Page:An Essay On Hinduism.pdf/98

often made against the followers of Buddha and Jesus. In fact the case was entirely different. One of the characteristics of the life of great teachers like these is that their teachings are merely occasional utterances. Such utterances are very rarely consistent, and the task of making them consistent falls on their followers. In this particular case Gautama himself is responsible for all the further grotesque development of his doctrine. He was by no means a man of good education, when judged even by the standard of his times. He had a great deal of antipathy towards all sciences and speculations. How great an antipathy he had towards all sciences can be proved from his dialogues. To him medicine, astronomy and other sciences were low; and Gautama prided himself on being free from them. He condemned Brāhmaṇical sciences and philosophy by a sophistry of the following type: "This philosophy," he would say, "is based on experience; experience is contact of objects and senses; this contact creates 'craving,' and craving leads to re-birth, that is to all sorrows of the world."

Another reason why Buddhism returned again to the doctrines of Vedanta rejected by their teacher is, that the only possible form of consistent monotheism is pantheism as taught by Vedanta. All forms of theistic thought would ultimately be driven to the Vedantic doctrines, or suffer inconsistency. Indian scholars and philosophers have experienced this for centuries, and have therefore called the system of thought "Vedanta," or the ultimate bound of knowledge.

In the process of universal cosmopolitanism a great disturbing element has been the rise of some sampradāyas or religions. They once created some disturbance in India,