mas have real existence. The false impression that there
are composite things is due to the words of language:
A chariot is in the end just a word, or exists merely by
virtue of the word.
One of the two major Hindu ontologies that arose
in the early centuries of the common era, Vais ́esika,
can be understood as a reaction against Sarvastivada
ontology. Vais ́esika agreed with Sarvastivada that there
is a close parallelism between the objects of phenom-
enal reality and the words of language. Where, how-
ever, the latter combined this point of view with the
conviction that the objects of phenomenal reality do
not really exist, because they are composite, the for-
mer did not share this conviction. For Vais ́esika, com-
posite objects exist just as much as their constituent
parts: They exist beside each other. This implies that a
jar and the two halves that constitute it are together
three different things. There are other features that
Vais ́esika shares with Sarvastivada, which confirm that
the former, while opposing the latter, was created un-
der its influence.
The other major Hindu ontology of that period is
Samkhya, which does not appear to have been deeply
influenced by Buddhist thought. Samkhya is linked to
Yoga, a form of spiritual practice. Yoga, which was
originally quite distinct from Buddhism, soon came to
undergo its influence. Some early evidence for this in-
fluence is already discernible in the Mahabharata,and
Buddhist influence has become strong and unmistak-
able in the classical texts of Yoga, the Yoga Sutraand
the Yoga Bhasya,both attributed to a Patañjali by the
early tradition.
Hindu linguistic philosophy, whose classical repre-
sentative is Bhartrhari (fifth century C.E.), has been in-
fluenced by Buddhist thought in various ways. Let it
suffice here to point out that the notion of words and
sentences as entities that are different from the physi-
cal sound that produces them—often referred to by
the term sphota—corresponds to several linguistic
dharmas that had been postulated in Sarvastivada.
Systematic Vedanta philosophy, whose earliest sur-
viving texts date from the middle of the first millen-
nium C.E., owes so much to Buddhist influence that one
chapter of the Agamas ́astraof Gaudapada—supposedly
the teacher of the teacher of the famous Vedantin
S ́an ̇kara (ca. 700 C.E.)—is to all intents and purposes a
Buddhist text. S ́an ̇kara himself has been accused of be-
ing a pseudo-Buddhist, which shows that some of his
early Hindu opponents did not fail to see the extent to
which Buddhist influence is recognizable in his work.
Other forms of interaction
There can be no doubt that Hinduism and Buddhism
have interacted in many other ways during their long
coexistence in South Asia. Unfortunately the surviv-
ing literature does not shed light on all of them. The
idea, for example, that the great Hindu epic called Ma-
habharatawas composed as a Hindu “riposte” to Bud-
dhism (Biardeau), though interesting, remains for the
time being speculative. There is, however, one area in
which interaction between Hinduism and Buddhism
has left clear traces: the complex of religious practices
and beliefs commonly known by the name TANTRA.
Both texts belonging to Hinduism and others belong-
ing to Buddhism testify to the strong interest in the
forms of ritual, the use of MANTRAs and MANDALAs,
the sexual symbolism, and other features that come
together under this label. Buddhist and Hindu tantric
deities often share the same characteristics: Both are
smeared with ashes, drink blood from skulls, have the
third eye that is typical of the Hindu god S ́iva, wear
S ́iva’s sickle moon in their matted hair, and so on.
Sometimes Buddhist tantric texts refer to major Hindu
deities by their Hindu names. Similar ideas about the
nature of the mystical body, with its various nerve
centers and channels, are found in texts belonging to
both religions. The interaction between Buddhist and
Hindu tantrism was undeniably intense, and here it
seems that it was most often the Buddhists who bor-
rowed from the Hindus. Indeed, it has been observed
that it is particularly unlikely that the Buddhist doc-
trinal tradition could have developed an offshoot so
completely foreign to itself as tantra on its own accord
(Goudriaan). At the same time the idea of a common
“religious substratum” cannot be rejected outright
(Ruegg).It should be clear from this short survey that at no
moment of its existence in India was Buddhism com-
pletely isolated from its non-Buddhist surroundings.
There are no doubt aspects of Buddhism on which
those surroundings exerted a less identifiable influence
than on others. It is also likely that the interaction with
the non-Buddhist world was more intense during some
periods than others. It is not at all implausible that
Buddhist MONKSand NUNS, who spent most of their
time in major monastic centers that were supported by
the local ruler, would care little about the thoughts or
practices of outsiders. However, not all Buddhists lived
in such circumstances. There were monks and nuns
who, through choice or necessity, spent much of their
time outside monastic communities. And there were,
of course, many Buddhists who were neither monk norHINDUISM ANDBUDDHISM