Some modern scholars like Karl Werner and others have argued, and with good reasons, that Buddhism should be treated as “reformed Brahmanism”; not just some new religion on the block of ancient India, but one instead that cut away the heavy overgrowth of vines that for a long time hid the ancient Vedic path to the absolute.

For those of us who have been frequent readers of the Pali canon there is much to support the theory that Buddhism, in fact, is reformed Brahmanism. Accepting this theory as plausible, not only does this theory help towards getting a clearer and more accurate picture of Buddhism, but it lays bare or rather makes explicit what is often implicit in Buddhism: that Buddhism is a path to the transcendent. This is clear in the last chapter of the Dhammapada, The Brâhmin chapter, consisting of forty-one verses and other places like in the Sutta-Nipata, in particular, the Vasettha Sutta which is about the correct definition of a Brahmin. In other passages from the Sutta-Nipata we learn that a Brahmin “has transcended the limits of mundane existence” (795) which is exactly what awakened Buddhists do. In the Itivuttaka (IV, i) the Buddha even declares that he is a Brahmin!

"Monks, I am a brahmin, one to ask a favor of, ever clean-handed, wearing my last body, incomparable physician and surgeon. Ye are my own true sons, born of my mouth, born of dhamma, created by dhamma, my spiritual heirs, not carnal heirs."

There is much more evidence to support the claim that Buddhism is reformed Brahmanism than I can present in this current blog. However, I will add this. The Sanskrit scholar Christian Lindtner, in a journal article entitled "From Brahmanism to Buddhism" (Asian Philosophy, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1999), argues that canonical Buddhism should be seen as reformed Brahmanism. The following is from his introduction.

"In earlier as well as later Indian Buddhist sources we can often read, that the sramana Gautama is identified with Brahmâ (m.), or Mahâbrahmâ, that his Dharma is identified with Brahman (n.), that he and his monks—those that follow the true mârga—are the true brahmans, in other words that the ratnatraya of Buddhism is the true form of Brahmanism. Furthermore, Brahman and Nirvana are used as synonyms (not just in Buddhist texts), the Buddha is said to know the Veda(s), and the purpose of following his teaching about Dharma (dharmadesanâ) is to become one with Brahman. In a passage in the old Suttanipata (II.7) some wealthy brahmans ask Bhagavat: "Do brahmans now, Gotama, live in conformity with the brahmanical lore of the brahmans of old?" "No, brahmans, brahmans now do not live in comfort with the brahmanical lore of the brahmans of old." "Then let the venerable Gotama tell us about the brahmanical lore of the brahmans of old, if it is not too much trouble for him." "Then listen, brahmans, pay careful attention. I shall tell you." There are, of course, numerous scriptural passages to the same effect: that Gautama was considered (and considered himself) an authority on matters of Brahman, that he, in other words, was considered as a Vedic scholar. The Buddha, in short, is the true Brahmâ, who teaches about the true Brahman to his disciples, the true brahmans. If this is historically true, one can in this sense claim that ancient Buddhism is reformed Brahmanism."

In the rest of the article, Lindtner goes into quite a bit of detail making his case that the transcendent of Brahmanism and Buddhism are essentially one and the same.

As with most good reformations, the Buddha’s included, they attempt to bring back into focus what has been lost for various reasons. Gautama’s reformation did just that, it brought back into focus the transcendent and the path to reach it. The Buddha in one Sutta tells Ananda that the “Noble Eightfold Path is the designation for the vehicle of Brahma (brahma-yana), for the vehicle of Dhamma” (S. v. 5).

Those who wish to argue to the contrary, that Buddhism was altogether anti-brahmanical really haven’t much evidence on their side when the canon is put under examination. There is no real evidence to suggest the Buddha was out to stomp down Brahmanism. He was only out to reform it.