5

RADHAKRISHNAN AND BUDDHISM

YOICHI ITO

This paper is a study of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's view of Budd- .

hism. It may also suggest the relation of Hinduism to Buddhism.
How does Dr. Radhakrishnan see Buddhism or the rise of Buddhism in the
history of Indian thought? He says in his I ndian Philosophy, "Early
Buddhism is not an absolutely original doctrine. It is no freak in the
evolution of Indian thought."* We find also this utterance, "Buddhism, in its
origin at least, is an offshoot of Hinduism." (1. P., p. 361) And he regards
Gautama Buddha not as "an innovator" or "an inventor," but as "a continuator of
the past" or "a discoverer". (T. B., p. 343) If we accept that as the son of
his day, Buddha could not break away completely from his age and environ:
ment, we have to admit these Radhakrishnan's words and take up the teaching
of the Upanisads as that of his religious environment or historical heritage. "
As he says, "Buddha had ready to hand that supreme work of the Indian
genius, the Upanisads." (1. P., p.360) Here again Dr. Radhakrishnan says that
Buddha restated the thought of the Upanisads; "Early Buddhisim, we venture
to hazard a conjecture, is only a restatement of the thought of the Upanisads
from a new sta.ndpoint. ... Buddha himself was not aware of any incongruity
between his theory and that of the Upanisads. He felt that he had the support
and sympathy of the Upanisads and their followers." (ibid., p. 361) From this
he comes to the conclusion that "the dharma which he has discovered by

* Vol. I, p. 360. (This book hereafter designated "I.P.") Also d.S. Radhakrishnan,
THE TEACHING OF BUDDHA BY SPEECH AND BY SILENCE, The Hibbert
Journal, VQl, xxx;ii, No, 3. (This paper hereafter designated "T, B.")
 6

an effort of sel£-culture is the ancient way, the Aryan path, the eternal dharma."
(ibid., p. 360) Indeed '1ike all reformers he came not to 'destroy but to fulfil.'"
(T. B., p. 343) In fact his description of Buddhism in his Indian philosoph:>,
is "to show how the spirit of the Upanisads is the life-spring of Buddhism."
(1. P., p.362)

, If so, does Dr. Radhakrishnan identify the teaching of Buddha with the
thought of the Upanisads? Does he not recognize any originality of the teaching
of Buddha? Of course it is not right to say that Dr. Radhakrishnan does not
recognize any originality of the teaching of Buddha. He says, "This is
not, however, to minimise in any sense the originality and value of Buddha's
work. However much we can trace this or that idea to his religious euviron-,
ment, the orientation he gave to these ideas is pre-eminently his own." (T.
B., p.343) So we must ask the relation between Buddism and the Upani-
sads;

Regarding Buddhism Dr. Radhakrishnan counts the marked characteristics of

the early teaching of Buddhism as" an ethical earnestness, an absence of any
theological tendency and an aversion to metaphysical speculation." (1. P., p.
358) Above all 'the ethical earnestness' seems to be estimated highly by
Dr. Radahakrishnan. He says, "the supremacy of the ethical is the clue to the
teaching of Buddha. ... In India Buddha is respected as a most tender and
sensitive ethical teacher who protested against animal sacrifices"'''. (T.B.,
p.345) And "Bnddha's aversion to speculation is confined to issues which are
irrelevant to his ethical purpose." (ibid., p. 346) In short it is of importance
that "the truths laid down by Buddha about the world and the soul are
motived by his interest in the ethical life." (ibid., p.346)
On the other hand Dr; Radhakrishnan sums up the fundamental doctrines of
the Upanisads ; (1) The world we know, whether outward or inward, does
 7
not possess intrinsic reality. It is an appearance which is bound to pass away.
(2) Intrinsic reality belongs to the knower, atman, the self of all selves. (3)
Brahman and Atman are one. (4) Knowledge of this supreme truth brings
salvation. Moksa or salvation is a state of being, not a place of resort, a
quality of life to be acquired by spiritual training and illumination. (5) Until
we reach it, we are subject to the law of Kanna and rebirth. (T. B., p ~
343) And he says that these fundamental doctrines" are mixed up with much
that is inconsistent with them." (ibid. p. 344) Therefore we can understand
what he means by 'a continuator of the past' or 'discoverer'. Buddha did only
rid the Upanisads of their irrationality.
At any rate here are many similarities between the teaching of Buddha
and the thought of the Upanisads. But we will have to acknowledge the
differances as well. Above all it is in the question about 'atman, the self of
all selves'.
At this point we call to mind Professor T. R. V. Murti's words. Professor
,.
Murti, in his The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, askes whether
Buddhism is a deviation or a radical departure from the Upanisadic tradition
(atmavada).
He insists upon that such interpretation as deviation "is not fully alive to the
vital differencs and exclusive attitudes inherent in the Brahmanical and the
Buddhist systems." (p.14) Therefore he takes Buddha and Buddhism as "a
revolt." And its revolt is "not merely against the cant and hollowness of
ritualism, but against the atma-ideo]ogy, the metaphysics of the Substance-
view." (pp.16) For while "Vedic thought consists in accepting the atman as
an inner core in things," in Buddhism "there is a distinct spirit of oppositio~

if not one of hostility as welL to the atmavada of the Upanisads. ... The
Upanisads, ... , blazen forth the reality of the atman in every page~ in every
 8
line almost. Buddha came to deny the soul, a permanent substantial entity."
(pp.16-7) And he demonstrates this with reference to V. Bhattachrya
and Stcherbatsky. For they insist upon that "the denial of the self is the basic
tenet of Buddhism." (p .18)
But Pro. Murti seems to think that it is -the reason why Buddha has an intense
ethical interest that he does deny the soul. At this point he seems to be one
with Dr. Radhakrishnan. For Dr. Radhakrishnan thinks that (Buddha' saversion
to speculation is confined to issues which are irrelevant to hisethical purpose.'
He says that "Buddha ... did not accept the view of a personal God, since
such a belief tended to indolence and hypocricy.
..., Buddha contends that there is nothing absolute and unchanging in
the human individual. If we believe in any such thing, Buddha thought
that ethical life would lose its point." (T. B., pp.347-8)
Buddha's ethical purpose is in short to make an end of all suffering. It follows
in Dr. Radhakrishnan that "to say that the individual is a permanent entity,
the unchanging subject of all changts, is as false as the other position that
the individual is nothiug and will be completely cut off at death." (T. B.,
p.348) Therefore Dr. Radhakrishnan cannot say that Buddha denied fmnly
the atman.
Investigating in detail the atman in Pali Canon, Professor H. Nakamura
seems to conclude that in the early Buddhism at least Buddha on the one
hand teaches to love the self, and on the other emphasizes the teaching of

non-self. (r 1 :/ r,f~,~-~iJ"l?~.f:~;fl(;,fi~M',IU, lftMj[;m r§;fl(;c~;fl(;j FJT~'X) The

word 'non-self' is liable to cause misunderstanding. Rejecting to regard the
atman as the metaphysical substance, Buddha sought intrinsic self to overcome
the suffering in this world. Buddha says that neither the body, (riipa)
nor feeling (vedana) nor conception (samjna) nor dispositions (samskara)
 9
nor thought (vijnana) is the 'self, but at the same time he does not mean
that there is not the self. This is Sabbe dhamma anatta. We are misunderstahding
the self, and it is because we are ignorant. The path to remove this ttris..
understanding is to get rid of ignorance. Radhakrishnan seems to stand on such
a standpoint. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, howerer, the reason why ''Buddha
thought that ethical life would lose its point, if we believed in any such thing,"
is that "the human soul has in it already something absolute and permanent."
(T. B., p. 348) Here again we find Dr. Radhakrishnan's view of Buddha as
an ethical teacher.
But Dr. Radhakrishnan who sees so intense ethical interest in Buddha, seems
to have his unique view of the self. It is a view of rebuilding the self by
effort and discipline. That is to say, the self is "something which evolves and
grows, an achievement to be made and won, to be built up with pain and
labour, and not something given to be enjoyed." (T. B., p.348)
Professor Murti summerizes this question of the self in the Upanisads and
Btiadha as follows. Both the Upanisads and Buddha have the same problem,
ie. the ideal of a state beyond suffering. "The Upanisads speak of it more positi-
vely." "Buddha emphasises the negative aspect of it: Nirvana is the annihilation
of" suffering. And for the Upanisads, Atman is Brahman. It is of true1y im-
portance to realise the self as atman. "To realise the self is to have all desires
satisfied, and thus to transcendend all desires. Buddha reaches this very goal-.J
of desirelessness, not by the universalisation of the I (atman), but by
denying it altogether•... Buddha was impressed by the negative aspect of the
highest trance-states.... Both reach the same goal of utter desirelessness, but
through different means. The spiritual genius of Buddha carved out a new
path, the negative path.···The Upanisads and Buddhism belong to the same
spiritual genus: they differ as species; and the differentia are the acceptance
 10

or rejection of the atman (permanent substance)."(pp.19-20)

It may be that the non-self comes after Buddha's death to be established as
a theory, nairatmyavada. Nevertheless is it not necessary to take up pos~tively

the non·self in order to characterise the significance and position of early

Buddhism in the history of Indian thought? When Buddha says that the five
aggregates are not the selves, can we not think that they are not meta-
physical substances, but categories in the epistemology? Can we not think
that Buddha developed the epistemology, when he was averse to the me~physi­

cal speculation? To reject the metaphysical speculation does not mean to

give up the work of philosophical system at all. (d *,ttm ~~ rJJiU:afb~(7)~
~fg~J1, r~~.~*l¥J.ft~J) But it may not be the work of impartial
student to emphasise intentionally the difference between the teaching of
Buddha and the thought of the Upanisads. (d. T. B., p.346, Note 2) We
should first put a question to us after the example of Professor Murti, 'Was
there a primitive Buddhism affirming the atman?', and investigate it closely.

,t,r_.\:..
• . ' l
~ .
.
;

,..,~