[Y-Indology] What anomosity? (On Mr. Malaiya's comments)

[Guest guest]

>"Verily, VaaseTTha, that Braahmans versed in the Three Vedas should

be >able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do

not >know, neither have seen - such a condition of things has no

existence. >Just, VaaseTTha, as when a string of blind men are

clinging one to the >other, neither can the foremost see, nor can the

middle one see, nor >can the hindmost see - just even so, methinks,

VaaseTTha, is the talk >of the Braahmans versed in the Three Vedas

but blind talk: the first >sees not, the middle one sees not, nor can

the latest see. The talk >then of these Braahmans versed in the Three

Vedas turns out to be

>ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing." (Rhys Davids,

>Buddhist Suttas, p. 173).

 

But this at best only shows that the Buddha opposed brahmanical

interpretation of the Vedas and not the Vedas per se. He only opposed

his contemporary Brahmins who claimed to know the truth taught in the

Vedas. But nowhere do we find the Buddha saying : "the teachings of

the Vedas are false".

 

>"And you further say that even the Rizis of old, whose words they

hold >in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen

where,

>or whence, or whither Brahmaa is." (Ibid, 178).

 

The above sentence is extremely vague and can mean multiple things –

it shows that the Buddha himself wasn't aware of what the Vedas

taught (which BTW is contradicted by another text which says he was a

knower of the truth of the Vedas) and also that he was only

responding to the ideas of somebody else whose knowledge of the Vedas

itself is not very clear.

 

Also in this context, it is to be noted that Buddhism historically,

right from the day of the Buddha himself, had opposed the

traditional "knowing" of reality as taught by Vedic schools.