SOUL, SELF, INDIVIDUALITY, AND KARMA.
"Verily every man is altogether vanity; for man walketh in a vain
show, he disquieteth himself in vain."--BIBLE.
The feat of mental gymnastics performed by Gotama regarded as a
phenomenal being, which led to the abrogation of "soul" as an
ego-entity from its dominion in the minds of men, combined with the
amazing fact that nearly a third of the population of this planet has,
for many centuries, enthusiastically acquiesced in this dethronement of
animism, must be regarded as one of the most striking wonders in the
religious history of the human race.
As astronomical science disposed of the geocentric theory of the
universe, greatly to the advantage of theological progressiveness, so
the exponents of modern psychology hope to dispel the delusion of the
ego-centric theory of man, and to clear the way for a more scientific
and a truer conception of that which is commonly understood by the word
"soul." According to the teaching of these psychologists, there is no
ego-entity, or hidden and mysterious factor, that stands behind the
psychic and physical organism of man.
The soul of man consists of a group of ideas, and these ideas are in
intimate connection with the so-called external world, as also with
what may be expressed as the internal world of a Being wherein has
taken place the development of the hereditary germ.
In Buddhism it appears to me to be a matter of choice whether we apply
the term "soul" to a group of ideas, which, in the case of the Saint,
as sublimated ideas, synchronously cease with the formative faculty,
and vanish ultimately into the unconditioned, or to the effects of a
man's disposition, which continue as impressions on the characters of
those who receive them.
"Man" is a name for a materialized presentation of reality--that
is, for particles of matter assuming form under the influence of a
formative faculty and the results of the interactions, relations, and
qualities peculiar to the particles and this particular aggregation.
On the occurrence of what is known as death the components of the body
are no longer held together, as it were, by the formative faculty, and
the body loses its vitality. But, in the ordinary course of things, of
form there remains this formulative faculty, or impulse to re-combine.
"Form is destructible, yet it remains 'form' in the sense that it has
within it the power to renew form."
The most important factor in the formation of man is not the material
particles that make up his body, but "form." This "form" is a reality,
but not a materiality. If the interaction of the component parts, under
the influence of externalities, ceases to work towards the preservation
of the formative faculty or re-combining influence, a material
presentation of "form" will not re-ensue, and the discontinuance of the
formative element is Reality, Truth, Nirvana, God.
If the desire to describe a triangle on paper does not exist, the
materialized presentation of a real axiomatic triangle will not be
formed, while the perfect triangle still remains a Reality. In this
case, under certain influences, the formative faculty has been subdued,
and the consequence is that the material form of the triangle, in its
necessary imperfection, has not been produced. The perfect triangle is
the undescribed triangle. Should bubbles on the surface of the ocean
be deprived of this formative faculty which made them as they are, the
power to resume their shape after dissolution would be gone for ever.
But if the faculty to re-form remained, they would again crop up on the
surface of the sea, the formative faculty making use of the materials
at hand under the influences of "form."
Analogously, the Saint, according to Buddhism, who is rid of the
formative faculty, does not re-exist as a phenomenal being. It might be
objected that to make use of the expression "formative faculty" is only
to revert to the doctrine of essences and faculties as principles of
explanation, and to rely on the exploded superstition of _apriorism_.
But this is not the case. The formative faculty is a quality of form,
and form is an experience. The intangible and manifest, such as form,
can as reasonably be credited with qualities as the tangible and
material.
"The soul is a special form of life, as the flame is a special form of
motion." It is also a product of life, and life is the arrangement and
re-arrangement of matter, subject to form, with which are associated
the qualities of matter and the relations and interactions of these
qualities.
"Gotama," Dr. Paul Carus remarks, "strange to say, anticipated the
modern conception of the soul as it is now taught by the most advanced
scientists of Europe." St. Paul, too, may be reckoned as one who, if he
had lived in these days, would have given his support to that positive
philosophy which regards the soul as a product of materiality; for, he
says: "Howbeit that was not first which was spiritual, but that which
was natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is
of the earth earthy; the second man (the soul) is the Lord from heaven."
When the distinction between the expressions "materiality" and
"reality" is clearly discerned, it removes a difficulty out of our
way when we come to consider a means of bringing into harmony the
Christian and Buddhist conception of "soul." It has been contended
that, if you deny substance to the soul, it is tantamount to asserting
the non-existence of the soul. But if it is admitted that "reality" has
existence as well as "materiality," this objection falls to the ground.
The definition of matter as that which occupies space is not a
comprehensive one. It is only the definition of a supposed quality of
matter; it is abstracted in our minds from other qualities. Therefore,
if we regard "soul," more especially in its sublimated condition, as
something akin to a quality of matter after matter, as we perceive
it, has been abstracted, we have a residuum which both Christians and
Buddhists alike can accept as an approximate explanation of the nature
of "soul."
The eschatology of the soul, as indicated in the two systems, is less
easy to harmonize. The soul, according to Catholic notions, after the
death of the body, undergoes a purgatorial process; and, in the general
view of Protestants, awaits--sleeping or waking--in the ante-room of a
judgment-hall until a final verdict is pronounced on the Day of Doom;
and then, and not till then, is it allotted its ultimate rest or unrest.
On the other hand, that which is in Buddhistic thought the counterpart
of this soul, whether we call it a "group of ideas" or the "effects of
Karma," must submit, till absolutely bereft of the formative faculty
or desire to live, to continuous incarnations. This, however, does
not involve a process of transmigration, as is sometimes incorrectly
assumed.
Several illustrations have been made use of to explain the
migrationless nature of the process. "When a lamp is lit at a burning
lamp there is a kindling of the wick, but no transmigration of the
flame." A thought is conveyed by words from one to another, but of the
thought itself there is no migration. Neither is there migration of any
part of an object to a photographic plate, nor in the reflection of an
object in a mirror.
It is matter for speculation whether the Christian idea of tarriance
in an ante-room, and more especially the purgatorial process, might
not be strained in meaning so as to imply that re-incarnation on this
planet is the fate of some souls, prior to their ultimate reception
into Paradise or condemnation to everlasting fire. Some such idea,
maybe, was afloat in the lifetime of Jesus, when the question was
asked: "Is this Elias come again?"
The Christian and Buddhist conception of "soul" differs considerably as
to position. The one stands isolated; the other is not so posited. The
soul, according to the Buddhist, is not a "self-in-itself." "Buddhism
does not deny the existence of a soul or individuality, but denies
the independent existence of a soul or individuality." The Christian
conception of the soul corresponds with that of Kapila, the founder of
the Sankhya philosophy, in so far as he conceived the soul to be a kind
of transcendent, sublimated body, the thinker of our thoughts and the
doer of our acts. This dualism was rejected by Gotama.
It is necessary to bear in mind, with a view to the proper
comprehension of Buddhist teaching in regard to the immortality of
the soul, that, "although the Samskâras, or soul-forms, constituting
our existence, come to an end as activities in the case of the saint
who has extinguished desire, there remains an immortal residuum in
the unconditioned elements of soul-form which are beyond the reach of
death." After death such a saint might be said to have a continued
existence (as others have) in the effects shed upon others by his Karma
during his lifetime. The difference, as I understand it, is this:
that, in the case of the saint, the _formative_ element of Karma, as
it has taken shape in bodily existence, ceases to be from the date of
his sainthood; and subsequently the effects of Karma, which _must_
continue to be shed on others as impressions as long as he lives, are
informative--that is, do not carry with them a desire to live; and,
consequently, the saint, from the date of his sainthood, may be said to
have no continuing existence in the life of another sentient being.
Dr. Paul Carus, in his handy little book, entitled _The Dharma; or,
The Religion of Enlightenment_, remarks: "Buddhism sheds a new light
upon Christian doctrine. Thus the continuity in the evolution of life,
which does away with a wrong conception of a separate self, explains
and justifies the Christian idea of original sin (or, as it ought to be
called, 'inherited sin'); for men inherit not only the curse of their
ancestors' sin, but actually consist of their sinful dispositions;
every man is a re-incarnation of previous deeds, and represents, for
good and for evil, their legitimate continuation."
"Being," in a Buddhistic sense, in the words of Professor Oldenberg's
translator, is the procession regulated by the law of causality--of
continuous being at every moment, self-consuming and anew-begetting.
What is termed a "souled" being is one individual in the line of this
procession, one flame in a sea of flame.
So quaintly beautiful is the following dialogue between King Milinda
(the Greek King Menander) and the Saint Nagasena that, notwithstanding
its frequent quotation, I venture to reproduce it:--
"The Saint Nagasena says: 'It is not the same being, and yet they are
separate beings, which relieve one another in the series of existences.'
"'Give an illustration,' says King Milinda. 'If a man were to light a
light, O great king, would it not burn through the night?'--'Yes, sire;
it would burn through the night.' 'How, then, O great king, is the
flame in the first watch of the night identical with the flame in the
midnight watch?'--'No, sire.' 'And the flame in the midnight watch--is
it identical with the flame in the last watch of the night?'--'No,
sire.' 'But how then, O great king, was the light in the first watch
of the night another, in the midnight watch another, and in the last
watch of the night another?'--'No, sire; it has burned all night long,
feeding on the same fuel.' 'So, also, O great king, the chain of
elements of being (Dhamma) completes itself; the one comes, the other
goes. Without beginning, without end, the circle completes itself;
therefore it is neither the same being nor another being which presents
itself last to the consciousness.'"[AD]
[AD] From _Buddhism_, by Professor Oldenberg.
Omar Khayyam says:--
"We are no other than a moving show
Of magic shadow-shapes that come and go."
The body disappears, even in Christian eschatology, as an earthly body
for ever; but its scattered chemicals are re-utilized, according to
some, to clothe the soul in heavenly places, or for purposes of torture
and indescribable anguish. Others have sought consolation in the
thought of the reappearance of the body's elements in various beautiful
forms--in the ruby goblet, in the flowers, in the foam of the sea:--
"And this reviving herb, whose tender green
Hedges the river-lip on which we lean--
Ah, lean upon it lightly; for who knows
From what once lovely lip it springs unseen!"
Of those believing in the separateness of the soul there may be many
who fondly crave that the "gentle dews" of eternal sleep may fall at
last upon its suppliant eyes.
"He giveth His beloved sleep."
A writer in the _Monist_ of January, 1898, makes the following
remarks in a reference to "self": "In the psychological theories of
Christianity and Buddhism there is more agreement than at first sight
appears, for it is difficult to say what we must understand by self.
'Personality' is used by Christian thinkers in a very loose sense. In
the doctrine of the Trinity it is not incompatible to speak of three
personalities in One."
He quotes texts from St. Paul's epistles to the Corinthians: "I have
planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So, then, neither
is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that
giveth the increase. Now, he that planteth and he that watereth are
one." In this connection the writer observes: "Here, apparently,
everyone is supposed to have no separate existence whatever, except in
God and through God."
The self, soul, or individuality, which continues after the dissolution
of the body, has been broadly described as character or disposition;
therefore, in using the term "self" in a Buddhistic sense, we must
put aside every idea beyond what is conveyed to the mind by this
interpretation. This character or disposition does not come to an
end as an activity until "Tanha," or the thirst to live for living's
sake, is extinct. Therefore, when Buddhistic thought is converted into
conventional language, we must be cautious how we interpret such a
statement as "_We_ are saved by our individual merits." The "we" here
means only "character," which, if improved during a lifetime, carries
with it this improvement, of which a new being will reap the benefits.
Professor Rhys Davids calls the mystery of Karma "a desperate
expedient, a wonderful hypothesis, an airy nothing, an imaginary
cause beyond the reach of reason." But he previously states that it
affords an explanation quite complete, to those who can believe it,
of the apparent anomalies and wrongs in the distribution here of
happiness and woe. So it may be said, also, of the mysteries attaching
to Christianity. They satisfy the believer, though they present
difficulties to the reasoner. According to the Christian formula,
we are, as Burton says, fallen beings, not through our own fault;
condemned to death, not through our own demerits; ransomed by a Divine
Being, not through our own merits.
The Buddhist saying, "From birth came death," and the story of the
Garden of Eden, seem to possess some figurative connection with the
transition of micro-organisms from a fissiparous to a duogynous
condition. The amœba is endowed with the potentialities of eternal
life; but when the spermatozoid and ovule (the symbolic serpent
and apple) appeared on the scene, when the luminous Adam passed
successively through the fissiparous and androgynous states, and
finally became man and woman, death entered into the world.
The writer in the _Monist_ already referred to, commenting upon
the text, "Every man shall receive his own reward according to his
own labour" (1 Cor. i. 5), says: "The coincidence of Buddhism and
Christianity is remarkable in this passage; for, as the Buddhist
Scriptures speak of the fruits of Karma, so Paul speaks of the rewards
of one's labour."
Mr. Lillie, in referring to the doctrine of re-incarnation, quotes from
an article in the _Church Quarterly Review_,[AE] in which, he says,
"the author of the article, in proof of the existence of this doctrine,
adduces the question put by the disciples of Christ in reference to
the man born blind. And if it was considered that a man could be born
blind as a punishment for sin, then it must have been plainly committed
before his birth." In the _White Lotus of Dharma_ there is an account
of the healing of a blind man: "Because of the sinful conduct of the
man (in a former birth) this malady has arisen." He also remarks that,
in the case of the paralytic (Luke v. 18), the cure was effected, not
by any physical processes, but by annulling the _sins_ which were the
cause of the malady.
[AE] October, 1885.
The Rev. Mr. Spence Hardy, in his _Manual of Buddhism_, observes that
"no one can tell but a Buddha how Karma operates or how the chain of
existence commenced. It is as vain to ask in what part of the tree the
fruit exists before the blossom is put forth as to ask for the locality
of Karma." When the King of Ságal inquired where Karma resides, its
locality, Nagasena replied: "Karma is like a shadow that always
accompanies the body. But it cannot be said that it is here, or that it
is there; in this place, or in that place."
It has, I believe, been stated by some writers that it would have
been as well if Gotama had not encumbered his teaching with such a
complex and metaphysical theory as Karma, and had confined himself
to the admirable moral precepts which form the real backbone of his
system. It has been thought, too, that in introducing Karma into his
scheme of things he was playing the _rôle_ of an opportunist, because
he felt it to be necessary for the success of his mission that it
should not be altogether severed in outline from such a conception as
that of metempsychosis, which was deeply implanted in the minds of the
Brahmanic philosophers of those times. Buddhism would certainly have
been incomplete if it had not included mysteries, as Christianity would
not be Christianity without an admixture of the indefinable.
"Karma," as "working," may, I think, be regarded as one of the
essential components of Christian thought with regard to the soul.
It is the working of the soul at the same time, the being-made-soul
or disposition. As the latter it is heritable and appropriable; its
effects are endless, and this "working" is carried on, so to speak,
from generation to generation, organically and inorganically--in the
rock, in the flower, and in all animal life--the same producing the
same, and yet not the same.
The doctrine of Karma is justifiably proclaimed as the most important
tenet of Buddhism, for on it depends the whole system of morality and
of individual responsibility; and yet, strange to say, there is no part
of Buddhism which has occasioned so much controversy and difference of
opinion. It is at once the foundation of belief for millions of true
believers and the basis of scepticism on the part of many who would
otherwise willingly concur in the dogmas of this religion. In this
respect it holds an analogous position to that of the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body in the judgment of Christianity.
Is it possible, some ask, that a belief in the doctrine of Karma, which
has exercised so enormous an influence for good over countless millions
of human creatures--many of them men of the highest order of culture
and intellectuality--should only be resolvable into an "airy nothing"?
We may have to acknowledge that the reason is not able to follow the
idea of Karma through all its phases, nor yet to assimilate the various
postulates which it demands. But can Christianity boast of doctrines
which are always reducible to the canons of reason and common sense? We
think not.
Here, again, we find a common ground between these two religions.
Neither is capable of being wholly defended by matter-of-fact methods;
both demand a certain measure of faith from their adherents. The
strength of the dogma of Karma lies rather in the fact that, like the
ideas of free-will, heaven, and God, it is innate in a large portion
of mankind; and it would be sheer presumption to dismiss with a few
contemptuous phrases a belief which is deeply embedded in nearly
one-half of the human race.
The seeming injustice of the unequal distribution of happiness and
suffering among human beings is a problem which Christianity does
not attempt to solve. Buddhism, on the other hand, grapples with the
difficulty; and we have the much-debated doctrine of Karma as the
result. There can be no doubt that this doctrine, once accepted,
removes all difficulty out of the way. Karma is literally "action," or
"doing." This action, after death, and during life too, bears fruit,
for the consequences of action cannot be destroyed. It is, in fact, the
scientific theory of the conservation of energy.
When the individual dies his Karma effects are re-incarnated, as
it were, in another being, and form the connecting link between the
two individuals--the one the author of the Karma effects, the other
the inheritor of them. In this particular way we have a sufficient
explanation and justification of moral retribution.
How this second individual comes into existence expressly for the
purpose of inheriting the Karma of the first, and the nature and mode
of the transmigration of Karma, are questions which have generally been
placed beyond the scope of the human intellect, and will be considered
later on.
A way out of this difficulty has been proposed, by which, while
still adhering to the essentials of the doctrine of Karma, we can
reduce it to a form more capable of being grasped and supported by
our reason; but it has no authority among the utterances of Gotama,
and, in accepting it, we should be diverging somewhat from orthodox
Buddhism. Suppose we take as an analogy the case of a river, which,
after flowing some hundreds of miles, is dried up by the heat of the
sun. It is evident that the river, while flowing between its banks, has
been absorbed in a great measure by the porous earth, and has gone to
fructify the soil. The trees, grass, and crops which have been produced
by its moisture are, of course, its Karma--the effects of its action,
or "doing." When it has ceased to flow, the whole of its Karma has been
dissipated into various effects, which, in their turn becoming causes,
exercise their influence over practically the whole earth. There is
no Karma, intact and integrated, which, according to some views of
Buddhism, should be the _raison d'être_ of another _river_.
In the same way, an individual, while alive, scatters his Karma (or
the influence of his character) among his surroundings. When he has
ceased to live he has also ceased to act, and, consequently, there
can be no more Karma. This is one way of getting rid of the idea
of a lump of Karma, which after death, in some way or another, is
supposed to produce, or to have produced, for it another body, into
which it may carry the defects, virtues, vices, and follies of its
originator. Another weakness which has been considered inseparable
from the orthodox teaching of Buddhism is the fact that it seems to
fail to account fully for the action of heredity. When two people have
children, does it not appear right to think that their children should
inherit their Karma? But it is obviously impossible that this should
be the case, except in the unlikely contingency of both parents dying
exactly at the moment of their children's birth. And, again, why should
a man's Karma be embodied in an individual having no visible connection
with his offspring; or how can we reconcile the non-existence of
self-hood as a permanent entity with the recognition of a more or
less self-sufficient Karma, which preserves its separateness not only
through life, but after death, and into life again? These and other
similar questions arise, and demand explanation from the bewildered
brain.
These questions, it has been contended, do not arise as difficulties
impossible of solution, if we consider the analogy given above.
The children of two people are obviously their Karma, and they
appropriate, so to speak, a very large proportion of the effects of
their "doing"--as it is only just and reasonable that they should
do. Innumerable actions on the part of the parents have led up to
acquaintance and union, and the birth of the child is merely the climax
of an endless chain of causes and effects.
But this process of reasoning closely borders on the confines of
metempsychosis, in the phraseology of which the doctrine of Karma
has often been mistakenly expounded. The doctrine of Karma is a
modification of metempsychosis, and, as such, certainly stands on a
more scientific and rational basis than its prototype.
In consequence of the intermixture of the two theories in the minds
of exponents of Karma, much misapprehension has arisen, and this
doctrine continues to be a stumbling-block to students of Buddhism. A
considerable amount of confusion arises also, I think, from the fact
that writers on Buddhism fail to discriminate between Karma, the law
of Karma, and the effects of Karma, although the word Karma includes
the two latter. It is a mistake to assume that Karma, interpreted
as "thoughts, words, and actions," is perpetuated as such, for each
thought, word, and action passes for ever away while it happens; each
dies, yet each continues for all eternity in the effect it produces.
"The being of a past moment of thought has lived, but does not live,
nor will it live."
"The being of a future moment of thought will live, but has not lived,
nor does it live."
"The being of the present moment of thought will live, but has not
lived, nor will it live."
It cannot be held, therefore, if we read Buddhism aright, that Karma in
itself possesses continuity.
"The 'I' of to-day has to take all the _consequences_ of the _actions_
(Karma) which the 'I' of yesterday performed. Thus the individualized
Karma of future times will reap all that which the individualizing
Karma of the present time _sows_."[AF]
[AF] Paul Carus.
Professor Rhys Davids (_Buddhism_, p. 103) says: "Identity is preserved
in that which alone remains when a man dies; in the result, namely, of
his action, speech, and thought, in his good or evil Karma (literally
his 'doing') which does not die." This statement would have gained in
clearness if he had written "_in the result_ of his good or evil Karma
which does not die," in the concluding sentence.
If we allow ourselves to consider Karma, taken in the sense of
"doing," as retaining a separateness apart from its diffusion of
influences, and being carried on from generation to generation as an
individualized compound, then we at once find ourselves in direct
conflict with the doctrine of "inseparateness," which is the mainstay
of the rationality of Buddhist thought, the basic concept of Buddhism.
If we understand by the Samskâras that phase of a man's soul which
is impressed upon other generations by heredity and education, and
that which "is preserved by the law of Karma and conditions the
continuity of man's existence in the whirl of constant changes," it
must be exclusively in the sense that these Samskâras are formative
faculties peculiar to, and always to be found (in normal cases) in
interconnection with, those temporary aggregations which present
themselves to our perceptions as human beings, but which are not
permanent.
It is only when the expressions "Karma" and "action" are used in their
widest meaning, and include this formative faculty, that they can with
propriety be regarded as possessing continuity, but not permanency. The
particular formative faculty ceases to be, in those exceptional cases
when "it directs itself to the cessation of all conformations."
This self-forming formative faculty, in its normal condition, is the
cause of the continuity of being, or becoming. Its disappearance is
happiness. We find this Buddhistic truth very clearly stated in the
New Testament. "He who loses his life shall find it"--which, being
interpreted, is "He who loses the formative faculty shall find the
deathless."
Karma, as "thought, speech, and action," must be regarded as the
ethical individuality, and the body as the corporeal individuality. As
things in themselves they are both impermanent, but the effects of both
are lasting. There are physiological and local as well as psychological
results to be taken into account.
The body is continually shedding effects, and lives again after death
in its diffused elements; so Karma gives off effects and lives again
in its moral results; yet both these individualities are inseparably
connected as long as the individual's life lasts.
The text so often quoted in this connection should, for purposes of
Buddhistic exposition, read: "What a man sows, that will _the race_
(not he) reap." "Herein is that saying true, one soweth and another
reapeth" (John iv. 37).
"Man weaves and is clothed with derision;
Sows, but shall not reap.
His life is a watch and a vision,
Between a sleep and a sleep."
What has been called physical or local Karma is applied to the effects
of locality and climate upon the development of races and individuals.
A writer in the Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society (November, 1898)[AG]
says: "The theory of Karma, as Gautama formulated it, is all-embracing
and comprehensive. It ranges over the whole field of life and morality.
It ascribes causes for things; explains the working of the complicated
machinery of the cosmos; abolishes the unwholesome idea of universal
chaos and absence of motive power; substitutes in its place a definite
and well-arranged system admirably suited to the needs of mankind;
and finally establishes firmly the supreme importance of individual
morality and responsibility. What more can one desire? 'All very well,'
the sceptic replies. 'It may perform all you say it does, but I must
be able to grasp it thoroughly and work it out in my own mind. I will
take nothing for granted. I must be able to follow, to understand it,
and harmonize it with facts of which I have certain knowledge. None
of your vague insinuations for me.' I reply: How can you with your
limited and finite empirical knowledge fully understand that which is
limitless and infinite? The doctrine of Karma embraces all the greatest
problems of life and the cosmos; and how can you, a mere atom in the
universe, expect to grasp the whole? It is sufficient that you should
have a working theory which fulfils your requirements, and is at the
same time sanctioned by your reasoning power. More you cannot expect to
have. The doctrine of Karma, in short, marches step by step with our
reason. At no point does it break away from the laws of common sense.
The difficulty lies in the fact that, while our reasoning at a certain
point comes to a halt through lack of further material, the doctrine of
Karma perseveres onwards into the spheres of higher knowledge whither
our limited brain capacity cannot follow.
[AG] _The Doctrine of Karma_, by Henry Melancthon Strong.
* * * * *
"There are two methods by which the doctrine of Karma may be
explained--viz., by individualization and by generalization; the
former is the more orthodox and popular, the latter more sound and
philosophical. But, although we find in the recorded sayings of Gautama
support of the former and little or none of the latter, I think we may
infer that his attitude was due to the exigencies of the conditions
under which he lived and the ignorance of the masses who surrounded
him. For the same reason Christ was forced to clothe his teachings in
simple and primitive guise in order that they might be readily grasped
by the popular mind. As an outcome of this necessity, we have the
parables of the New Testament and much of the veiled language therein
contained. To these are due in large measure the controversies and
differences of opinion which now exist as to the proper interpretation
of the words of Christ. The significance of many of Buddha's utterances
has been similarly degraded. Countless 'birth stories' have sprung up
to satisfy the popular craving for something concrete and simple in
which to believe. Their themes have no real authority in Buddhistic
teaching, but they serve the same purpose as do the Christian parables
and myths. The student of Buddhism who stumbles upon them by chance may
be led into false notions with regard to the religion, and accept as
authoritative that which has no real authority. Herein lies their harm.
That they are not strictly in accordance with Gautama's teachings there
can be no doubt. The theory of soul-transmigration upon which these
tales are chiefly founded is an excrescence on Buddhism, and should be
regarded in the light of a heresy. As Professor Rhys Davids observes:
'Buddhism does not teach the transmigration of souls. Its doctrine
would be better summarized as the transmigration of character.'
Professor Oldenberg puts with much clearness the teaching of the action
of transmigration and Karma when he says: 'Buddhism teaches: "My action
is my possession, my action is my inheritance, my action is the womb
which bears me, my action is the race to which I am akin." What appears
to man to be his body is in truth the action of his past state, which,
assuming a form realized through his endeavours, has become endowed
with a tangible existence.'
"The same idea is expressed in a slightly different form by Dr. Paul
Carus, who says: 'We ourselves continue in the accumulated results
of our actions.' In these concise and seemingly simple statements we
have the fundamental dogma of Buddhism and the foundation of Gautama's
system _as it has been handed down to us_. When we come to analyze them
carefully, the difficulties which at first lie hidden become apparent.
We see that a man during his lifetime scatters the effects of his
actions (_i.e._, his Karma) in all directions. Upon his death a new
sentient being, 'realized through his endeavour,' comes into existence
to inherit and carry on his Karma. These two beings are not connected
in any way the one with the other. There has been no transmigration
of soul or of the ego, for Buddhism denies the existence of either
as a permanent entity, but describes them as temporary aggregations
only. How, then, does moral retribution act? or how can we reconcile
the non-existence of self as a permanent entity with the recognition
of the existence of a more or less integral and permanent Karma which
preserves its separateness, not only through life, but after death and
into life again. How, too, is it possible that his Karma, although
scattered in all directions during his term of life, at the moment of
death is intact and whole for transmission to another body?
"Moreover, it is obvious that, if the death of one human being is
the cause of the birth of another, the human race would not progress
numerically. The very fact of the numerical increase of mankind
defeats this theory and renders it untenable by all those who desire
to believe only what their reason sanctions, and to eschew whatever
demands the acceptance of authority or the exercise of faith. In short,
as Professor Rhys Davids has put it, the weakness of the Buddhistic
conception is that 'the result of what a man is, or does, is held not
to be dissipated ... but to be concentrated together in the formation
of one new sentient being.'
* * * * *
"By digressing somewhat from strict Buddhistic teaching, and leaving
behind the _letter_ (not the spirit) of the law, we can, I think,
arrive at a more satisfactory explanation by a method I have called
'generalization,' in contradistinction to the method just dealt
with--viz., Individualization.
"According to the orthodox conception, an individual takes up
the Karma of another while it is intact and has not suffered from
distribution and dispersion. But there is a broader and less primitive,
albeit more heterodox, manner in which we may regard the doctrine, and
one which, I think, we may infer was in the mind of Gotama himself
when he enunciated the narrower conception in order to simplify it
sufficiently to be capable of being grasped by the ignorant. Instead of
a man's Karma being individualized--_i.e._, handed on in an integral
state from individual to individual--we should regard it rather as
having been generalized and disintegrated during life, leaving no
residuum at death. Thus, what is inherited at birth is not the Karma of
any one person, but rather the Karma of the race as a whole. 'The souls
of men continue to exist as they are impressed upon other generations
by heredity and education,'[AH] but the soul of the individual does not
continue to exist. It is the soul of the race, not of the individual,
which is perpetuated.
[AH] Dr. Paul Carus in _Buddhism and its Christian Critics_.
"The Karmas of all are, as it were, cast into the mixing-pot and
thoroughly sifted, and then, and not till then, embodied in different
forms. Seeming inequality of division must be accounted for by the
action of local Karma.[AI] There is obviously an advantage associated
with this theory not applicable to the theory of individualization.
Whereas the latter tends to promote the fallacious idea of personality
and self-hood, the former has a wider significance, and tends rather to
promote the belief in universal brotherhood by merging personalities
into one great whole. It is, in fact, more truly Buddhistic, and, by
inspiring a more cosmopolitan sentiment of fellowship, is calculated
to overcome, in a great degree, that fallacy most difficult of all
fallacies to overcome--the idea of the ego as a permanent entity. The
difficulty, also, which is universally felt of accounting for the birth
of a new sentient being at every death is by this means obviated....
[AI] _Local Karma._--The term is used to express the character stamped
upon any place by the action of former dwellers therein. Those who
follow afterwards are supposed to inherit the Karma of the locality.
Thus we see the nations at the present day expiating the sins of
their forefathers, or enjoying the fruits of their good deeds. It is
a well-known fact, also, that crimes tend to repeat themselves in the
same districts, and even houses.
"Most assuredly we require an explanation of our present condition,
and we must accord all honour to Buddhism for having afforded us one
both rational and satisfactory. When men come to see and to realize
that by every deed committed, and by every word uttered, they are
carving out, for evil or good, the future of the race, and that the
suffering they now endure they owe entirely to the past sins of
humanity, their sense of responsibility will be increased, their hold
upon morality strengthened, the bond of unity, 'the brotherhood of
man,' confirmed. Abolish the fallacy of cosmic chaos; substitute in its
stead the idea of a definite system and purpose; show that man is the
only framer of his destiny, the only author of his existence, the only
cause of his own suffering--and the foundation of morality will be made
sure, the redemption of the race brought within measurable distance.
This is the end for which the doctrine of Karma was formulated, and to
this end it has been labouring, a silent but progressive force, for
many centuries."
The Rev. T. Sterling Berry, D.D., in his _Comparative Study of
Christianity and Buddhism_, treats the latter as a whole in a spirit
of commendable catholicity; but when he comes to points of contrast
he fails signally to preserve equanimity of judgment, and distorts
the import of Gotama's precepts in the most amazing fashion in his
endeavour to bring them into opposition to the teaching of Jesus. His
view of Karma, however, is, I think, a valuable contribution to the
literature on the subject, and worthy of reproduction. He writes:
"Strange and well nigh unintelligible as this theory seems, it is
nevertheless possible, I believe, to get at the real thought that
moulded Gotama's conception--actions of every kind as possessing the
nature of seed sown; men were found, to some extent, to reap the
consequences of their actions during their lifetime; but this takes
place only in a limited and incomplete sense during the existence to
which the actions belong. At the close of a life many acts remain like
seed sown, but not yet grown up. Hence the theory that when a man dies
he leaves the sum-total of the acts of his life as a kind of complex
seed, made up of good and bad elements, which, by his death, springs up
into a fresh existence, the same and yet not the same; in somewhat of
the sense in which it might be said that ordinary seed which springs
up as identical and yet not identical with that which is sown. Viewed
in this light, the theory loses its apparent absurdity. It becomes,
in fact, a mode of expressing partly what we understand by the law of
heredity, which involves a transference of character and a reproduction
of the consequences of action; and partly the law of retribution, that
'Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.'"
The continuance of an individual's Karma, conceived as the effects of
a man's character upon individuals whom he influences, is a perfectly
thinkable process, and a generally accepted fact. But, when we are
called upon to consider how it comes about that, on the death of a
sentient being, a new sentient being is at once produced, to take up
the effects of the deceased one's Karma, then we seem to be launched
into a mystery that can only be explained by another mystery.
If such a doctrine is to be interpreted literally, it would seem to
necessitate a numerical equality of births and deaths; a new-born babe
would have to be ready at each death to receive the Karma-effects of
the deceased. It might, however, be made faintly thinkable by including
available births in other solar systems, and by allowing for a certain
number of Karmas coming to an end by the attainment of Nirvana. This
planet is held by Buddhists to be in sympathetic relationship with the
other worlds, and there are countless millions of beings who change
places. A number of men die somewhere on this earth, and they may not
be re-born here at all; a number of beings die in some other planet,
and may be re-born here at the same time.
This particular phase of the doctrine of Karma has been so distinctly
enunciated in Buddhist writings that it becomes a question for the
interpreter of Buddhism to decide whether it should be retained as a
literal statement, and so dismissed as an unthinkable, or whether it
should be given the chance of being classified as rational by expansive
treatment.
Buddhism is so systematically and eminently rationalistic throughout
its teaching that one feels impelled to a supreme effort to sustain
its reputation in this one respect. In any case it would seem just to
assume that it had a rationalistic basis in the mind of Gotama, however
difficult it may be for us to discover the foundation of Rationalism on
which it rests. An apparently irrational theory should not be rejected
as irrational as long as it is within the bounds of possibility that
the apparent irrationality is due to the limitations of our reason,
or the absence of data, that have not come under our experience and
knowledge of Cosmic laws. Everything may be contrary to what we think
it to be; and everything may be opinion only.
As some beautiful poems cannot be thought out in connection with one's
immediate environment without a loss of poetic value, but require
mental transposition to a distant and different scene for their
beauty to be fully and poetically realized, so, unless we remove our
imagination from its every-day associations to an entirely different
"scenery" of thought, we cannot expect to intelligently appreciate the
complete significance of Buddhistic conceptions. As Professor Oldenberg
puts it, we must, when approaching the study of Buddhism, divest
ourselves wholly of all customary modes of thinking.
Buddhism lays stress everywhere upon the connectiveness of everything
with everything; and everything is, at all times, something other than
itself. Consciousness (Vinnâna), for instance, is described as "that
which enters into the womb, and from which arise name and corporeal
form"; yet consciousness and name and corporeal form have no individual
existence.
"Body, perceptions, and sensations vanish, but not conscience; but
consciousness only exists as long as it is connected with name and
corporeal form. Consciousness, however, is not essentially different
from perceptions and sensations; it is also a Samskâra, and, like all
other Samskâras, it is changeable, and without substance."[AJ]
[AJ] In the place of a "sphere of being," with its supply of
ready-made consciousness for the transmissive process in the brain,
as hypothecated by Professor William James in his lecture on _Human
Immortality_, I would substitute a formative faculty immanent in the
universe, and assume the metamorphosis into consciousness, as we
know it, to be a function of the brain. This theory would be quite
reconcileable with the physiological view that consciousness is the
final phase of the activity of the sensory nerves in the cortex of
that organ. Fechner's conception of a psycho-physical threshold
would also adapt itself to this theory as well as to the other; the
threshold being understood as representing the functional capacity of
the brain to extend or limit the scope of consciousness. The ultimate
extension of consciousness would result in a return to the elemental
informative. In the case of limited extension, consciousness would be
carried on as a consciousness-germ, or Skandha, into a new being, on
the death of a being.
Consciousness has been described as the director of the organs, and,
in this sense, vaguely assumes the place of an ego. Consciousness, as
a "highly-developed and insubstantial product of the brain," possesses
the faculty of acting _in the manner_ of choice; it is derived from
conformations, and conformations from ignorance.
There is a continuance of soul-forms after the death of an
individual--that is, of the impressions caused by the character of
an individual. This is the preservation of form by means of Karma
(deeds). Obviously these soul-forms cannot continue unless there is
an individual to receive the impression. Therefore, when it is said
that, immediately upon the death of a sentient being, another sentient
being is produced to receive the effects of the deceased's Karma, the
statement may have been only intended to imply that for the continuance
of soul-forms there must always be sentient beings to receive their
impressions.
It does not seem necessary to suppose that on A's death B takes up
the whole of A's Karma. The effects of A's Karma have been impressed,
more or less, on all those who have come in his lifetime, and will come
after his death, within range of his influence. In the latter case the
influence is continued in the effects of his writings, speech, or other
actions.
An individual during his lifetime will be impressed with the effects
of the Karma of many individuals, and has to take the consequences,
whether good or bad, with power of adding to or modifying the received
effects. "The same character of deeds reappears wherever his deeds have
impressed themselves on other minds."
The subject of Karma becomes hopelessly complicated if such a statement
as the following is taken literally: "Buddhism is convinced that, if
a man reaps sorrow, disappointment, pain, _he himself_, and no other,
must at some time have sown folly, error, sin; if not in this life,
then in some former birth." The language here employed is liable,
unless the reader is on his guard, to take him back to the heresy of
Metempsychosis, which Buddhism arose to destroy.
It perhaps needs reiteration that the "He Himself" in a former birth
is not even the deeds of a different set of Skandhas--of a body of
different constituent parts. The "He Himself" is only the effects of
deeds done by a constantly becoming and constantly vanishing set of
Skandhas, the particles of the human tornado which assume temporary
form. The effects received become the "He Himself"; herein is the
retributive phase of the doctrine of Karma.
The effects of Karma on their passage through preceding births on to
future births are the only existent and continuing "I." A, who has
received good influences from B, bad from C, and indifferent from D,
has lived before, in a Buddhistic sense, in B, C, and D.
Buddhistic birth stories should, I think, be read in this light. When
A performs an action similar to one performed centuries ago by B, it
is to be understood that the effects of that particular action in B
have reached A through many intervening lives in either a modified or
unmodified form. Other actions of A which had not been performed by B
must be traced back in their effects to C, D, E, etc. A has only lived
as B by virtue of the effects of particular and similar acts reaching
him through the law of cause and effect.
"Within the sphere of causality we can all exclaim with Jesus: 'Before
Abraham was I am.'"
There is yet another direction in which we may look for a solution
of the problem. Life or being is frequently compared in Buddhistic
expositions to a flame which is the same, and yet not the same, from
the time it is lighted to the time of its extinction. Each moment of
being passes away as, simultaneously or concurrently, a moment of being
commences; and in this sense, on the death of a being, another being is
simultaneously produced, until being comes to an end with death, as the
flame expires at the moment of extinction.
This view agrees with that part of Buddhistic philosophy which asserts
that nothing _survives_ being except the effects of being; "being," in
this connection, being taken as the entire life-history of an organism,
whether animal or vegetable, and as the existence of a flame from its
inception to its extinction.
The working of the law of Karma has been found so intricate that many
Buddhists have relegated it to the category of Unthinkables. They
regard it as such that it can only be understood by those who have
attained to the "_intellectus mysticus_." The one thing considered
requisite for the comprehension of its complexities is to solve the
problem of the Four Noble Truths by following the Noble Eight-fold
Path. A study of Buddha's psychology, they contend, is absolutely
necessary to the disciple who wishes to know the processes of the
ever-changing consciousness. The mind in itself is pure, but by coming
into contact with impurities such as anger, harbouring of anger,
selfishness, etc., it is soiled.
The practical psychology of Buddhism is based on ethics, and the
student has to cut off all the impurities from the mind to enable him
to properly comprehend the Nirvanic condition. So long as one thinks
of self, so long is he re-born. Unless self is absolutely surrendered,
unless "Thou hast lost thyself to save thyself, as Galahad,"[AK] Karma
continues; and that means ignorance; and ignorance can have no vision
of the Holy Grail, fails to reach Nirvana, unites not with God!
[AK]
"Galahad, when he heard of Merlin's doom,
Cried: 'If I lose myself, I save myself!'"
--_The Holy Grail_ (Tennyson).
There is no cessation in the continuous flow of thought between one
life and another until Nirvana is reached. The "being" born in another
life is absolutely not the same that died here, nor absolutely another;
but is the result of the one. "My substance was hid when I was made in
secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth."