The traditional interpretation means that Buddhism arose out of anti-ritualistic tendency within the religion of the brahmanas, held by those the Brahmanical standpoint possessed scholars. The fact is that the history of ancient India is a record of the two opposite ideologies, that of world-affirmation represented by the priestly brahmanas of the Vedic tradition (Brahmanism) and that of world-denial and world-transcendence represented by the ascetic sramanas of non-Vedic tradition (Buddhism). It is no doubt, historically, both Buddhism and Brahmanism represent two separate traditions, the Vedic tradition and the Sramanic tradition respectively, therefore, it is irrelevant to establish the theory of Vedic origin of Buddhism.
The materialist interpretation means that some scholars, under influence of the materialist interpretation of history of popularized by Karl Marx have sought to correlate the rise of ascetic and intellectual thought-currents of the age of Buddha (624-544 B.C.) to the rise of capitalism and mercantile middle class economy. This, however, is entirely speculative, for there is no clear evidence to prove the existence of capitalism in the Marxian sense nor of a money-economy controlled entirely by an organized middle class of society in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Moreover, it is impossible to demonstrate that the spiritual ideas of Bodhisattva (potential Buddha) are determined by that social consciousness being consequent on material progress; indeed, the materialist interpretation of Buddhism is an evidence only of the philosophical crudity of theories of theirs.
The fundamentalist interpretation means that in some Hindu's minds, the Buddha was the destroyer of Brahmanical idolatry because the most fundamental elements of pre-Buddhistic Brahmanism, the doctrine of sacrifice and the doctrine of four castes were criticized and rejected totally by the Buddha. In spite of its preaching of mercy to animals, in spite of the sublime ethical religion, and in spite of the hair-splitting discussion about existence or non-existence of a permanent soul, the whole building of Buddhism, ultimately, had tumbled down and was ruined at last. The criticism and condemnation made to the Buddha and his religion is not merely due to the study of philosophy and history of the religion but the fundamentalist tendency towards other religions as well.
As we see from the above, Buddhist relation with Brahmanism, elaborated by some Indian scholars represent the traditional standpoint of monopoly of India's scholastic field extended in the aspect of dialogue among different religions, ideological tendency of the Indian society and the academic study of religion. Some modern Indian scholars, with a strong Vedic and Brahmanical mind has attempted to make an assimilation of the doctrine of Buddhism with that of Brahmanism. Boldly stated, they wanted to show that Buddhism, as deeply influenced by Vedic thought, arose out of anti-ritualistic tendency within the religion of brahmanas; in other words, it is a heresy or a heretic of Brahmanism.

IV. Buddhist relation with Hinduism
Either in the eyes of the ordinary Indian or in the eyes of the scholastic Indian people, both Buddhism and Hinduism are considered as one, because there are some similarities within each of their doctrines and practices, even though Buddhism and Hinduism are absolutely two different systems or religious traditions. Dr. P. V. Kane, a famous Indologist has observed: Buddha was only a great reformer of the Hindu religion as practiced in his time; he did not feel or claim that he was forming a new religion, nor did he renounce the Hindu religion and all its practices and beliefs. However, when we talk about Buddhist relation with Hinduism, we should observe and examine carefully the term of "Hindu" from the historical perspective, the linguistic perspective and the archaeological perspective respectively.
The historical perspective means that Buddhist relation wit

上一页  [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]  下一页