But it is Batchelor’s findings on the Buddha’s last days that are the most startling: in the last 10 months of his life, Batchelor says, the Buddha, old and ailing, saw his two main disciples die, one of them brutally murdered, and was forced to flee with a handful of loyalists from all the three political bases he had spent a lifetime building up, until he was possibly poisoned to death by one of his many rivals, leaving a pretender to take over the community after an intense power struggle.
Pasenadi, according to the references that Batchelor so painstakingly culled from the Pali Canon, was a paranoid tyrant given to impaling his enemies—imagined or real—on stakes. His friendship with the Buddha, which lasted for the next 25 years, seems to have had little effect on Pasenadi. “The only time he is seen to benefit from Gotama’s instruction is when he follows his advice to go on a diet,” writes Batchelor. From “a bucket measure of boiled rice” he reduces his intake to “a pint-pot measure” and becomes “quite slim”.
Nor did the friendship improve the king’s suspicious nature, even when it came to the Buddha himself. For example, in one of the countless plots to discredit him by rival groups of ascetics, the Buddha was accused of sexual impropriety with a female renunciant called Sundari. When Pasenadi’s men found her body hidden not far from the Buddha’s hut, nothing could persuade the king of his teacher’s innocence. Fortunately, the king’s spies soon discovered the plot to discredit the Buddha.
Some 15 or more years after they first met, the tyrant and the monk turned from friends into relatives: hoping for a male heir, Pasenadi decided to marry from the Buddha’s homeland, Sakiya or Shakya. The king approached the Buddha’s cousin, Mahanama, who had taken over the governorship of Shakya after the death of the Buddha’s father. It was a signal honour for the Buddha, but there was a problem: the notoriously proud Shakyans refused to allow any pure-blooded woman to marry outside their clan, forcing Mahanama to send to the king the illegitimate daughter he sired through a slavewoman, passing her off as a noblewoman. It was a deception that, Batchelor says, was not just dangerous and foolhardy, but would lead one day to a bloodbath, and the Buddha’s exile from Kosala.
It’s impossible, points out Batchelor, the Buddha wouldn’t have known of the treachery, considering his close relations with all the main players. There’s a misconception, according to Batchelor, that the Buddha cut off all ties with his own community in Shakya after he left home. On the contrary, the Buddha returned to Kapilavastu after his enlightenment, reconciled with his family, and some of his most important followers were, in fact, his cousins, including Devadatta, who subsequently tried to overthrow him, Ananda, who memorised all the texts, and Aniruddha, who was present at his death. As a result of the deception, Batchelor writes, the Buddha “was placed in an impossible situation”: to reveal the situation would have put his life’s work in jeopardy, costing him the support of his most powerful patron, and to remain silent would have made him appear complicit in it. The Buddha chose silence, but he was no doubt aware of the precarious nature of his tenure in his Kosalan headquarters in Jeta’s grove.
Meanwhile, the slave girl not only gave birth to a son, Prince Vidudabha, but was able to fob off all questions regarding his maternal ancestry until he was 16, when she finally relented and let him go on a visit to the Shakyan headquarters in Kapilavastu. Vidudabha’s visit went off uneventfully, until his departure. One of his soldiers, returning to the Shakyan guesthouse to retrieve his sword, overheard a woman muttering as she scrubbed with milk the seat which Vidudabha had used: “This is where the son of the slave-woman Vasabha sat!” Inevitably, there was an uproar when the Kosalan royal party heard of it. The young prince vowed: “When I gain my throne, I will wash it with the blood of their throats.”
When Pasenadi heard of the Shakyans’ treachery, he vented his fury on his wife and son, stripping them of their royal positions, cropping their hair, and returning them to the condition of slavery. It fell on the Buddha to plead with the king on their behalf. He prevailed for the moment, but his idyll in Jeta’s grove was over. From then on, Batchelor writes, the Buddha was on the run, losing one by one all the three strongholds from where he spread his teachings. In Rajgir, the Magadhan king Bimbisara, his first royal patron, was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Ajatasattu, who imprisoned and then starved his father to death.
At the same time, cracks began to appear within his own monastic community. His cousin Devadatta, who was also Ajatasattu’s mentor, plotted to overthrow the Buddha. Some of the texts say Devadatta tried to assassinate the Buddha by dropping a big boulder on him, and sending a wild elephant in his way. But the passages that give the most information about Devadatta say he tried to persuade the Buddha to step down on grounds of age. The Buddha dismissed the proposal decisively, saying: “I would not even ask Sariputta and Moggallana (his most indispensable and senior-most monks) to head this community, let alone a lick-spittle like you.” Till the very end, Batchelor says, the Buddha was adamant about not appointing a successor, stating that his teachings were his only successor.
Having failed in his bid for power, Devadatta then walked out of the community, taking a sizeable section of the monks along with him. But eventually, the Buddha’s two senior-most followers, Sariputta and Moggallana, healed the schism and persuaded the renegade monks to return to the fold.
There were other cracks within the community: the Buddha’s former attendant, Sunakkhatta, a nobleman of Vaishali who had left the monastic order, denounced him in the parliament of Vaishali as a “fake”. While the Buddha received the news with his usual calm, it was clear that he was losing favour even in Vaishali. That’s probably why, reasons Batchelor, the Buddha didn’t stay in his usual place during his last retreat in Vaishali, but in a village outside the city walls by himself, telling his monks to go and find lodging in the city for their support.
Frail and elderly, the Buddha suffered yet another blow in the last months of his life: both Sariputta and Moggallana died within two weeks of each other—the latter brutally murdered, according to the commentaries, by the supporters of Jains, who saw the Buddha as a great threat to their own survival.
For Batchelor, the Buddha’s death is the biggest mystery of all. The texts only say that a man called Cunda the Smith invited the Buddha and his attendants, including Ananda, home. “From the moment it was offered to him, it seems that Gotama suspected something was amiss with the food,” writes Batchelor. According to the texts, the Buddha told his host: “Serve the pork to me, and the remaining food to the other monks.” When the meal was over, he said to Cunda: “You should bury any leftover pork in a pit.” Then he “was attacked by a severe sickness with bloody diarrhoea”. His only response was to say to Ananda: “Let us go to Kusinara.” Which, under the circumstances, Batchelor says, sounds like, “Let’s get out this place.”
Batchelor puzzles over this passage included in the Pali Canon: why did the Buddha prevent the others from eating the pork? Did he suspect it was poisoned? He had no shortage of enemies, Batchelor reasons—Pava was not only in the Kosalan province adjoining Shakya, but was also a shrine to his principal rival, Mahavira, who is said to have died there a few years previously. Only a few months ago, his senior-most disciple Moggallana had been killed by hired assassins of Mahavira’s followers.
But what’s the point in killing an old man who is already dying? Batchelor points out that the best revenge the Buddha’s enemies could have taken on him was to kill not him but Ananda, his faithful attendant. Ananda was the only one left after the death of Sariputta and Moggallana to have memorised the entire teachings of the Buddha. “If you killed Ananda, you killed Buddhism,” points out Batchelor. “By insisting that he alone be served with the pork and the leftovers be buried, the Buddha prevented Ananda from eating it.” The Buddha “hastened his own death”, according to Batchelor, “in order that his teaching would survive”.
But the monk for whom the Buddha laid down his life ended up being upstaged by a relative outsider even before his cremation pyre was lit. Mahakassapa was a Brahmin from Magadha who became a monk towards the end of the Buddha’s life. He arrived with a large group of monks just before the pyre was lit, and insisted that the cremation not take place till he too had paid his last respects to the Buddha.
This episode marked the beginning of a power struggle, with the newcomer claiming to be the rightful successor of the Buddha, and taking over the community. “There are two sutras in the Pali Canon where Mahakassapa is very dismissive, almost abusive in his dealings with Ananda,” says Batchelor, “dismissing him as a mere ‘boy’”. Ananda responds to this by pointing to his head, and saying: “Are these not grey hair?”
On the face of it, the future of Buddhism after the Buddha’s death looked very bleak: at the cremation itself, when various kingdoms and republics applied for a share of his relics, the Kosalans conspicuously didn’t want any of him. And with a stern, elderly Brahmin at the head, sidelining Ananda, it looked set to become just another Indian religion controlled by priests. But that’s what’s so extraordinary about the Buddha, says Batchelor. “Here’s a person dealing with all these ambitious relatives and kings, and yet in the midst of his struggles establishes his dharma sufficiently well so that we are talking about it now, 2,500 years later.”
The article Who Killed Gautama? (Mar 8) shocked me as a Buddhist; it did not even have research value. The writer tries to link discrete incidents from the Buddha’s life to spin a conspiracy theory, akin to those around Jesus. Batchelor points to the enemies of Buddha, which is presumptuous at best. A dispute in the Sangha after his death was not unexpected; especially when the two main leaders of the Sangha—Sariputta and Moggallana—were dead. Titas, Windsor, Canada
This article and others of this sort are the reason I read Outlook. Great story. Tejinder, St Louis, US
I am re-reading this article and my feelings are somewhat incredible. Thank you. Mufahida Younus Khan, Sharjah
Like Wendy Doniger saying that Dasaratha was sex-obsessed and Jeffrey Kripal espying homosexuality in Sri Ramakrishna’s embrace of Swami Vivekananda, Batchelor paints the Buddha as a common, politically motivated man. According to the Ayacana Sutta, immediately after his Enlightenment, the Buddha wondered if he should teach his dharma to human beings since they were overpowered by greed, hatred and delusion. It was Brahma Sahampati who interceded at this point, asking him to teach dharma, as “there would be those who would understand dharma”. Narasimhan M.G., Bangalore
Hmm...Batchelor might even be one of those Vatican “scholars” out to smear Buddha and the history of Buddhism. Chodak, Toronto
I don’t put too much stock on Batchelor’s research. Looking at the artefacts at the Rajgir museum, history has been written by those in power. I have seen statues of Buddha’s foot on Shiva as well as Jain tirthankaras. Take your pick. Praful R. Shah, Houston
If you really want a wonderful account of the life of the Buddha, may I suggest Jewel in the Lotus by Abraham Eraly, and the biography of the Buddha by Karen Armstrong. S. Sen Gupta, on e-mail
Yet another attempt at juvenile extrapolation and nonsensical assumption ns, with the sole intention of degrading classical Indic figures. Ankush Poddar, Calcutta
It will be a Sisyphean task to bring out a complete biography of an ancient icon with accurate details which satisfies everybody. R.C. Mohan, Neyveli
What if the evidence the author relied on is not reliable? Won’t it amount to a brain-washing against Buddhism? C.P. Narendran, Nagpur
The book is in English, and it made accessible the fundamental challenge: the received wisdom about Buddha. Iftekhar Ali, Dhaka
It is quite far-fetched to say the food was poisoned to kill Ananda and others. The text does not support such a view: it says Buddha was sick and he knew that eating sukara maddava was going to be bad for him. By the way, sukara maddava means pig’s delight, which also means a kind of mushroom which pigs like. T. Nayak, Washington
‘Sukara maddava’ has been very confidently translated by Batchelor as ‘pork’ without leaving any leeway for doubt. With the book out, people will take it for granted that Buddha ate ‘pork’ and died. This is a very heavy statement to make. Abhijit Adhikari, Washington
And I thought Buddha was a vegetarian. Jaleel, Lucknow
The way Stephen Batchelor described the Buddha and the followers of Mahavira was derogatory (Who Killed Gautama?, Mar 8). Mahavira’s followers believe in ahimsa; hence the alleged murder of Buddhists by the Jains seems completely improbable. A clarification that Outlook does not support Batchelor’s views would be nice.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Who killed Gauthama is an article about a foolish research of an extremely foolish person who is hankering after money.
First of all this stupid author should have learnt Sanskrit properly. His ability to understand "pali" a dialect version of Sanskrit is highly doubtful. His ability to write one page in Pali language is highly doubtful let alone his ability to pour over thousands of pages of writings in Pali of the times and events of Lord Buddha.
Most of ancient history was written after researching through Buddhist text books. But it also means corraborating the evidence. One must know that most of the Buddhist period Pali writings by various people have too much exaggeration. In fact the "hyperbolic" writings about a devine being Buddha in those days was the order of the day.It may be that it was the accepted method of writing of those days. I did not read any translations of these Pali texts and commenteries but I read some of these pali texts translations about Lord Mahavira.
I did not find any terrible varience and I do not intend to write a book to make money. There are certain new ideas or differences I found. For example most of Jains of the present day seem to think sex is a sin and that it must be resorted to only to beget children. But Mahavira' s closest friend was a womaniser and Mahvira himself did not say sex was wrong until the end when his friend lost the balance of mind. Mhavira said sexual activity should be a controlled one. That was all.
Mahavira or Buddha were not ordinary persons. Angulikaksha went to kill Buddha with a sword in his hand. Buddha was in meditation atop a hill. Angulikaksha sits opposite. After a few minutes Anglukaksha thought that he could wait any longer to kill Buddha. After some more time he thinks as to why he should kill. His thoughts would go on change. By the time Buddha opened his eyes, Agulikaksha becomes his desciple, a trasformed person from a state of highway robber and dacoit.
Every person influences people around him.Everyone including a manual labourer or rickshaw puller for example. But people like Mahavira and Buddha transform people. It is impossible to escape their influence if you sit before them. And some bloody king who came under Buddha's influence for 20 years can not go on a ramapage of killing because and simply because his wife for 20 years found to have had a slave origin from her motherside. Which was nonsense.
Buddha could care little for any bodys kingdom or any ones patronage. Neither he could talk in such a horrible language to a desciple. Many western authors find terrible methods to make money.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan
But it is not science we are talking about "history"
Aur kitab khoob bikega (old, tested, recipe)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". by Carl Sagan
Butit is not science, sab chalega!
It is good, old, tested recipe for selling a book.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT