The History of Buddhist Thought c14.29

c14.29

It cannot be doubted that many of them were never doctrines actually held, but only possibilities added to make the net complete. Still it is remarkable to find that not one of the doctrines mentioned can be certainly identified with those of brahmin schools. An exception possibly exists in the case of the first doctrine mentioned, that self and universe are eternal. Oldenberg held that in this passage the Sāṅkhya dualism of eternal spirit and eternal nature appear to be unmistakable.¹ Sāṅkhya uses the simile of " standing on a mountain peak ", but applies it only to the purusha (ātman), which remains unmoved against the evolution of the universe. He thus has to admit that the Buddhist account is inexact, as it often is in referring to the doctrines of other schools. Another place where he sees a reference to Sāṅkhya is where it is said that the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body are impermanent, but that thought, mind, or consciousness is permanent and eternal. This, too, is inexact, for in Sāṅkhya not only the five senses but also the group to which mind belongs stands on the side of material nature. But even if the references are to Sāṅkhya, they do not show Sāṅkhya influencing Buddhism or imparting its principles. Both passages speak of doctrines that were rejected, and rejected even without being understood. Their importance is rather with regard to the history of Sāṅkhya and the possible changes that it may have undergone before it assumed its classical form.