permitting other interpretations as well as the interpretation that 

 identified Soma with the fl\-agaric. As an Indologist, rather 

 than a botanist, I still feel that the broader hypothesis— that 

 Soma was an entheogen— is more significant than the narrower 

 one that it was a mushroom. 0\er the _\'ears. however, the new 

 evidence that RGW has brought to light, particularly the evi- 

 dence linking the Buddha's last meal to Soma through the dou- 

 ble links of the Vedic Puiika and the Santal putka. does in fact 

 make it seem likely that Soma was a mushroom, as RGW 

 believed from the first moment, and, when we recall the religious 

 role of urine mentioned above, specificalh the fly-agaric. But 

 each of the three levels of the h_\ pothesis that Soma was an 

 entheogen, a mushroom, and the fl\'-agaric adds valuable 

 dimensions to our understanding of both Vedic and post-Vedic 

 religion. 



Wendy Doniger OTIaherty 



Chicago 

 January 15, 1982 



NOTES 



I. 1S96 and carliL-r, Karl Fiiizcn Neumann: Die Rcclcn Gotanio BuiUlho's 

 ausili's Mitdcrcn Siniiniluni^ Mci/himanikavo chw Pali- Kanofis, I cipsig. IH96. 

 pp. \i\-\xii. Ncuniann cilcs earlier urilers: Friedrieh Zimmermann. who in 

 turn refers \o an arliele in the Journal of ihc \taha- Boclhi Society, \o\. I . No. 



L X 



\iii. pp. 2-3- Calcutta. 1892. wherein llie editor o{ tliis Journal reproduces 

 statements b> "Rh\s Daxids, Bigandet. Rockhill. and Colonel Olcott/' la\ing 

 stress on the proper meaning oWsukara-nunh/ava. We ha\e seen none of these 

 earlier discussions. 



1910. T. W. and C A. F. Rh_\s Da\ids. and later editions. Dialo\^ucs ofthe 

 Ruililha: Pan II. Translated from the f\ili of the Di^ha Sikaya h\ T. \V. and 

 C. A. F. Rh\s Da\ids. One ot the series of the Sacred Books of the Buddhists. 

 [Published for the Fali Text SocietN b\ Fu/ac. Fondon. (All of our quotations 

 from the Dii^ha Mkava are from the 1959 edition.) 



1916. Coomarasv\ani\. Ananda K.: BuiUIha and the Gospel of BuiUlhisn}. p. 

 79., (ieorge (i. Harrap. FtrndiMi. 



1931-2. Arthur Waley. "Did Buddha die of eating pork?" M'elaniies chinoi.s 

 el houiUlhiques. Vol. F, pp. 343-354. Brussels. 



247 



