365bet娱乐

One might argue that the practice of owing goods is not appropriate for a 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. In the Pur膩峁噄c texts, we find a prohibition against possessing property; otherwise, the Bhojakas would become like the devalaka 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s^[1] (cf. 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 117. 5; 139. 18, 21鈥�22)^[2] and fall into disgrace.^[3] The idea of accepting material goods is considered degrading for a 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. Even nowadays, 艢膩kdv墨p墨ya 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s tend to underscore the fact that their priests do not accept any kind of material reward for their activity (cf. paragraph 5.1).

For this reason, the prohibition of trade is understandable:^[4]

惫腻峁噄箩测补峁� k峁涐梗isev膩峁� tu ved膩n膩峁� ni峁僤ana峁� ca ye /
kurva峁僼i bhojak膩 j帽ey膩岣� sarve te mama 惫补颈谤颈峁嘺岣� //

鈥榌The sun god said: 鈥�] The Bhojakas who are involved in trade, in agriculture, and who despise the Vedas, they are all known for being my enemies鈥� (叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 147, 4).

Beside the impropriety of trade (惫腻峁噄箩测补-), it is stated, here and in other sections of the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺, that Bhojakas cannot practise agriculture:

摆鈥�] 办补谤峁�a峁嘺峁� ye prakurvate 摆鈥�] vij帽ey膩 辫补迟颈迟腻蝉 tu te / 摆鈥�]

鈥槹阝��] [Those who] cultivate a land 摆鈥�], they are known as the fallen [ones] 摆鈥�]鈥� (叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 147, 5).

STIETENCRON (1996: 271) highlights the fact that this feature is common to Buddhists: it is forbidden for Buddhist monks to practise trade or agriculture. Buddha expressed his opinion on this activity, judging it inappropriate, because the acts of ploughing and hoeing imply the deaths of the creatures living in the earth. Moreover, it is considered a violent act towards the ground.

The Pur膩峁嘺 itself is ambivalent on the topic:

蝉腻峁僢补 耻惫腻肠补 补驳谤腻丑测补峁� ced dvij膩tibhya岣� kasmai deyam ida峁� 尘补测腻 // 27a

厂腻尘产补 said, 鈥業f the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s refuse [the properties], to whom shall I give them?鈥� 摆鈥�]

gauramukha 耻惫腻肠补
mag膩ya sa峁僷rayaccha tva峁� puram etac chubha峁� vibho /
tasy膩dhik膩ro dev膩nne devat膩n膩峁� ca p奴jane // 28

Gauramukha said 鈥極 king, offer this beautiful city to Maga, who is the authority (补诲丑颈办腻谤补) on the food of the gods and on their worship.鈥�

(叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 139)

In addition, we will see that later texts and inscriptions describe the allocation of land and villages to the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas. The two versions could have been added to the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 at two different times. In this text, we also find other unusual prescriptions or claims, like the fact that the Bhojakas鈥� food is edible. Unfortunately, we do not have enough information to reconstruct the social environment in which this section was composed, but we may postulate that at a certain moment, the Bhojakas lost their status of 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s to such an extent that their food was considered inedible, like the 艣奴诲谤补s鈥� (叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 146). Perhaps they were criticized for owning property, and accused of being devalakas (cf. HAZRA 1958: 97).

In any case, even if they are allowed to possess the god鈥檚 land and property, the text seems to be clear with regard to agricultural activity: 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas cannot practise it. Personally, I do not know of any Hind奴 prescription that prohibits agriculture. On the contrary, on Indian soil, Buddhism and Jainism oppose this activity, mostly for reasons of non-violence.

In Buddhist sources, the Buddha is concerned first for the beings that live in the earth; in the Suttavibhanga, the first book of the Vinaya-辫颈峁璦办补, the Buddha has a conversation with Moggall膩na, who is worried because a nearby village is suffering a famine, and 产颈办峁�us cannot go there for alms. He states, 鈥楲ord, the under surface of this great earth is fertile, even as a flawless honey-comb. Good if were, lord, if I were to invert the earth, so that the monks might enjoy the nutritive essence of the water-plants鈥� (HORNER 1948: 14). So Buddha asks about the creatures in the earth and Moggall膩na replies that he would care for them, letting them pass over the ploughed soil. But Buddha states, 鈥楾ake care, Moggall膩na, please do not invert the earth, or beings may meet with derangement鈥� (ibid.), expressing a rule concerning the ploughing of soil. In the Sutta-辫颈峁璦办补鈥攕pecifically in the first section of the Sutta-苍颈辫腻迟补, called Uravagga^[5] 鈥攖he Buddha meets the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 Kasibh膩radv膩ja, who is ploughing and sowing.

He suggests that Buddha do the same, and Gautama replies that he ploughs and sows as well (NORMAN 2001: 10):

76. 鈥榊ou say you are a ploughman, but we do not see your ploughing. Being asked, tell us about your ploughing, so that we may know your ploughing.鈥�

77. 鈥楩aith is the seed, penance is the rain, wisdom is my yoke, and plough; modesty is the pole, mind is the [yoke-]tie, mindfulness is my ploughshare and goad. 摆鈥�]

80. Thus is this ploughing [of mine] ploughed. It has the death-free as its fruit. Having ploughed this ploughing one is freed from all misery.鈥�

Therefore, the 鈥�interior ploughing鈥� is more valuable than the external activity. The Buddha himself is a ploughing man, but the instruments, process and fruits are very different.

Finally, HIN脺BER (2002: 82) mentions the casual remark in Buddhaghosa鈥檚 commentary on the 厂补峁儁耻迟迟补苍颈办腻测补 (Spk III 32,25鈥�33,5), namely about a 蝉补尘补峁嘺-办耻峁璱尘产颈办补 who lives as a farmer with the other monks without leaving the order. It is evident that, even within the Buddhist order, there have been many changes over the centuries. Even so, the general rule is that agriculture is forbidden in accordance with the precept of 补丑颈峁僺腻. The same is obviously valid for Jains, too.

We have already mentioned the fact that Hind奴 tradition has no problem with agricultural activity. This activity achieved an even higher status in the Iranian-Zoroastrian world: from ancient times, the importance of agriculture in Iranian society was enormous, especially for its role in the transition from nomadic to sedentary life. Agriculture was the economic and social basis of all Persian governments for millennia.^[6] In Yas虇 t XIII 89, it is stated that Zarathus虇 tra himself was the first priest, the first warrior, the first farmer^[7] (y艒 paoirii艒 膩胃rauua y艒 paoira艒 ra胃a膿拧t氓 y艒 paoira艒 v膩strii艒 f峁Ｌ� uiia虦 s). The Avesta does not offer much information about agriculture. In the 骋腻迟丑腻蝉 (XXXIII 3, 4, 6; XLV 4; XLVI 3; XLVII 5; XLIX 2; L 5,7), the fields are described in relation to pastoralism; in the 奥墨诲脓飞诲腻诲 (III, 24-29, 30-33; V 52鈥�53; VI 2, 3, 5鈥�6; VII 32鈥�33, 35; XIV 10鈥�11), agriculture is presented as the chief and most honourable activity for a man.^[8] In Fargard XIV, the instruments for working the land are listed. Nevertheless, it is in Fargard III that we find the most important description of the benefits of agricultural activity. Paragraphs 24 to 29 are about the duty of the land cultivation; from paragraph 30 to 33, agriculture is described as a praiseworthy activity.^[9] The statement 鈥楬e who sows corn, sows holiness: he makes the low of Mazda grow higher and higher 摆鈥�]鈥� (31; cf. DARMESTETER 1992: 29 f.) is emblematic.

Even classical sources (cf. Plb. X. 28; Xen. Cyr. VI, 20, VIII, 6, 16) confirm the importance of agriculture to the Persians (cf. CANNIZZARO 1990: 32 f.). Therefore, agriculture is not only the most important and honest means of profit for men, but also a meritorious act towards Ahura Mazd膩.

Juxtaposed with this positive attitude toward cultivation, in the Iranian world we also find examples of this activity being condemned, namely in Manicheism. Buddhism spread to western lands, too, and 鈥槹阝��] in east Iranian areas, Buddhism used preexisting Zoroastrian and Hellenic nuances to explain its own particular message鈥� (SCOTT 1995: 154). Mani was certainly inspired by it in many respects,^[10] and possibly the prohibition of agriculture in his doctrine is also the result of contact with Buddhism. Respect for natural elements like the earth seems to be the chief motivation for Mani鈥檚 refusal. The 顿脓苍办补谤诲 III, criticizing Mani鈥檚 doctrine, indirectly informs us about the Manichaean prohibition of agriculture: 鈥槹阝��] il peccatore Mani (farfugli貌) una dottrina che nega la coltivazione 摆鈥�]鈥� (CERETI 2006: 247). The prohibition of agriculture may have been the most important reason for the repression of Manicheism under the Sasanians. In an economic system based on agriculture and a society ruled by landowners, the Manichean condemnation of this activity was very dangerous.^[11] Manicheism arrived in China, and its highest point was reached with the conversion of Moyu (Bogu) Khan of the Uighur Turks in 762. 鈥楳anicheism continued to flourish and was rewarded with productive agricultural lands which were used for the cultivation of wine-grapes, despite the religion鈥檚 rules against intoxication鈥�,^[12] and against cultivation as well. This is evidence that the general rule admitted some exceptions.

In SRIVASTAVA鈥檚 opinion (1996: 60), the reason for the prohibition most probably lay in the wealthy status of the land-owning Bhojakas, whom the other 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s wanted to declass. In my opinion, it is more plausible to think about external influences, especially because we are dealing with the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺, which is clearly rich with interpolations. I do not exclude the possibility of Buddhist, Jain or even Manichean influences; in these Pur膩峁噄c sections, we find other features, like the shaving of the head, the reddish-brown garments and even the cult of serpents, that could be an echo of Buddhism. After all, the syncretistic atmosphere of northern India is the perfect setting for this kind of influence. Moreover, such scenarios are quite typical of all the territories of the Iranian and Indian world, since they have always been characterized by continuous mutual exchange.^[13]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

鈥楾丑别 temple priests had long had a low status among the different Brahman subcastes, and were labelled with the pejorative term devalaka鈥� (H脺SKEN 2009: 54). The devalakas used to attend the deity鈥檚 service, and because of this activity, they were considered impure. In earlier times, this figure used to carry the divine image, and was a servant of the god鈥檚 image, but the term was also used in the wider sense of 鈥榯emple priest鈥�. The 厂尘峁泃颈 texts do not agree on the reason for the low status assigned to these priests: probably, taking care of the temple implied circumstances that polluted their Br膩hma峁噄cal status, or perhaps it was due to their lower level of education.

[2]:

叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 117:
dev膩laye峁�u ye 惫颈辫谤腻岣� pr墨ty膩 m膩峁� p奴jaya峁僼i hi /
any膩艣 ca devat膩v峁泃ty膩 te syur devalak膩岣� khaga //
etasm膩t k膩ra峁嚹乶 尘补丑测补峁� bhojako deyita岣� 蝉补诲腻 // 5
叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 139:
yadi dev膩rthad膩na峁� sy膩t tato devalak膩 诲惫颈箩腻岣� //
devadravy膩bhil膩峁�a艣 ca 产谤腻丑尘补峁噛补峁� tu 惫颈尘耻峁僣补迟颈 / 18
摆鈥�]
dvijo devalako yatra pa峁僰ty膩峁� bhu峁僰te mah墨pate /
ann膩ny upasp峁浥沞n 苍墨肠腻 蝉腻 辫补峁僰迟颈岣� p膩pam 膩caret // 21
dvijo devalako yasya 蝉补峁僺办腻谤补峁� sa峁僷rayacchati /
so 'dhomukh膩n pit峁漬t sarv膩n 腻办谤补尘测补 vi苍颈辫腻迟补yet // 22

[3]:

叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 I. 146:
sevako bhojako yas tu 艣奴dr膩nna峁� yena bhujyate /
办峁涐梗颈峁� ca kurute yas tu dev膩rc膩m api varjayet // 14
j膩takarm膩dayo yasya na 蝉补峁僺办腻谤腻岣� 办峁泃腻 vibho /
膩ru峁噀yai艣 ca ma峁僼rai艣 ca 蝉腻vitr墨峁� na ca vai pa峁環et /
tasya gehe dvijo 产丑耻办迟惫腻 k峁沜chrap膩dena 艣udhyati // 15

[4]:

Nowadays, many 艢膩kdv墨p墨ya people, especially in Uttar Pradesh and 搁腻箩补蝉迟丑腻苍, are involved in business, demonstrating that this prohibition is no longer valid. In any case, the prohibition in the texts was probably mandatory for 艢膩kdv墨p墨yas (and, in the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺, for Bhojakas specifically) who had strict priestly functions.

[5]:

鈥楾丑别 chapter of the serpent鈥�. In the name of this section, we find further confirmation of the importance of snakes in Buddhism.

[6]:

Cf. EHLERS 1984: passim.

[7]:

Cf. CANNIZZARO 1990: 29 f. DARMESTETER (1992: 58) translates 鈥榟usbandman鈥� instead of 鈥榝armer鈥�.

[8]:

CANNIZZARO 1990: 30.

[9]:

Ivi: 40 f.: 鈥�23.鈥揅reatore, ecc. 鈥� Signore! Chi in quarto luogo rallegra della massima gioia questa terra? Allora disse Ahura Mazda: Colui, invero, o Spitama Zarathustra, che semina maggiormente e frumenti e pascoli e piante fruttifere e porta acqua a un luogo arido, e porta siccit脿 a un luogo acquitrinoso.
24.鈥揋iacch茅 non 猫 felice la terra che giace lungamente non lavorata, mentre (46) dovrebbe essere lavorata dall鈥檃gricoltore. Desiderosa 猫 perci貌 di un buon abitatore; (47) cos矛 una bella ragazza, che si trova a lungo senza figli, 猫 perci貌 desiderosa di un buon marito.
25.鈥揅hi lavora la terra, o Spitama Zarathustra, col braccio sinistro o col destro, col braccio destro e col sinistro, le arreca un godimento (48), precisamente come l鈥檜omo amato, giacendo sul letto, fornisce alla cara sposa un figlio o un godimento.
摆鈥�]
31.鈥揅olui il quale coltiva il frumento, costui coltiva la fede, costui accresce (54) la Legge Mazdeana di cento residenze, di mille dimore, di diecimila preghiere Ya莽ns (55).
32.鈥換uando 猫 maturo il grano, allora i daeva gemono; quando il vaglio 猫 pronto, allora i daeva si smarriscono; quando la molitura 猫 fatta, allora i daeva urlano; quando la pasta 猫 pronta allora i daeva spetazzano (56). Rimanendo ancora, i daeva distruggono in casa questa pasta (57). Quando il frumento 猫 copioso, sembrano posti in fuga, come se fossero fortemente bruciati in bocca da un ferro (58).鈥�

[10]:

On this topic, cf. BRYDER 2005.

[11]:

Cf. PANAINO 2016: 44.

[12]:

LIEU 2002.

[13]:

On this topic, see also PALLADINO 20??c.