Buddha (6th Century BC) was born a Hindu and died a Hindu. He set out on a spiritual quest following a course prescribed by Hinduism. He became a Paribrajaka Sannyasi after renouncing his hearth and home. The question which disturbed him most was the question of Dukha (human sufferings). He saw Dukha as an ineluctable fact of life. But he was determined to find its origin and a means to overcome it. Buddha went to sages for guidance. Their teachings aided him to proceed. He was otherwise well versed in the scriptures. Finally, he resolved to meditate intensely.

He spent six years at a stretch in deep study, practice and meditation, and ultimately emerged successful. He became The Enlightened one. He then proclaimed his message to the world at large like a Rishi of yore. He said Dukha exists, it has an origin, there is a way to its cessation, and the way is a path comprising eight disciplines. He termed these truths as Arya Satya, on which he laid the foundation of his faith. Scholars say: “Buddha was primarily an ethical teacher and reformer, not a metaphysician. When any one asked Buddha metaphysical questions … he avoided discussing them. Metaphysics, he pointed out, is no cure for miseries of life.”

Advertisement

But by what method did he practice meditation? Sixth century BC was a time when spiritual seekers of India practically followed the precepts of Maharishi Kapila (7th century BC) whose process for concentrating the mind on the self was then considered most scientific and efficacious. Kapila, too, dealt with the problem of human sufferings or Tapa. Buddha, conjecturally, took to his teachings. For the path he preached for emancipation from Dukha after his Nirvana resembles the Astanga Yoga of Patanjali (2nd century BC) who later developed his Yoga Aphorisms for the practice of meditation for Samadhi and realisation of the supreme Self depending on Kapila’s teachings.

Patanjali says Yoga stops the mind from taking different modifications (vrittis) by relentless practice (abhyasa) and nonattachment (vairagya), so that the aspirant would be eventually established in his own Self (Swarupa). He then gives out the procedure of how to quell and cleanse the mind of its accumulated dross for its concentration on the object of his meditation. Given the consummate vairagya and vyakulata (urgency) in him, Buddha carried out his abhyasa without any break in a procedure similar to Patanjali’s, and thereby purged his mind of its past tendencies. As a result, he at last accomplished Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the highest spiritual attainment that liberated him from all worldly afflictions.

An ordinary sadhaka does not survive after such an experience. But Buddha survived and lived for a long time, proving he was different and extraordinary. It was, indeed, to happen in his case because he was ordained to remain in his body for lokakalyan (the good of humanity). He was born as an example of the truth pronounced in the scriptures that God comes in a human form whenever there is decline in religion. His advent and work neatly showed he was God born in blood and flesh with the exceptional capacity of re-establishing the declining religion.

Therefore, Hindus had no difficulty in recognizing and worshipping him as an Incarnation of God. Buddha left an indelible mark as a “rebel child” of Hinduism. His rebellion was against the corrupt priests who deviously shut the doors of religion to the masses and enjoyed the monopoly over it, exploiting the rich. The priests devised tricks to satisfy their own desires by means of complicated ritualistic performances which required enormous wealth. They did everything in Sanskrit which was the language of the learned and Greek to the commoner having no access to learning. Buddha’s heart bled observing the egregious poverty, ignorance and neglect of the ordinary man.

He rejected the Karma Kanda of the Vedas which contains rituals and is the hold of the priests. He taught his faith pragmatically in the spoken language of the illiterate, opening the doors of religion to the deprived multitudes, who reposed faith in him. But Buddha never repudiated the authority of the Jnana Kanda (knowledge portion) of the Vedas. His teachings reflect the ideas of the Upanishads which are the integral part of Jnana Kanda. He did not deny the existence of the Supreme Self (Paramatma). However, he denied the existence of the apparent self (jivatma) which is also the conclusion of the Upanishads. The sense of self in the body with its adjuncts, which is impermanent, the Upanishads say, is false since it is born of Ajnana (ignorance) embedded in man.

They also tell that with the realization of the Real Self man knows the falsity of that apparent self and never commits such a mistake again which causes him sufferings unnecessarily. Hence, Buddha’s Anatmavada doesn’t contradict the Upanishadic idea of the Self and it should be understood in the context of the unreality of the apparent self only. On the other hand, he accepted and applied Karmavada of Hinduism as a pivotal concept in his teachings on reincarnation of man, through his theory of Pratityasamutpada (Dep – endent Origination). The Sangha Buddha created with his follower monks was unprecedented. But, when he had to include nuns in it after some time, he knew its degeneration was likely. In his lifetime itself anarchy began in it and took an ugly shape.

Things went out of his control quickly. Even an attempt was made from within it to do away with him by poisoning. Despite these ironies, he remained absolutely unperturbed and spread his message of Maitri and Karuna to all and sundry, till he breathed his last in a tragic death, after eating stale pork from a poor outcaste. Buddha’s dir – ect disciples and devotees could not comprehend his teachings. They held a council im – mediately after his demise to give them a concrete shape, in order to pursue his faith in an organized manner. But they failed to do so. There was too much difference of opinion among them as to what Buddha had really said and meant. One hundred years later Buddhists held another council with the same purpose in mind, when Buddha’s direct disciples were no more.

It failed once again, ending in a schism. Whatever, therefore, was propagated in the name of Buddha was the consequence of speculation. Thus, with the passage of time until recently countless Buddhist philosophical perceptions have evolved. It so happened that not knowing much of what he had exactly thought about metaphysical questions, pundits gave philosophical interpretations of his sayings to individuals according to their diverse beliefs and imaginations, and passed them off as his philosophy. Buddha’s powerful influence worked on Indians for 800 years, during which the country flourished in every walk of life. People worshipped him in his beautifully sculpted images with rituals, although image worship had no place in his religion. After a time they tired of the dry moral “dos” and “don’ts”, to which it was reduced, with its effect diminishing on them. That’s how it gradually disappeared from its birth place. Buddha is unforgettable.

Like scholars, saints also adore him. Swami Vivekananda’s love for him was very deep. His penetrating study of Buddha’s life and teaching brought forth truths hitherto unintelligible. On several occasions he made extensive speeches on them abroad. For instance, at the Parliament of Religions on 26 September 1893 he said comparing Buddha with Jesus: “I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am. If China, Japan, or Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great Master, India worships him as God incarnate on earth. You have just now heard that I am going to criticise Buddhism, but by that I wish you to understand this only. Far be it from me to criticise him whom I worship as God incarnate on earth. But our views about Buddha are that he was not understood properly by his disciples.

The relation between Hinduism (by Hinduism I mean the religion of the Vedas) and what is called Buddhism at the present day is nearly the same as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Sakya Muni (Buddha) was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, they crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Sakya Muni as God and worship him. But the real difference we the Hindus want to show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as the teachings of Lord Buddha lies primarily in this: Sakya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfil and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Je sus, it was the old people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of Buddha, it was his own followers, who did not realise the import of his teachings.

As the Jews did not understand the fulfilment of the Old Testament, so the Buddhists did not understand the fulfilment of the truths of the Hindu religion. Again, I repeat, Sakya Muni did not come to destroy, but he was the fulfilment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of the religion of the Hindus.” Swamiji’s analysis went to the root and made a clean breast of the mistake of Buddha’s disci – ples. He said: “On the philosophic side the disciples of the Great Master dashed themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and could not crush them and on the other side they took away from the nation that eternal God to which every one, man and woman, clings so fondly.

And the result was that Buddhism had to die a natural death in India.” He further said: “But at the same time, Brahminism (ancient Hinduism) lost that something ~ that reforming zeal, that wonderful sympathy and charity for everybody, that wonderful leaven which Buddhism had brought to the masses and which had rendered Indian society so great….” Swamiji was convinced that “Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism without Hinduism.” Every Hindu as well as Buddhist ought to treasure this precious truth in his or her bosom jealously which Swamiji skilfully thrashed out in his lecture on Buddhism before a global audience.

(The writer is associated with Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama, Narendra)