Indian Antiquary Vol 56

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 83

APRIL, 1927]
BRAHMA-VIDYA AND SUFISM
BRAHMA-VIDYA AND SUFISM. BY UMESH CHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE.
(Continued from page 56.) In myths and legends and also in practices, a good deal in Sufism is considered to be only a copy of similar things in Buddhism. “Besides these legendary and practical indi. cations, we find an affinity between Sufism and the fundamental thoughts and the lessons of Buddhism. The tone of mind, and the spiritual tendency of Sufism seem as if the Buddhistic way of thinking had been transferred into the frame of Islam and adapted to it.” (JRAS., 1904, p. 135).
Nicholson seems to think that in the beginning Sufism was not indebted to any external influence (JRAS., 1906, p. 305). Yet even he concedes that, in its later development -specially in the development of the conception of fand, Sufism was indebted to Buddhism (ib., p. 330). Wo should not forget that this doctrine of fand or self-annihilation has an apt parallel in the Vedantic conception of the merging of the individual into the infinite self. But so far as the idea is present in Sufism, it is more usually traced to Buddhism than to Hinduism.
So far, therefore, as admissions go, and so far as admissions are a part of proof, not much is found in favour of Bralimavidyd. Sufism's indebtedness to Vedantism is vaguely hinted ; but what is proved or admitted as proved, is a contact of Sufism with Buddhism. It is obvious that contact with Buddhism cannot be taken as evidence of borrowing from Vedantism ; yet this is just what we have to examinc. Direct contact with Vedantism was not inherently impossible for Sufism ; rather, we may suspect on historical grounds that it had taken place. And the grounds are not materially different from those in the case of Buddhism. But this possibility of contact with Vedantism has not been sufficiently stressed, and is not even admitted by all. And naturally, it has not been explored to the same extent as the possible relation of Sufism with Buddhism. With regard to other systems of Hindu philosophy, such as the Yoga, even the suggestion of a possible relation of Sufism with them, is rarely made. We see, therefore, that, with regard to the nature and extent of the indebtedness of Sufism to foreign influences, scholars are more generally inclined to admit borrowing from Buddhism than from Vedantism. The possibility of borrowing from the Yoga is noticed by very few, of whom Al-Beruni, however, is one.
The similarity between Vedantism and Sufism in some important respects has been always admitted. Von Kremer quotes from the Vedanta-sára to establish the fact that there are parallel lines of thought and practice in Sufism and Vedantism. But as we have pointed out before and as Nicholson justly remarks (JRAS., 1906, p. 315), "the question whether Sufism is derived from the Vedanta cannot be settled except on historical grounds, i.e., (1) by an examination of the influence which was being exerted by Indian upon Muhammadan thought at the time when Sufism arose ; and (2) by considering how far the ascertained facts. relating to the evolution of Sufism accord with the hypothesis of its Indian origin". Nichol. son is of opinion that a chronological study of the evidence will not prove this hypothesis ; nor will it prove the alternative form of Aryan reaction theory, namely, that Sufism is essentially a product of the Persian mind ”. * It seems to me”, he says again, (ib., p. 305) " that this type of mysticism was-or at least might have been the native product of Islam itself, and that it was an almost necessary consequence of the Muhammadan conception of Allah, a conception which could not possibly satisfy the spiritually-minded Moslem".
In his Literary llistory of the Arabs (p. 384), Nicholson scems to modify this view somowhat, and is prepared to admit that all the theories about the origin of Sufism contain a measure of truth'. Now, Vedantism is one of the supposed sources of Sufism (vide Browne, Literary Hislory of Persia, p. 418). Nicholson is obviously moro favourably inclined to it now than before (JRAS., 1906). But he does not appear to have discovered any new proof.