BUDDHISM
33
BUDDHISM
the foundation of (he Christian religion. That
Buddhist institutions were at that time unknown in
the West may be safely inferred from the fact that
Buddhism is absolutely ignored in the literary and
archaeological remains of Palestine, Egypt, and
<.[ There is not a single ruin of a Buddhist
monastery or stupa in any or these countries; not a single Greek translation of a Buddhist book; not a reference in all t ireek literature to the existence Buddhist community in the Greek world. The very name of Buddha is mentioned for the first time only in the writings of I 'lenient of Alexandria (second century). To explain the resemblances in Chris- tianity to a number of pre-Christian features of Buddhism, then- is no need of resorting to the hy- pothesis that they were borrowed. Nothing is more common in the study of comparative ethnology and religion than to find similar social and religious cus- toms practised by peoples too remote to have had any communication with one another. How easily the principle of ascetie detachment from the world may lead to a community life in which celibacy is observed, may be seen in the monastic systems that have prevailed not only among Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians, but also among the early Aztecs and Incas in the New World. Nor is this so strange when it is recalled that men everywhere have, to a large ex- tent, the same daily experiences.- the same feelings, the same desires. As the laws of human thought are everywhere the same, it lies in the very nature of things that men, in so far as they have the same ex- periences, or face the same religious needs, will think the same thoughts, and give expression to them in sayings and customs that strike the unreflecting ob- server by their similarity. It is only by losing sight of this fundamental truth that one can unwittingly fall into the error of assuming that resemblance always implies dependence.
It is chiefly the legendary features of Buddha's life, many of which are found for the first time only in works of later date than the Gospels, that furnish the most striking resemblances to certain incidents related of Christ in the Gospels, resemblances which might with greater show of reason be traced to a common historic origin. If there has been any borrow- ing here, it is plainly on the side of Buddhism. That Christianity made its way to Northern India in the first two centuries is not only a matter of respectable tradition, but is supported by weighty archiEological evidence. Scholars of recognized ability, beyond the suspicion of undue bias in favour of Christianity Weber, Goblet d'Alviella, and others — think it very likely that the Gospel stories of Christ circulated by these early Christian communities in India were utilized by the Buddhists to enrich the Buddha legend, just as the Vishnuites built up the legend of Krishna on many striking incidents in the life of Christ.
The fundamental tenets of Buddhism are marked by grave defects that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its inferiority to the religion of Jesus Christ. In the first place, the very foundation on which Buddhism re>ts the doctrine of karma with its implied transmigrations — is gratuitous and false. This pretended law of nature, by which the myriads of gods, demons, men. and animals tire but the transient forms of rational beings essentially the same, but forced to this diversity in consequence of varying degrees of merit and demerit in former lives, is a huge superstition in flat contradiction to the recognized laws of nature, .and hence ignored by men of science. Another basic defect in primitive Bud- dhism is its failure to recognize man's dependence on a supreme God. By ignoring God and by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha sub- stituted for thi' Brahmin religion a cold and colour- less system of philosophy; It is entirely lacking in III.— 3
those powerful motives to right conduct, particularly
the motive of love, that spring from the sense of
dependence on a personal all-loving Cod. Hence it is
that Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish
utilitarianism. There is no sense of duty, as in the
religion of Christ, prompted by reverence for a su-
preme Lawgiver, by love for a merciful Father, by
personal allegiance to a Redeemer. Karma, the basis
of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of nature,
the observance of which is prompted by prudential
considerations. Not infrequently one meets the
assertion that Buddha surpassed Jesus in holding out
to struggling humanity an end utterly unselfish. This
is a mistake. Not to speak of the popular Swarga.
or heaven, with its positive, even sensual delights,
the fact that Nirvana is a negative ideal of bliss
does not make it the less tin object of interested de-
sire. Far from being an unselfish end, Nirvana is
based wholly on the motive of self-love. It thus
stands on a much lower level than the Christian ideal,
which, being primarily and essentially a union of
friendship with God in heaven, appeals to motives
of disinterested as well as interested love.
Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature, the dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconsciousrepo.se of Nirvana. Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in con- sequence does injustice to the individual. All legiti- mate desires must be repressed. Innocent recreations are condemned. The cult i vat ion of music is forbidden. Researches in natural science are discountenanced. The development of the mind is limited to the memo- rizing of Buddhist texts and the study of Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value. The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything. How different is the teaching of Him who came that men might have life and have it more abundantly. Again Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family. .Mar- riage is held in contempt and even abhorrence as lea, lim; to the procreation of life. In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man, Buddhism be- trays its inferiority to Christianity, which recom- mends virginity, but at the same time teaches that marriage is a saercd union and a source of sanctifica- tion. Buddhist pessimism likewise does injustice to society, it has set the seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor. Since life is not worth living, to labour for the comforts and refinements of civilized life is a delusion. The per- fect man is to subsist not by the labour of his hands, but on the .alius of inferior men. In the religion of Christ, "the carpenter's sun", a healthier view pro- vails. The dignity of labour is upheld, and every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man's welfare.
Buddhism has accomplished but little for the up- lifting of humanity in comparison with Christianity. One of its most attractive features, which, unfortu- nately, has become wellnigh obsolete, was its practice of benevolence towards the sick and needy. Be- tween Buddhists and Brahmins there was a com- mendable rivalry in maintaining dispensaries of food and medicine. But this charity did not, like the Christian form, extend to the prolonged nursing of unfortunates stricken with contagious and incurable diseases, to the protection of foundlings, to the bring- ing up of orphans, to the rescue of fallen women, to the care of the aired and insane. Asylums and hospitals in this sense are unknown to Buddhism.
