2. Ibid., p. 106.

3. The History of Indian Literature, trans. John Mann and Theodor Zachariae (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1904), p. 289.

4. Cambridge History of India, 6 vols., ed. E. J. Rapson (2d Indian reprint ed., Delhi: S. Chand and Co, 1958-64), 1:131.

5. A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy: Being an Introduction to the Thought of the Upanisads, 2d ed. (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1968), p. 132.

6. Ibid., p. 133.

p. 319

tems of Indian philosophy but also some of the so-called heterodox Schools like those of Buddhism." [7]

　　 Radhakrishnan is certainly the best representative of this point of view and should be quoted in detail. "Early Buddhism is not an absolutely original doctrine," he declares. "It is no freak in the evolution of Indian thought.... Early Buddhism, we venture to hazard a conjecture, is only a restatement of the thought of the Upani.sads from a new standpoint." [8] He is quite explicit that "for a revelation of the struggle of spirit and the experience of soul, Buddha had ready at hand that supreme work of Indian genius, the Upani.sads." [9] Moreover, "Buddha himself was not aware of any incongruity between his theory and that of the Upani.sads. He felt that he had the support and sympathy of the Upani.sads and their followers." [10] The Upani.sadic influence on the Buddha would logically lead to this conclusion: "Those who tell us that for the Buddha there is religious experience but there is no religious object are violating the texts and needlessly convicting him of selfcontradiction. He implies the reality of what the Upani.sads call Brahman, though he takes the liberty of giving it another name, dharma, to indicate its essentially ethical value for us on the empirical plane." [11]

　　 In short, it has been uncritically assumed that in ancient India all philosophy and religious ideas flowed from the Upani.sads, and attempts then were made to fit early Buddhism into this picture. Naturally, there was no alternative but to establish somehow that early Buddhism was indebted to the Upani.sads. We now turn to examine evidence from the Paali Canon and elsewhere to see how far this conclusion can be sustained.

III
The problem can be attacked from many angles. First, there are reasons to think that the early Buddhists, or at least the Buddha, not only were ignorant of the Upani.sadic ideas, but also that they did not have any acquaintance with the Upani.sadic idiom. Hermann von Oldenberg very correctly observes that "of all the texts in which the Brahmanical speculations as to the delivering power of knowledge are contained, perhaps not even one was known

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. History of Philosophy, Eastern and Western, 2 vols., ed. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (London: George Alien & Unwin, 1952-53), 1:55.

8. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, ed. J. H. Muirhead, 2 vols. (London: George Alien & Unwin, 1923-31), 1:360-361.

9. Ibid., p. 360.

10. Ibid., p. 361.

11. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Gautama the Buddha (1945; reprint ed., Bombay: Hind Kitabs, 1946), p. 49.

p. 320

except by hearsay to the founder of the Buddhist community of believers." [12] This is supported by many pertinent considerations.

　　 Many passages from the Paali Canon feature debates between the Buddha and the inquisitive Brahmans. To cite an example, in the Tevijja-sutta of the Diigha-nikaaya, some young Brahmans are discussing with the Buddha the problem of reaching the god Brahmaa. The Buddha stops after declaring that these Brahmans or even their ancestors were not qualified to speak on this subject, being without any personal knowledge about the Brahmaa-gods. The point to note is the absence of "Brahman" in the neuter in a context where it reasonably should have been expected. Reaching "Brahmaa" (which was, in the Paali Canon, only a class of gods) was never considered to be a problem either by the priests or by the seers of the Upani.sads. What could make the editors of the Canon attach importance to this except ignorance? The Upani.sads always use "Brahman" in the neuter, while the Paali Canon seems to know only of "Brahmaa" in the masculine. "This neuter Brahma is never mentioned by the Buddhists," says Edward T. Thomas, "nor do they ever discuss the Upani.sadic doctrine of attaining to this Brahma or becoming identified with it." [13] He is quite correct in holding that had this doctrine been known to the early Buddhists, it would have been the subject of severest refutation, being, in his opinion, "utterly opposed to Buddhist teaching."

　　 It should be noted that "brahma-" as a qualifying prefix is certainly not unknown to the Paali Canon. We frequently come across expressions like "brahma-jaala," "brahma-cariya," and "brahma-bhuuta." In all these cases it has been translated as "perfect" or "excellent, " which appears to be warranted by the context. Nevertheless, the champions of the indebtedness theory prefer to break up the conjunction and read metaphysical implications into the prefix. "The Buddha calls himself brahma-bhuuta, he who has become Brahman," says Radhakrishnan. [14] Quite apart from the fact that this rendering is supported neither by the context nor by Paali grammar and usage, the question arises, Is it imaginable that a true follower of the Upani.sads -- and that is what Radhakrishnan believes the Buddha must have been -- would content himself merely with a prefix to denote the highest reality? Do we really deduce metaphysical doctrines from conjunctive usages?