer­tain denom­in­a­tions and are rejec­ted by others.


It is as if we were to come across people liv­ing in two neigh­bour­ing vil­lages, each speak­ing a slightly dif­fer­ent dia­lect, with cus­toms, beliefs, life­style, and phys­ical appear­ance that were sim­ilar, and a shared myth that asser­ted that they sprang from the same ori­gins. Schopen would point out that there is no ‘hard evid­ence’ that they ‘actu­ally’ share a com­mon ances­try. The ‘actual’ situ­ation is that there are two dif­fer­ent vil­lages, with diver­gent lan­guages, beliefs and so on. Any ‘assump­tion’ that the observ­able sim­il­ar­it­ies derive from a com­mon ances­try is sheer spec­u­la­tion. After all, there is plenty of evid­ence that cul­tures tend to homo­gen­ize, to move away from diversity towards sim­il­ar­ity. The only reas­on­able explan­a­tion would seem to be that here we have two dif­fer­ent peoples, and the sim­il­ar­it­ies in their cul­tures and phys­ical appear­ance is evid­ence of cul­tural inter­change and inter­mar­riage between two ori­gin­ally dis­par­ate com­munit­ies. This descrip­tion might sound like a cari­ca­ture of Schopen’s ideas, but I hon­estly believe it is not.

One of Schopen’s main argu­ments in favour of his ‘later bor­row­ing’ thesis is the story of the stupa for Kas­sapa Buddha at Toyika. Wynne has shown that this argu­ment is deeply flawed. Schopen com­pares vari­ous ver­sions of the same story, but con­veni­ently con­fines to a foot­note the fact that, while the other ver­sions occur in the Vinayas, the Theravāda ver­sion is found in the Dhammapāda com­ment­ary. This turns out to be yet another piece of evid­ence that the Theravāda ten­ded to close their canon early, pla­cing later mater­ial in their commentaries.

Not only is this a fatal error in one of Schopen’s key argu­ments, but it is, as Wynne points out, a mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion of the meth­ods of the ‘higher cri­ti­cism’ that Schopen is so dis­missive of. Nor­mally schol­ars will take the con­gru­ence of the canon­ical, not the com­ment­arial, lit­er­at­ure as evid­ence of pre-sectarian remnants.


This is not the only place that Schopen mis­rep­res­ents his oppon­ents. He asserts, for example, that the ‘car­dinal tenet of this cri­ti­cism states, in effect, that if all known sec­tarian ver­sions of a text or pas­sage agree, that text or pas­sage must be very old; that is, it must come from a pre­sec­tarian stage of the tra­di­tion.’18 The repeated use of ‘must’ is highly mis­lead­ing. The shar­ing of mater­ial is only one of many inde­pend­ent cri­teria that are reg­u­larly employed to sup­port and check each other. I do not know of any scholar who would make the blanket asser­tion that shared mater­ial ‘must’ be earlier. It is no more than a reas­on­able hypo­thesis that forms a basis for fur­ther research.

In addi­tion, this descrip­tion is by no means the ‘car­dinal tenet’ of tex­tual cri­ti­cism. In fact, the found­a­tions for mod­ern Indo­logy were laid by 19th cen­tury schol­ars such as T. W. Rhys Dav­ids and Her­mann Olden­burg. At that time there was almost no know­ledge of Chinese or Sanskrit texts, and so the com­par­at­ive method of com­par­at­ive not used at all. Rather, those schol­ars relied on lin­guist­ics, the internal evid­ence of the Pali texts, broader know­ledge of Indian his­tory, and archaeology.

Com­pared with the situ­ation in Bible stud­ies, the quant­ity of Buddhist lit­er­at­ure is so vast, the sub­ject mat­ter so obscure, and the amount of ser­i­ous research so small, that it is pre­ma­ture to dis­card any meth­od­o­logy. While the early schol­ars may not have given due weight to the archae­olo­gical evid­ence, they must be for­given, in con­sid­er­a­tion of the sheer time and effort it takes to learn the Buddhist lan­guages and read the texts. They have at least given us a reas­on­ably coher­ent and sat­is­fy­ing work­ing model of Indian Buddhism. If we were to accept Schopen in his more rad­ical moods we would be rendered incap­able of say­ing any­thing about the Buddha or his teach­ings, and would be left with no idea as to why there were, in the later peri­ods, such widely spread reli­gious schools claim­ing inspir­a­tion from a com­mon Teacher, shar­ing a sim­ilar life­style, and bor­row­ing whole­sale each other’s scrip­tures, at the same time as vig­or­ously arguing with each other over what the scrip­tures mean.


1 Lamotte, His­tory of Indian Buddhism, pp. 419–426.

2 Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Busi­ness Mat­ters, Uni­ver­sity of Hawai’i Press, 2004, pg. 20.

3 See David M. Carr, Read­ing the Frac­tures of Gen­esis: His­tor­ical and Lit­er­ary Approaches, West­min­ster John Knox Press, 1996, pg. 12.

4 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 399.

5 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 143.

6 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 94.

7 The Chinese canon con­tains a Sri Lankan Vinaya com­ment­ary that Buddhaghosa may have had before him. If so, this would allow a much more accur­ate assess­ment of the kinds of changes he introduced.

8 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 76.

9 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 77.

10 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 75.

11 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 95.

12 Schopen, Buddhist Monks, pg. 93.

13 SN 47.13/SA 638.

14 Schopen, Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks, Uni­ver­sity of Hawai’i Press, 1997, pg. 203, note 111.

15 Schopen, Bones, pp.126–128.

16 E.g. DN 16.1.12, 1.14, 1.18, 2.4, etc. The pas­sage occurs with sim­ilar fre­quency in the Sanskrit.

17 Schopen, Bones, pg. 39.

18 Schopen, Bones, pg. 27.