whole a clear continuity. It is on the other hand be-
coming increasingly clear that early Indian religions
cannot be reduced to Vedic religion alone. There were
other, non-Vedic, religions that, unlike Vedic religion,
have left no early texts.
Some of those non-Vedic religions will be referred
to here collectively as the S ́ramana (mendicant)
movement. Buddhism originally belonged to the S ́ra-
mana movement, as did Jainism and other religious
currents. The S ́ramana movement also came to exert
an important influence on later forms of Vedic reli-
gion, more commonly known by the name of Brah-
manism. This means that at least some of the ideas and
ideals that characterized the S ́ramana movement came
to be absorbed into Brahmanism and are not neces-
sarily borrowings from Buddhism and Jainism. At least
in part on account of these influences, the Brahmani-
cal tradition underwent profound changes. Many later
forms of Hinduism therefore share certain notions
with Buddhism that early Hinduism (i.e., Vedic reli-
gion) does not contain.
Which were the ideas and ideals that characterized
the S ́ramana movement? The single most important
idea is the doctrine of KARMA(ACTION): the belief that
acts bring about their retribution, usually in a follow-
ing existence. Connected with this belief is the religious
aim of finding liberation from the eternal cycle of re-
births (SAMSARA). Various methods to reach this aim
existed. Buddhism primarily distinguished itself from
other currents within the S ́ramana movement by its
specific method, which consisted of a psychological
strategy for destroying desire.
Several features of early Buddhism can be under-
stood in the light of the fact that it arose out of the S ́ra-
mana movement. It shared with this movement the
general ideas of karma and REBIRTH, and the ideal of
liberation from the eternal cycle of rebirths. It distin-
guished itself through its specific understanding of
karma, and through the method it preached.
Early Buddhism, then, was a special development
of, and within, the S ́ramana movement. As such it had
little to do with early Hinduism, that is, Vedic reli-
gion. It was not a development of, or a reaction
against, Hinduism, nor was it conceived of as one. It
is not, therefore, necessary to study the Veda in order
to understand most aspects of early Buddhism. Nor
does it make sense to claim that Buddhism is a branch
of Hinduism, unless, of course, one chooses to rede-
fine the term Hinduismin a way that suits this pur-
pose, as some thinkers have done.
The fact that the youngest parts of Vedic literature
have themselves undergone the influence of ideas be-
longing to the S ́ramana movement complicates the
picture to some extent. One of the ideas current in at
least some circles belonging to the S ́ramana movement
concerned the true nature of the “self.” It was believed
that the self, by its very nature, never acts. Insight into
the true nature of the self entailed the realization that
one never acts and has never acted. Retribution of acts
no longer concerns those who have realized that they
have never acted to begin with. This belief about the
true nature of the self found its way into certain pas-
sages of the Vedic Upanisads, in a suitably adjusted
form: The self, it is here stated, is really identical with
Brahman, the highest principle of the universe. Some
Upanisadic passages freely admit that this knowledge
had not been known to the Vedic Brahmins until it
was revealed to them by others. The most orthodox
continuation of Vedic religion went on ignoring this
“knowledge” for another millennium, most notably in
the Mmamsasystem of Vedic hermeneutics.
The Buddhist doctrine of no-self (anatman) is to be
understood against the background of the S ́ramana be-
lief in the inactive nature of the self. Early Buddhism
rejects the idea that knowledge of the true nature of
the self leads to liberation (it does not say, but it does
suggest, that such an inactive self does not exist at all).
In rejecting this idea, the early Buddhist texts do not
so much express disagreement with Vedic religion,
which had only recently accepted the idea in some of
its texts, but with the milieu from which the Vedic text
had borrowed this idea, that is, certain circles within
the S ́ramana movement. This is not to deny on prin-
ciple that the Buddha, or the early redactors of the
Buddhist CANON, may have been acquainted with the
contents of some of the Upanisads, as is claimed by
some scholars (unfortunately scholarly research has
produced few, if any, convincing reasons to believe that
this must have been the case). But in this context it is
no doubt important that the canonical passages that
present the doctrine of no-self do not link the view
criticized with Vedic religion or with the Upanisads.
There are, to be sure, passages in the early Buddhist
canon that do depict encounters between the Buddha
and representatives of Vedic religion. The subject mat-
ter of these discussions frequently focuses on the po-
sition of Brahmins in society, and on the question of
who is a true Brahmin (answer: a Buddhist practi-
tioner), what is the right sort of sacrifice (answer: faith,
training in the precepts, and other Buddhist virtues),
and so on. There may be no canonical passages inHINDUISM ANDBUDDHISM