Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c5.s3.14

v1.c5.s3.14

(Maṇḍalas, II-IX) of the *Ṛgveda*. The earliest trace of this conception of unity is found in the *Ṛgvedic* hymn X. 86 of Dīrghatamas, where it is said: "They call it Indra, they call by many names, Agni, Yama, Mātarisvan."' It is further developed in the hymn X. 129 where is stated: "in the beginning there was neither being nor not-being: there was no atmosphere nor sky . . . . there was neither death nor immortality, nor night nor day: there was nothing else in the world save the One which breathed, but without wind, of its own power."² The above-mentioned two conceptions are linked up together in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* thus: "the first thing is stated to be not-being, then arises Prajāpati, who is the same as Puruṣa, and then the Brahman, the holy science, . . . ."³ In the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* again, the order is changed: the first entity is not-being, then springs into life mind i.e., the Brahman, and then Prajāpati.⁴ In the same *Brāhmaṇa* again, we notice a further development, viz., the identification of Brahman with Ātman and the enunciation of the theory that the knowledge of the Ātman can free one from his actions—a notion traceable in the *Śatapatha* also.⁵ Its development into the philosophy of *tat tvam asi* or *so'ham* which we find in the early Upaniṣads followed as a matter of course. Buddhism did not go so far as to identify Brahman with Ātman, but like the *Taittirīya* and *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇas*, asserted that Brahmā was preceded by 'not-being,' which was also, according to it, the beginning or the real form of the manifest, which began with the god Mahābrahmā. The 'not-being' in Buddhism is termed *Nirvāṇa* or *Buddhatva*, and hence one who attains that state is placed above the Brahmaloka or Brahman the personal. Buddhism only kept up the logical sequence by looking upon Brahman or the beings that originated after him as essentially anātman and avoided the illogical step of deriving a being (ātman) from the non-being. It is this little but vital difference that made the Buddhist and Brāhmaṇic schools, though issuing, in fact, from the same line of thought, separate from each other wider and wider. Hence Buddhism and Upaniṣadic thoughts may be treated as contemporary developments, the former paving the way for the advent of non-Brāhmaṇic schools of thought, and the latter bringing forth in its train the various systems of Brāhmaṇic philosophy.