CHAPTER XIII.

BUDDHISM.

While the pantheistic believer proceeded to anthropomorphize in a

still greater degree the _[=a]tm[=a]_ of his fathers, and eventually

landed in heretical sectarianism; while the orthodox Brahman simply

added to his pantheon (in Manu and other law-codes) the Brahmanic

figure of the Creator, Brahm[=a]; the truth-seeker that followed the

lines of the earlier philosophical thought arrived at atheism, and in

consequence became either stoic or hedonist. The latter school, the

C[=a]rv[=a]kas, the so-called disciples of Brihaspati, have, indeed, a

philosophy without religion. They simply say that the gods do not

exist, the priests are hypocrites; the Vedas, humbug; and the only

thing worth living for, in view of the fact that there are no gods, no

heaven, and no soul, is pleasure: 'While life remains let a man live

happily; let him not go without butter (literally _ghee_) even though

he run into debt,' etc.[1] Of sterner stuff was the man who invented a

new religion as a solace for sorrow and a refuge from the nihilism in

which he believed.

Whether Jainism or Buddhism be the older heresy, and it is not

probable that any definitive answer to this question will ever be

given, one thing has become clear in the light of recent studies,

namely, the fact already shown, that to Brahmanism are due some of the

most marked traits of both the heretical sects. The founder of

Buddhism did not strike out a new system of morals; he was not a

democrat; he did not originate a plot to overthrow the Brahmanic

priesthood; he did not invent the order of monks.[2] There is,

perhaps, no person in history in regard to whom have arisen so many

opinions that are either wholly false or half false.[3]

We shall not canvass in detail views that would be mentioned only to

be rejected. Even the brilliant study of Senart,[4] in which the

figure of Buddha is resolved into a solar type and the history of the

reformer becomes a sun-myth, deserves only to be mentioned and laid

aside. Since the publication of the canonical books of the southern

Buddhists there is no longer any question in regard to the human

reality of the great knight who illumined, albeit with anything but

heavenly light, the darkness of Brahmanical belief. Oldenberg[5] has

taken Senart seriously, and seriously answered him. But Napoleon and

Max Müller have each been treated as sun-myths, and Senart's essay is

as convincing as either _jeu d'esprit._

In Nep[=a]l, far from the site of Vedic culture, and generations after

the period of the Vedic hymns, was born a son to the noble family of

the Ç[=a]kyas. A warrior prince, he made at last exclusively his own

the lofty title that was craved by many of his peers, Buddha, the

truly wise, the 'Awakened.'

The Ç[=a]kyas' land extended along the southern border of Nep[=a]l and

the northeast part of Oude (Oudh), between the Ir[=a]vat[=i] (Rapti)

river on the west and south, and the Rohini on the east; the district

which lies around the present Gorakhpur, about one hundred miles

north-northeast of Benares. The personal history of the later Buddha

is interwoven with legend from which it is not always easy to

disentangle the threads of truth. In the accounts preserved in regard

to the Master, one has first to distinguish the P[=a]li records of the

Southern Buddhists from the Sanskrit tales of the Northerners; and

again, it is necessary to discriminate between the earlier and

later traditions of the Southerners, who have kept in general the

older history as compared with the extravagant tradition preserved in

the Lalita Vistara, the Lotus of the Law, and the other works of the

North. What little seems to be authentic history is easily told; nor

are, for our present purpose, of much value the legends, which

mangonize the life of Buddha. They will be found in every book that

treats of the subject, and some of the more famous are translated in

the article on Buddha in the Encyclopædia Brittanica. We content

ourselves with the simplest and oldest account, giving such facts as

help to explain the religious significance of Buddha's life and work

among his countrymen. Several of these facts, Buddha's place in

society, and the geographical centre of Buddhistic activity, are

essential to a true understanding of the relations between Buddhism

and Brahmanism.

Whether Buddha's father was king or no has rightly been questioned.

The oldest texts do not refer to him as a king's son, and this

indicates that his father, who governed the Ç[=a]kya-land, of which

the limits have just been specified,[6] was rather a feudal baron or

head of a small clan, than an actual king. The Ç[=a]kya power was

overthrown and absorbed into that of the king of Oude (Kosala) either

in Buddha's own life-time or immediately afterwards. It is only the

newer tradition that extols the power and wealth which the Master gave

up on renouncing worldly ties, a trait characteristic of all the later

accounts, on the principle that the greater was the sacrifice the

greater was the glory. Whether kings or mere chieftains, the Ç[=a]kyas

were noted as a family that cared little to honor the Brahmanic

priests. They themselves claimed descent from Ikshv[=a]ku, the ancient

seer-king, son of Manu, and traditionally first king of Ayodh[=a]

(Oude). They assumed the name of Gautama, one of the Vedic seers, and

it was by the name of 'the Ascetic Gautama' that Buddha was known to

his contemporaries; but his personal name was Siddh[=a]rtha 'he that

succeeds in his aim,' prophetic of his life! His mother's name

M[=a]y[=a] (illusion) has furnished Senart with material for his

sun-theory of Buddha; but the same name is handed down as that of a

city, and perhaps means in this sense 'the wonderful.' She is said to

have died when her son was still a boy. The boy Siddh[=a]rtha, then,

was a warrior _r[=a]jput_ by birth, and possibly had a very

indifferent training in Vedic literature, since he is never spoken of

as Veda-wise.[7] The future Buddha was twenty-nine when he resolved to

renounce the world. He was already married and had a son (R[=a]hula,

according to later tradition). The legends of later growth here begin

to thicken, telling how, when the future Buddha heard of the birth of

his son, he simply said 'a new bond has been forged to hold me to the

world'; and how his mind was first awakened to appreciation of sorrow

by seeing loathy examples of age, sickness, and death presented to him

as he drove abroad. Despite his father's tears and protests

Siddh[=a]rtha, or as one may call him now by his patronymic, the man

Gautama, left his home and family, gave up all possessions, and

devoted himself to self-mortification and Yoga discipline of

concentration of thought, following in this the model set by all

previous ascetics. He says himself, according to tradition, that it

was a practical pessimism which drove him to take this step. He was

not pleased with life, and the pleasures of society had no charm for

him. When he saw the old man, the sick man, the dead man, he became

disgusted to think that he too would be subject to age, sickness, and

death: "I felt disgust at old age; all pleasure then forsook me." In

becoming an ascetic Gautama simply endeavored to discover some means

by which he might avoid a recurrence of life, of which the

disagreeable side in his estimation outweighed the joy. He too had

already answered negatively the question Is life worth living?

We must pause here to point out that this oldest and simplest account

of Gautama's resolve shows two things. It makes clear that Gautama at

first had no plan for the universal salvation of his race. He was

alert to 'save his own soul,' nothing more. We shall show presently

that this is confirmed by subsequent events in his career. The next

point is that this narration in itself is a complete refutation of the

opinion of those scholars who believe that the doctrine of _karma_ and

reincarnation arose first in Buddhism, and that the Upanishads that

preach this doctrine are not of the pre-Buddhistic period. The last

part of this statement of opinion is, of course, not touched by the

story of Gautama's renunciation, but the first assumption wrecks on

it. Why should Gautama have so given himself to Yoga discipline? Did

he expect to escape age, sickness, death, in this life by that means?

No. The assumption from the beginning is the belief in the doctrine of

reincarnation. It was in order to free himself from future returns of

these ills that Gautama renounced his home. But nothing whatever is

said of his discovering or inventing the doctrine of reincarnation.

Both hell and _karma_ are taken for granted throughout the whole early

Buddhistic literature. Buddha discovered neither of them, any more

than he discovered a new system of morality, or a new system of

religious life; although more credit accrues to him in regard to the

last because his order was opposed to that then prevalent; yet even

here he had antique authority for his discipline.

To return to Gautama's[8] life. Legend tells how he fled away on his

horse Kanthaka, in search of solitude and the means of salvation, far

from his home to the abode of ascetics, for he thought: "Whence comes

peace? When the fire of desire is extinguished, when the fire of hate

is extinguished, when the fire of illusion is extinguished, when all

sins and all sorrows are extinguished, then comes peace." And the only

means to this end was the renunciation of desire, the discipline of

Yoga concentration, where the mind fixed on one point loses all else

from its horizon, and feels no drawing aside to worldly things.

What then has Gautama done from the point of view of the Brahman? He

has given up his home to become an ascetic. But this was permitted by

usage, for, although the strict western code allowed it only to the

priest, yet it was customary among the other twice-born castes at an

earlier day, and in this part of India it awakened no surprise that

one of the military caste should take up the life of a philosopher.

For the historian of Indic religions this fact is of great

significance, since such practice is the entering wedge which was to

split the castes. One step more and not only the military caste but

the lower, nay the lowest castes, might become ascetics. But, again,

all ascetics were looked upon, in that religious society, as equal to

the priests. In fact, where Gautama lived there was rather more

respect paid to the ascetic than to the priest as a member of the

caste. Gautama was most fortunate in his birth and birth-place. An

aristocrat, he became an ascetic in a land where the priests were

particularly disregarded. He had no public opinion to contend against

when later he declared that Brahman birth and Brahman wisdom had no

value. On the contrary, he spoke to glad hearers, who heard repeated

loudly now as a religious truth what often they had said to themselves

despitefully in private.

Gautama journeyed as a _muni_, or silent ascetic sage, till after

seven years he abandoned his teachers (for he had become a disciple of

professed masters), and discontentedly wandered about in M[=a]gadha

(Beh[=a]r), 'the cradle of Buddhism,' till he came to Uruvel[=a],

Bodhi Gay[=a].[9] Here, having found that concentration of mind,

Yoga-discipline, availed nothing, he undertook another method of

asceticism, self-torture. This he practiced for some time. But it

succeeded as poorly as his first plan, and he had nearly starved

himself to death when it occurred to him that he was no wiser than

before. Thereupon he gave up starvation as a means of wisdom and began

to eat. Five other ascetics, who had been much impressed by his

endurance and were quite ready to declare themselves his disciples,

now deserted him, thinking that as he had relaxed his discipline he

must be weaker than themselves. But Gautama sat beneath the sacred

fig-tree[10] and lo! he became illumined. In a moment he saw the Great

Truths. He was now the Awakened. He became Buddha.

The later tradition here records how he was tempted of Satan. For

M[=a]ra (Death), 'the Evil One' as he is called by the Buddhists,

knowing that Buddha had found the way of salvation, tempted him to

enter into Nirv[=a]na at once, lest by converting others Buddha should

rob M[=a]ra of his power and dominion. This and the legend of storms

attacking him and his being protected by the king of snakes,

Mucalinda, is lacking in the earlier tradition.

Buddha remains under the _bo_-tree fasting, for four times seven days,

or seven times seven, as says the later report. At first he resolves

to be a 'Buddha for himself.'[11] that is to save only himself, not to

be 'the universal Buddha,' who converts and saves the world. But the

God Brahm[=a] comes down from heaven and persuades him out of pity for

the world to preach salvation. In this legend stands out clearly the

same fact we have animadverted upon already. Buddha had at first no

intention of helping his fellows. He found his own road to salvation.

That sufficed. But eventually he was moved through pity for his kind

to give others the same knowledge with which he had been

enlightened.[12]

Here is to be noticed with what suddenness Gautama becomes Buddha. It

is an early case of the same absence of study or intellectual

preparation for belief that is rampant in the idea of ictic

conversion. In a moment Gautama's eyes are opened. In ecstacy he

becomes illuminated with the light of knowledge. This idea is totally

foreign to Brahmanism. It is not so strange at an earlier stage, for

the Vedic poet often 'sees' his hymn,[13] that is, he is inspired or

illumined. But no Brahman priest was ever 'enlightened' with sudden

wisdom, for his knowledge was his wisdom, and this consisted in

learning interminable trifles. But the wisdom of Buddha was this:

I. Birth is sorrow, age is sorrow, sickness is sorrow, death

is sorrow, clinging to earthly things is sorrow.

II. Birth and re-birth, the chain of reincarnations, result

from the thirst for life together with passion and desire.

III. The only escape from this thirst is the annihilation of

desire.

IV. The only way of escape from this thirst is by following

the Eightfold Path: Right belief, right resolve, right word,

right act, right life, right effort, right thinking, right

meditation.[14]

But Buddha is said to have seen more than these, the Four Great

Truths, and the Eightfold Path, for he was enlightened at the same

time (after several days of fasting) in regard to the whole chain of

causality which is elaborated in the later tradition.

The general result of this teaching may be formulated thus, that most

people are foolishly optimistic and that the great awakening is to

become a pessimist. One must believe not only that pain is inseparable

from existence, but that the pleasures of life are only a part of its

pain. When one has got so far along the path of knowledge he traverses

the next stage and gets rid of desire, which is the root of

life,--this is a Vedic utterance,--till by casting off desire,

ignorance, doubt, and heresy, as add some of the texts,[15] one has

removed far away all unkindness and vexation of soul, feeling

good-will to all.

Not only in this scheme but also in other less formal declarations of

Buddha does one find the key-note of that which makes his method of

salvation different alike to that of Jain or Brahman. Knowledge is

wisdom to the Brahman; asceticism is wisdom to the Jain; purity and

love is the first wisdom to the Buddhist. We do not mean that the

Brahman does not reach theoretically a plane that puts him on the same

level with Buddhism. We have pointed out above a passage in the work

of the old law-giver Gautama which might almost have been

uttered by Gautama Buddha: "He that has performed all the forty

sacraments and has not the eight good qualities enters not into union

with Brahm[=a] nor into the heaven of Brahm[=a]; but he that has

performed only a part of the forty sacraments and has the eight good

qualities, enters into union with Brahm[=a] and into the heaven of

Brahm[=a]"; and these eight good qualities are mercy, forbearance,

freedom from envy, purity, calmness, correct behavior, freedom from

greed and from covetousness. Nevertheless with the Brahman this is

adventitious, with the Buddhist it is essential.

These Four Great Truths are given to the world first at Benares,

whither Buddha went in order to preach to the five ascetics that had

deserted him. His conversation with them shows us another side of

Buddhistic ethics. The five monks, when they saw Buddha approaching,

jeered, and said: "Here is the one that failed in his austerities."

Buddha tells them to acknowledge him as their master, and that he is

the Enlightened One. "How," they ask, "if you could not succeed in

becoming a Buddha by asceticism, can we suppose that you become one by

indulgence?" Buddha tells them that neither voluptuousness nor

asceticism is the road that leads to Nirv[=a]na; that he, Buddha, has

found the middle path between the two extremes, the note is struck

that is neither too high nor too low. The five monks are converted

when they hear the Four Great Truths and the Eightfold Path, and there

are now six holy ones on earth, Buddha and his five disciples.

Significant also is the social status of Buddha's first conversion. It

is 'the rich youth' of Benares that flock about him,[16] of whom sixty

soon are counted, and these are sent out into all the lands to preach

the gospel, each to speak in his own tongue, for religion was from

this time on no longer to be hid behind the veil of an unintelligible

language. And it is not only the aristocracy of wealth that attaches

itself to the new teacher and embraces his doctrines with enthusiasm.

The next converts are a thousand Brahman priests, who constituted a

religious body under the leadership of three ascetic Brahmans. It is

described in the old writings how these priests were still performing

their Vedic rites when Buddha came again to Bodhi Gay[=a] and found

them there. They were overcome with astonishment as they saw his power

over the King of Snakes that lived among them. The gods--for Buddhism,

if not Buddha, has much to do with the gods--descend from heaven to

hear him, and other marvels take place. The Brahmans are all

converted. The miracles and the numbers may be stripped off, but thus

denuded the truth still remains as important as it is plain. Priests

of Brahman caste were among the first to adopt Buddhism. The popular

effect of the teaching must have been great, for one reads how, when

Buddha, after this great conversion, begins his victorious wanderings

in Beh[=a]r (M[=a]gadha), he converted so many of the young nobles

that--since conversion led to the immediate result of

renunciation--the people murmured, saying that Gautama (Gotama) was

robbing them of their youth.[17]

From this time on Buddha's life was spent in wandering about and

preaching the new creed mainly to the people of Beh[=a]r and Oude

(K[=a]çi-Kosala, the realm of Benares-Oude), his course extending from

the (Ir[=a]vati) Rapti river in the north to R[=a]jagriha (_gaha,_ now

Rajgir) south of Beh[=a]r, while he spent the _vasso_ or rainy season

in one of the parks, many of which were donated to him by wealthy

members of the fraternity.[18]

Wherever he went he was accompanied with a considerable number of

followers, and one reads of pilgrims from distant places coming to see

and converse with him. The number of his followers appears to have

been somewhat exaggerated by the later writers, since Buddha himself,

when prophesying of the next Buddha, the "Buddha of love" (Maitreya)

says that, whereas he himself has hundreds of followers, the next

Buddha will lead hundreds of thousands.

Although, theoretically, all the castes give up their name, and, when

united in the Buddhistic brotherhood, become "like rivers that give up

their identity and unite in the one ocean," yet were most of the early

recruits, as has been said, from influential and powerful families;

and it is a tenet of Buddhism in regard to the numerous Buddhas, which

have been born[19] and are still to be born on earth, that no Buddha

can be born in a low caste.

The reason for this lies as much as anything in the nature of the

Buddhistic system which is expressly declared to be "for the wise, not

for the foolish." It was not a system based as such on love or on any

democratic sentiment. It was a philosophical exposition of the causal

nexus of birth and freedom from re-birth. The common man, untrained in

logic, might adopt the teaching, but he could not understand it. The

"Congregation of the son of the Ç[=a]kyas"--such was the earliest name

for the Buddhistic brotherhood--were required only to renounce their

family, put on the yellow robe, assume the tonsure and other outward

signs, and be chaste and high-minded. But the teachers were instructed

in the subtleties of the 'Path,' and it needed no little training to

follow the leader's thought to its logical conclusion.

Of Buddha's life, besides the circumstances already narrated little is

known. Of his disciples the best beloved was [=A]nanda, his own

cousin, whose brother was the Judas of Buddhism. The latter, Devadatta

by name, conspired to kill Buddha in order that he himself might get

the post of honor. But hell opened and swallowed him up. He appears to

have had convictions of Jain tendency, for before his intrigue he

preached against Buddha, and formulated reactionary propositions which

inculcated a stricter asceticism than that taught by the Master.[20]

It has been denied that the early church contained lay members as well

as monks, but Oldenberg appears to have set the matter right (p. 165)

in showing that the laity, from the beginning, were a recognized part

of the general church. The monk (_bhikshu, bhikku_) was formally

enrolled as a disciple, wore the gown and tonsure, etc. The lay

brother, 'reverer' (_up[=a]saka_) was one that assented to the

doctrine and treated the monks kindly. There were, at first, only men

in the congregation, for Buddhism took a view as unfavorable to woman

as did Jainism. But at his foster-mother's request Buddha finally

admitted nuns as well as monks into his fold. When [=A]nanda asks how

a monk should act in presence of a woman Buddha says 'avoid to look at

her'; but if it be necessary to look, 'do not speak to her'; but if it

be necessary to speak, 'then keep wide awake, [=A]nanda.'[21]

Buddha died in the fifth century. Rhys Davids, who puts the date later

than most scholars, gives, as the time of the great Nirv[=a]na, the

second decade from the end of the fourth century. On the other hand,

Bühler and Müller reckon the year as 477, while Oldenberg says 'about

480.'[22] From Buddha's own words, as reported by tradition, he was

eighty years old at the time of his death, and if one allots him

thirty-six years as his age when he became independent of masters, his

active life would be one of forty-four years. It was probably less

than this, however, for some years must be added to the first seven of

ascetic practices before he took the field as a preacher.

The story of Buddha's death is told simply and clearly. He crossed the

Ganges, where at that time was building the town of Patna

(P[=a]taliputta, 'Palibothra'), and prophesied its future greatness

(it was the chief city of India for centuries after); then, going

north from R[=a]jagriha, in Beh[=a]r, and V[=a]iç[=a]l[=i], he

proceeded to a point east of Gorukhpur (Kasia). Tradition thus makes

him wander over the most familiar places till he comes back almost to

his own country. There, in the region known to him as a youth, weighed

down with years and ill-health, but surrounded by his most faithful

disciples, he died. Not unaffecting is the final scene.[23]

'Now the venerable [=A]nanda (Buddha's beloved disciple) went into the

cloister-building, and stood leaning against the lintel of the door

and weeping at the thought: "Alas! I remain still but a learner, one

who has yet to work out his own perfection. And the Master is about to

pass away from me--he who is so kind." Then the Blessed One called the

brethren and said: "Where then, brethren, is [=A]nanda?" "The

venerable [=A]nanda (they replied) has gone into the cloister-building

and stands leaning against the lintel of the door, weeping." ... And

the Blessed One called a certain brother, and said "Go now, brother,

and call [=A]nanda in my name and say, 'Brother [=A]nanda, thy Master

calls for thee.'" "Even so, Lord," said that brother, and he went up

to where [=A]nanda was, and said to the venerable [=A]nanda: "Brother

[=A]nanda, thy Master calls for thee." "It is well, brother," said the

venerable [=A]nanda, and he went to the place where Buddha was. And

when he was come thither he bowed down before the Blessed One, and

took his seat on one side. Then the Blessed One said to the venerable

[=A]nanda, as he sat there by his side: "Enough, [=A]nanda, let not

thyself be troubled; weep not. Have I not told thee already that we

must divide ourselves from all that is nearest and dearest? How can it

be possible that a being born to die should not die? For a long time,

[=A]nanda, hast thou been very near to me by acts of love that is kind

and good and never varies, and is beyond all measure. (This Buddha

repeats three times.) Thou hast done well. Be earnest in effort. Thou,

too, shalt soon be free." ... When he had thus spoken, the venerable

[=A]nanda said to the Blessed One: "Let not the Blessed One die in

this little wattle and daub town, a town in the midst of the jungle,

in this branch township. For, Lord, there are other great cities such

as Benares (and others). Let the Blessed One die in one of them."'

This request is refused by Buddha. [=A]nanda then goes to the town and

tells the citizens that Buddha is dying. 'Now, when they had heard

this saying, they, With their young men and maidens and wives were

grieved, and sad, and afflicted at heart. And some of them wept,

dishevelling their hair, and stretched forth their arms, and wept,

fell prostrate on the ground and rolled to and fro, in anguish at

the thought "Too soon will the Blessed One die! Too soon will the

Happy One pass away! Full soon will the Light of the world vanish

away!"' ... When Buddha is alone again with his disciples, 'then the

Blessed One addressed the brethren and said "It may be, brethren, that

there may be doubt or misgiving in the mind of some brother as to the

Buddha, the truth, the path or the way. Inquire, brethren, freely. Do

not have to reproach yourselves afterwards with this thought: 'Our

Teacher was face to face with us, and we could not bring ourselves to

inquire of the Blessed One when we were face to face with him.'" And

when he had thus spoken they sat silent. Then (after repeating these

words and receiving no reply) the Blessed One addressed the brethren

and said, "It may be that you put no questions out of reverence for

the Teacher. Let one friend communicate with another." And when he had

thus spoken the brethren sat silent. And the venerable [=A]nanda said:

"How wonderful a thing, Lord, and how marvellous. Verily, in this

whole assembly, there is not one brother who has doubt or misgiving as

to Buddha, the truth, the path or the way." Then Buddha said: "It is

out of the fullness of thy faith that thou hast spoken, [=A]nanda. But

I know it for certain." ... Then the Blessed One addressed the

brethren saying: "Behold, brethren, I exhort you saying, transitory

are all component things; toil without ceasing." And these were the

last words of Buddha.'

It is necessary here to make pause for a moment and survey the

temporal and geographical circumstances of Buddha's life. His lifetime

covered the period of greatest intellectual growth in Athens. If, as

some think, the great book of doubt[24] was written by the Hebrew in

450, there would be in three lands, at least, about the same time the

same earnestly scornful skepticism in regard to the worn-out teachings

of the fathers. But at a time when, in Greece, the greatest minds were

still veiling infidelity as best they could, in India atheism was

already formulated.

It has been questioned, and the question has been answered both

affirmatively and negatively, whether the climatic conditions of

Buddha's home were in part responsible for the pessimistic tone of his

philosophy. If one compare the geographical relation of Buddhism to

Brahmanism and to Vedism respectively with a more familiar geography

nearer home, he will be better able to judge in how far these

conditions may have influenced the mental and religious tone. Taking

Kabul and Kashmeer as the northern limit of the period of the Rig

Veda, there are three geographical centres. The latitude of the Vedic

poets corresponds to about the southern boundary of Tennessee and

North Carolina. The entire tract covered by the southern migration to

the time of Buddhism, extending from Kabul to a point that corresponds

to Benares (35° is a little north of Kabul and 25° is a little south

of Beh[=a]r), would be represented loosely in the United States by the

difference between the northern line of Mississippi and Key West. The

extent of Georgia about represents in latitude the Vedic province (35°

to 30°), while Florida (30° to 25°) roughly shows the southern

progress from the seat of old Brahmanism to the cradle of young

Buddhism. These are the extreme limits of Vedism, Brahmanism and

proto-Buddhism. South of this the country was known to Brahmanism only

to be called savage, and not before the late S[=u]tras (c. 300 B.C.)

is one brought as far south as Bombay in the West. The [=A]itareya

Br[=a]hmana, which represents the old centre of Brahmanism around

Delhi, knows of the [=A]ndhras, south of the God[=a]var[=i] river in

the southeast (about the latitude of Bombay and Hayti), only as outer

'Barbarians.' It is quite conceivable that a race of hardy

mountaineers, in shifting their home through generations from the

hills of Georgia and Tennessee to the sub-tropical region of Key West

(to Cuba), in the course of many centuries might become morally

affected. But it seems to us, although the miasmatic plains of Bengal

may perhaps present even a sharper contrast to the Vedic region than

do Key West and Cuba to Georgia, that the climate in effecting a moral

degradation (if pessimism be immoral) must have produced also the

effect of mental debility. Now to our mind there is not the slightest

proof for the asseveration, which has been repeated so often that it

is accepted by many nowadays as a truism, that Buddhism or even

post-Buddhistic literature shows any trace of mental decay.[25] There

certainly is mental weakness in the Br[=a]hmanas, but these cannot all

be accredited to the miasms of Bengal. They are the bones of a

religion already dead, kept for instruction in a cabinet; dry, dusty,

lifeless, but awful to the beholder and useful to the owner. Again,

does Buddhism lose in the comparison from an intellectual point of

view when set beside the mazy gropings of the Upanishads? We have

shown that dogma was the base of primal pantheism; of real logic there

is not a whit. We admire the spirit of the teachers in the Upanishads,

but we have very little respect for the logical ability of any early

Hindu teachers; that is to say, there is very little of it to admire.

The doctors of the Upanishad philosophy were poets, not dialecticians.

Poetry indeed waned in the extreme south, and no spirited or powerful

literature ever was produced there, unless it was due to foreign

influence, such as the religious poetry of Ramaism and the Tamil

_Sittars_. But in secondary subtlety and in the marking of

distinctions, in classifying and analyzing on dogmatic premises, as

well as in the acceptance of hearsay truths as ultimate verities--we

do not see any fundamental disparity in these regards between the mind

of the Northwest and that of the Southeast; and what superficial

difference exists goes to the credit of Buddhism. For if one must have

dogma it is something to have system, and while precedent theosophy

was based on the former it knew nothing of the latter. Moreover, in

Buddhism there is a greater intellectual vigor than in any phase of

Brahmanism (as distinct from Vedism). To cast off not only gods but

soul, and more, to deny the moral efficacy of asceticism this was a

leap into the void, to appreciate the daring of which one has but to

read himself into the priestly literature of Buddha's rivals, both

heterodox and orthodox. We see then in Buddhism neither a debauched

moral type, nor a weakened intellectuality. The pessimism of Buddhism,

so far as it concerns earth, is not only the same pessimism that

underlies the religious motive of Brahmanic pantheism, but it is the

same pessimism that pervades Christianity and even Hebraism. This

world is a sorry place, living is suffering; do thou escape from it.

The pleasures of life are vanity; do thou renounce them. "To die is

gain," says the apostle; and the Preacher: "I have seen all the works

that are done under the sun and behold all is vanity and vexation of

spirit. He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. For what hath

man of all his labor and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath

laboured under the sun? For all his days are sorrows and his travail

grief. That which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one

thing befalleth them: as the one dieth so dieth the other; yea, they

have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:

for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all

turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth

upward? I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living

which are yet alive. The dead know not anything, their love and their

hatred and their envy is now perished; neither have they any more a

portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. The

wandering of the desire, this also is vanity."

The Preacher is a fairly good Buddhist.

If pessimism be the conviction that life on earth is not worth living,

this view is shared alike by the greatest of earth's religions. If

pessimism be the view that all beauty ends with life and that beyond

it there is nothing for which it is worth while to live, then India

has no parallel to this Homeric belief. If, however, pessimism mean

that to have done with existence on earth is the best that can happen

to a man, but that there is bliss beyond, then this is the opinion of

Brahmanism, Jainism, and Christianity. Buddhism alone teaches that to

live on earth is weariness, that there is no bliss beyond, and that

one should yet be calm, pure, loving, and wise.

How could such a religion inspire enthusiasm? How could it send forth

jubilant disciples to preach the gospel of joy? Yet did Buddhism do

even this. Not less happy and blissful than were they that received

the first comfort of pantheism were the apostles of Buddha. His

progress was a triumph of gladness. They that believed in him rejoiced

and hastened to their fellows with the good tidings. Was it then a new

morality, a new ethical code, that thus inspired them? Let one but

look at the vows and commandments respectively taken by and given to

the Buddhist monk, and he will see that in Buddhism there is no new

morality.

The Ten Vows are as follows:

I take the vow not to kill; not to steal; to abstain from

impurity; not to lie; to abstain from intoxicating drinks

which hinder progress and virtue; not to eat at forbidden

times; to abstain from dancing, singing, music and stage

plays; not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments;

not to use a high or broad bed; not to receive gold or

silver.

The Eight Commandments are as follows:

Do not kill; do not steal; do not lie; do not drink

intoxicating drinks; do not commit fornication or adultery;

do not eat unseasonable food at night; do not wear garlands

or use perfumes; sleep on a mat spread on the ground.

The first five of these commands are given to every Buddhist, monk, or

layman; the last three are binding only on the monk.[26]

These laws and rules were, however, as we have indicated in

the chapter on Jainism, the common property, with some unimportant

variations and exceptions, of the Brahman ascetic, the Jain, and the

Buddhist. There was surely nothing here to rouse especial interest.

No. But there was one side of Buddhism that was new, not absolutely

new, for it formed part of the moral possession of that early band

which we may call the congregation of the Spirit. The Brahman

theoretically had done away with penance and with prayer, with the

Vedic gods and with the Vedic rites. Yet was it impossible for him

practically to absolve the folk of these. The priest might admit that

he knew a better way to salvation, but he still led the people over

the hard old road, and he himself went that way also, because it was

the way of the fathers, because it was the only way for them that were

unwise, and perhaps, too, because it was the only way in which the

priest could keep his place as guide and leader of the people.

Jainism smote down some of the obstacles that the Brahman had built

and kept. Mah[=a]v[=i]ra made the way to salvation shorter, but he did

not make it easier for the masses. Asceticism, self-mortification,

starvation, torture,--this was his means of gaining happiness

hereafter.

But Buddha cut down all obstacles. He made the lowest equal with the

highest. It is true that he was no democrat. It is true that his

success depended, in great part, on political influence, on the

conversion of kings and nobles, men of his own class. It is true also

that Buddha at first, like every other Hindu theosophist, sought no

salvation for the world around him, but only for himself. But he was

moved with pity for the multitude. And why? The sages among them knew

no path to happiness save through life-long torture; the common people

knew only a religion of rites in which they took no interest, the very

words of which were unintelligible; and its priests in their eyes, if

not contemptible, at least were unsympathetic. And at the same time

the old caste-system oppressed and insulted them. It is evident that

the times were ripe for a more humane religion and a new distribution

of social privileges. Then Buddha arose and said: "He that is pure in

heart is the true priest, not he that knows the Veda. Like unto one

that standeth where a king hath stood and spoken, and standing and

speaking there deems himself for this a king, seems to me the man that

repeateth the hymns, which the wise men of old have spoken, and

standing in their place and speaking, deems himself for this a sage.

The Vedas are nothing, the priests are of no account, save as they be

morally of repute. Again, what use to mortify the flesh? Asceticism is

of no value. Be pure, be good; this is the foundation of wisdom--to

restrain desire, to be satisfied with little. He is a holy man who

doeth this. Knowledge follows this."

Here is the essence of Buddhism, here is its power; and when one

reflects that Buddha added: "Go into all lands and preach this gospel;

tell them that the poor and lowly, the rich and high, are all one, and

that all castes unite in this religion, as unite the rivers in the

sea"--he will understand what key was used to open the hearts of

Buddha's kinsmen and people.

But, it will be said, there is nothing in this of that extreme

pessimism, of which mention has just been made. True. And this, again,

is an important point to bear in mind, that whereas the logic of his

own system led Buddha into a formal and complete pessimism, which

denies an after-life to the man that finds no happiness in this, he

yet never insists upon this. He not only does not insist, but in his

talks with his questioners and disciples he uses all means to evade

direct inquiry in regard to the fate of man after death. He believed

that Nirv[=a]na (extinction of lust) led to cessation of being; he did

not believe in an immortal soul. But he urged no such negative

doctrine as this. What he urged repeatedly was that every one

accepting the undisputed doctrine of _karma_ or re-birth in its full

extent (i.e., that for every sin here, punishment followed in the

next existence), should endeavor to escape, if possible, from such an

endless course of painful re-births, and that to accomplish this it

was necessary first to be sober and good, then to be learned, but not

to be an ascetic. On the other hand the doctrine, in its logical

fullness, was a teaching only for the wise, not for fools. He imparted

it only to the wise. What is one to understand from this? Clearly,

that Buddha regarded the mass of his disciples as standing in need

merely of the Four Great Truths, the confession of which was the sign

of becoming a disciple; while to the strong and wise he reserved the

logical pessimism, which resulted from his first denials and the

premises of causality on which was created his complicated system.

Only thus can one comprehend the importance of Buddhism to his own

time and people, only in this light reconcile the discrepancy between

the accounts of a religion which roused multitudes to enthusiasm and

joy, while on the other hand it stood on the cold basis of complete

nihilism. Formally there was not an esoteric[27] and exoteric

Buddhism, but practically what the apostles taught, what Buddha

himself taught to the mass of his hearers was a release from the

bondage of the law and the freedom of a high moral code as the one

thing needful. But he never taught that sacrifice was a bad thing; he

never either took the priest's place himself or cast scorn upon the

Brahman caste: "Better even than a harmless[28] sacrifice is

liberality" he says, "better than liberality is faith and kindness

(non-injury) and truth, better than faith, kindness, and truth is

renunciation of the world and the search for peace; best of all, the

highest sacrifice and greatest good, is when one enters Nirv[=a]na,

saying "I shall not return again to earth." This is to be an Arhat

(Perfect Sage).

These are Buddha's own words as he spoke with a Brahman priest,[29]

who was converted thereby and replied at once with the Buddhist's

confession of faith: "I take refuge in Buddha, in the doctrine, in the

church."

A significant conversation! In many ways these words should be

corrective of much that is hazarded today in regard to Buddhism. There

is here no elaborate system of metaphysics. Wisdom consists in the

truth as it is in Buddha; and before truth stand, as antecedently

essential, faith and kindness; for so may one render the passive

non-injury of the Brahman as taught by the Buddhist. To have faith and

good works, to renounce the pomps and vanities of life, to show

kindness to every living thing, to seek for salvation, to understand,

and so finally to leave no second self behind to suffer again, this is

Buddha's doctrine.

We have avoided thus far to define Nirv[=a]na. It has three distinct

meanings, eternal blissful repose (such was the Nirv[=a]na of the

Jains and in part of Buddhism), extinction and absolute annihilation

(such was the Nirv[=a]na of some Buddhists), and the Nirv[=a]na of

Buddha himself. Nirv[=a]na meant to Buddha the extinction of lust,

anger, and ignorance. He adopted the term, he did not invent it. He

was often questioned, but persistently refused to say whether he

believed that Nirv[=a]na implied extinction of being or not. We

believe that in this refusal to speak on so vital a point lies the

evidence that he himself regarded the 'extinction' or 'blowing out'

(this is what the word means literally) as resulting in annihilation.

Had he believed otherwise we think he would not have hesitated to say

so, for it would have strengthened his influence among them to whom

annihilation was not a pleasing thought.

But one has no right to 'go behind the returns' as these are given by

Buddha. The later church says distinctly that Buddha himself did not

teach whether he himself, his ego, was to live after death or not; or

whether a permanent ego exists. It is useless, therefore, to inquire

whether Buddha's Nirv[=a]na be a completion, as Müller defines it, or

annihilation. To one Buddhistic party it was the one; to the other,

the other; to Buddha himself it was what may be inferred from his

refusal to make any declaration in regard to it.

The second point of interest is not more easily disposed of. What to

the Buddhist is the spirit, the soul of man? It certainly is not an

eternal spirit, such as was the spirit of Brahmanic philosophy, or

that of the Jain. But, on the other hand, it is clear that something

survived after death till one was reborn for the last time, and then

entered Nirv[=a]na. The part that animates the material complex is to

the Buddhist an individuality which depends on the nature of its

former complex, home, and is destined to project itself upon futurity

till the house which it has built ceases to exist, a home rebuilt no

more to be its tabernacle. When a man dies the component parts of his

material personality fall apart, and a new complex is formed, of which

the individuality is the effect of the _karma_ of the preceding

complex. The new person is one's karmic self, but it is not one's

identical ego. There appears, therefore, even in the doctrine of

Nirv[=a]na, to lie something of that altruism so conspicuous in the

insistence on kindness and conversion of others. It is to save from

sorrow this son of one's acts that one should seek to find the end.

But there is no soul to save.

We cannot insist too often on the fact that the religion of Buddha was

not less practical than human. He practiced, as he taught, that the

more one worked for others, was devoted to others, the less he cared

for himself, the less was he the victim of desire. Hence he says that

a true Nirv[=a]na may come even in one's own lifetime--the utter

surrender of one's self is Nirv[=a]na,[30] while the act of dying only

draws the curtain after the tragedy has ended. "Except," Buddha says,

"for birth, age, and death, there would be no need of Buddha."

A review of Buddha's system of metaphysics is, therefore, doubly

unnecessary for our present purpose.[31] In the first place we believe

that most of the categories and metaphysical niceties of Buddhism, as

handed down, are of secondary origin; and, were this not so, it is

still evident that they were but the unimportant, intellectual

appendage of a religion that was based on anything but metaphysical

subtleties. Buddha, like every other teacher of his time, had to have

a 'system,' though whether the system handed down as his reverts to

him it is impossible to say. But Buddha's recondite doctrine was only

for the wise. "It is hard to learn for an ordinary person," says

Buddha himself. But it was the ordinary person that Buddhism took to

its bosom. The reason can be only the one we have given. For the last

stage before Arhat-ship Buddha had ready a complicate system. But he

did not inflict it on the ordinary person.[32] It was not an essential

but the completing of his teaching; in his own eyes truth as

represented by the Four Great Truths was the real doctrine.

The religion of Buddha, for the mass of people, lies in the Four Great

Truths and their practical application to others, which implies

kindness and love of humanity. For Buddha, whatever may have been the

reluctance with which he began to preach, shows in all his teachings

and dealings with men an enduring patience under their rebuffs, a

brotherly sympathy with their weakness, and a divine pity for their

sorrows. Something, too, of divine anger with the pettiness and

meanness of the unworthy ones among his followers, as when, after

preaching with parable and exhortation to the wrangling brothers of

the monastery of Kosamb[=i], he left them, saying, "'Truly these fools

are infatuate; it is no easy task to administer instruction to them,'

and," it is added simply, "he rose from his seat and went away."[33]

The significance of the church organization in the development of

Buddhism should not be under-estimated. Contrasted with the lack of an

organized ecclesiastical corporation among the Brahmans the Buddhistic

synod, or congregation, Sangha, exerted a great influence. In

different places there would be a park set apart for the Buddhist

monks. Here they had their monastery buildings, here they lived during

the rainy season, from this place out as a centre the monks radiated

through the country, not as lone mendicants, but as members of a

powerful fraternity. To this monastery came gifts, receipts of all

kinds that never would have been bestowed upon individuals.

Undoubtedly organization did much for the spread of Buddhism. Yet we

think its influence has been emphasized almost too much by some

scholars, or rather the effect has been represented as too radical.

For the monasteries, as represented by tradition, with their immense

wealth and political importance as allies of the heretical kings of

the East, are plainly of secondary growth. If one limit their national

and political importance to a period one or two hundred years after

the Master's time, he will not err in attributing to this cause, as

does Barth, the reason for the rapid rise and supremacy of Buddhism

over India. But the first beginnings of the institution were small,

and what is to be sought in the beginning of Buddhism is rather

the reason why the monasteries became popular, and what was the hold

which Buddha had upon the masses, and which induced the formation of

this great engine of religious war. And when this first question is

raised the answer must still be that the banding together of the monks

was not the cause but the effect of the popularity of Buddhism. The

first monasteries, as Barth well says, were only assemblies of pious

men who formed a spiritual band of religious thinkers, of men who

united themselves into one body to the end that they might study

righteousness, learning together how to imitate the Master in holiness

of living. But the members converted soon became so many that formal

assemblies became a necessity to settle the practical disputes and

theoretical questions which were raised by the new multitude of

believers, some of whom were more factious than devout. Brahmanism had

no need of this. The Brahman priest had his law in tradition; his life

and conduct were regulated by immemorial law. The corporations of

these priests were but temporary organizations for specific purposes.

They made no attempt to proselytize. Their members never exceeded the

bounds of the caste. The cause, then, of the rapid spread of Buddhism

at the beginning of its career lies only in the conditions of its

teaching and the influential backing of its founder. It was the

individual Buddha that captivated men; it was the teaching that

emanated from him that fired enthusiasm; it was his position as an

aristocrat that made him acceptable to the aristocracy, his magnetism

that made him the idol of the people. From every page stands out the

strong, attractive personality of this teacher and winner of hearts.

No man ever lived so godless yet so godlike. Arrogating to himself no

divinity, despairing of future bliss, but without fear as without

hope, leader of thought but despising lovingly the folly of the world,

exalted but adored, the universal brother, he wandered among men,

simply, serenely; with gentle irony subduing them that opposed him, to

congregation after congregation speaking with majestic sweetness, the

master to each, the friend of all. His voice was singularly vibrant

and eloquent;[34] his very tones convinced the hearer, his looks

inspired awe. From the tradition it appears that he must have been one

of those whose personality alone suffices to make a man not only a

leader but a god to the hearts of his fellows. When such an one speaks

he obtains hearers. It matters little what he says, for he influences

the emotions, and bends whoever listens to his will. But if added to

this personality, if encompassing it, there be the feeling in the

minds of others that what this man teaches is not only a verity, but

the very hope of their salvation; if for the first time they recognize

in his words the truth that makes of slaves free men, of classes a

brotherhood, then it is not difficult to see wherein lies the

lightning-like speed with which the electric current passes from heart

to heart. Such a man was Buddha, such was the essential of his

teaching; and such was the inevitable rapidity of Buddhistic

expansion, and the profound influence of the shock that was produced

by the new faith upon the moral consciousness of Buddha's people.

The literature of early Buddhism consists of a number of historical

works embodying the life and teaching of the master, some of more

didactic and epigrammatic intent, and, in the writings of the Northern

Buddhists, some that have given up the verbose simplicity of the first

tracts in favor of tasteless and extravagant recitals more stagey than

impressive. The final collection of the sacred books (earlier is the

Suttanta division into Nik[=a]yas) is called Tripitaka, 'the three

baskets,' one containing the tracts on discipline; one, the talks of

Buddha; and one, partly metaphysical; called respectively Vinaya,

Sutta, and Abhidhamma. The Southern[35] P[=a]li redaction--for the

writings of the Northern[36] Buddhists are in Sanskrit--was commented

upon in the fifth century of this era by Buddha-gosha ('Buddha's

glory'), and appears to be older than the Sanskrit version of

Nep[=a]l. Some of the writings go back as far as the Second Council,

and their content, so far as it concerns Buddha's own words, in many

cases is doubtless a tradition that one should accept as

authoritative. The works on discipline, instead of being as dull as

one might reasonably expect of books that deal with the petty details

of a monastery, are of exceeding interest (although whole chapters

conform to the reasonable expectation), for they contain fragments of

the work and words of Buddha which give a clearer idea of his

personality and teaching than do his more extended, and perhaps less

original discourses. They throw a strong light also on the early

church, its recalcitrant as well as its obedient members, the quarrels

and schisms that appear to have arisen even before Buddha's death.

Thus in the _Mah[=a]vagga_ (ch. X) there is found an account of the

schism caused by the expulsion of some unworthy members. The brethren

are not only schismatic, some taking the side of those expelled, but

they are even insolent to Buddha; and when he entreats them for the

sake of the effect on the outer world to heal their differences,[37]

they tell him to his face that they will take the responsibility, and

that he need not concern himself with the matter. It is on this

occasion that Buddha says, "Truly, these fools are infatuate," leaves

them, and goes into solitude, rejoicing to be free from souls so

quarrelsome and contentious. Again these tracts give a picture of how

they should live that are truly Buddha's disciples. Buddha finds three

disciples living in perfect harmony, and asks them how they live

together so peaceably and lovingly. In quaint and yet dignified

language they reply, and tell him that they serve each other. He that

rises first prepares the meal, he that returns last at night puts the

room in order, etc. (_ib_. 4). Occasionally in the account of unruly

brothers it is evident that tradition must be anticipating, or that

many joined the Buddhist fraternity as an excuse from restraint. The

_Cullavagga_ opens with the story of two notorious renegades, 'makers

of strife, quarrelsome, makers of dispute, given to idle talk, and

raisers of legal questions in the congregation.' Such were the

infamous followers of Panduka and Lohitaka. Of a different sort,

Epicurean or rather frivolous, were the adherents of Assaji and

Punabbasu, who, according to another chapter of the _Cullavagga_ (I.

13), 'cut flowers, planted cuttings of flowers, used ointment and

scents, danced, wore garlands, and revelled wickedly.' A list of the

amusements in which indulged these flighty monks includes 'games

played with six and ten pieces, tossing up, hopping over diagrams,

dice, jackstraws,[38] ball, sketching, racing, marbles, wrestling,'

etc; to which a like list (_Tevijja_, II) adds chess or checkers

('playing with a board of sixty-four squares or one hundred squares'),

ghost stories, and unseemly wrangling in regard to belief ("I am

orthodox, you are heterodox"), earning a living by prognostication, by

taking omens 'from a mirror' or otherwise, by quack medicines, and by

'pretending to understand the language of beasts.' It is gratifying to

learn that the scented offenders described in the first-mentioned work

were banished from the order. According to the regular procedure, they

were first warned, then reminded, then charged; then the matter was

laid before the congregation, and they were obliged to leave the

order. Even the detail of Subhadda's insolence is not wanting in these

records _(Cull_. XI. 1. and elsewhere). No sooner was Buddha dead than

the traitor Subhadda cries out: "We are well rid of him; he gave us

too many rules. Now we may do as we like." On which the assembly

proceeded to declare in force all the rules that Buddha had given,

although he had left it to them to discard them when they would. The

Confessional (P[=a]timokkha), out of which have been evolved in

narrative form the Vinaya texts that contain it, concerns graded

offences, matters of expiation, rules regarding decency, directions

concerning robes, rugs, bowls, and other rather uninteresting topics,

all discussed in the form of a confession.[39] The church-reader goes

over the rules in the presence of the congregation, and asks at the

end of each section whether any one is guilty of having broken this

rule. If at the third repetition no one responds, he says, 'They are

declared innocent by their silence.' This was the first public

confessional, although, as we have shown above, the idea of a partial

remission of sin by means of confession to the priest is found in

Brahmanic literature.[40] The confession extends to very small

matters, but one sees from other texts that the early congregation

laid a great deal of weight on details, such as dress, as the sign of

a sober life. Thus in _Mah[=a]vagga_, V. 2 ff., certain Buddhists

dress in a worldly way. At one time one is informed of the color of

their heretical slippers, at another of the make of their wicked

gowns. All this is monastic, even in the discipline which 'sets back'

a badly behaved monk, gives him probation, forces him to be

subordinate. In _Cullavagga_, I. 9, there is an account of stupid

Seyyasaka, who was dull and indiscreet, and was always getting 'set

back' by the brethren. Finally they grow weary of probating him and

carry out the _nissaya_ against him, obliging him to remain under the

superintendence of others. For, according to Buddha's rule, a wise

novice was kept under surveillance, or rather under the authority of

others, for five years; a stupid uninformed monk, forever. Buddha's

relations with society are plainly set forth. One reads how his

devoted friend, King Seniya Bimbis[=a]ra, four years younger than

Buddha, and his protector (for he was King of M[=a]gadha), gives him a

park, perhaps the first donation of this sort, the origin of all the

monastic foundations: "The King of M[=a]gadha, Bimbis[=a]ra, thought

'here is this bamboo forest Venuvana, my pleasure-garden, which is

neither too near to the town nor too far from it.... What if I were to

give it to the fraternity?' ... And he took a golden vessel (of water)

and dedicated the garden to Buddha, saying, 'I give up the park to the

fraternity with Buddha at its head.' And the Blessed One accepted the

park" (_Mah[=a]vagga_, i. 22).[41] Another such park Buddha accepts

from the courtezan, Ambap[=a]li, whose conversation with Buddha and

dinner-party to him forms a favorite story with the monks (_Mah[=a]v._

v. 30; _Cull_. ii). The protection offered by Bimbis[=a]ra made the

order a fine retreat for rogues. In _Mah[=a]v._ 1. 41 ff. one reads

that King Seniya Bimbis[=a]ra made a decree: "No one is to do any harm

to those ordained among the Ç[=a]kya-son's monks.[42] Well taught is

their doctrine. Let them lead a holy life for the sake of complete

extinction of suffering." But robbers and runaway slaves immediately

took advantage of this decree, and by joining the order put the police

at defiance. Even debtors escaped, became monks, and mocked their

creditors. Buddha, therefore, made it a rule that no robber, runaway

slave, or other person liable to arrest should be admitted into the

order. He ordained further that no son might join the order without

his parents' consent (_ib_. 54). Still another motive of false

disciples had to be combated. The parents of Up[=a]li thought to

themselves: "What shalt we teach Up[=a]li that he may earn his living?

If we teach him writing his fingers will be sore; if we teach him

arithmetic his mind will be sore; if we teach him money-changing his

eyes will be sore. There are those Buddhist monks; they live an easy

life; they have enough to eat and shelter from the rain; we will make

him a monk." Buddha, hearing of this, ordained that no one should be

admitted into the order under twenty (with some exceptions).

The monks' lives were simple. They went out by day to beg, were locked

in their cells at night (_Mah[=a]v_. i. 53), were probated for light

offences, and expelled for very severe ones.[43] The people are

represented as murmuring against the practices of the monks at first,

till the latter were brought to more modest behavior. It is perhaps

only Buddhist animosity that makes the narrator say: "They did not

behave modestly at table.... Then the people murmured and said, 'These

Buddhist monks make a riot at their meals, _they act just like the

Brahman priests.'" (Mah[=a]v_. i. 25; cf. i. 70.)

We turn from the Discipline to the Sermons. Here one finds everything,

from moral exhortations to a book of Revelations.[44] Buddha sometimes

is represented as entering upon a dramatic dialogue with those whom he

wishes to reform, and the talk is narrated. With what soft irony he

questions, with what apparent simplicity he argues! In the

_Tevijja_[45] the scene opens with a young Brahman. He is a pious and

religious youth, and tells Buddha that although he yearns for 'union

with Brahm[=a],'[46] he does not know which of the different paths

proposed by Brahman priests lead to Brahm[=a]. Do they all lead to

union with Brahm[=a]? Buddha answers: 'Let us see; has any one of

these Brahmans ever seen Brahm[=a]?' 'No, indeed, Gautama.' 'Or did

any one of their ancestors ever see Brahm[=a]?' 'No, Gautama.' 'Well,

did the most ancient seers ever say that they knew where is

Brahm[=a]?' 'No, Gautama.' 'Then if neither the present Brahmans know,

nor the old Brahmans knew where is Brahm[=a], the present Brahmans say

in point of fact, "We can show the way to union with what we know not

and have never seen; this is the straight path, this is the direct way

which leads to Brahm[=a]"--and is this foolish talk?' 'It is foolish

talk.' 'Then, as to yearning for union with Brahm[=a], suppose a man

should say, "How I long for, how I love the most beautiful woman in

this land," and the people should ask, "Do you know whether that

beautiful woman is a noble lady, or a Brahman woman, or of the trader

class, or a slave?" and he should say, "No"; and the people should

say, "What is her name, is she tall or short, in what place does she

live?" and he should say, "I know not," and the people should say,

"Whom you know not, neither have seen, her you love and long for?" and

he should say, "Yes,"--would not that be foolish? Then, after this is

assented to, Buddha suggests another parallel. 'A man builds a

staircase, and the people ask, "Do you know where is the mansion to

which this staircase leads?" "I do not know." "Are you making a

staircase to lead to something, taking it for a mansion, which you

know not and have never seen?" "Yes." Would not this be foolish

talk?... Now what think you, is Brahm[=a] in possession of wives and

wealth?' 'He is not.'

'Is his mind full of anger or free from anger? Is his mind full of

malice or free from malice?' 'Free from anger and malice.' 'Is his

mind depraved or pure?' 'Pure.' 'Has he self-mastery?' 'Yes.' 'Now

what think you, are the Brahmans in possession of wives and wealth, do

they have anger in their hearts, do they bear malice, are they impure

in heart, are they without self-mastery?' 'Yes.' 'Can there then be

likeness between the Brahmans and Brahm[=a]?' 'No.' 'Will they then

after death become united to Brahm[=a] who is not at all like them?'

Then Buddha points out the path of purity and love. Here is no

negative 'non-injury,' but something very different to anything that

had been preached before in India. When the novice puts away hate,

passion, wrong-doing, sinfulness of every kind, then: 'He lets his

mind pervade the whole wide world, above, below, around and

everywhere, with a heart of love, far-reaching, grown great, and

beyond measure. And he lets his mind pervade the whole world with a

heart of pity, sympathy, and equanimity, far-reaching, grown great,

and beyond measure.' Buddha concludes (adopting for effect the

Brahm[=a] of his convert): 'That the monk who is free from anger, free

from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself should after death,

when the body is dissolved, become united to Brahm[=a] who is the

same--such a condition of things is quite possible' Here is no

metaphysics, only a new religion based on morality and intense

humanity, yet is the young man moved to say, speaking for himself and

the friend with him: 'Lord, excellent are the words of thy mouth. As

if one were to bring a lamp into the darkness, just so, Lord, has the

truth been made known to us in many a figure by the Blessed One. And

we come to Buddha as our refuge, to the doctrine and to the church.

May the Blessed One accept us as disciples, as true believers, from

this day forth, as long as life endures.'

The god Brahm[=a] of this dialoge is for the time being playfully

accepted by Buddha as the All-god. To the Buddhist himself Brahm[=a]

and all the Vedic gods are not exactly non-existent, but they are dim

figures that are more like demi-gods, fairies, or as some English

scholars call them, 'angels.' Whether Buddha himself really believed

in them, cannot be asserted or denied. This belief is attributed to

him, and his church is very superstitious. Probably Buddha did not

think it worth while to discuss the question. He neither knew nor

cared whether cloud-beings existed. It was enough to deny a Creator,

or to leave no place for him. Thaumaturgical powers are indeed

credited to the earliest belief, but there certainly is nothing in

harmony with Buddha's usual attitude in the extraordinary discourse

called _[=A]kankheyya_, wherein Buddha is represented as ascribing to

monks miraculous powers only hinted at in a vague 'shaking of the

earth' in more sober speech.[47] From the following let the 'Esoteric

Buddhists' of to-day take comfort, for it shows at least that they

share an ancient folly, although Buddha can scarcely be held

responsible for it: "If a monk should desire to become multiform, to

become visible or invisible, to go through a wall, a fence, or a

mountain as if through air; to penetrate up or down through solid

ground as if through water ... to traverse the sky, to touch the moon

... let him fulfil all righteousness, let him be devoted to that

quietude of heart which springs from within ... let him look through

things, let him be much alone." That is to say, let him aim for the

very tricks of the Yogis, which Buddha had discarded. Is there not

here perhaps a little irony? Buddha does not say that the monk will be

able to do this--he says if the monk wishes to do this, let him be

quiet and meditate and learn righteousness, then perhaps--but he will

at least have learned righteousness!

The little tract called _Cetokhila_ contains a sermon which has not

lost entirely its usefulness or application, and it is characteristic

of the way in which Buddha treated eschatological conundrums: 'If a

brother has adopted the religious life in the hope of belonging to

some one of the angel (divine) hosts, thinking to himself, "by this

morality or by this observance or by this austerity or by this

religious life I shall become an angel," his mind does not incline to

zeal, exertion, perseverance and struggle, and he has not succeeded in

his religious life' (has not broken through the bonds). And,

continuing, Buddha says that just as a hen might sit carefully

brooding over her well-watched eggs, and might content herself with

the wish, 'O that this egg would let out the chick,' but all the time

there is no need of this torment, for the chicks will hatch if she

keeps watch and ward over them, so a man, if he does not think what is

to be, but keeps watch and ward of his words, thoughts, and acts, will

'come forth into the light.'[48]

The questions in regard to Buddha's view of soul, immortality, and

religion are answered to our mind as clearly in the following passages

as Buddha desired they should be. 'Unwisely does one consider: "Have I

existed in ages past ... shall I exist in ages yet to be, do I exist

at all, am I, how am I? This is a being, whence is it come, whither

will it go?" Consideration such as this is walking in the jungle of

delusion. These are the things one should consider: "This is

suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of

suffering, this is the way that leads to the cessation of suffering."

From him that considers thus his fetters fall away' (_Sabb[=a]sava_).

In the _Vang[=i]sa-sutta_ Buddha is asked directly: "Has this good

man's life been vain to him, has he been extinguished, or is he still

left with some elements of existence; and how was he liberated?" and

he replies: "He has cut off desire for name and form in this world. He

has crossed completely the stream of birth and death." In the

_Salla-sutta_ it is said: "Without cause and unknown is the life of

mortals in this world, troubled, brief, combined with pain.... As

earthen vessels made by the potter end in being broken, so is the life

of mortals." One should compare the still stronger image, which gives

the very name of _nir-v[=a]na_ ('blowing out') in the

_Upas[=i]vam[=a]navapucch[=a]_: "As a flame blown about by wind goes

out and cannot be reckoned as existing, so a sage delivered from name

and body disappears, and cannot be reckoned as existing." To this

Upas[=i]va replies: "But has he only disappeared, or does he not

exist, or is he only free from sickness?" To which Buddha: "For him

there is no form, and that by which they say he is exists for him no

longer." One would think that this were plain enough.

Yet must one always remember that this is the Arhat's death, the death

of him that has perfected himself.[49] Buddha, like the Brahmans,

taught hell for the bad, and re-birth for them that were not

perfected. So in the _Kok[=a]liya-sutta_ a list of hells is given, and

an estimate is made of the duration of the sinner's suffering in them.

Here, as if in a Brahman code, is it taught that 'he who lies goes to

hell,' etc. Even the names of the Brahmanic hells are taken over into

the Buddhist system, and several of those in Manu's list of hells are

found here.

On the other hand, Buddha teaches, if one may trust tradition, that a

good man may go to heaven. 'On the dissolution of the body after death

the well-doer is re-born in some happy state in heaven'

(_Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na,_ i. 24).[50] This, like hell, is a temporary

state, of course, before re-birth begins again on earth. In fact,

Buddhist and Brahmanic pantheists agree in their attitude toward the

respective questions of hell, heaven, and _karma_. It is only the

emancipated Arhat that goes to Nirv[=a]na.[51]

When it is said that Buddha preaches to a new convert 'in due course,'

it means always that he gave him first a lecture on morality and

religion, and then possibly, but not necessarily, on the 'system.' And

Buddha has no narrow-minded aversion to Brahmans; he accepts 'Brahman'

as he accepts 'Brahm[=a],' only he wants it to be understood what is a

real Brahman: 'A certain Brahman once asked Buddha how one becomes a

Brahman,--what are the characteristics that make a man a Brahman. And

the Blessed One said: "The Brahman who has removed all sinfulness, who

is free from haughtiness, free from impurity, self-restrained, who is

an accomplished master of knowledge, who has fulfilled the duties of

holiness,--such a Brahman justly calls himself a Brahman."'[52] "The

_Mah[=a]vagga_, from which this is taken, is full of such sentiments.

As here, in i. 2, so in i. 7: "The Blessed One preached to Yasa, the

noble youth, 'in due course,'" that is to say, "he talked about the

merit obtained by alms-giving, the duties of morality, about heaven,

about the evils of vanity and sinfulness of desire," and when the

Blessed One saw that the mind of Yasa, the noble youth, was prepared,

"then he preached the principal doctrine of the Buddhists, namely,

suffering, and cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the

Path;" and "just as a clean cloth takes the dye, thus Yasa, the noble

youth, even while sitting there, obtained the knowledge that

whatsoever is subject to birth is also subject to death."[53]

The "spirit and not the letter of the law" is expressed in the formula

_(Mah[=a]vagga_, i. 23): "Of all conditions that proceed

from a cause, Buddha has explained the cause, and he has explained

their cessation." This is the Buddhist's _credo_.

In several of the sermons the whole gist is comprised in the

admonition not to meddle with philosophy, nor to have any 'views,' for

"philosophy purifies no one; peace alone purifies."[54]

Buddha does not ignore the fact that fools will not desire salvation

as explained by him: "What fools call pleasure the noble say is pain;

this is a thing difficult to understand; the cessation of the existing

body is regarded as pleasure by the noble, but those wise in this

world hold the opposite opinion" (_Dvayat[=a]nup. sutta_, 38).[55] But

to him the truly wise is the truly pure: "Not by birth is one a

Brahman, not by birth is one an outcast; by deeds is one a Brahman, by

deeds is one an outcast" (_Vasala-sutta_); and not alone in virtue of

_karma_ of old, for: "The man who knows in this world the destruction

of pain, who lays aside the burden and is liberated, him I call a

Brahman; whosoever in this world has overcome good and evil, both

ties, who is free from grief and defilement, and is pure,--him I call

a Brahman; the ignorant say that one is a Brahman by birth, but one is

a Brahman by penance, by religious life, by self-restraint, and by

temperance" (_V[=a]settha-sutta_).

The penance here alluded to is not the vague penance of austerities,

but submission to the discipline of the monastery when exercised for a

specific fault.

Later Buddhism made of Buddha a god. Even less exaltation than this is

met by Buddha thus: S[=a]riputta says to him, "Such faith have I,

Lord, that methinks there never was and never will be either monk or

Brahman who is greater and wiser than thou," and Buddha responds:

"Grand and bold are the words of thy mouth; behold, thou hast burst

forth into ecstatic song. Come, hast thou, then, known all the Buddhas

that were?" "No, Lord." "Hast thou known all the Buddhas that will

be?" "No, Lord." "But, at least, thou knowest me, my conduct, my mind,

my wisdom, my life, my salvation (i.e., thou knowest me as well as I

know myself)?" "No, Lord." "Thou seest that thou knowest not the

venerable Buddhas of the past and of the future; why, then, are thy

words so grand and bold?" (_Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_.)

Metaphysically the human ego to the Buddhist is only a collection of

five _skandhas_ (form, sensations, ideas, faculties of mind, and

reason) that vanishes when the collection is dispersed, but the

factors of the collection re-form again, and the new ego is the result

of their re-formation. The Northern Buddhists, who turn Buddha into a

god, make of this an immortal soul, but this is Buddhism in one phase,

not Buddha's own belief. The strength of Northern Buddhism lies not,

as some say, in its greater religious zeal, but in its grosser

animism, the delight of the vulgar.

It will not be necessary, interesting as would be the comparison, to

study the Buddhism of the North after this review of the older and

simpler chronicles. In Hardy's _Manual of Buddhism_ (p. 138 ff.) and

Rockhill's _Life of Buddha_ will be found the weird and silly legends

of Northern Buddhism, together with a full sketch of Buddhistic ethics

and ontology (Hardy, pp. 460, 387). The most famous of the Northern

books, the Lotus of the Law and the Lalita Vistara, give a good idea

of the extravagance and supernaturalism that already have begun to

disfigure the purer faith. According to Kern, who has translated the

former work again (after Burnouf), the whole intent of the Lotus is to

represent Buddha as the supreme, eternal God. The works, treating of

piety, philosophy, and philanthropy, contain ancient elements, but in

general are of later form. To this age belongs also the whole

collection of J[=a]takas, or 'birth-stories,' of the Buddhas that were

before Gautama, some of the tales of which are historically important,

as they have given rise to Western fables.[56] These birth-stories

represent Buddha (often as Indra) as some god or mortal, and tell what

he did in such or such a form. It is in a future form that, like

Vishnu, who is to come in the _avatar_ of Kalki, the next Buddha will

appear as Maitreya, or the 'Buddha of love.'[57] Some of the stories

are very silly; some, again, are beautiful at heart, but ugly in their

bizarre appearance. They are all, perhaps, later than our era.[58]

The history of Buddhism after the Master's death has a certain analogy

with that of Mohammedanism. That is to say it was largely a political

growth. Further than this, of course, the comparison fails. The

religion was affected by heretical kings, and by _nouveaux riches_,

for it admitted them all into its community on equal terms--no slight

privilege to the haughty nabob or proud king who, if a believer and

follower of Brahman orthodoxy, would have been obliged to bend the

head, yield the path, and fear the slightest frown of any beggar

priest that came in his way.

The M[=a]ruya monarch Açoka adopted Buddhism as a state religion in

the third century B.C., and taught it unto all his people, so that,

according to his own account, he changed the creed of the country from

Brahmanism to Buddhism.[59] He was king over all northern India, from

Kabul to the eastern ocean, from the northern limit of Brahmanic

civilization to its southern boundary. Buddhist missionaries were now

spread over India and beyond it. And here again, even in this later

age, one sees how little had the people to do with Buddha's

metaphysical system. Like the simple confession 'I take refuge in

Buddha, in the doctrine, and in the church' was the only credo

demanded, that cited above: "Buddha has explained the cause of

whatever conditions proceed from a cause, and he has declared their

cessation." In this credo, which is en-graved all over India,

everything is left in confidence to Buddha. However he explained the

reason, that creed is to be accepted without inquiry. The convert took

the patent facts of life, believing that Buddha had explained all, and

based his own belief not on understanding but on faith.

With the council of Patna, 242 B.C, begins at thousands of the

missionaries the geographical separation of the church, which results

in Southern and Northern Buddhism.[60]

It is at this period that the monastic bodies become influential. The

original Sangha, congregation, is defined as consisting of three or

more brethren. The later monastery is a business corporation as well

as a religious body. The great emperors that now ruled India (not the

petty clan-kings of the centuries before) were no longer of pure

birth, and some heresy was the only religion that would receive them

with due honor. They affected Buddhism, endowed the monasteries, in

every was enriched the church, built for it great temples, and in turn

were upheld by their thankful co-religionists. Among the six[61] rival

heresies that of Buddha was predominant, and chiefly because of royal

influence. The Buddhist head of the Ceylon church was Açoka's own son.

Still more important for Buddhism was its adoption by the migratory

Turanians in the centuries following. Tibet and China were opened up

to it through the influence of these foreign kings, who at least

pretended to adopt the faith of Buddha.[62] But as it was adopted by

them, and as it extended beyond the limits of India, just so much

weaker it became at home, where its strongest antagonists were the

sectarian pantheistic parties not so heterodox as itself.

Buddhism lingered in India till the twelfth or thirteenth century,

although in the seventh it was already decadent, as appears from the

account of Hiouen-Thsang, the Chinese pilgrim. It is found to-day in

Tibet, Ceylon, China, Japan, and other outlying regions, but it is

quite vanished from its old home. The cause of its extinction is

obvious. The Buddhist victorious was not the modest and devout

mendicant of the early church. The fire of hate, lighted if at all by

Buddhism,[63] smouldered till Brahmanism, in the form of Hinduism, had

begotten a religion as popular as Buddhism, or rather far more

popular, and for two reasons. Buddhism had no such picturesque tales

as those that enveloped with poetry the history of the man-god

Krishna, Again, Buddhism in its monastic development had separated

itself more and more from the people. Not mendicant monks, urging to a

pure life, but opulent churches with fat priests; not simple

discourses calculated to awaken the moral and religious consciousness,

but subtle arguments on discipline and metaphysics were now what

Buddhism represented. This religion was become, indeed, as much a

skeleton as was the Brahmanism of the sixth century. As the Brahmanic

belief had decomposed into spiritless rites, so Buddhism,

changed into dialectic and idolatry (for in lieu of a god the later

church worshipped Buddha), had lost now all hold upon the people. The

love of man, the spirit of Buddhism, was dead, and Buddhism crumbled

into the dust. Vital and energetic was the sectarian 'love of God'

alone (Hinduism), and this now became triumphant. Where Buddhism has

succeeded is not where the man-gods, objects of love and fear, have

entered; but where, without rivalry from more sympathetic beliefs, it

has itself evolved a system of idolatry and superstition; where all

that was scorned by the Master is regarded as holiest, and all that he

insisted upon as vital is disregarded.[64] One speaks of the millions

of Buddhists in the world as one speaks of the millions of Christians;

but while there are some Christians that have renounced the bigotry

and idolatry of the church, and hold to the truth as it is in the

words of Christ, there are still fewer Buddhists who know that their

Buddhism would have been rebuked scornfully by its founder.

The geographical growth of formal Buddhism is easily sketched. After

the first entrance into Kashmeer and Ceylon, in the third century

B.C., the progress of the cult, as it now may be called, was steadily

away from India proper. In the fifth century A.D., it was adopted in

Burmah,[65] and in the seventh in Siam. The Northern school kept in

general to the 'void' doctrine of N[=a]g[=a]rjuna, whose chief texts

are the Lotus and the Lalita Vistara, standard works of the Great

Vehicle.[66] In Tibet Lamaism is the last result of this hierarchical

state-church.[67] We have thought it much more important to give a

fuller account of early Buddhism, that of Buddha, than a full account

of a later growth in regions that, for the most part, are not Indic,

in the belief that the P[=a]li books of Ceylon give a truer picture of

the early church than do those of Kashmeer and Nep[=a]l, with their

Çivaite and Brahmanic admixture. For in truth the Buddhism of China

and Tibet has no place in the history of Indic religions. It may have

been introduced by Hindu missionaries, but it has been re-made to suit

a foreign people. This does not apply, of course, to the canonical

books, the Great Vehicle, of the North, which is essentially native,

if not Buddhistic. Yet of the simple narrative and the adulterated

mystery-play, if one has to choose, the former must take precedence.

From the point of view of history, Northern Buddhism, however old its

elements, can be regarded only as an admixture of Buddhistic and

Brahmanic ideas. For this reason we take a little more space, not to

cite from the Lotus or the grotesque Lalita Vistara,[68] but to

illustrate Buddhism at its best. Fausböll, who has translated the

dialogue that follows, thinks that in the Suttas of the

Sutta-nip[=a]ta there is a reminiscence of a stage of Buddhism before

the institution of monasteries, while as yet the disciples lived as

hermits. The collection is at least very primitive, although we doubt

whether the Buddhist disciples ever lived formally as individual

hermits. All the Samanas are in groups, little 'congregations,' which

afterwards grew into monasteries.

This is a poetical (amoebic) contest between the herdsman Dhaniya and

Buddha, with which Fausböll[69] compares St. Luke, xii. 16, but which,

on the other hand reminds one of a spiritualized Theocritus, with whom

its author was, perhaps, contemporary.

I have boiled the rice, I have milked the kine--so said the

herdsman Dhaniya--I am living with my comrades near the

banks of the (great) Mah[=i] river; the house is roofed, the

fire is lit--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

I am free from anger, free from stubbornness--so said the

Blessed One--I am abiding for one night near the banks of

the (great) Mah[=i] river; my house has no cover, the fire

(of passion) is extinguished--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

Here are no gad-files--so said the herdsman Dhaniya--The

cows are roaming in meadows full of grass, and they can

endure the rain--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

1 have made a well-built raft--so said the Blessed One--I

have crossed over, I have reached the further bank, I have

overcome the torrent (of passions); I need the raft no

more--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

My wife is obedient, she is not wanton--so said the herdsman

Dhaniya--she has lived with me long and is winning; no

wickedless have I heard of her--then rain if thou wilt, O

sky!

My mind is obedient, delivered (from evil)--so said the

Blessed One--it has been cultivated long and is

well-subdued; there is no longer anything wicked in me--then

rain if thou wilt, O sky!

I support myself by my own earnings--so said the herdsman

Dhaniya--and my children are around me and healthy; I hear

no wickedness of them--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

I am the servant of none--so said the Blessed One--with what

I have gained I wander about in all the world; I have no

need to serve--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

I have cows, I have calves--so said the herdsman

Dhaniya--cows in calf and heifers also; and I have a bull as

lord over the cows--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

I have no cows, I have no calves--so said the Blessed

One--no cows in calf, and no heifers; and I have no bull as

a lord over the cows--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

The stakes are driven in and cannot be shaken--so said the

herdsman Dhaniya--the ropes are made of holy-grass, new and

well-made; the cows will not be able to break them--then

rain if thou wilt, O sky!

Like a bull I have rent the bonds--so said the Blessed

One--like an elephant I have broken through the ropes, I

shall not be born again--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!

Then the rain poured down and filled both sea and land. And

hearing the sky raining, Dhaniya said: Not small to us the

gain in that we have seen the Blessed Lord; in thee we take

refuge, thou endowed with (wisdom's) eye; be thou our

master, O great sage! My wife and myself are obedient

to thee. If we lead a pure life we shall overcome birth and

death, and put an end to pain.

He that has sons has delight in sons--so said the Evil

One--he that has cows has delight in cows, for substance is

the delight of man, but he that has no substance has no

delight.

He that has sons has care with his sons--so said the Blessed

One--he that has cows has likewise care with his cows, for

substance is (the cause of) care, but he that has no

substance has no care.

From Buddha's sermons choice extracts were gathered at an early date,

which, as well as the few longer discourses, that have been preserved

in their entirety, do more to tell us what was the original Buddha,

before he was enwrapped in the scholastic mysticism of a later age,

than pages of general critique.

Thus in the _Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_ casual allusion is made to

assemblies of men and of angels (divine beings), of the great

thirty-three gods, Death the Evil One and Brahm[=a] (iii. 21). Buddha,

as we have said, does not deny the existence of spiritual beings; he

denies only their power to affect the perfect man and their

controlling part in the universe. In the same sermon the refuge of the

disciple is declared to be truth and himself (ii. 33): "Be ye lamps

unto yourselves. Betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to

the truth as to a lamp."

And from the famous 'Path of Duty' or 'Collection of truths':[70]

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is

founded on our thoughts; it is made up of our thoughts. If a

man speaks or acts with an evil thought pain follows him as

the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the

carriage, (but) if a man speaks or acts with a pure thought

happiness follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.

Earnestness is the path that leads to escape from death,

thoughtlessness is the path that leads to death. Those who

are in earnest do not die;[71]

those who are thoughtless are as if dead already. Long is

the night to him who is awake; long is a mile to him who is

tired; long is life to the foolish.

There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey

and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides and

thrown off the fetters.

Some people are born again; evil-doers go to hell; righteous

people go to heaven; those who are free from all worldly

desires attain Nirv[=a]na.

He who, seeking his own happiness, punishes or kills beings

that also long for happiness, will not find happiness after

death.

Looking for the maker of this tabernacle I shall have to run

through a course of many births, so long as I do not find;

and painful is birth again and again. But now, maker of the

tabernacle, thou hast been seen; thou shalt not make up this

tabernacle again. All thy rafters are broken, thy ridge-pole

is sundered; thy mind, approaching Nirv[=a]na, has attained

to extinction of all desires.[72]

Better than going to heaven, better than lordship over all

worlds, is the reward of entering the stream of holiness.

Not to commit any sin, to do good, and to purify one's mind,

that is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Let us live happily, not hating them that hate us. Let us

live happily, though we call nothing our own. We shall be

like bright gods, feeding on happiness.

From lust comes grief, from lust comes fear; he that is free

from lust knows neither grief nor fear.

The best of ways is the eightfold (path); this is the way,

there is no other that leads to the purifying of

intelligence. Go on this way! Everything else is the deceit

of Death. You yourself must make the effort. Buddhas are

only preachers. The thoughtful who enter the way are freed

from the bondage of Death.[73]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Compare Colebrooke's _Essays_, vol. ii. 460;

and Muir, OST. iv. 296]

[Footnote 2: Compare Oldenberg. _Buddha_, p. 155.]

[Footnote 3: Especially Köppen views Buddha as a democratic

reformer and liberator.]

[Footnote 4: Emile Senart, _Essai sur la légende du Buddha_.

1875.]

[Footnote 5: _Buddha_ (1881), p.73 ff.]

[Footnote 6: The exact position of Kapilavastu, the capital

of the Ç[=a]kyas, is not known, although it must have been

near to the position assigned to it on Kiepert's map of

India (just north of Gorakhpur). The town is unknown in

Brahmanic literature.]

[Footnote 7: This is Oldenberg's opinion, for the reason

here stated. On the other hand it may be questioned whether

this negative evidence be conclusive, and whether it be not

more probable that a young nobleman would have been well

educated.]

[Footnote 8: Siddhartha, the boy, Gautama by his family

cognomen, the Ç[=a]kya-son by his clan-name, was known also

as the Ç[=a]kya-sage, the hermit, Samana (Çrama[n.]a); the

venerable, Arhat (a general title of perfected saints);

Tath[=a]gata 'who is arrived like' (the preceding Buddhas,

at perfection); and also by many other names common to other

sects, Buddha, Jina, The Blessed One (Bhagavat), The Great

Hero, etc. The Buddhist disciple may be a layman, _çravaka_;

a monk, _bhikshu_; a perfected saint, _arhat_; a saintly

doctor of the law, _bodhisattva_; etc.]

[Footnote 9: South of the present Patna. Less correct is the

_Buddha_ Gay[=a] form.]

[Footnote 10: The famous _bo_ or Bodhi-tree, ficus

religiosa, _pippala_, at Bodhi Gay[=a], said to be the most

venerable and certainly the most venerated tree in the

world.]

[Footnote 11: A _pacceka_ Buddha (Oldenberg. _Buddha_,

p.122).]

[Footnote 12:

"Then be the door of salvation opened!

He that hath ears to hear let him hear.

I thought of my own sorrow only, and, therefore,

Have not revealed the Word to the world."]

[Footnote 13: He sometimes, however, quite prosaically

'makes' or 'manufactures' it.]

[Footnote 14: _Dhammacakkappavattana_. Rhys Davids in his

introduction to this _sutta_ gives and explains the eight as

follows (SBE. XI. p.144): 1, Right views; freedom from

superstition or delusion. 2, Right aims, high and worthy of

the intelligent, earnest man. 3, Right speech, kindly, open,

truthful. 4, Right conduct, peaceful, honest, pure. 5, Right

livelihood, bringing hurt to no living thing. 6, Right

effort in self-training and in self-control. 7, Right

mindfulness, the active watchful mind. 8, Right

contemplation, earnest thought on the deep mysteries of

life.]

[Footnote 15: Hardy, _Manual,_, p.496.]

[Footnote 16: "A decided predilection for the aristocracy

appears to have lingered as an heirloom of the past in the

older Buddhism," Oldenberg, _Buddha_, p.157.]

[Footnote 17: _Mah[=a]vagga,_ 1.24. On the name (Gautama)

Gotama, see Weber, _IS_. L 180.]

[Footnote 18: The parks of Venuvana and Jetavana were

especially affected by Buddha. Compare Oldenberg, _Buddha_,

p.145.]

[Footnote 19: Like the Jains the Buddhists postulate

twenty-four (five) precedent Buddhas.]

[Footnote 20: Buddha's general discipline as compared with

that of the Jains was much more lax, for instance, in the

eating of meat. Buddha himself died of dysentery brought on

by eating pork. The later Buddhism interprets much more

strictly the rule of 'non-injury'; and as we have shown,

Buddha entirely renounced austerities, choosing the mean

between laxity and asceticism.]

[Footnote 21: Or 'take care of yourself';

_Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_, v. 23.]

[Footnote 22: The chief Buddhistic dates are given by Müller

(introduction to _Dhammapada_, SBE. vol. X.) as follows:

557, Buddha's birth; 477, Buddha's death and the First

Council at R[=a]jagriha; 377, the Second Council at

V[=a]iç[=a]l[=i]; 259, Açoka's coronation; 242, Third

Council at P[=a]taliputta; 222, Açoka's death. These dates

are only tentative, but they give the time nearly enough to

serve as a guide. From the Buddhists (Ceylon account) it is

known that the Council at V[=a]iç[=a]li was held one hundred

years after Buddha's death (one hundred and eighteen years

before the coronation of Açoka, whose grandfather,

Candragupta, was Alexander's contemporary). The interval

between Nirvana and Açoka, two hundred and eighteen years,

is the only certain date according to Köppen, p.208, and

despite much argument since he wrote, the remark still

holds.]

[Footnote 23: Englished by Rhys Davids,

_Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na-sutta_ (SBE. XI. 95 ff.).]

[Footnote 24: _Ecclesiastes_.]

[Footnote 25: The common view is thus expressed by

Oldenberg: "In dem schwülen, feuchten, von der Natur mit

Reichthümern üppig gesegneten Tropenlande des Ganges hat das

Volk, das in frischer Jugendkraft steht, als es vom Norden

her eindringt, bald aufgehört jung und stark zu sein.

Menschen und Völker reifen in jenem Lande ... schnell heran,

um ebenso schnell an Leib und Seele zu erschlaffen" (_loc.

cit_. p. 11).]

[Footnote 26: Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp. 160,139.]

[Footnote 27: Buddha taught, of course, nothing related to

the thaumaturgy of that folly which calls itself today

'Esoteric Buddhism.']

[Footnote 28: That is a sacrifice where no cattle are slain,

and no injury is done to living beings.]

[Footnote 29: _K[=u]tadanta-sutta_ Oldenberg, _Buddha_, p.

175.]

[Footnote 30: Sometimes distinguished from

_pari-nirv[=a][n.]a_ as absolute annihilation.]

[Footnote 31: Some scholars think that the doctrine of

Buddha resembles closely that of the S[=a]nkhya philosophy

(so Barth, p. 116), but Müller, Oldenberg, and others,

appear to be right in denying this. The Sankhyan 'spirit'

has, for instance, nothing corresponding to it in Buddha's

system.]

[Footnote 32: The twelve Nid[=a]nas are dogmatic, and withal

not very logical. "From ignorance arise forms, from forms

arises consciousness, from consciousness arise name and

bodiness; from name and bodiness arise the six senses

(including understanding as the sixth) and their objects;

from these arises contact; from this, feeling; from this,

thirst; from this, clinging; from clinging arises becoming;

from becoming arises birth; from birth arise age and

sorrow." One must gradually free himself from the ten

fetters that bind to life, and so do away with the first of

these twelve Nid[=a]nas, ignorance.]

[Footnote 33: _Mah[=a]vagga_, X. 3 (SBE. XVII. 306).]

[Footnote 34 36 1: Compare Kern, the _Lotus_, III. 21, and

Fausböll, _P[=a]r[=a]yana-sutta_, 9 (1131), the "deep and

lovely voice of Buddha." (SBE. XXI. 64, and X. 210.)]

[Footnote 35: As Southern Buddhists are reckoned those of

Ceylon, Burmah, Siam, etc.]

[Footnote 36: As Northern Buddhists are reckoned those of

Nep[=a]l, Tibet, China, Corea, Japan, Java, Sumatra, Annam,

and Cambodia.]

[Footnote 37: "Let your light so shine before the world,

that you, having embraced the religious life according to so

well-taught a doctrine and discipline, may be seen to be

forbearing and mild." (SBE. XVII. 305, David's and

Oldenberg's translation.)]

[Footnote 38: 'Removing pieces from a pile without moving

the remainder' must, we presume, be jackstraws.]

[Footnote 39: For instance, rules for eating, drinking

(liquor), and for bathing. The Buddhist monk, except in

summer, bathed once a fortnight only.]

[Footnote 40: No one is so holy that sin does not hurt him,

according to Buddhistic belief. The Brahman, on the

contrary, was liable to become so holy that he could commit

any sin and it did not affect his virtue, which he stored up

in a heap by cumulative asceticism.]

[Footnote 41: The offering and reception of gifts is always

accompanied with water, both in Buddhistic and Brahmanic

circles. Whether this was a religious act or a legal sign of

surrender we have not been able to discover. Perhaps it

arose simply from water always being offered as refreshment

to a guest (with fruit), as a sign of guest-friendship.]

[Footnote 42: Sakyaputtiya Samanas, _i.e_., Buddhists.]

[Footnote 43: In the case of a monk having carnal connection

with a nun the penalty was instant expulsion(_ib_. 60). The

nuns were subject to the monks and kept strictly in hand,

obliged always to greet the monks first, to go to lessons

once a fortnight, and so forth.]

[Footnote 44: Mah[=a]sudassana, the great King of Glory

whose city is described with its four gates, one of gold,

one of silver, one of Jade and one of crystal, etc. The

earlier Buddha had as 'king of glory' 84,000 wives and other

comforts quite as remarkable.]

[Footnote 45: Translated by Davids, _Buddhist Suttas_ and

_Hibbert Lectures_.]

[Footnote 46: What we have several times had to call

attention to is shown again by the side light of Buddhism to

be the case in Brahmanic circles, namely, that even in

Buddha's day while Brahm[=a] is the god of the thinkers

Indra is the god of the people (together with Vishnu and

Çiva, if the texts are as old as they pretend to be).]

[Footnote 47: _Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_ iii, to which Rhys

Davids refers, is scarcely a fair parallel.]

[Footnote 48: The imitation of the original play on words is

Rhys Davids', who has translated these Suttas in SBE. vol.

XI. For the following see Fausböll, _ib_. vol. X.]

[Footnote 49: After one enters on the stream of holiness

there are only seven more possible births on earth, with one

in heaven; then he becomes _arhat_, venerable, perfected,

and enters Nirv[=a]na.]

[Footnote 50: Compare the fairies and spirits in _ib_. v.

10; and in i. 31, 'give gifts to the gods.']

[Footnote 51: We agree with Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp.

111, 207, that Buddha himself was an atheist; but to the

statement that Nirv[=a]na was the "extinction of that

sinful, grasping condition of mind and heart which would

otherwise be the cause of renewed individual existences"

should in our opinion be added "and therewith the extinction

of individuality." Compare Rhys Davids' _Hibbert Lectures_,

p. 253.]

[Footnote 52: Compare the definition of an 'outcast' in the

_Vasala-sutta_: "He that gets angry and feels hatred, a

wicked man, a hypocrite, he that embraces wrong views and is

deceitful, such an one is an outcast, and he that has no

compassion for living things."]

[Footnote 53: Compare _ib_. 5. 36: "In due course he spoke,

of charity, morality, heaven, pleasure, and the advantage of

renunciation."]

[Footnote 54: See especially the _Nandaman., Paramatthaka,

M[=a]gandiya_, and _Suddhatthaka Suttas_, translated by

Fausböll, SBE. vol. X.]

[Footnote 55: Fausböll, in SBE. vol. X, Suttanip[=a]ta.]

[Footnote 56: The distinction between the Northern and

Southern doctrine is indicated by the terms 'Great Vehicle'

and 'Little Vehicle' respectively, the former the works of

N[=a]g[=a]rjuna's school (see below).]

[Footnote 57: As M[=a]itrakanyaka Buddha came once to earth

"to redeem the sins of men."]

[Footnote 58: Of historic interest is the rapport between

Brahmanic, Jain. and Buddhist tales. A case of this sort has

been carefully worked out by Leumann, _Die Legende von Citta

und Sambh[=u]ta_, WZKM. v. III; vi. 1.]

[Footnote 59: "The gods who were worshipped as true

divinities in India have been rendered false ... by my

zeal"; inscription cited by Barth, p. 135. But Açoka was a

very tolerant prince. Barth's notion of Buddhistic

persecution can hardly be correct.]

[Footnote 60: Köppen, _Die Religion des Buddha_, p. 198.]

[Footnote 61: Not to be confused with the seventeen heresies

and sixty-three different philosophical systems in the

church itself.]

[Footnote 62: For more details see Barth, _loc. cit_., p.

130 ff. According to tradition Buddhism was introduced into

Tibet in the fourth century, A.D., the first missionaries

coming from Nep[=a]l (Rockhill, p. 210).]

[Footnote 63: Barth justly discredits the tale of Buddhism

having been persecuted out of India. In this sketch of later

Buddhism we can but follow this author's admirable summary

of the causes of Buddhistic decline, especially agreeing

with him in assigning the first place to the torpidity of

the later church in matters of religion. It was become a

great machine, its spiritual enthusiasm had been exhausted;

it had nothing poetical or beautiful save the legend of

Buddha, and this had lost its freshness; for Buddha was now,

in fact, only a grinning idol.]

[Footnote 64: Here are developed fully the stories of hells,

angels, and all supernatural paraphernalia, together with

theism, idolatry, and the completed monastic system; magic,

fable, absurd calculations in regard to nothings, and

spiritual emptiness.]

[Footnote 65: At the same time the Ceylon canon was fixed by

the commentary of Buddhaghosha.]

[Footnote 66: Later it follows the mystical school. Both

schools have been affected by Brahmanism. The Great Vehicle,

founded by N[=a]g[=a]rjuna, was recognized at a fourth

council in Kashmeer about the time of the Christian era.

Compare Köppen, p. 199.]

[Footnote 67: On the Lamaistic hierarchy and system of

succession see Mayers, JRAS. IV. 284.]

[Footnote 68: For the same reason we do not enter upon the

outer form of Buddhism as expressed in demonology,

snake-worship (JRAS. xii. 286) and symbolism (_ib_. OS.

xiii. 71, 114).]

[Footnote 69: SBE. vol. x, part ii, p. 3.]

[Footnote 70: Dhammapada (Franke, ZDMG. xlvi, 731). In

Sanskrit one has _dharmapatha_ with the same sense. The text

in the main is as translated by Müller, separately, 1872,

and in SBE., voL x. It was translated by Weber, _Streifen_.

i. 112, in 1860.]

[Footnote 71: That is, they die no more; they are free from

the chain; they enter Nirv[=a]na.]

[Footnote 72: Buddha's words on becoming Buddha.]

[Footnote 73: It is to be observed that transmigration into

animal forms is scarcely recognized by Buddha. He assumes

only men and superior beings as subjects of _Karma_. Compare

Rhys Davids' _Lectures_, pp. 105,107. To the same scholar is

due the statement that he was the first to recognize the

true meaning of Nirv[=a]na, 'extinction (not of soul but) of

lust, anger, and ignorance.' For divisions of Buddhist

literature other than the Tripitaka the same author's

_Hibbert Lectures_ may be consulted (see also Müller, SBE.

X, Introduction, p. i).]

* * * * *