Prof. Dr. Lawrence A. Babb
Jainism and Buddhism are often classed together as anti-Vedic "heterodoxies." Leaving aside the question of whether or not such a label makes much sense, the fact remains that a comparison at the level of ritual culture reveals striking similarities between these two traditions. In Theravada Buddhism, as in Jainism, "presence" is an issue (cf. Parry 1986: 462).[1] The Buddha has achieved nirvana and in theory no longer exists. Neverthless, his images are worshiped. What, then, can such worship be?
In the Sinhalese tradition - to which I shall confine my brief observations - the dilemma is apparently mitigated to some degree by conferring continued existence on the Buddha. Obeyesekere suggests that the Buddha's own shelving (as spiritually irrelevant) of the question of whether the arhat is living or dead leaves an opening for the notion of a nonextinguished nirvana -realized being (1966: 8). He goes on to say that the presence of Buddha relics in Buddha temples provides a conceptual bridge to the idea that the Buddha images contain the Buddha's "essence." Gombrich likewise reports that the Buddha is regarded as "in some sense present and aware" and "numinously present" (1966: 23; for an extended discussion of this issue, see Gombrich 1971: 103-43).
Still, there are also indications that as an object of worship the Buddha's character is far closer to the Tirthankars than to, let us say, the Pustimarg's Krsna. To begin with, although the lesser deities of the Sinhalese pantheon intervene directly in the affairs of their worshipers, the Buddha does not. The lesser gods and goddesses are directly propitiated in prayer, whereas prayer directed to the Buddha is "commemorative" (Obeyesekere 1966: 5). Recitation of the Buddha's attributes repels malign supernaturals, but they are deterred out of respect for the Buddha and his teachings, not by any "active force" emanating from him (Gombrich 1966: 23).
Moreover, offerings to the Buddha have a special status. Michael Ames characterizes such offerings as "nonreciprocal." By this he means that they are not given in the expectation of divine favors, but simply to express reverence for the Buddha and his teachings. They have no effect on their recipient; rather, by representing the offerer's "renunciation" they improve the offerer's own "virtues," while nothing is actually "bestowed" by the Buddha (Ames 1966: 31). Also, offerings to the Buddha are not recovered as prasad, although prasad is indeed taken from the altars of deities. Food offered to the Buddha belongs to the same category as food offered to the sangha (the ascetic community), an idea echoed in the Jain materials we have seen, and "no self-respecting Buddhist would touch it" (Gombrich 1971: 119; see also Seneviratne 1978: 70, 176 f.n.). Normally, offerings to the Buddha are simply thrown away, given to beggars, or given to animals, especially dogs or crows (H. L. Seneviratne, personal communication; Gombrich 1971: 108, 119).
These materials seem to indicate that there are significant formal similarities between Tirthankar-worship among Svetambar Jains and Buddha-worship in Sri Lanka. In the Sinhalese tradition, too, we seem to be dealing with a ritual mode that is essentially monopolar and reflexive. There is no transactional closure; instead of forming the basis for intimate reciprocity with a divine other, the act of giving is a ritualization of what are conceived to be autonomous spiritual strivings. "Ego gives and alter receives," says Ames; "Alter's reaction, whatever it may be, is not necessary to validate ego's original act of giving. All alter has to do is accept the prestation" (1966: 31). To this might be added only the observation that the expulsion of the gift from the community - and even from the human world - suggests that it is, in ritual logic as well as physical fact, accepted by no "alter" at all.
We are, of course, unsurprised by the obvious similarities between Jain and Theravada Buddhist ritual cultures. These ritual cultures are associated with very similar ritual roles. Jains worship ascetics, and the highest worship is reserved for a personage so ascetic that he is beyond the reach of worship. Most of what is distinctive about Jain ritual culture follows from that fact. Buddhist worship is likewise focused on an ascetic being who is incapable of transactions with worshipers. Theological differences aside, Jainism and Buddhism are close siblings at the level of ritual culture.
