CHAPTER - 3

ATHEISM IN EARLY BUDDHISM

 ATHEISM IN EARLY BUDDHISM

Buddhism flourished in the sixth century B.C. and grew up together

with the Brahmanical systems. From the writings of eminent scholar, it is

established that the original teachings of the Buddha were, to a large extent

directly inspired by the Slnkhya views. D. P. Chottapadhyaya writes - In the

Buddha, carita by A^vaghosa, we get full-length bio-graphics of the Buddha.

There are many evidences on the strength of which it is confidently claimed

that his teachings, greatly inspired by Kapila. It will be a great blunder if we

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

The four features of the Sankhya school as mentioned by H. Zimmer

appeared in Buddhism as well - an insistence that all life is, necessarily,

suffering; an indifference to theism and to Vedic sacrificial ritualism; a

denunciation of ascetic extravagances (as represented e.g. in Jainism) and a

1. Indian Atheism,
D P. Chottapadhyya,
P.9 5
 (71)

belief in Parinama-nityatva, the constant becoming of the world .2

The oldest school of Hinayaha Buddhism is the Sthaviravada

(Theravada in Pali) or the doctrine of the Elders. This school probably

represents the basic. Original teachings of the Buddha, although with a good

deal o f Scholastic elaboration. The Sarvastivadins are divided into two classes

such as Vaibhasikas and Sautrantikas.

The Theravadin scriptures are written in Pali. They are divided into

three sections or baskets, (Tipitaka in Sanskrit Tripitaka) Sutta (discourses)

Vinaya(Rules of conduct) and AbhidhSmma (Analysis of Doctrine) .3

Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, was known as Gautama,

Siddhartha in his early life. He is known as Buddha, the Enlightened one,

after he got historic enlightenment, The Buddha means the wise.

Buddha, however as a philosopher totally discarded metaphysical

questions such as the questions - Is the soul existent or not? Is it real or

not? Does the soul survive after death? And hence forth to him, these

questions are futile and if we bother about these metaphysical questions, we

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

of life. Therefore, individuals are described by the Buddha as having three

characteristics-suffering (duhkha), anatta or absence of an eternal self, and

anicca or impermanence.

Buddha was an ethical teacher with a practical and realistic view of the

life. He was interested in arriving at a rational view of really and in

determining the nature of the ultimate cause of the world Buddha saw

suffering everywhere and in everything. He established his Four Noble Truths;

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

attained. He rigorously eshchewed all theoretical considerations as vain, as

they are not conducive to the spiritual life.

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)

to be an insuperable obstacle to such a belief. In regard to persons, the Buddha

analyzed them as a series of mental and physical states. The concept of an

underlying self is superfluous and erroneous. This is in line with the doctrine

of impermanence, which implies that all entities whatsoever can be .analysed

as a series of transitory states. Briefly, then the Buddhas teaching amounts to

a recasting of the atheistic tradition in early Indian thought, as exemplified

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 future - and is momentary - it is replaced by a completely different

phenomenon at every succeeding moment.6

Radha Krishnan observes - the difference between Buddha and the

Upanisads and declares thaA f there is a difference between the teachings of

the Upanisads and the Buddha, it is not in their views of the world experience

(Samsara) but in regard to their conception of reality (nirvana) .7

Again RadhaKrishnan observes that both the Buddha and the Upanisads

have the same problem. Phenomenal existence is imperfection

5. Encyclopaedia of Phil. Vol. I, 7. The Central Phil. Of Buddhism

P .4 1 7 T. R V. Murti,
6. I.P. Vol. I P P. 19-20
Radhakrishnan
P.P. 616,619
 (74)

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

positively as a State of consciousness and bliss (Vijhanam anandam brahma).

But the Buddha emphasizes the negative aspect of it. Nirvana is the

annihilation of sorrow.8

The greatest Mahayana philosopher Asvaghosa in his Buddha Carita

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

established by any reasoning. The whole universe is a system of relations.

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

depend for their existence on one another. According to Buddha, human

reason is the final, indeed the only arbiter of what can be rationally believed.

In order to be rational, beliefs must be based on good evidence. So a belief is

rational if and only if it either is a foundational belief that i s properly basic or

else is a non-foundational belief that is based on or supported by a properly

8 Ibid
P 18
 ( 75 )

basic belief. A basic belief, therefore for Aquinas, is properly basic if it is

either self evident (that is to understand it is to see that it is true) or else

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

properly basic if it is either self evident or incorrigible. An incorrigible belie)

is a belief about which the believer cannot possibly be mistaken like I am

now in pain' or I miwseem to be seeing a green apple or. But that belief in ( r o d

cannot be properly basic because it is neither self-evident with respect to the

senses, nor incorrigible9.

Buddha, therefore quite convincing rejects an omnipotent, all powerful

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>

experience. On this point, Buddha discourages his disciples on metaphysical

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

strict sense of the term, agnostic.

9. God Reason and Theistio Proofs T. Davis

p.p. 80, 81
 (76)

But for his hearers it was immaterial whether the reply was in the affirmative

or negative, and speculation on the subject was discouraged or forbidden, lest

it should impair or destroy that firm spirit of self reliance.

While it was his object to arouse in their hearts He simply refuses to

communicate to his disciples knowledge which he judges to be needless for

practical life, and the consideration of which would only minister to a harmful

curiosity anxious to speculate on matters beyond human Ken . 10 Buddha mostly

tried to make his disciples concentrate on the practical problems of the

extinction of suffering. He formulates minimum theoretical basis for his

practical programme and this theoretical basis was completely indifferent to

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

fiction. (It is contrary to what Geden imagines) . *11

Again and we find in Poussins remark, Buddhas indifference to a first

principle or God. if Pousin putsit, Buddhism in so far as it is a philosophic

system, is radically averse to the idea of a Supreme Being - of a God, in the

Western sense of the word. 12

10. Geden in E.R.E.VI 270 12 Ibid

As quoted in Indian Atheism P 100
D.P. Chattopadhyaya, P. 99
11. Ibid
P 99
 ( 77 )

Stcherbatsky puts it that the Upanisadic Speculation may in a sense lx

regarded as having prepared the way for the peculiar-teaching of Buddha, and

Buddha Simply carried to their logical conclusions, tendencies which ui

discover already in the Upanisad.1" Thus, the whole tenor of the earh

Upanisads is against belief in a Personal God.

Buddha dismisses that conception altogether. Again, the self r

negatively conceived as devoid of all attributes', nirguna in the IJpanisacK

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

Buddhism serves as the clearest proof of its connection with Upanisadic

thought.14

S.R. Goyal presumes that Buddhism borrowed the pantheon >t

Brahmanism. Not only the demi-gods such as the Yakshas. Gandhanas

Kinnars and Nagas aare common to both, the old Vedic gods India and

Brahma were also worshipped by the Buddhists. In Buddhism. AvaloKitesxam

is called Mahesvara (an epithet of Siva) and Manjusri is often called

Kumarabhuta (Kumara Karttikeya).

13. Central Conception of Buddhism T. Stcherbatsky

P.68
14 Ibid
P. 69
 (78 )

The Tantrika, pantheon of Both the religious is almost identical,Tara, Kali,

Chamunda, Sarasvati, Varahe, Hariti Mahakala, Ganesa etc. were

worshipped by both . 15

But Buddha, as we find agreed with the earlier Upanisadie thinkers in

criticizing the Vedic animal sacrifices, priest craft and worship of natural

deities. Like the Upanisadie thinkers he emphasized the Superiority of inner

awakening over external ceremonies and stressed the operation of Law of

Karma, moral retribution and rebirth. He did no condemn the whole Sruti, but

only that part of it, which enjoins sacrifices. Kapila also rejected

sacrifices,prayers and ceremonies as much as Buddha did.

Buddha concentrated his main fire against the Upanisadie idealism and

not on materialism. Most of the immediate disciples of Buddha like Sariputta

and Moggalana, belonged to the realistic school of the Vaibhasikas, which was

very near to materialism.

Law of Karma is a part of the beliefs of Buddhism. But Buddhas

concept of Karma also differs from the Upanisadie philosophers. The

Upanisadie Philosophers used Karma in the sense of religions rituals or

performance, which would purify persons from the effects of their evil deeds.

15. A History of Indian Buddhism S. R. Goyal

p. 273
 (79)

Buddha vehemently condemned religious rituals and said men must

suffer for the things he did in this world itself. One cannot escape the

consequences of ones actions by performing religious rites. Thus, Buddha

used the word Karma in a sense just opposite to the Upanisads. The plurality

o f transmigrating eternal selves controlled by Karma is replaced by a plurality

o f impermanent individuals. Buddhism, transformed the notion of Karma by

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

the Hindu theologian, Samkara, the power of Karma depends on ignorance, so

that the contemplative knowledge that the self is the sole reality brings

liberation from the continuing effects of Karma.16

The whole teachings of the Buddha is based in the Doctrine of Pratitya

Samutpada or Dependent Origination. It implies that whenever the cause is

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

suffering. Suffering is samsara, cessation of suffering is nirvana. Both are only

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.

16. Ency. of Phil. Vol. 4,

P.325
 ( 80)

The salistamba sutra says - whosoever sees the Pratitya samutpada

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

world where samsara and nirvana are one.

Sara Sutta18 gives a description of Nibbana in the following words -

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

cessation. Buddhas teaching strikes a mean between two extreme courses

e.g. Believing neither in Being nor in Non-Being, but in becoming. He

believes neither in chance nor in necessity exclusively but in conditioning

happening. He upholds the middle path between materialism and spiritualism.

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

pleasure, devoted to desire and enjoyment that is base, ignoble, unspiritual,

unworthy and unreal.

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)

The other is a life o f mortification; it is gloomy, unworthy, unreal. The

perfect one, O monks, is removed from both these extremes and has
discovered the way which lies between them, the middle way, which
enlightens the eyes, enlightens the mind, which leads to rest, to knowledge, to
enlightenment, to Nirvana .19
In Vajira Sutta, Bhikkuni Vajira expounds the philosophy o f substance

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'

Again in Milindapanho we find that the venerable Nagasena said

Just as the Chariot on account o f its having all these things - the pole, the

: * 1 axle, the wheels, the spokes, the tram

work, the yoke and the goad - comes under the generally understood symbol

the designation in common use o f Chariot similarly Soul o r ' individualii>

or being or personality is only a generally understood symbol, tin

K i-. c{ kri , d C . VC ' O f pC * ;rV, AwO V
designation in common use, for the five involved in the matter .21

19. Oldenberg Opcit. P. 127,

Qtd. in Critical Survey of Indian Phil.
M. Hirriyana
P. 151
20. Vajira Sutta 5.10.10,
Samyukta Nikaya I,
P. XIV
21 Milindapanho - ii, l.l Qtd. In Critical Survey of Indian Phil. C.D. Sharma
p .^ ? e
 (82)

NirvSna, the cardinal principle of Buddhism contradicted the entire

i
system of Buddhist philosophy. Sam karacharyya himself pointed out that

contradiction. Nor can the atoms and skandhas - sensation, knowledge,

feeling, verbal knowledge and impression be assumed to enter on activity on

their own account, for that would imply their never ceasing to be active 22

The ideal of nirvana is the cessation of all activity.

According to Buddhistic mechanistic view of nature atoms and their

aggregates are auto-active. Therefore, M.N. Roy puts it that as

Samkaracharyya pointed out their activity can never cease and the material

world is eternal.23

Therefore, no school of Buddhist Philosophy admits the existence of

any extra-natural or metaphysical intelligence such as God or Soul which

might bring about the first aggregation of atoms, Therefore, atomic

combination must be visualized as a mechanical process out o f which the so

called internal that is the intelligent part of existence arises.24

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

the universe can be established only upon the assumption of the

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)

extra-materiality of human consciousness, the rejection of the doctrine of soul

necessarily lead to the denial of God. 25

.also
To Devatma All the entities which exist in Nature as its constituent

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

constituent parts are made. Therefore he asserts three,propositions - (1)

Matter exists; (2) Force exists and (3) Matter and Force are inseparable from

each other. 26

Devatmas view can be justified from the modem conception of matter

in Physics. The interchangeability of matter and force affirms the existence of

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

interchangeable is to affirm their inseparability. 27

In Abhidamma Kosa, the Vaibhasikas says, matter is the collective

organism, consisting of the fourfold substrata of colour, small, taste and

contact. The minutest form of mpa is paramanu.

, 25 Materialism M. N. Roy
P.97
26. The Ethics of Devatma
S. P Kanal
P. 49
27 Ibid
P 54
 (84)

It is indivisible and yet it is not permanent. It is like a momentary flash into

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

concept. Stcherbatsky is of opinion that the main approach of such a

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

soul is simply one of the properties of organized matter. Stcherbatsky says -

The universal elements of matter are manifested in their actions or functions.

IJQ

They are consequently more energies than substances.

Vaibhasika strongly repudiates God because His existence - is flatly

contradicted by solid facts established by clear observation. .These facts are,

first, the coming of the effect to being is necessarily presupposed by some

form o f strict succession. Secondly, the effect is conditioned by space and

time.

God is supposed to be the Omniscient and Omnipotent creator of the

world. This means that He is the exclusive and self sufficient cause of

everything in the world.

28 Buddhism-M arxist Approach

R, Sankrrtyayan
P 46
29. Ibid
P.4 6
 ( 85)

Having these qualities, God could not maintain this precarious conditions >(

cause effect relation.

Again, the Naiyayikas and other theists maintain that every cl k\

presupposes some conscious agent, and that the world being an effect, point <

some conscious agent or God. They, as a superintending agent o f the mown

Law o f the world, accept the presence o f God. Naiyayikas believe God to be ,

perfect, ever blissful, benevolent and eternal.

Buddhists and other reply to these proofs in a logical manner n

Buddha carita and Tattva Samgraha it is well exposed. It is shown in tin.

following way -

(1) It is true that an effect implies a cause, but it does not necessarily impl\

that it should be a conscious being. The unconscious seed develops i

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

guidance o f any intelligent or conscious cause. ,0

(2) God, is regarded as the uncaused cause. But it is not tenable, since am

event is invariably conditioned by another cause and son on th.n

something is a cause but is itself not caused is self contradictor\

30 B.C , IP. Radha Krishnan Vol.l

P.p. 455, 457
 ( 86)

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

evils and imperfections. How could a perfect being.create such a world

full of evils and imperfections? If all the evils and imperfections found

in the world be the work of God, then He Himself must be endowed

with these qualities and accordingly, could never be perfect. If God, is

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?

If it is admitted that men experience joys and sorrows according to their

own deeds, then the law of karma will have to be regarded as the

supreme principle, and God will have no role to play.32

(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

fulfil some desire or want, which cannot be there in a perfect being.

31 Ibid
P .4 5 6
32. Ibid
P. 456 & Sarva Siddhanta Sara Samgraha I.P, Vol I p.p. 4 56,458
 (87)

If he acts without any purpose, He must be a lunatic or fool, since a being

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

o f will. Thus, in Anguttara Nikaya, it is said by Buddha, Some ascetics

and Brahmins hold whatever comes to men happiness or suffering or

neither all is caused by the will of the creator (issara-nimmana). But I

(Buddha) say, to so then because of the will of their creator and God,

human beings become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanders,

malicious and heretical. If we believe in a creator or God, then we lack

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

cannot, therefore, be said to be created by God. How can, then God, be

the creator of all?

The Naiyayikas hold that just as there is an intelligent agent i.e. a

potter, for the production a jar, so there must be an intelligent creator

for things like trees, mountains etc.

33. B C. I.P. Vol f p 456

34. Sarva Siddhanta Sara Samgraha I. P. Vol. 1, P. 458
AN. Vol I -H I , 6 1 - 3
 (88)

But Santark Sita and Kamalasila argue that this argument of Naiyayikas

is untenable, because trees, mountains etc. are so different in nature

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

intelligent agent behind the phenomena like trees, hills etc., it is

groundless to accept only one Omniscient creator of all these

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

Buddha refutes the Omnipotent God, from pragmatic point of view

also. For the cessation of suffering in life one should not take refuge in God,

but by strict adherence to disciplined, ethical life. A belief in God has no

practical value, it does not help us in moral progress. It is Karma and not God,

that can destroy our sufferings.

Buddha is of opinion that the belief in God will make men illogical,

inactive and irresponsible.

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

want that man should be dependent on something outside, himself rather he

wants to make man master of his own fate.

In the Abhidamakosha, Vasubandhu says, The assumption that God is

the cause of the world o%is based on a false belief in an eternal self (atman).

This belief is realized to be untenable as soon as it is recognized

thateverything is permanent and therefore): subject to suffering.38

But it is commonly believed that there is as an abiding substance called

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

person through different births or even through different births or even

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

preceding and gives rise to the one just succeeding it.

38 A. K 58
ibid 161
 (90)

The continuity of the life series is therefore, based on a causal connection

running through the different states, The conception of a soul is thus replaced

by that of an unbroken stream of consciousness as mentioned by William

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.

Memory thus becomes explicable even without a soul. He, therefore,

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

wants to make the soul happy aad-by obtaining salvation,

Hinduism and Buddhism also, describe the broad features of human

life, the pervasiveness of suffering in a way not wholly alien to the doctrine of

the Existentialists. The world is subject to time, historicity, change. Life is

haunted by death, beauty by decay. Nothing abides, everything passes away.

As a remedy of this malady, the Upanisads provide the prayer,'Lead me from

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

temporal life, its confusions and contradictions, its ultimate nothingness,

39 Religion & Culture Radha Knshnan

P.99
 ( 91 )

in order to fulfill himself and recognise at the depth of all struggles the lastin

peace Nirvana, Sakkyaditti (Substance view) is avidya (ignorance) pa

excellence, and from it proceed all passions. Denial of Satkaya (atman u

Substance) is the very pivot of the Buddhist metaphysics and doctrine a

salvation. 40

Buddha replaced the soul by the theory of a mind continuum. b\

series of psychical states rigorously conditioned as to their nature h\ tm

causal law governing them (dharma - sanketa). According to him this alom

provides for progress (change, efficacy) and continuity (responsibility) as cacl

succeeding state (good or bad) is the result of the previous state. I hus n

avoids the futility of Karma which is an inescapable predicament of t k

acceptance of the permanent soul on the one hand and nihilism or material ivu

which follows from the non - acceptance of continuity on the other.

Buddha's view of mind is similar to the modern western view of 1lum.

According to him mind is ceaseless flow of thoughts, feelings or d e s ir ^ 11

It is scientifically justified also that for the existence of force, change ^

undeniable and change is inexplicable without force. To exist is to change, ami

40. The central Phil, of Buddhism

T. R V. Murty
P 17
41 The Ethics of Devatma
S. P. Kanal
P. 78
 (92)

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

from a body which is at rest 42

Bryan de Krester writes The Buddhist believes that the tragedy of

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

Christian believes that life, contrastingly as a gift of God, is good and

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

universe, can be established only upon the assumption of the extra-materiality

of human consciousness, the rejection of the doctrine of soul necessarily leads

to the denial of God. God cannot be reached except through the doctrine of

soul. Therefore, Buddhas philosophy is known as eAn-atta Vada (No-soul-

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)

An unchanging eternal soul, as impervious to change would render spiritual

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,

aversion and pain. When we take anything as a self (substantial and

permanent), we become attached to it and dislike other things that are

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

of a personality, or a soul, in the empirical sense, it only maintained that it was

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).

44. Th e Central Phil. O f Buddhism

T . R V . Murti
P .2 1
 (94 )

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

man in this life? What about the concept o f process?

This apparent contradiction is solved by modem dialectics by realizing

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.

There were no doubt fierce disputations between the Brahmanical and

Buddhist philosophers. But we cannot agree to the vi ew that Buddhism in

ancient India was not a part o f the larger Hindu tradition and that there was

something like a separate Buddhist, culture. Buddhism was an o f f short o f the

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

produced the comply fabric o f Hindu civilization.45

The dialogues o f Buddha as preserved in the Pali Canons, are

suggestive; t hey are as little systematic as the U p an i sad jt ^ eT s , 7^ 3^

f I Buddhists systems grew out o f them much in the way the Brahmanical

systems grew out o f the Upanisads. According to T. R. V. Murty,

45. A history of Indian Buddhism

S. R. Goyal
P 270
 m

Buddhism is treated as deviations rather than as radical departure from the

Upanisadic tradition (atmavada)46.

Radhakrishnan47 also maintains that the Upanisads subordinate the

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

conscience are treated as avataras. The Buddha was accepted as an avatara,

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

utilized the Hindu inheritance to correct some of its expressions. He came to

fulfill not to destroy. The goal of world unity is to be achieved by Ahimsa

which is insisted on by Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. From this pointed

of view the Buddhistic endeavour comes nearest to modem humanists world

view.

46. The Central Phil O f Buddhism

T R. V . Murty
P. 14
47. Religion & Culture
Radha Krishnan P. 130
 (96)
Inspired by the Puranika religion, the Mahayaha theology propounded

the doctine of the eternal Buddha, which was not distinguishable from the

absolute Brahman of the Upanisads.

The cult of bodhisattvas, who make it the mission of their life to bring

solace to suffering mankind and to elevate their moral and spiritual

equipment^ Exercised a powerful influence upon the popular mind. It

represented a positive reaction against the extreme pessimism and other

worldliness of the early exponents of Buddhism. The emergence of Mahayana

led to the creation of poetry, drama, philosophy and an exalted code of

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.

(Humanism) It added to the necessity of knowledge,, the necessity of purity, of

courtesy of uprightness, of peace and of a universal love, fqr reaching grown

great and beyond measure. 48

In the words of L.M. Joshi - Buddhism constituted the dominant

stand of Indian Culture. He also maintained that the Hindus worship the

Buddha because their religion is largely based on the teachings of the

Buddha49.

48. Lectures on some points in the history of Indian Buddhism

T. S Rhys. Davids
P 28
49 L. M Joshi: Studies p 330
Qtd. In A History of Indian Buddhism
S. R Goyal
P. 270