* * * * * * * *

Buddhism and Christianity

Among the five great religions to which nearly nine-tenths of

present-day humanity belong, Buddhism and Christianity have been the

most frequent subjects of comparison. And rightly so. Because,

together with Islam, and unlike Hinduism and Chinese universism, they

are "world religions," that is to say, forms of belief that have found

followers not merely in a single though vast country, but also in wide

regions of the world.

Buddhism and Christianity, however, differ from Islam in so far as,

unlike the latter, they do not stress the natural aspects of world and

man, but they wish to lead beyond them. A comparison between Buddhism

and Christianity, however, proves so fruitful mainly because they

represent, in the purest form, two great distinctive types of religion

which arose East and West of the Indus valley. For two millennia,

these religious systems have given the clearest expression of the

metaphysical ideas prevalent in the Far East and in the Occident,

respectively.

The similarities between these two religions extend, if I see it

rightly, essentially over three spheres: (1) the life history of the

founder; (2) ethics; and (3) church history.

1. The biographies of Buddha and Christ show many similar features.

Both were born in a miraculous way. Soon after their birth, their

future greatness is proclaimed by a sage (Asita, Simeon). Both

astonish their teachers through the knowledge they possess, though

still in their early childhood. Both are tempted by the devil before

they start upon their public career. Both walk over the water

(//Jataka//, 190; //Matth.//, 14, 26). Both feed 500 and 5,000 persons,

respectively (//Jataka//, 78; //Mark//, 14, 16ff.) by multiplying

miraculously the food available. The death of both is accompanied by

great natural phenomena. Also the parables ascribed to them show some

similarities as, for instance, the story of the sower (//Samyutta//,

42, 7; //Matth.// 13,3), of the prodigal son (//Lotus of the Good

Law//, Chap. IV; //Lk.//, 14), of the widow's mite

(//Kalpanamanditika//; //Mark// 12).

From these parallels some writers have attempted to conclude that

the Gospels have drawn from Buddhist texts. But this contention goes

much too far. If there is any dependence at all of the stories in the

Gospels on those of India, it could be only by oral tradition, through

the migration to the West of certain themes which originated in India,

and were taken over by the authors of the biblical scriptures. But

that is in no way certain, because many of those similarities are not

so striking as to exclude the possibility of their independent origin

at different places.

2. Both Buddha and Jesus based their ethics on the "Golden Rule."

Buddha told the Brahmins and householders of a certain village as

follows: "A lay-follower reflects thus: How can I inflict upon others

what is unpleasant to me?' On account of that reflection, he does not

do any evil to others, and he also does not cause others to do so"

(//Samyutta// 55, 7). And Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,

do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets" (//Matth.// 7,

12; //Lk.// 6, 31) -- this being, by the way, a teaching which, in

negative formulation, was already known to the Jewish religion

(//Tob.// 15, 4).

Also the principle "Love they neighbor like unto yourself"

(//Lk.// 10,27) which, in connection with //Lev.// 19,18, was raised

by Jesus to a maxim of ethical doctrine, is likewise found in Buddhism

where it was given a philosophical foundation mainly by the thinkers

of //Mahayana// (Santideva, beginning of Siksasamuccaya). As to the

injunction that love should also be extended to the enemy there is

also a parallel statement by the Buddha. According to the //Majjhima

Nikaya//, No. 21, he said: "If, O monks, robbers or highwaymen should

with a double-handled saw cut your limbs and joints, whoso gave way to

anger thereat would not be following my advice. For thus ought you to

train yourselves: 'Undisturbed shall our mind remain, no evil words

shall escape our lips; friendly and full of sympathy shall we remain,

with heart full of love, free from any hidden malice. And that person

shall we suffuse with loving thoughts; and from there the whole

world.'"

A practical proof of the love of enemies was given, as the report

goes by the Buddhist sage, Aryadeva. After a philosophical

disputation, a fanatical adversary attacked him in his cell with a

sword, and Aryadeva was fatally wounded. In spite of that, he is said

to have helped his murderer to escape by disguising him with his own

monk's robe. Schopenhauer, and others after him, believed, in view of

these ethical teachings, that the Gospels, "must somehow be of Indian

origin" (//parega// II, sec. 179), and that Jesus was influenced by

Buddhism with which he was said to have become acquainted in Egypt.

For such a supposition, however, there is not the slightest reason,

since we encounter similar noble thoughts also among Chinese and Greek

sages, and, in fact, among the great minds of the whole world, without

having to assume some actual interdependence.

3. Also the historical development of both religions presents

several parallels. Both, setting out from the countries of their

origin, have spread over large parts of the world, but in their

original homelands they have scarcely any followers left. The number

of Christians in Palestine is very small today, and on the whole

continent of India proper, there are at present not even half a

million Buddhists.[*] The brahmanical counter-reformation starting

about 800 A.C., and the onslaught of Islam beginning about 1000 A.C.,

have brought about the passing of already decadent Buddhism in its

fatherland, while it counts millions of devotees in Sri Lanka, Burma,

Thailand, China, Japan, Tibet, Mongolia and so on. It is strange how

little that fact of the disappearance of Buddhism from the land of the

Ganges has been apprised by even many educated persons in the West.

Some still believe that Buddhism is the dominant religion of India

proper, though out of a population of 400 million, about 95 million

belong to the Islam, and 270 million are Hindus (that is devotees of

Vishnu and Shiva) among whom the caste system prevails, with Brahmins

constituting the hereditary priestly gentry.

[*] Since this essay was written, the number of Buddhists in

India has increased to an estimated 10-15 million in 1959,

mainly due to the mass movement among the scheduled classes

initiated by the late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. -- The Editor.

It is also significant that today the overwhelming majority of the

followers of Buddhism and Christianity belong to a race and linguistic

group different from those of their founders. Buddha was an

Indo-Aryan; but, with a few exceptions, most of his devotees are found

today among yellow races. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews, but the

main contingent of Christians is made up of Europeans speaking

Indo-Germanic languages. This shows, very strikingly, that race,

language and religion are entirely different spheres. There is perhaps

a deep law underlying that fact. Nations of foreign blood accept a new

religion with such a great sympathy and enthusiasm probably because if

offers them something which they did not possess of their own, and

which, therefore, supplements their own mental heritage in an

important way. This holds true also in the case of Islam, since among

the nearly 300 million Mohammedans, those of the prophet's race, the

Semites, are in a minority compared with the Muslims of Turkish,

Persian, Indian, Malayan and African extraction.

In the course of their historical development and their

dissemination among foreign nations, Buddhism as well as Christianity

have absorbed much that was alien to them at the start. One may even

say that, after a religion has gone through a sufficiently long period

of development and has been exposed to divers influences, more or less

all phenomena will appear which the history of religion has ever

produced. Buddhism and Christianity originally had strict views on all

matters of sex, but in both certain sects appeared again and again

which were given to moral laxity or even taught ritual sex enjoyment,

as in Buddhism the Shakti cults of the "Diamond Vehicle"

(//Vajrayana//), or in Christianity certain gnostic schools, medieval

sects and modern communities. Buddha and Christ reject extreme

asceticism, but there arose numerous zealots who not only advocated

painful self-mortification, but even castrated (as the Skopzi) or

burned themselves. Pristine Buddhism taught self-liberation through

knowledge. Later, however, a school arose which considered man too

weak to win salvation by himself, and instead expected deliverance by

the grace of Buddha Amitabha. These Amitabha schools have developed a

theology which, to a certain extent, presents a parallel to the

Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith. In Japan, the most

influential of these schools, the Shin sect, has even broken with the

principle of monastic celibacy, and thereby, produced a sort of

Buddhist clergy of the Protestant type. On the other hand, Tibetan

Buddhism has created a kind of ecclesiastical state with the Dalai

Lama as its supreme head.

Both Buddhism and Christianity teach the transcending of the world.

And, in conformity with the ideas of the supremacy of the spiritual

life over the conventions of the world, in the monastic order of the

church community all class distinctions had to cease. The Buddha

taught: "As the rivers lose their names when they reach the ocean,

just so members of all castes lose their designations once they have

gone forth into homelessness, following the teaching and the

discipline of the Perfect One" (//Ang.// 8, 19). And the Apostle Paul

wrote (//Gal.// 3, 28): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is

neither slave nor freeman, neither male nor female, for you are all

one in Jesus Christ."

These postulates, however, did not change conditions prevailing in

worldly life. Social reforms were entirely alien to the intentions of

Buddhism and Christianity in these early days. In various countries

and up to modern times, there were not only house slaves, and even

temple slaves, but even in Christian countries, slavery was abolished

only in the 19th century (Brazil, 1888).

Finally, both religions have in common certain features of cult and

forms of worship. I mention here only: monasticism, tonsure of the

clergy, confession, the cult of images, relic worship, ringing of

bells, use of rosary and incense, and the erection of towers. There

has been much controversy about the question whether, and to what

extent, one may assume mutual influence with regard to these and

several other similarities, but research has so far not come to an

entirely satisfactory conclusion.

Though in many details there are great similarities between

Buddhism and Christianity, one must not overlook the fact that in

matters of doctrine they show strong contrasts, and their conceptions

of salvation belong to entirely different types of religious attitude.

Buddhism, in its purest form, presents a religion based on the

conception of an eternal and universal law, a conception found in

various forms in India, China and Japan. Christianity, on the other

hand, belongs, together with the teaching of Zoroaster, the Jewish

religion and Islam, to those religions that profess to have a divine

revelation which is manifested in history, and these religions have

conquered for themselves all parts of the world west of India. The

contrast between Buddhism and Christianity will become clear by

objectively placing side by side their central doctrines. I shall base

that comparison on what are still today, just as nearly 2,000 years

ago, the fundamental doctrinal tenets of both religions, and shall not

consider here differences of detail of modern interpretations. Since I

may assume an acquaintance with the teaching of Christianity, I shall

begin each subsequent discussion of single points with a very brief

statement of the Christian doctrine concerned, following it up with a

somewhat more detailed treatment of the different teachings in

Buddhism. I hope that in that way I shall be able to bring out clearly

the differences between these two religions.

1. Christianity differs from all great world religions first of all

in that it gives to the personality of its founder a central position

in world history as well as in the doctrine of salvation. In Buddhism,

Zoroastrianism, Islam, Judaism, and still more so in religions having

no personal founder but being products of historical growth, like

Hinduism and Chinese universism, in all of them it is a definite

metaphysical and ethical doctrine promulgated by holy men which is the

very center of their systems. For the Christian, however, it is faith

in Jesus Christ that is the inner core of his religion. This evinces

most clearly from the fact alone that the 22 scriptures of the New

Testament contain only comparatively few sermons of Jesus concerned

with doctrinal matters, while by far the greatest part of the Buddhist

Canon is devoted to expositions of the Buddha's teachings. In the

scriptures of the New Testament, from the Gospel of St. Matthew to the

Revelation of St. John, the most important concern of the authors was

to demonstrate that Christ was a supernatural figure unique in the

entire history of the world. Christ's redemptory death on the cross,

his resurrection, ascension, and his future advent are, therefore, the

core of the Christian doctrine of salvation.

Buddha's position in Buddhist doctrine bears in no way comparison

with those features of Christianity. For the historical Gautama was

not the incarnation of God; he was a human being, purified through

countless rebirths as animal, man or angel, until finally in his last

embodiment, he attained by his own strength that liberating knowledge

with enabled him to enter Nirvana. He was one who pointed out the way

to deliverance, but did not, by himself, bestow salvation on others.

Though also to him a miraculous birth has been attributed, yet it was

not described as a virginal birth. The whole difference, however, of

the Buddha's status from that of Christ is chiefly demonstrated by the

fact that a Buddha is not an isolated historical phenomenon, but that

many Enlightened Ones had appeared in the past, teaching the same

doctrine; and that in the future, too, Buddhas will appear in the

world who will expound to erring humanity the same principles of

deliverance in a new form. The latter Buddhism of the Great Vehicle

(//Mahayana//) even teaches that many if not all men carry within

themselves the seed of Buddhahood, so that after many rebirths they

themselves will finally attain the highest truth and impart it to

others.

2. But even the historical personalities of Jesus and the Buddha

differ widely. Jesus grew up in a family of poor Jewish craftsmen.

Devoting himself exclusively to religious questions, he was a successor

of the Jewish prophets who enthusiastically proclaimed the divine

inspirations bestowed upon them. As a noble friend of mankind, full of

compassion for the poor, he preached gentleness and love for one's

neighbor; but, on the other hand, he attacked with a passionate zeal

abuses, for instance when he showed up as hypocrites the Scribes and

Pharisees, when he drove from the Temple the traders and

money-lenders, and held out the prospect of eternal damnation to those

who refused to believe in him (//Mark// 16, 16). With the conviction

of being the expected Messiah he preached the early advent of the

Heavenly kingdom (//Matth.// 10, 23). With that promise he primarily

turned to the "poor in spirit" (//Matth.// 5, 3), because not

speculative reasoning, but pious and deep faith is the decisive

factor: What is hidden to the clever and wise, has been revealed by

God to the babes (//Matth.// 11, 25).

Gautama Buddha, however, stemmed from the princely house of the

Sakyas that reigned on the southern slopes of the Himalaya. He lived

in splendor and luxury up to his 29th year, when he left the palace

and its womenfolk and went forth into homelessness as a mendicant.

After a six years' vain quest for insight spent with various Brahman

ascetics, he won enlightenment at Uruvela. This transformed the

Bodhisattva, i.e., an aspirant for enlightenment, into a Buddha, that

is into one who has awakened to truth. From then onward, up to the

eightieth year of his life, he proclaimed the path of deliverance

found by him. He died at Kusinara about 480 B.C. Buddha was an

aristocrat of high culture, with a very marked sense for beauty in

nature and art, free from any resentment, and possessed of a deep

knowledge of man's nature. He was a balanced personality, with a

serene mind and winning manners, representing the type of a sage who,

with firm roots within, had risen above the world. In the struggle

with the systems of his spiritually dynamic time, he evolved out of

his own thought a philosophical system that made high demands on the

mental faculties of his listeners. As he himself said: "My doctrine is

for the wise and not for the unwise." The fact that his teaching had

an appeal also for the uneducated is explained by his great skill in

summarizing in easily intelligible language the fundamental ideas of

his philosophy.

So far we have found the following difference between Buddhism and

Christianity: Christianity, from its very start was a //movement of

faith// appealing to the masses; only when it won over the upper

classes did a Christian philosophy evolve. Buddhism, however, was in

its beginnings a //philosophical teaching of deliverance//. Its

adherents were mainly from the classes of noblemen and warriors and

the wealthy middle-class, with a few Brahmins. Only when Buddhism

reached wider circles did it become a popular religion.

3. The teaching of all great religions are laid down in holy

scriptures to which an authoritative character is ascribed surpassing

all other literature. Christianity regards the Bible as the "Word of

God," as an infallible source of truth in which God, by inspiring the

authors of these scriptures, revealed things that otherwise would have

remained hidden to man. Contrary to Christianity, Islam and Hinduism,

atheistic Buddhism does not know of a revelation in that sense.

Nevertheless, it possesses a great number of holy texts in which the

sayings of the Buddha are collected. That Canon comprises those

insights which the Buddha is said to have won by his own strength

through comprehending the true nature of reality. It is claimed that

everyone who, in his mental development, reaches the same high stage

of knowledge will find confirmed by himself the truth of the Buddha's

statements. In fact, however, Buddhists ascribe to that Canon likewise

a kind of revealing character, in so far as they appeal to the sayings

of the "omniscient" Buddha which are regarded by them as the final

authority. The interpretation of the Buddha word, however, has led

among Buddhists to as many controversies as Bible exegesis among

Christians.

We shall now proceed to describe the fundamental tenets of

Christian and Buddhist doctrine. In doing so, we shall have to limit

ourselves to the general principles which, for two thousand years,

have been common to all schools or denominations of these religions. I

shall first speak about the different position taken by Christians and

Buddhists towards the central questions of religion -- that is God,

worlds and soul -- and later proceed to a treatment of their teachings

on salvation.

4. The central tenet of Christian doctrine is the belief in an

eternal, personal, omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving God. He has

created the world from nothing, sustains it, and directs its destiny;

he is law-giver, judge, the helper in distress and the savior of the

creatures which he has brought into being. Angels serve him to carry

out his will. As originally created by God, all of them were good

angels. But a section of them turned disobedient, and breaking away

from the heavenly hosts, formed an opposition to the other angels, a

hierarchy which under its leader, Satan, strives to entice man to

evil. Though the devil's power is greater than that of man, it is

restricted by the power of God so that they cannot do anything without

God's consent, and at the end of the days they will be subjected to

divine judgement.

Buddhists, on their part, believe in a great number of deities

(//devata//) which direct the various manifestations of nature and of

human life. They also know of evil demons and a kind of devil,

//Mara//, who tries to turn the pious from the path of virtue. But all

these beings are impermanent though their life span may last millions

of years. In the course of their rebirths they have come to their

superhuman form of existence thanks to their own deeds, but when the

productive power of their deeds is exhausted, they have to be reborn

on earth again, as humans. Though the world will always have a sun god

or a thunder god, the occupants of these positions will change again

and again, in the course of time. It is obvious that these gods with

their restricted life span, range of action and power, cannot be

compared with the Christian God since they cannot, be it singly or in

their totality, create the world or give it its moral laws. Hence they

resemble only powerful superhuman kings whom the pious devotees may

well, to a certain extent, solicit for gifts and favors, but who

cannot exert any influence on world events in their totality.

Many Hindus assume that, above the numerous impermanent deities,

exists an eternal, omniscient, all-loving and omnipotent God who

creates, sustains, rules and destroys the world. But the Buddhists

deny the existence of such a Lord of the Universe because, according

to them, in the first place, no such original creator of the world can

be proved to exist, since every cause must have another cause; and

secondly, an omnipotent God will also have to be the creator of evil

and this will conflict with his all-loving nature; or, alternatively,

if he is to be good and benevolent, he will have to be thought of

without omnipotence and omniscience, since otherwise he would not have

called into existence this imperfect world of suffering or he would

have eliminated evil. Buddhism, therefore, is outspokenly atheistic in

that respect. The world is not governed by a personal God, but by an

impersonal law which, with inexorable consistency, brings retribution

for every morally good or evil deed. The idea that there are numerous

deities of limited power can be found also in other religions; and the

ancient Greeks, Romans and Germans believed that, above the gods,

there is Moira, Anangke, Fatum or Destiny, which eventually rules

everything. For the Chinese the highest principle is the "Tao" which

sustain the cosmic order and the harmony between heaven, earth and

man. With the Indians there appears already in Vedic times the idea

that gods and men are subject to the moral word-order, the Rita, and

from about 800 B.C. this idea is linked with the doctrine of

//Karma//, the doctrine of the after-effects of guilt and merit.

According to that doctrine, every action carries in itself, seed-like,

its own reward punishment. After death, an individual, in accordance

with his good or evil deeds, is reincarnated in the body of either an

animal, a man, a deity or a demon, in order to reap the fruits of his

previous actions. This retribution occurs automatically, as a natural,

regular occurrence, without requiring a divine judge who shares out

reward and punishment.

As to the differences between Buddhism and Christianity, in the

present context, we may say that the same functions which in Christian

doctrine are related to the concept of a personal God are in Buddhism

divided among a number of different factors. The natural and moral

order of the world and its periodical rise and fall are preserved by

an impersonal and immanent cosmic law (//Dharma//). The retribution

for one's actions operates through the inherent efficacy of these

deeds themselves. Helpers in need are the numerous but transient

deities, while the truths of deliverance are revealed by human beings

evolved to the perfection of Buddhas (Awakened Ones), who therefore

are also made objects of cult and devotion. Savior, however, is each

man for himself, in so far as he has overcome the world through wisdom

and self-control.

The homage paid to the Buddha, as it may be observed in Buddhist

temples, has a meaning quite different from the worship of God in

Christian Churches. The Christian worships God in reverence due to the

creator of the universe and the ruler of all its destinies; or he does

so in order to be granted spiritual or material boons by God's grace.

The Buddhist pays homage to the Buddha without expecting that he hears

him or does something for him. Since the Buddha has entered into

Nirvana he can neither hear the prayers of the pious nor can he help

them. If a Buddhist turns to the Buddha as if to a personality that

actually confronts him, his act has a fictive character. The devotee

expects from his act only spiritual edification and a good Karma. This

theory as advocated today by orthodox Buddhism has, however, often

been altered in practice and in the teachings of some of the Buddhist

schools. But even those who think it possible that a Buddha may

intervene in favor of a devotee regard the Buddha only as a savior,

a bringer of deliverance, and not as the creator and ruler of the

universe.

5. According to the Christian doctrine, God has created the world

from nothing, and he rules it according to a definite plan. The

stopping of the cosmic process comprises the end of the world, the

universal resurrection of the dead, the Day of Judgement, the eternal

damnation of the sinners and the eternal bliss of the pious in a

heavenly Jerusalem descended to earth. Until the 18th century, it was

believed that the entire world history comprised only 6,000 years,

though the time of the creation has been calculated differently. The

Byzantines made their world era start on the 1st day of September,

5509 B.C., while Luther dated the creation at the year 3960 B.C.

Although the calculations about the beginning and the end of the world

procession -- mainly based on the statements about the generations

between Adam and Christ (//Matth.// 1, 17 and //Lk.// 3,21) -- have

been abandoned in recent times, yet for Christianity the view that the

historical fact of creation and salvation constitutes a single and

unrepeatable event, remains a guiding principle.

Buddhism, however, knows neither a first beginning nor a definite

end of the world. Since every form of existence presupposes action in

a preceding life, and since karma produced on one existence must find

its retribution in a future one, Buddhism teaches a periodical cycle

of cosmic rise and fall, evolution and dissolution. Since the number

of living beings that produce karma is infinitely vast, and the

unexhausted karma of beings inhabiting a world which is the process of

dissolution has to find realization in a newly arising world, worldly

existence will never come to an end, however large the number of human

beings may be that reach deliverance. There is another essential

difference between the Christian and the Buddhist conception of the

world: Buddhists have always assumed an infinite number of world

systems situated next to each other in space, each of them consisting

of an earth, a heaven above and a hell below.

6. According to Christian views, man is composed of body and soul.

While the body is formed of matter in the mother's womb, the soul is a

special creation of God, from nothing. A soul is a simple, spiritual,

immaterial substance. Maintained in eternal existence by God, the soul

continues also after the dissolution of the body at death and receives

from God the rewards of its deeds, either in heaven or hell. At the

end of time, God causes a resurrection of all flesh and united again

the souls with their former bodies. By the fact that thus the whole

man, i.e., not only his soul but also his body, receives reward or

punishment, the bliss of the heavenly realm of the torment of eternal

damnation is felt with still greater intensity. In Christianity, the

significance of life on earth, and of the decisions made in it, has

been enhanced to the utmost through the idea that it is man's conduct

during that short life-span which determines the soul's destiny for

all eternity.

Also many Indian systems are based upon that anthropological

dualism. It is the conception of an infinitely large number of eternal

and purely spiritual souls linked, since beginningless time, with

bodies formed by particles of primordial matter. The souls are thought

to change these bodies in the course of their existences, until they

become free of them on attainment of deliverance. In contrast to all

Indian teachings of deliverance, and most others, Buddhism denies the

existence of eternal substances, essentially unchangeable. What

appears to us as matter, actually comes into being only through the

natural co-operation of a multitude of single factors like colors,

sounds, odors, tactiles, spatial and temporal qualities, etc. Also

what we call the "soul" is only a play of ever-changing sensations,

perceptions and cognitive acts, combined into an entirety, yet being

devoid of any underlying entity. It is only because some of these

complex phenomena seem to have a relative stability that men believe

in the existence of matter or soul. But in truth, only //dharmas//

exist, i.e., "factors of existence" that arise in functional

dependence on each other, and cease again after a short time. This

doctrine of the //dharmas// is the characteristic teaching peculiar to

Buddhism. It was developed by the Buddha into a philosophy of becoming

from an idea still noticeable in the Vedic texts ascribing positive

subsistence to everything that exists including qualities, events,

modal states, etc.

In that respect, Buddha is a precursor of Hume and Mach who

likewise declared any substance to be a fiction. But for the Buddha,

the doctrine of the //dharmas// combines with the acceptance of a

moral law governing the efficacy of all actions. Just as nothing

occurs without producing some effect in the physical world, so every

morally good or evil act is the cause of definite effects. Though when

a being dies a combination of factors is dissolved which had

previously formed a personality, yet the deeds performed in the new

life now passed become the cause of a new and separate being's birth.

The newly born is different from the being that had died, but it takes

over, as it were, the latter's inheritance. Thus the stream of the

factors of existence is continued also after death, and one life form

follows the other without break. Since any act can have only a

retribution of limited duration, Buddhists do not know eternal bliss

in heaven or eternal torments in hell, but believe that the

inhabitants of heaven and hell are later reborn again on earth.

7. Christianity and Buddhism agree in their strong emphasis on the

impermanency of all things. In Christianity, the suffering inherent in

the world is the outcome of sin, and sin is disobedience towards God's

commandments. Because Adam had sinned, all his progeny is afflicted

with Original Sin. Man is too weak to free himself from sin by his own

strength. Therefore God in his compassion became man in Christ, and

died as a vicarious redemptory sacrifice for all humanity. Through

Christ's sacrificial death all men have become free from the power of

sin, but that vicarious salvation from evil becomes reality only if

man opens himself to divine grace through his faith in Christ.

The idea of collective guilt and collective salvation is far from

the Buddhist's way of thinking. According to Buddhism, everyone

accumulates his own evil and everyone has to work out his own

deliverance. The entire Christian conception of sin, as a matter of

fact, is alien to the Buddhist. If man has to suffer in punishment for

his misdeeds, it is not on account of his disobeying divine

commandments, but because his actions are in conflict with the eternal

cosmic law and, therefore, produce bad karma. In general, the

suffering which is life for a Buddhist is not stamped with the mark of

sin, but carries only the character of impermanence and

insubstantiality. This inherent characteristic of existence is the

cause of life ever ending in death, of life with its aimless and

meaningless wandering through always new forms of being. It is that

which basically constitutes life's suffering. And the cause of this

woeful conflict is a thirst for sense enjoyment, an attachment to

existence, a will to live, a passion that either craves for possession

or wants to escape. All these propensities and impulses have their

original source in ignorance, that is, in lack of insight into the

true nature of reality. He who sees that neither in the internal nor

in the external world can anything be found that abides; and that

there is also no ego as a point of rest within the general flux of

phenomena; who is aware that there is no self either as the eternal

witness or temporary owner of sense perceptions and volitions -- such

a one, through that very knowledge, is set free of selfishness, of

hate, greed and delusion. By a gradual process of purification,

extending through aeons over many existences, he finally discards the

illusion of self-affirmation. Through mindful observation, keen

reflection and meditative calm he eliminates all selfish propensities,

and sees also his own personality as a mere bundle of //dharmas//,

i.e., processes of natural law that arise and vanish conditioned by

functional relations. Dispassionate and without attachment, he

pervades, as the Buddhist scriptures say, "the whole world with his

heart filled with loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and

equanimity" (//Digha// No. 3). Without clinging to life and without

fear of death he waits for the hour when his bodily form breaks up and

he reaches final deliverance from rebirth.

8. The definite and perpetual state of salvation which is the

redeemed person's share according to Christian doctrine is conceived

as an eternal life in the heavenly kingdom. If, after the second

advent of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgement,

the final kingdom of God has been established, then, after the old

world's destruction, on a new earth, the redeemed ones will live in an

inseparable communion with God and Christ.

The Buddhist conception of Nirvana presents the most radical

contrast to Christian eschatology. The Christian hopes for infinite

continuation of his entire personality, not only of his soul but also

of his body resurrected from dust to a new life. The Buddhist,

however, wishes to be extinguished completely, so that all mental and

corporeal factors which form the individual will disappear without a

remainder. Nirvana is the direct opposite of all that constitutes

earthly existence. It is a relative Naught in so far as it contains

neither the consciousness nor any other factor that occurs in this

world of change or could possibly contribute to its formation. Not

wrongly, therefore, has Nirvana been compared to empty space in which

there are no differentiations left, and which does not cling to

anything. In strongest contrast to the world which is impermanent,

without an abiding self-nature and subject to suffering, Nirvana is

highest bliss, but a bliss that is not //felt//, i.e., beyond the

happiness of sensation (//Ang.// 9, 34, 1-3). In the conception of

the final goal of deliverance there is expressed the ultimate and most

decisive contrast between the Christian and the Buddhist abnegation

off the world. The Christian renounces the world because it is

imperfect through sin, and he hopes for a personal, active and eternal

life beyond, in a world which, through God's power, has been freed

from sin and purified to perfection. But the Buddhist thinks that an

individual existence without becoming and cessation, and hence without

suffering, is unthinkable. He believes though, that in future, during

the ever-recurring cyclical changes of good and bad epochs, also a

happy age will dawn upon mankind again. But that happy epoch will be

no less transient than earlier ones have been. Never will the cosmic

process find its crowning consummation in a blessed finality. Hence

there is no collective salvation, but only an individual deliverance.

While the cosmic process following unalterable laws continues its

course, only a saint who has become mature for Nirvana will extinguish

like a flame without fuel, in the midst of an environment that, with

fuel unexhausted, is still aburning.

9. The different attitude towards the world and its history tallies

also with the dissimilar evaluation given to other religions by

Christians and Buddhists respectively. Christianity, being convinced

of the absolute superiority of its own faith, has always questioned

the justification of other forms of faith. Buddhism, however, does not

believe that man has to decide about it within a single life on earth.

The Buddhist, therefore, regards all other religions as first steps to

his own. Consequently, in the countries to which Buddhism spread, it

did not fight against the original religions found there, but tried to

suffuse them with its own spirit. Therefore, Buddhism has never

claimed exclusive, absolute or totalitarian authority. In modern China

most Buddhists are simultaneously Confucians and Taoists, and in Japan

membership in a Buddhist sect does not exclude faith in the Shinto

gods. This large-hearted tolerance of Buddhism is also illustrated in

its history, which is almost free from religious wars and persecution

of heretics.

The fundamental doctrines of Buddhism and Christianity as outlined

here and accepted as concrete facts by the majority of the faithful

has sometimes been interpreted by thinkers of both religions in a

rationalistic or in a mystical sense, and these interpretations have

modified the meaning of these doctrines considerably. In our present

context, however, we cannot enter into a treatment of these

transformations. By doing so, our comparative study would lack that

firm ground required, which, for a historian's purpose, can be

provided only by the authoritative and clearly-outlined tenets of the

respective teachings.

Though Buddhism and Christianity differ from each other in their

respective views about world and self, about the meaning of life and

man's ultimate destiny, yet they agree again in the ultimate

postulates of all religious life. For both religions proclaim man's

responsibility for his actions and the freedom of moral choice; both

teach retribution for all deeds, and believe in the perfectibility of

the individual. "You must be perfect as your Father in Heaven is

perfect" (//Matth.// 5, 48), says Jesus. And the Buddha summarizes the

essence of his ethics in the words: "To shun all evil, to practice

what is good, to cleanse one's own heart: that is the teaching of the

Enlightened Ones."

* * *

Buddhism and the Vital Problems of Our Time

Buddhism venerates as its founder the Indian Prince Siddhartha of the

family of the Shakyas (c. 560-480 B.C.), whom his contemporaries were

accustomed to call by his surname Gautama or by the honorific

"Buddha." The word Buddha means the Awakened, the Enlightened, and was

applied to the Indian men of those times who were believed to have

fathomed the mystery of the world and to have discovered the way to

salvation by their own efforts and not through revelation. The gospel

of Gautama spread quickly over the whole of India in his lifetime and

after his death, but fell into decay by about 100 A.D., and had to

give way, in the country of its origin, to Hinduism and Islam.

But Buddhism found ample recompense for this loss in Sri Lanka and

Further India, in China, Japan, Tibet and Mongolia. The number of

Buddhists in the Far East is estimated at 500 to 600 million, but this

figure does not give a clear idea of its extension, since the

acceptance of some of its doctrines or the observance of Buddhist

customs is not incompatible with adhesion to Confucianism, Taoism,

Shinto and the various popular cults. For it has always been foreign

to the spirit of Buddhism to claim exclusive validity. On the

contrary, in its all-embracing tolerance, it has always lived

peacefully side by side with other religions, and has absorbed ideas

originally foreign to it, trying to permeate them with its own spirit.

Present-day Buddhism flourishes in two different forms. In Sri

Lanka and Further India the original doctrine prevails, which is

called the Lesser Vehicle, or //Hinayana//; in the Far East and

Tibetan cultural area this "simple doctrine" has undergone a

significant broadening as regards philosophy and ceremonial. This is

called the Great Vehicle to salvation, //Mayahana//. But the basic

ideas of all forms of Buddhism have remained more or less the same, so

that in our survey we need take no notice of the differences in

detail.

Among world religions, Buddhism is the one whose area of influence

lies furthest from the West, and also that which is most different in

its doctrine from the teachings of Christianity and Islam.

God

First and foremost, Buddhism does not teach the existence of any

personal god who created and rules the world. It admits the existence

of many gods; but these are only transitory beings with limited

powers. They are born and pass way; they can exert no influence on the

world process as a whole. Also the great saints and saviors, the

Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, do not have the position which the Western

religions ascribe to their one God. They can enlighten individuals,

and according to the Great Vehicle can lead them by their grace to the

path of salvation. But they are not able to interfere with the cosmic

process or change the world.

The universe follows its own unalterable natural and moral laws.

The most important of these is the law of karma, the law of

retributive moral causality. This brings it about that every ethically

good or bad action inexorably finds its rewards or punishment, because

the doer of the deed is born again after his death as a new being, and

in that life reaps what he has sown in the previous life.

The Soul

Another point on which Buddhism differs from Christianity and Islam is

this: both Western religions assume immortal souls created by God,

which, after death continue to exist in heaven or hell. Buddhism,

however, denies that there can be anything in the world which persists

unchanged. According to its theory, life is a stream of elements which

are always coming into existence and ceasing to exist, which influence

each other according to certain laws. The life-stream of man continues

after his death as a new being which has to pursue its happy and

unhappy existence, as god, man, animal or inhabitant of hell, in

accordance with the good or evil nature of his deeds. A life continues

until the karma, the power of the deeds which called the being into

existence, is exhausted. Then, on the basis of the actions performed

in that life, a new being comes into existence which is the heir of

the previous life, and so on.

Since each life is the consequence of the actions of a previous

life, no beginning of the world can be conceived. Since in each life

new actions are performed which produce karma, there can in the

natural course of things be no end of the world. A few beings,

however, succeed, through knowledge of truth, in getting rid of the

passions which are the root cause of the karmic process. They withdraw

from the world, they enter into Nirvana, into the great peace. But,

however many beings may enter into Nirvana, the cosmic process will

never come to an end. For the number of beings who inhabit the

infinitely vast number of worlds as animals, men, spirits, gods and

inhabitants of hell, is infinitely great.

Thus as little can be said about an end of the world as about a

beginning. And with this we come to a third important point where

Buddhism differs from Islam and Christianity. Both of these teach that

the world was created by God out of nothing, that it remains under his

governance for some thousands of years and that on the Last Day it

will come to a definite end, when the dead will rise again, all men

will receive their eternal reward or eternal punishment, and a new

earth of eternal duration and splendor will be created. The ideas of

a primordial creation and a definite end of the world are as foreign

to Buddhism as that of a providential direction of cosmic events in

accordance with a divine plan. It will be evident that, because of

these divergences from the conceptions and dogmas of theistic

religions, Buddhism must strive at different answers concerning many

of the questions which concern us here.

Before I proceed to discuss these questions, I must say a word

about my own personal attitude towards Buddhism. I am not a Buddhist,

but one engaged in Buddhist research. I have concerned myself for over

thirty years with the Buddhist scriptures in the Indian languages, and

have studied the principal Buddhist countries (except Tibet and

Mongolia) at first-hand on three prolonged visits. In view of my

knowledge of the Buddhist sacred writings, and the many discussions I

have had with Buddhist monks and laymen, I believe I can answer these

questions objectively and correctly in the spirit of Buddhism. I hope

that in this way I shall be able to add to the understanding of a

doctrine the study of which has been my life's work, and a knowledge

of which, in my opinion, is necessary for anybody who seriously

concerns himself with the various solutions which the riddle of

existence puts before us.

Question 1: The Meaning of Life

The first questions which has been addressed to me is:

"So far as we can see, both the life of the individual, and the

history of mankind, as a whole, proceed according to definite laws and

in definite phases. Apart from such causal regularities, has life any

//meaning// which is comprehensible to us? Has man any definite task

within this world? Or does this task merely consist in preparing

himself to leave the world?

"Regarded from the religious standpoint, is it ultimately

unimportant how man behaves in this world? If not, where can he find

directions as to his behavior, and how can he know the validity of

these directions? If the world has a comprehensible meaning, how is

the suffering of innocent people to be explained?"

As I see it, there are in this group of questions no fewer than six

separate questions. I shall answer them one by one.

(a) Cosmology

What is the goal of the cosmic process? According to the Buddhist

view, which I have already outlined, this question cannot be answered.

For Buddhism does not believe in a final state of things towards which

history progresses. The cosmos is in eternal movement, and the

numerous world systems of which if consists pass periodically through

the four phases of coming into being, existence, dissolution and

non-existence.

Buddhist cosmology usually starts by describing how an existing

world which is ripe for dissolution is emptied of its inhabitants.

These beings, after their death, are born again in another world, and

the uninhabited world is destroyed completely by fire, water or wind.

The world thus destroyed disappears for an enormous period of time,

and there exists in its place only empty space. When the lawfully

fixed period of non-existence comes to an end, there arises a new

world system by virtue of the latent karmic power of the beings of the

world which was destroyed. In empty space there first springs up a

faint breeze which grows ever stronger and finally the heaven worlds,

earth and hell are formed. These are then populated with the beings

who have had to live through the intervening period in other worlds.

At the beginning of such a newly arisen world, men are without sex.

They are endowed with a radiant body, they hover over the earth's

surface, and they need no physical nourishment. But because out of

curiosity they feed on the finer substance of the earth, they become

earth-bound creatures with gross and perishable bodies. Desire which

grows ever stronger in them causes them gradually to lose their

original purity and virtue; they give themselves to bodily pleasures

and quarrel with each other over their possessions which had so far

been held in common. So that order may be re-established, property is

introduced, and one man is installed as king. The need for a division

of labor then leads to the formation of special callings and castes.

Over a period of millions of years, the natural and moral condition

of the world deteriorates from generation to generation, so that human

beings who in the beginning had an unimaginably long life, now never

live beyond a hundred years. This position in which we find ourselves

now will in the future become still worse. At last Armageddon, "the

time of the swords," breaks out, which lasts for seven days, during

which the greater part of mankind is killed.

During this period of horror a few men have gone back to live in

the forest and subsist peacefully on fruit and roots. Taught by the

catastrophe, they determine for the future to live a peaceful, moral

life. Henceforth conditions improve so that men become good and happy.

This better state of things again lasts only for a time, and then

decline sets in. Twenty periods of this kind of falling and rising

culture, follow in succession. When in the last, the twentieth period,

the optimal point is reached, an emptying of the world from all living

beings takes place, and finally its destruction, as described before.

In this manner the cosmos undergoes continuous change, as in

accordance with eternal laws, many worlds, one after another, come

into existence and pass away.

(b)

Thus Buddhism knows no ultimate goal of world evolution. Nevertheless,

the world has a meaning. It is the ever-changing scene of the

retribution of good and evil deeds (//karma//).

(c)

The duty of man consists, in the first place, to see to it that

through leading a moral life he is reborn in a good environment, with

a happy future. As a distant and supreme goal Nirvana beckons to the

religious man, but it can be attained only after long purification.

Hence the final task of man is to prepare himself to leave the world.

(d)

From the foregoing it follows that according to the Buddhist view

the present conduct of man is of fundamental importance for his future

fate. The entire Buddhist teaching is based on a belief in the moral

structure of the universe. Such a belief rests not only on the

conviction that everything good and evil will have its retribution and

that it is possible for man continually to perfect himself, it also

presupposes that there exists an objective criterion of what helps man

on the way to perfection and of what obstructs his progress.

The Buddha proclaimed an ethics of intention. What decides whether

an action produces good or bad karma is the intention with which it is

performed. Therefore, actions which are not performed as the result of

a moral decision, positive or negative, have no karmic results.

It is understandable that this lofty philosophical view was not

preserved for long. In the course of its history Buddhism has

developed, in many different forms, the theory that the giving of

gifts to monks, and the performance of certain sacred rites, produce a

store of meritorious works. Indeed, in many of the schools of the

Great Vehicle, ritualism has obtained such importance that the

performance of magical rites, like the mechanical turning of

prayer-wheels or the muttering of certain sacred formulae, has become

a principal activity of the devotees. This is a regrettable though

understandable degeneration, which, indeed, is not unknown in other

religions.

(e) Rebirth

For the doctrine that good or evil deeds receive their reward or

punishment in a new existence, Buddhists find empirical confirmation

in this, that according to their opinion, men who have reached a

certain height of spiritual development are able to look back upon

their own previous lives and the rebirths of other beings. Since only

a few individuals have reached so high a stage of spiritual maturity,

the rest of us must rely on the testimony of these saints, just as

those who have not visited a foreign country have to put their trust

in the statement of reliable travelers.

First among possessors of such knowledge come the Buddhas, i.e.,

men to whom, by virtue of the enlightenment they have attained, the

connection between natural events and the moral realm has become

evident. The word of a Buddha, therefore, ranks as the highest

authority for all conduct; and from the sayings of Gautama preserved

in the holy scriptures, a Buddhist derives guidance for his life.

(f)

The doctrine of moral causality offers the Buddhists an explanation of

why one man is distinguished, rich and happy, and the other lowly,

poor and miserable. The fact that good men often fare badly, while

evil men are happy, is explained according to this doctrine by

assuming that the good men have still to expiate in this life the sins

of a previous existence while a bad man who has done good deeds in his

previous life is now getting the reward for them. For the whole of the

circumstances in which anyone now lives is a consequence of the

actions of his previous existence, while on the other hand, what he

does now is done by the free decision of his will.

It can be objected against this theory that in his behavior man is

very largely determined by his predispositions, and that it is

therefore difficult to establish the freedom of his moral decisions.

Buddhism replies on this point that, against the fatalistic teachings

of his time, the Buddha always emphasized: "I teach (the efficacy of)

action and energy," and that the workings of the law of karma are

beyond the grasp of the ordinary man.

Question 2:

The second question which I have to answer from the standpoint of

Buddhism runs thus:

"If man has a normative ideal to which he has to conform, what are

the conditions of life which guarantee him the quickest fulfillment of

this task?"

According to the Buddhist view, man occupies an exceptional

position among living beings. He alone is in a position to question

life itself and to achieve a transcending of it. Animals cannot do so,

since they are wholly absorbed by the life of the senses. The heavenly

beings also cannot do so, since because of their long life and the

happiness they enjoy, the idea never occurs to them that life is

transient and, therefore, insubstantial and unsatisfactory.

In consequence of this middle position in the hierarchy of living

forms which man occupies, existence as a man is always praised as a

rare piece of good fortune. On this point it is said: "The chance is

as small as that a blind turtle, emerging from the sea once in a

hundred years, should put its head straight into a single-necked yoke

-- so small is the chance that a being in the course of his repeated

rebirth should once become a man" (//Majjhima//, No. 159).

Man should, therefore, make use of the precious boon which has

fallen to his lot, and take care that he improves himself morally, in

order gradually to attain perfection. A famous saying in the

//Dhammapada// (v. 183) shows the way to the fulfillment of this task:

"Shun all evil, do good, and purify your own heart: that is the

teaching of the Buddhas." The avoidance of evil consists in not

killing, not stealing, not lying, not committing fornication and not

using intoxicating drinks, which reduce man's mental capacity or

deaden his sense of responsibility. He should, therefore, follow no

calling in which he is bound to come into conflict with these

postulates; he cannot be a hunter, a butcher, an executioner, a

publican, and so on. It is easiest for him if he detaches himself from

the world, and thus avoids its temptations. But only a few are mature

enough to enter the monastery or live as pious hermits.

Thus the Buddhist ought not to be content with conditions as he

finds them; he must try, wherever he can, to change them in accordance

with Buddhist principles. Where that is not possible, his effort must

be to make himself inwardly free from his environment so that he may

detach himself from it and rise above it.

Question 3:

We now come to the third question which raises the following problem:

"Are all men equal? If not, in what do they differ? In what

respects is equality of all men desirable, and how far should existing

differences be preserved?"

Since not even twins are completely alike in their abilities and

their destiny, there can be in practice no complete equality of all

men. Buddhism has, therefore, never tried to make all men alike.

According to Buddhism mankind as a whole resembles to a certain extent

a great pyramid, the broad base of which consists of the crude

worldlings who are still far removed from the light of truth, while

the narrow summit comprises only the few perfected ones. And between

these two extremes, men are ranged in infinitely many degrees of

virtue and knowledge. But for all of them, Buddhism tries to show the

way to spiritual progress, by prescribing for them a spiritual diet

suited to their individual needs. And just as it answers to many

different levels of comprehension of men, it also tries to adapt

itself to the peculiarities of various cultures and races.

The Amitabha Cult

In its eagerness to satisfy the most varied needs of people, the Great

Vehicle in particular has taken over many features and conceptions

which were originally foreign to Buddhism. Thus in East Asia today,

the cult of Buddha Amitabha is very widespread. This mythical savior

calls to his heavenly paradise all those who in their hour of death in

faith seek refuge in him; so that, being protected there from all evil

influences, they can prepare themselves for Nirvana. Here Buddhism has

adopted modes of thought from the theistic religions of divine grace.

But in doing so it has not abandoned its principle of an eternal

cosmic law which governs everything, for Amitabha is only the bringer

of good tidings into this sorrowful world. He has no part in creating

or ruling it, for how could an omniscient spiritual being bring into

existence this world full of pain, or hurl the wicked down into the

abyss of hell for their misdeeds, or condemn them to reincarnation in

miserable forms of life?

Thus Buddhism acknowledges the differences among men in spiritual

religious matters, and has, therefore, presented its doctrine of

salvation in the most variegated forms. On the other hand, it attaches

no weight to differences of race, nationality, class or creed. In

contrast to Brahmanism it has not excluded wide sections of the people

from its gospel of salvation, and entry into its order is open to all

strata of society.

Question 4:

The fourth question which has been put to me is this:

"Which social institutions belong to the foundations of mankind and

which are susceptible of alteration and development without harm to

what is truly human? How does it stand in this regard with marriage,

the family, the State, property, the right of self-determination of

the individual, and so on?"

According to its doctrine that all things are in a continual

process of change, Buddhism recognizes no social institution as

eternal or unalterable. While the Chinese consider the state an

institution belonging to mankind from its earliest times, Buddhism

holds that it arose at a definite period of the cosmic process and

will later disappear. Caste, which for the Hindus rests on God-given

foundations, is for Buddhism a system arising from needs of the time,

and having value only for India. Likewise marriage, the family and

property are obligatory only for worldly men of a limited historical

period. With the giving up of the worldly life all these institutions

lose their significance. The monk, who has renounced worldly life,

has, at least in theory, risen above these obligations.

It is not surprising that this standpoint, adopted by the Buddha

and by the authoritative fathers of the Buddhist church, has been much

modified in the course of history. Under the pressure of outside

forces, Buddhism had to make concessions to the state in several

countries, and the prevailing ideal of nationalism is not without

influence on the thought of many Buddhists. It is well known that in

Japan among many sects loyalty to the monarch and patriotism have

become articles of religious faith, and that in Tibet a kind of

theocratic state has arisen.

No Central Authority

All these facts in no way alter the basic position which Buddhism

adopts in relation to all earthly institutions. They have their value

and their sphere of application at a certain stage; but for those who

can see everything from a higher plane, they are in themselves on

temporary means whereby order is maintained in the world.

As I understand it, Buddhism is all throughout a doctrine of

salvation for the individual; the idea of a human collectivity, which

has sinned and can be redeemed, is alien to it. Therefore, it has no

central authority which claims the right of issuing orders or

proclaiming dogmas binding on all the Buddhists of the world. When the

Buddha lay on his death-bed and was asked who henceforth would lead

the community, he said, "In future the Dharma will be your master."

It is clear that this pronouncement of the Exalted One had various

unfortunate consequences for the community. For the absence of a

generally acknowledged supreme spiritual authority had the result that

very soon after the Nirvana of the Perfect One dissensions arose over

the interpretation of controversial points in the doctrine or over

individual cases of monastic discipline, and that again and again new

sects appeared.

Buddhism has accepted this with open eyes, for the right of

self-determination of the individual and of the local congregation

represented by the monastic chapter has always seemed to it to

outweigh these disadvantages. How far-reaching this right of

self-determination is can be seen from the fact that it not only was

and is open to the layman, under certain conditions, to enter at any

time into the circle of devotees of the Exalted One, and to leave it

again, but it was and is even possible to belong at the same time to

other religious communities and cults. The monk was always free to

leave the order, and it often happened that people repeatedly during

their lives became monks and returned to the world again.

In the twenty-five centuries of the history of Buddhism one

naturally comes across instances in which the conditions described

here have undergone modification for a time. But in general both the

Lesser and the Great Vehicle have maintained the basic principle of

the right of self-determination.

Question 5: Buddhism and Politics

The fifth question addressed to me runs as follows:

"As far as it appears possible and necessary to alter social

institutions, how far and by what means is it permissible to act

against the existing system and its defenders? When may cooperation be

refused in the undertakings carried on by the current holders of

power? When is obedience to the conventions of the society in which

one was born obligatory?"

The answer to this can be given briefly. Since Buddhism tried to

establish a spiritual order which is not for this world, it does not

claim to be a protagonist of social reforms. It is a common error to

believe that the Buddha wished to destroy the caste system in India;

he did not interfere with the social order as it existed, when he laid

down that caste differences should no longer be observed within his

order. This was no innovation, for this principle was observed among

other Indian ascetics.

To change existing conditions by violence must appear to all

Buddhists completely opposed to the teaching of the Master. For any

exercise of brute force is alien to the merciful spirit of the pure

doctrine. The Buddha condemned any thought of hate-inspired

retaliation (//Dhammapada//, 3-5).

Certainly, departures from this hallowed principle occurred, but in

the whole course of Buddhist history they play no important part. It

has, therefore, never known either a social revolution, nor crusades,

nor wars of religion. The struggle against conditions which were found

to be oppressive, and against the unrighteous claims of the mighty,

was, therefore, mostly conducted in a peaceful manner by way of

passive resistance.

Question 6: The Perfectibility of Man

The answer to the sixth question will also not occupy us long. It is

as follows:

"Is man capable of changing, transforming himself, induced by

instruction or revelation, and has he perhaps that capacity even to an

unlimited extent? And what are the limits of his capacity to become

good and wise?"

Buddhism does not recognize any fundamental difference between the

children of light and the children of darkness, foreordained to

eternal bliss or to eternal damnation. On the contrary, it assumes

that there are infinitely many stages in spiritual development, and in

the achievement of them, beings rise or fall in accordance with their

actions performed in the course of their rebirths. The story of the

robber-chief, Angulimala, who had committed many murders, shows that a

man may by virtue of right instruction, evolve from a criminal to a

saint in the course of one existence. Converted by the Buddha,

Angulimala became an Arhat, and entered into Nirvana.

That even the worst sinner can finally attain perfection is also

shown by the story of the Buddha's cousin, Devadatta. This man

committed the two worst sins known to Buddhism: he had sought,

inspired by ambition, to murder the Buddha, and he had brought about a

schism in the order. As punishment he died of a hemorrhage and went to

hell. When he will have atoned for his misdeeds by staying in hell for

a hundred thousand eons, he will be purified of evil, and finally

attain enlightenment and become a Pacceka-Buddha. The belief in man's

unlimited capacity for change could hardly go farther than that.

The related question, whether all beings have the capacity, in the

course of their rebirths, to become wise and good and thereby finally

attain deliverance, was not answered by the Buddha. Later teachers

expressed themselves on this subject in various ways. While many seem

to have accepted such a belief, others [*] thought that there are beings

who are by nature incapable of assimilating the highest knowledge,

and, therefore, must remain forever subject to the cycle of rebirths.

[*] This refers to certain Mahayana Schools. -- The Editor.

Question 7: Buddhism and Modern Science

I now turn to the seventh and last question. It runs:

"How far is what contemporary science has to say about man and the

world in harmony with the teachings of Buddhism, or in contradiction

to it?"

Buddhism originated 2,500 years ago in India, and until the

beginning of the last century it was confined to countries which were

entirely untouched by modern science. It therefore goes without saying

that many of its doctrines, so far as they touch upon scientific,

cosmological and geographical matters, are irreconcilable with the

results of modern Western science. It was born and grew in an era when

unlimited credulity prevailed; if we read the holy scriptures as we

should read works of later times, in the spirit of literal history, we

shall find things which do not fit into our modern picture of the

world. We read that the Buddha was conceived by his mother

miraculously, that he was able to fly through the air to Ceylon tree

times, that he increased food by magic, walked on water, and so on.

And similar miracles are reported of his followers and of later

saints; visions, magical cures, fantasies and the like, in short

almost all those things which were natural to the mode of thought of

antiquity and medieval times in all parts of the world.

A Law-Governed Universe

Notwithstanding many such features, so strange to us, which like a

thick undergrowth overspread more especially the later literature, we

do, on the other hand, find much, even in the old texts, which strikes

us as quite modern.

(a)

First and above all is to be noted the principle of general and

thorough-going conformity to natural law which rules the whole

Buddhist system. Again and again it is said: "This basic principle

stands firm, this universal conformity to law, the conditions of one

thing by another" (//Samyutta//, 12. 20. 4). "Profound is the law of

dependent origination. Since it does not know, understand or grasp

this law, this generation has become confused, like a ball of thread"

(//ib.// 12.4). But a well-trained disciple ponders thoroughly the

dependent origination, for he knows thus: "When that is, this comes

into being; through the destruction of that, this is destroyed"

(//ib.// 12.41-51, etc).

(b)

A further point of agreement is its positivistic character. For the

Buddhist doctrine denies the existence of eternal substances: matter

and spirit are false abstractions; in reality there are only changing

factors (//dharma//) which are lawfully connected and arise in

functional dependence on each other. Like Ernst Mach, the Buddha

therefore resolves the ego into a stream of lawfully cooperating

elements, and can say with him: "The ego is as little an absolute

permanent entity as the body. The apparent permanence of the ego

consists only in its continuity."

In the philosophy of the Great Vehicle, Buddhism goes to the point

of denying the reality of the external world. It is characteristic of

the philosophical spirit of Asia that such epistemological doctrines

do not, as with us, remain without close relation to the true

religious life, but enter deeply into it and occupy the thought of

wide circles. The consistent idealism of the theory of "Consciousness

only" forms the basis of the Zen sect, widespread in China and Japan,

which tries through meditation to realize the "void" which is above

contradictions; and it is also the basis of the priestly magic and

mysticism of Tibet.

(c)

It resembles modern modes of thought when the Buddha teaches that

there are many problems that man, with his limited intellectual

capacity, will never be able to solve, but in his cogitations about

them entangles himself again and again in contradictions concerning

problems such as the workings of karma, the nature of the world, the

question whether the world is eternal or not, finite or infinite, how

the vital principle connects with the body, and what is the state of

the saint who has entered into Nirvana.

(d)

Buddhism also agrees with modern science in its picture of a universe

of a vast spatial extent and unending time. The Buddha taught that

there exists side by side infinitely many world systems which

continually come into existence and perish again. It is not that he

anticipated Copernicus; for each world system has an earth at the

center, and sun, moon and stars revolve round it. It is rather that

the conception of a multiplicity of worlds appears in his teaching as

the natural consequence of the principle of retributive causality of

actions. The number of actions which have to find reward or punishment

is so infinitely great, that the appropriate retribution could not be

comprised within one world, with its regular alternation of rising and

falling cultural levels.

(e)

Buddhism finds itself again in agreement with modern biology in that

it acknowledges no essential difference, but only a difference of

degree, between man and animal. However, it is far from the Darwinian

line of thought.

(f)

Finally, it can also be said that the Indians discovered the

unconscious earlier than the Western psychologists. For them the

unconscious consists in the totality of the impressions which slumber

in the individual as the inheritance from his previous existence. The

Buddhist technique of meditation, which is concerned with these latent

forces, is thus a forerunner of modern psychoanalysis, of autogenic

mental training, etc.

The attitudes of present-day Buddhists towards modern science vary.

So far as I can see, three attitudes can be distinguished:

(a)

The great mass of Buddhist laymen and monks in Asia are still

untouched by the modern natural sciences. For them the words of the

Buddha and the commentaries on them are still the infallible source of

all knowledge of the universe and its phenomena.

(b)

Many Buddhists try to prove that the cosmological ideas and miraculous

stories of the Canon conform to fact, and for this purpose interpret

the texts in an artificial sense or draw upon the assertions of modern

occultism as proofs. It is noteworthy that they do not consider

miracles to be violations of the law of nature brought about by a

supernatural power, but assume that there are unknown forces and laws

which cause events that to us appear as miracles but are really not.

(c)

Other Buddhists, again, regard the statements of the texts on natural

phenomena as conditioned by the ideas prevailing in those times and,

therefore, no longer authoritative. They say that the Buddha was not

concerned to put forward a scientific world view valid for all time,

but that the essential core of Buddhism is rather its practical

doctrine of salvation. The Buddha always maintained that everything of

this earth is transitory, unreal and, therefore, unsatisfactory, and

that so long as man is still under the subjection of the three

cardinal vices of hatred, greed and ignorance he will never attain to

inner peace and serene clarity of vision. Only through the

purification from all desires and the complete realization of absolute

selflessness, through a moral conduct of life and constant practice of

meditation, can he approach a state in which he lives in peace with

himself and with the world. Man can elevate himself and raise his

stature by emulating the great example of the Buddha seated in calm

meditation, whose face shines in triumphant peace. Then man can lift

himself above the fierce current of time, up to the imperishable state

that is beyond all the unrest of the inexorable nexus of becoming and

suffering. And the ideal that presents itself here is that unshakable

composure of mind which a Buddhist verse describes:

He whose mind is like a rock,

Firmly anchored, shakes no more;

Who has escaped from all passion,

Is no more angry and no more afraid;

He whose mind is thus without equal,

How can sorrow defeat him?

-- //Udana//, 4.4

* * * * * * * *

THE BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY

The BPS is an approved charity dedicated to making known the Teaching

of the Buddha, which has a vital message for people of all creeds.

Founded in 1958, the BPS has published a wide variety of books and

booklets covering a great range of topics. Its publications include

accurate annotated translations of the Buddha's discourses, standard

reference works, as well as original contemporary expositions of

Buddhist thought and practice. These works present Buddhism as it

truly is -- a dynamic force which has influenced receptive minds for

the past 2500 years and is still as relevant today as it was when it

first arose. A full list of our publications will be sent upon request

with an enclosure of U.S. $1.00 or its equivalent to cover air mail

postage.

Write to:

The Hony. Secretary

BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY

P.O. Box 61

54, Sangharaja Mawatha

Kandy Sri Lanka

or

The Barre Center for Buddhist Studies

Lockwood Road

Barre, MA 01005 USA

Tel: (508) 355-2347

[end]

Return to the Java Buddha's Spiritual index