Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00697)

The idea of a Vedic Buddhism is nothing new, and many of the most 
prominant scholars of the last century have accepted this as the more 
likely explanation than the separate religion theory. 

FRITZ STAAL AND THE VEDIC BUDDHISM

For instance, Fritz Staal of the University of California, Berkeley 
(whom I studied with when I was a student there in the mid eighties) 
has come to the conclusion that he has found nothing new in the 
teachings of Buddha that cannot be found in the Brahmanas, 
Upanishads, and the writings of the Jains. Therefore, there could not 
have been a separate doctrine that distinguishes Buddhism. 

One of Staal's examples is the one authentic reference that the 
Buddha makes of ANATMA which is in the Anattalakkhana-Sutta, or the 
Second Sermon in Kashi where he says of the Five Skandhas that "This 
is not Atman, this is the not the Self" or, this is ANATMAN "and will 
perish. This is written in Pali, and the only Sanscrit equivalent can 
be found in the Brahmanas which echo after the mention of each of the 
five Koshas(the Vedic equivalent to Skandas) the comand "Neti Neti" 
or "not this not this." Staal concludes that the Buddha was repeating 
these same words.

Staal has also shown that the Vedic ritual of UPANAYANAM is identical 
in form and meaning to the Buddhist initiation of UPASAMPADAA. Staal 
quotes J.C. Heesterman in this regard:

"The question... appears not to be :sacrifice or rejection of 
sacrifice, but..what is the true sacrifice...not on brahmin 
superiority or its rejection, but on the point who is the true 
brahmin."

These very same questions were being asked in the Brahmanas and the 
Upanishads that pre-date the Buddha. And much of the Buddha's words 
have an equivalent counterpart in these older works.

OTHER SCHOLARS:

According to Hajime Nakamura, "in early Buddhism, they taught 
avoidance of wrong comprehension of non-atman as a step to the real 
Atman." (A Critical Survey of Mahayana and Esoteric Buddhism, Acta 
Asiatica 6, 1964)

According to Erich Frauwallner, "The Buddha never ceases to emphasize 
that none of the five heaps (skandha), which make up the mundane 
personality, should be taken for the I. It was far from him, however, 
to deny the existance of the soul." (The Philosophy of Buddhism, 1956)

________________________________________________________

The question one would need to ask is, when did Buddhism become a 
separate religion and therefore had to creat a separate doctrine. And 
then, how were the Buddha's teachings changed to fit this new 
doctrine.

____________________________________________________________

BUDDHISM DID NOT REJECT LOCAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES:

According to Buddhist scholar Etienne Lamotte, "Adhesion to Buddhist 
faith does not require that the adept rejects his ancestral beliefs 
or denounces the religious practices that are current in his 
milieu...everyone is free to worship apart from the "Three 
Treasures," the deities of his region, caste, or choice and perform 
the appropriate rites... The advent of Buddhism has never produced 
a "twilight of the gods." Sakyamuni does not oppose the pagan gods of 
Hinduism." (History of Indian Buddhism, 1958)

Let us look at Zen Buddhism as it travelled to Japan. It has never 
really been separated from Shitoism and Shinto practices and was only 
separated by the Meiji Restoration in 1868, to keep the buddhist 
preisthoods from controlling certain shrines. Yet the Shinto practice 
of Goma exists to this day. Goma is a fire worshipping ceremony that 
is identical in pattern to the Vedic Homa and Parsi practices. Fritz 
Staal believes this ceremony must have been passed down from the 
Buddhist monks who first introduced Zen.


______________________________________________________________

In conclusion, I think that the Anatman doctrine is not a doctrine of 
the Buddha, nor was Buddhism against other religions, but when it 
became a separate creed, it needed these ideas to create a religious 
movement out of a method.

Koshek Swaminathan