It may be necessary to remind some of those kind enough to read
the foregoing that the words "soul," "self," "ego,"
"transmigration," "heredity," although freely used by me, convey
meanings entirely foreign to Buddhist philosophy, "Soul," in the
English sense of the word, does not exist for the Buddhist.
"Self" is an illusion, or rather a plexus of illusions.
"Transmigration," as the passing of soul from one body to
another, is expressly denied in Buddhist texts of unquestionable
authority. It will therefore be evident that the real analogy
which does exist between the doctrine of karma and the scientific
facts of heredity is far from complete. Karma signifies the
survival, not of the same composite individuality, but of its
tendencies, which recombine to form a new composite
individuality. The new being does not necessarily take even a
human form: the karma does not descend from parent to child; it
is independent of the line of heredity, although physical
conditions of life seem to depend upon karma. The karma-being of
a beggar may have rebirth in the body of a king; that of a king
in the body of a beggar; yet the conditions of either
reincarnation have been predetermined by the influence of karma.
It will be asked, What then is the spiritual element in each
being that continues unchanged,--the spiritual kernel, so to
speak, within the shell of karma,--the power that makes for
righteousness? If soul and body alike are temporary composites,
and the karma (itself temporary) the only source of personality,
what is the worth or meaning of Buddhist doctrine? What is it
that suffers by karma; what is it that lies within the illusion,
--that makes progress,--that attains Nirvana? Is it not a self?
Not in our sense of the word. The reality of what we call self is
denied by Buddhism. That which forms and dissolves the karma;
that which makes for righteousness; that which reaches Nirvana,
is not our Ego in our Western sense of the word. Then what is it?
It is the divine in each being. It is called in Japanese
Muga-no-taiga,--the Great Self-without-selfishness. There Is no
other true self. The self wrapped in illusion is called
Nyorai-zo,--(Tathagata-gharba),--the Buddha yet unborn, as one in
a womb. The Infinite exists potentially in every being. That is
the Reality. The other self is a falsity,---a lie,--a mirage. The
doctrine of extinction refers only to the extinction of
Illusions; and those sensations and feelings and thoughts, which
belong to this life of the flesh alone, are the illusions which
make the complex illusive self. By the total decomposition of
this false self,--as by a tearing away of veils, the Infinite
Vision comes. There is no "soul": the Infinite All-Soul is the
only eternal principle in any being;--all the rest is dream.
What remains in Nirvana? According to one school of Buddhism
potential identity in the infinite,--so that a Buddha, after
having reached Nirvana, can return to earth. According to
another, identity more than potential, yet not in our sense
"personal." A Japanese friend says:--"I take a piece of gold, and
say it is one. But this means that it produces on my visual
organs a single impression. Really in the multitude of atoms
composing it each atom is nevertheless distinct and separate, and
independent of every other atom. In Buddhahood even so are united
psychical atoms innumerable. They are one as to condition;--yet
each has its own independent existence."
But in Japan the primitive religion has so affected the common
class of Buddhist beliefs that it is not incorrect to speak of
the Japanese "idea of self." It is only necessary that the
popular Shinto idea be simultaneously considered. In Shinto we
have the plainest possible evidence of the conception of soul.
But this soul is a composite,--not a mere "bundle of sensations,
perceptions, and volitions," like the karma-being, but a number
of souls united to form one ghostly personality. A dead man's
ghost may appear as one or as many. It can separate its units,
each of which remains capable of a special independent action.
Such separation, however, appears to be temporary, the various
souls of the composite naturally cohering even after death, and
reuniting after any voluntary separation. The vast mass of the
Japanese people are both Buddhists and Shintoists; but the
primitive beliefs concerning the self are certainly the most
powerful, and in the blending of the two faiths remain distinctly
recognizable. They have probably supplied to common imagination a
natural and easy explanation of the difficulties of the
karma-doctrine, though to what extent I am not prepared to say.
Be it also observed that in the primitive as well as in the
Buddhist form of belief the self is not a principle transmitted
from parent to offspring,--not an inheritance always dependent
upon physiological descent.
These facts will indicate how wide is the difference between
Eastern ideas and our own upon the subject of the preceding
essay. They will also show that any general consideration of the
real analogies existing between this strange combination of
Far-Eastern beliefs and the scientific thought of the nineteenth
century could scarcely be made intelligible by strict
philosophical accuracy in the use of terms relating to the idea
of self. Indeed, there are no European words capable of rendering
the exact meaning of the Buddhist terms belonging to Buddhist
Idealism.
Perhaps it may be regarded as illegitimate to wander from that
position so tersely enunciated by Professor Huxley in his essay
on "Sensation and the Sensiferous Organs:" "In ultimate analysis
it appears that a sensation is the equivalent in terms of
consciousness for a mode of motion of the matter of the
sensorium. But if inquiry is pushed a stage further, and the
question is asked, What, then, do we know about matter and
motion? there is but one reply possible. All we know about motion
is that it is a name for certain changes in the relations of our
visual, tactile, and muscular sensations; and all we know about
matter is that it is the hypothetical substance of physical
phenomena, _the assumption of which is as pure a piece of
metaphysical speculation as is that of a substance of mind_." But
metaphysical speculation certainly will not cease because of
scientific recognition that ultimate truth is beyond the utmost
possible range of human knowledge. Rather, for that very reason,
it will continue. Perhaps it will never wholly cease. Without it
there can be no further modification of religious beliefs, and
without modifications there can be no religious progress in
harmony with scientific thought. Therefore, metaphysical
speculation seems to me not only justifiable, but necessary.
Whether we accept or deny a _substance_ of mind; whether we
imagine thought produced by the play of some unknown element
through the cells of the brain, as music is made by the play of
wind through the strings of a harp; whether we regard the motion
itself as a special mode of vibration inherent in and peculiar to
the units of the cerebral structure,--still the mystery is
infinite, and still Buddhism remains a noble moral
working-hypothesis, in deep accord with the aspirations of mankind and
with the laws of ethical progression. Whether we believe or
disbelieve in the reality of that which is called the material
universe, still the ethical significance of the inexplicable laws
of heredity--of the transmission of both racial and personal
tendencies in the unspecialized reproductive cell--remains to
justify the doctrine of karma. Whatever be that which makes
consciousness, its relation to all the past and to all the future
is unquestionable. Nor can the doctrine of Nirvana ever cease to
command the profound respect of the impartial thinker. Science
has found evidence that known substance is not less a product of
evolution than mind,--that all our so-called "elements" have been
evolved out of "one primary undifferentiated form of matter." And
this evidence is startlingly suggestive of some underlying truth
in the Buddhist doctrine of emanation and illusion,--the
evolution of all forms from the Formless, of all material
phenomena from immaterial Unity,--and the ultimate return of all
into "that state which is empty of lusts, of malice, of
dullness,--that state in which the excitements of individuality
are known no more, and which is therefore designated THE VOID
SUPREME."