7629974006

61

Apastamba Dharmasutra that, in the other world, the son will belong to his real begetter, constitute a decisive argument¹.

The popular Buddhist theory of reincamation leads to an entirely different world: at the moment of death, the individual loses his psycho-physical apparatus and becomes a so called Gandharva, a separate being in the »intermediary state«, which sets forth into the world to look for the womb of its futurę mother ². As soon as it finds its proper parents — »proper« meaning that they belong to the class of beings in which it is to be born in accordance with its karmie destination — it »keeps ready« (pratyupasthita) and, on the occasion of its parents’ eoition enters its mother’s vulva. The part played by parents, especially by the father, is ąuite secondary ³ and the whole process strongly reminds the ratapa theory of the Australian Arandas, with this difference, however, that the ratapas are emanations of mythical ancestors. Consequently a given ratapa can be incarnated only in given women, without changing during its samsara the tie with a elan totem, which has been settled once for ever. On the contrary Buddhism even in its popular yersion, clings in its integrity to the democratic principle of equal chances for all the beings in-volved in the world process. The Mahayanistic doctrine of Tatha-gatagarbha constitutes the most eloquent expressiou of this uni-yersalistic tendeney. It might be added that this tendency is

1

Cf. M. Winternitz, Die Frau in den indischen Religionen, 1920, p. 43.

2

*    This popular doctrine should be di9tinguished from its philosophical exposition on the ground of the dharma-theory. The chronological relation between these two variants is not elear. According to an hypothesis which wa9 universally accepted not long ago, and which is still defended by Stcher-batsky, Buddhism was a philosophical system from the 9tart, with the central conception of anatma-dkarma and pudgala-nairćUmya. The popular belief, based on personalism and animism, would be, conseąuently, a con-cession and adaptation for propaganda purposes. But according to another hypothesis, defended by de la Yallee Poussin, Keith, Przyluski and Mrs Rhys Davids, tlus popular animi9tic theory constitutes the tenets of the ori-ginal, primitive doctrine, on the ground of which philosophical, impersonal-istic theories arose at a much later datę. This second thesis is morę pro-bable, though it also possesses its drawback9. Whatever be the truth, it is elear that not the philosophical skandhamdtravdda, but the popular anim-istic a9pect of Buddhism should be taken into consideration in the study of the problems discussed in this paper.

3

*    Cf. Milindapailha, p. 123 ff, the story of Dukula and Parika.