Introduction

i.1The Exemplary Tale of Śārdūlakarṇa is one of the primary texts in the Kangyur treating the issue of caste. By the time of the Buddha, the notion of caste had already begun to impact Indian society, with members of the brahmin community propagating the belief that they were spiritually superior to others in a strict social hierarchy fixed by birth. On several occasions, as recorded in a number of discourses in the Pali Tipiṭaka, the Buddha repudiated this belief by teaching brahmins that one’s spiritual status is determined not by birth but by merit. As a kind of compendium, The Exemplary Tale of Śārdūlakarṇa contains several of the arguments given in these shorter discourses while adding some others, all placed in the narrative context of a past life story that serves to illustrate the workings of karma. Many of the key arguments advanced in this avadāna were later refined and given a more rigorous philosophical foundation by Buddhist thinkers such as Āryadeva, Vasubandhu, Candrakīrti, and Dharmakīrti, at a time when the caste system had become more societally entrenched across the subcontinent.

i.2Framing the avadāna is the story of the outcaste girl Prakṛti and the venerable Ānanda, the Buddha’s cousin and close attendant, which begins with an encounter at a well outside the city of Śrāvastī. Ānanda, who wishes to drink some water after his alms round, finds Prakṛti drawing water at the well. As a bhikṣu who has left behind his societal status‍—in his case, as a Śākya, the kṣatriya upper caste‍—and is thereby no longer bound by caste, he is unconcerned about caste restrictions and the issue of purity, and so he simply asks Prakṛti for some water. At first Prakṛti hesitates, saying that she is an outcaste, implying that her water offering would “pollute” him, but Ānanda assures her that he has no interest in caste conventions. After he drinks the water and departs, Prakṛti is left deeply impressed by Ānanda’s appearance and demeanor, and she falls madly in love with him.

i.3In her desire to win the venerable Ānanda as her husband, Prakṛti first turns to her mother, who is an expert in magic spells and sorcery, activities often associated in Indian society with lower-caste and outcaste people. Despite her mother’s misgivings, they perform a magical ritual that succeeds in entrancing Ānanda because, still to attain arhatship, he is not yet “free from desires.” Bewitched and confused, Ānanda finds himself in Prakṛti’s house when he suddenly comes to his senses and calls out to the Buddha. The Buddha immediately cancels the spell with a mantra of his own‍—an exceptional event, since there are very few sūtras in which the Buddha uses a mantra in this manner. Once Ānanda has returned to Jetavana, the Buddha then teaches him a short “six-syllable” protective mantra that can be used by anyone seeking release from any predicament, however dire.

i.4Undeterred, Prakṛti, dressed in her finest attire, awaits the venerable Ānanda outside Śrāvastī, and follows him as he makes his alms round in the city. Distressed at her attempts to attract his attention, Ānanda quickly heads back to Jetavana for the Buddha’s help, while Prakṛti continues her pursuit. It is then that the Buddha comes to hear of Prakṛti’s fervent wish, and he begins to lead her onto the spiritual path. The Buddha gives his consent for their union and then ensures that it meets with the approval of Prakṛti’s parents. Once her parents have departed, he asks Prakṛti whether she is willing to take on nunhood to be with Ānanda. In her commitment to Ānanda, Prakṛti pleads for ordination, which the Buddha grants with the well-known phrase, “Come, nun, live the spiritual life” (Skt. ehi tvaṃ bhikṣuṇi cara brahma­caryam). The Buddha subsequently instructs her in the Dharma by what is known as a gradual talk (Skt. anupūrvikā kathā), starting with the basic virtues of generosity and ethical conduct and culminating in the understanding of the four truths of the noble ones. Finally, when Prakṛti recognizes that her infatuated behavior was mistaken, the Buddha hears her confession, thus clearing her last obstacle to arhatship, which she attains soon thereafter.

i.5At this juncture, the avadāna shifts from a tale of love and liberation to one of caste discrimination. When the brahmins and other upper-caste people of Śrāvastī come to hear that an outcaste has become a nun and an arhat under the Buddha, they are outraged, and they foresee the circumstance that she will come on alms round in their neighborhoods, which is normally forbidden territory for outcastes. When they inform King Prasenajit, the ruler of the kingdom of Kauśala, at his palace in Śrāvastī, the king, though a devoted follower of the Buddha, shares their disapproval, and together they set out for Jetavana to ask the Buddha for an explanation. Greeted with varying degrees of respect by King Prasenajit’s retinue of brahmins and upper-caste people, the Buddha immediately understands the reason they have come. Thus, after summoning the nun Prakṛti and the assembly of monks, he begins to tell a past-life story that serves to remove the prejudice of the audience.

i.6This long story, which forms the bulk of the text, concerns an outcaste king who wishes to marry his son to the daughter of an eminent brahmin. The outcaste king Triśaṅku is introduced as possessing all brahmanical learning, much of it remembered from previous lifetimes. Interestingly, his name is probably an allusion to Triśaṅku, the king of Ayodhyā, who was degraded to the rank of an outcaste by the Vedic sage Vasiṣṭha and later became connected to a constellation of stars‍—a story that is told in the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, and the Purāṇas. The outcaste king’s son, Śārdūlakarṇa, is briefly described as being flawless in deportment, education, and appearance, but despite his prominence in the title of the avadāna, he does not actively figure in the narrative to follow.

i.7The brahmin Puṣkarasārin is introduced as an eminent scholar fully accomplished in brahmanical learning, but only after noting that his pure status is secured by family lineage. One is here led to recall the eminent brahmin Pokkharasāti (the Pali version of the name Puṣkarasārin) in the Pali canon, who presided over the district town Utkaṭa at the time of the Buddha Śākyamuni. The brahmin Puṣkarasārin’s daughter, who, like Śārdūlakarṇa, is only briefly described and does not figure otherwise in the story, carries the name Prakṛti, making for an immediate association with the nun Prakṛti, whose past life the Buddha is narrating. The irony of an outcaste girl having been a brahmin maiden in a previous life would certainly not have been lost on this text’s audience.

i.8The narrative begins with King Triśaṅku’s decision to request Puṣkarasārin for his daughter’s hand in marriage, upon which he proceeds to Utkaṭa and awaits the brahmin at the park where the latter regularly teaches. As Puṣkarasārin arrives with his brahmin students, Triśaṅku immediately puts the matter to him, approaching him with a form of address (bho, here translated as “dear”) that is normally used by brahmins among themselves, and often with an air of superiority toward those of lower status. Unaware of the king’s learnedness and past history, the brahmin angrily scolds him for his insolence in even daring such a proposal as an outcaste, and he exclaims, in accordance with caste belief, that matrimonial ties can only be forged within one’s own caste. King Triśaṅku, however, has come with conviction and seeks to counter Puṣkarasārin’s caste beliefs.

i.9In order to show that caste is a mere “commonplace notion” (Skt. sāmānyasaṃjñā; Tib. shes tha mal) that has no basis in reality, the outcaste king poses two kinds of arguments to the brahmin. First, he argues that there is no biological distinction among human beings that would indicate different “species” (which in Sanskrit is referred to with the same word as “caste,” jāti): both brahmins and non-brahmins are born from a womb and share the same physical properties. This has direct parallels with arguments made by the Buddha in two discourses in the Pali canon, the Assalāyana Sutta (MN II 148) and the Vāseṭṭha Sutta (Sn 600–611). Triśaṅku next goes to great lengths to point out contradictions in the beliefs and practices that brahmins had formulated to reinforce caste ideas. Thus, after pointing out the brahmins’ hypocritical stance on ritual killing, he refers to the device by which brahmins who have been excommunicated from the brahmin caste due to committing one of four severe crimes can regain their brahmin status through penance. Based on this view, brahminhood is not an immutable fact of nature fixed by birth but rather a fragile social convention invented by humans to secure particular ends. In this vein, by showing that the qualities of virtuous conduct, learning, and wisdom may be equally present among members of the other castes, the text relentlessly criticizes the attempt to legitimize brahminhood as something inborn. These arguments, which assume extensive knowledge of brahmanical literature and law books such as the Manusmṛti, bear a close resemblance to those set forth in the Vajrasūcī, the piercing anti-caste treatise traditionally ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa, the famous Buddhist poet of brahmin background who flourished during the second century ᴄᴇ.

i.10One of the main targets of criticism in the discussion is the so-called creation myth that brahmins adduced to justify caste hierarchy. According to one of the hymns in the Ṛgveda (Puruṣa Sūkta, 10.90), the supreme being, identified as Brahmā, created the four main castes of human society out of different parts of his body: the brahmin caste from his face or mouth, the kṣatriya or “warrior” caste from his arms, the vaiśya or “merchant-farmer” caste from his thighs, and the śūdra or “servant” caste from his feet. After the brahmin Puṣkarasārin firmly proclaims this belief in reaction to King Triśaṅku’s egalitarian position, the outcaste king makes several arguments that turn the idea on its head. Provisionally adopting his rival’s position, he reasons along theistic lines that if everyone and everything derives from one divine being, then all are of the same nature and thus equal. Additionally, he compares the four castes created by Brahmā to four sons with different names belonging to one and the same father, or to a tree’s fruits that have their origin in the same seed. These arguments, too, are found in the above-mentioned Vajrasūcī. Having undermined the discriminatory purport of this “origin myth” of the four main castes, Triśaṅku proceeds to narrate an alternative, socio-historical account of how castes came into being, not by divine creation but through a gradual division of labor that developed in society over time. This account, with its etymological explanation of the castes (of which we have added the relevant Sanskrit terms in brackets), in fact draws on the socio-genealogical account found in the Aggañña Sutta (DN II 93–95) that is given by the Buddha himself.

i.11Despite the force of the king’s reasoning that humankind is one, that people all belong to one human family, the brahmin remains unconvinced and continues to refuse the proposal for marriage. In response, Puṣkarasārin sets out to show off his brahmanical learning to Triśaṅku. He begins by asking the outcaste king whether he has any knowledge of the various brahmanical scriptures and sciences. Although Triśaṅku had already demonstrated some erudition in his arguments, at this point he openly declares that he possesses all the requisite knowledge and describes in detail how the different brahmanical traditions came into being. After hearing this, the brahmin falls silent in embarrassment, and the outcaste king continues to argue why social status is determined not by heredity but by personal merit. As examples, he points to several outcastes and non-brahmins who by their own efforts came to be respected as great sages, even by brahmins. This reference is also made in the Vajrasūcī but has its precedent in the Buddha’s statements in the Vasala Sutta (Sn 137–40).

i.12As Puṣkarasārin comes to realize that the king may indeed possess knowledge that is normally considered the reserve of brahmins, he begins to question Triśaṅku about it. First, he asks the king about the brahmanical lineages in which he acquired this knowledge, and then inquires of his knowledge of the celebrated Sāvitrī mantra, more commonly known as the Gāyatrī mantra, whose recitation throughout history has been the hallmark of a brahmin. In addition to giving a short exposition on the origin of this mantra, Triśaṅku is also able to recite the Sāvitrī mantras specific to each of the other castes (which are not mentioned in any brahmanical sources).

i.13What then follows, occupying the second half of the text, is a lengthy lecture on the various constellations in which the outcaste king demonstrates his extensive knowledge of brahmanical astrology. He discusses the various lunar asterisms and their effects, providing an array of information on the practice of astrological prediction and the interpretation of signs, in which brahmins had specialized since early times. Many of the details in this extensive presentation correspond to those in brahmanical astrological sources such as the Bṛhatsaṃhitā (sixth century ᴄᴇ), but in several places the contents are unique. Thus, the text preserves a rare record of an early stage in the development of Indian astronomical and astrological ideas.

i.14At the close of Triśaṅku’s erudite discourse on brahmanical science, the outcaste king makes a final revelation. Stating that he can remember his past lives, he discloses how he acquired his erudition in brahmanical learning: in past births he himself was in fact Brahmā, as well as those renowned sages of ancient times who founded the brahmanical traditions. It is only with this revelation, in which Triśaṅku himself exemplifies the true brahminhood that is attainable through karmic merit alone, that Puṣkarasārin is fully convinced of the king’s worthiness. After silencing the protests of his students, the brahmin reconfirms the egalitarian arguments the king had given earlier, and he concludes with an avowal of the law of karma:

i.16At this point, the brahmin Puṣkarasārin joyfully grants his daughter Prakṛti’s hand in marriage to Śārdūlakarṇa. The marriage story ends with the outcaste king returning to his city as a renowned and revered leader who continues to rule his peaceful and prosperous kingdom according to the Dharma.

i.17After telling this story, the Buddha proceeds to reveal its implications by identifying the true identity of its central characters. To an audience of brahmins and other upper-caste people, he reveals that at that time, he himself was the outcaste king Triśaṅku, while the brahmin Puṣkarasārin was Śāriputra, his close disciple renowned for his intelligence and learning, who, incidentally, is deemed by tradition to have been of brahmin origin. This disclosure affirms that it was the outcaste king’s virtuous words and deeds, his “good karma,” that led to his eventual attainment of buddhahood. The Buddha further reveals that the outcaste prince Śārdūlakarṇa was the venerable Ānanda, another of the Buddha’s foremost disciples, and that the brahmin maiden to whom he was wedded was in fact Prakṛti, the outcaste girl who had become an arhat nun. Thus, the point is reiterated that caste designations have no meaning in light of karma and merit.

i.18The Buddha concludes with an admonition to his monks and the rest of the audience to strive diligently and mindfully on the basis of the four truths of the noble ones, the implication being that one may attain the same arhatship that the nun Prakṛti has achieved. At the end of this discourse, sixty monks become arhats, and many brahmins and upper-caste people come to clearly understand the Dharma, while the people of Śrāvastī and the rest of world rejoice in the Buddha’s teaching.

i.19Turning now to the textual history of the Śārdūla­karṇāvadāna, we can see that the story of the venerable Ānanda and the outcaste girl Prakṛti enjoyed considerable popularity within and beyond India over the centuries. There are some ten versions of this story preserved in different places in the Chinese Tripiṭaka. The earliest translation (Taishō 551) is attributed to the Parthian monk An Shigao, who lived in Central Asia during the second century ᴄᴇ. This version, however, lacks the entire past life story with King Triśaṅku and differs in some narrative details. Also, in what is probably the latest version in Chinese, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra (Taishō 945), a text possibly composed in Chinese but whose translation is ascribed to Pāramiti in 705 ᴄᴇ, the story occurs without the past life story and instead serves as the introduction. Only in two Chinese translations do we find the past life story regarding Śārdūlakarṇa: one dated to 230 ᴄᴇ and attributed to the Indo-Scythian upāsaka Zhi Qian (Taishō 1300; in collaboration with the Indo-Scythian monk *Dharmadīpa) and one by the Indo-Scythian monk Dharmarakṣa (Taishō 1301), which is said to have been translated between 307 and 313 ᴄᴇ. This would indicate that, initially, the story of Ānanda and the outcaste girl stood on its own, and that the past life story with its trenchant critique of caste was added at a later stage‍—perhaps, given the parallels noted in the above summary, under the inspiration of the Vajrasūcī. Judging by the Magadhan measures of weight and distance given in the text, the avadāna was probably put into writing in the Magadha region sometime during the second or third century ᴄᴇ‍—precisely the period when brahmanical law and caste strictures were starting to be implemented vehemently in Indian society.

i.20That the avadāna was reworked and supplemented over time can further be seen in the differences between the third-century Chinese translations and the Sanskrit text that is presently extant. Preserved in Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts that postdate the Chinese translations by almost fifteen hundred years, the Sanskrit text now available to us is greatly expanded in the section in which King Triśaṅku expounds on Indian astrology, adding a large number of additional lectures on such prognostic practices. Moreover, besides these additions and some phrases that appear to have been inserted elsewhere in the avadāna, there are also some differences, compared to the Chinese translations, in the actual phrasing of the text. Although this might at first be attributed to the particularities of two vastly different languages‍—Sanskrit and Chinese‍—it more likely indicates that a rather different Sanskrit (or Prakrit) text existed in the third century ᴄᴇ. And indeed, an alternative Sanskrit version with alternative phrasing has recently been brought to light on the basis of manuscript fragments from Central Asia probably dating to the fourth century ᴄᴇ.

i.21The Tibetan translation is much closer to the Sanskrit text preserved in Nepal, though it also lacks the added lectures. The text was translated in the eleventh century by the Tibetan monk Dro Sengkar Śākya Ö (’bro seng kar SAkya ’od) together with the Indian scholar-monk Ajitaśrībhadra. Belonging to the Dro family, Sengkar Śākya Ö had studied Sanskrit in Nepal and India and collaborated on a number of translations with Ajitaśrībhadra, mostly on works preserved in the Tengyur. In view of his sojourn in Kathmandu, it might be the case that for the translation of this avadāna he made use of a Sanskrit manuscript that was procured there, and his translation would therefore present us with the Sanskrit text as it was current in Nepal and India in the eleventh century, although we have to leave open the possibility that the extended Sanskrit version was also in existence at the time. Because the avadāna was translated into Tibetan at a relatively late date, it is not recorded in the Denkarma and Phangthangma inventories of Tibetan imperial translations. It is, however, included in the different Kangyurs from the fourteenth century onward.

i.22For the English translation offered here we have followed this Tibetan canonical translation of the text. We have therefore omitted the supplementary section that is found only in the extended Sanskrit version, and we have also omitted certain phrases that seem to have been inserted at a later point. That said, we have very often deferred to the Sanskrit throughout the translation, especially in the section on astrology with its specific Sanskrit terms, since the Tibetan translation is not always clear or correct, and it sometimes appears to omit terms and phrases. While some of these cases are explained in the endnotes, we have not exhaustively recorded every instances in which the source texts differ. In the case of the mantras given in the text, we have relied on the Sanskrit to reconstruct the wording, while retaining the less extended form of the mantras as they occur in the Tibetan as well as in an older Nepalese Sanskrit manuscript, which we were able to consult at the National Archives in Kathmandu. In other instances, however, the Tibetan proved to be more reliable than the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, which contain numerous textual corruptions. In some cases we also consulted the Chinese translations to help establish correct readings. In this process of establishing an accurate base text, we benefitted greatly from the extensively annotated Sanskrit edition published in Shantiniketan in 1954 by the Bengali scholar Sujitkumar Mukhopadhyaya, who also provided many useful emendations and references in a subsequent study published in 1967. For the Tibetan text, we have based ourselves on the text of the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the variant readings of other Tshalpa Kangyurs given in the comparative Pedurma edition. Our choices in adopting variant readings from the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese sources are mentioned and discussed in the endnotes.

i.23We may briefly note in closing that The Exemplary Tale of Śārdūlakarṇa has continued to speak to the hearts and minds of people in modern times. As part of the Divyāvadāna, a popular anthology of Sanskrit avadānas, it was among the first Buddhist texts from Nepal that were studied and discussed by the nineteenth-century French scholar Eugène Burnouf in his influential Introduction à l’histoire du buddhisme indien, published in 1844. Through Burnouf’s summary and short translation, the story of Ānanda and Prakṛti came to the attention of the German composer Richard Wagner, inspiring him to outline an opera based on this tale of love and liberation. It was a century later, however, in 1938, that the Bengali poet and composer Rabindranath Tagore brought the story to the stage in a “dance drama” titled Chandalika (The untouchable girl), which is enjoyed by audiences in India and abroad down to the present day.