7/26/2019 Buddha Mith

1/3

7/26/2019 Buddha Mith

2/3

The Documentary Evidence

...9ooking then, for a foothold among the shifting sands of Buddhist tradition we note the following clashing records:;. !he Buddha is re$resented in ostensibly early and late tradition as s$eaking of the #ods with full belief in their

e/istence.. He is re$resented on the one hand as discouraging sacrifices, and on the other as $rescribing for a whole tribe a strict

adherence to ancient rites.uch of the $hiloso$hy set forth as his teaching is identical with the Sankhya system, germs of which are admittedly

$re5Buddhistic.0hat doctrines, it must now be asked, were s$ecial to Buddhism8 +ot #arma , that was common $ro$erty which Buddhismshared. +ot in asserting that a right mind was su$erior to sacrifice, that was a $rimary doctrine of the ?ains, and $re5Buddhistic, bothwithin and without the $ale of Brahmanism. +ot in seeking a way to sal&ation inde$endently of the 3edas, that had been doneby many teachers in &arious sects. +ot in the doctrine that defilement comes not from unclean meats but from e&il deeds andwords and thoughts2 Buddhist writers themsel&es say that is deri&ed from $re&ious Buddhas.

+ot in the search for $eace through self5control and renunciation2 that was the 1uest of a myriad recluses and all $re&iousBuddhas. +ot in the &iew that there is a higher wisdom than that attained by austerities2 that, too, is $re5Buddhistic. +ot in thedoctrine that non5Brahmans could join an rder and attain religious blessedness2 other orders were o$en to men of lowsocial status and e&en to sla&es.

ndeed, the rigid se$aration of caste was not yet established in the early days of Buddhism. Brahmin claims were e/orbitantlyhigh, but many Brahmins wai&ed them and they did not a$$ly to ascetics. %arly Buddhists, like the early *hristians, did notadmit runa!ay sla es to the rder.

!he admission of women was not an inno&ation as it was $racticed by the ?ains, and e&en the tradition makes the Buddhaacce$t it reluctantly in the twenty5fifth year of his $reaching.

!here seems, in short, to be nothing on the face of the doctrine to account for the e/$ansion of the Buddhist mo&ement....

Buddha as a Secondary God

0e can now make a critical assessment of Buddhist origins. !he Teaching Buddha , considered as the wondrous sage whoestablished a great rder in his lifetime, shrinks to &anishing $oint. !he sus$icion that Sakyamuni is an unreal being is finally justified.

!he rder $robably originated among ascetic Brahmins who may ha&e been led to rationalism as a result of renouncing the3edas....

Ob ections !nswered

t is reasonable to wonder why so many scholars, while admitting the tissue of fable and un$lausible history surrounding theorigins of Buddhism, ne&ertheless still belie e that Sakyamuni actually e$isted% !hey usually justify their attitude by the argument that e&ery sect must ha&e had a founder. !his assum$tion can be allowed if it is merely taken to mean that someone must ha&e begun the formation of any gi&en grou$. t is clearly not true in the sensethat e&ery sect originates in the new teaching of a remarkable $ersonage.

As we ha&e seen, there was in all $robability a grou$ of heretical Brahmanists for whom a Buddha signified "the enlightenedone." %&en so, there were many Buddhas before the 1uasi5historical Buddha had ac1uired a $ersonality, like the slain ?esusof the auline %$istles....

A sufficient nucleus for the Buddha lay in the general Brahmanic conce$t of "Buddhas." !here is e&en a tradition that at the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakyamunihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakyamuni

7/26/2019 Buddha Mith

3/3

time when Sakyamuni came, many men ran about saying &' am the Buddha&%%%

n these grounds it is submitted that the figure of the Buddha, in its most $lausibly rationali4ed form, is as unhistorical as thatof the gos$el ?esus. %ach figure shows how the religious mind manufactured a myth in a $eriod in which the making of$rimary #ods had gi&en way to the making of Secondary5gods. !he mytho$oeic $rocess satisfied the cra&ing for a !eacher5god who should originate religious and moral ideas as the earliergods had been held to originate agriculture, art, medicine, law and ci&ili4ation.

Buddhism, like *hristianity, is a "fai#ure" from the $oint of view of its traditiona# ori%ins .

n the case of Burma it admittedly did more to mold the life of the whole $eo$le towards its highest ethic than *hristianity e&er did2 but in ndia, where it arose, it colla$sed utterly. t was o&erthrown by Brahmanism which set u$ in its $lace a re&i&ed$olytheism.

n our naturalistic &iew of the rise of the !eaching5gods, it is sheer human as$iration that has sha$ed all the (hrists and their doctrines.

ne reason why the original teachings fail is that men $ersisted in crediting $urely human as$iration to su$ernatural beings.>en who are taught to bow ethically to a di&ine !eacher are not taught ethically to think. Any as$iration so e&oked isfactitious, &erbal, emotional, not reached by authentic thought and e/$erience. 0hen the wisdom or unwisdom of the nameless thinkers in all ages is recogni4ed for what it is 5 as human and not di&ine 5the nations may become ca$able of working out for themsel&es better gos$els than the best of those which turned to naughtin their hands while they held them as re&elations from the skies.