The Two Contending Traditions
The karma-rebirth framework, as viewed as the cause and substratum of misery, was so unique and profound to be the major concern of different religious and philosophical traditions in ancient India. Being the two main streams at that moment, the Brahmanical and the samana traditions were dedicated to give their answers to the cause suffering and its solutions. We agree that they are the two main contending religious-philosophical traditions which provided the context for the development of Buddha’s teachings two thousand and five hundred years ago.
The Brahmanical tradition: the agent and householder
Brahmanism, has gradually evolved over the centuries from polytheism to monism, represents one of the most unique elites that any society has produced. They oriented themselves to the sacrifice, rituals and intellectual attainment. They believed the self (atman) is formless, unchanging and immanent, which is identical in all beings and as same as Brahma. Brahma is regarded as the source and essence of the universe and of many different manifestations. They suggested emancipating oneself from suffering can be achieved by realizing one’s identity with Brahma as his true self. The Brahmans draw on the Vedic religion and claimed the authority of its texts. As a result, they make themselves a central role in helping people to attain liberation through performing a series of complicated rituals and eventually monopolized the path to liberation. Meanwhile, their religious and philosophical practice also nurtures its opposite and lead to the emergence of samana movement.
The samana tradition: striving for the truth
Samanas are the wandering hermits and mendicants drawn from various castes. They deny the authority of Brahmans, the claims of Vedas and its rituals are the only path to liberation. They believed that liberation can be achieved by anybody irrespective of caste, creed, color or culture; therefore, one should be responsible for his own deeds. By this rationale, they differentiate themselves from Brahmans and strike for an alternate path to liberation on their own. They separate themselves from the everyday world of social life, production, family involvement and go into the forests individually or in groups to look for the solutions. They lead a life in the way as simple as possible. Some practice strict asceticism but some are not. Besides, unlike the Brahmanic secret teaching tradition, their teachings are open to all and will engage in often fierce open debates. Obviously, the first millennium BCE was the period for all kinds of theories and ideas propounded freely and energetically.
As mentioned in the Samannaphala Sutta, other than Siddhattha Gotama, there were also six well-known teachers belonging to the Samana movement. Although they held different views to explain the destiny of mankind, their teachings can be divided into three groups. The first group is defined as fatalist which rejected any moral responsibility and the efficacy of moral action. They believed that on one can exercise his free will and to change his destiny by personal effort. Purana Kassapa, Ajita Kesakambali, and Pakudha Kaccayana were the representatives in this group. Moreover, the last two teachers were appeared to be materialists. Ajita denied the reality of both soul and afterlife while Pakudha contended that the whole world can be reduced to seven fundamental principles. Unlike the above mentioned teachings, the second group of teachings emphasized on individual’s moral responsibility and personal effort to lead to liberation. Nigatha Nataputta, the founder of Jainism who believed that evil actions such as violence and killing would cause bad karma and rebirth. Therefore, the Jains advocated extreme non-violent, celibate and set themselves to endure often painful austerities. They were the anti-fatalists. The last one teaching as proposed by Sanjaya Belatthiputta was defined to be Skepticism. He told that we could not understand the unlimited world with our limited faculties so he refused to make any definite opinion on any given issue.
A distinctive path to liberation: the Middle Path
As a prince of Sakyas who lived in his palace with every luxury at his command, however, Siddhattha Gotama still confronted with the suffering of mankind. He decided to find a solution. He abandoned his kingdom at the age of 29 to follow many famous religious teachers. He also critically reviewed the doctrines of the Brahmanical and samana traditions and developed his own doctrine which was radically differentiated itself from but sought to absorb the best part of them. For example, just like most of the samanas, he rejected the authority and the philosophical claims of the Veda such as the notion of Atman and the caste system. On the other hand, he held against the fatalistic views and the practice of extreme austerity of some samana traditions.
After practicing extreme asceticism for six years, he regarded the practice would not lead to liberation. Therefore, on top of these two contending traditions, the Buddha finally realized a distinctive path to liberation. He developed his doctrines of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Paths. He called it the Middle Path, a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and opposing self-mortification.
Reference
- M. Hiriyanna, Outline of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1993.
- Omvedt, Gail, Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003.
- Rahula, Walpola, What The Buddha Taught. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1997.
- Y. Karunadasa, “The Buddhist Critique of Sassatvada and Ucchedavada: The key to a proper Understanding of the Origin and the Doctrines of early Buddhism.” The Middle Way, U.K., vol 74 & 75, 1999-2000.
- Y. Karunadas, “The Emergence of Buddhism: Historical Background.” Lecture Notes. BSTC6001: Theravada Buddhism. Master of Buddhist Studies. The University of Hong Kong. 9th Sept., 2006.