Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
established that the original teachings of the Buddha were, to a large extent
overlook the similarity between the Sankhya and the Buddhism. In rejecting
God, Buddha was no less deliberate and categorical than the Slnkhya system.
As the Sankhya school developed much earlier than Buddhism, it can be said
with strong presumption that at least for his atheism, the Buddha was directly
indebted to the Slfikhya, although he differs from Kapila in his main interest. 1
1. Indian Atheism,
D P. Chottapadhyya,
P.9 5
(71)
represents the basic. Original teachings of the Buddha, although with a good
deal o f Scholastic elaboration. The Sarvastivadins are divided into two classes
The Theravadin scriptures are written in Pali. They are divided into
not? Does the soul survive after death? And hence forth to him, these
are not less fool than that man, whose heart pierced by a poisonous arrow and
who instead of taking it out whiles away his time on idle speculation about
2. BrahmajalasuttSTnta (Dighanikaya 1.30 34) translated by T,W. Rhys Davids 'Sacred Books of the
Buddhists'
Qtd. in H. Zimmer - Philosophies of India,
P 331.
3. Ency of Phil. Vol I,
P 419
(72)
the origin, the size, the metal, the maker and the shooter of the arrow .4
Buddhas main teachings are centred round with the practical questions
anicca or impermanence.
Buddha was an ethical teacher with a practical and realistic view of the
determining the nature of the ultimate cause of the world Buddha saw
Eight fold Paths for the cessation of misery. Avidya (ignorance) which is the
root cause of suffering; is the wrong belief in Atman, and Prajna (wisdom)
consists in eradication of this belief. To him God was only an illusion; there
was no proof for his existence. He was not only the discoverer to Truth but
also its revealer to mankind. He shared with men the truth, which he had
iThe anatta or no-self doctrine implies both that living beings have no
eternal souls and that there is no cosmic self. The Buddha indeed did not
believe in a creator and seems to have found the existence of evil and suffering
4. Majjhima NikSya I 63
Qtd in Critical Survey of Indian Phil. Chandradhar Sarma,
P. 70
(73)
underlying self is superfluous and erroneous. This is in line with the doctrine
contemporaneously in Jainism .5
To the Vaibhasikas, a thing exists in all the three points of time - past
present and future though its modes undergo changes every moment. But to
the Sautantrikas, a thing exists only in the present - neither in the past nor in
the Upanisads and the Buddha, it is not in their views of the world experience
Again RadhaKrishnan observes that both the Buddha and the Upanisads
and pain. Both agree in the point of placing before us the ideal of a state
beyond all possibility of pain and bondage. The Upanisads speak it more
But the Buddha emphasizes the negative aspect of it. Nirvana is the
annihilation of sorrow.8
writes about Buddhas arguments against belief in God. Buddha argues if there
is an Omnipotent, all good God, there can be no evil in the world. If God is
all-good and all movements of things and actions of men are His actions, so
they are also good. But quite contrastingly, we see sufferings, evils, in and
around us, so there can be no all good God. Buddha argues against Brahman
too. If Brahman is beyond all relation of things, then his existence cannot be
Bradley also justifies this view. How can that which depends on nothing and is
related to nothing, produces things which are related to one another and
reason is the final, indeed the only arbiter of what can be rationally believed.
8 Ibid
P 18
( 75 )
evident with respect to the senses (that it is something that we know direct!>
through the senses). For modem philosophers like Descartes, Hume a belief is
now in pain' or I miwseem to be seeing a green apple or. But that belief in ( r o d
God as he holds reason and experience to be the source and test of a true
belief. A belief is true if it satisfies the laws of logic and is verified b>
questions. The confusion arises as Geden says, The inference however, that lie-
intended to imply personal disbelief in the supernatural and in the existence >l
a God, and to urge or enjoin this upon his disciplines is certainly mistaken
The position which it was his purpose to adopt was neither atheistic, nor in the
But for his hearers it was immaterial whether the reply was in the affirmative
practical life, and the consideration of which would only minister to a harmful
the possible existence of God. It proves that the Buddha himself preferred to
follow the foot stepps of Kapila and looked at the concept of God as at best a
regarded as having prepared the way for the peculiar-teaching of Buddha, and
discover already in the Upanisad.1" Thus, the whole tenor of the earh
Buddha, eliminates the conception of self altogether. There are other points >t
resemblance between the two, but the belief in the Karma doctrine found m
thought.14
Kinnars and Nagas aare common to both, the old Vedic gods India and
worshipped by both . 15
criticizing the Vedic animal sacrifices, priest craft and worship of natural
Karma, moral retribution and rebirth. He did no condemn the whole Sruti, but
only that part of it, which enjoins sacrifices. Kapila also rejected
Buddha concentrated his main fire against the Upanisadie idealism and
and Moggalana, belonged to the realistic school of the Vaibhasikas, which was
performance, which would purify persons from the effects of their evil deeds.
suffer for the things he did in this world itself. One cannot escape the
used the word Karma in a sense just opposite to the Upanisads. The plurality
holding that motives, rather than the acts themselves are what count and that
Karma needs craving (tanha) as a necessary condition for its effectiveness. For
that the contemplative knowledge that the self is the sole reality brings
present, the affect arises. It is contained in the Second Noble Truth i.e. There
is cause of suffering and the Third Noble Truth i.e. there as cessation of
two aspects of the same reality. Pratitya Samutpada, viewed from the point of
view of relativity is Samsara, and viewed from the point of view of reality, it
is nirvana.
sees the Buddha, and whosoever sees the Buddha sees the Dharma (Truth of
Reality) . 17
The Hindu affirms that man can realize his identity with Brahman, the
ground of all beings, the Buddhist say that man can live in a transfigured
The stream ceases to flow where water earth and air function not, there the
whirlpool whirs not, there itself both mind and matter come to final
Buddha said - There are two extremes, Omonk, from which he who leads a
religious life must abstain. What are those two extremes? One is a life of
17 He who sees the Paticcasumppada sees the Dharm ma and he who sees the Dharm ma, sees
the paticcasumppada' Dialogues II
P 44
Qtd. in the C entral Phil. O f Buddhism T .R V Murty
P 7
18. S ara Sutta 31 .27 33
Sam yukta Nikaya I.P. X II
( 81)
less ness in the famous stanza - As the Chariot is known depending on the
different parts o f it, so a being is known depending on the five aggregates'
Just as the Chariot on account o f its having all these things - the pole, the
work, the yoke and the goad - comes under the generally understood symbol
their own account, for that would imply their never ceasing to be active 22
Samkaracharyya pointed out their activity can never cease and the material
world is eternal.23
Therefore, for the solution of the question of life, Buddha found that
belief in God was useless since the existence of God, as the spiritual cause of
22 M a t e ri a l i sm M . N . R o y
P .9 8
23 Ibid
P .9 8
24. Ibid
P 98
(83)
parts, whether animate or inanimate are composed of only two kinds of things.
One of them is called the Matter and the other is termed as the force. Both
these things form the substance out of which the whole Nature and all its
Matter exists; (2) Force exists and (3) Matter and Force are inseparable from
each other. 26
matter rather than deny it. To say, that something of a piece of matter can be
changed into force is to assert that matter exists, and again to say that force
become matter is to assert that force exists. So^say that they are
, 25 Materialism M. N. Roy
P.97
26. The Ethics of Devatma
S. P Kanal
P. 49
27 Ibid
P 54
(84)
being. 28
Matter and motion are inseparable. It would not be incorrect to say that
the vaibhasika concept of matter and change comes nearest to the modem
Buddhlistic system lies in reducing all psychic process to purely physical ones,
negating the independent existence o f the sowl and affirming that the so called
time.
world. This means that He is the exclusive and self sufficient cause of
Having these qualities, God could not maintain this precarious conditions >(
presupposes some conscious agent, and that the world being an effect, point <
Law o f the world, accept the presence o f God. Naiyayikas believe God to be ,
following way -
(1) It is true that an effect implies a cause, but it does not necessarily impl\
to germ, the germ into a title and so on without the aid o f any conscious
principle. In the same way, the world 'pro?ets can go without tin
(2) God, is regarded as the uncaused cause. But it is not tenable, since am
It can therefore, be asked from what cause has God come into being? 31
(3) God is regarded as all perfect, benevolent, whereas the world is full of
full of evils and imperfections? If all the evils and imperfections found
benevolent also, why he created the world full of pains and sufferings?
The Bhutidatta Jataka, thus asks as to why God does not make all men
happy and why He does not bring order into the world?
own deeds, then the law of karma will have to be regarded as the
(4) It may be asked whether God acts with or without some purpose. If He
has some purpose, He is not perfect, because purpose means the wish to
31 Ibid
P .4 5 6
32. Ibid
P. 456 & Sarva Siddhanta Sara Samgraha I.P, Vol I p.p. 4 56,458
(87)
who creates such a vast world without any purpose must be very
unintelligent,33
(5) If God, be the agent or cause of everything, men will have no freedom
(Buddha) say, to so then because of the will of their creator and God,
the free will to do what is to be done and also refrain from doing what
is not to be done.34
(6) The Nyaya Vaisesikas hold that the four kinds of atoms, as also other
substances like aklsa, space, self etc. are eternal. These substances
But Santark Sita and Kamalasila argue that this argument of Naiyayikas
from a jug that the same principle cannot be applied to both the cases35.
(7) Even if, for the arguments sake, it is accepted that there is an
phenomena.36
(8) It is said that God creates, maintains and destroys the world in
accordance with the good and bad deeds of beings. If be so, God cannot
be regarded as independent.37
also. For the cessation of suffering in life one should not take refuge in God,
practical value, it does not help us in moral progress. It is Karma and not God,
Buddha is of opinion that the belief in God will make men illogical,
35. A. K II 64
T.S. Isvara Parika 61
Ibd 158
36. T.S. Isvara Parika 73, 92
Ibid 158,161
37. Purusa Parika
Ibid 158,161
(89)
If God is regarded as the sole cause of the universe, men will throw all the
burdens one him and will not rely on their own efforts. But Buddha does not
the cause of the world o%is based on a false belief in an eternal self (atman).
soul (Atman) in man, which persists through changes that overcome the body,
exists before birth and after death, and migrates from one body to another.
Buddha, throughout his life, abandons the question of such a soul. But the
question may be put, how does then. Buddha explain the continuity of a
through the different states of childhood, youth and old age? Though denying
the continuity of an identical substance in man, Buddha does not deny the
continuity of the stream of successive states that compose his life. Life is an
unbroken series of states, each of these states depends on the condition just
38 A. K 58
ibid 161
(90)
running through the different states, The conception of a soul is thus replaced
James also. The present state of consciousness inherits its characters from
previous ones, the past in a way continues in the present, through its effect.
repeatedly exhorts his disciples to give up the false view about the self.
Buddha points out that who suffers from the illusion of the self, does not know
its nature clearly, still he strongly protests that he loves the soul, because he
life, the pervasiveness of suffering in a way not wholly alien to the doctrine of
the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality .39
Buddhas view is also similar to this. He says each one has to pass
through this world full of the futility of our achievements the restlessness of
in order to fulfill himself and recognise at the depth of all struggles the lastin
salvation. 40
causal law governing them (dharma - sanketa). According to him this alom
succeeding state (good or bad) is the result of the previous state. I hus n
acceptance of the permanent soul on the one hand and nihilism or material ivu
to change is to imply force. Leibnitz opines - Not only is a body at rest the
present movement of its motion in a place commensurate to it, but it has also a
conation or effort to change its place, so that the succeeding state follows on
itself from the present state by the force of Nature, otherwise in the present
and also in any moment a body which is in motion would differ in no way
mans existence is life itself. Man is only a bundle of transient emotions and
sensations, tossed to and fro, on a surging and suffering sea of becoming. The
meaningful. But man, by his act of defiance against God has brought tragedy
into human life.43 Since the existence of God, as the spiritual cause of the
to the denial of God. God cannot be reached except through the doctrine of
theory).
42. Ibid
P.5 2
43 De Krester Man in Buddhism & Christianity 64-65
Qtd. In D.K Sankethamonee's The concept of Man
Published in Divyadaan Vol. 2
(93)
life, lose all meaning, we would in that case, be neither the better nor the
worse for our efforts. The atman is the not cause of all attachment, desire,
opposed to it.
Buddha, according to Mrs. Rhys Davids44 did not deny the soul or self
outright but only that body, the sense organs etc. were the self. The words
body is not the self mind is not the self, cannot rationally be said to imply
that there is no self or soul or real man. Buddhism never denied the existence
not the ultimate reality (not adharma) whereas Kant defines reality as a trinity
of ideas God self and the world. Vedanta reduces it to two and finally to one in
terms of the famous formula Brahman is real, the world is illusory and the
self is the same as Brahman and no other. The world is eliminated and God,
identified as the self. In Vedic conception true self is identical with Absolute
(Brahman).
Buddha denies soul and hence the theory o f transmigration o f souls. But
does life end after death? What about the good and bad deeds committed by
that life in general is endless and the good and evil deeds o f man are
remembered by his successors. The individual body and mind vanish but his
contribution to society lives and becomes past o f the eternal human process.
ancient India was not a part o f the larger Hindu tradition and that there was
Sramana tradition which was certainly non-Vedic, but it was one o f the two
main strands o f our religious tradition, the various facts o f which collectively
f I Buddhists systems grew out o f them much in the way the Brahmanical
sacrificial piety to the spiritual religion which they formulate, but they did not
attack in the way in which the Buddha did. The Buddhas main object was to
bring about a reformation in the religions practices and a return to the basic
principles. All those who adhere to the essential frame work of the Hindu
religion and attempt to bring it into conformity with the voice of awakened
who reclaimed Hindus from sanguinary, rites and erroneous practices and
purified their religion of the numerous abuses which had crept into it. Our
Puranas describe the Buddha as the ninth avatara of Visnu. The Buddha
view.
the doctine of the eternal Buddha, which was not distinguishable from the
The cult of bodhisattvas, who make it the mission of their life to bring
selfless ethics. Instead of seeking private and personal salvation, people came
to value the service of fellow beings to the surer and better path to higher life.
stand of Indian Culture. He also maintained that the Hindus worship the
Buddha49.