h Hinduism should be studied from historical standpoint and on scientific line; the study of Buddhism from the Hindu View would be a study of Hinduism but not Buddhism. It has been wrongly employed to support the modern Hindu view that Buddha himself claimed to teach the path of the ancient "Hindu" sages and to show that Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. The word "Hindu" does not occur in the statement of Buddha; nor does he refer to Vedic sages or Indo-Aryan seers or brahmanas (priests) as the teachers of that ancient path which he followed and practised.
The linguistic perspective means that the term "Hindu" is foreign coinage, of Persian and Arabic origins and stands for the medieval forms of Indian and Brahmanical religions. The word Hinduism began to be used for Indian religious traditions usually with a view to distinguish them from Christian and Islamic traditions in India. We cannot use the word Hinduism for pre-Purqnic Brahmanism of the Vedic and Upani2adic age, though medieval Hinduism is based to some extent on the Vedic religion, just as Judaism before the birth of Jesus Christ cannot be properly called Christianity though Christianity is founded on pre-Christian Judaism.
The archaeological perspective means that the occurrence of the word "Hindu" in any ancient Indian archaeological or literary source has yet been discovered since the time of Alberuni (cir. 1030 A. D.), perhaps, he first referred to Indians of non-Islamic faiths as the "Hindus" meant "infidels". The term "Hindu", a form of "Sindhu", used first by the Persians, occurs along with the word "Gadara", a form of "Gandhara", in an inscription of King Darius of Iran; and here is used in a geographical sense denoting people or country on the river Sindhu conquered by that monarch. In old Persian "Sa" is pronounced as "Ha"; "Sindhu" is called "Hindu" from which the Greeks further corrupted it into "Sintos" or "Indos" from which are derived the Arbic and Persian words Hindu and Hindustan and the English words Indian and India.
As we see from the above, Buddhism and Hinduism are differed completely either from the historical point of view or from the linguistic and archaeological point of view, although there is a partial similarities between later Buddhism and the teachings of some of Hinduism. There is a strong evidence of Buddhist influence in the language as well as in the doctrines of the Hinduism; therefore, it must be admitted that we cannot imagine Buddhism was an assimilation of Hinduism (actually the latter had smuggled some of important terms and teachings from the former). We can say it is wrong to treat the Buddha as a "Hindu", or a great reformer of the Hindu religion, since there was no Hinduism in his time.
Conclusion

From the above discussion, we may conclude here that the current theories of the origin of Buddhism and its relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism elaborated by those --- the Vedic and Brahmanical standpoint strongly possessed --- the modern Indian scholars are, however, entirely speculative. Furthermore, it is understood that historically Buddhism --- the most constituent of the anti-Vedic and Brahmanical movement (the Sramanic tradition) --- arose out as an independent and separate religion in the India of the sixth century B. C. cannot be deeply influenced by Vedic thought in its origin or an assimilation of Hinduism. Contrary to both Brahmanism and Hinduism, the doctrine of four castes and sacrifice was denounced and rejected totally by the Buddha while it has been practiced even today in the communities of the former.
We can't study religion from this or that particular ideological standpoint merely because of our faith or merely because of our special favor to this or that religion, otherwise our eyes will be blurred even if we are taking an important task of a comparative study of religion. It has been wrongly employed to support the modern Hindu view that Buddha himself claimed to teach the path of

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