Journal of Indian Philosophy (2006) 34: 229–286 DOI 10.1007/s10781-005-5020-x


Springer 2006

ALF HILTEBEITEL

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE AND CRITICAL READING OF THE BRAHMANICAL SANSKRIT EPICS


arata’’
The topic of ‘‘Buddhism and the Mahabh is one I have taken 1 up at a few points, and most recently in an article by that title (forthcoming-a) whose basic points are (1) that there has been a convergence from different quarters pointing towards the epic’s being an Asokan or post-Asokan text, with Madeleine Biardeau hypothe
arata,
sizing contemporaneity between Asoka and the Mahabh and James Fitzgerald, Nick Sutton, and I seeing the epic as a post-Asokan production; and (2) that the epic either portrays Yudhis: t:hira (according to Fitzgerald and Sutton) or the killing of the Magadhan king Jar
asandha (Biardeau and I) against an Asokan or ‘‘greater Magadhan’’2 background. Meanwhile, there has also been (I think less convincing) discussion of Arjuna in an Asokan mold (Selvanayagam, 1992). My recent article took up the question from the standpoint of
arata
infra-Mahabh considerations alone. For this article, while working along some points I have been exploring in other recent
arata
essays,3 I approach the question of Buddhism and the Mahabh intertextually. Greg Bailey has been exploring the P
ali canon as a source for understanding lexical allusions to Buddhism in the
arata,
Mahabh notably the ways both use the terminology of pravr: tti 1 See Hiltebeitel (1989) (written in 1979 and delivered in January 1980 at the ‘‘Seminar on Ancient Mathur
a,’’ sponsored by the American Institute of Indian Studies at New Delhi and Mathura); 2001, 163–173, 177–179. 2 I adopt this term from the oral presentations of Bronkhorst (2005a, b). 3 These points, developed in Hiltebeitel (forthcoming a–e), include intertextual
arata
grounds for considering early Mahabh reading communities, and evidence that the Mbh ‘‘archetype’’ elucidated by the Pune Critical Edition would have been read and also transmitted well before the fourth century C.E. Guptas. Early manuscript fragments (see Franco, 2004; Hiltebeitel, 2005, n. 15) and inscriptions (see Vassilkov, 2002), however fascinating, allude only to parts, and by their very nature offer only incomplete pictures. These articles attempt, as this one does, to carry forward my hypothesis in Hiltebeitel (2001) that the Mbh would have been composed in a short period by a committee.

230

ALF HILTEBEITEL

and nivr: tti.4 Although I will return briefly to this topic, here I am concerned mainly with other Sanskrit texts: to begin with, and here Biardeau’s sleuthing has been invaluable, the early dharmas
utras,
ayan
: a (2002, Manu (Biardeau 2002, I, 65–96), and of course the Ram I, 700–701 and ff., 726; 1999, xxxiii–xxxv). Since writing ‘‘Buddhism
arata’’
and the Mahabh in 2003, the most important new work to bear upon this intertextual situation comes from Patrick Olivelle’s (2004, 2005) publications on the dharmas
utras and Manu in which Olivelle calls attention to the likelihood that, soon after the Asokan edicts, these texts probably provided Brahmanical responses to the Asokan imperial broadcast of what had already been the Buddhist appropriation of the term dharma. Olivelle’s propositions demand careful study, but I believe that most of them are likely to be illuminating. EARLY DISCOURSE ON DHARMA AND KINGS

Olivelle’s recent publications – one revealingly titled ‘‘The Semantic History of Dharma The Middle and Late Vedic Periods’’ (2004) – thus offer a new hypothesis on the innovative character of the Buddhist usage of dharma within the Middle and Late Vedic period (ca. 800–400 B.C.E.) that includes the rise of Buddhism. This innovation lies in seizing on a pre-Buddhist usage having to do with the relationship between kings and their Vedic divine model, the god Varuna, to coopt this royal term as chief among a number of royal symbols by which, as leader of an ascetic movement, the Buddha could lay claim ‘‘to a new type of royal authority.’’ From this standpoint, Asoka as Buddhist emperor deploys his famous inscriptions to implement this transformation in the realm of imperial Realpolitik. Then the dharmas
utras flower in reaction to the Asokan usage to develop dharma as the all-embracing norm of post-Asokan
sastras headed by Brahmanical culture,5 followed by the dharma 4 Or pavatti and nivatti; see Bailey (2003), now followed up by presentations on the topic at the London ‘‘Mbh and Gender Conference,’’ July 2005, and the 4th Dubrovnik International Conference on the Epics and Pur
an: as (DICSEP), September 2005. 5
Olivelle, 1999, xxviii–xxxiv places Apastambha in the early 3rd century B.C.E., Gautama mid-3rd century B.C.E., Baudh
ayana mid-2nd century B.C.E., and Vasis: t:ha possibly down to the 1st century C.E., while in Olivelle (2005, 20–21) and n. 32, he finds these dates ‘‘still … reasonable’’ but is ‘‘inclined now to place them somewhat later.’’ In the first of these discussions he provides good grounds for revising downward from earlier dates (by roughly a century) he had proposed in Olivelle (1993, 71, 94, 101–103).

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

231

Manu – both types of texts giving accented attention to the dharma of
arata
kings. For whatever Manu’s dates relative to the Mahabh (Biardeau, and I agree with her, leans toward the epic being likely earlier [2002, 1, 85], Olivelle toward Manu’s priority [2005, 24, 37–40]), Manu understands dharma in ways that both overlap with
arata’s
and significantly differ from the Mahabh understanding of dharma had Olivelle read (Biardeau’s 2002 book would suggest holding back on Olivelle’s quick trigger on ‘‘interpolations,’’ which he marks off as ‘‘excursus’’ within the translation itself, some of which could be seriously challenged6). It would then be within the context of these developments that both Sanskrit epics amplify this new Brahmanical outlook with narratives that are precisely about a reformed post-Vedic articulation of dharma still strongly centered – as dharma was not only in the Vedas but in the Buddhist usages – on the figure of the king. Insofar as both Buddhist and Brahmanical texts seem to use the term dharma knowingly as regards each others’ usages, we may say that they participated in the heyday of what I would like to call a civil discourse on dharma. Here I wish to re-appreciate Biardeau’s take on Brahmanical–Buddhist interactions, in which she proposes two forms of bhakti, Brahmanical and Buddhist, developing along side each other, in the latter case among Buddhists who are ‘‘for the most part of Indian origins and inserted in the society of castes,’’ fully ‘‘at home’’ (‘‘chez eux’’) there, with ‘‘no one desir[ing] their departure, despite this sort of Brahmanical manifesto … that the imperium of Asoka provokes’’ – in Biardeau’s view – in the form of the two epic texts (Biardeau, 2002, 2: 776; see Hiltebeitel, forthcoming-a). As we shall see, the description fits the Buddhist writer Asvaghos: a, the main subject of this article, to a T, though with one caveat: that texts on both sides may be more civil on the level of discourse than they are in the deployment of shared symbols, where the implications can be a bit more sly and daring. The production of the Brahmanical epics within the development of Indian textual genres is thus crucial. Extending beyond a concern found in the earliest dharmas
utras and the grammarian Patan˜jali (ca. 150 B.C.E.) to define the boundaries of a central north Indian
heartland – called Aryavarta and widened to Brahmavarta7 – where dharma was practiced and Sanskrit was spoken in pure and 6

See especially Biardeau (2002, vol. 1, 94–95) on Manu’s two-level cosmogony (1.5–41) and his (Mbh) teaching that the king is the yuga (9.301–2). 7 See Bronkhorst (2005a, b); cf. Lamotte (1988, 8–9) on the early Buddhists’ somewhat overlapping counterpart.

232

ALF HILTEBEITEL

authoritative fashion, both Sanskrit epics take up the project of articulating norms of dharma, as both law and teaching, through ‘‘epic’’ narrative on a civilization-wide scale. What was Epic in India was produced to appear archaic, to give ‘‘hoary’’ Vedic antiquity to norms that were being freshly minted. The new genre allowed its poets to construct what Bakhtin (1981) calls a chronotope, literally ‘‘time space,’’ that gave them amplitude to trace two dynastic pasts,
arata)

ayan
: a) dynasties, back to the the lunar (Mahabh and solar (Ram dawn of creation and to stage their main stories on a heretofore unheard-of and still perhaps unnamed geographical totality: India – from Afghanistan (Gandhara) and Assam (Pr
agjyotis: a) to the land of _ a. Yet the poets of
ayan
: a, to [S´r
ı] Lank
the P
an: d: yas, and in the Ram each epic center their narratives differently on this overarching norm:
arata
in the Mahabh with a King Dharma who is no less than the son of the god Dharma, setting up major griefs in his life as he learns
ayan
:a what it might mean to embody such a paternity; and in the Ram with a king said to have the qualities of dharma to perfection, with all that might mean in his facing life’s imperfections. While the two texts concur that dharma is an all-embracing civilizational value, they thus allow very different things to be said about
arata’s
it. One might thus contrast the Mahabh insistence that dharma
ayan
: a’s emphasis on moral is subtle (s
uks: mo dharma) with the Ram
a).
Whereas in the Mahabh
arata
rectitude (maryad dharma is always
ayan
: a it is viewed from a standard of one up for question, in the Ram
arata
who embodies it to perfection. Whereas the Mahabh gives us a king who questions dharma and is questioned in turn by Dharma –
ayan
: a gives us a king whose his father in various disguises, the Ram apparent perfection in dharma includes a decisive feel for it even in circumstances where questioning it might seem morally appropriate (such as the killing of V
alin; the two ordeals of S
ıt
a; the killing of S´amb
uka). In this vein, when the P
an: d: avas and Draupad
ı hear the

ana,
Ramop akhy the main version of the R
ama story told in the
arata,
Mahabh as a ‘‘mirror story’’ of their own situation during their forest exile, the mirror presents a much more ‘‘forgiving’’ R
ama when it comes to S
ıt
a’s first ordeal after her captivity by R
avan: a, and tells
: a places
ayan nothing of the still more harrowing second. The Ram truth (satya) at its moral pinnacle and defines R
ama’s quite uncompromising life around that one value. In contrast, when the
arata
Mahabh speaks of the ‘‘highest dharma,’’ it does so more situationally, offering a non-absolutizing ethics of many ‘‘highest
: sam dharmas’’ while emphasizing ‘‘non-cruelty’’ (anr : sya), non-violence

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

233


and truth as among the virtues especially pertinent to the king (ahim : sa), (Hiltebeitel, 2001, 202–214). With these differences in mind, one might say that in tone, at least,
arata
the Mahabh is closer to the pluralistic, flexible, and ‘‘broad’’8
dharma of the early dharmas
utras, which first define agama (tradition, or ‘‘what comes down’’) and the cultural wisdom of learned sis: t:as among the sources of dharma (whenever it is ‘‘subtle,’’ so to speak),
ayan
: a is closer to the legislative and ‘‘codifying’’ whereas the Ram clean-up operation type of dharma that one finds in Manu (see Olivelle, 2005, 39–40). Clearly, one could continue to trace ways that civil discourse on dharma now cuts across texts within the Brahmanical tradition, notably in the M
ım
am : s
a and the grammarians (Aklujkar, 2004). But let us get back to the prominence of dharma in conversations between the two developing religious traditions. AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA

It is against this background that it is worth looking at Asvaghos: a’s Buddhacarita not only for what it says directly about ‘‘Buddhism and
arata,’’
the Mahabh about which Asvaghos: a definitely knows some
arata
thing, but about what his treatment of the Mahabh might be able to tell us about how dharma, and particularly, royal dharma, remained the hot topic as this intertextual and interreligious game returned to the Buddhist side of the court. In recognizing that
Asvaghos: a focuses his Buddhist kavya epic on dharma, and positing that one of the main things that would have interested him in the Brahmanical epics would have been their treatment of dharma, we might also be able to improve upon earlier treatments of the question
arata

ayan
:a – of what kind of Mahabh – and what kind of Ram Asvaghos: a would most likely have been responding to. This means that we first need to consider Asvaghos: a’s likely dates. E´tienne Lamotte upholds Chinese traditions that Asvaghos: a was ‘‘contemporary with Kanis: ka’’ whom Lamotte dates at ‘‘ca. 128–51’’ C.E. ([1958] 1988, 591 and 655). However, as Lamotte puts it, this association of Asvaghos: a with Kanis: ka comes from fourth and fifth century ‘‘Chinese documentation on Indian origins of poor quality and without historical interest’’ ([1958] 1988, 698), so it is not clear why he upholds these sources on the connection of Asvaghos: a with Kanis: ka in opposition to others’ skepticism about it. Johnston 8


As Olivelle (1999), xxxix puts it for Apastambha.

234

ALF HILTEBEITEL

(2004), who after nearly 70 years still offers, I believe, the best discussion of Asvaghos: a,9 prefers a pre-Kanis: ka date for him, noting that Chinese tradition made Asvaghos: a into an exorcist saint (2004, xv and xxxv). Taking Kanis: ka’s likely date to be ca. 75–125 C.E., Johnston places Asvaghos: a ‘‘between 50 B.C. and 100 A.D., with a preference for the first half of the first century A.D.’’ (xvii).10 In offering the most sustained recent discussion of the Buddhacarita that I am aware of, the 2005 fifth edition of Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction by Richard Robinson, Willard Johnson, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu (a.k.a. Geoffrey DeGraff), likewise gives Kanis: ka’s date as ‘‘late first or early second century C.E.’’ (76), and treats Asvaghos: a as preceding him in ‘‘approximately the first century C.E.’’ (5). This edition, which both refines and considerably extends (8–11) what the fourth edition of 1997 has to say about Asvaghos: a and the Buddhacarita, contextualizes Asvaghos: a as a contributor to a first-century turn to writing affecting both Therav
ada and Sanskrit Buddhist texts, a turn that further ‘‘parallels a contemporary development in Indian fine literature’’ in which ‘‘some of the greatest poets and prose stylists of this period –

ra – [were] Buddhist monks’’ (77). Asvaghos: a, M
atr: ceta, and Arya S´u
Richard Salomon points to ‘‘inscriptional specimens of kavya … now available as early as the beginning of the first century’’ that are ‘‘consistent with the evidence of literary sources themselves, notably
the works of Asvaghos: a which point toward a flourishing kavya in 11 the first century A.D.’’ (1998, 233). Most intriguing to me has been
Giuliano Boccali’s observation that a totally new kavya sensibility can be noticed when both Asvaghos: a (see Buddhacarita [B] 4.30) and H
ala in the Sattasa
ı (the oldest anthology of Prakrit poems), both around the same time – which for Boccali is the first century C.E.12 9 Johnston’s monumental 10-year study of the Buddhacarita provides a critically edited text through most of the first 14 cantos (Part 1); translation of those cantos with lengthy Introduction plus extensive notes on the text and the translations (Part 2); and translation of the last 14 cantos mainly from the Tibetan, with an attempted rough reconstruction of the Sanskrit from both fifth-century Chinese and later Tibetan translations (Part 3). Reference to ‘‘Parts’’ will be made only to Part 1. 10 Johnston throughout speaks of Asvaghos: a as a first-century A.D. poet; see 2004, xiii–xvii; xxxviii, xl. He had changed his view since translating the Saundarananda; see Johnston (1928, vi): ‘‘generally agreed to have flourished early in the second century A.D.’’ 11 See similarly Dimock, Gerow, Naim, Ramanujan, Roadarmel, and van Buitenen (1974, 119), connecting Asvaghos: a with first century C.E. pra sasti inscriptions and
developments in kavya (the author of this segment is Edwin Gerow). 12 Selby (2003, xxvi) dates H
ala’s reign at Pratis: t:hana/Paithan to 20–24 C.E.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

235

– introduce women pretending to stumble to attract the hero’s attention: something, Boccali noted, that we would not imagine in any prior literature, including the Sanskrit epics, which are ‘‘totally lacking in such stereotypes of love.’’13 In brief, although there are those who lean toward a second-century dating,14 there is a good weight of varied scholarly considerations favoring the first century. Moreover, Johnston shows that the Tibetan and especially the fifth-century C.E. Chinese translator must have had a Buddhacarita that does not differ much from the oldest surviving Sanskrit manuscript, which he dates to 1300 +/) 50 (vii). Indeed, Lamotte ([1958] 1988, 656) and Beal (1968) give the date of this Chinese translation by Dharmaks: ema or Dharmaraks: a as around 420, establishing that a quite stable Buddhacarita, like the one we have, had come to China at least by the early fifth century. This guarantees that virtually all the verses of the oldest Sanskrit manuscript (and the three others used by Cowell [1893] that, according to Johnston, derive from it) would ‘‘be either part of the original or old interpolations’’ (2004, Part 1, viii). This does not deter Johnston from devoting a page to ‘‘almost certain’’ and ‘‘doubtful’’ interpolations (Part 1, xvii–xviii), but these are neither numerous nor extensive. THE CENTRALITY OF DHARMA IN AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA

It is a surprising point to have to make that Asvaghos: a would be centrally concerned with dharma, but others seem to have missed it. According to Robinson, Johnson, and Thanissaro, ‘‘Asvaghos: a’s main concern in portraying the Buddha’s teaching career is to refute the various Brahmanical positions extant in his day. Thus he emphasizes the philosophical side of the Buddha’s teaching role almost – albeit not entirely – to the exclusion of the religious side’’ (2005, 23). It is important to their presentation that ‘‘[t]he Buddhacarita is among the earliest extant texts to explicitly state that there is no self’’ (2005, 91).15 According to Lamotte, Asvaghos: a’s ‘‘Buddhacarita and Saundarananda are on a level with the classical 13

Boccali, ‘‘Introduction’’ to concluding roundtable discussion on ‘‘Origins of Mah
ak
avya: Problems and Perspectives,’’ Origins of Mah
ak
avya: International Seminar, Universita` degli Studi de Milano, Milan, June 4–5, 2004. 14 Olivelle (1993, 121), having first accepted Johnston’s 1st century C.E. date, more recently says Asvaghos: a is ‘‘generally assigned to the 1st–2nd centuries C.E.’’ (2005, 24); Strong offers ‘‘second century A.D.?’’ (1983, 31). 15 See B 14.84; 15.80–86 (teaching to S´ren: ya-Bimbis
ara), 26.18.

236

ALF HILTEBEITEL


avya.
mahak The scholastic parts remain faithful to the traditional vocabulary and phraseology; the narrative and descriptive parts abound in brilliant images, figures of style, complicated metres and learned grammatical forms. The author seems to have wanted to dazzle his less knowledgeable colleagues by fully deploying his brahmanical virtuosity. His search for effect and his conciseness, taken almost to the point of unintelligibility, give the impression of a decadent art’’ (Lamotte [1958] 1988, 591–592). Johnston acknowledges Asvaghos: a’s interest in refuting Brahmanical traditions, especially with regard to the proto-S
am : khya that Asvaghos: a puts into the mouth of Ar
ad: a K
al
ama (2004, lvi–lxii), and he discusses at length
Asvaghos: a’s standing as a kavya poet (lxxix ff.). But Johnston’s Asvaghos: a is more multifaceted. One point to keep in mind: Johnston underscores how ‘‘the breath of bhakti’’ (xxvi) animates certain passages emphasizing sraddha
or ‘‘faith,’’16 but with a restraint toward the miraculous:17 ‘‘more by devotion to the Buddha and a respect for scripture than a love for the marvelous’’ (xxxix–xl).18 Here too Johnston alludes to Asvaghos: a knowledge of texts, a point I will turn to in the next section. But Johnston never once mentions a concern with dharma, coming close only once with a statement that Asvaghos: a’s ‘‘standpoint remains entirely moral, free from any attempt at metaphysical speculation’’ (2004, xli; my italics). Scholarly work on dharma by Johnston’s time seems to have been rather 16 Most of these are in the Saundarananda, but he also cites Canto 27 in the Buddhacarita (Johnston, 2004, xxv–xxvii). See also xxxiv, xxxvii, xcvi, and Asvaghos: a’s interest in pari-pratyaya, ‘‘reliance on others’’ (xxxiv–xxxv), which _ Johnston relates to Mah
adeva’s five points about the arhat, and to the Mah
asanghikas (2004, xxvii–xxxi), a sect that revered Mah
a-Kasyapa (xxvii, xxviii), to whom Asvaghos: a gives major billing. See further n. 18 below. 17 See Johnston 2004, xxxix and Buddhacarita 1.11, where, rather than mention
the Buddha’s descent from the Tus: ita heaven one reads cyutah: khadiva, ‘‘as if he came from the sky.’’ Cf. Saundarananda 2.48–50, where such birth miracles are mentioned. 18 See e.g. B 6.68, describing the groom Chandaka’s return: ‘‘Sometimes he brooded and sometimes he lamented, sometimes he stumbled and sometimes he fell. So journeying in grief under the force of his devotion (bhaktiva sena), he performed
many actions along the road in complete abandon.’’ The passage combines kavya style, used earlier with the smitten women, with viraha bhakti, with a result that Chandaka acts much like a Gop
ı. The opening of the same canto at 6.5–8 combines with this end to make it a bhakti set piece. That Asvaghos: a recognizes such conventions is an indication that they are established by the time of his composition. See
similarly 9.8 and 9.80–82 (a set piece on rajabhakti as inadvertent buddhabhakti by the two Brahmans). On the ‘‘double sense’’ of bhakti in 4.32, see Johnston 49 n. 32, in agreement with Gawronski (1914–15, 26).

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

237

scattered, and he might have had a somewhat nebulous ahistorical view of the term that many still have today. Since Asvaghos: a’s interest in the topic of dharma will remain central to this essay, I will limit discussion for now to two points that will demonstrate, hopefully sufficiently, that the unfolding of dharma from a Buddhist perspective is probably Asvaghos: a’s most central concern. For the first of these, let me just say quickly that Asvaghos: a clearly makes it his task to attempt a virtuoso rehearsal and contextualization of all the varied Buddhist and Brahmanical uses and meanings of dharma likely to have been known to him. Thus on the Buddhist side he treats all six basic Buddhist meanings of dharma as outlined by Rupert Gethin,19 with precise moments for dharmas (plural) as ‘‘elements of existence’’20 and for dharma as ‘‘inherent quality,’’21 and for such staples as the saddharma,22 dharmacakra
(24.10). And on the pravartana (B 15.54–44), and even dharmakaya Brahmanical side, while giving direct reference to varn: a (caste) only in
sramadharma without passing (4.18) and spinning out debates about a

19

These are 1. the Buddha’s ‘‘teaching,’’ 2. ‘‘good conduct’’ or ‘‘good behavior,’’ 3. ‘‘the ‘truth’ realized by the practice of the Buddhist path,’’ 4. ‘‘any particular ‘nature’ or ‘quality’ that something possesses,’’ 5. ‘‘the underlying ‘natural law or order’ of things,’’ and 6. dharmas plural (Gethin, 2004, 515–516 and passim). 20 See especially B 12.106, in which the Buddha is reflecting just before the five companions leave him and he goes to sit under the bodhi tree: ‘‘By the practice of trance those dharmas are obtained through which is won the highest, peaceful stage,

dharmah
: so hard to reach, which is ageless and deathless (dhyanapravartan ad


prapyante yair apyate/ durlabham santam ajaram param tad amr: tam padam).’’ As :  Johnston indicates ‘‘The reference is to the bodhipaks: ika dharmas’’ (2004, 184, n. 106). This is I believe the first usage in the text of the technical sense of dharmas in the plural. Johnston also reconstructs this plural usage from the Tibetan and Chinese translations also at 17.18 and 24.27. 21 See 12.70, where the prince says thanks to Ar
ad: a K
al
ama but ponders, expresses reservations, and moves on: ‘‘For I am of the opinion that the field-knower,
constituents, although liberated from the primary (prakr: ti) and secondary (vikara) still possesses the quality (dharman) of giving birth and also [the quality (dharman)]
of being seed: vikaraprakr nam muktam apy aham/ manye prasavad: tibhyo hi ks: etraj~
: am b
ıjadharman
: am eva ca. harman 22 _ See 13.1 (M
ara as saddharmaripus, ‘‘enemy of the true dharma’’); 13.31 (the divine sages in their pure abodes are ‘‘devoted to the good law’’; continuing: they are
a,
‘‘given to dharma’’ (Johnston), whereas M

a,
dharmatm ara’s hosts are him : satm ‘‘cruel’’ (Johnston), or ‘‘given to violence’’ [13.32]). The term also occurs when Asita comes ‘‘thirsting for the holy Law’’ (1.49) and predicts that the Buddha will deliver it (1.74), and in the ironic words of Chandaka at 6.31, cited below.

238

ALF HILTEBEITEL

ever precisely calling it that,23 he provides special moments for dharma in the trivarga (10.28–38, 11.58), kuladharma (10.39), the three debts a man owes to his ancestors, the seers, and the gods
(9.65), and agama (see 4.83, 7.14, and especially 9.76 and 13.49 for criticism of the uncertainties and wavering of traditional
agamic authorities). I will return to some of these matters later. Second, I would like to illustrate as a prime example of the salience of this concern, and for its foundational importance of all that follows, how Asvaghos: a presents the story of the four signs. For the first outing (B 3.26–38), the S´uddh
adhiv
asa gods create the ‘‘illusion of an old man’’ (26). The prince24 asks his charioteer about it: ‘‘Is this some transformation in him, or his original state, or mere chance
25 Thanks to the gods’ confusing the charioteer into (yadr: ccha)?’’ spilling the beans about old age, the prince, having learned the truth, ‘‘started a little (calitah: ca kim : cid)’’ and offered this first response:
‘‘Will this evil come upon me also? (kim es: a dos: o bhavita
mamapi)’’ (32) – a rather shallow response compared to what he says when next confronted with signs two and three. For now, he asks to be taken back to the city; he cannot take pleasure ‘‘when the fear of old age

rules in my mind (jarabhaye cetasi vartmane)’’ (37d). For the second outing (3.39–53), the same gods fashion a diseased man. The prince’s first thoughts on this are more reflective: ‘‘Thereupon the king’s son
looked at the man compassionately (sanukampyo) and spoke: ‘Is this evil (dos: a) peculiar to him, or is the danger of disease (rogabhayam) common to all men?’’ ’ (43). Made aware of the realities, he observes
the ‘‘vast ignorance (vist
ırn: am aj~ nanam)’’ of men ‘‘who sport under the very shadow of disease’’ (46). When he has returned to the palace, his father, sensing the prince had ‘‘already abandoned’’ him (49), scolds ‘‘the officer in charge of clearing the roads,’’ but with no severe punishment, and prepares another outing hoping to change the prince’s mood. For the third outing (3.54–65), the same gods now 23


srama (‘‘life-pattern’’ or ‘‘life-stage’’) As Olivelle (1993) shows, Brahmanical a
an early formulations were still in flux (see below). Curiously, the Ugraparipr: ccha, Mah
ay
ana text probably from around the first century C.E. (Nattier, 2003, 41–45, 193), the date likeliest for Asvaghos: a, shows similar early variation in formulations on the ‘‘stages’’ (bh
umis) of the bodhisattva career (151–152), along with intense recommendation that not only monks but lay householders take up this arduous path to Buddhahood. 24 As I will usually call him, except where Asvaghos: a uses other terms for him, notably Bodhisattva, which, likewise, since it occurs for the living prince for the first time at 9.30, I will not use to describe him before that point in the text. 25 I follow Johnston’s translation unless otherwise indicated.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

239

fashion a lifeless man, arranging it so that only the prince and charioteer see it (54)! Now the prince’s question is still more sophisticated: ‘‘Is this law of being (dharmah: ) peculiar to this man, or is such the end of all creatures? (kim : kevalo ’syaiva janasya dharmah:
am
ayam
ıdr:  so ’ntah: )?’’ (58cd). To which the charioteer sarvaprajan
am
idam replies, ‘‘This is the last act for all creatures (sarvaprajan antakarma). Destruction is inevitable for all in the world, be he of low or middle or high degree’’ (59). In short, from first asking about only himself with regard to old age to asking about whether disease is unique to one or common to all, he is now, when it comes to the dead man, still framing the question in the same way as for the diseased man, but not only asking whether death applies to one or to all but asking after the underlying ‘‘law’’ (dharma) that results in death. But whereas the prince asks about a ‘‘law,’’ the charioteer answers him only in terms of ‘‘acts,’’ very nicely translated as ‘‘the last act.’’ So the discovery of such a law will remain the prince’s problem. He is not handed such a law by a charioteer – I am, of course, alluding to the Bhagavad G
ıta
– or anyone else. Instead of dharma being revealed, it is approached through developing insight.26 As elsewhere, there is a convergence point between dharma and mr: tyu, and perhaps of the
two with ignorance (here aj~ nana). Now the prince suddenly becomes ‘‘faint on hearing of death’’ (srutvaiva mr: tyum; 60), grabs the chariot rail, and then reflects ‘‘in a melodious voice’’ (61) that ‘‘this is the end
am),’’
appointed for all creatures (iyam and : ca nis: t:ha
niyata
prajan how, to appear happy, men must harden their hearts for them to be in good cheer as they fare along the road (adhvan; 61). He asks to return to the city as it is no time for pleasure resorts (62), but the driver goes at the king’s behest to a grove prepared in advance, a park filled with birds and beautiful women, which the prince experiences as if he were a Muni carried there by force to a place presenting ‘‘obstacles’’ (65). This sylvan pause gives Asvaghos: a the opportunity to devote the next
canto of lacy kavya to the wiles of women (one of whom, as noted, even pretends to stumble), and the prince’s newfound indifference to them, before he is visited by the fourth sign (5.1–15). The prince now heads out, again with his father’s permission, to see the forests, taking a retinue of companions (sakhibhis; B 5.2) who 26

At 7.46, just after the great departure, he tells the first anchorites he meets that he is still ‘‘a novice at dharma (me dharmanavagrahasya).’’ Cf. Gawronski (1914–15, 33), taking this as ‘‘(of me) who have newly taken to the dharma i.e. who am a neophyte regarding it,’’ and citing 11.7 (cited below) as a further unfolding of this theme.

240

ALF HILTEBEITEL

are the sons of ministers. He rides Kanthaka, but the charioteer is not with him. Going to distant jungle-land (presumably ‘‘savannah’’) he sees the soil being ploughed, and, seeing insects cut up, he mourns for them as for his own kindred (5). Seeking clearness of mind, he stops his friends (suhr: das, 7) and goes to sit beneath a Jamb
u tree.27 There, ‘‘reflecting on the origin and destruction of creation (jagatah: prabhavavyayau vicinvan)’’ and taking ‘‘the path of mental stillness’’ (9), he enters ‘‘the first trance of calmness’’ (10) and attains ‘‘con
centration of mind (manah: samadhim)’’ (11). And, having rightly perceived it, he meditates on the ‘‘course of the world (lokagatim).’’ This meditation soon carries forward from what was brought into focus around the term dharma as he encountered the third sign: ‘‘A wretched thing it is indeed (kr: pan: am bata) that a man, who is himself helpless and subject to the law of old age, disease, and destruction

a
sadharma),
should in his ignorance and the blindness (vyadhijar avin of his conceit, pay no heed to another (param aj~ no) who is the victim of old age, disease, or death (my italics). For if I, who am myself such, should pay no heed to another whose nature is equally such, it would not be right or fitting in me, who have knowledge of this, the ultimate 28 law (paramam : dharmam imam : vijanato me)’’ (12–13). He is realizing that this ‘‘law’’ involves a re-cognition of ‘‘the other’’ with whom all are in this together, which carries forward from the progression through the first three signs. And after verses 14–15 describe this insight further and its neutralizing of the passions in the prince, it is now the moment for the arrival of the fourth sign (5.16–21), which, rather than provoking these reflections, comes in response to them. Not fabricated by the gods like the other three signs, a sraman: a appears as a bhiks: u or mendicant (5.16), and says, ‘‘In fear of birth and death [I] have left the home life for the sake of salvation (pravrajato ’smi moks: ahetoh: )’’ (17). He is a homeless wanderer-seeker, ‘‘accepting any alms I may receive (yathopopannabhaiks: ah: )’’ (19), and, moreover, a ‘‘heavenly being who in that form had seen other Buddhas, and has encountered the prince to rouse his attention (smr: ti)’’ (20), which he gets. For, ‘‘When that being went like a bird to heaven, the best of men was thrilled and amazed. And he gained 27



this episode occurs when he is a mere child with nurses (see In the Nidanakath a, Warren, 1998, 53–55). 28

a
sadharma//
5.12. kr: pan: am bata yaj janah: svayam so vyadhijar avin : sann/ ava


param aj~
jarayarditam aturam mr: tam va/ no vijugupsate madandhah : //
13. iha ced aham
ıdr: sah: svayam : san/ vijugupseya param : tatha
svabhavam//
paramam
na bhavet sadr: sam me. : hi tat ks: amam : va/ : dharmam imam vijanato

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

241


and set his awareness of dharma (upalabhya tata s ca dharmasam nam) : j~ mind on the way to leave his home’’ (21).29 When he returns to the palace, it is ‘‘with yearning aroused for the imperishable dharma
agah
: )’’ (25–26). One might wonder whether (aks: ayadharmajatar
Asvaghos: a draws a contrast with the term sanatanadharma, ‘‘eternal dharma,’’ which he would likely have had opportunity to know from both Sanskrit epics. An eternal dharma invokes the eternal Veda and a dharma that, while beyond appearances, is always subtly present, whereas an imperishable dharma could avoid these implications and evoke something that neither perishes nor originates but can always be rediscovered.30 In any case, this birdlike divine creature sets the prince to the task of unfolding this new awareness of dharma he has already begun discovering on his own by setting his mind on departure from home – which is clearly not the locus of this dharma, although it will not fail to bear upon it. AS´VAGHOS: A THE BRAHMAN, BUDDHIST CONVERT, AND SCHOLAR

On one matter, all agree, even though it is again only Chinese sources that actually state it: that Asvaghos: a was a Brahman convert to Buddhism. Johnston gives numerous reasons to accept the Chinese tradition on this one point (2004, xviii), and actually hazards to speak of ‘‘the zeal of the convert’’ (xcvi). But Johnston’s first claim for Asvaghos: a under the rubric of converted Brahman is that ‘‘he had an acquaintance, so wide that no parallel can be found to it among other Buddhist writers, with all departments of Brahmanical learning’’ (lviii) – a topic to which Johnston devotes a whole section under the heading of ‘‘The Scholar’’ (xlvii–lxxix). He thus credits Asvaghos: a

29 5.21 gaganam : khagavad gate ca tasmin/ nr: vara sam : jahr: :se visismiye ca//
abhiniryan
: a vidhau matim
upalabhya tatas ca dharmasam nam/ : j~ : cakara. See Johnston (2004, 65) n. 21 on dharmasam na
with upa-labh, in the ‘‘technical sense : j~ of the action of the mind in forming ideas or conceptions, based on the perceptions presented to it by the senses.’’ 30 Horsch ([1967] 2004, 439) mentions, without citation, early Buddhist usage of

sanatana (‘‘eternal’’) and akalika (‘‘timeless’’) for dhamma as ‘‘correspond[ing] to the
sanatano dharmah: of the Hindu philosophers,’’ but that the dhamma is ‘‘fixed’’
2, p. 24, W. Geiger whether Tath
agatas rise up or do not (citing Samyutta Nikaya trans.). Cf. Nattier (2003, 142): a bodhisattva must ‘‘be born in his final life into a world devoid of Buddhism, where he will rediscover its truths for himself.’’

242

ALF HILTEBEITEL

with Rg Vedic knowledge,31 familiarity with Brahmanical ritual texts (xlv, lxxviii, lxxiii–lxxxiv), the Upanis: ads (xlv–vi), early n
ıti (l–li), medical, astronomical/astrological, and silpa (lii–liii) texts, early S
am : khya, Yoga, and possibly Vaises: ika texts (lvi–lxii), contemporary
developments in kavya (lxii–lxiii), and of course the two epics in some form (our next topics). But in a fascinating oversight or omission, he makes no attempt to relate Asvaghos: a’s knowledge of Brahmanical dharma to any dharma literature. Perhaps he assumed that the epics were sufficient to cover what Asvaghos: a knew of Brahmanical dharma, but that, I believe, would be a very risky assumption. The prince’s friend Ud
ayin does cite epic precedents as to the duty to fulfill women’s desire at B 4.66–67 (though not the most obvious such case: Arjuna’s accommodation of Ul
up
ı, which hinges on her interpretation of this ‘‘highest dharma’’ [Mbh 1.206.23–33]) – counsel which Asvaghos: a describes as ‘‘specious words, supported by scrip
tural tradition (agama)’’ (B 4.83) that the prince deafeningly rejects (84–99). But there is probably more than epic precedent when, soon after King S´uddhodana’s rule is compared to that of ‘‘Manu, son of the sun’’ (2.16), Asvaghos: a describes the young prince growing up in a kingdom where his father not only practiced all the virtues of selfrestraint, offered large fire ceremonies (36), and drank soma as enjoined by the Vedas (37), but judged petitions impartially ‘‘and
suddham) as being holy ( observed purity of justice (vyavahara sivam)’’ (39); did not execute the guilty but imposed mild punishments (42), and taxed fairly (44) – all this while the king ‘‘pondered on the
52). S´
astra’’ (vimamar sa sastram, In any case, Johnston makes several astute assessments on Asvaghos: a’s erudition that are worth quoting. First, he says that ‘‘Asvaghos: a writes for a circle in which Brahmanical learning and ideas are supreme; his references to Brahmans personally and to their institutions are always worded with the greatest respect, and his many mythological parallels are all drawn from Brahmanical sources’’ (2004, xv–xvi).32 Johnston thus recognizes that Asvaghos: a participates in what I am calling a civil discourse. Second, Johnston says 31 See Johnston (2005, xlv) and 124–25, note to B 14.9: ‘‘The legend of Vasis: t:ha’s descent from Urvas
ı is alluded to in the RigVeda,’’ which the verse refers to, although it ‘‘had already been lost sight of by the time of the epics.’’ 32 See especially B 7.45, where the prince shows respect toward the tapasvins –
– of the pe‘‘the upright-souled sages, the supporters of religion (dharmabhr: tam) nance grove.’’ Johnston (2004, xvi), n. 1 notes two exceptions in the Saundarananda, whose genuineness he doubts. In any case, the point applies to the Buddhacarita.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

243

that Asvaghos: a’s accuracy and even pedantry bind us ‘‘to assume that his learned references are strictly in accordance with the authorities he used,’’ even though ‘‘these authorities are for the most part no longer extant’’ (xliv). Third, and most important, he observes that Asvaghos: a ‘‘seems at times to delight in expressing Buddhist views in a way that would remind Hindu readers of their own authorities’’ (lv). If so, for the long run, at least, this was probably wishful thinking, as his verse was little cited after K
alid
asa (lxxix–lxxxii) and only half-survived in four Sanskrit manuscripts until modern interests somewhat resurrected him. Johnston also remarks that by ‘‘introducing so much Hindu learning [Asvaghos: a] offended against the puritan moment in Buddhism’’ (xxxvii), which likewise did little to later acclaim him – at least in subsequent Indian Buddhist texts, although the Chinese Pilgrim I-Tsing found the Buddhacarita popular in India in the 7th century (Johnston, 2004, xxxv–xxxvi) when he travelled in northeastern India around 672. Indeed, that may have been the level at which this ‘‘Buddhist epic’’ would have had its longest run in India. Recalling Johnston’s emphasis on faith and bhakti, it is not uninteresting that a Brahman converted to Buddhism and attentive to Buddhist bhakti could also be familiar with what is similar in the Brahmanical epics. AS´VAGHOS: A AND EPIC PRECEDENTS

For both Brahmanical epics, we thus have the possibility of ‘‘close reading’’: both in time, for I do not think it very likely that written versions of either epic can be more than three centuries earlier than Asvaghos: a, and more likely only preceded him by about a century or at the most two; and in relation to the question Johnston raises by insisting that Asvaghos: a is scrupulous in citing his authorities. With these points in mind, it is worth making a few observations about how Asvaghos: a treats both epics together before looking at the ways he treats each distinctly. First, it seems there are recurrent points where he alludes to the two epics either together or alternately. Most striking is the first such instance when King S´uddhodana’s court Brahmans interpret the baby prince’s birth signs and refer to various texts, their authors, and then other heroic figures before Asita arrives to read the signs definitively. To make the point that ‘‘Anyone may attain pre-eminence anywhere in the world, for in the case of the kings and

244

ALF HILTEBEITEL

seers the sons accomplished the various deeds their ancestors failed to do’’ (B 1.46), these court Brahmans mention the following instances (I paraphrase from 1.41 to 1.45): _ 41. Although Bhr: gu and Angiras were the founders of families, it was not they who
sastra),
created (cakratus) the ‘‘science of royal policy’’ (raja but their sons S´ukra and Br: haspati.
nas: t:am 42. The son of Sarasvat
ı, Vy
asa, promulgated again the lost Veda (jagada : vedam) and divided it into many sections, which Vasis: t:ha (his great grandfather) had not done.
ıkir adau ca sasarja padyam), 43. And V
alm
ıki was the first to create poetry (valm
34
which Cyavana33 did not do; and Atreya proclaimed the science of healing which Atri did not discover. 44. Visv
amitra won brahmanhood (dvijatvam) which Kusika (his grandfather) did not, and Sagara set a limit for the ocean which his Iks: v
aku predecessors did not achieve.
ra 45. Janaka gained preeminence in instructing the twiceborn in yoga, and S´u
ani
(Kr: :sn: a’s father) and his kin were incapable of the celebrated deeds (khyat
: i) of S´auri (i.e., Kr: :sn: a). karman


arata–R

ayan
: a alternation Verses 42–43 establish a clear Mahabh am (Vy
asa and V
alm
ıki), whereas the rest refer to sages and kings known in both epics. This alternance and fusion, which occurs repeatedly, suggests a kind of proto- sles: a intention toward the two epics.35 Moreover, it would be hard to explain how Asvaghos: a would know about the two poets, Vy
asa and V
alm
ıki, unless he were familiar with
arata
material from the twelfth book of the Mahabh (if not also the
ayan
: a (if not also the first) and from the first book of the Ram seventh). As Johnston remarks, one may infer from a verse in Asvaghos: a’s earlier work, the Saundarananda, ‘‘that the story of V
alm
ıki’s having taught the poem to Kusa and Lava was familiar to him (2004, xlix). In fact, the verse credits V
alm
ıki with having performed the twins’ childhood rites, and both V
alm
ıki and the boys with being ‘‘inspired’’ (dh
ımat).36 33

Another Bh
argava; but see Johnston (2004, 10 n. 43). Perhaps alluding to Caraka; see Johnston (2004, 70, n. 43). 35 Johnston (2004, xciii–xcvi) observes something analogous in Asvaghos: a’s allowance of double Brahmanical and Buddhist meanings in sam : dhi passages with ‘‘a negative disappearing’’ (3.25; 12.82 [he probably means 12.81]). 36
ıkiriva dh
ımam
: s ca dh
ımator maithileyayoh: ; see Saundarananda 1.26cd: valm
Johnston (1929, 3 n. 26): ‘‘inspired’’ for dh
ımat, refering ‘‘to V
alm
ıki’s poetic
ayan
: a and to Kusa and Lava’s artistic skill in inspiration in composing the Ram
: d: a, I can find repeating it.’’ Yet Johnston (2004, xlix) says, ‘‘As regards the Uttarakan no reason to suppose that the poet knew any portion of it.’’ 34

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

245

But Asvaghos: a also has a point in making epic and other Brahmanical mythological allusions, though some of them are certainly obscure.37 It is to bring across a realization that, no matter how illuminating heroic, sagely, and divine precedents may be as parallels, they are ultimately irrelevant to the achievement of the Buddha. In making this thoroughly intelligible Buddhist point, Asvaghos: a is distinguishing his work from both epics, where heroic and divine precedents are repeatedly cited, and especially, in the
arata,
Mahabh cited by Vy
asa and Kr: :sn: a,38 although numerous other narrators employ the same device. Thus, for instance, once the prince has undertaken his ‘‘great departure,’’ he dispenses with royal precedents for returning home from the forest, including the precedent of R
ama, saying to one of his father’s emissaries, ‘‘And as for your quoting the instances of R
ama and the others to justify my return [home], they do not prove your case; for those who have broken their vows are not competent authorities in deciding matters
: am na hi dharmani
: aya
of dharma (na te praman scayes: v alam praman
(B 9.77). R
ama may offer a precedent but not an pariks: aya vrata)’’
: am)! Moreover, we are left with the tantalizing ‘‘authority’’ (praman question of what vow R
ama might have broken,39 for it is almost certainly king R
ama, son of Dasaratha, who is being kept in focus here, even though Asvaghos: a can also refer to R
ama D
asarath
ı and R
ama J
amadagnya in one and the same breath.40 Further along, one hears similarly how ‘‘Vasis: t:ha, Atri, and others came under the dominion of time’’; so too Yay
ati, etc., and hundreds of Indras,
: a
(24.38–42). Finally, in the last whereas Sambuddhas entered nirvan canto, when seven kings are ready to go to war over the Buddha’s bones and cite as heroic precedents for doing so S´isup
ala’s stand 37

For unknown and uncertain references and usually Johnston’s discussion thereof, see 41.16–18; 4.72–75; 4.80 (? Kar
alajanaka); 9.20; 9.69–70; 11.15, 11.18;
rpaka, the fishes’ foe); 28.32 (Eli and Paka). 11.31 (Mekhala-Dan: d: akas); 13.11 (S´u 38 For some discussion, see Hiltebeitel ([1976] 1990, 261–266) (Kr: :sn: a reveals divine precedents for Arjuna’s killing of Karn: a), 289–296 (Vy
asa and Kr: :sn: a reveal divine precedents for Yudhis: t:hira’s Asvamedha); 2001, 73 (idem), 49 and 118–120 (Vy
asa reveals precedents for the polyandric marriage of Draupad
ı). 39 I do not think it could be a marriage vow, since if there is such a thing in the
ayan
: a or the Buddhacarita, prince Sarv
Ram arthasiddha (B 2.17) has just broken his marriage vow as well. 40 See in the same canto B 9.25, where the prince hears about both R
amas and Bh
ıs: ma as exemplars of doing deeds to please their fathers. See also 9.69, where he hears, ‘‘So too R
ama left the penance grove and protected the earth, when it was
oppressed by the infidel (anaryais)’’ – on which Johnston is no doubt right that this probably refers to Bh
argava R
ama (2004, 137, n. 69).

246

ALF HILTEBEITEL

against Kr: :sn: a, the end of Vr: :sn: is and Andhakas over a woman, Bh
argava R
ama’s decimation of the Ks: atriyas, and R
avan: a’s infatuation with S
ıt
a (28.28–31), the point couldn’t be clearer that heroic precedents from the Brahmanical epics are dangerous. Or, as Brockington puts it in the case of the destruction of the Vr: :sn: is and Andhakas, the story ‘‘figures as a moral warning’’ (1998, 484). Yet we will also have occasions to note that Asvaghos: a, probably
both as a kavya poet and a Buddhist convert, could have his reasons for treating epic allusions with a little play. At Buddhacarita 4.16, for instance, Ud
ayin begins urging the women to show some gumption in seducing the prince: ‘‘Of old time, for instance, the great seer, Vy
asa, whom even the gods could hardly contend with, was kicked with her
K
asisundar
ı.’’ Johnston says, ‘‘The foot by the harlot (ve savadhva), story is unidentified and it is uncertain if K
asisundar
ı is a proper name or not’’ (2004, 46 n. 16). But most likely it unfolds, a bit bawdily, from the night Vy
asa spends happily siring Vidura with the
dra servant-woman of the K
as
ı princess Ambik
a, whom Ambik
a S´u adorns with her own jewels so that she looks ‘‘like an Apsaras’’ (svair
ım bh

Mbh 1.100.23) – i.e., a bh
u:san: air das
u:sayitva
apsaropamam; beautiful heavenly courtesan – and sends to Vy
asa in her own stead, apparently to try to fool him (100.23–101.1). No doubt this maid would also be from K
as
ı, and thus either named K
asisundar
ı or described as ‘‘the beautiful K
as
ı woman.’’ Sullivan, who discusses this and a similar verse in Asvaghos: a’s Saundarananda (7.30), considers K
asisundar
ı to have been Ambik
a herself, but this is a more unlikely solution since Ambik
a would have had to confront Vy
asa directly to have (in Sullivan’s words) so ‘‘decisively rejected’’ him (1990, 291), and since the verse is intended as inspiration in the arts of seduction. In effect, Ud
ayin would be saying, If nothing else works, give the prince a kick. As we now proceed to the epics themselves, I think we can thus allow ourselves a caveat with regard to Johnston’s insistence that Asvaghos: a is scrupulous in citing authorities. I certainly believe that he wants to be understood by those who know the epic texts, but it is unlikely that he or they knew them only as written texts, since by his time they no doubt already served as the basis for oral adumbrations in both Brahmanical and Buddhist circles in which either and indeed both together could have some fun with the text. This point is worth keeping in mind as we now address the more serious matters that interest Asvagos: a in juxtaposing the life of the Buddha to scenes in both epics, not only separately but together, where they exemplify

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

247

their different but also complementary guidelines on a basic problem raised by the Brahmanical dharma of householder kings.
AYAN
THE BUDDHACARITA AND THE RAM :A


ayan
: a is As Johnston points out, Asvaghos: a’s treatment of the Ram
arata,
more direct than that of the Mahabh since, as we have already begun to notice, he makes frequent reference to the life of the
ayan
: a’s main hero. Johnston picks up on the Buddhacarita’s Ram closing colophon, where the poet writes of himself as ‘‘Asvaghos: a of S
aketa’’ [i.e., Ayodhy
a],41 for a likely explanation.
ayan
: a, for which an inhabitant of S
The case is entirely different with the Ram aketa, the scene of its most poignant episodes and the capital of its dynasty, could not but keep a warm place in his heart, however his religious beliefs had changed. Asvaghos: a never tires of reminding us that the Buddha belonged to the dynasty of his home and strikes this note in the very first verse of the Buddhacarita.42

From this no doubt important point, Johnston turns to ‘‘enquire to what extent he [Asvaghos: a] knew the poem in its present form’’ (2004, xlviii), favoring the view of Andrzej Gawronski, who, he says, has …proved conclusively, as I hold, that Asvaghos: a knew certain portions of the second book, the Ayodhyak
an: d: a, in very much the condition that we have them in to-day and that he took pleasure in drawing a comparison between the Buddha quitting his home and R
ama leaving for the forest. That he knew the continuation of the story is proved from a reference in B., xxciii. 31 [concerning the bad precedent, just cited, of R
avan: a’s doomed infatuation with S
ıt
a], but whether in the present form or not is not clear from the wording. It certainly does seem that there are many future passages in the later books likely to have influenced the Buddhist poet…. The question
really turns on whether Asvaghos: a knew some or all of the passages in the Ram., describing how Hanum
an visited R
avan: a’s palace and saw the women asleep. (2004, xlviii)


ayan
: a Book 2 In fact, Gawronski limited his discussion to Ram because he found the parallels more direct there and a larger comparison too unwieldy (1919, 27–28); he felt enabled ‘‘to conclude with a sufficient amount of certainty that at the time of Asvaghos: a there
ayan
: a (but most probably the existed at least Book II of the Ram remaining genuine books also) in much the same form as is known to us to-day’’ (40). Gawronski flagged most of the Book 2 passages that 41 Johnston (2004), Part 3, 124. Cf. Lamotte 656: ‘‘a native of S
aketa who had converted to Buddhism.’’ 42 Johnston (2004, xlvii). See also Buddhacarita 10.23; 13.1 (implied); 14.92; 17.6.

248

ALF HILTEBEITEL


I will discuss. As to the well-known kavya question of the similarities between Hanum
an’s viewing the sleeping women in R
avan: a’s palace and the Buddhacarita’s sleeping harem scene on the night of the Buddha’s great departure, Johnston says he ‘‘will refrain from giving
ayan
: a critical edition (2004, a definite answer’’ until there is a Ram xlvii). On this matter, Brockington takes a favorable view, as do I, of V. Raghavan’s demonstration (1956) that Asvaghos: a borrows the
: d: a 5.7–9, ‘‘including parallels in harem scene from Sundarakan wording’’ (Brockington, 1998, 485). Beyond these probably unnecessary cautions, Johnston makes some interesting observations about intratextual intricacies: that there is a problem with whether Visv
amitra is seduced by Ghr: t
ac
ı, as
ayan
: a Book 4, or Asvaghos: a has it along with a verse in Ram
ayan
: a Book 1;43 Menak
a, who is the seductress in the story in Ram

ana
and that Asvaghos: a would seem to have needed the Ramop akhy to explain why he has V
amadeva and Vasis: t:ha visit Rama in the forest (Johnston, 2004, xlix–l). But these cautions and conundrums have to do not with the heart of Asvaghos: a’s interests in the
ayan
: a, but with his selective pattern of making allusions as Ram ultimately negative precedents, which I have already discussed. The heart of the matter is, as Johnston puts it, that Asvaghos: a ‘‘took pleasure in drawing a comparison between the Buddha quitting his home and R
ama leaving for the forest’’ (xlviii). Indeed, the Buddhacarita has this much in common with the P
ali Vessantara
:aka, which, as Gombrich (1985) shows, involves detailed but more Jat indirect and deflected correspondences not between R
ama and the Buddha, but between R
ama and the Buddha in has very last life as Prince Vessantara.44 For Asvaghos: a, however, it is not just a matter of poetic pleasure
ayan
: a’s sleeping harem scene), as (such as might be the case the Ram Johnston seems to imply. What interests Asvaghos: a is the opportunity R
ama’s departure offers to draw a contrast between Brahmanical 43


4.35.7, which is 4.34.7 in the For the first, Johnston (2004, xlix) gives Ram Baroda Critical Edition; the second is CE 1.62.4–13. As Lefeber (1994, 289) notes, some commentators identify the two Apsarases as one and the same. 44 Gombrich astutely suggests that this deflection to a previous life ‘‘reflects the hostility of Therav
ada Buddhism (though the VJ story was not confined to the
ayan
: a,’’
and agrees with Bechert Therav
ada) to the values embodied in the Ram
ayan
: a’s being ‘‘unac(1979, 28) that this would further have to do with the Ram ceptable to the Sinhalese because it contradicts their view of the island’s history’’ – _
ayan
: a Book 6. Asvaghos: a would not have this Lankan especially in Ram problem with V
alm
ıki.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

249

dharma and Buddhist dharma. Taking into account only the first fourteen cantos of the Buddhacarita (the ones for which we have Sanksrit texts), the prince, up to his enlightenment, has no less than 13 interlocutors with whom he hones his views on dharma: 1. his charioteer, through the first three signs (B 3.26–65); 2. Ud
ayin (4.9– 23, 56–99); 3. the S´raman: a who appears as the fourth sign (5.9–21); 4.

elsewhere45 known as Kis
a a ‘‘nobleman’s daughter’’ (rajakany a), Gotam
ı, whose words of praise upon seeing his return from the fourth sign crystallize his silent resolve to pursue ‘‘the means to final
: a (parinirvan
: avidhau matim
nirvan and ‘‘the imperishable : cakara)’’ dharma’’ (5.23–26); 5. his father (5.27–46, this being the only point where he addresses his son directly); 6. the horse Kanthaka46 (5.68– 72, a one-way conversation in which the prince voices his readiness for the great departure after the Akanis: t:ha deities have arranged the sleeping harem scene); 7. his groom Chandaka (6.1–52, when the prince sends him home after making the great departure);47 8. the anchorites of a Bh
argava penance grove, there with their wives (7.1– 58); 9. the Purohita (9.81–51) and 10. the Minister (9.52–79),48 jointly sent by the king to the penance grove to speak for him and the Iks: v
aku line (9.4); 11. S´ren: ya-Bimbisara, king of Magadha (10.22– 11.71); 12. Ar
ad: a K
al
ama (12.1–83); and 13. M
ara (13.1–69). In at least four of these cases, Asvaghos: a relates the prince’s
ayan
: a (or in the fourth case possibly to departure directly to the Ram

ana).
the Ramop akhy First and foremost, King S´uddhodana compares his grief to that of ‘‘Dasaratha friend of Indra,’’ and envies Dasaratha for going to heaven when R
ama did not return (B 8.79–91): ‘‘Thus the king grieved over the separation from his son and lost his steadfastness, though it was innate like the solidity of the earth; and as if in delirium, he uttered many laments, like Dasaratha overwhelmed by grief for R
ama’’ (8.81). Grief ( soka) is of course the

45


And in different circumstances; see the Nidanakath a
version in Warren (1998,

59). 46 Asvaghos: a speaks of it as King S´uddhodana’s horse, which he has ridden in battle (5.75). It is not born, along with the groom, at the same time as the Buddha, as
in the Nidanakath a
(see Warren, 1998, 48). 47 Assuming that Chandaka is different from the unnamed charioteer. 48
: tau, ‘‘the Referred to, when the prince dismisses them, as tau havyamantrakr officers who were in charge of the king’s sacrifices and his counsel chamber’’ (B 10.1).

250

ALF HILTEBEITEL


ayan
: a’s underlying sthayibh

or ‘‘stable aesthetic emotion’’ in Ram ava
‘‘pity’’ as its predominant aesthetic flavor relation to karun: a, _ ı rasa),49 and it characterizes King S´uddhodana’s feelings for his (ang
son throughout the Buddhacarita.50 Second, the groom Chandaka says, ‘‘I cannot abandon you as Sumantra did R
aghava’’ (6.36). Third, when he and the riderless horse return, the townsfolk ‘‘shed tears in the road, as happened of old when the chariot of Dasaratha’s son returned’’ (8.8). Fourth, as already noted, the chaplain (purohita) and minister are compared, as emissaries, to V
amadeva and Vasis: t:ha visiting R
ama in the forest (9.9). But there are also indirect allusions to the R
am
a story. Indeed, if
ayan
: a echthe two emissaries seem to step into their roles with Ram 51 oes, the same can be said of the prince’s encounter with the many R : :sis who dwell in a penance grove together with their wives (B 7.3). I would propose that Asvaghos: a builds up this scene to represent the
vanaprastha (married forest dweller) mode of life idealized in the
ayan
: a, where forest books of both epics,52 but especially in the Ram R
ama meets a distinct set of Vedic sages, one of whom, Atri, is explicitly ensconced in the forest with his wife Anas
uy
a (see Hiltebeitel, forthcoming-b). In any case, the prince’s descent in the
ayan
: a’s dynastic lineage is certainly invoked when the teats of Ram the ashram cows in this ‘‘workshop as it were of dharma’’ (7.33)53 flow upon first seeing the prince as ‘‘the lamp of the Iks: v
aku race’’ (7.6)! Further, while each of these 13 interlocutors voices or hears words in the prince’s presence, his abandoned wife Yasodhar
a’s words in his absence are, I think, also spoken in evocation of S
ıt
a: 49

See my discussion in Hiltebeitel (forthcoming-b). See 1.76 (S´uddhodana warned not to grieve over his son’s inevitable enlight
ayan
: a echoes in the prince’s reference to the road enment); 6.19–20 (with likely Ram of his [Iks: v
aku] ancestors) and 6.30–31 (Chandaka’s response); and especially 9.13– 15, 9.29 (as aired by the Purohita, whom the prince answers on this point at 9.33–35). Meanwhile others also grieve throughout Canto 8 ( soka is mentioned twelve times there) when it is realized that the prince has not returned with Chandaka and Kanthaka. 51

They are not found in the Nidanakath a. 52 See Biardeau (2002), vol. 2, 70–71, 75–76, 82 on these often married forest hermits, their hospitality to epic princes, and their probably prior portrayal as well in the dharmas
utras. 53 See Johnston (2004, 98 n. 33), crediting Garwonski (1919, 14–15) on this reading, but I think a little too quickly dismissing his extension of the image to mean ‘‘forge, smithy,’’ making the penance grove ‘‘like a forge of dharma in full activity
(dharmasya karmantam iva pravr: ttam).’’ 50

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

251

If he wishes to carry out dharma and yet casts me off, his lawful partner in the duties of religion and now husbandless, in what respect is there dharma for him who wishes to follow austerities separated from his lawful partner? Surely he has not heard of our ancestors, Mahasudarsa and the other kings of old, who took their wives with them to the forest, since he thus intends to carry out dharma without me. (8.61–62).54

Whoever Mah
asudarsa may be,55 Yasodhar
a would count R
ama among her husband’s Iks: v
aku ancestors. This thread of direct and
ayan
: a evocations comes to a decisive climax, in a pasindirect Ram sage cited earlier, when the prince tells his father’s Purohita and
: am) on Minister emissaries that R
ama is not an authority (praman dharma (9.77). For now, it must suffice to note that Asvaghos: a finds seven of the 13 champions of Brahmanical dharma – the father, the groom, the riderless horse (rather than the empty chariot), the two emissaries, the wife, and the anchorites (with their cows) – suitable, even if at a stretch, for evocations of the R
ama story. It would take more space than it merits to demonstrate that, even beyond these seven, all 13 speak for one or another form Brahmanical dharma – including, as
ayan
:a we shall see, M
ara. Suffice it to say that through the run of Ram precedents that ends with the prince dismissing them, it is, from early on, the ‘‘variegated dharma (dharmam : vividham)’’ (B 2.54) performed
by King S´uddhodana as a sastra-pondering king – one who, among other duties, has just secured the continuance of his royal line through the birth of his son (2.52–53) – that anchors all these Brahmanical concerns. The ultimate irony of this portrayal of Brahmanical royal dharma by a Buddhist poet comes across when Chandaka makes one of his last appeals: ‘‘You should not desert, as a
nihilist the good law (saddharmam iva nastikah : ), your loving father, who yearns for his son’’ (6.31).

54

anath
am
sahadharmacarin
:
ım/ apasya dharmam sa mam : yadi kartum icchati/8.61.
:
ım kuto ’sya dharmah: sahadharmacarin : / vina
tapo yah: paribhoktum icchati//

mahasudar


62. s:rn: oti n
unam urvaparthiv an/ saprabhr: t
ın pitamah an/ : sa na p

patn
ısahitan
upeyus: as/ tatha
hi dharmam madr: te cik
ırs: ati. vanani Gawronski (1919, 35–36) remarks that the previous lines 8.55-58 of Yasodhar
a’s lament and her contrast of ‘‘the easy life he has enjoyed thus far and the drawbacks
parallel, but the words there are of dwelling in a hermitage’’ have another Ram
2, Appendix 1, no. 9, lines Dasaratha’s, the verses occur in a long interpolation (Ram 180–187), and the theme is perhaps rather a cliche´. 55 Johnston (2004, 117) notes that he ‘‘is presumably the Mah
asudassana of the genealogies of the D
ıpavam avam : sa and Mah
: sa.’’

252

ALF HILTEBEITEL


ayan
: a-related nexus runs mainly through the BuddhacaThis Ram rita’s first nine cantos. Indeed, the only continuation I can see in later cantos comes after the Buddha’s enlightenment, when ‘‘The seers of the Iks: v
aku race who had been rulers of men, the royal seers and the great seers, filled with wonder and joy at his achievement, stood in their mansions in the heavens reverencing him’’ (B 14.92). What a lovely twist to leave us wondering whether R
ama is among them!
ayan
: a skein, there seem to be two sets of concerns, Within this Ram each with numerous subsidiary considerations: gr: hasthadharma, or the duties of a householder; and priorities regarding the second and
srathird stages of life as they bear upon kings in the scheme of a madharma, the ideal sequence of the four stages of life – a term not used in the first half of the Buddhacarita, but one whose currency is certainly implied, as when King S´uddhodana tells the prince not to violate their ‘‘proper order’’ (5.32).56 This of course means that the two concerns intersect, since according to the classical formulation of
srama system (Olivelle, 1993, 27, 30) the householder mode is the the a second life-stage. We see this intersection from the Buddhacarita’s first mention of gr: hasthadharma, which, fittingly, comes right when King S´uddhodana first faces his son’s determination to abandon both home and his succession to the throne, and thus frames the issue as one of royal dharma. Says the father to the son: But, O lover of dharma, it is now my time for dharma, after I have devolved the sovereignty onto you, the cynosure of all eyes; but if you were to forcibly quit your father (gurum), O firmly courageous one, your dharma would become adharma. Therefore give up this your resolve. Devote yourself for the present to householder
dharma (bhava tavan nirato gr: hasthadharme). For entry to the penance grove is agreeable to a man, after he has enjoyed the delights of youth. (B 5.32–33).57

Note that ‘‘entry to the penance grove’’ (tapovanapravesa) is also used for the forest-dwelling anchorites when they return to their ‘‘dharma workshop’’ at 7.58. This suggests that the term characterizes
the third life-stage of the ‘‘forest dweller’’ or vanaprastha (even though the text does not mention the term), and that King S´uddhodana, at least, conceives the tension between him and his son as 56

See Olivelle (1993, 121 and n. 30), so translating vikrame at 5.32c, and commenting that Johnston’s translation ‘‘misses the point’’; cf. 10.33, discussed below. 57
5.32. mama tu priya dharma dharmakalas/ tvayi laks: m
ım avasrjya laks: mabh
ute/ sthiravikramavikramen: a dharmas/ tava hitva
tu gurum bhaved adharmah: //

33. tad imam utsrja/ tvam bhava tavan nirato gr: hasthadharme/ : vyavasayam
bhuktva/
raman:
ıyo tapovanaprave sah: . purus: asya vahah: sukhani

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

253

one to be worked out between the ‘‘dharmas’’ of the second and third life-stages, and not the second and the fourth. This is so even after the prince hears the ‘‘nobleman’s daughter’’ utter the ambiguous word nirvr: ta
– by which she is describing the woman who would be ‘‘blessed’’ (Johnston, 2004, 66) or ‘‘happy’’ to have such a husband as he, but which fills him with the ‘‘supreme calm ( samam param)’’ that
: a (5.24–25) – and tells his father that he inspires him to win parinirvan
: a, has decided to seek moks: a (5.28), preferring that to the word nirvan which is not used elsewhere in the first fourteen cantos to describe the prince’s quest for it. Almost perversely, King S´uddhodana avoids talking in such terms and, in the passage just cited, immediately rephrases his son’s resolve into a premature decision for the penance
grove and the implied vanaprastha-dharma. Indeed, King S´uddhodana carries his seemingly deliberate misunderstanding to an offer to go to the forest rather than his son (5.32).58 This matter of untimely dharma being adharma percolates along through the prince’s interactions with Chandaka (6.21), the king’s two Brahman emissaries (9.14–17; 9.53), and even S´ren: ya Bimbis
ara (10.33), and gives the prince several opportunities to trump these Brahmanical concerns for
sramadharma with Buddhist rejoinders the inherent timeliness of a that ‘‘there is no such thing as a wrong time for dharma’’ (6.21; cf. 9.37–38, 11.62–63). On the whole, such concerns parallel the situa
ayan
: a, which does not concern its hero with any tion in the Ram inclination toward moks: a or the fourth life-stage of renunciation
59 (sam : nyasa).
ayan
: a scenario in the Yet the prince begins to break past this Ram penance grove when he tells the anchorites that one of the reasons he does not stay with them is that their practice of tapas yields merely ‘‘Paradise’’ (divam, svarga; B 7.18–26, 48–53).60 Unlike King S´uddhodana, the anchorites know what he is talking about and tell him that if he prefers liberation (which they call both apavarga and moks: a) 58

On abdication by kings in favor of their sons, see Olivelle (1993, 116): ‘‘The epics contain numerous accounts of famous kings who followed this custom’’ (with citations, n. 15). 59
ayan
: a has little to say about the a
srama This would be one reason why the Ram
2.98.58), which he would like to see as an system. Finding only one reference (Ram
ayan
: a would be older than interpolation, Olivelle (1993, 103) supposes that the Ram this system, but his dates (pre-5th century B.C.E.) for this epic are, I believe, far too early. 60 That svarga is a this-worldly condition is emphasized from the beginning when we learn that King S´uddhodana’s kingdom was like svarga to his subjects upon his son’s birth (B 2.12–13).

254

ALF HILTEBEITEL

over Paradise (7.52–53), he should seek out Ar
ad: a K
al
ama. They
ayan
:a clearly know of a fourth stage of life. With this, we put the Ram
arata,
behind us and turn to Asvaghos: a’s treatment of the Mahabh in which all four life-patterns are a matter of major scrutiny and debate.
arata
This returns us to the matter of dating the Mahabh relative to the dharmas
utras and Manu (see Section ‘‘Early Discourse on Dharma
arata
and Kings’’ above). As Olivelle beautifully shows, the Mahabh
sramas both in their ‘‘original system’’ (1993, 153–55) knows the a known to the dharmas
utras, where they are four different lifelong choices (vikalpa) to be made before marriage, and in their ‘‘classical system’’ (148–51) favored (though not exclusively) by Manu (129), which staggers the four through a male’s life. I think that in airing both
arata
systems, the Mahabh brings them under debate such as Olivelle himself mentions (69–70), taking them up au courant with their treatment in the dharmas
utras some time during the second to first century B.C.E. and probably soon before Manu further codifies them. The Buddhacarita’s view that there is no wrong time for dharma then looks to be a typically Buddhist expression of the pro-choice position that
arata,
Manu, unlike the dharmas
utras and Mahabh seeks so energetically to suppress (131–136, 147, 176). Indeed, while making a negative
arata
evaluation of this position, the Mahabh includes a prophesy to King M
andh
atar by Vis: n: u in the guise of Indra that would seem to link
sraman
: am
: vikalpah
: ) with the proliferation of free choice of
asramas (a _
after the passing of the Kr: ta age Buddhists (bhiks: avo linginas tatha) (Mbh 12.65.25). In any case, I do not share Olivelle’s (1993) acceptance
arata
of a period of eight centuries of Mahabh composition (148), or, as will become clear in what now follows, his view of the ‘‘admittedly late
arata’’
didactic sections of the Mahabh (161). And indeed, Olivelle seems recently to have been rethinking these very matters (2005, 5–6, 23–24, 37–38).
ARATA
THE BUDDHACARITA AND THE MAHABH


arata
Johnston sees the Mahabh as posing different problems from the
ayan
: a, proposing that Asvaghos: a might know it in a form no Ram
longer available to us (2004, xlvi), perhaps even in an early ‘‘kavya form, which is now irretrievably lost to us’’ (xlvii),61 and noting that, ‘‘As for proper names, allusions to the main characters are very thin’’ 61

I would just say that this leads us nowhere.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

255

(xlvi–xlvii). Johnston is certainly right that the Buddhacarita is nearly
arata’s
silent on the Mahabh main story. The text does not mention Arjuna, Yudhis: t:hira, Draupad
ı, Duryodhana, Karn: a, and so on. And given that fact, we can go even a little beyond Johnston and say that Asvaghos: a is not really interested in touching base with any of this epic’s high dramas, as he is with R
ama’s departure from Ayodhy
a. Yet Asvaghos: a does refer to ‘‘the entire destruction of the Kurus’’ at B 11.31, ‘‘to Bh
ıs: ma for a story known to the Harivam : sa but not to the epic’’ at 11.18; to P
an: d: u and M
adr
ı at 4.79; and to ‘‘many legends …found in the MBh, but not always in quite the same form’’ (xlvii). Curiously, he neglects to mention references to Vy
asa and Kr: :sn: a, most of which I have noted, and which have one point of interest in that
ayan
: a references, several of them come, combined with similar Ram near the Buddhacarita’s beginning and end,62 where we might consider them as points for his readers’ entry and departure, or frames. Yet once we look past the allusions and negative precedents, we find
arata
that Asvaghos: a engages the Mahabh for much the same reason as
ayan
: a: his interest in the relation between Buddhist and the Ram Brahmanical dharma in connection with questions that bear on the prince’s great departure. But now the discourse is taken to a higher register: from the constraints of the prince’s tussle with his father over the royal protocols for gr: hasthadharma and the ascetic regimes of the forest-dweller, we move on to the search for ‘‘the true dharma.’’ From the time that the anchorites in the penance grove tell the prince to seek out Ar
ad: a K
al
ama through his meetings en route with his father’s two emissaries and King S´ren: ya -Bimbis
ara of Magadha, and finally, after his meeting with Ar
ad: a and the period the prince performs penances, the challenge of M
ara, the prince’s quest for moks: a takes hold. And with it, we find what I would propose are two kinds of close but indirect
arata:
readings of the Mahabh one concerning some of its ‘‘didactic’’ teachings mainly about moks: a,63 and one referencing an early
arata
Mahabh episode that I have already mentioned, the killing of Jar
asandha, king of Magadha. Let us look first at the latter. Despite the anchorites’ admonition that the prince should head north to pursue the highest dharma, and take not a step towards the south (B 7.41), he proceeds south into the Magadha capital of R
ajagr: ha, ruled by King S´ren: ya-Bimbis
ara, on his way toward Ar
ad: a 62

On Vy
asa, see not only 1.42 but 4.16 (discussed above) and 4.76 (implied); on Kr: :sn: a see 1.45, 28.28–29. 63
: a is barely used in the first half of the As pointed out above, the term nirvan Buddhacarita.

256

ALF HILTEBEITEL

K
al
ama’s hermitage in the Vindhyas.64 Certain verses describing his approach are interesting: 6. On seeing him, the gaudily-dressed felt ashamed and the chatterers on the roadside fell silent; as in the presence of Dharma incarnate none think thoughts not directed to the way of salvation, so no one indulged in improper thoughts. … 9. And R
ajagr: ha’s Goddess of Fortune was perturbed on seeing him, who was worthy of ruling the earth and was yet in a bhiks: u’s robe, with the circle of hair between his brows, with the long eyes, radiant body and hands that were beautifully webbed.65

For the very first time, Asvaghos: a describes the prince as ‘‘dressed,’’ or ‘‘disguised,’’ as a bhiks: u (bhiks: uves: am), just like the S´raman: a who appeared before him in that guise as the fourth sign. Indeed, that it was

which a guise for the S´raman: a is emphasized in the Nidanakath a, remarks that it was a sign of things to come sent from the gods, since there were no bhikkhus at the time of fourth sign’s appearance (Warren, 1998, 57). Along his way, the prince stills the improper thoughts of those who see him appear ‘‘like Dharma incarnate,’’ thoughts not only of the city’s bon vivants but of R
ajagr: ha’s Goddess of Fortune (laks: m
ı), who understands that, despite his bhiks: u dress or guise, he is fit to rule the earth. When King S´ren: ya, who might thus have reasons for concern, sees him too from a palace balcony, he orders an officer to report on the prince’s movements. The prince moves calmly, now begging for food apparently for the first time – that it is the first time is

where he has to force down some suggested in the Nidanakath a, almsfood that is disgusting (see Nakamura, 2000, 124–125) – accepting what comes to him without distinction. Taking his meal at a lonely

have him nearly rivulet (Asvaghos: a does not, like the Nidanakath a, vomit), from there he climbs Mount P
an: d: ava (B 10.13–14). Hearing of this destination, King S´ren: ya, who is now described as
: d: avatulyav
ıryah: – which Johnston translates, ‘‘in heroism the peer pan of P
an: d: u’s son,’’ but which could be simplified to ‘‘in heroism equal to a 64 7.57; see 7.58: leaving the penance grove, he ‘‘proceeded on his way,’’ presumably, as pointed out to him, toward Ar
ad: a’s hermitage at Vindhyakos: t:ha (7.54), which Johnston locates in the Vindhyas, noting evidence that the Vindhyas may have been the site of a S
am asin (2004, 102, : khya school associated with the name Vindhyav
n. 54), whom Larson and Bhattacharya date to ca. 300–400 C.E. (1987, 15, 143).
ad: a never seems that far south in other sources. Ar
ad: a/Ar
65
: / prak
ırn: avacah: pathi maunam
ıyuh: / 10.6. tam : jihriyuh: preks: ya vicitraves: ah
: ad
iva sam
dharmasya saks scid anyayamatir babh
uva// : nikars: e/ na ka …
aks
: am
9. dr: :st:va
va sorn: abhruvam ayat : / jvalachar
ıram : subhajalahastam/
arham
: / sam
: hasya laks: m
ıh: . tam bhiks: uves: am : ks: itipalan : cuksubhe rajagr

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

257

P
an: d: ava’’ – then ascends the same P
an: d: ava Mountain (17), where he sees the bodhisattva (18) sitting ‘‘in majestic beauty and tranquility like some being magically projected by Dharma’’ (tam upalaks: mya
ca : r

dharmasya nirman: am ivopavis: t:am; 19). samena caiva Although I have found no one who has given it a moment’s notice, Buddhist tradition itself thus makes one of the five peaks of R
ajagr: ha, or at least part of one of them, the P
an: d: ava Mountain. This is the case
from the Khuddaka Nikaya,
which, usually already in the Suttanipata, accepted as part of the P
ali canon, is certainly older than Asvaghos: a, and seems to be a basis for the more developed account mentioning the

66 The latter is ascribed to the fifth same mountain in the Nidanakath a. century A.D., although Johnston thinks that Asvaghos: a ‘‘may be presumed to have used an earlier version [of it], no longer in existence’’
arata,
(2004, xl), as one of his sources. In the Mahabh not surprisingly, there is no mountain by that name. Rather, when Kr: :sn: a, Arjuna, and Bh
ıma approach Magadha to kill Jar
asandha and reach a certain Mount Goratha, they set eyes on ‘‘Magadha city’’ (Mbh 2.18.30), which Kr: :sn: a describes as having ‘‘five beautiful mountains: the wide Vaih
ara, Var
aha, Vr: :sabha, R : :sigiri, and Caityaka’’ that ‘‘stand guard
arata’s
name for the over Girivraja’’ (19.2–3).67 We note the Mahabh 68
arata
means by this city is Girivraja, not R
ajagr: ha. The Mahabh name not just the Magadha capital but the ‘‘mountain corral’’ (giri-vraja) where Jar
asandha keeps 86 of the world’s hundred kings imprisoned (see Biardeau 2002, vol. 1, 327). 66 See Nakamura (2000, 122, 124); Thomas ([1927] 2000, 68). Mount P
an: d: ava is
also a stable fixture in The Gilgit Manuscript of the Sam being the 17th : ghabhedavastu,
adins
and Last Section of the Vinaya of the M
ulasarvastiv (Strong, 2001, 14) and the Lalitavistara (to judge from Poppe (1967, 134)). 67 As noted by Brockington (2002, 79), a five-verse Southern Recension insertion amplifies the description of the mountains (2.206*, after 2.19.10), but adds nothing noteworthy for our purposes unless perhaps that Caityaka is giri sres: t:ha, ‘‘the best of peaks’’ (line 2), and that the five are now numbered as P
an: d: ara (presumably Vr: :sabha, unless, perhaps under Buddhist influence, this interpolation is trying to find an alternate place for an intentionally disguised or just garbled ‘‘P
an: d: ava’’ moun_ tain), Vipula, V
ar
aha, Caityaka, and M
atanga (R : :sigiri), the latter reminding us _ of a forest hermitage near Kis: kindh
perhaps of the Untouchable R a in the : :si Matanga
ayan
: a and of the splendid mountain named after him at Vijayanagar. Ram 68 Biardeau (2002, vol. 1), 330 introduces a little uncertainty as to whether Girivraja and R
ajagr: ha are the same, but that they are early and later names for at least parts of the same city seems well enough established. See van Buitenen (1975, 15–16); Lamotte (1988, 17–18); Schumann 1989, 90. The Buddhacarita uses both R
ajagr: ha (10.1 and 9) and Girivraja (11.73). For the Mbh to use only Girivraja is probably an archaism.

258

ALF HILTEBEITEL

Buddhist tradition thus references the P
an: d: avas, and one may
arata,
assume the Mahabh and in all likelihood the Jar
asandha episode, when it has the prince cross the P
an: d: avas’ tracks on P
an: d: ava Mountain.69 From this, the most straightforward assumption would be that the Buddhists have named as ‘‘P
an: d: ava Mountain’’ the mountain, or at least part of the mountain, which Kr: :sn: a, Arjuna, and Bh
ıma now ascend: the Caityaka Peak, as seems to be borne out by details supplied by H. W. Schumann.70 Yet Asvaghos: a goes beyond other Buddhist sources in describing the Bodhisattva’s trek here. And though it is not a matter one can demonstrate with a perfect parallel fit, it seems from some of Asvaghos: a’s new themes, similes, and points of emphasis that he does so not only out of a residue of
arata
folklore but with a Mahabh ‘‘textually’’ in view. Rather than go over the Jar
asandha episode in detail, as several have done71, I present the following chart of parallels and oppositions, which should suffice to give a basic idea of why a journey of 69 Indeed, if one assumes that the Buddhist tradition works from oral Magadha stories before the epic’s written text—one would presumably have to presume a

account may be older than the Mbh, proto-Jarasandhavadha—then the Suttanipata
is thought to present some of the earliest sources on the Buddha since the Suttanipata legend (Lamotte, 1988, 660; Nakamura, 2000, 19, 123–24, 131–34; Thomas, [1927] 2000, 273). From this standpoint, the Mbh would still remain within its game plan if it concealed the name ‘‘P
an: d: ava Mountain.’’ But more likely the Buddhist story develops this detail in the post-Mauryan period. 70 That is, by correlating the map in Schumann (1989, 90) with what he says on p. 46: ‘‘the P
an: d: ava hill, the north-easterly of the five hills surrounding R
ajagaha.’’ The map names six mountains around ‘‘Old R
ajagaha or Giribbaja’’: Vaibhara to the west, Vipula north, Rama northeast, Chattha with the Vulture Peak to the east, Udaya southeast, and Sona southwest. Chattha Mountain would thus be in the right position to be both the likely alternate for Caityaka and another name for P
an: d: ava, although the map does not show this latter name. Note that Vaibhara is the only other mountain with a similar name in both texts. R
ajagr: ha became the site of
‘‘eighteen vast monasteries’’ (Lamotte, 1988, 17–18 (19) – presumably viharas, from which, of course, comes also the name Bihar. Lodhra trees cover the P
an: d: ava Mountain (B 10.15), or all five peaks (Mbh 2.19.4). 71 See Biardeau (2002, vol. 1, 324–354) and vol. 2, 755–758, for her most recent discussion; Brockington (2002); van Buitenen (1975, 11–18); Hiltebeitel (1989) and (forthcoming-a). I am not persuaded by Brockington’s method of dating the whole episode as ‘‘late’’ and ‘‘added’’: he seems to accept the criterion of ‘‘grounds of content’’ [73], and includes among his own criteria ‘‘starting from the premise that [it] … is anomalous’’ [74], that it is ‘‘extraneous to the plot of the MBh’’ [80], and, I think most basically, observing that it ‘‘reflects relatively late Vais: n: ava-S´aiva opposition’’ [82]). But it is striking that he proposes for its composition an ‘‘immediately post Mauryan’’ _ S´unga date (2002, 84–85) of ‘‘the later part of the 2nd century or, perhaps most probably, the first century B.C.’’ (86). Such a date for me is not, however, late; rather, it is attractive for the larger Mbh archetype, parts and whole, which, as Brockington mentions (79), includes the episode (see Hiltebeitel, 2001, 20–31, 2005).

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

259

two P
an: d: avas and Kr: :sn: a to Magadha would have interested Buddhists before Asvaghos: a. Further, by accenting what appear to be Asvaghos: a’s most important innovations in bold face,72 it should
arata’s
afford a basic idea of what interested him in the Mahabh
Jarasandhavadha episode in particular. I suggest that one first read the unaccented sequence that reflects the prior Buddhist story (items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 14), and then the whole alignment to see what Asvaghos: a seems to have made of it. The first thing worth noting is that Asvaghos: a introduces an epic tone to the episode: Magadha’s Laks: m
ı shows her favor on the prince; S´ren: ya now challenges the prince to fight him.73 The challenge is particularly gratuitous,74 and when it is noticed that S´ren: ya makes it upon seeing the prince in the garb or guise of a bhiks: u, one gets a
arata’s

good index that Asvaghos: a is taking the Mahabh snataka garb or guises as his epic touchstone.75 In each case it is a matter of responding to a challenge posed by thinly disguised Ks: atriyas: in one
case three Ks: atriyas disguised as snataka Brahmans,76 in the other a prince in a mendicant garb that some texts, including some passages
arata,
in the Mahabh say should be restricted to Brahmans.77 72 In these determinations, I have consulted the treatment in other versions in Nakamura (2000, 120–124), Thomas ([1927] 2000, 68–70); Strong (2001, 10–18); and Poppe (1967, 133–142). On the other hand, it is fascinating to see how all of Asvaghos: a’s clearly ‘‘Indian’’ nuances are lost in the Sanskrit-to-Chinese translation; see Beal (1988, 111–119). 73 Hara misses this challenge when, just before it, he takes King S´ren: ya at B 10.26 to be requesting the Bodhisattva ‘‘to unbusom himself to’’ him as ‘‘his intimate friend’’ (2001, 164). In the Buddhacarita they are not yet the friends they become. 74
achieves an opposite effect by having Bimbis
Note how the Suttanipata ara hurry as far as he can by chariot, which might denote a challenge, and then walk the rest of the way to the prince’s position on P
an: d: ava Mountain (Nakamura, 2000, 122). 75
ayan
: a echoes, since both R
This garb could also have Ram avan: a 3.44.8; 47.6) and Hanum
an (4.3.8; 3.21; 5.14) make rather famous turning-point appearances ‘‘in the form of a bhiks: u (bhiks: ur
upa)’’ 76
See Olivelle (1993, 220–221): A snataka ‘‘is considered so sacred and his status so eminent, that many authorities give him precedence over even a king: if a king meets him on the road it is the king who should salute the latter with respect’’ (with
citations). Van Buitenen actually wonders whether ‘‘the meaning of snataka might be extended to anyone under a studious vow of life, and to include the new mendicants who followed the Buddha or J
ına, but that cannot be made out’’ (1975, 17). 77 See Olivelle (1993, 195 and n. 40), noting that ‘‘there are numerous texts in the
arata
Mahabh that declare religious mendicancy to be the special dharma of Brahmans: 3.34.49–50; 5.71.3’’ [both addressed to Yudhihira], and pointing to Mbh
12.10–25 where this point made to Yudhis: t:hira at the beginning of the Santiparvan.
srama, the Mbh sometimes uses bhiks: u or Although never using the compound bhiks: a bhiks: uka to cover the fourth life stage (12.14.12; 12.37.28; 14.45.13).

260 Buddhacarita

ALF HILTEBEITEL


arata
Mahabh

1. The prince enters the city of 1. Kr: :sn: a and the two the five hills (10.2) P
an: d: avas approach the city of five hills 2. The prince makes his first 2. Following Kr: :sn: a’s counsel, appearance dressed (or disthe three are disguised as
guised) as a bhiks: u (9) snataka Brahmans (18.21) 3. He seems to onlookers like 3. In Kr: :sn: a is prudent policy Dharma incarnate (6) (naya, n
ıti), in Bh
ıma strength, in Arjuna victory (14.9, 18.3). Prudent policy turns out to have been tricky dharma (see item 14 below). 4. First amazed (visismiye), on- 4. Onlookers ‘‘fell to wonder
lookers then fall still and ing’’ (vismayah: samajayata) silent and have no unruly (19.27) and are at first
thoughts (anyayamatir) (2-6) baffled 5. The city’s Laks: m
ı shows 5. Kr: :sn: a soon reveals that S´r
ı
favors Ks: atriya snatakas favor on the prince (9) who wear garlands (19.46) 6. The prince climbs P
an: d: ava 6. The two P
an: d: avas and Mountain (14). After receivKr: :sn: a climb Caityaka ing a report of his ascent, so Mountain does King S´ren: ya, ‘‘in heroism equal to a Pa-n: d: ava’’ (17) 7. There King S´ren: ya sees the 7. There they destroy the _ tranquil cross- legged Bodhiof Cait‘‘horn’’ ( s:rngam) sattva ‘‘being as it were a yaka Mountain (19.18) . horn (s´r.n gabhu-tam) of the mountain’’ (18) 8. King S´ren: ya thus shows 8. The two P
an: d: avas and deference and hospitality Kr: :sn: a come to King by coming to the mountain Jar
asandha’s palace, where they reject his hospitality (19.34)

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

Buddhacarita 9.

261


arata
Mahabh

The prince looks to the king 9. ‘‘like some being magically projected by Dharma’’ (19)

Jar
asandha asks about the dharma of this rejection, and about the trio’s disguises

10. The king and prince debate 10. Kr: :sn: a and Jar
asandha air about dharma: S´ren: ya links opposing views of dharma: the trivarga with aging: pleaKr: :sn: a reveals they are
sure for youth, wealth for Ks: atriya snatakas, and hold middle years, dharma for old him as enemy; asking why, age (34–17); but the prince, Jar
asandha protests himself seeing danger in old age and a ruler by dharma (20.3–5). death, ‘‘resorts to this dharKr: :sn: a says the trio follows ma out of longing for salvadharma in opposing tion (mumuks.aya- )’’ (11.7). Jar
asandha’s plan to sacrifice 100 kings to Rudra He should do kuladharma (20.9), but Jar
asandha sees and offer sacrices (10.39– it as Ks: atriya dharma to 40); but he does ‘‘not approve treat captives as one pleases of sacrifices’’ or of ‘‘happi(20.26). ness sought at the price of another’s suffering’’ (11.64– 67), etc. 11. King S´ren: ya offers the 11. Kr: :sn: a’s plan will eliminate prince half his Magadha Magadha’s sovereignty so kingdom (10.25–26), which that Dharmar
aja Yudthe prince explicitly rejects his: t:hira can be universal (11.49–56) monarch by performing a R
ajas
uya sacrifice ´ 12. Sren: ya also challenges the 12. Kr: :sn: a challenges Jar
aprince to fight him, moved as sandha to fight one of the he is by compassion at seeing trio in the guise and garb of
him, a Ks: atriya, in the garb snatakas, now revealing or guise of a bhiks.u (10.27– who they are (20.23–24) 32) 13. The prince implicitly rejects 13. Jar
asandha chooses to fight such a fight Bh
ıma (21.3), as Kr: :sn: a had devised (20.32–34)

262 Buddhacarita

ALF HILTEBEITEL


arata
Mahabh

14. The prince promises to 14. The freed kings imprisoned come back as a Buddha in Girivraja recognize that (11.72–73), at which point Kr: :sn: a protects the dharma, he will preach the dharma and that he is Vis: n: u (22.31– that converts S´ren: ya and 32). many other Magadhans. Moreover, S´ren: ya mentions the Bodhisattva’s appearance precisely
sramakama,
while challenging him, calling him bhiks: a ‘‘lover of the mendicant stage of life’’ (10.33), thereby providing the one instance in
srama clearly means ‘‘mode’’ or ‘‘stage of life’’ rather the text where a than ‘‘hermitage.’’ Just as King S´uddhodana tells the prince not to go
sramas (see above, n. 56), against the ‘‘proper order’’ of the implied a so now King S´ren: ya-Bimbis
ara seconds the point with additional arguments,78 and with this specific challenge to the Bodhisattva’s appearance as a bhiks: u. Both kings are making a ‘‘legitimate’’ point,
sramadharma,’’ a for they would be speaking as ‘‘protectors of varn: a role that even Buddhist kings come to play in 6th-century inscriptions (Olivelle, 1993, 201–204).
Next, as one would expect of an accomplished kavya poet, Asvaghos: a tips his hand further with his similes. To begin with, when the prince has climbed Mount P
an: d: ava, ‘‘On that mountain (avau),79 …he, the sun of mankind (nr: s
urya), appeared in his ochre-colored
urya) above the eastern robe like the sun in the early morning (balas
mountain’’ (B 10.15).80 As Gawronski puts it in the only scholarly note I have found on these matters, ‘‘the future Buddha standing on [or, better, ascending] the P
an: d: ava mountain, clad as he is in his red 78 ´ Sren: ya’s correlation of three periods of life with the trivarga (item 10) is
srama system, and as having a counterpart interesting as being not reducible to the a
in Kamas
utra 1.2.1–6 – but there with different correlations: youth should be devoted
to aims (artha) such as learning, prime years to kama, and old age to dharma and moks: a (see Olivelle, 1993, 30–31 n. 85, 133, 218). 79 Gawronski (1914–15, 37) had noted that some word for ‘‘mountain’’ was necessary, and proposed girau rather than vane, ‘‘in the forest,’’ having read the latter in Cowell’s edition and translation. See Cowell (1968, 106), and Johnston (2004, 143 n. 15) confirming avi as ‘‘a certain reading’’ based on his primary manuscript and the Tibetan translation. 80
10.15. tasminnavau lodhravanopag
ud: he/ may
uranadapratip
urn: aku~ nje//
: ayav
as
ah
: sa babhau nr: s

uryah: . kas urya/ yathodayasyopari balas


AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

263

garment, is compared to the rising sun touching the verge of the eastern mountain’’ (1914–15, 37). That is how Asvaghos: a describes what King S´ren: ya’s officer sees (10.16), and perhaps what the officer reported back to S´ren: ya. But now, when S´ren: ya himself ascends this same mountain with the heroism of a P
an: d: ava, he sees the tranquil _ utam) of cross-legged Bodhisattva ‘‘being as it were a horn ( s:rngabh
the mountain.’’ That is, the rising sun of mankind has become the ‘‘horn’’ of the very P
an: d: ava Mountain he and S´ren: ya have just climbed. I cannot imagine that Asvaghos: a has any other first pretext for introducing81 this singular, surprising, and somewhat strained
arata’s
_ simile than a reference to the Mahabh double use of s:rngam to describe what it is on Caityaka Mountain that the two P
an: d: avas and Kr: :sn: a destroy.82 Van Buitenen takes both usages as ‘‘tower’’ (1975, 69, 70), which is certainly a guess. Biardeau (2002, vol. 1, 351) also calls attention to a verse (Mbh 2.208*) that has the trio break three
drums (bher
ı) and the a wall of a caitya (caityaprakaram) on the peak, but this verse is found only in four manuscripts, including the Vulgate (which Biardeau favors), and is clearly an interpolation. The three drums made by Jar
asandha’s father are mentioned just before the insertion (2.19.15–16), but without the interpolated verse that follows there is nothing to say they were destroyed, and nothing about a Caitya wall, which is clearly a belated explanation built on the mountain’s name.83 On the contrary, Kr: :sn: a establishes the first _ for the whole passage when he describes Girivraja’s meaning of  s:rnga five mountains as all having ‘‘great horns and cool trees’’ _ ah
: parvatah
: sitaladrumah
: ; 19.3).
s:rng (maha Asvahos: a could also have a second pretext for using the word _ to describe the tranquilly seated prince: the word’s symbolic s:rnga 81
uses different images when the king’s messengers Note that the Suttanipata report back and say, ‘‘Great king, the bhikkhu sits in a mountain cave on the front side of Mount P
an: d: ava, like a tiger or a bull or a lion’’ (Nakamura, 2000, 122) – a scene that could also evoke girivraja as the ‘‘mountain corral’’ in which Jar
asandha imprisons the 86 kings. See notes 68 and 69 above on the name Girivraja and the
could precede the epic text. possibility that the Suttanipata 82 _ is described as garlanded, and at 19.41 Jar
asandha menAt 19.18, this s:rnga _ tions it again when he asks how the trio broke it (caityakam s:rngam bhittva
: ca gireh:  kim; 19.41). 83 Kosambi must pick up on some such tradition when he writes, ‘‘But the senseless desecration of the holy antique caitya at Rajgir (presumably the P
as
an: aka Cetiya where the Buddha rested so often) by Bh
ıma and Kr: :sn: a seems wanton sacrilege (2.19.19), unsupported by any other record’’ (1964, 36–37; 1975, 126), on which Brockington comments, ‘‘Why he should see the reference to the monument as being a Buddhist caitya is equally unclear’’ (2002, 79–80).

264

ALF HILTEBEITEL

significance is brought out in a Harivam : sa passage that asks a question about the same Jar
asandha cycle: To what end did the slayer of Madhu (Kr: :sn: a) abandon Mathur
a, that (zebu)’s hump of the Middle Country, the sole abode of Laks: m
ı, easily perceived as the horn of the
_ pr: thivyah
: ), rich in money and grain, abounding in water, rich in Aryas, earth (s:rnga 84 the choicest of residences?

This ‘‘horn of the earth,’’ along side the zebu’s hump as the sole abode of Laks: m
ı, evokes associations of Kr: :sn: a with the horn in _ contested situations where he uses his S´
arnga bow in battles, and, even more particularly, associations with Vis: n: u’s Fish and Boar
avataras where he uses the ‘‘single horn’’ or ‘‘single tusk’’ (in either _ case, eka s:rnga) to rescue Manu’s ark and the earth.85 In other words, in the Jar
asandha cycle, the horn is a symbol of unique sovereignty in contested circumstances, which makes it fitting that Kr: :sn: a and the two P
an: d: avas break the horn of Magadha’s Caityaka Mountain – no matter how difficult it is to imagine – with their bare arms.86 For they
arata’s
are intent, in the Mahabh terms, upon eliminating Jar
asandha’s rivalry of Yudhis: t:hira for the title of universal sovereign
and, in the Harivam (sam : raj), : sa’s terms, upon restoring the unique centrality of Mathur
a to the Middle Country, even in Kr: :sn: a’s absence from it. At one level, what is being contested in the Buddhacarita is thus, of course, royal sovereignty, Laks: m
ı, who favors the prince even though he declines royal sovereignty when Bimbis
ara offers it. But as Asvaghos: a registers in further similes, in fact by doubling one simile, what is really contested is the dharma: the prince seems to onlookers ‘‘like Dharma incarnate,’’ and to S´ren: ya he looks ‘‘like some being magically projected by Dharma.’’87 This is the force of the way Asvaghos: a unfolds this matter as one that has to do not with a debate about the S´aiva-Vais: n: ava overtones of Ks: atriya dharma, such as
arata,
occurs between Jar
asandha and Kr: :sn: a in the Mahabh but one 84
madhus
kim artham udanah: / madhyade sasya kakudam : ca parityajya mathuram

s ca kevalam//s:rnga _ pr: thivyah
: svalaks
: yam prabh

dhama laks: mya utadhanadhanyavat/
ad
: hyajalabh

ary uyis: t:am adhis: t:hanavarottamam (HV 1.57.2–3). 85 See Hiltebeitel (1988, 96) for this passage and an earlier discussion of it, citing Defourny (1976, 17–23). 86 That is indeed how Ganguli translates the passage ([1884–96] (1970, vol. 2), Sabha Parva, 52). 87 Cf. Saundarananda 2.56cd: the Buddha at birth ‘‘shone with the majesty of holy
santay
calm like the Law of Righteousness in bodily form (babhraje a
laks: mya
dharmo
iva).’’ vigrahavan

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

265

that has to do quite explicitly with oppositions between Brahmanical royal dharma and Buddhist dharma – the latter as it is, so to speak, taking shape in the Bodhisattva-prince’s mind. But the force of the
arata
Mahabh story, given the no doubt intended ambiguity of the term caitya, which can have both Brahmanical and Buddhist meanings,88 and given as well the results of over a century of scholarship that has sensed this ambiguity,89 is that it can be taken not only as a story reflecting S´aiva–Vais: n: ava opposition but BrahmanicalBuddhist opposition as well. That brings us to a third pretext for Asvaghos: a’s surprising ‘‘horn’’ simile. For when one takes the force of the ‘‘horn’’ and ‘‘Dharma incarnate’’ similes in conjunction with the fact that it is S´ren: ya, not the prince, who is made ‘‘equal to a P
an: d: ava in heroism’’ and who sees the Bodhisattva as if he had become the horn of the mountain, one could take it that S´ren: ya sees not only Dharma incarnate but a cross-legged Bodhisattva appearing as the restored horn of the mountain that the P
an: d: avas and Kr: :sn: a broke down. As I attempted to show in Rethinking India’s Oral and Classical
a
traditions, both in this Hindi oral epic and Epics, North Indian Alh
a
in Sanskrit, draw on Ismaili
: a’s retelling of Alh in the Bhavis: ya Puran
traditions to transpose the Jarasandhavadha into a Rajput rivalry that was also read in terms of opposition over empire, in this case between
arata
episode has been open Hindu and Muslim rule.90 The Mahabh 88 Biardeau richly develops this point; see now (2002, vol. 1, 322 n. 2; 344) (with Gr: hya S
utra references); 330–331; 350. 89 See Brockington (2002, 79) and Hiltebeitel (forthcoming-b) tracing this impulse to (the younger) Adolf Holtzmann (1892–95), and above, n. 83, on Kosambi. 90
about the Buddha Hiltebeitel (1999, 150–164 and 344–351) on Ismaili ginans and ‘‘Kalinga’’ (an allomorph of Jar
asandha), though the stories do not relate the
do not mention the Buddha’s pretwo directly. Cf. Khan (2005): although the ginans enlightenment entry into Magadha, they bring him in to address Yudhis: t:hira’s postwar consternation (=Mbh Book 12, etc.), and when he comes before the P
an: d: avas he ‘‘has a very strange appearance: apart from posing as a religious
mendicant, he looks like a warrior, donning Muslim dress. . . . Besides he is a can: d: ala . . . and a leper, from whose body emanates an unbearable odour’’ (2005, 328; cf. 330, 333. 340). After he challenges Bh
ıma at the P
an: d: avas’ gate, his Satpanth Ismaili teachings are rich in overtones of bhakti and are presented as dharma (329, 333). Undercutting the Brahmans who are performing a ‘‘huge sacrifice’’ on Yudhis: t:hira’s behalf, he says ‘‘their sacrifice is useless’’ (as does the half-golden mongoose at the end of Mbh Book 14), yet before he retires to the Himalayas he convinces the P
an: d: avas to sacrifice a cow (none other than the K
amadhenu or ‘‘Cow of Wishes’’) for a final shared meal that will make possible their liberation (128–131). As Khan
may draw not only on Hindu sources but Buddhist ones (326, says, the ginans 337–341) – one wonders, with what ironies.

266

ALF HILTEBEITEL

to such readings because it has to do with religious overtones of rivalry over empire, which itself is one of the reasons it cannot be persuasive, no matter how many stylistic criteria one enlists, to argue 91

arata.
This is that the Jarasandhavadha is extraneous to the Mahabh the real hinge upon which Asvaghos: a opens his close reading of this episode. For although it may look like a weak point to align the Bodhisattva with Kr: :sn: a on the matter of the Bodhisattva’s double appearance as ‘‘Dharma incarnate,’’ we are at the deepest level at
arata
which Asvaghos: a engages this Mahabh scene: the level of Brahmanical versus Hindu bhakti, which we have seen underscored by Biardeau. The position of Kr: :sn: a in representing Brahmanical dharma in the Jar
asandha episode is decisive. For the first thing to
arata’s
strike one is that the Mahabh actual ‘‘Dharma incarnate,’’ Dharmar
aja Dharmaputra Yudhis: t:hira, is precisely not among the trio assaulting Magadha, among whom, as Bh
ıma says first and Kr: :sn: a then confirms, Kr: :sn: a represents prudent policy (naya, n
ıti), Bh
ıma strength, and Arjuna victory (Mbh 2.14.9; 18.3). Yet what Yudhis: t:hira says before the trio departs is pertinent to this train of associations. Fearing Jar
asandha’s might and ready to change his mind about performing a R
ajas
uya, he says, ‘‘Bh
ıma and Arjuna are my two eyes, Jan
ardana I deem my mind (manas); what kind of life shall be left for me without mind or eyes (mana s caks: ur vih
ınasya)?’’ (Mbh 2.15.2).92 Kr: :sn: a supplies ‘‘policy’’ (naya, n
ıti) that will turn out 93
But it will be to be tricky dharma, or more precisely upayadharma. done fully in accord with the mind of King Dharma. Indeed, the two verses that identify Kr: :sn: a with policy and Arjuna with victory resonate with the famous tag line that first occurs right after the Bhagavad G
ıta
when Dron: a tells Yudhis: t:hira, as if he needed to know 91 See Hiltebeitel (2001, 8), noting that ‘‘this sequence provides in a flurry most of
‘emperor,’ and sam
the Mbh’s usages of the terms sam ‘empire,’’’ and : raj, : rajya, mentioning some of the scholars who continue to hold the view that it is late and extraneous, which has now been revisited by Brockington (2002). 92 See Biardeau (2002, vol. 1, 328) on this passage. 93
On n
ıti as upayadharma in the Mbh, see Bowles (2004, 154–158, 165). See especially 154 and n. 34, citing Mbh 12.101.2 and 128.13, both from the


transitional to the ApaddharRajadharmaparvan, but the latter from an adhyaya maparvan. Bowles comments: ‘‘The idea of a dharma of ‘strategy,’ a ‘strategic dharma,’ or ‘an expedient abundant in dharma,’ is, in many ways, collateral with the idea of a proper form of conduct (dharma) for a king in times of distress, since a king must employ some form of strategy or policy to overcome difficulties that might arise
for his kingdom. Indeed, in a n
ıti context, upayadharma could almost be considered a

Kr: :sn: a is of course synonym for apaddharma.’’ Although he explains it only as upaya,
the master of upayadharma throughout the Mbh war.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

267

it, ‘‘Where dharma is there is Kr: :sn: a; where Kr: :sn: a is there is victory (yato dharmas tatah: kr: :sn: o yatah: kr: :sn: as tato jayah: )’’ (6.41.55).94 In short, Asvaghos: a’s reading of the Jar
asandha episode could be summed up as follows: where Kr: :sn: a was, there now is the Dharma looking like the horn of a mountain. It may thus be no mere coincidence that Asvaghos: a focuses on pivotal matters bearing on R
ama and Kr: :sn: a in the second books of each epic, reading each in part through a contrast of Brahmanical and Buddhist modes of bhakti. Yet if structuralism and symbolism have lost their fashion, and are in any case not the most reliable indicators of textual history,95 we have another marker of Asvag
arata
hos: a’s reading of the Mahabh that may provide a more reliable gauge of intertextual history, even though I would argue that they both point to the same historical conclusions. This is the matter of the epic’s didactic teachings mainly on moks: a. Here we come to a point that several have noticed: Asvaghos: a
arata’s
seems to know the Mahabh Moks: adharma Parvan, or at least material in it.96 Johnston cites, without ever making it clear if he ever discusses it, a discussion by T. By
od
o (n.d.). More recently, Tokunaga (2005) spoke on this subject at a London conference a week before I met him at the Dubrovnik conference where I presented a first draft of this paper, and kindly made his paper available to me when I learned of it. In fact, Tokunaga begins his paper with an acknowledgment of a 1930 book by Tsy
usho Byodo of which the discussion in English is apparently an appendix. Tokunaga summarizes Byodo’s work as being interested ‘‘mainly in philosophical
arata
matters,’’ with Byodo’s comparison with the Mahabh in this 94

The line is repeated at 9.61.30, and has the variant, ‘‘Where Kr: :sn: a is, there is dharma; where dharma is, there is victory (yatah: kr: :sn: as tato dharmo yato dharmas tato jayah: )’’ at 6.62.34 and 13.153.39. 95 Asvaghos: a provides one more piece of possible evidence of familiarity with the
Jarasandhavadha: a curious pair of verses, one about a certain Kaks:
ıvat (B 1.10), of whom Johnston (2004, 3 n. 10) says ‘‘nothing is known’’; the other about a certain Manthala Gautama, likewise untraced, who carried corpses to please a courtesan named Jangh
a (4.17). These verses may recall some equally obscure verses in the
dra woman by a R Jar
asandha story where a K
aks:
ıvat is fathered on a su : :si Gautama who dwelt at Magadha because he favored the Magadha vam : sa, and was also sought _ _ out by the Angas and Vangas (Mbh 2.19.5–7). 96 See Hopkins (1901, 387–388); Larson and Bhattacharya (1987, 7, 14–15, 110– 122, 129–140), assuming, I think wrongly, that Sam : khya references in the Moks: adharma would be from the first to third or fourth centuries C.E. (113), and thus later than Asvaghos: a, even though they date the Moks: adharma itself to 200 B.C.E.-200 C.E. (14).

268

ALF HILTEBEITEL

book centered in the Moks: adharmaparvan’’ (2005, 1). According to Tokunaga, Results of his comparison of the texts are summarized under five heads: (1) myths, (2) S
am : khya teachers, (3) the topic ‘‘a younger one sometimes supersedes an older in achievement,’’97 (4) thought-historical, rhetorical, linguistic correspondence, and (5) the relationship between the Buddhacarita and the Moks: adharmaparvan (pp. 543– 564). In conclusion, he says that Asvaghos: a was influenced by the Moks: adharma in his composition of the Buddhacarita (p. 560) (Tokunaga 2005, 1; see now Byodo [1930] 1969, 565–568, notably 565 on Asvaghos: a’s likely acquaintance with Mah
abh
arata legends ‘‘as represented in the present Mbh,’’ and 567–568 on Moks: adharmaparvan comparisons with the Bodhisattva’s encounter with king S´ren: ya).

For Tokunaga, ‘‘this assumption is not impossible,’’ but he moves on to some views of Johnston’s: that ‘‘it is more natural to suppose that the common matter goes back to a single original,’’98 even though Tokunaga finds Johnston going too far when he states that ‘‘despite the many parallels we cannot establish that Asvaghos: a knew any portion of the epic in the form in which we now have it’’ (ibid., xlvii; Tokunaga, 2005, 1). I am of course encouraged by Tokunaga on this point, on which John Brockington is both more succinct and
more extensive: Asvaghos: a ‘‘definitely draws on the Santiparvan’’ (1998, 483). I agree with both Tokunaga and Brockington. I also find very attractive Tokunaga’s demonstration that Cantos 9 and 10 of the Buddhacarita involve a reading of (Tokunaga says ‘‘are based on’’) the first ‘‘forty-five or so chapters in narrative form of the extant
Santiparvan’’ (ibid.). For reasons that will become clear, if he is right, his demonstration reinforces my hypotheses, and I will refer to it as a supportive argument.99 It would seem likely to be a question not only 97

See B 1.41–45 as cited above in Section ‘‘Asvaghos: a and Epic Precedents’’. Johnston (2004, xlvi), noting that ‘‘much of Ar
ad: a’s exposition of the S
am : khya system has close parallels in the Moks: adharma, the connection in one case extending over several verses of the same passage,’’ and suggesting that ‘‘the common matter goes back to . . . possibly a textbook of the V
ars: agan: ya school.’’ As Larson and Bhattacharya (1987, 131) observe, ‘‘Vars: agan: ya’’ at Mbh 12.306.57 occurs in a list of ‘‘many older teachers of Sam : khya and Yoga.’’ Assuming this list would be from ‘‘the first centuries of the Common Era’’ (ibid.; see n. 96 above), they do not relate Asvaghos: a’s portrayal to such a context, but they do note (136, 138), as does Johnston (2004, lvi, 172 n. 33), that at B 12.33 Asvaghos: a may be quoting the
‘‘there are five kinds of ignorance’’ – from V
aphorism pa~ ncaparva
avidya, ars: agan: ya, since it is elsewhere attributed to him. They thus allow the possibility that V
ars: agan: ya would be earlier than a first century C.E. Asvaghos: a (1987, 137), as the Moks: adharma reference should, I think, support. 99 Otherwise, it is not appropriate for me to comment on details, in which I see nothing incongruent with what follows, and indeed some congruence in the passages cited. 98

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

269

of elements of the Moks: adharma and the Buddhacarita drawing on
some common sources, but of a reading of the Santiparvan in some state of ‘‘extant’’ totality.
One trace of the range of Asvaghos: a’s familiarity with the Santiparvan could be his reference at Buddhacarita 8.77 to the story of a Suvarn: as: t:h
ıvin, ‘‘Excretor of Gold’’ (Fitzgerald, 2004, 236–37), told by Kr: :sn: a and N
arada toward the beginning of Book 12.100 This comes not within the segment of the Buddhacarita that Tokunaga discusses, but in the canto just before the two in which he finds
parallels in the first part of the Santiparvan. In fact, I have also
written on the first forty or so chapters of the Santiparvan from another angle: that they present Yudhis: t:hira with arguments from the Bhagavad G
ıta
for him to reject as inadequate in his postwar situation, while at the same time foreshadowing the need for instruction that will prove acceptable to him: the instruction he receives in all

four subparvans that proceed from these early Santiparvan adhyayas:


the Raja-, Apad-, Moks: a-, and Dana-dharma Parvans that, together,
and Anusasana
complete nearly all of the Santi Parvans (see Hiltebeitel, forthcoming-c). But Tokunaga is certainly right in turning our main attention to Cantos 9 and 10. Canto 9 is ‘‘The Deputation to the Prince’’ by King S´uddhodana’s Purohita and Minister, and Chapter 10 is ‘‘S´ren: ya’s Visit,’’ which we have just been looking at from another angle. I would propose that Canto 9 of the Buddhacarita is a hinge chapter for Asvaghos: a that
ayan
: a reading to a Mahabh
arata
allows him to transition from a Ram reading. This means that the Purohita and the Minister get to double not only for R
ama’s two Brahman visitors in the forest but for the postwar comforters of Yudhis: t:hira: the first explicitly, the second only implicitly. Yet as I have already attempted to demonstrate, this
arata
Mahabh reading would not be limited to Cantos 9 and 10 but carry over from Canto 10 into Canto 11 where it is anchored in the full meeting with King S´ren: ya as an evocation of the
Jarasandhavadha. Following Canto 12, in which, as now noted, several have long seen parallels between Ar
ad: a K
al
ama’s proto-S
am : khya and certain teachings of the Moks: adharmaparvan, this
arata
Mahabh reading would then be concluded in the encounter with 100

It is Suvarn: anis: t:h
ıvin in Asvaghos: a’s spelling. I am not persuaded by Johnston’s point (2004, 120 n. 77) that Asvaghos: a’s silence on the son’s coming back to life ‘‘suggests that the poet knew only a version in which the happy ending had not been added.’’ Asvaghos: a is not trying to tell the whole story in one verse but making what he wants of the story in what is contextually a perfectly intelligible allusion.

270

ALF HILTEBEITEL

M
ara in Canto 13. To understand how Asvaghos: a makes Canto 9 a hinge to these unfoldings, however, we must note two matters. First, such a Brahmanical deputation of a Purohita and Minister to find the prince in the forest seems to be an invention by Asvaghos: a.101 Second, we must look back to a line near the end of Canto 8 where the Purohita and the Minister define their mission to King S´uddhodana: ‘‘Just let there be a war of many kinds between your son and the various prescriptions of scripture (bahuvidham iha yuddham astu
tavat/ tava tanayasya vidhes ca tasya tasya)’’ (B 8.85cd). For these two speakers, this war will be a struggle with Brahmanical scriptures, which the prince will handle rather easily; but, more than this, it sets the terms for the Bodhisattva’s inner struggle102 that carries through all these cantos to his ultimate contest with M
ara. What I would like to emphasize, however, is that, important
arata’s
as it is that Asvaghos: a knows something of the Mahabh Moks: adharma Parvan, it is even more interesting that he knows and uses the term moks: adharma. Before examining the three usages that occur in the surviving Sanskrit portions of the first half of the Buddhacarita, all in the segment just described, it is worth noting the tenor of two likely further usages of the term in subsequent cantos, assuming that Johnston is consistent in choosing the phrase ‘‘law of salvation’’ in his attempt to reconstruct the Sanskrit from the Tibetan and Chinese translations. First, resting after his enlightenment and preparing to preach, the Buddha saw that ‘‘the law of salvation was exceeding subtle’’ (B 14.96). And second, just after turning the ‘‘Wheel of the Law’’ with his first sermon and converting his first five disciples, ‘‘the Omniscient established the Law of Salvation’’ with further preaching and more conversions (16.1). ‘‘Law of salvation’’ (that is, probably moks: adharma) would seem to reach its full impact as one of Asvaghos: a’s terms for the dharma itself as the ‘‘Law’’ and ‘‘Teaching’’ of the newly enlightened Buddha. In any case, of the three verifiable usages, the first two occur in the exchange between the prince and the Purohita. When the Purohita and the Minister arrive, they find the prince sitting below a tree 101

In fact, for his Buddhacarita. In his earlier Saundarananda, the events from the great departure to M
ara take only eight verses (3.2–9) without mentioning either the deputation or the first meeting with King S´ren: ya. 102 For yuddham, Johnston has ‘‘struggle’’ (2004, 122) rather than ‘‘war.’’ Note that Fitzgerald speaks of ‘‘[t]he inner battle that . . . takes place within Yudhis: t:hira’’ (2004, 179) occurring (better beginning) at Mbh 12.17, while Arjuna briefly refers to
a
. . . bhava)’’ this process as still lying ahead: ‘‘Now conquer yourself (vijitatm (22.10cd). It continues through Books 12 and 13, and indeed beyond.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

271

(B 9.8). In being the first to convey the message of the prince’s father, the Purohita seems to mix the king’s sentiments with some new words of his own. Now acknowledging that the prince’s ‘‘fixed resolve with regard to dharma’’ will be realized as his ‘‘future goal,’’ but invoking once again the father’s massive grief that the prince is doing this ‘‘at the wrong time’’ (9.14–16), the Purohita continues: 17. Therefore enjoy lordship for the present over the earth and you shall go to the
forest at the time approved by the scriptures ( sastradr : :st:e). Have regard for me, your unlucky father, for dharma consists in compassion for all creatures. 18. Nor is it only in the forest that this dharma is achieved; its achievement is certain for the self-controlled in a city too. Purpose and effort are the means in this matter; for the forest and the badges of mendicancy are the mark of the faint-hearted. 19. The dharma of salvation (moks: adharma) has been obtained by kings even though they remained at home, wearing the royal tiara, with strings of pearls hanging over their shoulders and their arms fortified by rings, as they lay cradled in the lap of imperial Fortune (laks: m
ı).103

The Purohita goes on, purportedly in the father’s words, to mention Bali and Janaka of Videha among several otherwise obscure kings104 who ‘‘were versed in the method of practising the dharma that leads
sreyase dharmavidhau vin
ıtan)’’ even while they to final beatitude (naih:  remained gr: hasthas (20–21), and further recalls ‘‘the deeds done by _ a, R
ama, and Bh
argava Bh
ıs: ma, who sprang from the womb of Gang
R
ama, to please their fathers’’ (25). And he concludes by again recalling the grief caused to others whom the prince has left behind (26–29). One notes that the Purohita does not cite Yudhis: t:hira, who heard Bh
ıs: ma preach on moks: adharma in the Moks: adharma. But Asvaghos: a would seem to implicitly acknowledge Yudhis: t:hira’s precedence; for while Yudhis: t:hira claims to want to pursue moks: a, he ultimately listens to Bh
ıs: ma and the others who circle around his doing exactly what the Purohita is claiming can be done by citing kings who obtained moks: a while remaining at home.
a
When the prince replies ‘‘after a moment’s meditation (dhyatv muh
urtam)’’ (B 9.30), he says that fear of the three signs left him no choice but leaving, even knowing the fatherly affections involved (31); 103 _ : va tavad


vanam

9.17. tad bhunks vasudhadhipatyam/ kale sastradr : yasyasi : :st:e/ anis: t:abandhau kuru mayy apeks: am/ sarves: u bh
utes: u daya
hi dharmah: //
18. na cais: a dharmo vana eva siddhah: / pure ’pi siddhir niyataa yatiinam/ _ : ca hi bh
ırucihnam// buddhi s ca yatnas ca nimittam atra/ vanam : ca lingam
: / key
19. maul
ıdharair am uravis: t:abdhabhujair narendraih: / : savis: aktaharaih _
: / prapto
laks: myankamadhye parivartamanaih gr: hasthair moks: adharmah: . 104 Johnston cannot trace some of these (2004, 126–127 n. 20).

272

ALF HILTEBEITEL

in a world of wayfarers, why cherish grief? (35).105 However noble it is that his father wishes to hand over the kingdom to him, he rejects kingship as an ‘‘abode of delusion in which are to be found fearfulness, the intoxication of pride, weariness and the loss [or oppression, or ‘‘squeezing’’] of dharma by the mishandling of others
aren
: a ca dharmap
ıd: a)’’
(39–40).106 It may be ‘‘praiseworthy (parapac for kings to leave their kingdoms and enter the forest in the desire for
as
: en: a), but it is not fitting to break one’s vow and dharma (dharmabhil forsaking the forest to go to one’s home’’; for a man of resolution who has gone to the forest out of desire for dharma, to return to the city would be like eating one’s own vomit, like reentering a burning house (44–47). And now, with precise and loaded words on our central point, he says: 48. As for the revelation ( sruti!) that kings obtained final emancipation (moks: a) while
107 this is not the case. How can the remaining as householders (nr: pa
gr: hastha), dharma of salvation (moks: adharma) in which quietude ( sama) predominates be rec
onciled with the dharma of kings (rajadharma) in which severity of action (dan: d: a) predominates?108

Going on to argue that ‘‘quietude and severity are incompatible ( sama s ca taiks: n: yam : ca hi nopapannam)’’ for a king (49), he even subjects the Purohita’s affirmative proposition to three other quarters of a four-sided argumentation: 50. Either therefore those lords of the earth resolutely cast aside their kingdoms and obtained quietude, or, stained by kingship, they claimed to have attained liberation on the ground that their senses were under control, but in fact only reached a state that was not final.

These responses may recall the S´uka story near the end of the Moks: adharmaparvan, in which Janaka of Videha is cast, even in his own palace, as an expert on renunciation, and in which Vy
asa confronts his fatherly affections for his ultimately affectless son S´uka as the latter makes his moks: a-departure. See Hiltebeitel (2001, 278–322). On Janaka in other such contexts, see Olivelle (1993, 238-240). 106 For ‘‘squeezing,’’ see Bowles (2004, 154 n. 34), on dharmam prap
ıd: ya at Mbh 12.101.2. Johnston (2004, 131 n 40), also notes a usage of dharmap
ıd: a
at Mbh 13.4566 = Critical Edition 13.96.10, which is a verse in which Agastya tells that he has heard,
him ‘‘Time harms (kills, saps) the energy of dharma (kalo : sate dharmav
ıryam),’’ coming in a series of stories about when it is dharma not to accept gifts (13.94–96). 107 Johnston (2004), translates, ‘‘As for the tradition that kings obtained final emancipation while remaining in their homes. . .’’—which I change for the obvious points of emphasis. 108
9.48. ya
ca srutir moks: am avaptavanto/ nr: pa
gr: hastha
iti naitad asti//
: kva ca moks: adharmo/ dan: d: apradhanah
: kva ca rajadharmah
samapradhanah :. 105

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

273

51. Or let it be conceded they attained quietude while holding kingship, still I have not gone to the forest with an undecided mind; for having cut through the net known as home and kindred I am freed and have no intention of re-entering that net.109

What a crystal-clear Buddhist critique of the ambiguities of the Brahmanical position. And, I think implicitly, what a subtle response to the nearly interminable indecisiveness and ultimate resignation to
rajadharma and gr: hasthadharma, while putting aside moks: adharma, of Yudhis: t:hira Dharmar
aja. The third usage comes early from M
ara, fingering an arrow (B 13.8) as he first verbally challenges the Bodhisattva’s right to sit beneath the bodhi tree: 9. Up, up, Sir Ks: atriya, afraid of death. Follow your own dharma (cara svadharmam), give up the dharma of liberation (tyaja moks: adharmam). Subdue the world with both arrows and sacrifices, and from the world obtain the world of V
asava.110

This is the first and only usage of svadharma in the first 14 cantos of the Buddhacarita, and, as far as I can see, the only one likely in the entire text. Note that whereas in the first usage of moks: adharma the Purohita says it is possible to combine moks: adharma with gr: hasthadharma, and in the second the prince contrasts moks: adharma 111
M
ara now contrasts it with svadharma. with rajadharma, Indeed, as we now see, Asvaghos: a uses contrastive terms with a
arata
definite Mahabh cache´, and ones by which he might be intending to prickle Brahmanical ears with references not only to the postwar predicament of Yudhis: t:hira, who of course wants to do something like what the Buddha does and is persuaded not to, but also Arjuna, who has some similar inclinations before the war, and is likewise 109
va
vasudhadhip

te/ rajy
ani
muktva
samam aptavantah
9.50. tan niscayad as : //
a
ngit _ a
va
nibhr: tendriyatvad/
anais: t:ike moks: akr: tabhim

ah
: // rajy an
: ca rajye
’stu samo yathavat/


51. tes: am prapto vanam ani scayena/ : naham
sam chittva
hi pa nam/ muktah: punar na praviviks: ur asmi. : gr: habandhusam : j~ That householders can obtain liberating knowledge could be seen as the M
ım
am a : s
position; see Olivelle (1993, 238–240). 110 13.9. uttis: t:ha bhoh: ks: atriya mr: tyubh
ıta/ cara svadharmam tyaja :
: ais ca yaj~
padam prapnuhi

moks: adharmam//ban nai s ca vin
ıya lokam/ lokat vasavasya. Schreiner (1990) brings out that there is a variant varasva dharmam, ‘‘choose dharma,’’ for cara svadharmam. Weaker, and non-contrastive (see just below), I think we can treat it as secondary. 111
As to such a contrast, a further likely usage of rajadharma occurs when the Buddha goes to Kosala to meet King Prasenajit, and hears from him, ‘‘O Lord, I
have suffered and been harassed by passion (raga) and the kingly profession
(rajadharma)’’ (20.10), to which the Buddha replies at length (12–51) as to how kings can benefit from the Buddha’s teaching or law (14–17), earlier called his (moks: a-)dharma.

274

ALF HILTEBEITEL

counselled against them.112 Indeed, from the first word uttis: t:ha, the imperative ‘‘Up, up’’ or ‘‘Arise,’’ Asvaghos: a puts M
ara’s insulting
113 recalling challenge in the simplest language of the Bhagavad G
ıta, especially BhG 2.31–37 where this command at 2.37 is preceded by double urgings that Arjuna do his Ks: atriya svadharma in some of Kr: :sn: a’s most insulting prods, goading him, just as M
ara does the Bodhisattva, to stop looking like he is abstaining from battle through
fear (2.35). But the beginning of the Santiparvan remains Asvaghos: a’s first frame of reference, for, as already noted, early in his postwar predicament Yudhis: t:hira, who has more trouble than Arjuna in accepting this svadharma concept,114 hears similar arguments. Just after Yudhis: t:hira says he is renouncing the kingdom and going to the forest, Arjuna begins his insulting and mocking replies, as if he had been insulted himself (which he has not):115 What misery! What pain! What heights of sissy feebleness (aho vaiklavayam uttamam)!116 That you should renounce this Royal Splendor ( sr
ı) after doing inhuman deeds! Having killed your enemies and acquired the earth — which came to you by
your own Lawful Duty (svadharmen: opapaditam) — how can you renounce every
How can thing now that your enemies are slain, unless you are daft (buddhilaghavat)?
a eunuch be a king (kl
ıbasya hi kuto rajyam)? … (Mbh 12.8.3–5a).

Fitzgerald is probably right in this translation to take svadharmen: a
am
as implying Yudhis: t:hira’s svadharma, and that Arjuna is upapadit

112 Olivelle (1993, 103–106, 150) also sees their dilemmas in parallel and brings out
sramas in the G
ıta,
Yudhis: t:hira that, in contrast to Arjuna who never hears about a wants to hear about them at length. See 12.33.12, where Yudhis: t:hira disconcertingly
sramam
: s ca asks, ‘‘Grandfather, tell me about some especially good hermitages’’ (a
: s tvam mamacaks
: va pitamaha)’’
vi ses: am (Fitzgerald, 2004, 243), or ‘‘especially good life-stages’’; and 13.57.42c where, to his brothers’ and wife’s great relief, he is finally
srame ’rocayad said to have ‘‘no longer longed to dwell in a hermitage/life-stage (na

emphasis on svadharma and varn: a (caste) vasam).’’ Olivelle’s treatment of the G
ıta’s
srama is full of implications for understanding these two brothers’ rather than a differences (105–106, 197), but it is not ‘‘likely that the author [of the BhG] would not
srama] system’’ (Olivelle, 1993, 105) such as it was known have known the classical [a
to the author of the beginning of the Santiparvan. 113 Kr: :sn: a tells Arjuna ‘‘Arise!’’ four times: BhG 2.3; 2.37, 4.42, and finally more or less decisively at 11.33. M
ara uses the verb three times in his short speech (13.9–13), twice in the imperative. 114 See on this point Hiltebeitel (2001, 90); Sutton (2000, 318). 115 See Fitzgerald (2004, 182–183), and my discussion of this passage in Hiltebeitel (forthcoming-c). 116 Kr: :sn: a, of course, likewise begins his taunts of Arjuna in Bhagavad G
ıta
2 with, ‘‘Do not act like a eunuch (klaibyam ma
sma gamah: ), P
artha, it does not become you!’’ (BhG 2.3; van Buitenen, 1981, 71).

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

275

not saying that the earth has been ‘‘delivered by svadharma’’ itself – that is, handed over to Yudhis: t:hira on a silver platter, as it were, by Ks: atriya svadharma, which, as Vy
asa soon tells Yudhis: t:hira, produced the whole holocaust.117 But if we note that Arjuna embodies svadharma above all, Arjuna could be deepening the insults by implying that the victory was his doing. Arjuna goes on to deliver
which he claims further bits of what he can still remember of the G
ıta, to have forgotten by Book 14 when he asks Kr: :sn: a to repeat it, and Vy
asa summarizes some G
ıta
theology as well (12.26.14–16; 32.11–15; 34.4–7) (see Hiltebeitel, forthcoming-c) – all to no avail, because Yudhis: t:hira finds these arguments inadequate, eventually requiring Vy
asa to come up with a ritual solution (the Asvamedha sacrifice of Book 14), which Vy
asa, of course, already anticipates in this early
Santiparvan sequence (12.32.20–24). The upshot for Asvaghos: a is that M
ara’s challenge to fight and perform Ks: atriya svadharma rather than pursue moks: adharma not
but puts only invokes Arjuna’s recalling of the Bhagavad G
ıta, Kr: :sn: a’s words into the mouth of the devil. As we have seen, Asvaghos: a can be a bit arch at times when he symbolically juxtaposes Kr: :sn: a and the Buddha. Unlike King S´ren: ya, who also – if only in the Buddhacarita – challenges the Bodhisattva to fight, M
ara must be overcome, and, with him, so too must such (from the Buddhist perspective) convenient and self-serving ideas as the svadharma of princes.118 But let us now return to the opposition between moks: adharma and
rajadharma. These terms, of course, provide the title topics of the first
and third subparvans of the Santiparvan. But they are also part of

117

Vy
asa could also be equating svadharma with ks: atradharma when, upon hearing Yudhis: t:hira asking to be told about good hermitages/life-stages, Vy
asa gets him back on track by saying, ‘‘Do not be depressed, king. Remember ks: atradharma. These Ks: atriyas were surely slain by (their) svadharma, O bull among Ks: atriyas (ma

: kr: tha
rajan

: vis: adam ks: atradharmam anusmara/ svadharmen: a hata
hyete ks: atriyah ks: atriyars: abha)’’ (12.34.2). Or, since Vy
asa has been hammering away about Yudhis: t:hira’s svadharma (12.23.3; 25.31; 26.35; 32.8, 22), he could also be implying they were all killed ‘‘by your svadharma, Yudhis: t:hira.’’ 118 See Gombrich (1985, 436) on Buddhist criticism of this ‘‘Hindu notion’’: ‘‘Buddhists do not even have the term svadharma (Pali *sadhamma). . . .’’

276

ALF HILTEBEITEL

what I call an instructional arc119 of teaching that runs through not only what James Fitzgerald (2004) calls the three anthologies of the
Santiparvan but what he calls the fourth anthology in the
Anu sasanaparvan. This arc of teaching, levelled at Yudhis: t:hira but overheard by all the P
an: d: avas and Draupad
ı as well (13.57.42–44),

goes through four dharma topics: rajadharma, apaddharma,

moks: adharma, and (in the Anusasanaparvan) danadharma. It is this arc or sequence through which Yudhis: t:hira must not only learn about kingship and its distresses, but renounce his inclination to seek
moks: a, and finally, in the danadharma, abandon his wish to retreat to an ashram (ibid.) in order to become a giving king. As far as I am able to discern, this fourfold sequence is unique in Indian dharma litera
arata,
ture to the Mahabh and may, I believe, be called one of its signature formulations about dharma.120 It presents an outcome that the Buddha must, at least for himself, reject, but not one that he 119 I began using the term ‘‘arc’’ in discussions at the July 2005 ‘‘Mbh Constructions Conference’’ at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, and heard Adam Bowles use it similarly at the September 2005 4th DICSEP meeting. This is fitting since Bowles’s dissertation helped me formulate my usage. On the
sequence of the three Santiparvan anthologies, he writes, ‘‘A logic of action informs this structure, a logic that models the proper duties of the royal life. A king’s desire for salvation must follow the proper completion of his royal duty, or, rather, it follows from the proper completion of his royal duty. The syntactic order of the
Santiparvan text . . . mirrors, therefore, the proper syntactic order of the royal life and the proper order of the king’s concerns’’ (2004, 297). In Hiltebeitel (forthcoming-c) I write, after quoting this passage: ‘‘I believe Bowles has found the right terms here for us to deepen our investigation of the fourth anthology: Would not
danadharma follow moks: adharma in ‘the proper syntactic order of the royal life’? I have in mind, to begin with, that the Mbh would be developing this ‘further instruction’ for kings as a Brahmanical counterpart to the Buddhist (and not just
aramit

See also Hiltebeitel (2005), which introduces further Mah
ay
ana) danap a.’’ considerations on this transition from Book 12 to Book 13. 120 It is, however, worth noting an intriguing parallel, though not a likely influence one way or another, in the addition of a Bodhisattvapit:aka as a fourth canonical ‘‘basket’’ (pit:aka) by the Dharmaguptakas (see Nattier, 2003, 46 n. 80; 80–83, 129, 274–76; Pagel, 1995, 7–36). With four ‘‘baskets’’ (which denote collections of manuscipts) we have an analogy with Fitzgerald’s notion of four ‘‘anthologies.’’ And, putting aside the obvious reservation that one collection is for monks and the other for an epic king, there would also be some minimal correspondence in the last
two pairings between the two sets of four in sequence: 1. dharmapit:aka: rajadharma;
2. vinayapit:aka: apaddharma; 3. abhidharmapit:aka: moks: adharma; and 4. bodhi
sattvapit:aka: danadharma – with the bodhisattva basket stressing the practice and

(Nattier, 2003, 154 n. 38; 186). teaching of the six param
ıtas that begin with dana Curiously, the Bahusrut
ıyas, with whom Johnston attempts to link Asvaghos: a (2004, xxx–xxxv), also had a bodhisattvapit:aka, but in a canon of five baskets (Nattier, 2003, 46 n. 80). I believe that Nattier’s study of Ugraparipr: ccha
could open new considerations on the sectarian and intertextual placement of Asvaghos: a (see n. 23 above).

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

277

would necessarily reject for all. Indeed, Asvaghos: a has found it worth
engaging, for I believe that his juxtaposition of rajadharma and moks: adharma, along with his demonstrations of textual familiarity

with both the Rajadharmaand Moks: adharma-Parvans of the Santiparvan, show that he has the first and third units of this arc firmly in

view. But what about apad and dana?
With apad the evidence is not very strong, but still worth consid
ering. Apad comes up only once in the first fourteen cantos, and not in the segment where Asvaghos: a undertakes what I have called a
arata
Mahabh reading. When the prince addresses the horse Kanthaka in preparation for his great departure, he says: 5.76. Easy it is to find companions for battle, for the pleasure of acquiring the objects of sense and for the accumulation of wealth; but hard it is for a man to find com
panions when he has fallen into distress (apadi) or attaches himself to dharma.121

It is emphasized in this speech that the prince speaks to Kanthaka as
a companion (sahaya) and friend (suhr: d; 5.79), but while foreshadowing that the prince will have to make his battle alone, without friends, as we have seen. Thus the interesting juxtaposition: com
panions are hard to find ‘‘for a man who has fallen into apad or
attaches himself to dharma.’’ Since this is the only usage of apad in the Buddhacarita, it is hard to say whether the prince uses the term to define his present situation, or is speaking disjunctively and implying that, rather than being in distress, he is only attaching himself to dharma. One is perhaps helped by a verse in which Ud
ayin says he
speaks out of friendship offered in adversity, using apad ’s nearsynonym vyasana (B 4.64) (see Bowles, 2004, 40–54), when he counsels the prince to gratify the women who are trying to seduce him between the third and fourth signs. This suggests that the prince’s
situation is adversity (apad, vyasana) as others see it, but as he is beginning to see it himself when he speaks to Kanthaka, it is not adversity once he has begun resorting to dharma. In this vein, the two
main Apaddharmaparvan units to address the topic of friendship in adversity – sequential fables: ‘‘The Conversation between a Mouse and a Cat beneath a Banyan Tree’’ (Mbh 12.136) and ‘‘The Conversation between the Bird ‘Adorable’ and King Brahmadatta’’ (12.137) (see Fitzgerald, 2004, 496–498, 512–529) – are apposite on the limits of friendship in times of distress, particularly when, in the latter, the bird ‘‘Adorable’’ ultimately defines those limits when 121
: khalu sam
a/
vis: ayav
aptasukhe

5.76. sulabhah dhanarjane va
: yuge sahay
: sahay
ah
: / patitasyapadi
purus: asya tu durlabhah dharmasam sraye va
:

278

ALF HILTEBEITEL

she tells King Brahmadatta, who has in her eyes broken trust with her, that the only friends one can truly trust are one’s innate friends
: i sahajani),
(mitran the friends one is born with – that is, one’s own good qualities – a passage that itself may recall the Buddhist teaching, ‘‘Be a friend unto yourself’’: Knowledge, bravery, initiative, strength, and fortitude the fifth – these they say are one’s innate friends by which the wise make things happen here (vidya
sauryam : ca
: yam
: i sahajany
ahur
daks ncakam/ mitran vartayant
ıha yair : ca balam : dhairyam : ca pa~
: ). (12.137.81) budhah


arata
Also interesting, and within the Buddhacarita’s Mahabh sector, is a verse using vyasana, where the prince responds to the Purohita: 9.41. For kingship is at the same time full of delights and the vehicle of calamity
srayam), like a golden palace all on fire, like dainty food mixed with poison, (vyasana or like a lotus pond infested with crocodiles.122

But these are no more than reminders of a general theme. In any case,
the disjunctive use of apad and dharma makes it clear that there is no
question of a compound apaddharma. The best we get is a negative
explanation as to why apad would not be used in the first half of the
Buddhacarita in the sense of apaddharma. Unless perhaps one thinks of M
ara, there are no princes or kings in distress over the possibility of losing their kingdoms in the text’s first fourteen cantos.123
quite surprisingly there is no use of the term in the first As to dana, half of the Buddhacarita. But giving is made an important matter in Canto 18 where, not surprisingly, the Buddha is addressing not a king but one of those wealthy merchants, gahapatis or gr: hapatis, so important to both Therav
ada and early Mah
ay
ana texts124 for the economic support of early Indian Buddhism. A wealthy merchant of Kosala named Sudatta, ‘‘who was in the habit of giving wealth to the destitute,’’ came ‘‘from the north’’ at night (B 18.1–2) to see the Buddha in R
ajagr: ha. Having welcomed him, the Buddha turns quickly to ‘‘the fame in this world and the reward in the hereafter [that] arise from giving,’’ and urges that ‘‘at the proper time’’ Sudatta should ‘‘give the treasure that is won through the Law’’ (5). After 122


unada harmyam iva prad
ıptam/ visena samyuktam ivottamannam/
9.41. jamb



: hi ramyam
srayam grahakulam iva saravindam/ rajyam : cambv : vyasana : ca. 123 As noted in note 111 above, it is a different matter in the second half with King Prasenajit of Kosala, and of course with S´ren: ya-Bimbis
ara too, who will be murdered by his son Aj
atasatru. 124 See Bailey and Mabbett (2003, 43–53) and passim; Nattier ([2003] 2005, 23–31) and passim.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

279

hearing an initial sermon mainly on impermanence, Sudatta ‘‘obtained the first fruit of practice of the Law; and … only one drop remained over from the great ocean of suffering for him. Though living in the house, he realized by insight the highest good’’ (15–16). As with Yudhis: t:hira, whom the Buddhacarita never, of course, criticizes, somebody has to do this job of giving, and must be educated to do it in the right spirit. After a lengthy interval in which the poet describes Sudatta’s insight in terms of the Brahmanical views he now gives up, including those about a deity (18–29), we return to Sudatta as he is offering to donate a monastery at S´r
avast
ı (57). Here the Buddha praises giving at length (61–80), mentioning that it is ‘‘one of the elements of salvation’’ (74), expounding on the varied virtues of giving wealth, food, clothes, abodes, vehicles, and lamps (76–78), and concluding that Sudatta’s gift is of the best kind since it ‘‘has no ulterior motive’’ (79). Sudatta’s gift will be land: the Jeta grove for the
(81–85). The verses on the varied merits of giving Jetuvana vihara
different things could be called a capsule Danadharma, since they are
reminiscent of the middle third of the Danadharmaparvan in which Bh
ıs: ma regales Yudhis: t:hira on the merits of giving all the same things, though above all, giving food and land to Brahmans. As with
apaddharma, we must again pose a negative explanation, this time as
is not used in the first half of the Buddhacarita, but in to why dana this case unfolded in the second. It is not a matter of import until the Buddha must develop a post-enlightenment theory of the gift125 – albeit without any evidence that it would have been called
danadharma. Nonetheless, as I have shown elsewhere (forthcoming-c), giving food is among the topics brought up toward the end of Yudhis: t:hira’s

discussions with Vy
asa in the first forty adhyayas of the Santiparvan, where the topics of all four dharma anthologies are in fact anticipated.126 So if Asvaghos: a is familiar with that segment, he would be familiar at least with these topics, if not with the plan and contents of the four subparvans themselves that describe the full arc of Yudhis: t:hira’s postwar education on dharma. Actually, however, all
arata.
four terms are also developed earlier in the Mahabh Not counting the epic’s Parvasam graha or table of contents, where :
danadharma is the only one not mentioned, there are, prior to the 125

See the succinct and elegant essay on this subject, said to be ‘‘highly theorized in Indian Buddhist textual discourse,’’ by Ohnuma (2005, quoting from p. 102). 126 See Hiltebeitel (forthcoming-c, citing Mbh 12.37.1–2 and 43) on food and giving.

280

ALF HILTEBEITEL




Santiparvan, 14 usages of rajadharma, 9 of apaddharma, 4 of
moks: adharma, and 6 of danadharma, each with both singular and plural (-dharmas) instances. And insofar as Yudhis: thira is addressed about each of these dharmas, they pace him toward their grand unfolding to him in Books 12 and 13. Further, once past Book 13, there is also follow-up in Book 14 on both moks: adharma (Mbh
14.2.17; 16.16; 19.63 and 49) and danadharma (14.2.19; 4.7; 94.34), the two that would still be ringing in his (and readers’) ears. Early
uses of rajadharma are basic and not surprising. It is the only one of
ayan
: a (7 times), and, as treated in the the four mentioned in the Ram dharmas
utras and Manu, even Bh
ıma can remind Yudhis: t:hira that
Manu spoke on rajadharma (3.36.20). Yudhis: t:hira also hears about
apaddharma as something basic and au courant from Vidura after the return dice match, with a warning to proceed carefully as the P
an: d: avas prepare for exile (2.69.19). But moks: adharma and
danadharma are novel enough matters to be the subjects of
anas
upakhy or subtales told to Yudhis: t:hira and company in the Forest Book. From M
arkan: d: eya Yudhis: t:hira learns that he has just heard ‘‘the entire moks: adharma (kr: tsne moks: adharme)’’ (3.204.1) in
the speech just recounted by a pious hunter (dharmavyadha) to a
ana
(also called ‘‘The Colloquy of Brahman in the Pativrata-Upakhy the Hunter and the Brahman’’; van Buitenen, 1975, 617–638). And
danadharma is a topic Yudhis: t:hira wants to know about enough to ask the author himself, Vy
asa, which weighs more in the afterworld,

danadharma or tapas (3.245.26). Vy
asa favors danadharma so long as one gives rightfully obtained wealth (245.32), which leads him to
ana
about the Rs: i Mudgala who gave recount the Mudgala-Upakhy unstintingly to guests what little he had garnered from living righteously off what he gleaned from harvested fields. When an envoy of the gods tries to interest Mudgala in ascending with him to heaven, he tells Mudgala he will find there ‘‘the Law-minded, the masters of self, the serene and controlled and unenvious, those accustomed to the

: ), and champions with the scars Law of giving (danadharmarat ah showing’’ (3.247.4; van Buitenen, 1975, 703).127 But Mudgala rejects heaven in favor of ‘‘the eternal and supreme perfection that is marked
svat
ım
: nirvan
: alaks: an: am)’’
by Extinction ( sa (247.43; : siddhim param
ana
shows, the unfolding of van Buitenen, 705). As this upakhy 127
It is interesting to see van Buitenen translate danadharma this way for the first time, having seemingly struggled with it before this: translating it as a dvandva (1.94.11 and 17), omitting its translation (3.155.10), and trying out ‘‘the merits of
ana.
gifts’’ and just ‘‘giving’’ earlier in the Mudgala-Upakhy

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

281


danadharma involves weighting it favorably over tapas: a matter that 128
and one that is returned to repeatedly in the Danadharmaparvan, deserves further study (see Olivelle, 1993, 162–170). Indeed, a pref
erence of danadharma over tapas would probably win Asvaghos: a’s and the Buddha’s agreement, as would Mudgala’s spurning of heaven
: a. for nirvan Within the skein of Books 12 and 13, however, it is clear that what counts most for Asvaghos: a is moks: adharma, which he seems to have
: a that introduced into Buddhist literature as a way to translate nirvan would clarify in both Buddhist and Brahmanical circles what is comparable and what is distinctive about Buddhist and Brahmanical dharmas. I remain under the impression that neither moks: adharma nor a would-be P
ali equivalent have appeared in Buddhist texts before Asvaghos: a.129 POSTSCRIPT ON THE BUDDHACARITA AND AS´OKA

Asvaghos: a offers three verses on Asoka toward the very end of the Buddhacarita (B 28.63–64): 63. In the course of time king Asoka was born, who was devoted to the faith; he caused grief to proud enemies and removed the grief of people in suffering, being pleasant to look on as an asoka tree, laden with blossoms and fruit.

128 From Mbh 13.57 on, see 13.93–94, 106, and 109–110. In some passages contrasting the two, tapas is associated with sacrifice and fasting, as it is in the description of the anchorites in Buddhacarita Canto 7. 129 Asvaghos: a also uses nivr: ttidharma in the same vein, contrasted with pravr: tti; see B 7.48, where the prince tells the anchorites, ‘‘the dharma of cessation from
Cf. activity (nivr: ttidharma) is apart from the continuance of active being (pravr: ttya).’’
as discussed above. 11.63 contrasting pravr: tti with vinivr: tti; 5.24–25 on ‘‘nirvr: ta,’’ I am not aware that nivr: ttidharma occurs earlier than the Mbh, where the
ayan
:
ıya has seven pertinent references from 12.325–28, Moks: adharmaparvan’s Nar
: a and moks: a (see Bailey, n.d.-a, treating it more or less interchangeably with nirvan 19, 30). As Bailey notes, while ‘‘early Buddhist literature’’ in P
ali offers evidence of ‘‘abstract bodies of knowledge being formed around’’ nivatti and pavatti (nivr: tti and pravr: tti), ‘‘it never develops this opposition in the way it is done in the MBh,’’ which he identifies as ‘‘the fundamental text which contains the fully developed theories’’ (n.d.-b, 1–2). Asvaghos: a’s usage thus points again in the Mbh’s direction. Moreover, the fact that Asvaghos: a uses both moks: a and nivr: tti (along with pravr: tti) in his earlier Saundarananda, but not in a compound with ‘‘-dharma,’’ could suggest that he did
his close reading of the Moks: adharmaparvan between writing these two kavyas. For
his earlier work, he coins the decisive compound moks: amarga (17.1; cf. 17.13), which does not occur in either epic.

282

ALF HILTEBEITEL

64. The noble glory of the Maurya race, he set to work for the good of his subjects to asoka provide the whole earth with st
upas, and so he who has been called Can: d:
became Asoka Dharmar
aja. 65. The Maurya took the relics of the Seer from the seven st
upas in which they had been deposited, and distributed them in due course in a single day over eighty thousand majestic st
upas, which shone with the brilliancy of autumn clouds.

Now one touchstone130 in marking a slightly less than civil recogni
arata
tion of Buddhism in the Mahabh has been M
arkan: d: eya’s prophesy about a Kaliyuga overrun with ed: u
kas (Mbh 3.188.64–67, 70), ed: u
ka being the oldest term for Buddhist reliquaries, to begin with those for the bones of the Buddha after his cremation, and
found in both in Sanskrit and P
ali as a term for stupas. A Buddhist counter-prophesy can be found in the Ma~ nju sr
ım
ulakalpa, where the Buddha tells King Ajatas
atru of Magadha (who had by now killed his father S´ren: ya Bimbis
ara): After my decease, the masters of the world will kill each other from father to son; the bhiks: us will be engrossed in business affairs and the people, victims of greed. The laity will lose their faith, will kill and spy on one another. The land will be invaded by Devas and Tirthikas, and the population will place its faith in the br
ahmins; men will take pleasure in killing living beings and will lead a loose life.131

Devas and T
ırthakas would seem to be Brahmanical temples and
arata
other holy places served by Brahmans. Note that the Mahabh passage also makes a rare predictive reference to Brahmanical tem
ples (devasthanas; 3.188.65c), along with Brahman settlements and hermitages of the great R : :sis, as being supplanted by the Buddhist
ed: u
kas. As John Strong shows, it is Asoka’s proliferation of st
upas, which
ana
actually calls dharmarajik
as,
that marks the tranthe A sokavad sition from his being called Can: d:
asoka, ‘‘Asoka the Fierce,’’ to Dharm
asoka, ‘‘Asoka the Righteous’’ – a term for which Asvaghos: a lets ‘‘Asoka Dharmar
aja’’ stand alone, and that gives Asoka the name Dharmar
aja, which is also an epithet for the Buddha, in part because the building of st
upas represents ‘‘the reconstruction of the Buddha’s body’’ (1983, 117–118). For Asvaghos: a, as for his Asoka, dharma appears to be more a universal value than a civilizational one: something the Buddhist dharma makes possible for everyone on
arata
presents first and foremost levelled terms. If indeed the Mahabh Dharmar
aja Yudhis: t:hira, perhaps at times in tandem with his brother 130 131

As discussed by Biardeau (2002, 2: 759–760), and in Hiltebeitel (forthcoming-a). See Lamotte (1998, 94 [103]), translating Ma~ nju sr
ım
ulakalpa verses 236–248.

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

283

Arjuna, as an answer to the never quite mentioned Buddha and Asoka, Asvaghos: a would seem to provide both the Buddha and Asoka as answers to the chief heroes and the main deity of the
arata’s
Mahabh never quite mentioned main story. REFERENCES

Aklujkar, Ashok (2004). ‘Can the grammarians dharma be a dharma for all?’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 32(5–6), 687–732. Bailey, Greg (1985). Materials for the Study of Ancient Indian Ideologies: Pravr: tti and Nivr: tti. Turin.
arata
Bailey, Greg (2003). The Mahabh as Counterpoint to the P
ali Canon. Paper presented at the Conference on Religions in the Indic Civilization, Center for Developing Societies, New Delhi, December 18–21. Courtesy of the author.
ayan
:
ıyaparvan: Chapter 327 Bailey, Greg (N.d.-a). Contrasting Ideologies in the Nar and the Definitions of pravr: tti and nivr: tti. Courtesy of the author. Bailey, Greg (N.d.-b). Preliminary Notes on P
ali Vatt and Sanskrit Vr: t in the
arata.
Mahabh La Trobe University pravr: tti/nivr: tti project. Courtesy of the author. Bailey, Greg and Mabbett, Ian (2003). The Sociology of Early Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Beal, Samuel (1968). The Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King: A Life of the Buddha by Asvaghosha Bodhisattva Translated from Sanskrit into Chinese by Dharmaraksha, A.D. 420. First published 1883. Sacred Books of the East. Vol. 19. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Bechert, Heinz (1979). ‘The beginnings of Buddhist historiography in Ceylon’. Ancient Ceylon 3, 21–28.
ayan
: a de Valm

ıki. Paris: Gallimard. Biardeau, Madeleine (1999). Le Ram
arata:
Biardeau, Madeleine (2002). Le Mahabh Un re´cit fondateur du brahmanisme et son interpre´tation. 2 Vols. Paris: Seuil. Boccali, Giuliano (2004). Introduction. Concluding roundtable discussion on ‘‘Origins of Mah
ak
avya: Problems and Perspectives’’. Origins of Mah
ak
avya: International Seminar, Universita` degli Studi di Milano. Milan, June 4–5. Bowles, Adam (2004). Dharma, Disorder and the Political in Ancient India: The

arata.
Apaddharmaparvan of the Mahabh Ph.D. dissertation. La Trobe University. Brockington, John (1998). The Sanskrit Epics. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Zweite Abteilung, Indien. Vol. 12. J. Bronkhorst, ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Brockington, John (2002). ‘Jar
asam : dha of Magadha (MBh 2, 15–22)’. In Mary Brockington (ed.), Stages and Transitions: Temporal and Historical Frameworks in
: ic Literature (pp. 73–88). Proceedings of the Second DICSEP Epic and Puran Conference. Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Bronkhorst, Johannes (2005a). The Background of Early Buddhism. Paper presented at the 4th DICSEP Conference, Dubrovnik. September.
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2005b). Renunciation in the Rajadharmaparvan (draft). Paper presented at the 4th DICSEP Conference, Dubrovnik. September. Byodo, Tsy
usho ([1930] 1969). Asvaghos: a’s Acquaintance with the Mokshadharma
arata.
of the Mahabh Resume of A Study of Indian Buddhist Literature, No. 1: A Study of the Sanskrit Buddhacarita (Indo-Bukky
o-Bungaku-no Kenk
u Bonbun

284

ALF HILTEBEITEL

Bussho-g
osan-no kenky
u). (pp. 565–568). Tokyo: Institute of Indological Studies. Kindly provided by Muneo Tokunaga. Cowell, E.B. (1968). The Buddha-karita of Asvaghosha, Sacred Books of the East. Vol. 49. First published 1894. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
arata
Defourny, Michel (1976). ‘Note sur le symbolisme de la corne dans le Mahabh et la mythologie classique’. Indo-Iranian Journal 18, 17–23. Dimock, Edward C., Jr., Gerow, Edwin Naim, C.M., Ramanujan, A.K., Roadarmel, Gordon and van Buitenen J.A.B. (1974). The Literatures of India: An Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fitzgerald, James L.: (2001). ‘Making Yudhis: t:hira the king: the dialectics and the
arata’.
politics of violence in the Mahabh Rocznik Orientalistyczny 54(1), 63–92.
arata.
Fitzgerald, James L.: (2004). trans. and (ed.), The Mahabh Vol. 7: 11, The Book of the Women; 12, The Book of Peace, Part One. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Franco, Eli (2004). The Spitzer Manuscript: The Earliest Philosophical Manuscript in Sanskrit. 2 Vols. Vienna: Verlag der O¨sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ganguli, Kisari Mohan, trans., and Pratap Chandra Roy, publisher. ([1884–96] 1970). The Mahabharata. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Gawronski, Andrzej (1914–15). Gleanings from Asvaghos: a’s Buddhacarita. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 1–42. Gawronski, Andrzej (1919). Studies about the Sanskrit Buddhist Literature. Cracow: Nakladem Akademji Umiejetnosci. Gethin, Rupert (2004). ‘He who sees dhamma sees dhammas: dhamma in early Buddhism’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 32(5–6), 513–542. Gombrich, Richard (1985). ‘The Vessantara J
ataka, the R
am
ayan: a and the Dasaratha J
ataka. Ernest Bender, (ed.), Special Issue. Indological Studies Dedicated to Daniel H. H. Ingalls’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 105(3), 427–437. Hara, Minoru (2001). ‘The Hindu concept of friendship: a note on Sanskrit pran: aya’. Revista degli Studi Orientali 75(1–4), 157–187.
arata.
Hiltebeitel, Alf ([1976] 1990). The Ritual of Battle. Krishna in the Mahabh Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hiltebeitel, Alf (1989). ‘Kr: :sn: a at Mathur
a’. In Doris Srinivasan, gen. (ed.), Mathura: A Cultural Heritage. (pp. 93–102). New Delhi: Manohar and American Institute of Indian Studies. Hiltebeitel, Alf (1999). Rethinking India’s Oral and Classical Epics: Draupad
ı among Muslims, Rajputs, and Dalits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
arata:
Hiltebeitel, Alf (2001). Rethinking the Mahabh A Reader’s Guide to the Education of the Dharma King. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hiltebeitel, Alf (Forthcoming-a). ‘Buddhism and the Mah
abh
arata: boundary dynamics in textual practice. In: Federico Squarcini. (ed.), Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia. Florence: University of Florence Press. Hiltebeitel, Alf (Forthcoming-b). ‘Authorial paths through the two Sanskrit Epics,

ana.’
Via the Ramop akhy To appear in Petteri Koskikallio (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th world Sanskrit Conference, 2003, Helsinki. Hiltebeitel, Alf (2005). ‘Not without subtales: telling laws and truths in the Sanskrit Epics.’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 33(4), 455–511. Hiltebeitel, Alf (Forthcoming-c). ‘On Reading Fitzgerald’s Vy
asa’. To appear in Journal of the American Oriental Society.
ayan
:
ıya and the early reading communiHiltebeitel, Alf (Forthcoming-d). ‘The Nar
arata’.
ties of the Mahabh To appear in Patrick Olivelle (ed.), Between the Empires

AS´VAGHOS: A’S BUDDHACARITA: THE FIRST KNOWN CLOSE

285

(tentative title), a volume based on the April 2003 ‘Between the Empires’ Conference at the University of Texas, Austin.
arata
Holtzmann, Adolf (1892–95). Das Mahabh und seine Theile. 4 Vols. Kiel: C.F. Haesler. Hopkins, E.W. (1901). ‘Notes on the C¸vet
ac¸vatara, the Buddhacarita, etc’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 22, 380–393. Horsch, Paul (2004). ‘From creation myth to world law: the early history of Dharma’. Jarrod L. Whitaker, trans. Journal of Indian Philosophy 32(5–6), 423– 448. Johnston, E.H. (1928). The Saundarananda of A svaghos: a (Sanskrit text), The Saundarananda, or Nanda the Fair (translation) London: Humphrey Milord, Oxford University Press. Johnston, E.H. (2004). A svaghos: a’s Buddhacarita or Acts of the Buddha. Part 1, Sanskrit Text, Sargas 1–14; Part 2, Introduction and Translation; Part 3, Translation of Cantos 15–28 from Tibetan and Chinese versions. First published Lahore 1936. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Khan, Dominique-Sila (2005). ‘Reimagining the Buddha’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 33, 321–342.
arata’.
Kosambi, D.D. (1964). ‘The autochthonous element in the Mahabh Journal of the American Oriental Society 84, 31–44.  Lamotte, E´tienne (1988). History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era. Sara Webb-Boin trans., under the supervision of Jean Dantinne. Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 36. Louvain-la-neuve: Institut Orientaliste.
: khya: A Larson, Gerald James and Bhattacharya, Ram Shankar eds. (1987). Sam Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ayan
: a of Valm

ıki. Vol. 4: Kis: kindha
Lefeber, Roslalind, trans. (1994). The Ram
: d: a. Princeton: Princeton University Press. kan Monier-Williams, Monier (1964). A Sanskrit–English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nakamura, Hajime (2000). Gotama Buddha: A Biography based on the Most Reliable Texts. Gaynor Sekimori trans. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co. Nattier, Jan ([2003] 2005). A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipr: cch
a). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Ohnuma, Reiko (2005). ‘Gift’. In Donald S. Lopez, Jr., (ed.), Critical Terms for the Study of Buddhism (pp. 103–123). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
srama System: The History and Hermeneutics of a Olivelle, Patrick, (1993). The A Religious Institution. New York: Oxford University Press. Olivelle, Patrick trans. (1999). Dharmas
utras. The Law Codes of Ancient India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olivelle, Patrick (2004). ‘The semantic history of dharma the middle and late vedic periods’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 32(5–6), 491–511. Olivelle, Patrick, trans. and (ed.), (2005). Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and

Translation of the Manava-Dharma sastra. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olivelle, Patrick (Forthcoming). ‘Power of words: the ascetic appropriation and the semantic evolution of dharma’. In Asceticism and Power. Peter Flu¨gel and Gustaaf Houtman. Lundon: Curzon. Pagel, Ulrich (1995). The Bodhisattvapitaka: Its Doctrines, Practices, and their Position in the Mahayana Literature. Tring, England: Institute of Buddhist Studies. Poppe, Nicholas (1967). The Twelve Deeds of Buddha: A Mongolian Version of the Lalitavistara. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

286

ALF HILTEBEITEL

Raghavan, V. (1956). ‘Buddhological texts and the epics’. Adyar Library Bulletin 20, 349–359. Robinson, Richard, Johnson, Willard and Bhikkhu, Thanissaro (2005). Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction, 5th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Salomon, Richard (1998). Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Other Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schreiner, Peter. 1990. Asvaghos: a’s Buddhacarita: A Machine Readable Transliteration. ‘‘Gretil’’ website. Schumann, H.W. (1989). The Historical Buddha: The Times, Life and Teaching of the Founder of Buddhism. M. O’C Walshe, trans. London: Arkana. Selby, Martha Ann (2003). The Circle of the Six Seasons: A Selection from Old
Tamil, Prakrit and Sanskrit Poetry. Delhi: Penguin Books India. Selvanayagam, Israel (1992). ‘Asoka and Arjuna as counterfigures standing on the field of dharma: a historical-hermeneutical perspective’. History of Religions 32(1), 59–75. Strong, John S. (1983). The Legend of King A soka: A Study and Translation of the
ana.
Princeton: Princeton University Press. Asokavad Strong, John S. (2002). The Experience of Buddhism: Sources and Interpretations, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sullivan, Bruce. M. (1990a). ‘A note on K
asisundar
ı and Kr: :sn: a Dvaip
ayana Vy
asa’. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 71, 290–292. Sutton, Nicholas (1997). ‘Asoka and Yudhis: t:hira: A historical setting for the ideo
arata’.
logical tensions of the Mahabh Religion. 27, 331–341.
arata.
Sutton, Nicholas (2000). Religious Doctrines in the Mahabh Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Thomas, Edward J. ([1927] 2000). The Life of Buddha as Legend and History. Mineola, NY: Dover.
arata.
Van Buitenen, J.A.B. (1975). The Mahabh Vol. II: 2. The Book of the Assembly Hall; 3. The Book of the Forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
arata:
Van Buitenen, J.A.B. (1981). The Bhagavadg
ıta
in the Mahabh A Bilingual Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vassilkov, Yaroslav (2002). ‘Indian practice of pilgrimage and the growth of the
arata
Mahabh in the light of new epigraphical sources’. In Mary Brockington (ed.),
: ic Stages and Transitions: Temporal and Historical Frameworks in Epic and Puran Literature. (pp. 133–156). Proceedings of the Second DICSEP Conference. Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Warren, Henry Clarke (1998). Buddhism in Translations. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

The George Washington University

Religion Department 2106 G. Street NW Washington, DC 20052 U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]