.
Buddha did not so much oppose the belief in Brahma and in inferior gods—though it must be added that his philosophy denied the absolute permanence of any being whatever—as he ignored and taught his disciples to ignore them.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Again it is simply not true that the sammāsambuddha denied “the absolute permanence of any being whatever” (and repetition does not move such an asseveration even one miniscule closer to being true).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Buddhist doctrine, the modern echo of which is familiar to us, is ‘try to get as near to wisdom and goodness as you can in this life. Trouble not yourselves about the gods. Disturb yourself not by curiosities or desires about any future existence. Seek only after the fruit of the noble path of self-culture and self-control[2]’
.__________
• [Editorial Note]: As the above quotation is from the pen of Prof. Rhys Davids—and not from a Buddhist text—it is as unreliable as his other attempts to rewrite “the Buddhist doctrine” according to his own positivist philosophy (which, according to Mr. Arthur Lillie, is Comtism)
.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Buddhist goal, that which was to be the aim of his life, was, as we have said, Nirvâna {i.e., immortality}, which, with whatever qualifications, resulted practically in annihilation after this life.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Yet again it is simply not true that ‘nirvāṇa’, Sanskrit, or ‘nibbāna’, Pāli, resulted “in annihilation after this life” (be it either “practically” or otherwise) and repetition does not move such an asseveration—no matter how “stoutly asserted” it might be declaimed—even one miniscule closer to being true, either.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
This was the analogue of S. Paul’s ‘the prize of our high calling in Jesus Christ’.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Here is that snippet in its context (highlighted for convenience). Viz.:
• “...I count all things [previously gain to me] but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for *the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus* . Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded...”. [emphasis added]. (Philippians 3:08-15; KJV).As he unequivocally speaks of his all-pervading long-term desire to “attain unto the resurrection of the dead”, and as it is thus more than a trifle puzzling as to just how “annihilation after this life” could possibly be “the analogue” of the above snippet—when read in its context—a search through religio-spiritual literature circa 1850ff for a likely explanation turned up the following representative example of what more than a few biblical apologists and/or sermonisers were conveying. Viz.:
• [Canon Charles Kingsley]: “We are not, indeed, to fancy this age perfect, and boast, like some, of the glorious nineteenth century. We are to keep our eyes open to all its sins and defects, that we may amend them. And we are to remember, in fear and trembling, that to us much is given, and of us much is required. But we are to thank God that our lot is cast in an age which, on the whole, is better than any age whatsoever that has gone before it, and to do our best that the age which is coming may be better even than this. We are neither to regret the past, nor rest satisfied in the present; but, like St. Paul, forgetting those things that are behind us, and reaching onward to those things that are before us, press forward, each and all, to *the prize of our high calling in Jesus Christ*. And as with nations and empires, so with our own private lives. It is not wise to ask why the former times were better than these. It is natural, pardonable: but not wise; because we are so apt to mistake the subject about which we ask, and when we say, ‘Why were the old times better?’ merely to mean, ‘Why were the old times happier?’ That is not the question. There is something higher than happiness, says a wise man. There is blessedness; the blessedness of being good and doing good, of being right and doing right. That blessedness we may have at all times; we may be blest even in anxiety and in sadness; we may be blest, even as the martyrs of old were blest—in agony and death. The times are to us whatsoever our character makes them. And if we are better men than we were in former times, then is the present better than the past, even though it be less happy. And why should it not be better? Surely the Spirit of God, the spirit of progress and improvement, is working in us, the children of God, as well as in the great world around. (...elided...). And instead of inquiring why the former days were better than these, we will trust that the coming days shall be better than these, and those which are coming after them better still again, because God is our Father, Christ our Saviour, the Holy Ghost our Comforter and Guide. We will toil onward: because we know we are toiling upward. We will live in hope, not in regret; because hope is the only state of mind fit for a race for whom God has condescended to stoop, and suffer, and die, and rise again. We will believe that we, and all we love, whether in earth or heaven, are destined—if we be only true to God’s Spirit—to rise, improve, progress for ever: and so we will claim our share, and keep our place, in that vast ascending and improving scale of being, which, as some dream—and surely not in vain—goes onward and upward for ever throughout the universe of Him who wills that none should perish”. [emphasis added]. ~ (pp. 140-143, Sermon Twelve: ‘Progress’ (Ecclesiastes 7:10), in “The Water of Life and Other Sermons”, by Rev. Dr. Charles Kingsley (1819-1875); 1867, First Edition;1890, Macmillan, London, New YorkAlthough Canon Kingsley mainly speaks of worldly progress—as in international and national progress, provincial and municipal progress, familial and personal progress—his “that none should perish” chapter-ending words are clearly at odds with the anonymous writer’s “annihilation after this life” misstatement. Furthermore, the following, an excerpt of a modern-day interpretation, shows how nothing has changed, regarding belief in a deathless hereafter (be it as a bodily resurrection or as an immortal soul) one-hundred-and-forty-five years later. Viz.:
• [Pastor Mac Hammond]: What is *the prize of the high calling of God?* In a nutshell, it is life—eternal life. The Greek word the New Testament uses to describe this kind of life is ζωή (zoí; ‘life’). It’s a word that refers to the very life of God Himself. And God’s Word says you have that life inside of you if you’re a born-again believer. (...elided...). It literally means: life as God has it. Does God experience sickness, poverty, strife-filled relationships, unforgiveness or bitterness? Of course not. I realise it may seem almost sacrilegious to your natural mind, yet that kind of life—the life of God Himself—is the prize that Paul is talking about. That’s the prize God has made available to us, not just in heaven, but right here on earth. It can be ours now! [emphasis added]. ~ (source: “The Way of The Winner”, by Mac HammondAs Pastor Hammond’s “eternal life” words are unambiguous it does appear the anonymous writer’s “This” (in his “This was the analogue of...” sentence beginning) refers back to his previous quotation from the unreliable pen of Prof. Rhys Davids, and not to his immediately preceding sentence, as is the conventional way of writing and speaking.
Or, and more likely, it might very well be the outcome of none other than the all-too-common senectitude
ineptitude (a.k.a. ‘a senior moment’)!Whilst on the subject of “the prize of our high calling in Jesus Christ” the following could be depicted as ‘Evangelical Christianity’ in a nutshell. Viz.:
• [Dr. J. Mike Minnix]: “A little girl was praying the Lord’s Prayer. She had not heard the words of the prayer correctly. When she came to say, ‘Forgive us our trespasses’, she mistakenly said, ‘Forgive us our trash baskets’. Too often, our trash baskets are empty. We have failed to toss into them the successes of yesterday, the sufferings of yesterday and the sins of yesterday. We must turn from yesterday unhindered by the weight of these things to reach for *the prize of our high calling in Jesus Christ!* As we enter into a New Year, let’s cast some things into God’s trash basket. Then, as the memories that hinder us come back to our minds, we can simply say, ‘I threw that away in the trash bin last year and I will not take it up again!’And there it is, folks—hundreds of thousands of ‘born-again’ evangelicals will attest to the efficacy of that simple formula (videlicet “Admit that you are a sinner. Believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the grave. Confess Him as Saviour and Lord today” above)—inasmuch its heartfelt application brings “the prize of our high calling in Jesus Christ” within the penitent’s everyday reach.
Someone here today is not a Christian. You have never trusted Christ as Saviour and Lord. You can enter the New Year with a New Life. *Admit that you are a sinner. Believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the grave. Confess Him as Saviour and Lord today* . If you do that, your New Year will be lived in a New You!
Come now! Jesus is waiting for you and He holds in His hand a wonderful New Year filled with blessings and opportunities!” [emphases added]. ~ (from ‘Conclusion’, in “Some Things We Can Do Without in 2022”; president of ‘More Than Bread Ministries, Inc.).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We are acquainted with the stimulating effect of the latter conception, in the light of which, few, we imagine, will question the truth of Dr. Rhys Davids’ estimate of the belief in the immortality of the soul, as the ‘all-powerful belief which has played so mighty a part in the influences which have shaped the Europe of to-day[3]’
.
With regard to the Buddhist Nirvâna, ‘we cannot have any doubt’, to quote
once more from Professor Max Duncker,__________
[1]‘The History of Antiquity’, vol. iv. p. 362
.[2]See The Hibbert Lectures for 1881, p. 88
.[3]Ibid, p. 17
.
We do not think, with all deference to Dr. Rhys Davids, that the fact ‘that the
oldest Hebrew books show little trace of that belief in an immortal future life,
which became so common among the Jews after the captivity in Mesopotamia’, is to
be explained by their having been without the belief until they came in contact
with Aryans. The words of Jacob when he supposed that Joseph was dead, ‘I will
go down into the grave unto my son mourning’ (Gen. xxxvii. 35), are not
consistent with this view.__________
• [Editorial Note]: First and foremost, it has not escaped notice how Dr. Rhys Davids wrote, in regards to believing in an immortal future life, that the oldest Hebrew books “show little trace of that belief” whereas the anonymous writer’s deference has him thinking this dearth is not to be explained by the pre-diasporic Judeans “having been without the belief” in a deathless hereafter—as if the words show-little-trace mean the same as show-no-trace—and which reactionary thought has him then engage in what is known as a strawman argument
(wherein an
argufier invents something their interlocutor did not say then criticises their
own invention as if they are having a meaningful conversation about what the other
actually said).Secondly, as there are laws in Judaism about the limits of grief (shiva, sheloshim, a year
)
there is no such event as a bereavement for which grief is endless. Therefore,
Jacob’s refusal to be comforted is indicative he had not yet given up hope his
favourite son was still alive—and as Joseph (he of the coat of many colours) was
not dead at the bottom of the pit, wither he had been cast, but sold to Midianites
merchantmen, who in turn sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s
and captain of the guard, and whereafter father and son were eventually re-united—then
“the words of Jacob” are
neither here nor there (i.e., neither consistent nor “not
consistent with this view” but, instead, moot) as it
is a still-living soul he has in mind all the while.As this is the first-off-the-blocks argument, so to speak, presented up-front in order to (supposedly) support the anonymous writer’s dissenting view, it does not bode well for the items to follow—being, as they are, of a lesser rank—in regards to convincement his dissent is justified.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The narratives of the translation of Enoch and Elijah, and of the appearance of Samuel to the witch of Endor, to say nothing of the famous passage in Job, or of the basis of our Blessed Lord’s refutation of the Sadducees, point clearly in the other direction. It is not indeed to be denied that the doctrine in question lacks that prominence in the Pentateuch which we might have expected, and Warburton, writing in the last century, hazarded the paradox that the omission by Moses of a tenet which other religious teachers and philosophers propounded, was so singular a fact that he must have acted under Divine guidance in omitting it.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As signalled priorly, foreseen via a mere glance ahead, those items which followed that moot opening-shot are all-of-a-dither in the convincement stakes—bearing a remarkable resemblance to a scatter-shot approach and amounting to little more than hand-waving—inasmuch they are neither adequately spelled-out, explanatorily, nor fleshed-out with sufficient detail (all his other arguments throughout this article, being duly referenced with page number, book title, and author’s name, speak to his scholarship in this regard) and thus do not “point clearly in the other direction”, despite his stoutly asserted claim.
Besides which, even if (note ‘if’) those four instances were found to be valid, upon closer inspection, they would readily be covered by Dr. Rhys Davids’ “show little trace” qualifier.
As the anonymous writer finishes with a variation on the hoary “God moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform” argument-from-faith (as in his “he must have acted under Divine guidance” phraseology), which was “hazarded
”
by an untraceable eighteenth-century writer, and is reduced to labelling its
omission “the paradox”
(below)—and fails to provide a reference to where Mr. Stuart Poole’s
suggestion may be perused, and duly examined for evidence that ...um... that
sneer-words such as “absurdities”
and “puerilities” might be
justified (a highly unlikely outcome, though, as name-calling in lieu of reasoned
argument bespeaks a paucity of supportive text)—then his case against the
Judeans “having been without the belief”
in an immortal future life until they came in contact with Aryans is rendered null
and void by his own hand.Incidentally, nowhere in the Old Testament does the word ‘soul’ (Hebrew “nephesh”; Greek “psūchê”) ever refer to anything other than a ‘living being’
(as in a living and breathing and conscious body) or its equivalent. The belief in
an immortal soul—as distinct from bodily resurrection—being mainly of
Hellenistic origins has a second-century advent in christocentric thought.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The paradox has been sneered at, but with our fuller knowledge of the absurdities with which the tenet was associated in Egypt, it seems likely, as Mr. Stuart Poole has suggested, that its omission, or subordination rather, was a wise safeguard from the Egyptian puerilities.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The downright paucity of the anonymous writer’s (above and further above) case against the question which sprang spontaneously to Dr. Rhys Davids’ mind—when he found the oldest Hebrew books showed little trace of a belief in an immortal future life, which became so common among the Judeans after the captivity in Mesopotamia, and which idea no other Semitic tribes seem to have originated, whether he had not met, in those ancient Āryan beliefs, with the foundation-stone of a far-spreading edifice, of that all-powerful belief in the immortality of the soul, which has played so mighty a part in the influences which had shaped the Europe of the 1870s-1880s—speaks volumes about the mind-numbing lengths this didactic apologist will go in order to disavow any and all evidence which puts his state-sanctioned and career-driven religion-of-choice in a lesser light.
Lastly, given his acknowledgement of how it cannot be denied that “the doctrine in question” lacks the prominence in the Pentateuch
which he “might have expected”
he has tacitly thrown in the towel, there and then, as to fight a rear-guard
action by recounting something some obscure eighteenth-century writer “hazarded”
about both the unknowable intentions of Mr. Moshe the Foundling a.k.a. “Mosheh
Rabbenu” (lit. ‘Moshe, our teacher’)—whilst
he was selectively recounting his venturing for posterity—and the equally
indeterminable longer-term overall schema of his deity, the fiery
god-of-the-consonants (videlicet iod, he,
vav, he,
in Hebrew; why, aitch,
double-yew, aitch,
in English; i.e., ʏʜᴡʜ, in capitals, circa 1400-1200 BCE and
thereafter, until circa 600-900 CE when vowels were inserted via educated
guess-work into the Masoretic texts, ex post facto, some 2,000 or so years later),
simplistically depicted as ʟᴏʀᴅ ɢᴏᴅ in the
standard biblical account, is to have effectively ceded defeat in a decidedly
jejune
fashion.’Tis a futile footnote, when all is said and done.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Page 104.—The Rise of Buddhism.—April.
[cont’d from Page 103...With regard to the Buddhist Nirvâna, ‘we cannot have any doubt’, to quote once more from Professor Max Duncker...], ‘that this attempt at annihilation, if made in earnest, must practically lead to the same results as the absorption of the Brahmans into Brahma—that it caused men to become dull, stupid, and brutalised[1]’
.
Notwithstanding this unfavourable verdict, we gladly admit that when we take into
account the conditions on which, according to Buddha, the absolute repose of
Nirvâna was to be obtained, the qualities of mind, the behaviour of man to his
fellow, we see the possibility of a noble ethical system.__________
• [Editorial Note]: ’Tis fascinating how, despite “Nirvâna” (purportedly) rendering its attainers “dull, stupid, and brutalised”, the anonymous writer nonetheless gladly admits to seeing thereby the possibility of “a noble ethical system” inhering in those very conditions—i.e., in the qualities of mind and the behaviour of humans to their fellows—on which becoming “dull, stupid, and brutalised” was to be obtained!
Indeed, as already advised heretofore, this polemic is truly a laugh-a-minute read—and especially so upon checking the original German text whereby it is amply evident the accurate and correct translation is “it led to a dull and stupid brooding” (and not the outrageously erroneous “it caused men to become dull, stupid, and brutalised” rendering as above)—inasmuch this spokesperson for the High Church of England obviously could not resist re-presenting the translator’s gross error for the further mis-edification of his (mostly clerical) readership.
The very fact he totally accepted how the obtention of the summum bonum of buddhistic aspirations left the attainer “brutalised” (never mind “dull” and “stupid” for the nonce), and did not check the German source-text to ascertain the reliability of such an off-the-wall translation, speaks volumes about his state of mind at the time (and the word gleeful—in its connotative “full of glee” meaning (i.e., its ‘malicious satisfaction’ and/or ‘gloating’ sense, as in, its ‘exultant’, ‘cock-a-hoop’ epicaricacy
,
or ‘joy at the misfortunes of others’, meaning), and not its denotative
jubilant delight and high-spirited jocularity and/or gay and carefree merriment
definition—aptly
conveys what would most likely have been dominant over prudence) such as to prompt
its somewhat out-of-place insertion into the paragraphic sequency.Just for the record, the well-credentialled-yet-inept translator, Prof. Evelyn Abbott (1843-1901), an English classical scholar and author, was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating B.A. and M.A.
in 1873 and elected a fellow and tutor of Balliol in 1874, where he was a mainstay
of the administration and teaching till his resignation, only a few days before
his death at Malvern on September 3, 1901, being made LL.D. of St. Andrews in
1879, serving as junior bursar of the college, in 1882, becoming Jowett lecturer
in Greek in 1895, and college librarian from 1881 to 1897.And yet, in spite of all the above accreditation—and despite being acclaimed as [quote] “well versed in German” [unquote], in the 1912 Dictionary of National Biography
, by his
colleague Prof. Strachan-Davidson (who all but conferred knighthood
therein, if not sainthood, upon his quondam friend and fellow-traveller)—it does
appear the good professor was not aware of the German language having no native
word for ‘brutal’ (German writers and speakers simply imported this English
word holus-bolus into their lexicon).The following excerpt is from ‘Geschichte des Alterthums’, von Max Duncker; Zweiter Band, Dritte vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage, Leipzig, Verlag von Dunder und Humblet; 1867 (i.e., “History of Antiquity”, by Max Duncker; Second Volume, Third Edition, enlarged and improved; 1867, published by Dunder and Humblet, Leipzig), and subtitled, ‘Geschichte der Arier in der alten Zeit’ von Max Duncker. (“History of the Aryans in Ancient Times”, by Max Duncker). Viz.:
• “Wenn es nach alle dem einleuchtend ist, worauf es bei dem Nirvana abgesehen war, so können wir ebenso wenig darüber zweifelhaft sein, daß dieser Versuch der Auslöschung, wenn er ernstlich angestellt wurde, praktisch etwa zu denselben Resultaten führen mußte, wohin die Versenkung der Brahmanen in das Brahman führte, zu einem stumpfen und blödsinnigen Hinbrüten 4).—4)Emil Schlagintweit, ‘Buddhism in Tibet’, p. 91 seq”As will have been observed, by anyone having accessed the above mouse-hover tool-tip (the yellow rectangle with the capitalised ‘I’ for info), there is nothing in Prof. Duncker’s footnoted “page 91 seq”, by Herr Schlagintweit, which relates to his original “led to a dull and stupid brooding” contention (let alone the “caused men to become dull, stupid, and brutalised” mistranslation).
In fact, it makes no sense for him to have referenced “page 91 seq”, at all as a perusal of the entire chapter leaves the reader with a positive impression regarding buddhistic practice in nineteenth century Tibet (where palingenesia can be thwarted by accumulating sufficient merit to earn a post-mortem reward in a latter-day buddhistic heaven per favour the advent of Mahāyāna Buddhism circa second-to-fifth century CE).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The modern Agnostic is in a worse logical position than Buddha. He desires, as Buddha did not primarily desire, to find a principle which may stimulate men to the energetic discharge of all family, social, and patriotic duties.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As the anonymous writer does not expand on why an exponent of modern agnosticism (circa the 1870s-1880s modernism, that is) is in “a worse logical position” than the sammāsambuddha—and which declamation sneakily insinuates the self-awakened sage’s “logical position” vis-à-vis “the energetic discharge of all family, social, and patriotic duties” to be questionable in the first place—his asseveration simply sits there, right alongside his surreptitious insinuendo
,
looking just as pointless as it actually is.He evidently chose an “Agnostic” as his example because he viewed each and every Buddhist as an ‘Atheist’ (due to being misled by a clamorous professorial elite who were guided in their Pāli-to-English translations via the prodigious output of verbiage inscribed on palm-leaves by an unenlightened/ unawakened fifth-century scholiast) and each and every Christian as a ‘Theist’ (if not a ‘Deist’ that is)—and a “modern” exponent of agnosticism due to the term agnostic having been coined by Prof. Thomas Huxley a scant decade prior—as he would have been acutely aware of the dictum Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene laid down in Matthew 10:34-37. Viz.:
• “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”. (KJV).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Buddha’s highest ideal of saintly life consisted in the renunciation of family life, of life in the world, and the adoption of the dress and life of his mendicant order...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The anonymous spokesperson for the High Church of England would have also been acutely aware of the dictum Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene laid down in Luke 14:26. Viz.:
• “If any come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”. (KJV).Major-General Dawsonne Strong, C.B. (Late Indian Army), a British Colonial Officer who served on the sub-continent for many a year—his fin-de-siècle book “The Metaphysic of Christianity and Buddhism” has the words “Lovingly Dedicated to my Wife in Memory of Our Sojourn in The East” on its dedication page—addresses this very dictum on pages six to ten. He wrote the following. Viz.:
• [Major-General Strong]: “In Palestine, at the commencement of the Christian era, the ceremonial Jews or Pharisees, though a numerically small section, were the dominant party of Judaism, and were represented by dignitaries of an overbearingly proud demeanour. Suppressed by them, the spirituality of the Essene Buddhists was thrown into the shade, and, when the voice crying in the wilderness was no longer to be heard and the commanding personality of St. John the Essene disappeared from the scene, Essenism as an organisation came to an end.What now of that “worse logical position than Buddha” so haughtily declared further above, eh?
To contend with these ceremonialists of Palestine, and the corrupt Brahmanism of India, and to further the success of their respective missions in the face of these formidable forces, both Jesus in the one case and Gotama in the other realised the expediency of initiating a mode of proselytism which, by the humble bearing and unworldly aspect of its agents, would differentiate it from the arrogant and exclusive methods of the priestly classes. The missionaries whom these new lights sent forth into the world to propagate the doctrine of salvation received explicit instructions not to provide themselves with gold or silver, or change of raiment and shoes; in fact, they were to pose as examples of that humility and forbearance which was the keynote, in their ethical significance, of the two systems as formulated for the redemption of humanity. In both cases the spell of this evangelism was soon to be lost in a resurgence of the very evils it was intended to suppress—the pride of ecclesiasticism and the ascendancy of ritual—under the widening shadows of which the underlying truths of symbolism became obscured.
As told in the story of the Great Renunciation, Gotama goes into retirement at an early age; Jesus also becomes a recluse. It is probable that he spent the years elapsing between his adolescence and the commencement of his ministry among the Essenes, who dwelt in caves in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, where he would have found ample opportunity for meditation, as well as genial companionship at hand, if desired.
Jesus and Gotama both issued from their retreats and mystic communions, impregnated with a deep sympathy for a suffering world, for the weary and heavy laden. They both accentuated with the same fervour of conviction the futility of laying up treasure upon earth, and pointed to the same mysterious heaven where true joy alone was to be found. But none of the dicta of Gotama have approached, either in a doctrinal sense or in uncompromising severity, the declaration of the Prophet of Nazareth as to the absolute necessity of renouncing the most sacred family ties before acceptance could be possible as a true and faithful disciple:• “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life too, he cannot be my disciple”.The use of vehement declamations of this nature was probably forced upon the speaker by the condition of those days, when it was more than ever necessary to draw a sharp line and to emphasise the depth of the chasm that must divide followers of the ideal from those in thrall to the material. It has been remarked by Mr. Arthur Lillie that, if Jesus had had to deal with people in a later or more advanced state of civilisation, other methods and other language would in all probability have been used to suit the altered conditions.
The attitude towards relations which Jesus, in the above-quoted passage, seems to have expected a disciple to assume may receive some elucidation from a story told in Visuddhi-Maga, “Buddhism in Translations”, page 434, which is headed by the translator, Mr. H. C. Warren, “And Hate Not his Father and Mother”. The story, briefly related, is to this effect:—• A young man left his father’s house, and, having joined the Buddhist order of mendicants, was lost sight of by his parents. The mother sorrowed for the long absence of her son. Meanwhile the young monk had been allotted a cell in a certain monastery. But it so happened that this cell had been provided at the expense of his father, who was a devout layman. When the father heard that the cell had been occupied, he set forth to visit the occupant, and, as was customary, to beg him to seek his alms at his house for a space of three months. The young monk appeared at the door of the cell, in his yellow robe and with shaven head, and, unrecognised by his father, accepted the invitation to receive alms at the house of the layman. Day after day he attended at the threshold of his father’s house, and took food from the hands of his parents. Still the mother continued to grieve for her long-absent son, accounting him dead.On one occasion, when I was privileged to attend an ordination service at Kandy, Ceylon, I was much struck with an incident which occurred at this time-old ceremony. At the conclusion of the service, when the melodious intoning of the celebrants had ceased to reverberate in the solemn ruins of the dimly-lighted aisle, the young initiate was placed at the bottom of the row of monks, who were seated, cross-legged, in the nave of the temple. During the service the lay spectators had been railed off at the entrance, which faced the shrine, beneath which the chief abbot presided. But, when the newly-ordained monk had assumed a sitting posture in the place assigned to him, the railing was removed, and his female relations—perhaps his “beloved one” among them—came forward and prostrated themselves at his feet.
One day, as the monk was returning towards the monastery, after parting on the road with his mother, the latter’s brother, an elder, overtook her. She fell at her brother’s feet, weeping and lamenting for her son.
“Then thought the elder: ‘Surely this lad, through the moderateness of his passions, must have gone away without announcing himself’. And he comforted her, and told her the whole story. The lay woman was pleased, and, lying prostrate, with her face in the direction in which her son had gone, she worshipped, saying: ‘Methinks the Blessed One must have had in mind a body of priests like my son when he preached the course of conduct customary with the great saints, showing how to take delight in the cultivation of content’. ... This man ate for three months in the house of the mother who bore him, and never said, ‘I am thy son, and thou art my mother’. For such a one mother and father are no hindrances, much less any other lay devotees”.
The initiate sat with downcast eyes, unmoved by the demonstration, recalling to mind one of those statues of Buddha in which the countenance is represented with that abstracted yet compassionate expression so characteristic of the Perfect One. Then also was brought to my recollection that saying of Jesus recorded in the Gospel when he turned towards his mother and exclaimed:—• “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”It may, I think, be indisputably affirmed that the deep insight of these great reformers into the problems of life, the profound impression they made upon a vain world, their sublimated ideas, their superhuman influences, their stainless lives—that all these proclaim them to have been veritable embodiments of the mystic Sophia and one with God. Separated only by the time appointed for their appearance in the world, they were both presentations of the same Logos, called in Buddhistic terminology “Bodhi” or Intelligence. Whether there was a difference between the quality of presentation in the cases of Jesus and Gotama, whether the one produced a more flamboyant light than the other, and in what respects and how the media differed, are questions that can only be answered by Christians and Buddhists themselves, according to the light that is in them...”. ~ (pp. 06-10, Chapter One: ‘Jesus and Gotama’, in “The Metaphysic of Christianity and Buddhism”, by Major-General Dawsonne Melanchthon Strong; 1899, Watts & Co., London; (a brief bio): the author was born 1841; married 1870 to Mary Louisa Smith, fathered seven children; served in Bengal Infantry; promoted Major 1879; Colonel 1893 (Birthday Honours C.B. award); finally Major-General; retired 1899 to live in Edinburgh; died 1903, in Surrey)
In a futile endeavour to fool astute readers the anonymous apologist for the High Church of England must unvaryingly end up fooling only himself, mightily.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[Cont’d from before...Buddha’s highest ideal of saintly life consisted in the renunciation of family life...], though he does make room in a very subordinate position for the virtues of secular life[2]
.__________
• [Editorial Note]: Nowhere on those pages referenced by the anonymous writer in footnote two (pp. 63-64 & 125, in “Buddhism”, 1877, by Dr. Rhys Davids), and copy-pasted into the above mouse-hover tool-tips for convenience, are there any words to the effect, on the part of the sammāsambuddha, about any such “very subordinate position for the virtues of secular life” (and neither can same be inferred for nowhere thereupon does he imply any such absurdity).
Indeed, secular householders have a vital role to play, in the grand scheme of things, insofar as without any all palingenesia would be restricted to animal-life only.
Put differently, copulating householders by the millions are essential in order for transmigrating practicians of the buddhistic faith—those aspirants hoping to attain to nibbāna in their next life—to take on human form.
Moreover, as the sangha is totally dependent upon the laity for the necessities of life—territorial access, law-n-order, comestibles, raiment, medicaments, and habitation (in the rainy season when itinerancy ceases)—any such relegation of “a very subordinate position for the virtues of secular life” would be silliness of the highest order.
The doggerel about making sure the brain is engaged before shooting from the lip
might as well have been coined specifically for the edification of
complacent canons, cliquish cardinals, and collusive clerics generically.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
If it be said that Christianity also has unduly exalted the virtue of the cloister, of celibate life, of the renunciation of the world, it must be admitted that there have been times in the history of the Christian Church when a very true principle has been carried to excess.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Golly, what a convoluted way of acknowledging the bleeding obvious ... namely: Christianity is essentially no different from Buddhism in this regard.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Yet it is still true that the renunciation of the world for the Gospel’s sake, that is, practically, as the Christian believes, for the benefit of the world, has produced characters of the most heroic type. It is still true that such renunciation contributed largely to the evangelisation of the world.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: And thus does the convoluted way of acknowledging sameness continue—except this anonymous apologist for Christianity conveniently overlooks how Buddhist missionaries have been far, far more successful in “the evangelisation of the world” than Christian missionaries (a fact he bemoans at length in the opening paragraphs of this article of his)—and which convolutions are indicative of a grudging admittance.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
But so far from Christianity proclaiming this principle as the ideal of perfection for all men, it exhorts all, by the mouth of its greatest human teacher, to the scrupulous discharge of duty in all the relationships of life ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’, and whatsoever they do to do it ‘heartily as to the Lord’.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Well now, were the anonymous writer to consult other authors than Dr. Duncker and Dr. Rhys Davids he would soon discover how Buddhism equals—if not exceeds—Christianity in exhorting all, by the mouth of *its* greatest human teacher, to the “scrupulous discharge of duty in all the relationships of life” and not just the mendicant lifestyle of popular imagination.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
To recapitulate the substance of the foregoing remarks. Taking Buddhism in its earliest and purest stage, we find it founded upon a mistaken philosophy of the universe; we find it professing an aim of life that, making out life itself to be an evil, must, if universally desired and attained, bring human existence to an end...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As worldwide population estimates for 500 BCE are a hundred and fifty million peoples, for 1880 CE one billion three hundred and twenty-five million, and currently (2012) six billion nine hundred and eighty-six million, the trend in regards to “human existence” is clearly on the increase and not any such decrease.
It does appear, then, that those aforementioned copulating householders are performing a sterling service in providing human habitation for (literally) billions of palingenetic souls previously bound to recurring animal existence.
Incidentally, as Christian theology has it that “human existence” on planet earth will abruptly cease come the biblical Judgement Day (viz.: Matt 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:10; Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 2:5; Heb. 9:27; et al.) the gnomic wisdom about people who live in houses made of glass...&c, applies yet again.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
... and we find it instructive in contrast to Christianity in regard to the promotion of the manifold activities of social life, which, working in harmony and due proportion, move the car of progress in its onward career and tend to bring about the consummation of that
‘Far off Divine event
To which the whole creation moves’.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The apologist for the High Church of England has seen fit to quote the last two lines of a 724-verse elegiac poem published anonymously in 1850 by Alfred, Lord Tennyson titled “In Memoriam A.H.H. Obiit ᴍᴅᴄᴄᴄxxxɪɪɪ”
;
(i.e., ‘In Memoriam Arthur Henry Hallam. He died 1833’; an extensive
panegyric to his sister’s fiancé—who died suddenly in Vienna of a brain
haemorrhage, aged twenty-two, while travelling abroad with his father—and
ending with an epithalamium (a lyric poem or song in honour of a bride and
bridegroom) as an epilogistic nuptial ode on Miss Cecilia Tennyson’s
wedding to the academic Mr Edmund Law Lushington in 1842).Both the poet laureate and the anonymous writer are alluding to three well-known verses from Mr. Timotheus the Lystran in the biblical New Testament. Viz.:
• “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me *at that day*: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing”. [emphasis added]. ~ (2 Timothy 4:6-8; KJV).So “that day” (the day of that “far off Divine Event” which the above “car of progress” in its onward career is tending to bring about the consummation thereof) is, of course, none other than the aforesaid Judgement Day, the date of which Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is ignorant of (KJV; Mark 13:32 “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father”).
And this ignorance is corroborated elsewhere (unless he has a different notion of what a ‘generation’ means [Greek: ‘genea’] than virtually anyone else) as he was to have came back on a cloud blowing his trumpet and putting everything to rights some one thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine or so years ago (2012-33=1,979)—‘before this generation passeth away’, spake he sagely (Matt 24:34-35, Mark 13:30-31, Luke 21:32-33), as he physically decamped for his abba’s mansion above the clouds
—and
yet, to this day, millions of faithful believers all around the globe are
still waiting (even though he is also on record as saying: “There are
some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of
Man coming in his kingdom”. (Matt 16:28) and this ill-foreseeing “Son
of Man” made similar unfulfilled pronouncements in five other places
(Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Matt 24:34, Luke 9:27, Luke 21:32).¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________
[1]‘The History of Antiquity’, vol. iv. p. 349
.[2]See ‘Buddhism’, by T. W. Rhys Davids, pp. 63
,
64
and 125.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1882.—The Rise of Buddhism.—Page 105.
Having said so much, we are bound to pay our tribute to the loftiness of much of Buddha’s teaching. We can admit, without fear of misunderstanding, that in regard even to points of duty which in the common opinion have been satisfactorily treated by Christianity alone, the Buddhist ideas do not fall one whit short of the Christian.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As the advent of Buddhism predates Christianity by 400-500 years the above would be more honestly put ťother
way round (e.g., ‘We can admit, without fear of misunderstanding, that
in regard even to points of duty which in the common opinion have been
satisfactorily treated by Buddhism alone, the Christian ideas do not fall
one whit short of the Buddhist’).Except, of course, they do fall short of the Buddhist—and by more than just “one whit” to boot—as demonstrated hereinabove and hereinbefore.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Buddhist precepts with regard to patience under injuries, the cultivation of unselfishness and of sympathy, the duty of endeavouring to relieve the distresses of others, of temperance, soberness, and chastity, of resignation, of bridling the tongue and the temper, of alms-giving and the practice of works of mercy, of the avoidance of any ostentation of goodness, even of repentance and acknowledgment of sin, are, when regarded on the human side alone, unsurpassed by those of Christianity; for in truth, with minor differences of detail, both teach the same thing.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: At first glance it appears the anonymous writer is proffering a straightforward acknowledgement of similarity—albeit with a conditional “the human side alone” proviso and a “minor differences of detail” vagary to mar such charitableness—and if only his “both teach the same thing” assertion were to actually be the verity it resembles it could indeed be one for the books!
Yet to adjudge a fellow religion on non-religious grounds alone—conditioned with a vagary of sufficient latitude to meet virtually any corrective—is a claytons acknowledgement (i.e., like the drink one has when not having a drink
).¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Want of space forbids us to quote at length from the Buddhist scriptures in illustration of the excellence of its teaching. Examples may, however, be found in Dr. Rhys Davids’ manual of Buddhism, forming one of the excellent series of hand-books on ‘Non-Christian Religious Systems’ published by the ‘Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge’.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Ha! ... as the “Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” took over publication of ‘The Church Quarterly Review’ in 1920—with the masthead reading “Edited by Members of the Faculty of Theology, King’s College, London”—it is instructive to know how the ‘Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge’ and the ‘King’s College Faculty of Theology’ were both broadly representative of the Church of England.
In other words, since Dr. Rhys Davids contracted with the ‘Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge’ to publish his “Sketch of the Life and Teachings of Gautama the Buddha” book—its title-page
unambiguously states it is [quote] “Published under
*the direction*
of The Committee of General Literature and Education appointed by the
Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge” [emphasis added]—he would
have taken particular care whilst choosing his topics and paraphrasing
translated texts to make sure Buddhism did not come across as being in any
way superior to Christianity.Whilst it is an open secret that virtually all translators bring bias into their translations this instance is particularly egregious.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We content ourselves with citing a few verses from Professor Max Müller’s translation of the Dhammapada, selected rather in illustration of some by-ways of Buddhist thought, than of the general system of morality:—
• V. 19. “The thoughtless man, even if he can recite a large portion of the law but is not a doer of it, has no share in the priesthood, but is like a cowherd counting the cows of others”.
• V. 20. “The follower of the law, even if he can recite only a small portion of the law, but, having forsaken passion and hatred and foolishness, possesses true knowledge and serenity of mind, he caring for nothing in this world, or that to come, has indeed a share in the priesthood”.
In these verses we are reminded of the Epistle of S. James, while the special mention of recitation of the law recalls the wonderful powers of memory common amongst the learned Indians, both ancient and modern. The following verses sound like the echo of teaching to be found both in the Old and the New Testament on the government of the heart {!sic!; put truly: ‘the following verses are echoed by the teaching to be found both in the Old and the New Testament on the government of the heart’}:—
• V. 36. “Let the wise man guard his thoughts, for they are difficult to perceive, very artful, and they rush wherever they list Thoughts well guarded bring happiness”.
Page 106.—The Rise of Buddhism.—April.
• V. 42. “Whatever a hater may do to a hater, or an enemy to an enemy, a wrongly directed mind will do us greater mischief”.
Many of the verses present not only literary resemblances to those of the Proverbs of Solomon {!sic!; put truly: ‘many of the verses present not only the literary source-material for those of the Proverbs of Solomon’}, but conceptions at least analogous of folly and wisdom. For example:—
• V. 60. “There is no companionship with a fool”.
• V. 62. “‘These sons belong to me, and this wealth belongs to me’—with such thoughts is a fool tormented. He himself does not belong to himself; much less sons and wealth”.
• V. 63. “The fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least so far. But a fool who thinks himself wise, he is called a fool indeed”.
• V. 64. “If a fool be associated with a wise man even all his life, he will perceive the truth as little as a spoon perceives the taste of soup”.
• V. 69. “As long as the evil deed done does not bear fruit, the fool thinks it is like honey; but when it ripens then the fool suffers grief”.
In conclusion.—From the many striking resemblances that undoubtedly exist between Buddhism {circa 400 BCE} on the one hand and the teaching of sects, such as the Essenes, which preceded Christianity, and Christianity {circa 100 CE} on the other, some writers have jumped hastily to the conclusion {!sic! this “jumped hastily” wording is indicative of prejudice, of prejudgement, in lieu of an argument} that the former was the source of the latter.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As “the latter”, established circa 100 CE, cannot possibly be the source of “the former”, established circa 400 BCE, it is quite a reasonable proposition to at least consider—rather than something to dismissively reject out-of-hand by characterising the proposers as having “jumped hastily” to such a conclusion—and especially so as it is literally carved in stone that Mahārājā Aśoka (anglicised as ‘Emperor Ashoka’) sent Buddhist missionaries far and wide circa 250 BCE.
One particular ‘carved in stone’ record of his is bilingual inasmuch the same “Edict of Ashoka” is inscribed in both Greek and Aramaic—with the Pāli dhamma/ Sanskrit dharma represented by the Greek εὐσέβεια (eusebeia), i.e., “godliness” (an inner piety and, thus, a spiritual reverencing of ‘deus-revelatus’ inspirited devotionally through the awesome presence of ‘deus-incarnatus’) as distinct from θρησκεία’, (thrēskeia), i.e., “religion” (an outer piousness and, thus, a fleshly reverence and devoutness sustained by rites and rituals and related religiosities)—and surely the anonymous writer of this article would need no reminding of how Aramaic was not only the lingua franca of the Middle East at the time, with the written record of its script (which script is ancestral to both the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets) spanning 3,000 or so years, but how it was also the common language throughout Judea with (for instance) the townships of Bethlehem and Capernaum, in Galilee, plus the peoples referred to as the Nazarene and/or Nazarites, being Aramaic-speaking communities.
Whilst on the topic, of carved-in-stone evidence, another instance is the Buddhist gravestones, decorated with depictions of the dhamma wheel, which have been found in Alexandria in Egypt dating from the Ptolemaic period (305-30 BCE).
In short, not only is it quite a reasonable proposition that teachings of a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metempirical nature travelled from the Indian sub-continent to the ‘Middle East’ it would be quite odd if they did not.
Perhaps the anonymous writer of this article is the one who has “jumped hastily to the conclusion” he so obviously holds on the subject.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________
• The Rise of Buddhism: Part Eight.
• An Examen of “The Rise of Buddhism” Contents.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯