DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45392#0272
Buddha the Gospel of Buddhism
IV. BUDDHISM AND BRAHMANISM
All writers upon Buddhism are faced with the difficulty
to explain in what respect the teaching of Gautama differs
from the higher phases of Brahman thought. It is true
that the distinction appeared clear enough to Gautama
and his successors; but this was largely because the
Brahmanism against which they maintained their polemic
was after all merely the popular aspect of Brahmanism.
From a study of the Buddha’s dialogues it would appear
that he never encountered a capable exponent of the
highest Vedantic idealism, such a one as Yajnavalkhya
or Janaka; or if Alara is to be considered such, Gautama
took exception to the Atmanistic terminology rather than
its ultimate significance. It appeared to Gautama and
to his followers then and now that the highest truths—
especially the truth embodied by Buddhists in the phrase
An-cittd, no-soul—lay rather without than within the
Brahmanical circle.
Many times in the history of religions has the Protestant,
having thus easily carried the outer defences of an Orthodox
faith, believed that there remained no other citadel. It
may be, on the other hand, that Gautama knew of the
existence of such a Brahman citadel—where the truth
was held, that the Atman is ‘ not so, not so ’—but regarded
the surrounding city as so hopelessly habituated to errors
of thought and action, as to determine him rather to build
upon a new site than to join hands with the beleaguered
garrison. Perhaps he did not take into account that all
such garrisons must be small, and did not foresee their
final victory. However this may be, it is at least certain
that at this period there existed no fundamental doctrinal
opposition of Brahmanism and Buddhism ; but Gautama,
198
IV. BUDDHISM AND BRAHMANISM
All writers upon Buddhism are faced with the difficulty
to explain in what respect the teaching of Gautama differs
from the higher phases of Brahman thought. It is true
that the distinction appeared clear enough to Gautama
and his successors; but this was largely because the
Brahmanism against which they maintained their polemic
was after all merely the popular aspect of Brahmanism.
From a study of the Buddha’s dialogues it would appear
that he never encountered a capable exponent of the
highest Vedantic idealism, such a one as Yajnavalkhya
or Janaka; or if Alara is to be considered such, Gautama
took exception to the Atmanistic terminology rather than
its ultimate significance. It appeared to Gautama and
to his followers then and now that the highest truths—
especially the truth embodied by Buddhists in the phrase
An-cittd, no-soul—lay rather without than within the
Brahmanical circle.
Many times in the history of religions has the Protestant,
having thus easily carried the outer defences of an Orthodox
faith, believed that there remained no other citadel. It
may be, on the other hand, that Gautama knew of the
existence of such a Brahman citadel—where the truth
was held, that the Atman is ‘ not so, not so ’—but regarded
the surrounding city as so hopelessly habituated to errors
of thought and action, as to determine him rather to build
upon a new site than to join hands with the beleaguered
garrison. Perhaps he did not take into account that all
such garrisons must be small, and did not foresee their
final victory. However this may be, it is at least certain
that at this period there existed no fundamental doctrinal
opposition of Brahmanism and Buddhism ; but Gautama,
198