BUDDHISM
30
BUDDHISM
death, whether he does not exist after death, whether
he exists and at the same time does not exist after
death, whether he neither exists nor does not exist
after death, has not been revealed by Buddha. Since,
l hen. the nature of Nirvana was too mysterious to
be grasped by the Hindu mind, too subtle to be ex-
pressed in terms either of existence or of non-exist-
ence, it would be idle to attempt a positive solution
of the question. It suffices to know that it meant a
state of unconscious repose, an eternal sleep which
knew no awakening. In this respect it was prac-
tically one with the ideal of the pantheistic Brahmin.
In the Buddhist conception of Nirvana no account
was taken of the all-god Brahma. And as prayers
and offerings to the traditional gods were held to be
of no avail for the attainment of this negative state
of bliss, Buddha, with greater consistency than was
shown in pantheistic Brahminism, rejected both the
Vedas ami the Vedic rites. It w-as this attitude
which stamped Buddhism as a heresy. For this
reason, too, Buddha has been set down by some as
an atheist. Buddha, however, was not an al heist
in the sense that he denied the existence of the gods.
To him the gods were living realities. In his alleged
sayings, as in the Buddhist scriptures generally, the
gods are often mentioned, and always with respect.
But like the pantheistic Brahmin, Buddha did not
acknowledge his dependence on them. They were,
like men. subject to decay and rebirth. The god of
to-day might be reborn in the future in some inferior
condition, while a man of great virtue might suceed
in raising himself in his next birth to the rank of a
god in heaven. The very gods, then, no less than
men, had need of that perfect wisdom that leads to
Nirvana, and hence it was idle to pray or sacrifice
to them in the hope of obtaining the boon which
they themselves did not possess. They were in-
ferior to Buddha, since he had already attained to
Nirvana. In like manner, they who followed Buddha's
footsteps had no need of worshipping the gods by
prayers and offerings. Worship of the gods was
tolerated, however, in the Buddhist layman who still
clung to the delusion of individual existence, and pre-
ferred the household to the homeless state. More-
over, Buddha's system conveniently provided for
those who accepted in theory the teaching that
Nirvana alone was the true end of man, but who
still lacked the courage to quench all desires. The
various heavens of Brahminic theology, with their
positive, even sensual, delights were retained as the
reward of virtuous souls not yet ripe for Nirvana.
To aspire after such rewards was permitted to the
lukewarm monk; it was commended to the layman.
Hence the frequent reference, even in the earliest
Buddhist writings, to heaven and its positive de-
lights as an encouragement to right conduct. Suffi-
cient prominence is not generally given to this more
popular side of Buddha's teaching, without which
iiis followers would have been limited to an insignifi-
cant and short-lived hand of heroic souls. B was
this clement, so prominent in the inscriptions of
Asoka, that tempered the severity of Buddha's
doctrine of Nirvana and made his .system acceptable
to the masses.
In order to secure that extinction of desire which
alone could lead to Nirvana, Buddha prescribed for
his followers :i life oi detachment from the comforts, pleasures, and occupations of the common run of men To secure this end, hi- adopted for himself and
his disciples the quiet, secluded, contemplative life oi the Brahmin ascetics. 1 ' foreign to his plan that his followers should engage in any form of in-
ilu ni.i! pursuits, lest i hey might thereby be en- tangled in worldly cares and desires. Their means
of subsistence was alms; hence the name commonly
applied to Buddhist monks was bhikkus, beggars, iiincnt. from family hie was absolutely nec-
essary. Married life was to be avoided as a pit of
hot coals, for it was incompatible with the quenching
of desire and the extinction oi individual existence.
In like manner, worldly possessions and worldly
power had to be renounced — everything that might
minister to pride, greed, or self-indulgence. Yet in
exacting of his followers a life of severe simplicity,
Buddha did not go to the extremes of fanaticism
that characterized so many of the Brahmin ascetics.
He chose the middle path of moderate asceticism,
which he compared to a lute, which gives forth the
proper tones only when the strings are neither too
tight nor too slack. Each member was allowed but
one set of garments, of yellowish colour and of cheap
quality. These, together with his sleeping-mat,
razor, needle, water-strainer, and alms-bowl, con-
stituted the sum of his earthly possessions. His
single meal, which had to be taken before noon, con-
sisted chiefly of bread, rice, and curry, which he
gathered daily in his alms-bowl by begging. Water
or rice-milk was his customary drink, wine and other
intoxicants being rigorously forbidden, even as medi-
cine. Meat, fish, and delicacies were rarely eaten
except in sickness or when the monk dined by invi-
tation with some patron. The use of perfumes,
flowers, ointments, and participation in worldly
amusements fell also into the class of things pro-
hibited. In theory, the moral code of Buddhism was
little more than a copy of that of Brahminism. Like
the latter, it extended to thoughts and desires, no
less than to words and deeds. Unchastity in all its
forms, drunkenness, lying, stealing, envy, pride,
harshness are fittingly condemned. But what, per-
haps, brings Buddhism most strikingly in contact
with Christianity is its spirit of gentleness and for-
giveness of injuries. To cultivate benevolence to-
wards men of all classes, to avoid anger and physi-
cal violence, to lie patient under insult, to return
good for evil — all this was inculcated in Buddhism
and helped to make it one of the gentlest of religions.
To such an extent was this carried that the Buddhist
monk, like the Brahmin ascetic, had to avoid with
the greatest care the destruction of any form of
animal life.
In course of time, Buddha extended his monastic system to include women. Communities of nuns, while living near the monks, were entirely secluded from them. They had to conform to the same rule of life, to subsist on alms, and spend their days in retirement and contemplation. They were never as numerous as the monks, and later became a very insignificant factor in Buddhism. In thus opening up to his fellow men and women what he felt to be the true path of salvation, Buddha made no dis- crimination in social condition. Herein lay one of the most striking contrasts between the old religion and the new. Brahminism was inextricably inter- twined with caste-distinctions. It was a privilege of birth, from which the S\idras and members of si ill lower classes were absolutely excluded. Buddha, on the contrary, welcomed men of low as well as high birth and station. Virtue, not blood, was de- clared to be the test of superiority. In the brother- hood which he built around him, all caste-distinct inns were put aside. The despised Sudra stood on a footing of equality with the high-born Brahmin. In this religious democracy of Buddhism lay, doubt- less, one of its strongest influences for conversion among the masses. Hut in thus putting his followers
on a plane of equal consideration, Buddha had no
intention of acting the part of a social reformer. Not a few scholars have attributed to him the pur- pose of breaking down casle-ilist incl ions in society
and of introducing more democratic conditions.
Buddha had no more intention of abolishing caste than he had of abolishing marriage. Il was only within the limits of his own order that he insisted on
