________________
IS THERE AN INNER CONFLICT OF TRADITION?
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
With regard to the non-Vedic tradition of medicine ZYSK has the following to say (p. 29-30): "Indian medical theoreticians placed paramount emphasis on direct observation as the proper means to know everything about mankind. ... Complete knowledge of humans and their relationship to their environment included an understanding of the causes of mankind's ailments. Indian medicine's inherent philosophical orientation led to theories about causes for mankind's afflictions. Although its exact origin cannot be determined, the etiology particular to Indian medicine is the three-humor (tridosa) theory. Nearly all the maladies plaguing humans are explained by means of three 'peccant' humors, or dosas - wind, bile, and phlegm - either singly or in combination. The dosas are really specific waste products of digested food, occurring in quantities greater or lesser than need to maintain normal health. They act as vitiators by disrupting the normal balance of the bodily elements (dhatus), which in turn are modifications of the five basic elements (earth, air, fire, water, and ether) found in all of nature, and the resulting disequilib. rium of the bodily elements produce disease. Their empirical orientation also led the medical theoreticians to include environmental factors, daily regimen, and external factors in their overall consideration of the causes of diseases."))
These observations about the early history of Indian medicine seem to confirm our impression that there existed, in the late-Vedic period, (at least) two segments of society which independently preserved rather radically different traditions and approaches to reality. In this connection I would like to cite the words of an archæologist. George ERDOSY, in an article called "The archæology of early Buddhism", arrives at the following conclusion (1993: 46):
(1) would be a great mistake to derive classical Indian civilisation solely from its Vedic antecedents. Such an approach may be criticised on two counts: to begin with, recent surveys of the "Aryan" problem... suggest that far from being an invading race, the Aryar of the Rigveda were a locally emerging ethnic group of northwestern India, distinguished by a set of social and religious institutions. Secondly:". many regions of northern India, previously thought to have been colonised only by the Aryans of the first millennium BC, had in fact been populated for at least 1000 years previously, and reveal a padual progress of civilisation which need not assume anything so drastic as foreign invasions. The "Aryanisation of the Indian Subcontinent, therefore, is best seen as the selective adoption of an attractive ideology-first associated with an ethnic group of northwestern India that called itself Arya - by local clites, who strove to justify expanding and increasingly inegalitarian social systems, whose presence in the archwo logical record we have just traced through the emergence of settlement hierarchies
Archæology therefore seems to provide some measure of support for the position I have presented.
The same author warns, in another publication (ERDOSY 1995: 3). against confusing "Aryans" with "Indo-Aryans". The first term - he explains - is based on the self-designation of the Vedic poets and denotes a multitude of ethnic groups subscribing to a newly emerging ideology, whereas the second term identifies speakers of a subgroup of languages within the IndoIranian branch of the Indo-European family. The implication is, of course, that there may have been Indo-Aryans who were not Aryans.
Let us return to ZYSK. I do not know to what extent his use of the expression "empirico-rational" is appropriate with regard to the non-Vedic traditions we have been considering. It does however raise the question whether the roots of Indian philosophy are to be looked for in the opposition between Vedic and non-Vedic traditions.
Here we have to turn to Erich FRAUWALLNER. FRAUWALLNER believed that the development of Indian philosophy is to be explained with the help of a basic opposition. In the pre-war years he maintained that this opposition was a racial one: the Aryan invaders dominated the first, purely philosophical period, whereas the second, theistic and dogmatic period betrayed the increased influence of the original non-Aryans.3s In later years he changed his views, 36 without however abandoning the idea that a basic opposition was at work in the history of Indian philosophy. He now believed that two currents of thought were at work. One of these had originated in the early Upanişads and is at the basis of early Upanişadic philosophy, it is characterized by the doctrine of a 'world-soul', Brahma. This current later gave rise to Samkhya and Buddhism, according to FRAUWALLNER (1953:
34. RUBEN (1979: 37), after referring to physiological thought, concludes: "So lässt sich
schon andeuten, dass es neben der uns literarisch einzig erhaltenen Theologie dieser Zeiten noch Wissen und anderes Glauben gab, aus dem sich Philosophie entwickeln konnte." He does not introduce the notion of two opposing traditions, but observes on p. 40, "dass im Grund nur die Medizin und die Staatslehre sich später von der
Theologie weitgehend lösen konnten" 35. FRAUWALLNER 1938: 1939. DE JONG (1997: 171) draws attention to a conference
contribution by FRAUWALLNER published in 1944, in which he quotes with approval W. v. SODEN's words "dass Wissenschaft im strengen Sinn des Wortes etwas ist, das nur von den durch die nordische Rasse bestimmten Indogermanen geschaffen werden
konnte". 36. OBERHAMMER 1976:9-10; cp. HOUBEN 1995: 7131. Walter RUBEN maintained still
in 1979 that philosophy in India was due to the Aryans: "Erst mit den Aryas begann Philosophic in Indien, etwa sechs Jahrhunderte nach ihrer Einwanderung, noch nicht, solange sie ihr Nomadisieren im Panjab und Gangesgebiet fortsetzten ... sonder erst, als sic dort allmahlich sesshaft geworden waren." (RUBEN 1979: 13). cp. p. 15-16: "Vorbedingungen des Beginn der indischen und griechischen Philosophie waren schliesslich die beiden ... Volker Kurz, man muss von der sich allseitig entwickelnden Menschheitsgeschichte und dem Platz der alten Inder und Griechen in ihr ausgehen, will mann verstehen, warum gerade bei ihnen ungefähr gleichzeitig Philosophie begann."
usually involved an elaborate ritual, often drawing on aspects of the dominant local religion and nearly always necessitating spiritually polent and efficacious words,
actions and devices." 33. FILLOZAT (1949: 157 (.) mentions the presence of the theory of breaths/winds in the
Upanipads as proof for the continuity of Vedic medicine and classical Ayurvedu. However, the same evidence might be interpreted as resulting from non Vedic influence, as in the case of the belief in rebirth. Various afflictions of wind mentioned In the Pili canon are discussed in ZYSK 1991:92f.
