INTRODUCTION
Project Gutenberg EPUB edition
Unknown, Gemmell, William, and Kumārajīva
What time I roamed Himâla’s hanging woods.”
In considering briefly the doctrine of reincarnation, perhaps it might readily be conceded to our Buddhist friends, that there were exemplified in the Founder of their faith, a wonderful potency of intellect, and a marvellous degree of spiritual intuition. Quite agreeable, also, may be the suggestion, that this potency of intellect might become intensified, and probably “rendered subjective,” by “ascetic exercises,” abstract contemplation, and “determined effort.”
Spence Hardy indicated in Eastern Monachism that the Buddhist mind conceives of “spiritual powers” arising from the aforementioned “potency of intellect” and “spiritual intuition,” which in other systems of religion are usually regarded as partaking of the nature of “Divinity.” If it be admitted that those potential “powers” are probably susceptible of affiliation with the Divine Spirit, then the way of approach to an understanding of the Buddhist theory of intuition becomes, perhaps, tolerably clear. Concrete knowledge acquired by intuition, appears to assure our Buddhist friends of the fact of reincarnation. But they invariably refrain from a vain attempt to prove the “fact,” by an authorised—and consequently stereotyped—process of reasoning.
The unknown Hindoo author of The Bhagavad-Gita revealed in simple phraseology the native idea of reincarnation; and suggested, happily, an instructive theory concerning the advent of great Teachers and Saviours in every age. To Krishna are ascribed the following sayings;—
“Manifold the renewals of my birth
Have been.... When Righteousness
Declines, O Bharata, when Wickedness
Is strong, I rise, from age to age, and take
Visible shape, and move a man with men,
Succouring the good, thrusting the evil back,
And setting Virtue on her seat again.”
Rhys Davids justly observed that “to the pious Buddhist it is a constant source of joy and gratitude that ‘the Buddha,’ not only then, but in many former births, when emancipation from all the cares and troubles of life was already within his reach, should again and again, in mere love for man, have condescended to enter the world, and live amidst the sorrows inseparable from finite existence.”47 Perhaps in a more general sense the idea of reincarnation appealed strongly to the imagination of Wordsworth, when he was inspired to write these familiar, yet exquisite, lines:—
“Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
The soul that rises with us, our life’s star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting
And cometh from afar.”
Regarding the doctrines of Individuality and non-Individuality, which characterise the text of The Diamond Sutra, wherein are found to occur frequently Chinese equivalents for the ordinary concepts of an entity, a being, a living being and a personality, the following passage from The Bhagavad-Gita, suggestive almost of complete harmony with the Buddhist doctrine, may serve to make even a cursory consideration of the subject perhaps more illuminating. The passage, rendered by Sir Edwin Arnold, is as follows:—
“There is ‘true’ Knowledge, Learn it thou in this:
To see one changeless Life in all the Lives,
And in the Separate, One Inseparable.
There is imperfect Knowledge: that which sees
The separate existences apart,
And, being separated, holds them real.”
As Nirvana is only referred to casually in The Diamond Sutra, that familiar Buddhist term hardly calls for any present detailed explanation. Within a brief compass probably no better explanation may be forthcoming than what is already given in this concise exposition gathered from The Light of Asia:—
“If any teach Nirvana is to cease,
Say unto such they lie.
If any teach Nirvana is to live,
Say unto such they err; not knowing this,
Nor what light shines beyond their broken lamps,
Nor lifeless, timeless bliss.”
In concluding, it might be opportune to observe, that the Werthurtheile,48 known amongst modern theologians as characterising the teaching of Albrecht Ritschl—sounds, upon intimate acquaintance, merely as a faint echo of the logic of Sakyamuni Buddha. Ritschl might apply his Werthurtheile to the presumed interpretation of a “miracle,” etc. Buddha suggested by his “method,” that what is ordinarily referred to as a “miracle,” is not in reality a “miracle,” therefore it is merely defined as a “miracle.” So, also, with the various dogmas which distinguish every religious creed. By many Chinese it is regarded as an evidence of Divinity, that in the mind of Sakyamuni Buddha there was conceived this incisive logical method; and amongst the learned monks, profound homage is rendered, and much wonder expressed, because the Lord Buddha49 did not hesitate to apply its principles to every doctrine synonymous with his own accredited “Law.”
Source notes
1 “The Sutra of firm establishment in all doctrine, describing clearly the secret merit and attainments in the religious life of Tathagata.” (Compare Edkins’ Chinese Buddhism.)
2 See the preface to The Vagrakkhedika.
3 “A native of Western India who lived as a hermit under an Arguna tree, whence he derived his name. Converted by Kapimala, he laboured in Southern India as the fourteenth patriarch.... He is the chief representative, if not originator, of the Mahayana school, the greatest philosopher of the Buddhists, and as such styled ‘one of the four suns which illuminate the world.’ His own peculiar tenets have been perpetuated by a distinct metaphysical school called Madhyamika (Lit. Juste Milieu), the characteristics of which are a sophistic nihilism which dissolves every proposition into a thesis and its antithesis, and denies both. ‘The soul,’ said Nagarjuna, ‘has neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither annihilated by death nor non-annihilated.’ The tenets of this school are condensed in Nagardjuna’s commentary on the Mahaprajna Paramita S’astra. He spent the later part of his life in a monastery at Kosala ... (correct date probably a.d. 194). After his death he received the title Bodhisattva. He is the author of many S’atras.” (Compare Eitel’s Handbook of Chinese Buddhism.)
4See the preface to The Vagrakkhedika.
5 Kumarajiva was referred to as “one of the four suns of Buddhism” (Tchatvara Suryas). He laboured in China as a most active and judicious translator, and is credited with having introduced a new alphabet. One of Kumarajiva’s Chinese designations—Tung-Sheo—meant that, although young in years, he was ripe in the wisdom and virtues of old age. (Compare Eitel’s Handbook of Chinese Buddhism.)
6 Beal stated in his preface to the Kin-Kong-King, that “it was translated first into the Chinese by Kumara-Jiva (a.d. 405), who was brought into China from Thibet.”
7 Other translations, worthy of recognition, are those attributed respectively to Bodhiruki (a.d. 509), Paramartha (a.d. 562), Dharmagupa, of the Sui dynasty (a.d. 589–618), and I-Tsing (a.d. 703). (Compare the preface to The Vagrakkhedika.)
8 This information may be found in Max Müller’s Vagrakkhedika, and represented, doubtless, at the period when it was written, a considerable part of the knowledge available on the subject.
9 By Max Müller.