Is AN 5.191 coherent with the rest of the suttas? Or is it an inserted polemical sutta?

score:1

Accepted answer

If you look at the original:

“Pañcime, bhikkhave, porāṇā brāhmaṇadhammā etarahi sunakhesu sandissanti, no brāhmaṇesu. Katame pañca?

Pubbe sudaṁ, bhikkhave, brāhmaṇā brāhmaṇiṁyeva gacchanti, no abrāhmaṇiṁ. Variant: sudaṁ → pubbassudaṁ (mr)Etarahi, bhikkhave, brāhmaṇā brāhmaṇimpi gacchanti, abrāhmaṇimpi gacchanti. Etarahi, bhikkhave, sunakhā sunakhiṁyeva gacchanti, no asunakhiṁ. Ayaṁ, bhikkhave, paṭhamo porāṇo brāhmaṇadhammo etarahi sunakhesu sandissati, no brāhmaṇesu.

Then the root word used to refer to dogs is sunakh-, where the words used to refer to dog, as in the animal species, in Pali are usually koṭṭhu° or Kukkura (hence the modern Hindi कुत्ता. Kuttā). So this is an interesting choice of word, since this root word is found in the Petavatthu meaning or alluding to something completely different:

  • sunakho te khādati: a constituent part of a whole or system or collection (Pv II.1210, 13, 18)
  • in °sunakha, the Dog of Purgatory (Pv 152) of a dark, i.e. miserable, unfortunate birth, or social condition

So it's very plausible this text is wordplay to compare the behavior of the highest cast in the contemporary society (brahmin) to the lowest cast. I probably do not need to remind anyone that even today the lowest cast in India is referred to as "untouchables". As such, it's interesting that the word sandissati forms an idiom with the sunakh- root, so that sunakhesu sandissanti，can also mean "they are of no more value"( J．VI，217 )

We actually have the same wordplay in modern English vernacular: everyone knows what "you dog, you!" is referring to. It's not suggesting the person is an actual dog, but alluding to behavior.

Upvote:-1

It really depends on cultural norms, who the audience is, the intention and attitude with which one speaks, whether comparing heterodox tradition to dogs is inappropriate.

In MN 152 Buddha compares the teaching of brahmans by pointing out, "then blind men and deaf men would have developed faculties by their standard." https://lucid24.org/mn/mn152/index.html

Is that insulting? Could be. But is it true? Yes.

Ask the same question with AN 5.191

AN 6.29 Buddha asks a disciple "what are the 6 recollections". He gets the answer wrong, Buddha calls him a foolish man (mogha purisa). Is that insulting? It that un Buddha like? You can find plenty more examples like that.

In MN 75 (I think), the Buddha makes a simile of a brahman teacher deluding his students by blindfolding them and lying to them about their health condition. The Buddha asks, if the person removed the blindfold, realized that teacher was lying to him, wouldn't he want to kill him? Shocking isn't it? Is it insulting to that brahman? Is that un Buddha like? Or is he simply stating something likely to be true?

I think people project too much of their own ideas of virtue on to the Buddha and arahants. You all imagine the Buddha has some super power where everything that comes out of his mouth is politically correct and completely inoffensive to all people at all times.

There's also the concept of satire and humor. That existed during the Buddha's time too.

Upvote:0

Samyutta Nikaya 45.8

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech.

It is very unbuddha like to compare one's opponents to dogs. AN 5.191, can thus be argued to be a later insertion. However, it is subjective whether the argument will be accepted.

Upvote:0

This answer includes,

But Sujato thinks that the Anguttara is anyway later than Samyutta since it was composed using the small-sized suttas that could not be included in the thematic system of the Samyutta.

More post

Search Posts

Related post