An explanation of What Buddhism is

Seeing it as I don't know how to post a PDF on here I am simply going to copy and paste each page 12 in total so these are not my original writings but simply something I came across doing research and found it very interesting. Hope you enjoy.

Original Buddhism & its Origins
By Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy
BUDDHISM INTRODUCTION
The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more
profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what respects, if any,
Buddhism is really unorthodox. The outstanding distinction lies in the fact that Buddhist doctrine is propounded by an apparently
historical founder, understood to have lived and taught in the sixth century B.C. Beyond this there are only broad distinctions of
emphasis. It is taken almost for granted that one must have abandoned the world if the Way is to be followed and the doctrine
understood. The teaching is addressed either to Brahmans who are forthwith converted, or to the congregation of monastic Wanderers
(prravrajaka) who have already entered on the Path; others of whom are already perfected Arhats, and become in their turn the
teachers of other disciples. There is an ethical teaching for laymen also, with injunctions and prohibitions as to what one should or
should not do,( Vinaya, 1.235 and passim; D.I_52. 68f; S.III.208; A.I.62 (Gradual Sayings, p. 57, where Woodward's Footnote 2 is
completely mistaken). The Buddha teaches that there is an ought to be done (kiraya) and an ought not to be done (akiriya); these two
words never refer to "the doctrine of Karma (retribution) and its opposite". Cf. HJAS.IV.1939, p.119. That the Goal (as in
Brahmanical doctrine) is one of liberation front good and evil both (see notes 105, 106 (Buddhism)) is quite another matter; the doing
of good and avoidance of evil are indispensable to Wayfaring. The view that there is no ought to be done (ukiriya), however argued. is
heretical: responsibility cannot be evaded either (1) by the argument of a fatal determination by the causal efficacy of past acts or (2)
by making God (issaro) responsible or (3) by a denial of causality and postulation of chance; ignorance is the rooted all evil, and it is
upon what we do now that our welfare depends (A.I.173f.). Man is helpless only to the extent that he sees Self in what is not Self, to
the extent that he frees himself from the notion "This is V, his actions will be good and not evil; while for so long as he identifies
himself with soul and body (savinnana kaya) his actions will be "self " ish.) but nothing that can be described as a "social reform" or
as a protest against the caste system. The repeated distinction of the "true Brahman" from the mere Brahman by birth is one that had
already been drawn again and again in the Brahmanical books.
If we can speak of the Buddha as a reformer at all it is only in the strictly etymological sense of the word: it is not to establish anew
order but to restore an older form that the Buddha descended from heaven (Confucius Analects "A gentleman does not invent, but
transmits"/ Philo, Spec. IV.49 "No pronouncement of a prophet is ever his own"). Although his teaching is "all just so and infallible
(D.III.135 tath'vua hogi no annathn; A.II.23; D.III.133; Sn.357 yatha vadi tatha kdn. (Cf. RV.1V.33.6 satyam ucur nara eva’ hi
cakruh): hence Sn.430, Inv. 122, tathavadin. In this sense tathagato can be applied to Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, Sn.236 8
S.III.116f cannot say hoti, no hoti, hoti ca no hoti, neva hoti na no hoti.)", this is because he has fully penetrated the Eternal Law
(akalika dhamma; The Dhamma taught by the Buddha, beautiful from first to last, is both of present application (sarnditthiko) and
timeless (akaliko), passim. It follows that the same applies to the Buddha himself, who identifies himself with the Dhamma. Cf.
Epistle to Diognetus V.2.) and personally verified all things in heaven or earth (D.I.150 sayam adhinna sacchikatva; D.II1.135 sabbam
. . . abhisambuddham; Dh.353 .sabbavidu'ham asmi.) he describes as a vile heresy the view that he is teaching a "philosophy of his
own", thought out by himself (Epistle to Diognetus V.3. (Apostolic Fathers, 359) M.I.68f., the Buddha "roars the Lion's roar" and
haring recounted his supernatural powers, continues: "Now if anyone says of me, Gotama the Pilgrim, knower and seer as aforesaid,
that my eminent Noble gnosis and insight have no superhuman quality, and that I teach a Law that has been beaten out by reasoning
(takka pariyahatam) experimentally thought out and self expressed (sayam patibha nave), if he will not recant, not repent (catam
pajahati= metanonn) and abandon this view, he falls into hell". [D.I.16,22 Buddha's Knowledge is a priori (pajanati), not inductive.
D.I.45,79 to come to know truly]. "These profound truths (ye dhamma gramblurd) which the Buddha teaches are inaccessible to
reasoning (atakkavacara), lie has verified them by his own super knowledge" (D.I.22) ; cf. KU.1I.9 "it is not by reasoning that that
idea can be reached" (nnisa tarkma matir dpaneya ). Mi1.217E explains that it is an "ancient Way that had been lost that the Buddha
opens up again". The reference is to the brahmacariya, "walking with God" (= then sunopa ein, Phazdms 248C; Philo Wigr. 131,126)
of RVX109.5, AV., Brahmanas, Upanishads and Pali texts, passim. The "Lion's roar" is originally Brhaspati's, RVX67.9, i.e. Agni's.
Also RV.I.65.5 "awakened at the dawn, he restores by his operations consciousness to men". And M.1.421 asamayavimokham~
Eternal Deliverance. Saint Thomas 1.26.1. The will is free in so far as it obeys Reason, i.e. what one thinks is a blind and fettered will.
Also Arichonnedian Ethics IX.8.7. RV.X.130.7 purvesam pantham anudrsya.S.H.106 purinnam vnaggam purannnjasann . . .
anagacchim. Stobaei Hermetica IIB . . . the road to truth which our ancestors traveled". See also Parinenides "Road of the Daimon";
Philo "the roads of heaven are happy"; Phaedrus 247. Plato Rep. Bk.VII.) No true philosopher ever came to destroy, but only to fulfill
the Law. "I have seen", the Buddha says, "the ancient Way, the Old Road that was taken by the formerly All Awakened, and that is the
path I follow"; and since he elsewhere praises the Brahmans of old who remembered the Ancient Way that leads to Brahma (S.IV.117;
In Ittivuttaka 28,29 those who follow this (ancient) Way taught by the Buddhas are called Mahatmas. But, Sn. 284 315 says "now, that
the Brahmans have long neglected their ancient Law, the Buddha preaches it again".); there can be no doubt that the Buddha is
alluding to "the ancient narrow path that stretches far away, whereby the contemplatives, knowers of Brahma, ascend, set free"
(vimuktah), mentioned in verses that were already old when Yajnavalkya cites them in the earliest Upanishad (BU.IV. f.8, RVIV.18.1.
As Mrs. Rhys Davids has also pointed out, the Buddha is a critic of Brahmanism only in external in matters; the "internal system of
spiritual values" he "takes for granted" ("Relations between Early Buddhism and Brahmanism", IHQ„ X,1934, p. 282). In view of the
current impression that the Buddha came to destroy, not to fulfill an older Law, we have emphasized throughout the uninterrupted