The circumstances leading to the origin of this book are interestinl and throw light on its haphazardly contents. The suggestion to write a book on God in Buddhism was made by my late lamentd friend Claude Alan Stark of Cape Cod in January 1970 in course of our conversation in my apartment at the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S .A. He wanted to publish such a volume in his projected God Series. Convinced of my opinion that that title will be quite un-Bud¬dhistic, he agreed to my suggestion of a rather startling title, Gods Alternative in Buddhism. (There are still two chapters bearing this title). He had perhaps hoped that the book would be in accordance with Vivekanandian or Hinduistic interpretation of the Buddhas teachings. Since Vivekananda was selected to be the main representative of Brahmanical Hindu tradition in its modern form, his treatment of Buddhism greatly conditioned the plan of the book. The last chapter contains a short section on Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity, included here solely because Vivekananda had written something on that topic also. Chapters II, III and IV may form the basis of a dialogue between Buddhistic and Hinduistic participants. The great theme of Gods alternative, though a significant part of the book, has received a veryinadequate treatment since the printed volume was intended to be of about 250 pages. The manuscript of this book was prepared during1974-75. It remained in the possession of Claude Stark till his very unfortunate and premature death due to cancer in 1980. The book is being published as it was in manuscript form since 1975 excepting very minor additions in a few places. The preface, however, is being added now. Two indices, partly glossarial, have also been newly added to facilitate use of the bookAs the title indicates, this book deals with Buddhism in India and with the Brahmanical Hindu understanding of the Buddha and His teachings. The subject of historical interactions and mutual favours between Brahmanism and Buddhism has so far been studied by scholars only casually and in a superficial way. The role of Buddhism in transformation of Vedic type of Brahmanism, resulting in the evolution of what is erroneously but generally called Hinduism, isrecognized by all scholars though no one has studied this role in depth and detail. The difference between the attitude of ancient and medieval representatives and modern representatives of Hinduism towards the Buddha, Buddhism and the Buddhists is another interest- in; subject which has not been highlighted so far. The Buddhist responses to modern Hindu attitude to the Buddha and Buddhism alto deserve a study in the context of crosscultural and interreligious studies. The nature of the alternative of God in the non-theistic vi; ion of Buddhist religiousness is another important subject which should engage attention of scholars of religion and spirituality. All th3se points of academic and human interest constitute the subject- matter of this book. It is presented before interested scholars as a pre- lirrninary effort to deal with above-noted topics. In other words, this beok opens up opportunity for further dialogue and discussion bet- we3n the Buddhists and the followers of Brahmanical Hindu tradition. The author owes a great debt of gratitude to Swami Vivekananda (1363-1902) whose opinions are quoted repeatedly for purposes of analysis and criticism. My critique of his views has not lessened my deep regards for him. He is taken here as an undisputed leader and enlightened modern representative of the Brahmanical Hindu tra- di ion. His views are not his personal opinions; they are representa- tive of the modern voice of a Hindu mind of the highest order. 1\133ct to him, as an outstanding spokesman of modern Hindu view, who comes up for reference and criticism in these pages, is Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975). The author hopes that the disciples and admirers of both these worthies will understand the `oher side of the fact that the minds of both these great masters of renascent Hinduism were constantly preoccupied with the figure of 13itddha and His ideas. Just as we study and rejoice in a modern lindu view of Buddhism, we can (ought to) study and consider a Christian or `Muslim or even a Buddhist view of Buddhism. Our task is to discern the Buddha and to understand Buddhist religious- ness. In my opinion, it is not incorrect to say that neither Vivekananda nor Radhakrishnan has quite succeeded in this task, in spite of the fact that of all the modern Hindus, these two intellectuals alone seem lo have spent a great deal of their time and effort in the study and propagation of Buddhist ideas in their own slanted way. Referring to Buddhism with all its complex and subtle doctrines, Vivekananda ice confessed that we Hindus never understood it. A study of Hindu understanding (or shall we say, misunderstanding) of Buddhism is therefore quite in order. III The attitude of leaders and teachers of the Brahmanical Hindu religious tradition towards Buddhism has not been uniform and cons¬tant. Ancient and medieval leaders and teachers of this tradition had that well-known view of Buddha and Buddhism which is documented in the Puranas and the Smttis.1 They did not have the confusing and unauthentic name Hinduism (which can only mean Indianism) for their Vaidika tradition which came to be called Sanatana Dharma, Eternal Tradition, only from the eighth century AD, even though it continued to change as centuries rolled on. They did not confuse between Vaidika and Avaidika or Brahmanic and Sramanic traditions of religion and philosophy. They could not and did not include the Sakyamuni in the assembly of Vedic ysis or seers. They could not and did not admit that the Buddha was one of the founders or re¬formers of Vaidika DharmalSandtana Dharma even though they had appropriated and homologized as many elements of His teaching as they conveniently could, to transform their old Brahmanism into Hinduism. Still in theory as well as in practice, Buddhism continued to be treated as different and distinct from what we call Hinduism and what the ancients called Vaidika or Sandtana Dharma. Inciden¬tally, it may be observed that the teaching of the Buddha also had been called Dhammo Sanantano or Dharmalt Sanatanak by the Buddhists more than a thousand years earlier. Ancient and medieval followers of Vaidika Dharma, in all its forms whether Vedic or non-Vedic in origin and nature, knew that Sakyamuni was not an Aryan or a Vedic rsi nor a member of an aryanized community. On the contrary, He was noised abroad in their sacred texts as a critic of the Vedas and sacrificial rituals, as an opponent of the caste system, and as one who had undermined prestige and power of all Brahmanical gods. Himself a Sramana and founder of Sramanic spirituality which soon became a pan-Indian religious culture, Sakyamuni could not be acknowledged as a teacher either of a Vaidika, Vedantika, Srauta, Smarta, or of a Vaisnavai Saiva, Sakta, Bhaktic religion. He could not be located anywhere within the ideological structure of Brahmanical Hindu complex. The intelligent brähmanas nevertheless found out not one but tw quite distinct positions even for Sakyamuni in accordance with Hi dual function from the standpoint of champions of Vaidika am Puranika orthodoxy. He was given a seat, though the last one, ii the column of Gods incarnations because His teachings had great1.1 influenced Vedantika and Vaisnava forms of philosophy, religion anc ethics; the Son of guddhoclana, born among the outlandish Kikatas thus had to be given at long last a room in the divine house of Vipti about the beginning of the seventeenth century AD. This was done with considerable reluctance and timidity by those brährnapas who feared a protest within their community and, therefore, they added that the Supreme Lord Visnu had assumed the Buddhavatara only as a delusive trick. No orthodox leader or follower of Vaidika Dharma need be alarmed, they assured the people, because that was not a `genuine avatara. The other berth did not require so much scheming and heart-searching. The Sakya Arhat had criticised the authority of the holy sruti, the infallible Veda, divinely ordained inviolable scheme of four social classes, essential oblations to mighty gods, and sacrificial ceremonialism necessary for sustaining the dead ancestors. He had denied not only the existence of Brahma/Brahman as the source of creation, the eternality of citmanljiva, but also the divinity and supre¬macy of the brähnimias, those gods in human garb (bhUdevas, inahi¬suras), whose divinity, majesty and power are recorded on every page of Brahmanical Sanskrit literature from the time of the ggveda to that of Sayarta-Madhava. Above all, that galcya Sramana had greatly helped in reducing to a considerable extent the principal sources of essential revenues (clak:sind) for the maintenance of priestly brahmanas by widely propagating a way of life which did not require their expertize in prarrtti-dharma and karmakeitqa. There was no question of where to place such an, entirely disagreeable even though irrefut¬able Teacher. He was placed along with crass materialists and nihilists (ncistikas, vainäiikas, lokayatas, carvilkas), whose teachings, if followed, will surely lead to hell. Such was the dual attitude of our Brahmani¬cal ancestors to the Buddha. IV The relation between Brahmanism and Buddhism was not like that between judaism and Christianity. Some less informed people have hnan misled by this analogy. Jesus was born a Jew and he utilized The Jewish religious inheritance in formulating a distinctive vision of II 1c Kingdom of Heaven and in giving to his disciples a new and refined interpretation of traditional ethical commandments. He came to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of the children of Abraham. This was not the case of gdkyamunis relation to Vedic Brahmanism or, as Louis Renou calls it, `Vedism. To be sure, there were no Hindus in the sixth and fifth centuries BC anywhere on this earth much less in north eastern Hindustan. India in those days was populated by many autochthonous peoples who were then far more numerous than Vedic Aryans and dryanized tribes and races. To say that Siddhartha Gautama was horn a Hindu is therefore entirely non-sensical. He was certainly not born a Vaidika. There is no evidence to think that Vedism was prevalent among the Sakyas, Mallas or Licchavis in the days of the Buddha and Mahavira. On the contrary, there is evidence of the progress and influence of several varieties of Sramanic religion and philosophy which had nothing in common with Brahmanic polytheism, sacrificialism, and world-affirmation. The ideologies of srananas cannot be traced to Indo-Aryans. They seem to have been the contributions of non-Aryans and pre-Aryan people of India. The Sainkhya, Jainism, Ajivikism, Buddhism, and numerous other forms of ascetically- oriented soteriologies propounded by munis and Sramaas, together with some outstanding teachers of scepticism, materialism, realism, nihilism and eternalism flourished in that small area of modern eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar at a time when it had not been fully dryanized and brahmanized. It is not insignificant that the anti-Vedic and ascetic tendency of a few Upani¬sadic texts was inspired by the teachings of these east Indian iramatws, muffs, parivrajakas and mundakas. It is therefore reasonable to hold that Siddhartha Gautama was born in a non-Vedic society, in an Araidika milieu, in which Sramanic ideas and practices had already made considerable progress. He did not study Vedic literature under Vedic seers; His first teachers before attaining Enlightenment were two sramana sages, Arada Kalama and Rudraka Ramaputra, who seem to have preached Sdnakhya type of 8ramanism. As is already well-known, the Sdrnkhya was a non-Vedic, pluralistic and non-theistic system of spirituality which traced its origin not to the Vedic iruti but to Kapilamuni, a non-Aryan human sage, whose followers had established the city of Kapilavastu, the headquarters or the Republic of Sdkyas. This non-Vedic Sämkhya-yoga of Kapilamuni never became so formidable a religion as Buddhism and Jainism, and it was the first branch of 8ramanism to be brahmanized and homologized. Kapilamuni was less fortunate than gdkyamuni for, unlike his Buddhist successor, he did not survive the all-consum¬ing process of mythologization. His historicity has been completely ruined by Epic legends and Puranic myths. Sdkyamunis followers left numerous biographies and thousands of images of their Master, and millions of people outside of Hindustan took refuge in Him and His teaching who still bear witness to His historic personality. In the absence of this development, the Son of Suddhodana would have passed into oblivion of mythical darkness as one of the several human and animal avatdras of Visnu. To return to the question of relation of Buddhism to Puranika Brahmaism of non-existent Hindus in pre-Muslim India. The early medieval followers of Vaidika Dharma or Sandtana Dharma had not as yet learned to identify themselves as Hindus even when they first encountered the Turks and Afghans. It is the Muslims who first seem to have used this new name for the infidels (Kaifirs), the non-Muslims, who inhabited Hindustan in order to distinguish them from the Muslims. The followers of Vaidika/Sandtana tradition came to be known as Hindus only after a time when the Buddhists as different from Vaidikas had disappeared from Indian mainland, and when the Muslims had appeared on the Indian soil as rivals of the Vaidikas who then constituted the majority of those living in India. The Muslims, who used the name Hindu(s) for the Vaidikas, did not use that name for the Buddhists, the worshippers of But (i.e. Buddha in plastic form). Scholars like Alberuni had no idea of the origin of `Hinduism out of a fusion of Brahmanism and Buddhism. For the Muslim writers the Hindus were Hindus because they were the inhabitants of Hind, the country where the river Sindhu flows. They were not called Hindus because they were the followers of a tradition then known as Hinduism. This last name had to wait for many centuries to be invented and used widely first in English writings. V The religious and philosophical history of India up to the time of Muslim conquest is largely a history of encounter between Brahmanical and Buddhistic sects and ideas. For over seventeen centuries anin iense drama of vigorous ideological encounter and controversy took place in India. It stopped only when Muslim political authority and religious exclusiveness made it impossible for Brahmanical Hindus to carry on religious crusades of the type legends associate with Kumd¬rila and gamkara. Of course, Buddhism had already been completely assimilated by Hinduism, and conditions for existence of Buddhist communities as different from Hindu communities had disappeared. As our great Swami has observed: Hinduism has become so great only by absorbing the ideas of Buddha.4 There were very few Buddhists in India for the Turks and Afghans to persecute. The task of annihilating Buddhists had already been accomplished. It has been said by Charles Eliot and Radhakrishnan that Brahmanism had killed Buddhism in a fraternal embrace. Even before them, the Swami had said that Hinduism threw away Buddhism after taking its sap. It is a false modern myth which interprets Brahmanical assimila¬tion of Buddhism as a kind of catholicity and tolerance on the part of Hindus. There is evidence of Brahmanical Hindu intolerance of and hostility towards Buddhism and other non-Vaidika ideologies. Most of the extant Buddhist images in Indian museums are damaged and mutilated because of human vandalism; not all this vandalism can be attributed to Muslim invasions or accidents. Of thousands of Buddhist texts in several Indian languages, not more than four have survived in India. Brahmanical Hindu occupation of Buddhist shrines also suggests persecution and violence. Those who regarded the Buddha as an outcast (vasalaka) and declared Buddhists to be `demons (daitya, deinara) cannot be considered tolerant. The typical orthodox Brahmanical attitude to Buddhism is reflected in the following statement made in a sacred book of the Hindus: A brahmana who enters a Buddhist temple even in a great calamity cannot get rid of the sin by hundreds of expiations since the Bud¬dhists are heretics (piikhaqinatz) and critics of the Veda. Even so large-hearted and thoughtful a Hindu as Vivekananda occasionally succumbed to traditional hostility towards Buddhism and the Buddhists. The life of Buddha has an especial appeal. All my life I have been very fond of Buddha, but not of his doctrine;4 those who embrace Buddhism or any other religion after renouncing Brahmaism/Hinduism are naturally looked down upon: Every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more. It should be remarked here that the one really tolerant man remotely associated with Hinduism was Mahatma Gandhi. But even that Mahatma was murdered by a Brahmanical Hindu. We are not saying that the Hindu tradition is intolerant; the Hindus are very tolerant of those persons and opinions that do not militate against their own cherished ideas and beliefs. Generally speaking, the modern Hindus have shown great tolerance of religious puralismTheir notions of appreciation, acceptance, and assimilation, to quote Radhakirshnan’ s characteristic words, are fully illustrated by their treatment of Buddhism discussed below. In regard to the question of Hinduism and other religions of the world, their conception of religious tolerance is fully represented by the opinions of Vivekananda and RadItakrishnan. It is our considered opinion that the Brahmanical Hindu acceptance and assimilation of much of Buddhism was an absolutely necessary survival technique. Vedism had become obsolete long before the Mandbhärata began its encyclopaedic career about the second century BC. Emperor Asoka fiad successfully demonstrated that truly universal humane Dharma was incompatible with varna/jati institutionand sacrificial slaughter of animals, and that it had the happiness of all humans and animals as its ultimate goal. It appears to us that in the absence of Buddhism the old form of Brahmanism would not have been transformed into Hinduism. Mahamahopadhydya P.VKane has shown that in order to make Brahmanism meaningful and relevant in the face of pan-Indan presence of Buddhism, the Brahmanical leaders and law-makers not only assimilated and homologizedmany cardinal elements of Buddhist thought and culture, they also did everything to undermine the prestige and power of Buddhism among the masses. The brähmanas adopted a two-fold technique: assimilation and condemnation of Buddhism. What Arnold Toynbee calls the philosophical plunder of Buddhism went along with denunciation and persecution of Buddhism. The total result was a gradual decline and final eclipse of Buddhist communities, monasteries, scriptures, and sanctuaries in all parts of India. For the common people there remained no distinction and difference between Buddhism and reshaped Brahmanism or Hinduism. Buddhism survived only in its hinduized (that is, brahmanized) form. The Buddhist pilgrims from numerous foreign countries who visited their Holy Land of Dharma up to the eighteenth century must have been shocked to see such an unparalleled destruction of Buddhist culture and society in the very home of Buddhism. They must have been embarrassed, if some of them, like Hsuan-tsang of earlier days, knew Sanskrit, by the newly constructed formula of Brahmanical Hindu homage to the Buddha: narno Buddhciya Suddhaya daitya danara mohine (Adoration to the Enlightened One, the Immaculate One, who enchanted (or deceived) the demons and devils). Was it like saying love the Buddha, hate the Buddhists, or even worse than that; for the Buddha was to be `adored not for His wisdom and mercy, but for misleading the Buddhists! This attitude seems to have persisted right up to the nineteenth century, for neither Tulasidasa in his Reirnacaritanieinas a and other works (sixteenth century) nor Swami Dayananda Sarasvati in his Satyarthaprakeis a (late nineteenth century) shows any better understanding of the Buddha and Buddhism. Instances of under¬standing such as characterized the sentiments of Sittalai Sattanar a Tamil saint-poet, were very rare indeed. An extraordinary shift in this twenty-four hundred years old attitude towards the Buddha and Bauddha-Dharma- Darsana took place in the nineteenth century with the career of Swami Vivekananda as a national leader of cultural and intellectual re-awakening. His senior contemporary Swami Dayananda did not share in this brilliant and constructive though unprecedented attitude perhaps because he knew only the Gujarati, Hindi, and Sanskrit languages. He had no English education and seems to have believed that there was every thing in the Vedas. He who could reject the entire Puraraa group of sects and ideas had no reason to see anything good or great in Buddhism. The new awakening among the English educated `Hindus had come from the Western world. Those who read English, German or French languages were quick to realize the paramount relevan and significance of the Buddha and His social and ethical legacy in the task of national reform and reconstruction on an enlightened ideological foundation. It was the merit of Swami Vivekananda to perceive clearly and completely the strengths and weaknesses of Brahmanical Hinduism as handed own to him by his tradition. He was the first to recognize and publicly declare the Hindu indebtedness to the Buddhas ideas. He sa the inseparable bond between Buddhism, Vedanta, and Vaisnavism. He eulogized the Buddha and the Vedanta; he laughed at the eeerile myths built by the brähmanas around the Buddha as an avai a. He used strong words to denounce the ancient Brahmanas for the intolerance and selfishness. He reorganized the institution of monks vith a view to training them for bahujana hitaya, for the happiness and good of all. He was an insightful visionary. He constructed a grand vision and a beautiful, harmonious and synthetic picture of Indian philosophy and soteriology. He visualized the serene and majestic figure of the Buddha established at the centre of the multi-structured, multi-faceted, and multi-coloured citadel of `Hinduism illuminating the entire universe with His unique wis¬dom, and radiating His profound loving kindness in all directions. Therefore, I prostrate before the Lord Buddha, he exclaimed in devout and conscious enthusiasm. The other Brahmanical and Hinduistic teachers and leaders before him had merely plundered the metapleesical and spiritual wealth of the Tathagata; and, in place of gratitude, they had given Him not a few names, such as an outcast, a nihilist a barbarian, and a leader and teacher of demons! It was Swami Viveka Landa who sincerely and devoutly affirmed the following formula : The Lord Buddha is my Ishta—my God; He preached no theory About Godhead—He was Himself God. I fully believe it. This was an unprecedented event in the history of Buddhist-Hindu encounters and a great achievement since the days of Gaudapada and Samkara. The great Brahmanical Hindu tradition dating from venerable antiquity has produced just one honest worshipper and follower of the Buddha. The Buddhists all the world over will hold him in high regard for his work of outstanding value for the discovery of Buddhism in modern India. There is a perceptible new respect for the Buddha and Buddhism in contemporary India not a little of which is due to the great and noble work of this greatest of Hindu monks. The attitude of Swami Vivekananda to Buddhism is thus radically different from that of the ancient and medieval followers of Brahmanical Hinduism. He is grateful to the Buddha and recognizes his traditions debt to the Great Masters legacy. He honours the Buddha as the greatest teacher of Hinduism, as the greatest Seer, the ideal Karmayogin, the real Vedantin, the only God that ever walked on this earth. This was not the case with traditional Brahmanical teachers of earlier times; the farthest they could go to express their gratitude to the Buddha was to declare Him an incarnation of God for the evil age (kaliyuga) who deluded the demons and devils who were finally destroyed. The Swami thus inaugurated a new epoch in the history of Buddhist-Hindu encounters. VII The reader will soon discover in the following page that the attitude of the Swami towards Buddhism is multivalent. His attitude to the Buddha is one of the highest reverence and utter humility. The Buddha is his I:sta, chosen form of the Supreme Being or God. His attitude towards the Buddhists is that they are mistaken and have completely distorted the teachings of the Great Master. We do not know how to characterize this attitude which the historians in general and Buddhists in particular will never appreciate. In point of fact Vivekananda is saying that the Buddhists are not real Buddhists because they do not know what the Buddha taught, and they have been practising what the Buddha did not teach. The third kind of attitude that one finds in the Swamis writings and speeches is still more difficult to understand because Vivekananda attributes to the Buddha tenets and teachings that are un-Buddhistic. He says that the Buddha was a Hindu in the sense of a Vaidika, that He was a `reformer and founder of a sect of Hinduism, and that He taught the `Vedantic truths. The important thing is that for the first time in the long history of Brahmanical Hinduism the Buddha is fully accept¬ed. The authors of the story of the Buddhavatka had only partly accepted Him as a delusive appearance of Visnu. What they failed or were unable to accomplish in order to thoroughly own and honour the Buddha was accomplished by one stroke of Swami Vivekananda s incredible ingenuity, Was it a well-conceived stroke of policy to explain Buddhistic contributions to Hinduism? Or, was it a product of a strong desire to glorify the history and heritage of the Hindus? The wise readers have the freedom to speculate and deliberate to find an answer. There is no doubt that the Swami had an insight into the psycho¬logy of his audience. In his speeches in Europe and the United States of America he freely praised the Buddha and stressed His ethical, rational and humanistic teachings. But he always repeated his own important and unavoidable opinion that the Buddha was a Hindu and Buddhism a rebel child of Hinduism. This obsession with the Buddha and Buddhism seems to have passed on to Dr. Radhakrishnan specially during his tenure as the Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics at the University of Oxford. For he too had the need to present to his Western colleagues and readers that there was nothing new in Buddhism which was not found in `Hinduism, and that Buddha was only a reformer of the Eternal Religion discovered by the Indo-Aryan seers ! But when the Swami had to address his co-religionist Hindus in India, he often became harsh on Buddhism, even on the Buddha, and openly opposed the Buddhists. Here in the home of Brahmanism he would refer to Bud¬dhism as atheism and nihilism, and denounce the ancient Buddhists for their alleged introduction of Tantric rites and degradation of Indian civilization. Was it a Bodhisattva s skill in means? Or, was it a cross-cultural diplomacy? Perhaps it was a demand of dynamics of national reform. VIII It is possible to think that the Swami had many good reasons for proposing a thorough-going hinduization of Buddhistic Hinduism, for assuming a Vedantic Buddhism, for transforming the Säkyamuni into a Vaidika reformer, and for falsification of the genuine Bauddha Dharrna. Once again we take liberty of giving our readers the free¬dom to guess what those reasons were. The question that arises is this : Was Vivekananda justified in doing what he did with Buddhism? Or, to formulate the question differently; Was he sensitive towards the religious feelings of genuine followers of the Buddha? He was right in maintaining that the Hindus cannot have their Hinduism without the Buddha and a substantial portion of His teachings. But he went the absolutely wrong way when he sought to argue that since Hinduism is largely based upon Buddhism, therefore the Buddha was also a Hindu! He was right in maintaining that Hinduism is post- Buddhistic; but he was not right in insisting that true Buddhism was Vedantic. He was right in believing that for him the Buddha Himself was God, but he was not right in denying the reality of Gods alter¬native in Buddhism. These are some of the questions analyzed and discussed in this book. If we accept the Vivekanandian or Hinduistic theories about the Buddhistic tradition—most of the educated modern Hindus seem to accept these theories—then the modern Hindus will have to face a dilemma: Are Buddhists Hindus or Hindus Bud¬dhists? If the Buddha was really a Hindu then His followers will have to be described as Hindus. Can any one in his/her senses in good shape say that the Buddhists of Japan or Tibet or Sri Lanka are Hindus? As a matter of fact, Vivekananda does not suggest that Buddhists should be called Hindus even though the Buddha cannot be excluded from the centre of Hinduism. On the other hand, since the Hindu tradition has been thoroughly permeated with Buddhist thought and ethics, the followers of that tradition will have to identify themselves as Buddhists. This the Hindus may find very, very diffi¬cult. Even Vivekananda once emphatically told his American audience that he was a Hindu. The late Professor Satkari Mookerjee of the University of Calcutta is the only Hindu btahmana by birth who is recorded to have said that every Hindu is a Buddhist, inspite of all outward appearances to the contrary. The heroic effort of .Swami Vivekananda to present a unified vision and a synthetic mosaic of Indian thought and culture with the Buddha and Buddhism of his conception at its centre are undoubtedly praise¬worthy. Blessed is he. As a historian of Indian ideas and ideals the present author cannot accept his anachronistic views and his un¬Buddhistic interpretations of the meaning and message of Buddha. The author has submitted the results of his many years of study and research in the area of Buddhist-Hindu interactions in classical India in the following pages for consideration by fellow historians of religious ideas and communities. He is aware that his views and interpretations run counter to those of the writers of the Brahmani¬cal School. A book which contains ideas generally opposed to the opinion cherished and propagated by the majority of the people in a community is likely to generate some academic controversy. There is no reason for not welcoming such a controversy. The author will be more than pleased to revise his opinions whenever they will be founding correct. A study of the history of ideas and institutions cannot be scientific if it is carried on to sustain a communal approach. On the 01 her hand, a historian of ideas is not supposed to suppress facts of history with a view to gaining favourable disposition of the leader¬ship in his community. Past history of our community and culture is not what we now want it should have been. Our theories have a contemporary colour. If the facts of past history do not seem to go well with this colour, we should be ready to give up our theories about the past. At any rate there is no justification for ignoring the evidence furnished by ancient texts and documents merely because that evidence militates against our modern apologe¬ics. The present volume seeks to point out some of the problems in¬volved in an anachronistic study of the relationship between BuddhISM and Brahmanical Hinduism. It is our hope that this book will inspire some readers to investigate further into the problems raised in the following pages 30 May, 1983 Lal Mani Joshi Margaret Gest Center for theCross-Cultural Study of Religion Haverford College, Haverford, U.S.A. ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Posted on: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:09:36 +0000