Giacomo Benedetti

The action noun adhimukti derives from the verb adhi-muc, not attested in Classical Sanskrit but in Pali. It is regularly used in the passive, with the original meaning ‘to be fastened to’, and then ‘to adhere’. This meaning is not used in a concrete sense, but in a metaphorical one, referred to mind and mental objects, so that adhimukti can be used to express inclination, faith in a doctrine, and also intentional and stable representation of an image or an idea in meditative practice, sometimes with the effect of transformation of external reality. The common feature appears to be adherence or the fixing of the mind on its object.

The present paper considers the issue of the Sanskrit term ārya, starting from the use of ārya and arya as ‘freeman’ and ‘owner’ in opposition to dāsa ‘servant’ (or śūdra), from the Vedas to the Arthaśāstra and Pāli texts (in the form ayya). The original meaning is here interpreted as based on social classes rather than ethnic differences, although foreign populations could be considered as belonging to the dāsa or śūdra class. This social meaning can be found also in the Irish cognate aire ‘freeman, noble’, and in Iranic cognates like Middle Persian ērīh ‘nobility’. Derived terms from arya/ārya often have an honorific use, and from the social meaning, also a moral and spiritual meaning could be developed, which is more easily explained from the concept of ‘noble’ and ‘freeman’ than from that of an ethnic identity or kinship. If the original meaning of Indo-European *aryos was ‘freeman, noble’, it can be compared with the Afro-Asiatic root *ħar- ‘(vb.) to be superior, to be higher i...

La tesi tratta del Rishi, il poeta-sacerdote autore degli inni vedici. Dopo aver affrontato l’etimologia del termine e delineato i tratti principali, si considera il contesto storico-archeologico (individuato nella prima metà del II millennio a.C. e nella civiltà tardo-harappana) e si opera una comparazione con le figure di sciamani, poeti-veggenti e profeti di altre civiltà eurasiatiche. Quindi, si affronta un’analisi dettagliata delle attestazioni del Rishi nel Riveda, nell’Aitareya e Kaushitaki Brahmana, nel Nirukta, nella Brihaddevata, nella Taittiriya e Vajasaneyi Samhita, nello Shatapatha Brahmana, nella Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, nell’Atharvaveda, nella Mundaka e Prashna Upanishad

This article reflects on the idea of India and its inhabitants in ancient South Asian sources, starting from the concept of ārya opposed to dāsa, dasyu, śūdra and mleccha in its different senses (social, ethnic/linguistic and moral/spiritual) in Brahmanical, Jain and Buddhist contexts. We analyze then the notion of āryāvarta or abode of the āryas in Vedic Dharmasūtras and Manusmṛti (proposing parallels with archaeological cultures), and the analogous concept of āryāyatana and Central Region in Buddhist texts. In the second paragraph we consider a later notion comparable to that of modern India, that of Jambudvīpa and especially Bhāratavarṣa, with its unique characteristics in ancient Indian cosmology when compared with other regions of the world. In the third paragraph we observe how the land of the āryas was seen as a model of universal conduct, and also as the place of origin of barbarian peoples regarded as degraded Kṣatriyas, and finally we will consider how the ancient ethnic and geographical concepts can help us about the question of the origins of Indo-Aryans.

The discovery of a chariot burial in Sanauli, in north India, has stimulated a debate about its relation with the Mahābhārata and Aryans. We analyze its archaeological context and the possible connection of Ochre Coloured Pottery, Black and Red Ware and Painted Grey Ware cultures with Indian historical tradition.

The story of Ekaśṛṅga/Ṛśyaśṛṅga, the youth who has grown as a forest hermit since his birth, and is seduced by a courtesan or princess, is one of the most popular in Indian tradition. In this article, we will analyze the particular version of it found in the Mahāvastu together with its parallels and possible sources that have to do with the mythical figure of the unicorn and of the wild man or master of animals.

The forest hermit is often present in the Jātakas of the Mahāvastu, one time the technical term vānaprastha is used, normally the term ṛṣi. Often this figure is identified as the Bodhisattva in a former life. From these various stories, we can reconstruct their way of life, sometimes solitary, sometimes in families, sometimes in communities of ṛṣikumāras (young Ṛṣis) led by a preceptor (upādhyāya). Some traits are found also in the Brahmanic tradition, but there is a stress on the meditative practice, as in the Pāli Jātakas. A feature that is particularly present in the Mahāvastu is the practice of tapas, which is typical of forest hermits in Brahmanic texts. This practice is attributed to Gautama himself before the Awakening, and is finally declared as useless for liberation. Some Pāli Suttas criticize in detail the ascetic practice of tapas, but the term tapa(s) in Pāli has also a positive meaning, interpreted as spiritual effort and restraint of the senses. Some Suttas also criticize the way of life of the vānaprastha, which is abandoned by Uruvilvā Kāśyapa when he is converted by the Buddha and becomes a bhikṣu, in an episode reported also by the Mahāvastu. However, this way of life is idealized in the Jātakas of the Mahāvastu, and this can be interpreted, like tapas, as a remnant of the Brahmanic tradition present in the original tales, but also as related to a special appreciation of the forest dwelling that was adopted also by Buddhist monks, which was possibly present in the Lokottaravādin school of the Mahāvastu.

The figure of the Ṛṣi is one of the most fundamental and longstanding in Indian tradition, starting from the most ancient Vedic texts. We are inclined to identify the Ṛṣis with the Brahmanic tradition which saw in them the founders of the Brahmanic lineages as well as those who have seen and revealed Vedic mantras and rituals, but Buddhist texts often mention these figures, not only as representative of the Brahmanic tradition, but also identifying as Ṛṣis the Bodhisattva in the Jātakas, the Pratyekabuddhas, the monks disciples of the Buddha and the Buddha himself.
In some Suttas of the Pāli canon, the knowledge of Vedic Ṛṣis is explicitly denied, using the image of a row of blind men for the tradition starting from them, but in the Jātakas the Ṛṣis (isi in Pāli) are ascetics living normally in the Himalayas as vānaprasthas, adopting what is called isipabbajjā (Sanskrit ṛṣipravrajyā, the ‘going forth’ to religious life proper of the Ṛṣi). Through intense meditation they achieve the five abhiññās, which include knowledge (the divine eye and ear, the knowledge of the others’ minds and of previous lives) and the miraculous power (iddhi), most typically represented by the capability of flying through the air, which can be considered a visible manifestation of transcending the world. The same is true of the Jātakas of the Mahāvastu, where we find standardized descriptions of the yogic path leading to the five abhijñās, and formulaic epithets related to the spiritual power of Ṛṣis (maharddhika and mahānubhāva).
Traditionally, Ṛṣis were also regarded as endowed with the power of cursing the offenders, and this idea and fear is present in some stories of the Mahāvastu, but the ethics of compassion and patience followed by the Ṛṣis in the Jātakas prevents this potentiality from being realized.
Among the traditional qualities of Ṛṣis in Brahmanic texts, however, tapas (the ascetic practice of austerities) is retained in these representations, although it is criticized in canonical Suttas. Nonetheless, meditation is the main means of developing spiritual power, and the objects of knowledge (summed up in the abhijñās) are quite different from those seen by the Ṛṣis in the Vedic tradition (Mantras and rituals), and more similar to what we find in the Yogasūtras or the Mahābhārata, if we exclude the metaphysical tenets. 
A particular aspect that should be considered is the reason behind the use of the epithet ṛṣi for Buddhas and bhikṣus, whether it is simply due to the identification of the Ṛṣi with an ascetic, or the connection of Ṛṣis with special knowledge and power is also important for this choice.

Per affrontare la questione dell'India e dell'incontro con l'altro nella cultura indiana antica conviene riflettere su cosa sia il proprio e l'altro nei testi sanscriti. Nei Veda, appare il concetto di ārya contrapposto a dāsa, dasyu o śūdra. Nel Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra e nel Mahābhāṣya troviamo l'āryāvarta in un territorio a nord dei monti Pāriyātra (i Vindhya occidentali), a sud dell'Himālaya, a est del luogo dove scompare la Sarasvatī, a ovest della foresta Kālakavana (presso Prayāga). Un territorio delimitato dell'India settentrionale, l'unico puramente ārya, che ha norme autorevoli e classi ereditarie ben definite, mentre gli abitanti dei territori circostanti sono di origine mista e dimorare presso di loro può essere contaminante. Una regione analoga nella Manusmṛti corrisponde al madhyadeśa, la regione centrale, mentre l' āryāvarta si è esteso a tutta l'India settentrionale a nord dei monti Vindhya, anche se l'area dove la condotta virtuosa può essere appresa da tutti gli uomini è il brahmarṣideśa che include le regioni centrali, culla del Brahmanesimo. Una nozione paragonabile a quella di India è il bhāratavarṣa, che appare nel Mahābhārata e nei Purāṇa e si situa tra l'Himālaya e l'oceano, caratterizzata dalla successione dei quattro Yuga, e dai quattro varṇa (che tuttavia hanno dei paralleli anche in altri continenti). Un aspetto significativo è che la terra degli ārya è vista come non solo un modello di condotta universale, ma anche come l'origine dei popoli barbari, che sono spesso concepiti come Kṣatriya degradati in quanto maledetti e privati dei Brahmani (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, Mahābhārata, Viṣṇu Purāṇa). Questa visione indocentrica è il retroterra culturale della teoria 'Out of India' dell'origine degli Indoeuropei che ha acquisito forza negli ultimi decenni nell'ambito dell'ideologia hindutva e si oppone alla visione, imposta dagli Europei, di una recente origine occidentale degli Indoarii.

La questione del concetto di sacro nella lingua sanscrita Il termine 'sacro' deriva dal latino sacer, che indicava tutto ciò che è consacrato agli dèi, dalla radice *sak/sank-'rendere sacro, santificare' che troviamo anche in sancio 'consacrare, rendere inviolabile', nel participio sanctus 'santo, sacro, inviolabile, venerando'. Tale termine trova apparenti equivalenti in parole non imparentate come il greco ἱερός e ἅγιος, nelle lingue germaniche (inglese holy, tedesco heilig) e l'ebraico qadosh, ed è stato usato come categoria generale del fenomeno religioso. Il sociologo francese Émile Durkheim, diede questa definizione della religione in Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (1912): "una religione è un sistema solidale di credenze e di pratiche relative a cose sacre, cioè separate, interdette, le quali uniscono in un'unica comunità morale, chiamata Chiesa, tutti quelli che vi aderiscono". 1 Tuttavia, il concetto di interdizione per definire il sacro, benché frequentemente applicabile a ciò che è sacro, non pare essenziale in tutte le realtà che noi consideriamo religiose. Inoltre, anche l'impuro è separato e interdetto, fatto che porta Durkheim a dire che anche le cose impure sono sacre, 2 coerentemente con la sua definizione, ma in modo difficilmente accettabile per la concezione usuale di ciò che è sacro, che implica purezza e superiorità. 3 Rudolf Otto nella sua opera intitolata Il Sacro ("Das Heilige", 1917; rivisto nel 1936), connette la religione e la categoria del sacro a un sentimento specifico, che chiama il senso del 'numinoso', ovvero il senso del mysterium tremendum et fascinans, un mistero terribile ma anche affascinante, non comprensibile razionalmente, collegato a nozioni quali la potenza sovrana (majestas), l'energia (energicum), il mirabile (mirum) e lo straordinario/inquietante (ungeheuer, unheimlich), il venerabile (augustum), il 'totalmente altro' (Ganz Andere). Questi caratteri in generale possono essere applicati anche alla sacralità indiana, con qualche riserva per il 'totalmente altro', che è stato

The relation between Harappan civilization and Vedic culture can be analysed with the help of the epic and Purāṇic tradition and chronology. The starting point is the date of the Mahābhārata war, to be placed around 1400 BCE. That period corresponds archaeologically to the end of the Late Harappan phase between Haryana and Gujarat and to the spread of Black and Red Ware in Western UP. These facts correspond well to the descriptions of the migration of the Yādavas from Kathiawar and of the invasion from Magadha of Jarāsandha. In this frame, the Sanauli burial, involving Harappan and Ochre Coloured Pottery elements, belongs to the Rigvedic period of the first half of the second millennium BCE. Around 2000 BCE we have the age of Sudās and Viśvāmitra, associated in the epic tradition with the passage from Tretā to Dvāpara Yuga and with a great drought lasting 12 years, that can be traced also in climatic history and has likely caused a crucial crisis of the Harappan civilization, with the abandonment of several sites and finally the end of the Integration Era. Following these synchronisms, Rigveda and Late Harappan civilization are contemporary, involving both the Sarasvatī valley (that is the central region of early Rigveda) and the Indus valley. The Central Asian elements in Cemetery H can be connected with the invading Pakthas and Bhalānas mentioned in RV VII.18, the hymn of the Battle of the Ten Kings.

The present paper considers the issue of the Sanskrit term ārya, starting from the use of ārya and arya as 'freeman' and 'owner' in opposition to dāsa 'servant' (or śūdra), from the Vedas to the Arthaśāstra and Pāli texts (in the form ayya). The original meaning is here interpreted as based on social classes rather than ethnic differences, although foreign populations could be considered as belonging to the dāsa or śūdra class. This social meaning can be found also in the Irish cognate aire 'freeman, noble', and in Iranic cognates like Middle Persian ērīh 'nobility'. Derived terms from arya/ārya often have a honorific use, and from the social meaning, also a moral and spiritual meaning could be developed, which is more easily explained from the concept of 'noble' and 'freeman' than from that of an ethnic identity or kinship. If the original meaning of Indo-European *aryos was 'freeman, noble', it can be compared with the Afro-Asiatic root *ħar-'(vb.) to be superior, to be higher in status or rank, to be above or over; (n.) nobleman, master, chief, superior; (adj.) free-born, noble'. We can have thus to do with concepts of nobility and freedom developed in the common cultural frame of a society where slavery and social stratification were evolving.