Radhakrishnan and Buddhism: Yoichi ITO

 

5

R A D H A K R I S H N A N AND B U D D H I S M YOICHI

ITO

This paper is a s t u d y o f Dr. Sa Sarv rveepall pallii Radh Radhak akri rish shna nan n s vi view ew o f Budd- . hism. I t may also suggest the rela relati tion on of Hi Hind ndui uism sm to Budd Buddhi hism sm.. H ow ow does Dr Ra Radh dhak akri rish shna nan n see see Buddh Buddhism ism or t he rise of Buddhi sm in t h e history o f In d i a n th thou ough ght? t? H e says i n hi s

  ndian

Bud dh is m is no t an absolutely original doctrine.

 t

  hilosophy

is no freak

evol ev olut utio ion n of Indi Indian an thou though ght. t. * W e find also this u t t e r a n c e ,

Early

in t h e

B u d d h i s m , in it s

o ri g i n a t l e as t , is a n o f f s h o o t o f Hi nduism. ((1 1. P . , p. 3 6 1 ) An d he regards Gaut Ga utam amaa Budd Buddha ha no nott as  a n innovator or   a n inventor, b u t as   a continuator o f th e past

o r   a discoverer .  T . B., p. 3 4 3 )  

we accept that as th e son o f

his day, Bud d ha could n o t b r e a k away completel y from h i s age a n d en v i r o n : ment, w e h a v e t o a d m it t h e s e R a d h a k r i s h n a n s wo rd s a n d t a k e up the teac teachi hing ng

of t he Up a n i s ad s as t h a t o f his religious e n v i r o n me n t o r historical h eri t ag e. As he says,  Buddha ha d ready t o h a n d t h a t s u p r e me w o r k o f t he he I n d i a n genius, th e Upanisads.

(1. P. P.,, p. p.36 360) 0) Here again Dr. Radh Radhaakris krishn hnaan says that

Budd Bu ddha ha re resta state ted d th e thought o f th thee Upani nissads; Ear Early Buddhisim, we vent ventur uree t o h a zar d a co nj ect u re, is only a r e s t a t e m e n t o f th thee th thou ough ghtt o f th e Upanisads fro m a ne w sta.ndpoint. ... Bu d d h a hi msel f was n o t a wa re o f any incongruity b e twe twe en his t heo heo r y a nd nd that o f th e Upanisads. H e felt that he h ad th thee supp suppor ortt and an d symp sympat athy hy o f th e Up Upan anis isaads and their their fol ollo lowe wers rs.. (i (ibi bid. d.,, p. 361) 361) From this h e come s t o t h e conclusion that   th e d h ar ar m a whi ch he h a s discovered b y

* Vol.

  p . 360. (This (This book he here reaf afte terr design ignated  I.P. ) Also d.S. Radhakrishnan,

AND AN D T HE TEACHING OF BU HA SP SIL ENCE Journal, VQl xxx;ii No, BUDD 3. DDHA (T (Thi his s pB apYerSPEE heEECH re reaaCH fte fter desigBY nateSILEN d  T , CE, B. , Th e Hibbert

 

6

an effort effort of sel£-culture is th e an anci cien entt way, the the Arya Aryan n path path,, th e ete eterna rnall dharm dharma. a. (ibid., p. 360 360) Inde Indeed ed 1ike all reformers he came not not to destr estroy oy but but to fulfil. (T. B

p. 343) 343) In fact fact hi hiss desc descri ript ptio ion n o f Bu Budd ddhi hism sm in his his

  ndi

n

philosoph >

is   t o sh ow h ow th e spirit o f th e Upanisads is the the life-spring of Bud Buddhism. (1. P., P., p.362)

,

If so, does Dr. Rad Radhak hakris rishn hnan an id iden enti tify fy t h e teaching o f B u d d ha w i t h the

thought of the Upa Upani nissads ads? Does Does he not not rec recogn ognize ize any or orig igin inal alit ity y of th e teaching of Budd Buddha ha?? Of course i t is n o t r ig ig h t to say t h a t D r. R adha kri s hnan does n o t recognize any originality of the teaching of Buddha.

H e says,  This

is

not, no t, howe howeve ver, r, to minimise in any s en se th e or orig igin inal alit ity y and and valu valuee of Buddha s we

o r that

work. How However ever much c a n t r a c e this idea to his religious euviron-, ment, th thee orien rienttat atiion h e g av e to t h e s e ideas is pre-eminently his own. ( T . B., p.343) So we m u s t ask t h e relation be tw e e n Buddism a nd the Upani sads; Regar Reg ardi ding ng Budd Buddhi hism sm Dr. Dr. Radh Radhak akri rish shna nan n coun counts ts th e marked charac character terist istics ics o f th e early teaching of Buddhism as

an ethical earne rnestness, an absence of any

theological tendency and and an aversion to metaphysical speculation. (1. P., P., p. 3 5 8 ) Above all th  th e

e t h i ca l e a r n e s t n e s s

sseeem s t o b e e st im at ed highly b y

Dr. Radahakris Radahakrishnan hnan.. H e says,  t he supremacy o f t h e ethical is th e clue to th e teaching o f Buddha. .. . In Indi Indiaa Budd Buddha ha is re spected as a most t e n d e r and sensitive ethical te teac ache herr wh o pr ote st ed against animal s ac acri rifi ficc es p.345) An And d

. (T. (T. B. B. ,

Bnddh Bnddhaa s aversi rsion to speculation is confined to issues which ar aree

irrelevant to his et eth hical cal purpose. (ibid., p . 346) In s h o r t i t is of importance that  t h e tru ths laid down by Buddha a bo ut the wo r ld a n d th e soul a r e

motive d b y his i n te r e s t in th e eth ethica icall li life fe.. (ibid., (ibid., p.346) On t h e o t h er h a n d

Dr; Radh Radhakri akrishn shnan an sums sums u p th e fu fund ndam amen enta tall doct doctri rine ness of

the Upanisads ; ( 1 ) T h e world we know, w h e t h e r o ut w a r d o r inward, does

 

7 nott possess no ess in intr trin insi sicc real realiity ty.. I t

 s

an appearance whic h is bound to pass away.

( 2 ) Intrinsic reality belongs to t h e know er, a t m a n , t h e s e l f o f  

selves. ( 3 )

Brahman and Atman a re one. ( 4 ) Knowledge o f this supr eme t r u t h b r i n g s salv alvation. Mok oksa sa or sa salv lvat atio ion n

a s t a t e o f b e i ng , n o t a p l a c e o f r e s o r t , a

 s

quality o f life to b e acquired by spiritual training and illumination. ( 5 ) Until we reach it, we a re s u b j e c t to t h e law o f K a n n a and r e bi r th . ( T . B 3 4 3 ) A nd h e says t hat hat t h e s e fundamental d o cctt rin rin e s that is inconsistent with with th them em..

p

ar aree mixed up wi witt h much

(ib (ibid. p . 3 4 4 ) T h e r e f o r e w e can unde rs tand

what h e means by  a continuator of th thee pa past st o r   isc iscov over erer er . Budd Buddha ha did did only rid ri d the Upanisads of the heir ir irrationality. A t any r a t e h e r e a r e many similarities b e t w e e n t h e teaching o f Buddha

and t h e t ho u gh t o f t h e Upanisads. B u t w e will have to acknowledge t h e differances  

 s

well. Above all i t

 s

in th e question a b ou t a t m a n , t h e s e l f o f

selves . A t this point w e call to mind Pr of e sso r T . R . V . M u rt rt i s words. P r o f e s s o r  

M u r t i , in his T h e C en en tr tr a all Buddhism

 s

P h il il os os o op p hy hy

o f   uddhism

a s k es

whe ther

a deviation o r a radical de p ar tu re from t h e Upanisadic tr adition

(atmavada).

insi sissts up upon on that su such ch in inte terp rpre reta tati tion on as devi deviat atio ion n  i s not fully alive to t h e H e in vi vittal dif iffe ferrencs encs an and d exclusive at atti titu tude dess in inhe here rent nt

 n

Brah ahma mani nica call and and th e th e Br

Buddhis Bud dhistt sy syst stem ems. s. (p.14) T h e r e f o r e h e takes Buddha and Buddhism as   a revo lt. A n d its r e v o l t is  n ot

m e r el y a g a i n s t t h e c a n t a n d h o l l o wn es s o f

ritualism, b u t ag agai ains nstt the atma atma--id ideo eo]o ]ogy gy,, th e metaphysics o f the the Substance view.

(pp.16) Fo r while

a n i n n e r co re  

 n

t h i n g s,

Ve Ved d ic ic th oug ht consists in accepting t he he atm atma n

in Buddhism

t her heree is a distinct sp ir it o f

 s

o p p o s i t i o ~

not one of hostility as welL t o t h e a t m a v a d a o f t h e Upanisads. ... T h e

Upanisads, ... , blazen f or th t h e reality o f t he a tm a n

 n

every

in ev ever ery y

 

8 line almost. Buddha came to deny t h e soul, a permanent substantial entity. p p . 1 6 - 7 ) An d h e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h i s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o V . B h a t t a c h r y a

and an d Stche Stcherb rbats atsky. ky. Fo r they insist upon th that at  t he denial o f the sel f is the basic tenet of Buddhism.

p .18)

But Pro. M ur t i seems to think th thaa t i t

 s

-the reason why Bud uddh dhaa has an intense

ethical interest t hat he does deny the soul. A t this point he seems to be one with Dr. Radhakrishnan. F or Dr. Ra Radh dhak akri rish shna nan n thin thinks ks tha thatt (B (Bud uddh dhaa sa save vers rsio ion n to speculation is confined to issues which are irrelevant to hisethical purp urpose ose. H e says that  B  Bu uddha . . . did not accept the view of a personal God, since

such a belief t ended to indolence and hypocricy . . . ., Buddh dhaa contends that there

the the hu huma man n ind ndiivid idu ual.

 

 s

nothing absolute and unchanging in we believe in any such thi ng, Buddha thought

tha tha t ethical life would lose i ts point. Budd Bu ddha ha s ethi ethica call pu purp rpos osee

 s

T . B., pp.347-8)

i n short to make an end of all suffering. I t follows

in Dr. Ra Radh dhak akri rish shna nan n that   t o say t h a t the individual is a per ma ne nt entity, th e unchanging s u bj bjee ct of all c h haa ng ngts ts,, is  s false as t he o t h e r position t h a t

t he individual is nothiug and will be com omp plete letelly cu cutt o f f a t death.

T . B. B.,,

p.348) T h e r e f o r e Dr. Rad hakrishnan cann ot say t h a t Budd ha d en ied f m n ly ly

the atm tmaan. Investigating in detail t he a tm tm aan n in Pali Canon, P rofessor H . Nakamura seems to conclude t h a t in th e early Bud uddh dhiism a t least Buddha on t h e one hand teach es t o love t he self, and on the o t h e r emphasizes t h e teaching o f

non-self.   1 : /

r , f ~ , ~ - ~ i J

l ? ~ . f : ~ ; f l ( ; , f i ~ M

, I U

  lftMj[ m

r § ; f l ( ; c ~ ; f l ( ; j

F J T ~

X )

The

wor ord d non-self is liable to cause misunderstanding. Rejecting to r e ga garr d t he atman

 s

the met etap aphy hysi sica call su subs bsta tanc ncee, Bud Buddha dha soug sought ht intr ntrinsi insicc se self lf to ov oveerco com me

t h e suffering in this world. Bu dd ha says t ha t ne i t h e r t he b od y,  riipa) norr feel no eeling ing  vedana) no norr con oncceptio ion n  samjna) nor dispositions (s (sam amsk skar ara) a)

 

9

n o r t h o u g h t ( v i j n a n a ) is th e   elf,

bu t a t t h e same time h e does n o t me a n

th hat at t h ere ere is n ot ot th e se self lf.. This This is Sab Sabbe be dhamm dhammaa anat anatta ta.. W e are misunde misundersta rstahdin hding g th e self, and it is because we are ignorant.

T h e path to re move t h i s

ttris

 

understanding is to ge t rid ri d of ignorance. Radha adhakr kris ishn hnan an seem seemss to stan stand d on such a st stan andp dpoi oint nt.. Acco Accord rdin ing g to Dr. Radh Radhak akri rish shna nan, n, howe howere rer, r, the reas reason on why Buddha th thou ough ghtt th that at ethical life would lose its point,

 

w e b e l i e v e d i n a ny s uc h t h i n g ,

is that   t h e human soul has in it already something absolute and perma nent. T . B., p . 3 4 8 ) H e re re again we f in d Dr. Radh Radhak akri rish shna nan n s view view of Buddha as

an et ethi hica call teac teache her. r. Butt Dr. Radhakrishnan wh o se Bu sees es so inte intens nsee ethi ethica call inte intere rest st in Budd Buddha ha,, seem seemss to h a v e his unique view of the the self. It is a v ie w o f rebuilding the self b y

effort effo rt and and di disc scip ipli lin ne. That is to say, th e s e l f is so me t h i ng which evolves and and grows, an ac hievement t o be made and w o n , to be buil t up with pa in a nd labour, and n o t some thing given to be enjoyed.

T . B., B., p.348)

Profe Pro fess ssor or Murti Murti summ summer eriz izes es this ques questtion ion of the se lf in the Upanisads a nd Bt iad ha as follows. Both t he Upanisads and Buddha have the same proble m, ie. th thee ideal of a st stat atee beyond suffe fferi rin ng.   T h e Upanisads spea peak of it mor moree posi positi ti vely.

Buddha em emph phas asis ises es the the nega negati tive ve as aspe pect ct of it: Nirv Nirvan anaa is the the annihilation

of suffering. And for th e Upanisads, A t man man is Brahman. I t is of true1y im im porta nce t o realise the self as a tma n.   T o realise the self is to have all desires satisfied, and t hu s to tr ansce ndend all desires. Buddha reac he s this very goal J of desirelessness, no t by t he

u ni v e r s a l i s a t i on

of t h e I  atman) , b u t

by

denying it altogether•... Buddha was impre ssed by t h e negative aspect of the highes hig hestt tr tranc ance-s e-sta tate tess  

Both reach the same goal o f utter desirelessness, bu t

throu rough dif ifffer eren entt means. T he spir spirit itua uall geni geniu us of Buddha car ved o u t a n e w p a t h, t h e ne gati ve p a t h . · · · T he Upanisads and Buddhism belong to t h e same spiritual genus: they d i f f e r as species; and t h e diff diffeeren rentia are are t he acceptance

 

 

o r rejection o f th e atma atman n perm perman anen entt substance). I t may  

pp.19-20)

that t he non-self comes a f t e r Buddha s dea dea t h to  

esta establ blis ishe hed d as

a theo heory, nai nairatmyavad vada. Neve Neverrthel theleess is it no t necessary to take up

p o s ~ t i v e l y

the the non·self in or orde derr t o characterise the significance and position of early Buddhism in t he history of I nd i a n thought? When Buddha says t h a t t he five aggregates a r e not t h e selves, can w e n ot think that they a re not meta physi ph ysica call substan substances ces,, bu t cate catego gori ries es in th e ep epis iste temo molo logy gy?? Can we not t h i n k that Bu Bud ddha dha developed the epistemology, when when he was aver verse to th thee m e ~ p h y s i -

ca call spec specul ulat atio ion? n? T o reject t he metaphysical speculation does not mean t o give up the the wor ork k of philosophical syst systeem at all.   ~ f g ~ J 1 ,

r ~ ~ . ~

l ¥ J . f t ~ J

,ttm ~

~

r J J i U : a f b ~

7

~

Butt i t may n o t b e t he w o r k o f impartial Bu

st ude n t to emphasise intentionally t he difference b e t w e e n t he teaching o f Buddha and t h e thought of t he Upanisads.   d . T . B., p.346, Note 2 ) W e shou should ld firs firstt pu t a question t o us a f t e r t he example of Professor Mur urti ti,, Was Was the the r e a primitive Buddhism affirming the the atman? , and investigate it closely.

 t r_ \: •

.

 

  , . . , ~