The above statement (paraphrased here) made by late scholar Rhys Davids is one of the most popular misconceptions about the Buddha. There are two problems with this statement: first of all, the words Hindu and Hinduism are of late coinage; they didn’t exist at the time of the Buddha. Those who believed in the Vedic system and belonged to one of its sects or interpretive branches (ṣaḍ-darśanas) never used this term to identify themselves until the modern era. Originally it was a word employed by foreigners, especially by Muslims to refer to the non-Islamic people who lived beyond the river Sindhu. However, this term got its official stamp when British colonial officers divided Hindus and Muslims into two religious groups and legalized these terms for administrative purposes. In turn, the Theosophical Society’s founding member, Annie Besant, established the Central Hindu College in Varanasi in 1889 AD and wrote a book together with other Hindu scholars in 1910 named “Sanatana Dharma, An Elementary Textbook of Hindu Religion and Ethics”, which gave the word Hindu more than an administrative nomenclature; it received a religious connotation. Today, it is used to refer to an amalgam of religious thoughts that originated with Vedic scriptures and developed for thousands of years absorbing many discrete religious theories and practices in ancient India. Hence, at the time of the Buddha, there were neither Hindus nor Hinduism, and only Vedic Brāhmanism existed.
The second issue is whether the Buddha was born in a family that practiced Vedic Brāhmanism and whether he continued to teach according to Vedic scriptures. The Buddha’s teachings as recorded in the tradition of the Hearer’s (Śrāvaka) – such as Pāli scriptures (Therāvāda); Sarvāstivādin āgamas, which survive in their Chinese translation; and in several Mahāyāna Sūtras – tell us that Śiddārtha Gautama belonged to a family that neither practiced Vedic practices nor followed its code of conduct as codified in scriptures such as the Manu Smṛti. We are informed by both Buddhist and Vedic sources that the Śākya clan fell outside the sphere of Vedic influence: the Manu Smṛti (Chapter 10) describes the territory of the Śākyas as being full of mixed people fallen from the classical Vedic caste system. This is corroborated by Buddhist texts such as the Ambaṭṭha Sutta too, in which a young Brāhmin named Ambaṭṭha, knowledgeable in Vedic lore, complains to the Buddha that Śākyans do not properly pay respect to Brāhmins in their place, and that they are rough, menial and harsh in their speech. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to refer to the Buddha as someone born in a Vedic family.
However, the Buddha did call himself a Kṣatriya, and to understand this we will need to examine his ideas on the evolution of classes in society. In the Agañña Sutta, which expounds the Buddhist theory of genesis, the Buddha explains how these classes appeared in society, not based on birth or any scriptural sanctions but solely on the basis of necessity and vocation. According to the Buddha, the first elected king among human beings, Mahāsammata, was chosen by the people to maintain law and order; from this the idea of a Kṣatriya class evolved, but not based on birth but on the quality of the person and their vocation. Buddhist texts, such as the Mahāvaṁsa, claim that the Śakya clans were the descendents of this very Mahāsammata, who was a Bodhisattva. Furthermore, the Buddha explains that among them were those who began to maintain a wholesome and pure lifestyle, withdrawing themselves from human society and preferring to live in the wilderness, where they meditated day and night. These were called the Brāhmins, and there are a few suttas in which the Buddha praises such Brāhmins and their practices. Thus it can be seen that it was based on these ideas that the Buddha called himself a Kṣatriya, while refusing to accept the rigid caste system based on birth, or their origination from different parts of the primal being (as mentioned in the Puruṣa Sukta of Rigveda) or Brahmā (as claimed by Vedic scriptures).
Even more important is the Buddha’s attitude towards Vedic philosophy and practices. Once again, Buddhist texts that originated at that time and later Vedic sources clearly indicate that, contrary to the claims made by Rhys Davids, the Buddha clearly rejects the authority of the Vedas and rejects the claim that its practices help attain liberation. His criticisms were often harsher than people might imagine – in suttas such as the Tevijja Sutta and the Canki Sutta, he goes to the length of calling those who follow the Vedas ‘a queue of blind men’. On other occasions, he rejects the efficacy of Vedic rituals. Among the many practices he rejected was the practice of animal sacrifice. Furthermore, his biggest philosophical criticism was against the Vedic thesis of a permanent and unchanging entity known as ‘Ātman’. In many of his discourses, he clearly rejects as well as refutes the possibility of a permanent, unchanging and ultimately existing entity, and expounds his central teaching of Anātman (No-self) based on the theory of causality called ‘Pratītya-samutpāda’ (Dependent Origination). On this account, we can say that the Buddha rejected both the Karma-kāṇḍa (Rituals) and Jñāna-kāṇda (Wisdom) of Vedic systems. It is because of these criticisms that the Buddha’s teachings are classified as Heterodox (Nāstika) in Vedic systems, and many of the masters belonging to the Six Interpretive Systems (Ṣaḍ-darśana) attempted to refute the ‘Anātman’ thesis. It is to be noted here that the Buddha’s refutation of Vedic systems is not just a difference of opinion that falls within the Six Interpretive Systems or a reinterpretation of conflicting teachings of the Vedas, but a complete rejection of the core teachings of Vedic systems. This is how the authentic Buddhist traditions have always understood Buddha’s position.
Therefore, it is a misconception that the Buddha was born and died a Hindu.
