BUDDHISM,
THE FULFILMENT OF HINDUISM
26th
September, 1893
I
am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am. If China, or Japan, or
Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great Master, India worships him as God
incarnate on earth. You have just now heard that I am going to criticise
Buddhism, but by that I wish you to understand only this. Far be it from
me to criticise him whom I worship as God incarnate on earth. But our
views about Buddha are that he was not understood properly by his
disciples. The relation between Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion
of the Vedas) and what is called Buddhism at the present day is nearly the
same as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shâkya
Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and
the Hindus have accepted Shâkya Muni as God and worship him. But the real
difference that we Hindus want to show between modern Buddhism and what we
should understand as the teachings of Lord Buddha lies principally in
this: Shâkya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came
to fulfil and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old
people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of Buddha,
it was his own followers who did not realise the import of his teachings.
As the Jew did not understand the fulfilment of the Old Testament, so the
Buddhist did not understand the fulfilment of the truths of the Hindu
religion. Again, I repeat, Shâkya Muni came not to destroy, but he was
the fulfilment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of the
religion of the Hindus.
The religion of the Hindus is divided into two parts: the ceremonial and
the spiritual. The spiritual portion is specially studied by the monks.