NOTES ON BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA (PART - 7)

It is clear that by the time of Buddha, Hinduism had degenerated to such an extent that people had started doubting the Brahmanic philosophy because of the ills that plagued the society in the name of religion. B.R. Ambedkar writes: “At the time when Gautama took Parivraja there was a great intellectual ferment in the country. Besides the Brahmanic Philosophy there were as many as sixty-two different schools of philosophy, all opposed to the Brahmanic Philosophy. [Please keep in mind that schools like this might have contributed to Buddha’s teachings getting labeled as a different religion.] Of them, at least six were worthy of attention.

Of these schools of philosophy there was one headed by Purana Kassapa. His doctrine was known as Akriyavada. He maintained that the soul was not affected in any way by Karma. One may do, or one may get things done. One may do injury or one may get someone to kill. One may commit theft or dacoity or one may get theft or dacoity committed, one may commit adultery or one may get adultery committed, one may tell a lie or one may get a lie told. Nothing affects the soul. An act, however licentious, does not affect the soul with sin. An act, however good, does not bring merit to the soul. Nothing has any Kriya (result) on the soul. When a person dies, all the elements of which he is made join in their originals. Nothing survives after death, neither body nor soul. [Remember this name of Purana Kassapa as he is going to be discussed in detail later in these notes. He accepted Buddha’s teachings but we will prove to you that the teachings were accepted for the namesake. It were people like him, who carried such absurd views on soul and karma, who were instrumental in giving shape to the Buddhist view that Buddha was against the presence of soul.]

Another school of though was known as Niyativada. Its chief propounder was Makhali Ghosal. His doctrine was a kind of fatalism or determinism. He taught that no one can do anything or undo anything. Things happen. No one can make them happen. No one can remove unhappiness, increase it or diminish it. One must undergo one’s share of the experiences of the world.

The third school was known as Ucchedavada. Its chief propounder was Ajit Kesakambal. His doctrine was a kind of Annihilism. He taught that there was nothing in Yajna, Haom; there is no such thing as the fruits or effects of deeds to be enjoyed or suffered by the soul. There is neither heaven nor hell. Man is made up of certain elements of unhappiness in the world. The soul cannot escape it. Whatever sorrow or unhappiness there was in the world the soul cannot escape. This sorrow or unhappiness will come to an end automatically. The soul must undergo rebirth during eighty-four lakhs of cycles of Mahakalpas. Then only the sorrow and unhappiness of the soul will end, not before nor by any other means.

The fourth school was known as Annyonyavad. The head of this school was Pakudha Kacchyana. He preached that there are seven elements which go to make up a being, namely, Prathvi, Apa, Tej, Vayu, Sukha, Dukha and the Soul. Each is independent of the other; one does not affect the other. They are self-existent and they are eternal. Nothing can destroy them. If anyone chops off the head of man he does not kill them. All that happens is that the weapon has entered the seven elements.

Sanjaya Belaputta had his own school of philosophy. It was known as Vikshepavada, a kind of skepticism. He argued, “If anyone asked me is there heaven, if I feel there was I would say yes. But if I feel there was no heaven I would say no. If I am asked whether human beings are created, whether man has to suffer the fruits of his action whether good or bad, and whether the soul lives after death, I say nay to all these because I don’t think they exist. This is how Sanjaya Belaputta summed up his doctrine.

The sixth school of philosophy was known as Chaturyamsamvarvad. The head of this school who was alive when Gautama was searching for light was Mahavir, who was also called Nigantha Nathaputta. Mahavir taught that the soul had to undergo rebirth because of the bad karmas done in the past life and in the present life. One must therefore get over the bad, he suggested, by tapascharya. For preventing the doing of bad karmas in this life Mahavira prescribed the observance of chaturyama dharma, i.e., observance of four rules: (i) not to kill; (ii) not to steal; (iii) not to tell a lie; and (iv) not to have property and to observe celibacy.”

A look at these philosophies shows the degradation that had enveloped society. All, save the sixth one described above, paid no heed to importance of karma or good deeds. The very fact that these so-called philosophies existed and were popular is enough to suggest the condition of Indo-Aryans who were predominantly Hindus. Please keep in mind that these teachings have no similarity with Krishna’s teachings. In fact several of them are totally reverse of what Krishna said. Yet they all believed themselves to be adherents of the Vedas. In such a situation, if Buddha reinforced the same path that had been laid by Krishna earlier, it was bound to be seen as a new religion. Though, in truth, it was not.

This also confirms that Buddha as an avatar or Messenger was sent among those who called themselves followers of the Vedic teachings. The coming of Buddha was necessitated because of the degeneration in the religious beliefs and social customs that had occurred. If Buddha did not talk much about his belief in the Vedas, it was because the Vedas were already part and parcel of the society. Wherever deviations had come from true Vedic teachings, he tried to correct them. Thus he is very much an avatar or messenger for the Hindus, as were Rama and Krishna. Hindus, who discarded Buddha out of their love for pseudo-beliefs, their ego or ignorance, were on the wrong. Likewise, so were those who accepted Buddha’s teachings and were quick to give the teachings the name of Buddhism. Did Buddha call at any moment that his God was different from that of Krishna or that his teachings were from a different source? Neither was Buddhism the name given by Buddha nor did he criticize Rama or Krishna. In fact we have seen credible evidence that he endorsed Vedas and the devas who form the chief part of discussion in the Vedas. There are several references of him talking of the devas and even meeting some of them, including Brahma. Yes, the degeneration, that we have mentioned, itself is an indicator he had no choice but to criticize the existing beliefs vigorously. This does not mean that the degenerative views of the people of the time were in coherence with the original Divine Scriptures of the Indo-Aryans.

Yes, Buddha is important because his teachings may be more contemporary to present time, as he came several centuries after Krishna. But Buddha cannot be understood without understanding the true teachings of Krishna and Rama and the deviations that occurred therein by the time of Buddha.

It is indeed sorry that Messengers or those who attained enlightenment from Divine Sources were misinterpreted and it was said that Buddha created the religion. B.R. Ambedkar writes: “Can anyone say that the Buddha’s religion was not his own creation?”

If Buddhism was Buddha’s creation then from whom was he seeking enlightenment when he threw the bowl of food which Sujata’s maid had brought, into the river Nairanja, saying: “If I am to have enlightenment let the bowl ascend the stream; if not let it go down.’ The vessel, indeed, began to float against the current and at last sank near the abode of Kala, a Naga king.”

If Buddhism was Buddha’s creation, then why did Asita saw devas happy at the time of Buddha’s birth? If Buddha had no relation with God and his religion is only the philosophic reasoning of a human mind, then how can we conclude that his reasoning was not flawed? If Buddhism was Buddha’s creation then who was Brahma Sahampati who helped Buddha when he was perplexed. B.R. Ambedkar has himself written that Brahma Sahampati got to know what was passing in Buddha’s mind and left the Brahma’s world to guide Buddha. Let us accept that Buddha’s doctrine too was Divine, told to Buddha either as revelation or through enlightenment. Otherwise, what does enlightenment mean? A philosopher’s reasoning is a byproduct of a long period of contemplation. Has any philosopher said till date that his conclusions were formed at a particular point in time? The more we contemplate, the more we are bound to contemplate that enlightenment is something supernatural and we have no choice but to accept the presence of certain higher powers who were responsible for enlightenment.

See what B.R. Ambedkar writes: “He (Buddha) said to himself: “True, I have gained a new doctrine. But it is too difficult for the common man to accept it and follow it. It is too subtle even for the wise…

“If I were to teach my doctrine, and others did not understand it or understanding it did not accept or accepting it did not follow it, it would be weariness to others and a vexation to me.

“Why not remain a Sanyasi away from the world and use my gospel to perfect my own self?” He asked himself: “At least I can do good to myself.” Thus as he reflected, his mind turned to inaction, not to teaching of the gospel.”

This shows that Buddha’s religion would never have materialized if Brahma Sahampati had not come to guide him at this stage. One who revealed or had given enlightenment on the pious soul of Buddha had given it so that the teachings reach the people. See what B.R. Ambedkar writes further:

“Then Brahma Sahampati knowing what was passing in the mind of the Buddha thought, “Verily the world is being destroyed, verily the world is going to destruction, if the Tathagata, the fully enlightened, turns to inaction, and not to teaching his doctrine.”

Fuelled with anxiety Brahma Sahampati left the Brahma world and appeared before the Buddha. And arranging his upper robe on one shoulder he bent down and with clasped hands said: “Thou art no longer Siddharth Gautama. Thou art Buddha. Thou art the Blessed One who is blessed with the fullest enlightenment. Thou art the Tathagatha. How canst thou refuse to enlighten the world? How canst thou refuse to save erring humanity?

“There are beings full of impurity that are falling away through not hearing the doctrine.

“As the Lord knows,” proceeded Brahma Sahampati, “Among the Magadhas arose in ancient times, doctrine impure, with many blemishes devised.

“Will not the Lord open for them the door of his immortal doctrine?”

Who is Brahma Sahampati, who from his place in heaven, got to know what was passing in Buddha’s mind? How sad that scholars continue to stress that Buddha’s teachings were his own creation and had nothing to do with Heavenly Powers.

Truth is that Brahma Sahampati is the same Brahma of Vedas who yet again revealed the truth to a great soul. If this is not so, how is it that he knows what’s passing in Buddha’s heart? Buddha too was aware of this and didn’t ask Brahma who he was and from where had he come. Instead, we find him giving a great deal of respect to Brahma. Buddha called him: “Eminent and Excellent among men.”

This is what Buddha said:

“O Brahma, Eminent and Excellent among men, if I did not give public utterance to my gospel, it is because I perceived vexation.”

Is there duality here? It has been said earlier that Brahma Sahampati came from the Brahma world and it is being said here that Brahma is the eminent and excellent among men. To know the truth behind this, you will have to accept our views on who Brahma is and how he remained in deva state in Brahma world and came to live on earth as human being at a particular period in time.

B.R. Ambedkar writes further: “He (Buddha) realized that he left the world because there was so much conflict resulting in misery and unhappiness and for which he knew no remedy. If he can banish misery and unhappiness from the world by the propagation of his doctrine, it was his duty to return to the world and serve it and not sit silent as the personification of inactive impassivity.”

Buddha returned to the world but his followers perhaps delighted in keeping him away in solitude and continued to believe so and followed his ‘footsteps’ by becoming wandering heretics.