History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c91.305

v7.c91.305

There is a good deal of truth in A. Coomaraswamy's contention that the more profound is one's study of Buddhism and Brahmanism the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between the two or to say in what respects Buddhism is really unortho-dox (vide his 'Hinduism and Buddhism' p. 452). Buddha and his successors really attacked some popular varieties of Brahma-nism. Mrs. Rhys Davids in her lecture on 'The relations between Early Buddhism and Brahmanism' (published in I. H. Q. vol. X. pp. 274-286) endeavours to show that the Tripitakas do not refer to rupture with brāhmaṇas and that what Buddha preached was in agreement with the central tenet of immanence in the Brahmanism of the day. Buddha agreed (or at least had no quarrel) with the Upanisad teaching about high moral endeavour being a necessary pre-requisite for *brahma* realization and *mokṣa* (as in Bṛ. Up. IV. 4. 23 'tasmād-evamvic-chānto dānta upratas-titikṣuḥ samāhito bhūtvā ātmanyevātmānam paśyati', Katha Up. I. 2. 23, I. 3, 8, 9, 13, 15, Praśna Up. I. 15-16, Muṇḍaka I. 2. 12-13).