Neither can we accept the statement that the Buddha was a 'Hindu who sought to reform the ancient religion'. Apart from the anachronistic use of the term 'Hindu', this is wrong because he rejected the claims of the Brahmins as religious authorities and, while not totally denying the existence of their gods, assigned to these a fundamentally unimportant role in the scheme of things. In so far as he belonged to any existing tradition, it was that of the samanas, and like them he taught as he saw fit. As a teacher he was not beholden to anyone: he agreed or disagreed with tradition or views of others entirely in accordance with his sovereign perception of the truth.
---Maurice Walshe, in the Introduction to his translation of the Digha Nikaya---
Note:
Samanas is plural for the Pali word Samana (Sanskrit: Sramana). This was a non-Vedic Indian movement parallel to, but separate from, the historical Vedic tradition. The Samana movement gave rise to Yoga, Jainism, and Buddhism.
In the end, does it end up making a difference whether or not he was a Hindu reformer? From my experience, the only part of the Buddha that matters are his teachings.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. In fact what truly matters is no the teaching, but each person's response to that teaching. A raft may be put together with expert craftsmanship, but it is of no use if it lies untouched.
Delete