The nearest that the Paali Canon comes to the Upani.sadic position is per-

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

12. Buddha: His Life, His Doctrine, His Order, trans. William Hoey (Indian reprint ed., Calcutta: The Book Company, 1927), p. 52.

13. History of Buddhist Thought (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner Q Co.. 1933). p. 87.

14. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Foreword to 2500 Years of Buddhism; ed. P. V. Bapat (Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, The Publication Division, 1956, 1959), p. xi.

p. 321

haps in its treatment of one type of "heresy of individuality" (sakkaayadi.t.thi) wherein the self is identified not with one of the five factors of existence (khandhas) but with the whole universe. The belief is described as so loko, so attaa [15]: "the world around me is the Self which I shall hereafter become, eternal and permanent, everlasting and unchangeable, standing fast like heaven and earth." [16] In other words, a person, out of ignorance (avijjaa), can delude himself with the thought that he is essentially one with the whole world. However, this can at best be a naive misrepresentation of the true Upani.sadic position -- in fact, it is indistinguishable from materialism -- and of course it is not quoted with approval. This type of thinking is supposed to be as ill-founded as any other heresy. All we can say on the basis of this passage is that probably the Buddha heard some such idea and felt, without understanding it properly, that it militated against his ideas.

　　 Second, coupled with this ignorance of the Upani.sadic way of thinking is another significant fact. Brahmans figure in the Paali Canon time and again, but always as priests and never as philosophers or even as propagators of rival creeds. "On the one hand," to quote E. J. Thomas again, "there was the view of the brahmin priests that by due performance of the sacrifices and other duties of life rebirth in heaven might be won, and on the other the secret doctrine of brahmin recluses that freedom from rebirth might be won by attaining a certain knowledge. It is only the first that we find discussed by the Buddhists." [17] The few Brahmans who are shown as being interested in speculative tenets -- for instance, Po.t.thapaada and Jaaliya, both of whom figure in the Diigha -- never talk in the Upani.sadic vein and in fact do not appear to be acquainted with any higher type of thinking. The Paali Canon is certainly not very accurate in reporting rival views, but it never ignores them. We do see Jain and AAjiivika tenets mentioned time and again. Then, why not the views of Brahman recluses?

　　 A study of the names of religious teachers that figure in the Paali Canon also leads to some interesting results. The Tevijja-sutta, referred to earlier, mentions the names of well-known seers like Vessamitta and Vase.t.tha (Vi'svamitra and Vasi.s.tha). But not once do we come across the names of the seers and sage-philosophers of the Upani.sads. Not that the Paali Canon is averse to mentioning names of other religious teachers, with both approval and disapproval. The Buddha himself is shown referring to Uddaka Raamaputta and AA.laara Kaalaama with great reverence. He repeatedly acknowledges

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

15. Majjhima-nikaaya, 3 vols., ed. V. Trenckner and Lord Chalmers (London: Pail Text Society. 1888-1902); vol. 1:135-136; cf. A. B. Keith, Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), p. 65.

16. Further Dialogues of the Buddha, trans. Lord Chalmers, Sacred Books of the Buddhists (London: H. Milford, 1926-27), I: 97.

17. Op. cit., p.86.

p. 322

his debt to them. Six "heretical" teachers -- including the Jain Tiirtha^mkara, the AAjivika leaders, and a materialist -- are mentioned many times, with vehement disapproval. What could prevent the editors of the Paali Canon from mentioning the Upani.sadic sages in one way or another?

　　 Third, it has been customary to regard the Upani.sads as the orthodox or preponderant philosophy of that day, from which other sects borrowed ideas. This presupposition also seems to have acted as a prop for the indebtedness theory and thus deserves to be examined. Now, have we any evidence, in the Upani.sads themselves or in the Buddhist and Jain scriptures, which lends credence to this view? In fact, a close study of the Paali Canon leads one to believe that Brahmans, that is, the priestly class, were merely one group among many that were active in those days and with whose approach to the religious questions the Buddha did not agree. Their activities and beliefs never seemed to have received any more importance or attention than did those of the other sects. There is every reason to agree with Oldenberg's observation that "the champions of the Veda, the Brahmins, are really not more than one among many parties, and, indeed, to all appearance, by no means an especially powerful one." [18] When the Brahmans, as a class, did not have the important place in the social setup in which the Buddha moved that they acquired in the succeeding centuries, why should it be presumed that their philosophy had a precedence over all other systems? In these circumstances, there is no reason to think that the Buddha was obliged either to agree with and follow the Upani.sadic tradition or to oppose it. The lack of acquaintance with the Upani.sadic ideas and idiom considerably strengthens this feeling.