(1) Countermeasure against criticism of Buddhist doctrine by Hinduism

 (1) Countermeasure against criticism of Buddhist doctrine by Hinduism

 

 

Since its foundation, Buddhism challenged the four Indian caste systems: Brahmans or priests, Shatviyas or warriors, Vaishyas or merchants, and Sudras or serfs, and the ritual sacrifice of animals. Buddhism also challenged the Vedic tradition of Brahminism along with the criticism against materialism, hedonism, the doctrine of annihilation and skepticism of the liberalists of the Six Outside Ways penetrating into the hearts of the common people with its unique ideology and teachings.

As the power of Buddha's teaching spread out widely, it seemed that confrontation between Buddhism and Hinduism was inevitable. We can say that the criticism of Hinduism against Buddhism at the beginning was chiefly on the practical matters concerning the daily lives, and then gradually extended to the contention of the religious doctrines.

However, both Buddhism and Hinduism developed the system of their own doctrines influencing each other. The full-scale criticism of Hinduism against Buddhism was after the seventh or eighth century or after when the controversy of the Manifold Schools of Buddhism (部派佛敎) was founded.

The criticism of the traditional Hinduism against Buddhism arose chiefly from the schools of Mimangsa, Nayaya, and Vedanta, and the chief and most violent confrontation of logic was on the Buddhist doctrine of 'non-self' and Hindi doctrine of substance and its relation with transmigration.

 

According to the view of R. R. Murti, the conflict between 'the doctrines of subsistent-self (有我說)' and 'non-self in the history of Indian philosophy was more vehement than the conflict between rationalism and empiricism in the modern European philosophy.

At that time, the everlasting 'self' called atman was acknowledged by Hinduism. On the other hand, the Buddhism in India at that time, claimed the doctrine of 'non-self' and said that no everlasting 'self' could be acknowledged in no case whatsoever. (Of course, this interpretation of the doctrine of 'non-self' was erroneous.) Because of such entirely different polar doctrines, it seems that there was no way to avoid the great conflict between the two religions. Especially, when it comes to the problem of the substance of transmigration, the confrontation was even more violent.

For Hinduism, the Buddhist doctrine of transmigration without a substance would have been a good target to attack while it was very difficult for Buddhism to explain it logically. It is truly regretable that if there were the Lord Buddha in such a case, the World-honored One could have dashed to the situation and explained the problem. What's more, for Buddhism, neither the doctrine of 'non-self' nor transmigration could be relinquished, because if you did, it would have been like giving up Buddhism.

Sankara, one of the critics of the Vedanta School at that time, criticised the doctrines of five skandhas and momentalism of the Manifold Schools of Buddhism, the idealistic tendency of the Consciousness-only School, and pessimism of the Madhyamika or Middle Way School. Of all these criticisms, I want to investigate the criticism of five skandhas and momentalism, which seem to provide the basis for the doctrines of 'non-self' and 'non-self transmigration' for a moment.

About the momentalism, he criticized that as the preceding substance dissolves before the post substance arises, the law of causality could not be established. He also criticized both momentalism and substantialism of the Sarvastivada School in a bundle that the momentary substance to have both arising and dissolution at the same time is self contradiction. About the transmigration of 'non-self' which claims that there is no actual substance to transmigrate, he criticized as follows in a bundle of the doctrines of five skandhas and transmigration:

 

Perhaps you (Buddhism) might think that the piles of five skandhas or aggregates succeed from one element to another in the eternal transmigration, and therefore the ignorance remains in that aggregates.

However, in that case, you must say that each aggregate inevitably produce the same aggregate, or produce the same or different sort of aggregate without any established system. In the former case, no human being could be born as a God, an animal, or a being in hell. In the latter case, you could be transformed to an elephant or a God at this moment and then transforms back to human.

 

Sankara's criticism about Buddhism that does not acknowledge the substance of soul continues as follows:

 

[According to Buddhism], the compositions of mind and body do not posses the soul to wish to acquire and enjoy the composition. So is the nirvana. There is no one who aspires after nirvana.

Suppose someone aspires after nirvana, it is not that person that acquires it, because the moment when he attains the state of nirvana, it transforms to be entirely different composition. On the contrary, if the same person aspires after and then attains it, then it proves the everlasting soul.

 

In fact, such criticism of Hinduism could easily have foreseen. Even if there were no such criticism of Hinduism, at the time of Manifold Schools of Buddhism, each school tried to solve this problem proposing all kinds of dubious conceptions of mind and perception in place of the substance of transmigration as we already have investigated.

However, it was not the solution but another invention of illogical contradiction. In effect, it not only disregarded the basic doctrine of the Buddhist law of causality but also violated the cosmic law.

It was the same with the problem of 'non-self transmigration' of Buddhism. Due to the inborn limitation of deluded conception of the doctrine of 'non-self', Buddhism could not cope logically with the criticism of Hinduism and explain to them clearly. It was beyond the power of the Manifold Schools of Buddhism to cope with the criticism of Hinduism.

As we already have observed above, due to the misleading doctrine of 'non-self', Buddhism gave an impression of empty religion without the substance of transmigration and enlightenment and, therefore, could not take root in the heart of the common people.

If the Buddhism of the time could explain clearly the doctrines of 'non-self', transmigration, enlightenment, Buddha's power of deliverance of sentient beings, and emphasized the distinction of Buddhism from Hinduism on a higher level, the situation of Buddhism today would have been entirely different. What's more, Buddhism would not have declined in India and did not also have to suffer the invasion of Islam around the 12th Century and disappear from India.

Especially, when we think of the expansion of Buddhism to the entire territory of India, and its spread to all the regions of Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Egypt, Greece, etc., during the reign of the Great King Asoka in the Kingdom of Magadha, Buddhism could rather have, by this time, absolved Hinduism and eventually spread to the whole world including Europe. It is truly regrettable that time has elapsed too long without having this great religion to reveal its true face.