Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c7.s2.22

c7.s2.22

The originality of such a position is obvious; it is artificial in a high degree at the same time as it is ingenious, and it is legitimate to accept this fact as evidence of the reference of the doctrine to the Buddha himself. On any logical basis, of course, his position was easily assailable; he accepted the impermanence of all reality which results in the negation of self, and later in the utter negativism of the Madhyamaka; on the other hand, he believed in the doctrine of the act with its abiding power potent to bring about transmigration, without, it is true, the apparatus of a soul, and this doctrine, by insistence on the mental aspect of action as alone real, leads us directly to the idealism of the Vijñānavāda. Both his doctrines are emphatically metaphysical, involving as difficult and fundamental issues as any of those which he laid aside as not tending to edification, and it was inevitable that the free play of reason which he had not effectively discouraged would result in the building up of metaphysical speculation of the very kind he had deprecated. But his own doctrine is clear, and we have not the slightest ground to seek to determine what were his views on any of the issues which he declined to explain. If indeed he had formed any conclusions on them at all, and we have no reason to suppose this to be the case and have his dying assurance to the contrary,¹ it is certain that he deliberately withdrew them from publicity. This fact alone explains how early in the history of Buddhism conflicting views of great divergence could arise on points which he had left untouched; the authority of the master forbade effective speculation on many issues, but it left the indeterminates (*avyākata*) open, and it was too much to expect that the self-denying ordinance of the master would be respected by monks whose mental activity and independence he had restricted seriously in other regards.