DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45392#0275
Buddhism Brahmanism
and not a state to be reached after death. “ To-day also,”
says the Brihadaranyaka (i, 4, 10), “ he who knows this—
I am Brahman—becomes this universe; and even the
gods have no power to prevent his so becoming; for he
is its Atman.” In the face of utterances such as these we
cannot admit the suggestion that the doctrine of salvation
here and now was “ never clearly or openly expressed in
pre-Buddhist thought.” 1 .
We also hear that “ in all Indian thought except
the Buddhist, souls, and the gods who are made in
imitation of souls, are considered as exceptions,” and
that “ to these spirits is attributed a Being without
Becoming, an individuality without change, a beginning
without an end.” 2 It is difficult to understand how any-
one acquainted with Indian thought ‘except the Buddhist’
can make a statement of this kind. For it is clearly
stated by Sankara that the word ‘ Indra ’ means “ not an
individual, but a certain position (sthana-visesha), some-
thing like the word ‘ General ’; whoever occupies the
position bears the name.”3 This view is taken for
granted in popular Hindu literature; it is commonly
held, for example, that Hanuman is to be “ the Brahma”
of the next aeon. Moreover in the pre-Buddhist
Upanishads the position of the personal gods is no more
privileged than it is in Buddhism; precisely as in
Buddhism they are represented as standing in need of,
and capable of receiving, saving knowledge, and in this
respect they have no advantage over men.4 Would it
be possible to point to any Hindu text claiming for any
personal deity as such a beginning without an end ? And
1 T. W. Rhys Davids, Early Buddhism, p, 74.
2 Ibid. p. 55 (italics mine).
3 Deussen, System of the Vedanta, p. 69. 4 Chandogya, 8, if
201
and not a state to be reached after death. “ To-day also,”
says the Brihadaranyaka (i, 4, 10), “ he who knows this—
I am Brahman—becomes this universe; and even the
gods have no power to prevent his so becoming; for he
is its Atman.” In the face of utterances such as these we
cannot admit the suggestion that the doctrine of salvation
here and now was “ never clearly or openly expressed in
pre-Buddhist thought.” 1 .
We also hear that “ in all Indian thought except
the Buddhist, souls, and the gods who are made in
imitation of souls, are considered as exceptions,” and
that “ to these spirits is attributed a Being without
Becoming, an individuality without change, a beginning
without an end.” 2 It is difficult to understand how any-
one acquainted with Indian thought ‘except the Buddhist’
can make a statement of this kind. For it is clearly
stated by Sankara that the word ‘ Indra ’ means “ not an
individual, but a certain position (sthana-visesha), some-
thing like the word ‘ General ’; whoever occupies the
position bears the name.”3 This view is taken for
granted in popular Hindu literature; it is commonly
held, for example, that Hanuman is to be “ the Brahma”
of the next aeon. Moreover in the pre-Buddhist
Upanishads the position of the personal gods is no more
privileged than it is in Buddhism; precisely as in
Buddhism they are represented as standing in need of,
and capable of receiving, saving knowledge, and in this
respect they have no advantage over men.4 Would it
be possible to point to any Hindu text claiming for any
personal deity as such a beginning without an end ? And
1 T. W. Rhys Davids, Early Buddhism, p, 74.
2 Ibid. p. 55 (italics mine).
3 Deussen, System of the Vedanta, p. 69. 4 Chandogya, 8, if
201