" All human are equal", said the Buddha and by so doing let loose a storm that more than sending jitter down the spine of a tradition caste ridden Hindu society, swept himself off his feet.
Hinduism stood for casteism and Buddha opposed it. It was nothing for Buddha to partake of the food offered by Sujata a lowly untouchable girl as far as the Hindu were concerned, thereby drawing hordes of people of her ilk towards him, and away from Hinduism. What's more Hinduism was based on sacrifices and rituals. Buddha had no respect fro them. Hindus believed in a transcendental soul; Buddha did not support this belief. Thus, wasn't Buddha against almost all the basic tenets of the then prevalent Hindu faith?
Ovbiously, Buddha had thus hit the citadels of Hindu norms and and beliefs where it hurt them most. And, for all that he did to demolish the well nurtured and cherished Hindu beliefs and instititions, he would be made to suffer sooner or later.
This Hindu, Buddhist tug of war is brought into sharp focus even by the composition of the devotees and mourners gathered to collect the Master's relics. We hear of representatives from Rajagriha, the Lichhavis of Vaisali, the shakyas of kapilvastu, the Bulis of Alkappa, the Mallas of pawa and the koliyas, Similarly amongst the people who set up " Stupas" to preserve the Master's relice were the Mauryas of pippalivana, the Nagas of kalinga and the people of gar away kandahar, But representatives of most Hindu principals except one Hindu priest, Drona, and another Brahmin from Banadwipa were conspicuous by their absence.
About Buddha's death itself, which took place in completely mysterious circumstance, this much is known. He had taken shelter in the house of one chaunda, a blacksmith. There he was treated with a dish containing Sukar Mardava, which is said to have brought about his end. One school of thought holds the view that " Sukar Mardava " was kind of Mushroom, perhaps of the poisonous variety. The other holds that it was pork ham or bacon.
An advocate of non voilence throughout his long religious career, Buddha may well have abhored pork at all costs, except by my mistake. What therefore, he ate at the house of Chunda was more likely a dish of Mushrooms, either poisoned or naturally poisonous. The question should how be; if they were poisoned how far it was intentional; and second had been intentional was Chunda's lonely sadistic hand in the apparent conspiracy or was he just a tool at the hands of powerful enemies of Buddha, conspiring to take his life?
Part of the answer may be gleaned from the proceeding of the Buddhist council following the Master's death, where conspicuous by his absence at least at the initial stages, Anada, the otherwise well known life long friend and favorite disciple of Buddha, who according to Tibetan Scriptural sources was later charge sheeted on seven points, three of which were as follows:
1. That Anada had refused water to the Buddha even as the Master lay dying and request Ananda thrice for it;
2.That immediately after Buddha breathed his last, Aanada disrobed him and exposed his naked corpse, including his genitals, to public view; and
3.That while wrapping the coffin for cremation Ananda had disrespectfully stepped on the Master's body.
It is also said that Anand had been struck with apparent remorse after the Master's death. What precise reason led Ananda to weep over his "doing" we are not sure. Was it that he had been in the kow of the conspiracy, had there been one, even if he had no hand in it himself? The following words of the dying Buddha addressed to the repentant Ananda, reverberate inour memory with a resounding note.
" Ananda, futile it is to weep over me. Whatever is born in this world is destined to death and destruction........ I hope you will also rise above petty interest and may one day attain salvation"..
Not only this, the Council is also understood to have awarded a very severe punishment to one Channa, a charioteer of Buddha, with what in those days was known as Brahma Danda, besides expelling him from the society of Buddhists. This step taken by the Council also leads us to strongly suspect Chhann's role in that mysterious affair.
Agreed that all this is legend. Agreed also that legends do not make history, as history has to have the sanctifying touch of evidence, such as epigraphy. Our story has no such sanction behind it. But how about the contrary version the version of a natural death? What do we have but the historian's word for it and mere word at that?
.jpg)
