The householder and the renouncer in the Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions

Abstract

In the discussion on the four asramas as theoretical preconditions to the concept of purusartha there has been a tendency to treat the asramas as chronos-free, floating as it were in historical space. The theory has been analysed and its structure viewed essentially from the perspective of belief systems and rituals in a broadly Brahmanical context. It might, however, prove rewarding to consider that the theory has a historical specificity and to view it as an ideology which is pertinent to and is interlinked with a historical situation; that the theory was elaborately formulated long after the idea of asramas was first articulated and in its practice also, historical changes are very noticeable; and that these changes were evident particularly in the institutions which accompanied the theory.Such an analysis requires that the asrama theory be seen not as an isolate but as one segment in a larger ideological whole. A consideration of

Envisioning a No-Man’s Land: Hermitage as a Site of Exemption in Ancient and Early Medieval Indian Literature

“…Rajappa,[40][41][42][43] the vanguard of the colonization of the area by the settlers of agriculturists with or without state backing. Such hermitages were often under attack by those who claimed the forest as their territory or hunting ground.« 65 As we have noticed above, the forest was the antithesis of the settled society in early Indian thought. The state nevertheless needed to keep the forest under its control, given that it was an essential source of resources.…”

“…Kangle, III.1.12. 26 Olivelle, Āśrama System,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] 27 BṛhadāraṇyakaUpaniṣad, trans. Olivelle, 28 Chāndogya Upaniṣad, trans.…”

Beyond Brahmanical Asceticism: Recent and Emerging Models of Female Hindu Asceticisms in South Asia

“…In his examination of the , authoritative texts on asceticism and renunciation in the Brahmanical tradition (a comprehensive system of belief and practice developed by elite Brahmin males and thus illustrative of Hindu orthodoxy), Patrick Olivelle (1992) contends that renunciation as an institution could not exist in Indian society without its antistructural element. Textual studies demonstrate that, as an ideological system, ‘ sannyāsa is used exclusively in Brahmanical writings’ to describe the way of life of an ascetic/renouncer who abandons the normative structures and values of society, such as marriage, family, sexual practices, economic and socio‐religious duties, in order to pursue the ultimate goal of liberation from the continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (samsāra) (Gonda 1965; Thapar 1978, 1982; Olivelle 1981; Bronkhorst 1998; Kane 1968, vols. I–V; Olivelle 1986, pp.…”

How Giving Sanctifies: The Birthday of Thamanya Hsayadaw in Burma

“…While the modalities and implications of the reciprocal giving relationship between monk and lay person are relatively familiar to students of Buddhism, a second type of giving has often been ignored, perhaps because its sociological role is less important than the gift from lay person to monk. This second type, implicitly recognized as fully legitimate in the canonical monastic rule (Schopen 1997: 74‐5) and recorded in ancient times (Thapar 1982: 289), consists of the redistribution of donations received from lay devotees by a monk to other monks. This is not usually a wide‐ranging practice in monasteries, except for an internal and informal redistribution: the head monk, who receives most of the donations, may give some of them over to the other monks of his monastery without ceremony, or share them equally between them all.…”