Chapter XIII: Buddhism (2)

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).]