The Origins of Buddhism

Just as Judaism, Christianity and Islam share in common the cultural heritage of the ancient Near East and address similar issues, likewise Bud­dhism, Hinduism and Jainism developed within the context of In­dian culture. The pre-Buddhist Indian culture was a blend of two systems of thought. One was native, while the other came from an invading people. 

The Harappa-Mohenjodaro civilization flourished in the Indus River valley during the third and second millennia BCE. It had commercial contact with the pre-Babylonian Sumerians of the Mesopotamian area in modern-day Iraq, but little cul­tural influence from them. The people were most likely proto-Dravi­di­ans, with a religion having a Mother Goddess, ritual ablu­tion, phallic worship and reverence of the sacred peepul tree and of holy animals such as the cow. After the invasion by the Aryans from 1500 - 1000 BCE, many of these darker-skinned na­tive people became slaves, while others moved to South India. The class division of the Aryans into nobility and tribesmen was expanded to become the caste system of In­dia. The Sanskrit word for caste, varṇa, also means color.

The Aryan people were from the Indo-Iranian tribes located probably in the area of Afghanis­tan, eastern Iran and southern West Turkistan. The word “Iran­,” in fact, derives from the same source as the word “Aryan.” Early Iranian and Indian cul­tures share certain linguistic and religious features in com­mon through these tribes.

The religion of the Aryan people in India was codified in the Vedas. The Vedic gods are less humanized than their an­cient Greek counterparts. They are the maintainers of cosmic order and the upholders of moral good. The gods, however, must be compelled to maintain order by means of offerings; they do not act otherwise. Brah­min priests must make ceremonial offer­ings of milk, clarified butter, grains and especially soma, ­the intoxicating juice of a possibly psycho­ac­tive plant, to the sacrificial fire. 

The ritual act of making of­ferings was ven­erated even more than the gods them­selves, and conse­quently the brahmin priests played a very essential role in society. Early Hinduism, in fact, is usually referred to as Brahmanism. Making offerings was viewed as a debt owed to the gods, and this gave rise to the Brahmanic concept of positive acts being the per­formance of one’s duty.

Mantras were originally the metric hymns of the Vedas, specifically the Ṛgveda, to be sung at the ritual offerings to the gods. Their sound was viewed as having special power, and they were venerated as being unchanging and eternal.

The creation of the universe was with the sacrifice of Brahma, conceived as a primal giant. The parts of his body became different as­pects of the universe and the castes of society. Thus, the universe was seen as an organic whole, mirrored in the human body. After death, human spirits travel through the pathway of the cremation fire to the highest heaven of eternal light. Those who are negative sink into underground darkness.

A large literature evolved from the Vedas. The Brahmaṇas, in prose, explain the Vedic rituals and aid in their perfor­mance. The final portion of the Brahmaṇas is the Upanishads, philosophical speculations out of which arose Brahmanism. Writ­ten over several hundred years, beginning around the end of the seventh century BCE, twelve of the Upanishads predate Bud­dhism. Although the teachings differ slightly in each of the twe­lve, they share general themes.

From the Vedic idea of the parallel between human beings and Brahma as a primal giant, the Upanishads develop the idea of the identity of atman (the self) with Brahma. As the primary cause of the universe, Brah­ma creates the world out of himself and retracts it back into himself. This is in one of two ways. Either Brahma evolves into the world, or the world and humankind are merely the ap­pearances of Brahma. In either case, the true reality is the unity of everything as Brahma. The world of appearances of separate individuals is maya, or illusion. Individual at­mans are in fact identical with Brahma. 

The Upanishads introduce the ideas of karma and rebirth. Be­cause of their lack of awareness of true reality, indivi­dual atmans obtain a new body in each lifetime, but remain unchanged, providing the continuity with each embodiment. The cycle of lifetimes repeats through the force of karma, their uninformed actions in the world of illusion. When one realizes what has always been the case, namely the basic unity between oneself and the universe, with the separa­tion between the two being a total illu­sion, one be­comes libe­rated. The path to liberation involves developing detachment and cultiva­ting correct understanding of reality through hearing, think­ing and meditating about the unity of the universe.

Buddhism and Jainism developed in the 5th century BCE with­in the context of and in reaction to Brahmanic Upanishadic thought. Certain common themes, however, are found in these three major Indian systems. Philosophy is not pursued as idle speculation, but in order to dis­cover truth so as to experience it and thereby attain libe­ration. Philosophy outlines a way of life, entail­ing ethics and meditation as a path to liberation. The worldview includes kar­ma, rebirth and the existence of many life-forms and realms be­yond ordinary per­ception.

Just as the religions of the Bible differ in their explana­tions of their common issues, the same is true of Indian reli­gions. Some differences are very basic. For instance, Buddhism does not accept the caste system as found in Brah­manism but asserts the equality of every­one in hav­ing equal po­tentials. Other differences are more philosophi­cal.

Before looking at Buddhism’s response to Upanishadic thought, let us briefly examine Jainism. As Bud­dhism devel­oped in India, it was always in dialogue with both Brahmanic and Jain philosophies.

Jainism traces its roots through 24 spiritual guides called Tirthankaras. The 23rd guide, Parsvanatha, lived around the 8th or 7th century BCE, well before the birth of the Buddha. 

The 24th Tirthankara, Mahavira, and the Buddha lived at about the same time, with Mahavira being the elder of the two. 

Jain­ism does not accept the ritual authori­ty of the Vedas and the brahmin caste, nor does it believe in a creator god such as Brahma. It does, how­ever, assert a parallel between the uni­verse and humankind. The universe is a living, organic whole in the form of a giant woman. Like Brahmanism, Jainism asserts permanent, eter­nal selves, or souls, that undergo rebirth. Infinite in number, these are known as monads of life. Per­fect by nature, they are omni­scient. Howev­er, without any beginning, they have always been obscured by kar­ma. Karma is viewed as a material substance, made of atoms. In fact, the entire uni­verse is composed of identical atoms that are con­stantly re­grouping within an endu­ring, eternal whole. Depend­ing on one’s actions, the atoms of karma become arranged to form six different colors, infecting and weighing down the monad of life. Depend­ing on the color these atoms render it, the life mo­nad takes rebirth in various life-forms in realms that are either higher or lower in the cosmic woman of the uni­verse.

The aim of life is to subdue material contamination through ascetic practices. One sect of Jains, made up of only men, go naked. The other major sect, which includes women, dress in white. Vegetarianism and the non-harming of life are practiced to an extreme. Jains often wear face masks to avoid breathing in insects and sweep the ground before them as they walk, so as not to tread on any living being. Through such asceticism, the atoms of karma are disentangled from one’s monad of life. One achie­ves liberation, and one’s monad rises to the top of the cosmic woman of the universe and shines eternally in its omniscience, totally isolated from and indifferent to the world. 

Jain medi­tation often takes the form of imagining one’s monad removed from the body and looking down upon it. From the point of view of one’s disengaged monad, one visualizes emit­ting rays of cleansing light to different parts of one’s body, cleansing it of its contaminating qualities.  

Mahavira reformed an already established monastic order, and Buddha modeled many features of his monastic order after their precedent. 

Shakyamuni Buddha, also known as Gautama, lived in the border area between India and Nepal. He was not a God or creator or su­pernatural be­ing, but simply a person who was able to under­stand the situa­tion of life and the source of external and internal pro­blems. By overcoming all his own problems and limita­tions, and realizing all his poten­tials, he was able to benefit others most effec­tively. In this way, he became not only liberated, but even more. He became a “Bud­dha,” literally someone totally awake, or fully enligh­tened. 

Upanishadic thought implied that if every­body is one with the totality of the universe, then everyone is equal. Never­theless, Brahmanism affirmed very strongly caste dif­ferences among people. This affirmation of castes was crystal­lized in the second century BCE Hindu classic, the Bhagavad Gītā. Ar­juna, the hero, is faced with the dilem­ma of hav­ing to fight in a war against his own relatives. His char­io­teer, Krishna, instructs him that the division among peo­ple is an illusion, and all are one with Brahma. Even if one kills ano­ther, there is in fact no one killing and no one being killed. Therefore, if one is of the warrior caste, one should follow out one’s karma or duty of this rebirth situa­tion, and with detachment fight if need be.

Buddha, in stressing the equality of everyone, denied any caste differences. He taught that everyone can achieve the same attainment as he did, everyone can become a Buddha. This is be­cause everyone has the poten­tials that allow for such a trans­forma­tion. These potentials or fac­tors are known as Bud­dha-nature. For instance, everybody has a mind and thus has the ability to know and understand things. Everybody has a heart and feel­ings, and thus has the ability to be concerned about others. Everybody has some abil­ity to communicate, as well as some energy, and thus can reach out to others and act. Every­one, in­clu­ding animals and insects, has these basic work­ing materials. Although these building blocks may be limited now, nevertheless it is possible to work with them and over­come one’s limita­tions, so that in the end everybody can rea­lize his or her ful­lest potentials. It is not inevitable, however, that everyone will become enlightened, it is just that everyone has the ability to attain it.

Some of the outstanding features of Bud­dhism are this fun­damental respect for all people and life-forms, no matter how lowly, as well as belief in the equality of all in being able to actualize their fullest potentials. The Buddha taught the method to do this. Further­more, Buddha saw that people are in­dividuals with dif­ferent disposi­tions and tastes, and he re­spected this. He never propounded a dogmatic doctrine but taught many different systems and varying methods to suit every kind of individual. He always encouraged people to test these out for them­selves and not to accept any­thing on blind faith. He told his followers not to accept what he said merely out of faith in him, but to test it as if they were buying gold.

Buddha taught within the context of Upanishadic thought, addressing common pan-Indic issues such as reality, ignorance, rebirth, liberation and the spiritual path. He differed from the orthodoxy on many points. Like the Jains, he did not assert a creator god, nor accept the supreme role of the brah­mins and Vedic ritual. However, with skillful means, he presented his insights in terms that could be under­stood by Indian soci­ety. For instance, Brahmanism teaches that the cause of one’s uncontrollably recurring rebirth is one’s lack of awareness of reality. With the wis­dom that un­derstands reality, one gains liberation. Buddha said the same thing; however, he defined the terms dif­ferently. Rebirth is asser­ted in Brahmanism, Buddhism and Jainism alike, but the mecha­n­ism under­stood by it is dif­ferent. Brah­manism speaks of an at­man or self that is unchang­ing and, separate from the body and mind, providing continuity from life to life. All of the selves or at­mans are one with the total­ity of the uni­verse, or Brah­ma. What one sees around one is an illusion, or maya, be­cause in reality we are all one. Ignorance of this unity of atman and Brahma causes continued rebirth. With real­ization of this fundamental unity, one attains liberation, and after death one merges with Brahma.

Buddhism, on the other hand, says there is no uncha­nging self or atman that goes from life to life and is one with the uni­verse. Nor is there an unchanging monad of life, as asser­ted later in Jainism, that reincarnates and is not one with the universe. But, of course, there is a self. Howeve­r, this self that conven­tionally exists does not exist in any impossible ways, for instance as something solid and unchanging going from one life to another. The rein­carnation of this self is not like a con­crete statue pass­ing on a moving belt from one life to the next. Rather, it is more like a movie film in which there is a continu­ity of frames without any solid object con­tinuing from frame to frame. When one is unaware of void­ness, or the absence of this self’s existing in impossible ways, one creates all one’s problems with recurring rebirth. Furthermore, Buddhism says that everyone is equal in that every­body has the equal possibility to become a Buddha, and every­body exists in the same way. But that does not mean that everyone is identical or is one with the tota­lity of the uni­verse. Buddhism affirms that everyone is an individual. Even after becoming enlightened, Buddhas still main­tain their indi­vidu­ali­ty. 

Unlike Brahmanism, Buddhism does not say that everything is an illusion. It asserts that everything is like an illusion. That is a big dif­ference. Things are like an illusion in that they ap­pear to be solid, concrete and permanent, whereas in fact they do not exist in the way they appear. But things are not the same as an illusion because an illusion of food cannot fill one’s sto­mach, while real food can. 

The individual self, then, is not an illusion, according to Buddhism, but is merely like an illusion. It is called the conventional self, because conventionally everyone agrees that it exists. Everyone says, by convention, “I am doing this or that.” A permanent, con­crete self, separate from the body and mind, however, is nei­ther like an illusion, nor the same as an illu­sion. It simply does not exist at all. It is referred to as the false self. Although one might imagine that one’s in­divi­dual, conventional, ever­changing self exists in the manner of a false self, that fantasy does not refer to any­thing real. The conventional self is devoid of existing in the manner of a false self. The con­ventional self exists like an illusion, while the false self does not exist at all.

Buddha, like the Jains after him, asserted that matter is made of atoms. But unlike the Jains, Buddha did not say that all atoms are identical and that the atomic nature of phenome­na is the deepest reality. Buddha asserted many types of atoms, and they too, like an illusion, are not static and concrete. 

Everyone’s having Buddha-na­ture, or the factors that allow them to become a Buddha, is not the same as everyone having an atman that is identical with Brah­ma, or a monad of life that is omniscient and perfect. Bud­dha is not Brahma. He is neither the tota­lity of the unive­rse nor the creato­r, and fur­thermore there are many Bud­dhas, not just one. 

Bud­dhas are totally purified and fully evolved. They are not only liberated from their own problems and uncontrollably recurring rebirth, but they are om­nis­cient and able to help others the most effec­tively. Hav­ing Buddha-nature does not mean that one is already a func­tioning Bud­dha but just does not realize it. Buddha-nature refers to the po­ten­tials to become a Buddha. Although these poten­tials or fac­tors, such as the mind, are complete within every­one and noth­ing needs to be added from outside, still they must be develo­ped. Impedi­ments preventing their full func­tion­ing must be removed, and good qualities must be nur­tured.

The obstructions impeding one’s Buddha-nature, or one’s mind, are true causes of problems. These obstructions in­clude close-minded ignorance and the disturbing emotions it generates, as well as the habits of both. Confused about the fact that one does not exist as a solid self with an unchang­ing identity, one feels insecure and grasps for an identity. One develops disturbing emotions, such as attachment, anger and closed-mindedness, as mechanisms for trying to defend, assert or prove that identi­ty. With these attitudes, one develops compulsive impul­ses for disturbing behav­ior. Confused about behavioral cause and effect, one acts out these im­pulses, thus causing one’s problems through recurring re­births. 

For example, unaware of one’s lack of a true lasting iden­tity, one might grasp at the identity of being always right. Insecure about this, one develops disturbing emotions, such as at­tachment to one’s own position, anger towards anyone else’s and closed-mindedness about alternative views. These attitudes cause the impulse to arise to attack someone differ­ing from oneself. Acting out that impulse, one gets into a fight, and uncontrollably recurring problems arise. To break out of this syndrome and end one’s problems, one must remove the cause, namely unawareness of voidness, one’s lack of ex­isting in impossible ways. 

Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism agree that karma is an impe­diment to liberation. They differ, however, in their ex­plana­tion of karma.

In classical Brahmanic thought, karma connotes something simi­lar to duty. People are born into different posi­tions or situ­ations in life, such as in the war­rior, rul­ing or servant caste, or as a woman or man, and it is their karma or duty to follow the classic role mo­dels for those specific paths in life. These role models are out­lined in the great epic litera­ture of Hindu India, such as the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa. If one acts in accord with the modes of behavior of the major cha­racters of these epics, for instance like the perfect wife Sita or the per­fect servant Hanuman, then in future lives one may obtain an even better situa­tion. If one acts with total detachment, merely discharging one’s social obligation or duty, while realizing the unity of the universe and the illu­sory nature of separations, one can be­come liberated. One then lives out and exhausts one’s karma and is free.

In later, popular Hinduism, karma has more the connotation of fate or destiny. This is perhaps due to the influence of the Islamic concept of kismet, or God’s will. Whatever hap­pens is karma, and one must submit to it with total detach­ment.

Jainism asserts karma as a physical contamination weighing down and coloring one’s monad of life. It is like the burden of one’s actions. By following an ascetic life of total non-harm, one disen­gages one’s karma and becomes free. 

The concept of karma in Buddhism differs from these views. In Buddhism, karma means impulses. It concerns the impulses with which one does, says or thinks various things. In the case of actions of the mind, the compelling karmic impulses are the mental urgings that poke the mind to think over and decide to do or say something, and they arise under the influence of ignorance and disturbing emotions. In the case of actions of the body and speech, the compelled karmic impulses are the movement of the body or the utterances of the sounds of the syllables of words as the method implemented to make the actions of body and speech decided upon take place. 

These impulses arise as a result of pre­vi­ous patterns or habits of action and behavior. Acting them out reinforces the habits, building up further potentials that cause the patterns to repeat and further consequences to follow in the future. But it is always possible to change these patterns, be­cause it is not necessary to act out every impulse that comes into one’s mind.

Another major difference between Brahmanism, Jainism and Buddhism con­cerns which activities lead to liberation from pro­blems and difficulties. All three teach a spiritual path of ethics, disci­pline, concentration, as well as listening, thinking and meditating in order to see reality, al­though the under­standing of reality is quite dif­ferent in each. Some schools of Hindu­ism pres­ent a spiritual path of pure devotion (bhak­ti), with much joy­ous offer­ing of song and praise. Elements of devo­tion are found in some aspects of Buddhism as well, but not as a cen­tral form of practice.

Many Hindu­ schools emphasize ex­ter­nal, physi­cal techniques, such as the body as­suming the various pos­tures of hatha yoga. Great impor­tance is placed on physical purification by bathing in the Ganges River, and also on diet. In Buddhism, on the other hand, the emphasis is more on internal techni­ques, name­ly working with the mind and the feelings, rather than with the external, physical body. One tries to develop such quali­ties as a kind heart, compassion and a sense of universal responsibility, in conjunction with the discriminating aware­ness to see reali­ty. Although the meditation posture is impor­tant, the approach is primarily to tame the mind and feelings and thereby achieve tamed and disciplined behavior of body and speech beneficial to oneself and others. In Hin­duism, the ap­proach is often the other way round: through disciplin­ing the body one comes to dis­cipline the mind. When physical exercises are found in one or two Buddhist systems, they play only a minor role in the spiritual train­ing.

In Jainism, the process of purification is mostly physical. To disengage the monad of life from karma, one must physically desist from all harmful, impure actions. Buddhism also teaches restraint from negative actions, but this is not enough. One must go to the root of one’s problems and eliminate the un­aware­ness of reality, the con­fusion and the disturbing emotions that cause one to act compulsively in a destructive man­ner. Otherwise, one’s purification will be only superficial.

This difference in emphasis on external versus internal techniques in the Buddhist and non-Buddhist Indian systems is seen even in the approach to the recitation of mantr­as – spe­cial Sanskrit syllables and phrases. Originally, mantras were the Sanskrit syllables of the Vedic hymns accompanying the offerings to the gods made into a sacred fire. In conjunc­tion with these offerings, the mantras had the power to com­pel the gods to uphold the moral order of the universe. The sound of the mantras was fixed and permanent, with no change al­lowed. The Upanishads speak of the eternal sounding of the syllable “Om.” 

As a consequence of this Vedic background, later Hindu systems of practice often stress the actual sound of the man­tras, whether recited aloud or only mentally. It is important always to have the mantra resounding. By con­trast, Buddhist medi­ta­tion emphasizes develop­ing concen­tra­tion through the mantra recita­tion, rather than main­taining merely the sound it­self.

Despite all these differences, what binds the spiritual paths of Brahmanism, Jainism and Buddhism together is that they share the same structure, which Buddha formulated as the “four noble truths.” The four are the suffering of continuing samsaric rebirth, karma driven by ignorance about the nature of the self as its cause, the cessation of this suffering with the attainment of liberation, and a path of conduct and a correct understanding of the nature of the self as the way to attain liberation. Brahmanism and Jainism each had its own assertion of the nature of the self and of karma. For Brahmanism, liberation comes with the attainment of samadhi – the deepest level of concentration, totally absorbed in formless meditation. For Jainism, liberation comes from extreme asceticism. 

Buddha rejected the assertions of both systems, and based on his personal experience, asserted what he called the true versions of the four – the four noble truths. He saw that the selves that these two systems asserted did not exist at all, and that the ignorance that drove karma and samsaric rebirth was confusion about that fact. He also saw that no matter how deeply one is absorbed in formless meditation, it comes to an end, and one falls back to having to deal with samsara. Having tried asceticism himself, he also saw that this solved nothing. It only caused more suffering. The four facts that Brahmanism and Jainism taught were not really true. Then, under the bodhi tree in present-day Bodh Gaya, he realized what he asserted as the true versions of the four – the four noble truths.

The true cause for uncontrollably recurring samsaric rebirth, with all its sufferings, must be not only an appropriate one but must also be the deepest one. This is the confusion and ignorance with which one believes one exists in the ways Brahmanism and Jainism assert – as atmans that either are one with the universe or that are weighed down with the atoms of karma. There are no such things.  

But it is possible to get rid of one’s problems so that they never recur. One is not caught in a fata­listic system: one need not just keep quiet and accept one’s prob­lems as a person condemned to suffer forever. Confu­sion, as the true cause of problems, is not supported by rea­son and is not corroborated by valid investigation. It is not the intrinsic nature of the mind and can therefore be elimina­ted forever.

In order to gain liberation from samsaric rebirth, it is necessary to follow a true path. Samsara does not go away by itself. One has to do something about it. One must iden­tify the true causes of one’s pro­blems and then eliminate these causes. When the caus­es have been eliminated, the problems will no longer arise. If one gets rid of the fuel, there will be no more fire. A true path, then, is a way of acting, speak­ing and thinking that eliminates the confusion causing one’s problems.

Buddha said that only his teachings on voidness were defin­itive. Everything else was intended to lead up to its realiza­tion. This means that all his other teachings could be molded to fit different cultural contexts. The basic principles and themes, such as compassion, ethics and concen­tration, are constants. But the way in which they could be presented could vary and should be subject to interpretation. The deepest mean­ing towards which these presentations were aimed must always be kept in sight.

With this guideline, Buddha naturally expressed his teach­ings first in the context of pan-Indic thought. Otherwise, his audience would not be able to relate to what he explained. Buddha therefore described the universe as having a certain shape and various real­ms of unseen life-forms in a manner consis­tent with cur­rent beliefs. The precise details differed from the several other extant Indian accounts, but the struc­ture was the same. The purpose for knowledge of the universe, however, was to gain release from un­control­lably recurring rebirth in any of its realms. 

Buddha taught techniques for achieving ever deeper stat­es of meditative ab­sorption, similar to what was taught in Brah­man­ism, but the aims were different. Concentration is not an end in itself, with the result being total absorption into ever more removed trance-like states. Perfect concentration is to be ap­plied to the understanding of voidness, so as to cut through confusion and problems. Ethical self-discipline and ascetic practices do not in themselves purify one of obstruc­tions. Self-restraint in ethical matters gives the strength to tame the mind of dullness and wandering, so as to focus com­pletely on reality. Likewise, Buddha explained karma and re­birth in such a way as to lead to the insight of voidness and, through that, to libe­ration. 

The path to libera­tion, and beyond that to enlightenment, entails not only ethics, concentra­tion and awareness of real­ity but most importantly love and com­passion. Buddha always taught that one should try to help others as much as possible. And if one cannot help, that at least one should cause no harm. These are some of the most important principles of Bud­dhism, found in all its cultural forms.