births. But in the prosperous man this idea must necessarily lead to pride, of a kind that cannot possibly be entertained by a believer in an intelligent Supreme Cause; and in the unfortunate man it must lead to despair, as he sees that he has no resource in himself, and that it is in vain to look for it elsewhere. It will be said, perhaps, that there are the moral precepts, almost word for word the same as those of the decalogue, and that here, at least, Budhism is to be regarded in a more favourable light. To this we again reply, that it is not the simple command that is to be taken; but the interpretation that is put upon it by authorised expounders. The first of the dasa-sil, or ten ordinances binding upon the priest, prohibits the taking of life. As all life is homogeneous, we should infer that it must be an equal crime to kill an animal as to kill a man; but the proportion of the offence rises according to the merit of the being whose life is taken. Now we shall ever find that in all cases similar to this, where the equipoise of truth is lost, and a law is carried beyond its right limit, consequences are produced the very reverse of what was intended. Thus, when the life of a man and that of an animal are in any way regarded as of similar value, it will not occur that the animal is raised from its natural level to be equal with the man, but that the man will be depressed from his real dignity to an equality with the brute. In all countries where these sentiments are prevalent, there is great recklessness relative to human life; and if it were not that they are usually accompanied by a timidity with regard to personal suffering, consequences the most deplorable would be the result of this law, which at first may appear to be more excellent than the simple prohibition of murder. It will be seen, by even a slight attention to this subject, that when the existence of a Supreme Deity is denied, and the doctrine of transmigration is believed, scarcely one of the common arguments against murder is of any power. The third of the dasa-sil entirely forbids all sexual intercourse; but this precept does not apply to the householder, he being only prohibited from approaching the woman who is the property of another, which includes married women and wards. In the case of the priest, there is the same unnatural strictness that we have noticed relative to the taking of life; but in the application of the precept to the great mass there is a lamentable defectiveness in its requirements. As among the Greeks and Romans, it is not the act that is in itself a crime; its criminality arises from the injury it does to another person's property. The injury that the woman herself sustains appears to be regarded as nothing, unless she have a protector. Budha was married, and had a son born on the day he left his family and became an ascetic; but besides the princess. Yasodhará-déwi he had many thousands of concubines, according to the exaggerated legends of his life; and his father, Sudhódana, king of Kapila-wastu or Kimbulwat-pura, was married to two sisters at the same time, this being a common custom of the Sákya race from its commencement. The practices of the courtezan did not incapacitate her from receiving the highest privileges held out by Budha to his followers, nor did he require, in order to their reception, a previous course of penitence; indeed these practices are, in some instances, regarded as meritorious. The other precepts are all, in a similar manner, either of too rigid a character to secure the possibility of observance; or are so loose in their requirements, as defined in other parts of the system, that they are deprived in a great measure of the claim they would otherwise have upon our regard. They all, in a greater or less degree, bear evidence of the earthliness of their origin, and are rather an ineffectual attempt to teach men the way of rectitude than a perfect law. Another defect in Budhism is its principle of selfishness, whilst at the same time it has the appearance of great benevolence. The ascetic is taught to exercise this wish, " May all the superior beings in the universe be happy; may they all be free from sorrow, disease and evil desire; may all men, whether they be priests or laics, all the déwas and brahmas, all who are suffering the pains of the hells, be happy; may they all be free from sorrow, disease, and evil desire!" A wish most enlarged and benevolent; but not an effort is the ascetic required to make towards its accomplishment. There are many beautiful sentiments, set forth with a child's simplicity, yet full of the most touching poetry, by which the excellence of equanimity is taught; but when taken in connexion with other parts of the system, with which they must necessarily be conjoined, it will be seen that they are either mere verbiage, or that the principles they inculcate are little more than indifference to all things, the good as well as the evil, whatever may be the meaning of a few sentences detached from the more essential doctrines. It is the aim of Budhism to overcome all emotions, all prefer ences, all that would disturb the quiet repose of the mind. It seeks to destroy the passions, not to regulate them. But however imperfect it may be as a system, when compared with other religions it will be seen that there are parts of it entitled even to praise. We think that much caution is required as to the terms in which Christians speak of it, especially when conversing with the natives by whom it is professed. When we say to a Budhist, in just so many words, "Your religion is false;" his mind, if he be a man of any thought or information, will instantly reflect thus :-" How can that be, when there are so many things in it exactly the same as in the Bible? Does not my religion also teach me not to steal, or to lie, or to commit murder? If my religion be false, Christianity must be false as well." We must therefore carefully explain to him that there are certain principles common to all religions, in a greater or less degree, without which they would not be received as such by mankind; but that only one of these religions can have been taught by an all-wise Being. This one religion is to be received by all, implicitly, in its entirety; and other religions can only be so far true as they approach towards this standard. When, therefore, we say that Budhism is a false religion, we do not mean to say that every part of it is equally false, but that it is not divinely inspired; it was formed by a man or men, who were liable to err, and have erred, in innumerable instances; consequently it cannot teach the way of purity or peace, or save from wrath and destruction. The doctrines of Budhism are not alone in the beauty of many of their sentiments, and the excellence of much of their morality. "It is not permitted to you to render evil for evil," was one of the sentiments of Socrates. One of the triads of Druidism was to this effect:-"The three primary principles of religion are, Obedience to the laws of God, concern for the welfare of mankind, suffering with fortitude all the accidents of life." Confucius taught that men should "treat others according to the treatment which they themselves would desire at their hands." Similar extracts might be multiplied to an indefinite extent; but it may suffice to repeat the caution, though it be well known, made by Sir William Jones, in 1794, in the Eleventh Discourse delivered before the Asiatic Society, "On the Philosophy of the Asiatics."-" If the conversion of the Pandits and Maulavis in this country shall ever be attempted by Protestant missionaries, they must beware of asserting, while they teach the gospel of truth, what those Pandits and Maulavis would know to be false: the former would cite that beautiful Arya couplet, which was written at least three centuries before our era, and which pronounces the duty of a good man, even in the moment of his destruction, to consist not only in forgiving, but even in a desire of benefiting his destroyer, as the sandal tree, in the instant of its overthrow, sheds perfume on the axe which fells it; and the latter would triumph in repeating the verse of Sadi, who represents a return of good for good' as a slight reciprocity, but says to the virtuous man, confer benefits on him who has injured thee;' using an Arabic sentence, and a maxim apparently of the ancient Arabs. Nor would the Mussulmans fail to recite four distichs of Hafiz, who has illustrated that maxim with fanciful but elegant allusions:: Learn from yon orient shell to love thy foe, And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe: Free, like yon rock, from base vindictive pride, Imblaze with gems the wrist that tears thy side: Mark, where yon tree rewards the stony show'r We only stop for a moment to notice the expression, "If the conversion of the Pandits and Maulavis shall ever be attempted by Protestant missionaries!" It strikes upon the ear like a sound all strange; but what an interesting comment might be made on the events that have taken place since it was written! It would have been well if Budhism, in aiming at too much, had gone to the furthest limit of possible good; but that this has been accomplished no one can assert. Its inherent defects have prevented it from reaching the end it has seen in the distance, but has never been able to approach. How could it be otherwise, when man is left to his own unaided efforts in the great work of freeing himself from the defilement of evil! It is like the throwing of a pebble into the Ganges to arrest its mighty stream. The Budhist knows nothing of an atonement; he reels under the weight of his sin, but he cannot rid himself of the burden. The voice that promises him rest is only a sound; it has no living existence, no substantiality. In the wilderness to which he is driven no cross does he see, no river of blood, no fountain of life with the cheering words inscribed upon the rock that overhangs it, "Whosoever will, let him come, and drink freely, and live!" He hears of salvation, but he discovers no Saviour. Thus mocked with delusive promises, his disappointment is severe; the best affections of his heart are destroyed; and if he still pursues the system, he is converted into a harmless being, silent, and full of abstract thought that seeks its own annihilation, so that even of thought there may be none. XXIV. THE VOICE OF THE PAST. It has long been known that monachism was rife in the east, some ages previous to its adoption in Europe; but the history of its origin was involved in the same obscurity as the source of the mighty streams upon the banks of which the first ascetics commenced the practice of their austerities. By some of the fathers it was thought that its most intense manifestation was peculiar to Christianity." Who is there," asks Athanasius, "but our Lord and Saviour Christ that has not deemed this virtue (of virginity) to be utterly impracticable (or unattainable) among men; and yet he has so shown his divine power as to impel youths, as yet under age, to profess it, a virtue beyond law?" "None of the ancients, none before the time of Christ," says Chrysostom, "were able to addict themselves to the ascetic practice of virginity." But that these sentiments were utterly incorrect is abundantly proved by the facts recorded upon the preceding pages; unless the fathers intended simply to assert that the pretensions of the barbarians to purity were vain and unfounded. It is not in my power to pass the veil that shrouds from observation the origin we wish to trace; but we are able, now, to make nearer approaches towards it than were possible before the history of Budhism was known. That Gótama Budha effected a great change in the social polity and religious institutions of the inhabitants of India cannot be denied; but how much of the system that bears his name was originally propounded by himself, or how much of that which he really propounded was the product of his own unaided intellect, will remain an unanswered problem to the end of time. It is maintained by the Budhists that he was entirely αὐτοδιδακτος. The wisdom that he manifested was the outbeaming * Taylor's Ancient Christianity. |