Les Reliques Dans Les Religions De Inde - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary of Johannes Bronkhorst's chapter "Les reliques dans les religions de l'Inde" (Relics in the Religions of India):

This article by Johannes Bronkhorst explores the contrasting attitudes towards the veneration of bodily relics in Buddhism and Hinduism, and the reasons behind this divergence.

Central Thesis: Bronkhorst argues that the presence of relic cults in Buddhism and their absence in Hinduism is primarily rooted in their different historical origins, specifically the distinction between the Vedic tradition (forming the basis of Hinduism) and the Śramana movement (from which Buddhism, Jainism, and others emerged).

Key Questions Addressed:

Why are bodily relics venerated in Buddhism but absent in Hinduism?
How did Buddhism react to Hindu resistance against relic veneration?

Common Explanations and Bronkhorst's Critiques:

The article examines three common explanations found in secondary literature and then offers Bronkhorst's own analysis:

Explanation 1: Buddhism has a historical founder, Hinduism does not.
- The Argument: Buddhism venerates the physical remains of its founder, the Buddha, while Hinduism, as a tradition rooted in the eternal, unauthored Veda, lacks such a figure and thus no founder's relics.
- Bronkhorst's Critique: Bronkhorst points out that from the Buddhist perspective, the Buddha is seen as the latest in a long line of Buddhas, preaching an eternal truth, thus denying him a unique "founder" status in the same way Hinduism might view the Veda. Furthermore, Hinduism does have important figures (like Śankara or Ramakrishna) around whom hagiographic literature and veneration of their associated places (like trees) exist, but not their bodily remains. This suggests the presence of a founder isn't the sole determining factor.
Explanation 2: Hinduism views the physical world as illusory.
- The Argument: If the physical world is considered illusory in Hinduism, then physical relics of saints would hold little spiritual value.
- Bronkhorst's Critique: Bronkhorst finds this unsatisfactory. While some Hindu movements do see the physical world as illusory, others do not. Moreover, the idea of illusion hasn't stopped Hindus from venerating their gurus intensely, sometimes considering them the supreme reality. The focus on philosophical illusion doesn't fully explain the absence of relic veneration.
Explanation 3: The corpse is a source of ritual pollution in Hinduism.
- The Argument: This is presented as the most significant factor. Hinduism places a paramount emphasis on ritual purity and the avoidance of ritual pollution, with death and corpses being the strongest sources of pollution. The meticulous rules surrounding purification after contact with death, and the avoidance of burial sites (śmaśāna), highlight this.
- Bronkhorst's Support: Bronkhorst agrees that the strong emphasis on purity and impurity, deeply ingrained in Hindu social and religious life (linked to the caste system), provides a compelling reason for the avoidance of contact with dead bodies and their remnants. He contrasts this with the Buddhist approach, where the stūpa (a monument housing relics) is often placed in public view, inviting contemplation of the deceased saint, a direct opposite to the Vedic Brahmanical desire to isolate and conceal the dead.

Bronkhorst's Core Argument: The Śramana Tradition and its Legacy

Bronkhorst posits that the crucial difference stems from the distinct origins of Buddhism and Hinduism:

Vedic Tradition (Hinduism): Characterized by a strong emphasis on ritual purity, meticulous funeral rites aimed at isolating the dead, and the eternal, unauthored Veda as its authority.
Śramana Movement (Buddhism, Jainism, etc.): Emerged as a distinct tradition, likely predating Buddhism, with its own set of beliefs, including the efficacy of actions (karma) and liberation.
- Relic Veneration as a Śramana Trait: Bronkhorst argues that the practice of venerating relics, and the associated construction of monuments like stūpas, originated within this Śramana milieu, not the Vedic tradition. He cites early Vedic texts that contrast "correct" quadrangular burial mounds with circular ones associated with "demonic" peoples of the East, suggesting a pre-existing concept of such monuments, potentially linked to the Śramana origins of the stūpa.
- Jainism: Jainism, also a product of the Śramana movement, shares the practice of stūpa veneration, though not on the same scale as Buddhism, further supporting the idea of a common origin for this practice.
- Vedic Influence on Śramana Traditions: While the Śramana movement provided the initial impetus for relic veneration, Bronkhorst acknowledges that the Vedic tradition eventually became dominant. This led to a "Vedicization" or "Brahmanization" of many indigenous Indian religious expressions, including Jainism. However, crucial elements like belief in karma and the emphasis on liberation originate from the Śramana movement.

Buddhism's Response to Brahmanical Purity Concerns:

Bronkhorst then addresses the second question: how Buddhism reacted to the pervasive Hindu emphasis on ritual purity.

Internalizing Purity Rules: Buddhist monastic rules (Vinaya) show evidence of adapting to Brahmanical concerns. For instance, rules were introduced requiring monks to purify themselves and their clothes after touching a corpse, indicating an awareness and incorporation of the fear of pollution. Monks dwelling in cemeteries also faced stricter regulations due to this fear.
Shifting Veneration from Relics to Symbols: Bronkhorst observes that in regions where Buddhism coexisted with strong Brahmanical influence (i.e., within the Indian subcontinent), relic veneration became more discreet, with relics often being hidden within stūpas. In contrast, in areas outside Brahmanical dominance (like Sri Lanka, China, Tibet, Japan, and Southeast Asia), relics were often more accessible, with rituals involving direct interaction, dressing, or feeding the relics.
The Rise of the Dharmakāya and Textual Veneration: To navigate the conflict with the Brahmanical emphasis on purity, Buddhism developed theological justifications. A significant development was the concept of the dharmakāya (body of the Dharma/teachings), which came to be seen as the true, eternal body of the Buddha, superior to his physical remains. This led to a shift in veneration from physical relics to canonical texts (the "body of the teachings"), which could be housed in stūpas as dharmasarīra ("relics in the form of teachings").
The Stūpa as a Symbol: The stūpa itself evolved from a mere container for relics to a symbolic representation of the Buddha's teachings and even the Buddha himself. This offered a way to venerate the Buddha without directly engaging with potentially polluting physical remains.
The Emergence of Buddha Images: The development of Buddha images, starting around the early centuries CE, further shifted veneration away from physical relics. These images, initially representing the Buddha's physical form, served as more accessible and less polluting objects of devotion, gradually replacing the emphasis on relics and stūpas in some contexts. This shift towards image worship also mirrors practices in Hinduism, suggesting another point of convergence influenced by the broader Indian religious landscape.

Conclusion:

Bronkhorst concludes that the veneration of relics in Buddhism is a practice inherited from the earlier Śramana movement, which was distinct from the Vedic tradition. While Buddhism initially maintained this practice, it gradually adapted to the pervasive Brahmanical emphasis on ritual purity. This adaptation manifested in the increased discreetness of relic veneration within India and the development of theological concepts like the dharmakāya and the veneration of texts and images as alternative, less polluting forms of devotion. The initial separation from Brahmanism in terms of relic practices eventually gave way to a significant degree of convergence on the issue of ritual purity.