Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/52

 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