The Buddha attacked both the ritual and the philosophy of the Brahmins.
After his time the sacrificial system, though it did not die, never regained its old prestige and he profoundly affected the history of Indian metaphysics.
It may be justly said that most of his philosophic as distinguished from his practical teaching was common property before his time, but he transmuted common ideas and gave them a currency and significance which they did not possess before.
But he was less destructive as a religious and social reformer than many have supposed.
He did not deny the existence nor forbid the worship of the popular gods, but such worship is not Buddhism and the gods are merely angels who may be willing to help good Buddhists but are in no wise guides to religion, since they need instruction themselves.
And though he denied that the Brahmins were superior by birth to others, he did not preach against caste, partly because it then existed only in a rudimentary form.
But he taught that the road to salvation was one and open to all who were able to walk in it, whether Hindus or foreigners.
All may not have the necessary qualifications of intellect and character to become monks but all can be good laymen, for whom the religious life means the observance of morality combined with such simple exercises as reading the scriptures.
It is clear that this lay Buddhism had much to do with the spread of the faith.
The elemental simplicity of its principles-namely that religion is open to all and identical with morality-made a clean sweep of Brahmanic theology and sacrifices and put in its place something like Confucianism.
But the innate Indian love for philosophizing and ritual caused generation after generation to add more and more supplements to the Master's teaching and it is only outside India that it has been preserved in any purity.
After his time the sacrificial system, though it did not die, never regained its old prestige and he profoundly affected the history of Indian metaphysics.
It may be justly said that most of his philosophic as distinguished from his practical teaching was common property before his time, but he transmuted common ideas and gave them a currency and significance which they did not possess before.
But he was less destructive as a religious and social reformer than many have supposed.
He did not deny the existence nor forbid the worship of the popular gods, but such worship is not Buddhism and the gods are merely angels who may be willing to help good Buddhists but are in no wise guides to religion, since they need instruction themselves.
And though he denied that the Brahmins were superior by birth to others, he did not preach against caste, partly because it then existed only in a rudimentary form.
But he taught that the road to salvation was one and open to all who were able to walk in it, whether Hindus or foreigners.
All may not have the necessary qualifications of intellect and character to become monks but all can be good laymen, for whom the religious life means the observance of morality combined with such simple exercises as reading the scriptures.
It is clear that this lay Buddhism had much to do with the spread of the faith.
The elemental simplicity of its principles-namely that religion is open to all and identical with morality-made a clean sweep of Brahmanic theology and sacrifices and put in its place something like Confucianism.
But the innate Indian love for philosophizing and ritual caused generation after generation to add more and more supplements to the Master's teaching and it is only outside India that it has been preserved in any purity.
Source...