THE LIGHT OF ASIAANDTHE LIGHT OF THEWOBLDACOMPARISON OFTHELEGEND,THEDOCTRINE,&THEETHICSOFTHEBUDDHAWITHTHESTORY,THEDOCTRINE,&THEETHICSOFCHRISTBYS. H.KELLOGG,D.D.PROFESSOR IN THEWESTERNTHEOLOGICALSEMINARY, ALLEGHENY, PA.,U.S.A.ELEVENYEARS MISSIONARY TO INDIACORRESPONDING MEMBEROF THEAMERICANORIENTALSOCIETYAUTHOROF(AGRAMMAROFTHE HINDILANGUAGE,ANDDIALECTS,ETC.Woeuntothemthatputdarknessforlight,andlightfordarknessV Isaiah.Ifthelightthatis inyoubedarkness,howgreatisthedarkness ! JesusChrist.ILottUonMACMILLAN AND CO.1885PKEFACE.THERE is reason to believe that alargeclass even ofChristianpeoplehave a mostexaggeratedidea of theexcellence ofthegreatnon-Christianreligions,andtheextent to whichtheirteachings agreewith those of theGospelof Christ. This remarkapplieswithspecialforce atpresentto the case ofBuddhism,inwhich,forvariousreasons,verymanyintelligent people,ofeveryvarietyofreligious opinion,have of lateyearscometofeel avery specialinterest.Sucherroneousimpressionsin the caseofmanyaredoubtless due to averypardonable ignoranceor misapprehensionof the real facts which bearuponthequestion.The.datauponwhich onemightbase anintelligentjudgmenthavenotbeenas accessible to thegeneral reading publicas were to be desired. Eventhe valuable translations of the sacred books of theBuddhists,which havelately appearedfrom varioussources,reach but a class of readerscomparativelyVI PREFACE.small. Thestrangenessoftheconceptionswhichtheyexpress,thefrequent obscurityto Western minds oftheirmodeofexpression,andtheir often tediousrepetitions,combinetorepelmostreaders from their carefulstudy.And,again,eventhosewhohavesurmountedthesedifficulties,and havegaineda certainfamiliaritywiththe literature of thesubject,are,in mostcases,at agreat disadvantageinhavingnopersonal acquaintancewith thepractical workingof the non-Christian religions. Unfortunately,often in this case"distancelends enchantment to theview,"andimpressionsareformed withregardto the merits of Buddhism andother heathenreligions,which a more intimate acquaintancewith their actualworkingin human lifewouldin the case ofmostbe sure todispel.Howeveradmirablemany thingsin the Buddhist and otherethnicreligions mayseemtosome,the writer himselfhas seen too muchof thepractical workingof theseheathensystemsto bedeeplyin love with them.Again,erroneousimpressionsas to the relationsbetween Buddhism andChristianityare the moreextendedanddeepenedthat,verynaturally,manyunconsciouslyimportinto the mostpregnantandcharacteristic Buddhist words andphrases, conceptionspurelyandexclusivelyChristian. HowseriousandinfluentialPREFACE.Vllis this source of error will beabundantlymanifestinthe course of thefollowingchapters.Forthepresentit will suffice to call attention to the factthat,forexample,such words andphrasesas"lust,""sin,""salvation,""law,""newbirth,"etc.etc.,as usedbytheBuddhist,denoteconceptions totallydifferent fromthe Christian sense of the same terms. From thisillustration alone it will beeasyto see that thosewhoare notawareof the natureandextentof thisBuddhistdivergencefrom the Christianmeaningof such termsare sure toderive,evenfromwhattheymayimagineto be a carefulstudyofBuddhism,animpressionconcerningthe extent ofagreementbetweenthe two religionswhich is not in the leastjustified bythe actualfacts ofthe case.And there is reason to believe that sometimesanother influence works in the same direction. Toomanystudythissubjectwith certainpreconceivedandunsupportednotions as to what the relations of thevariousreligionsof mankind toGod,toman,and toeach otheroughttobe, and,despitetheir intention tobe fair andcandid,theirjudgment,it is to befeared,is oftenwarpedinconsequenceThere can be nodoubt that sometimes men who mean to be honestare thusunconsciouslyled toexaggerateandlayunduestressuponthosepointsin Buddhism in whichtheyviiiPREFACE.think thattheydiscoveragreement,whiletheyfail todirectequalattention to otherpointsofgreaterconsequence,whereinappearsthe mostunqualifiedanddirectantagonismto theGospel.Howsoever,inanycase,erroneousopinionson thissubjectmaybeformed,it isplainthat error in such amattercannotbutbe averyseriousthingin its effecton our belief andpractice.It willinevitablyaffectourviews of the nature and extent of Divinerevelation andinspiration,and the conditions of humansalvation;it will no lesscertainlydetermine ourjudgmentas to thepractical dutyof Christians towardtheadherents of the Buddhist and otherreligions.Thatsuch mistaken notions as to the relations betweenChristianityand Buddhismwidely prevail,is oftenforceduponourattention,and that errors onthis subjectare atpresent doingnolittlemischiefinunsettlingfaith andmisdirectingpracticeisscarcelyless evident.Observation of thesefacts,andfrequentconversations with men in differentpartsof the world whohave hadspecial opportunityto form ajudgmentinthematter,haveled thewriter to feelthat theremightberoomfor abookwhichshould,in a morethoroughandsystematicwaythananywhichhas beenpresentedto ournotice,deal with the variousquestionswhichhave beenraised withregardto the relations betweenPREFACE.IXBuddhism andChristianity.Hewould,however,bythisremark,onnoaccountseemtoignoreordepreciatethemanyvaluablehelpstoward a correctunderstandingof thesubjectwhich havealreadybeenpreparedbyhighlycompetent menonbothsides oftheAtlantic.Tomanyof these he feels himself to be underdeepobligation.Suchbooks, however,have notcommonlyprofessedto deal with thesubjectinmorethan apartialway.Somehavedealt withthelegend,somewiththe doctrine or theethics,but none that have comeunder ournotice,inanyformal and extendedway,with all of these.Moreover,owingto theverysmallnumber oforiginalBuddhist authorities which untilrecentlyhas beenaccessible,the writers of suchworkshave not been able to make such extensive referenceto the Buddhistscripturesas,in suchacomparisonasthis,is soimportant.We need to hear theapostlesof Buddhism state their own case.Now, however,thanks to the invaluable labours of savants like ProfessorsMaxMiiller,Oldenberg,Fausboll,EhysDavids,andmanyothers,the studentofBuddhismis nolongerhinderedbysuch ascarcityof material as hasembarrassedpreviouswriters on thesubject.From theoriginalworks which these eminent scholars havemadeaccessible to thegeneral public,as thefollowingpageswillshow,the writer hasdrawnextensively.PREFACE.Throughoutthefollowingpageshehasendeavoured,asregards everypointinvolvedinthediscussion,toletthe Buddhist authoritiesspeakforthemselves,andstate their belief in their own words. He believesthat he will be found to havemadenostatement ofanyimportanceregardingBuddhist belief for whichhehas notgivendistinct Buddhistauthority.As fortheEnglishform of suchcitations,he hasuniformlyfollowed the translations of well-known eminentOrientalscholars,such as Professors MaxMuller,Oldenberg,Fausboll,Messrs.EhysDavids,Hardy,Kbppen,andothers,whosenames,to all who areacquaintedwiththe literature of thesubject,will beanabundantguaranteeofthe essential trustworthinessof their translations. Where diverseinterpretationsofthe Buddhistteachinghaveobtained,the writerhasendeavouredcandidlyto state thefact,withthereasonsgivenproandcon,andindicate thebearingofeach interpretationontheargument.Thisbook,it isfranklyconfessed,is not writtenfrom thestandpointofreligiousindifference. Thosewho,withsomeeminentscholars whohavespokenonthissubject,believe thatonlyfrom such apositionisitpossibleto treat the claims ofanotherreligionwithfairness, will,wefear,find little satisfaction in thesepages.The author madeuphis mindlong ago,onPREFACE.XIwhat hasseemed to himabundantevidence,that therecords of theNewTestament aredeservingofcredit,and thathence,by necessary consequence,theGospelofJesusChrist,thecrucifiedandthe risenLord,is,in asole andexclusivesense,thesavingtruth ofGod. Heconfesses himself unable to see that in order to beable to criticise error withimpartiality,it isnecessarythat amanshall not have received thecorrespondenttruth. Hedoes not believe that even the mostrigidclaims ofsciencerequire,forexample,thatamanshallignorethe ascertained factsconcerningthesystemoftheheavens,before he can be acompetentand impartial judgeof the truth orfalsityofanyastronomicaltheory,new or old. That this isso, indeed,noone believes. Andif such apositionof absolute intellectualneutralityis not aqualificationessential tothe critic in the field ofphysicalscience,he cannotseewhyit should be so in the fieldofresearch inreligion.Inpointoffact,that absoluteequipoiseof mindonthesubjectofreligionwhich some writers seemto makethe sinequanon of candid and fair discussion of religiousdifferences,is apracticalimpossibility. Suppose,forinstance,that a manrejectallreligionsalike asrevelations fromGod,heyetmust and does holdsomeviewon thesubjectofreligion.The belief ofthepositivist,theagnostic,or theatheist,justastrulyxii PREFACE.as the mostpronouncedChristianfaith,is areligiousbelief. And if Christian faithdisqualifyaman,assome will haveit,for an unbiassed review of otherreligions,it isimpossibleto seewhythe belief of thepositivist,theagnostic,or theatheist,should not beheldequallytodisqualifythem also for a fair andunprejudiced judgmentof the claims ofany religionwhatever.It ispropertosaythat of thefollowing chaptersthefirst,in a formbutslightlydifferentfromthepresent,hasappearedinprintbefore,in the CatholicPresbyterian,LondonandNewYork,July1883. Anarticle onthe doctrines of the Buddhaandthe Christwhichappearedin thePresbyterianReview,NewYork,July,1883,has served as the basis forchapterv.Themost ofithas, however,beencarefullyrewritten,and extensive additionsmade,bywhich it ishopedthat its valuemayhavebeenmateriallyenhanced.Forhimself,the author has found the months ofstudywhich thepreparationofthis workhas involvedofmuchpractical profit. Bythese studies his faithhas beenmorethan ever confirmed in thereligionofChrist as the one andonly divinelyrevealedsystemfor theredemptionof lost men. Theimpressionsgainedinmanyyearsofintercourse with thepeopleofIndia,andstudyof theirreligiousworks,of the im-PREFACE. xinmeasurabledisparitybetweenthe best thatheathenismcanoffer,andtheteachingsof theGospelofChrist,havebeen,bytheseliterarylabours in a relatedfield,still furtherdeepenedandstrengthened.He is morethan ever convinced thatby comparisonwith otherreligions, Christianitynotonlycannot lose to ourmind itshigh pre-eminence,but,on thecontrary,issure the morethoroughlythat suchcomparisonsarecarried out toappearin thatpre-eminencethemoresolitaryand sublime. It isonlycareless,hasty,andsuperficialstudy,andconsequentgross misapprehensionoffacts,that can evercause thesecomparisonsto issueinunsettlingthe faith of Christians. Forcomparison withChristianityforapologetic purposesno religioncan serve us a betterpurposethan Buddhism.For with all its admitted excellencies ascomparedwith other ethnicreligions,it isyetthe fact that thecontrast betweenChristianityand all otherreligionsreaches in Buddhism its most extremeexpression.The facts which arebrought togetherin this bookmust,wefeel,certainlyconvinceeverycandid mindthat it was with abundant reason that that eminentBuddhistscholar,Mr.EhysDavids,assured those wholistened to the Hibbert Lectures in 1881 that "theviews of life set forth in the Pali Pitakas" thesacredscripturesoftheBuddhists are"fundamentallyxiv PREFACE.opposedto those set forth in the New Testament."With theseprefatorywords this book is nowcommendedto thereaderwith thehopethat itmaybe ashelpfulandquickeningto his faith in Christ andHisGospelas thepreparationof the book has been to theauthor.S. H. K.WESTEENTHEOLOGICALSEMINARY,ALLEGHENY, PA., U.S.A.,19thJune1885.NOTES.THEpresentworkis baseduponastudyof thefollowingBuddhistauthorities :FromtheFirst orVmayaPitaka thePatimokkha^translatedbyProfessorOldenbergand T.W.RhysDavids,inSacred BooksoftheEast,1vol. xiii.;theMahavagga,translatedbythesame,in Sacred BooksoftlieEast,vols.xiii.,xvii.;theCullavagga,translatedbythesame,in SacredBooksoftheEast,vol. xvii.From the Second or Sutta Pitaka theDhammapada,translatedbyProfessor F. MaxMiiller,inSacredBooksoftheEast,vol. x.part1;the SuttaNipata,translatedbyProfessor V.Fausboll,in Sacred BooksoftheEast,vol. x.part2;theMahaparinibbana Sutta,translatedbyT. W.RhysDavids,in Sacred BooksoftheEast,vol. xi.;theDhammacakkappavattanaSutta,translatedbyT.AY.RhysDavids,in Sacred BooksoftheEast,vol. xi.;theTevijjaSuttanta,translatedbyT. W.RhysDavids,inSacredBooksoftlieEast,vol. xi.;theAkankheyya Sutta,translatedbyT. W.RhysDavids,in Sacred BooksoftheEast,vol. xi.;the CetokhitaSutta,translatedbyT. W.Rhys Davids,inSacredBooksoftheEast,vol. xi.;theMahasudassanaSutta,translatedbyT. W.RhysDavids,in Sacred BooksoftheEast,vol. xi.;the SabbasavaSutta,translatedbyT. W.RhysDavids,inSacredBooksoftheEast,vol. xi.1Abbreviatedinfootnotes,S.B.E.XVI NOTES.ThefollowingfromtheNorthernBuddhistCanon:TheSaddharmapundar\ka,thesixthofthenineDhammas,translatedbyProfessorKern,in Sacred BooksoftheEast,vol. xxi.;the LalitaVistara, Text,andpartofEnglishtranslation,publishedin theBibliotheca Indica.Thefollowingnon-canonical authorities :Jatakatthavannana,TextandCommentary,translatedbyT.W.EhysDavids,inBuddhistBirthStories,Boston,1880;theFo-pen-hing,a Chinese version of theAbhinishkramanaSutra,translatedbyProfessorS.Beal,underthetitleof TheRomanticLegendofSakyaBuddha;BuddhaghoshasParables,translated from theBurmesebyCaptainT.Eogers, E.E.,withIntroductionbyProfessor MaxMuller,London, 1870;MalalankaraVatthu,andTheSevenWaystoNeibban,translationsfromtheBurmesebyBishopBigandet,VicarApostolicofPeguandBurmah,publishedunderthetitle,TheLegendofGaudama,3ded., London,1880.Translations from thefollowing works, comprisedinHardysManualofBuddhism,namely, Pansiyapanasjdtakapota;Visuddhimarggasanne;Milindaprasna;Pujawaliya;Saddharmalankare";Saddharmaratnakare;Amawatura;Ttiupawanse; Rajawaliya;Kayawiratigathasannd;Kam-mavachan;Sannesbelongingto various Suttas.Pothiya Sambodhiyan,translated from the SiamesebyHenryAlabaster,in TheWheeloftheLaw;theMahavansa,in Eomancharacters,with translationsubjoined,and anintroductory Essayon Pali BuddhisticalLiterature,byHon.GeorgeTumour,Esq.,CeylonCivil Service.Ceylon,CottaChurchMissionPress,1837.Besides the valuable introductions to theabove-namedtexts,thefollowingwriters, amongothers,have also beenconsultedupon topicsconnected with the discussions ofthis book :NOTES.XVllKoppen,DieReligiondesBuddhaundihreEntstehung,i.ii.Bd., Berlin, 1857, 1859; Wassillieff,DerBuddhismus;Oldenberg,Buddha,seinLeben,seineLehre,seineGemeinde,Berlin,1881; Seydel,DasEvangelismvon Jesu in seinenVerhaltnissen zuBuddha-Sageund BuddJia-Lehre, u.s.w.,Leipzig,1882; Gratz,Geschichte derJuden; Lucius,DerEssenismusinseinem VerhaltnisszumJudenthum,Strassburg,1881; Kurtz, Kirchengeschichte,i.Bd., Mitau, 1874;Lorinser,.D^ BhagavadG\ta,iibersetzt,u.s.w.,Breslau,1869;YahrlucherfurProtestantischeTheologie, Jahrgang,1884,Leipzig, 1884; Burnouf,Histoire du BuddhismeIndien,Paris, 1844;St.Hilaire,LeBouddha,et saReligion,3ded.,Paris,1866; Childers,ADictionary ofthe PaliLanguage,London,1875; Miiller,Lectures on the ScienceofReligion;Chipsfroma GermanWorkshop;MonierWilliams,IndianWisdom,London,1876; Edkins,TheReligions ofChina,2ded.,Boston,1878;ChineseBuddhism.London,1880; Barth,TheReligions ofIndia,AuthorisedTranslation, London,1882;DeBunsen,TheAngelMessiahofBuddhists,Essenes,andChristians, London, 1880;Ehys Davids, Buddhism,aSketchoftheLifeandTeachings of Gautama,theBuddha,London;Lectures on theOriginand GrowthofReligion,asillustrated~bysomepointsin theHistoryofIndian Buddhism(HibbertLectures, 1881),NewYork, 1882; Kuenen,NationalReligionsandUniversalReligions(HibbertLectures,1882),NewYork, 1882; Arnold,TheLight of Asia;Alabaster,The WheeloftheLaw,BuddhismillustratedfromSiameseSources, London,1871; Wordsworth,TheOneReligion (BamptonLectures,1881),NewYork,1882;Hardwick,ChristandotherMasters,4thed.,London,1875;Clarke,Ten GreatReligions,Boston, 1877; Eitel,ThreeLectures onBuddhism,itsTheoretical, Historical,andPopularAspects,2ded.,Hong Kong,1873; Renan,TheLife ofbxvm NOTES.Jesus, London, 1864; Lightfoot,St. PaulsEpistlesto theColossiansand toPhilemon,a revisedText,with Introductions, Notes,andDissertations, London, 1879; Meyer,Critical andExegeticalHand-lookto theGospelofJohn,Am.ed.,NewYork, 1884; Smith,MediaevalMissions,Edinburgh,1880; Hardy,LegendsandTheoriesoftheBuddhists,London,1866;Manualof Buddhism,2ded.,London,1880;FolkSongsofSouthernIndia, London,1872; Proceedings ofthe GeneralConferenceoftheProtestant Missionaries inJapan,heldatOsaka, Japan, April1883,Yokohama,1883; Dods,Mohammed,Buddha,andChrist, London,1878; Martensen,ChristianEthics,Edinburgh,1882; Abbott,TheAuthorshipofthe FourthGospel, Boston,1880.TRANSLITERATION OF PALI WORDS.Thesystemof transliterationwhichis followed in thiswork,is thesamewiththatwhich isadoptedintheSacredBooksoftheEast,with theexceptionthat theusageofProfessorOldenbergandothers has beenpreferredinthefollowingcases : The soundch,as in"church,"isrepresentedbyc insteadofk; j,as in"jay,"isrepresented by/instead ofg.CONTENTS.PAGEPREFACE ........ vNOTESxvCHAPTER I.BUDDHISM AND MODERN UNBELIEFiCHAPTER II.THECOMPARATIVEHISTORICALVALUEOFTHEBUDDHISTAND THE CHRISTIANSCRIPTURES.. ..19CHAPTER III.THE LIFE AND THELEGEND OF THE BUDDHA1. TheLife562. TheLegend .....63CHAPTER IV.THELEGEND OF THE BUDDHA AND THESTORY OFCHRIST82XX CONTENTS.CHAPTERV.PAGETHE DOCTRINE OF THE BUDDHA AND THE DOCTRINEOP CHRIST1.Introductory1662. TheDoctrineconcerningGod . ..176.3. TheDoctrineconcerningMan . . .1874. TheDoctrineconcerningSin . ..200^5. TheDoctrineconcerningSalvation . .207^6. TheDoctrineconcerningthe LastThings. 248CHAPTER VI.BUDDHIST ETHICS AND THE ETHICS OF THE GOSPEL1. Excellencies ofBuddhistEthics . .2692. ThePostulates oftheTwoSystems. .274j.LawintheTwoSystems. . . .2804-. TheMotivesintheTwoSystems. .334. PracticalWorkingoftheTwoSystems. 355CHAPTER VII.RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION . . . .-.369INDEX OF TOPICS. . . .385CHAPTER I.BUDDHISM AND MODERN UNBELIEF.THEinterest thathas beentaken oflate in Buddhismbyalargenumber ofintelligent peoplein variousChristian countries is one of the mostpeculiarandsuggestive religious phenomenaof ourday.In theUnited States this interest hadprevailedfor a considerable timeamongasomewhatrestricted numberofpersonswho have knownorthoughtthattheyknewsomethingofBuddhism;but since1879,throughthepublicationof Mr.EdwinArnoldsLight ofAsia,thepopularityof thesubjecthas in averymarkeddegreeincreased.Manywho would have beenrepelled byanyformal,drily philosophicaltreatiseuponBuddhism,have been attracted to itbythe undoubtedcharm of Mr. Arnolds verse. The issue ofcheapeditions of thepoem, sellingforonlya fewcents,hashelpedin the samedirection,as this hasbroughtthepoem,andwith it thesubject,to the attention of alargenumberofpersonsnotyet sufficientlyinterestedin Buddhismto have cared topaymuchmore. AndB2 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.so it has come topassthateverywhere amongreadingandintelligent peoplewefind averyconsiderablenumber who think thattheynow knowsomethingabout the Buddha and hisreligion,and have foundawakenedin theirminds oftenquiteunexpectedlytothemselves avery surprisinginterest in this"venerablereligion"whichMr.Arnold haspresentedto theEnglish-reading publicin suchan attractiveguise.Amongthesewefind hereandthere someChristianpeople,whoseem to besomewhatdisquieted bywhattheyhavelearned or think thattheyhavelearnedconcerningBuddhism.Theyhave metwith somuchin thestoryof the Buddha and histeachingswhichtheyhadsupposedto bepeculiartoChristianity,thatafeelingofanxietyhas arisen lest the evidence forthesupernatural originandauthorityof the Christianreligionbetherebyin somedegreeweakened.Ontheunbelievingside,withmany,averydifferentfeelingseems toprevail.Littletheycare that thesupreme authorityof the Christianreligionshall bemaintained. Buttheydo feel akeenly sympatheticinterest in thereligionof theBuddha,andin all thatrelates toit,muchmore in fact thantheyappeartofeel in the doctrine andstoryof Christ;andtheyarereadyto echo withunconcealed satisfaction the laudations whichMr.Arnoldandothersofhiswayofthinkinghavelavished on thereligionwhich,in theirjudgment,wasandis theLightofAsia.Asanoutgrowthof thiswayofthinking,wehavei.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.3seen withinthe last fewyearsthe rise andgrowthofthe so-calledTheosophic Society,of which ColonelOlcott and MadameBlavatskyhavefiguredas thechiefapostles.These havegoneout to India torealise in apractical waytheirfellowshipwith theBuddhists of the East;andbythe aid of thepressand themysterious"adept,"the"Brother,"inThibet,to dowhattheycan to conserve the venerable faithwhich Mr.Arnold hasglorifiedin hispoem,andputthepeopleon theirguardagainstthe machinations ofdesigningChristian missionaries whowould,iftheycould,ruthlesslyuproottheancestral faithsoftheEast.Notverynumerousare themembersoftheTheosophicSociety;but it is a curiousphenomenon,indeed,thatthiscenturywhichbeganwithsendingmissionariesto convert the Buddhists should ere its close see agenerationarise in the midst ofChristendom, which,if onemay judge bytheirownwords,is itself almostorquiteconverted to the faith ofthe Buddha.Towhatcausesmay weattributethisspecialinterestin this mostgodlessofall the heathenreligions?Eirstamongthese causesmaybenamedthe extentto whichBuddhism,in some form orother,for morethantwothousandyears,hasbeenacceptedby menasthe solution oftheenigmaof life. It hadindeedlongbeenknowninageneralwaythattheSiamese,Chinese,Thibetans,andmanyother Asiaticpeoples,held theBuddhistfaith,sothatitsadherentswerevery numerous.Butlatterly, throughthegreatincrease of travel and4THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.consequent personal acquaintancewith the East andwith Easternpeoples,andtheever-increasingliteraturedevoted to thesetopics,thegeneral publichas cometo realise as never before theimmensenumberofthosewhobelieve in the Buddhistreligion.Whatthe realnumbermaybe is indeed a matter of warm dispute.It hasverycommonlybeen estimated at about400,000,000.Mr.RhysDavids even makes thenumber 500,0 00,000^Onthe otherhand,a veteranmissionaryandChinesescholar,theEev.A. S.Happer,D.D.,ofCanton,haslately publisheda brochure inwhich he denies that thegreatmass of the Chinesecanrightlybereckonedthe followersofBuddha. Themost shouldinstead,hethinks,be counted as Con-fucianists. If hisargumentbegranted,then thenumbers of the Buddhists arebroughtdown to thecomparativelymoderatefigureof about73,000,000.However thismaybe,we need not hereattempttodecide thequestion.Thepublic generallyhasinanycase beentaught,whetherrightorwrong,that amuchlarger figure representedthe real number of thosewhofollowed theteachingsof the Buddha, Onthisestimate almost orquiteone -third of the humanfamilyhave beenregardedasprofessingtoacceptBuddhism as the truereligionandphilosophyofexistence a number which isconsiderably greaterthan can be claimed for the followers ofanyothercreed.1T. W.RhysDavids, Buddhism,p.6.THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.Nowit cannotbe doubted that with a considerablenumberofpersonswho have no faitli inChristianity,andyetdo not feelquiteat ease withoutanyreligionatall,thisassumedfactofthegreatnumericalstrengthof Buddhism has had no little influence inincliningthemto asympatheticattention to its claims. Thatsuch areligionshould have attracted somanyfollowers,and solongmaintained itself over alarge partof the Easternworld,is indeed a remarkablefact,andwell deservesattention,whatever be theexplanation.Butanincreasingnumber in this democraticagearedisposedtosomethinglike a deification ofmajorities.AHavinglost faith inGod,or at least in Hisrevelation,theyhave now nogodleft but man himself. Andinasmuch as mendifferverymuchamongthemselves,it is concludedthat the likeliestwayto arrive at thetruth onreligion,as oneveryothersubject,mustbe totake a vote which shallexpressthepreponderanceofopinion.Thus,assumingthe essentialgoodnessof humannature,it isargued,inpolitics,forexample,that thevoice of themajority expressedat thepolls maybefairly presumedto beright.Voxpopuli,vox dei.Whyshouldnotthe sameprinciple applyalso in thesphereofreligion?Why,it isreasoned,unconsciously perhaps, bymany,is it notprobablethat thereligionwhich,after centuries oftrial,commands thelargest suffrageofany,should be thereligionwhichbest deservesattention,asbeingpresumably,in funda-6THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND [CHAP.mentalmatters,the one which is nearestright? Inthisway,if we mistakenot,thegreatnumber of theadherents of Buddhismisbynot a few felt to be anargumentof no inconsiderable force in its favour anargumentat least sufficient to throw astrong presumptionin its favour asopposedtoChristianity.Again,as another elementcontributingto thesympatheticinterest in Buddhism which is felt in theanti- Christiancamp,shouldprobablybe named thewideacceptanceof various theories of evolution. Aseveryoneknows,there aremanywho think that ifonce atheoryof evolution beproved,then thehypothesis of a Creator of the world istherebyshown tobe asuperfluity.Asif thediscoveryofthe methodofthe formation of theuniverse,or ofanything,relievedus fromthenecessityofsupposinganadequateefficientcauseI Suchthinkers,ofcourse,canhavenopatiencewith areligionwhichteaches that"in thebeginningGodcreated the heavensand theearth,"and that thesoul of man was notdevelopedfrom the soul of anape,but"breathed into him"from abovebyGod.Such areligiontherefore asChristianity,with itsdoctrine of a God and ofsupernaturalinterventionsfromHishand,seems to thinkersoftheclassdescribedto stand in thewayofall true scientificprogress ;andsoassuming,with aquietassurance,aninfallibilityfortheir science whichtheywill not hear of in areligion,they arguethat noreligioncan stand whichopposestheirtheoryofthings.i.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.7Now,to menin sucha state ofmind,it is naturalthat Buddhism shouldseem,ascomparedwith Christianity,a far more reasonablereligion.In the firstplace,it hasnoGodin it to interfere with the eternalcontinuityof the evolutionprocess.AsKoppenhaswellputit,"Buddhismrecognisesno eternalBeing,onlyan eternalBecoming."1Again,Buddhism,instead ofhavingin itself noplaceforevolution,hasfully recognisedatheoryofevolution,andeven raisedit to thedignityof areligion.ForBuddhismteachesthat all thatis,issimplythe result of an evolutionfrom apreviousstate ofthings,as also that state ofthingsfromonebefore,andsoon,byaneternalprocessofwhichabeginningis not even thinkable.In full accord with the antitheistictypeof evolution,Buddhismdeniesanyimpassable gulfbetweentheirrational animals and man. Apigor a ratmaybecomeaman,notindeedin the sense of theWesternevolutionist,but none the lesstruly.The Buddhahimselfis declared at onetimeto havebeenapig,andat anothera rat ! TheBuddhist, indeed,conceives ofthenatureoftheconnectionbetweenthevarious formsof life in a mannerverydifferent from the modernEuropeanphilosopher;but still the essentialidentityandcontinuitybetween all different forms oflife,onwhichthemoderntheories of evolution sostronglyinsist,isfully recognised.2Hereincertainlywemay1Koppen,DieReligiondcsBuddhas, p.230.2See some remarks on this relation of Buddhistspeculationsto8 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.observe a bond ofsympathybetween modern anti-Christianthoughtand the Buddhistphilosophywhichgoesfar towardaccountingfor the interest which isdisplayedin thesceptical camp.Closelyconnected also with the fashionable enthusiasm overBuddhism is thedispositionof theagetogloryinman,in his immeasurablepossibilitiesofdevelopmentinpowerandknowledge.It is felt thatno onemayventure tosaywhat manmaynotdo,ormaynotbecome,allbyhis ownunaidedpowers.TheChristianScripturesdo not indeeddenythat there isagloryinman,andpossibilitiesof agreatnessandgrandeurof attainment fartranscendingthe wildestdreams of science. ButthentheydenythatmancaneverequalGod.Theyalso affirm an abasement aswell as aglory,weakness as well asstrength, ignorance to be removedbynone but God. Thesepossibilities ofglorywhichtheyset beforeman,are not forman as henaturallyis; theyare not to be attainedbythemereexercise andcultureofhis naturalpowers,butonlyasthroughfaith he shall come into a vitalunion with the God-man,Christ Jesus. Let a manpresumeto refuse thatfaith,inanywaymiss of thatunionwiththe incarnateGod,andhe is doomedto anignominiousandeternaldisappointmentof allhisproudaspirations.From thispointof view theScripturecries,"Ceaseyefromman,whose breath is in hismodernthought, byMr.RhysDavids,Fausbolls Buddhist BirthStories,vol. i.p.Ixxxv.I.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.9nostrils;for wherein is he to be accounted of?"Nothingcould well be conceived of morerepellenttotheboastful,self-confidentspiritof ouragethansucha doctrine as this.But menwho,filled with the nineteenthcentury.spiritofself-glorification,are for that reasonrepelledfromChristianity,are for the samereason attracted toBuddhism. Eventhough they regardmuch that itteaches as meresuperstition, yetnone the less itsspiritofproudself-assertion charms them. Forwhere theGospeltells of a God who became manto savehim,a doctrine in allagesfoolishness tothe wise of thisworld,Buddhism tells of a manwho becameGod,even theBuddha, who,under theBo-tree,attained to allpowerand allknowledge!Ittells us that this was not to saveman,but to showmenhowtheymightsave themselves. It ever insiststhat theBuddha,whoattained allthis,attained itbyhis own unaidedstrengthand merit;and thatanymanwhowill take the samepath mayattain to thesameheights.Howcompletelythe idea ofmanwhichBuddhismthusexpressesfalls in withthespiritofourmodernmaterialists,agnostics, positivists! These allagreewith Buddhism inthat,intheoryorfact,theymakemanhis owngod!And when men of thisage, impatientabove allthingsofanyassertion of therealityof thesupernatural,whowill hearnothingof amiracle,find that1Isaiah ii. 22.10THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.the moststupendouswonders are said to have beenperformedbythisBuddha,andtobe within thepowerof all who will follow him in thepathof toilsomelabour andself-discipline,however increduloustheymaybe ofsuchstories,theyfeel themselves nevertheless to be in full andsympatheticaccord with theconceptionofhumanity,thespiritof naturalism andself-deification which theseexpress ; and,perhaps,intoxicated withthe whirl ofprogress alongthepathofphysicalscience,half dream thatvery possiblysomesuchmarvellouspowerover nature as is attributed tothe Buddha andthe ardhatsmayyetbereached,ifnotbythe transcendentalmethods oftheBuddhist,astheTheosophists boldlyclaim,yet bythe slowerandsurer methods ofmodern science.Notonlythe atheism of the Buddhistsystem,butalso thespecialformofitsatheism,helpstogainfor itakindlyconsideration fromourmodernsceptics.Theatheism which is in fashion in thisgenerationis notdogmaticandaffirmative,butmodest,negative, agnostic. It will notsay,"There is noGod";butrather,withMr.HerbertSpencer,"Thepowerwhich is manifested in the universe isutterlyinscrutable." Allthatis,is due to the Unknowable. This seems to bethe exact attitude of Buddhism also. Therecan beproduced,indeed,passagesfrom Buddhist authoritieswhichpositively denyandargue againstthebeingofaGod;but as to what the real cause of the eternalsuccessionofworldsmaybe,Buddhismholds astrictlyi.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.11agnosticposition.Weread,"Thereis onethingwhichis notinthedominionoftheintellect,namely,to knowwhencecomeallthebeingsoftheuniverse,andwhitherthey go."1Notmerelyasatheistic, then,but more Xstill asagnostic,does Buddhism findsympathisingadvocates orapologists amongtheagnosticatheists ofChristendom.But atheism andagnosticismbothalike,if amanhaveinhimthelogicto see the inevitable conclusionsfrom thepremisesof hissystem,leadstraighton topessimism.And so it hasnaturallycome topass,thatunderthe influence of theagnostic speculationoftheday,a considerable number have comesadlytodoubtwhetherin lifepaindo notquite outweighthepleasure ;andthuswhether,insucha universe asthis,not to be is not betterthan to be. Asallknow,thishopeless pessimismhas of lateyearsfoundearnest,ofteneloquent, expoundersin such asFeuerbach,Schopenhauer,von Hartmann. These too have theirmany disciples,as thegreatincrease in the ratio ofsuicide topopulationin theleadingcountries ofChristendomsadlytestifies.2All whoare affected with this soremaladyof ourtimemust,for thisreason,again,listen to the wordsof the Buddha with alively sympathy.For,as isknownto all who have looked into thesubject,the1QuotedbyA.Remusat(Mel.posth. 121)fromanancientBuddhistSutta. SeeKoppen,DieReligiondesBuddhm,S. 231.2SeeBlackwood1sMagazine,June1880,article "Suicide."12THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.Buddha isrepresentedashavingmade the absoluteandnecessaryconnection ofsorrow with all individualexistence to be the first of the"FourNobleTruths"which are the fundamental articles of the Buddhistcreed. It iswritten,"This, monks,is theholytruthconcerning suffering.Death issuffering ;oldageissuffering;sickness issuffering ;to be unitedwithwhat is notloved issuffering ;to bepartedfromwhat is loved issuffering ;not to attain ones desiresissuffering."And to such words of the Buddhanotafew, alas,inChristendom,having quitelostsightofHim who is theLightof theworld,sightheir sadAmen,andnotunnaturallythinkthat theBuddha,whohas so voiced theirdeepest feeling,must have beenverywise !To all this wemust add that Buddhismdoubtlessattractsmany byits remarkablesystemof ethics.This has often beensaid,and does not need to beargued. Everycandidpersonwillfreelyadmit thatin the Buddhistethics,consideredmerelyas an externalsystem,there is much to admire. It is noless admirable that sogreatareligious importanceshould be ascribed to theperformanceofstrictlymoral duties. In theserespects, amongthe variousreligionsof the non-Christianworld,itmaybejustlyheld to stand alone. It isnot, therefore,strangethatit should have won for itself adegreeof admirationaccorded to no otherreligion, exceptingthe Christian.But,if we mistakenot,it is not so muchmerelyi.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 13the theoretic excellence of the Buddhist ethics ofitself,which has so called forth the laudations ofmodern unbelievers inChristianity,but rather thefact that such a moralsystemtheonlyonewhich,in theopinionofmany,can befairlyheldworthyofcomparisonwith that of the New Testament should be found tobelongto the one religionwhich is at the furthestpossibleremove fromthereligionofChrist,areligionwhich has in itnoplacefor thebeingof a Godor the existence of aSaviour !To find such asystemof morals in such areligionfills a certain class of mindswithundisguised delight.Forthere are obvious indications ofuneasyapprehensionsarisingof lateamongthe advancedapostlesofunbelief. More and morefrequently,as the anti-theism of thedayhasspread amongthemasses,havebeenappearingin ourtimeuglysymptoms,whichseemtosuggestthat,very possibly,with the old faith in aGod and ahereafter,even commonmorality maygodowntoo. Hence thequestionhas been raised anddebated with warmth on bothsides, whether,if thebeliefin God be denied or left out oflife,there willanylongerbeleftasufficientbasisforpracticalmorals?whether thepurelyseculartypeofsociety,which isthe ideal andaim ofsomany,canpossiblybe amoralsociety? Someunbelievers andrationalists havebeenfrankenoughtosay notwithstandingthepublicationofMr.Spencers DataofEthics that suchanatheistic14 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.rendition of themoral law as shall commenditself togeneral acceptanceas asatisfactorysubstitute for theChristian,in theexpected daywhenChristianityshallhavevanishedfrom theearth,isyetto be elaborated;and thatjustatpresent,when the modern scientificview oftheworld isgainingadherents sofast,andtheold code ofmorals,based as it is onthe idea ofaGod,is thuslosingitsauthority,the construction of asystemofmoralsuponapurelyscientificbasis,equallyeffective forworking purposes,is a desideratum ofthehighest consequence.Andwhile mostprofessa confidence that"evolution"willbringall outrightin theend,there is no littleanxiety,heightened byeverynewexplosionofdynamite,astowhatmayhappenfirst;andsome havesuggestedthat wemaynotunreasonablyanticipateamoralinterregnumin the worldduringanapproachingperiodinwhich,GodhavingbeendethronedfromHisplacein the minds ofmen,no sanction hasbeen discoveredadequateto take theplaceof Hisauthority.1To such anxious souls the ethicsofBuddhismseemto be full of consolation. It isnot, indeed,that theBuddhistsystemof morals issupposedto beadaptedaltogetherto thepresent"environment;"but it isthought bysome to settle at leastthis,that ahighstandard ofmorals,and its actual attainmentinlife,is notinseparablefrom a belief inGod,since herewe1SeeRenan,LcsApGtrcs, p.Ixiii. ed. i. 1866;quotedin The OneReligion, p.291.i.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 15have a moral code of ahighorderrecognisedwherethere is no beliefin Godat all.In thislightwe can well understand thespecialenthusiasm ofmanyof the unbelievers ofChristendomoverthe moralsystemandespeciallythe moral character of the Buddha. Wemay freelyadmit thesingular beautyand attractiveness of the character ofthe Buddha withoutindulgingin the unaccountableexaggerationof Mr.Arnold, who,in the Preface totheLight ofAsia,ventures theastonishingassertionthat the Buddhist books"agreein the onepointofrecording nothingnosingleact or word whichmarstheperfect purity... of this Indian teacher."Whileaccessiblefacts shouldhavepreventedhimfrommakinganysuch statement asthis,thebest authoritiescertainlywarrantus inrankingtheBuddhaasamongthegreatestand noblest ofmen,onewho seems tohavelived,however mistaken wemaydeemhim,inorderthathemight,ifpossible, lightenthe miseries ofhis fellow-men. Andyethe was a manwho neverby anyrecorded act or word showedanyrecognitionofthebeingof God! andthus from thestandpointofunbeliefintheismhe affordsalivingargumentto showthat notonlytheoretical butpractical moralityof ahightypemayberealisedwithoutfaith intheexistenceof God. Nowonder,under the circumstances of thetimes,thatmenwho havesagacity enoughto see thattheauthorityevenofthe second tableofthedecaloguemustgowith the loss offaith inGod,findmuchcom-16THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.fort in the ethics of Buddhism and in the life of itsfounder.Perhaps,however,itmaybesuggestedifsuchwouldstudymorecarefullythepracticaloperationof the atheistic moralsystemof the BuddhainChina,Siam,andotherlands,whereit hashada fair andprolongedtrial,their enthusiasmmightbe somewhatdiminished !Again,modern unbelief in Christendom is distinguishedbyits uttercontemptforallauthority. Manywill have allthingssettledbytheprocessesof exactscience,commonly meaningbythis,ofcourse,physicalscience;andwhat cannot thus beprovenwhat hasnothingbutauthorityas of aprofessedrevelation behindit withthattheyhavenopatience.Itisturnedover at once to thelimbo ofsuperstition,orconsignedto theabyssof the unknowable. No lessnaturallythan for the other reasonsmentioned,Buddhismstandscommendedto suchbythe wholehistoryof itsorigin.Itbegan byrejectingin toto the whole Brahmanicalsystemofpretendedrevelations. Asfor theBuddha,hehadindeedknowledgeto communicate tomen,butnot a revelation. He did not therefore assume anauthoritativeair,and denouncepenalties againstallwhowouldnot receive hismessage.Hespoke"as aplainman,"who had himselfsoughtfor "rest" andfoundit,found it without thehelpof Brahmanpriest,oranyso-called revelation whatsoever. Suchareligionasthis,basedin itsvery origin upona revoltagainsttheconceptionofauthorityinreligion,standsi.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.17bythat fact in so far commended to thesympathyofall whoseproudminds cannot endure those wordsofChrist,whereinuponall whowill come unto Himforrest the condition isimposed,"Takemyyoke uponyouandlearn of me."Butyetanothercircumstancewhichhasoflatehadmuchinfluence is to be found in the number ofsupposedagreementsin thestory,the doctrines and theethics of theBuddha,with thehistory,thedoctrine,and the ethics of theGospel.This hasundoubtedlyhad more influence with thesuperficialthanamongthe best informed in Oriental matters;butamongthe former andnaturallymore numerousclass,thesupposed agreementsbetween the Buddhist and theChristianreligionhavecertainlyexcitedgreatinterest.At these unbelief hasgrasped eagerly,and with anexultation whichalready,asregards verymanypoints,has beenprovedto bepremature,hasloudlywelcomedBuddhismas anallybywhosehelpitmightbeshownthat Jesus wasnot sooriginalas has beensupposed,andthat Straussand his school wereessentially rightafter all;thattheGospel storywasinlarge part onlya Palestinian version of old Buddhist or solarmyths;its doctrinelargelya Judaised Buddhism;its ethicsscarcelyinferior to those ofChristianity;itsnarrative,here andthere,bearingsometimes evenverbal tracesofits Buddhistorigin.Whatgroundtheremaybe forsuchopinionsweproposeto examine in thefollowingchapters.Andthat such anexamination,in view ofc18 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.theapologeticinterestwhich,for the various reasonssuggestedin thischapter,has come to attach of lateto thecomparisonof Buddhism withChristianity,is most desirablewill,webelieve,besufficientlyclear.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 19CHAPTEE II.THE COMPAEATIVE HISTOEICAL VALUE OF THE BUDDHISTAND THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.BEFOREentering upon anysuchcomparisonbetweenthe Buddhistand the Christianreligionsas wasproposedat the close of the lastchapter,it isimportantas apreliminarytocomparethe historical datauponwhich wedependfor ourknowledgeof the facts ineither case. Weshall atoncesee,as the resultofsuchinquiry,thatthe sourcesofourknowledgeineachcase,asregardstheircomparativetrustworthiness,presentuswithavery strikingcontrast a contrast ofwhichwemustneverlosesightin all thefollowingdiscussion.That such apersonas Jesus of Nazarethlived,scarcely any intelligent person longerdoubts. Theattemptto account forChristianity apartfrom thesuppositionof the actual historical existence of JesustheChrist,has beengiven upindespair byaboutevery unbelievingscholar. Notonlyis thistrue,butall,eventhemost radicalcritics,are alsosubstantiallyagreedas to the time when this Jesus lived. The20 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.utmostdivergenceofopinionon this matter does notexceed sixyears.Not earlier than sixyearsbeforethe Christianera,nor later than thatdate,Jesus ofNazarethwasborn. It is alsogenerally agreedthatJesus lived not less thanthirty-twonor more thanthirty-fouryears;xsothatHisdeathmust haveoccurrednot earlier than 26A.D.,norlater than 34A.D.Theimportanceof thisgeneral agreementas to theprecise periodof the life of Christ is most evident.Let ussupposefor a moment that the most competentauthorities,instead of thusagreeingon thismatter,disagreed amongthemselves to the extent ofsome two hundredyears.What rational assurancecouldanyonehaveas to the evidential value of thosewritingswhichmakeuptheNew Testament? As itis, however,since it is held on all hands as anascertained fact thatPaul,forexample,wrote the FirstEpistleto the Corinthians about 58 A.D.;andsince,again,thetime ofChrists life is alsodefinitelyknown,it follows thatPaul,as acontemporaryandcountrymanofChrist,may,atleast,be acompetentwitnessas to what Jesus did andtaught.Let ussuppose,however,that it wereaquestionwith scholarswhetherperhapsChrist didnot live some two hundredyearsbeforethecompositionofthatepistleoranyotherNew1It isperhaps scarcely necessarytorefer,asexceptions,to theopinionof E. deBunsen,baseduponJohnii.20,viii.27,that Jesuslived almostfifty years ;or toKeim,who thinks itpossiblethatChristmayhavebeenforty.Theseexceptionalopinionsdo notaffectintheslightestdegreetheargumentofthischapter.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.21Testament document: whatwould then bethe valueof thetestimonythereingivenas to Christ and Histeachings? Under such conditions is it notquiteplainthat what isto-daythe doubt ofcomparativelyfewwell-informedpersons,would extend anddeepenintoauniversalfeelingofthemosthopelessuncertaintyandpractical ignoranceas to the essential facts concerningwhatJesusreally taughtanddid?But thissupposition,whichin the case of Jesus isonlyahypothesis,asappliedtothecase oftheBuddha,simplystates the actual facts. Weneed to markthiswell. It suits thepurposeofmanytocomparethelegendandthesupposed teachingsofthe Buddhawiththestoryand the doctrine ofChrist,as we havethesein the NewTestament,as if both stood on the sameevidentialground,and therefore must both stand orfalltogether. Nothing,however,could be furtherfromthetruththan this mostmischievousassumption,which is sooftentacitlyand let ushope ignorantlyandunconsciouslymade. Forwhilethere is themostemphaticand exactagreement amongbothbelievingandunbelievingscholars as to theprecisetimewhenJesuslived,themostcompetentspecialistsin Buddhistliterature andarchaeologydiffer in theiropinionas tothe date of the deathof the Buddhato the extent ofalmost twohundredyears.Indeed,onemightwithreasonputthe casemorestronglystill. Forat leasttwentydates have beenassignedfor the death of theBuddha,varyingfrom 2420 B.C. to 368B.C.,a dis-22THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND [CHAP.crepancyof more than two thousandyearsI1It isnotstrangethat in viewof thisamazingdisagreementofauthorities,the learned Professor H. H. Wilsonshouldhaveexpressedadoubtwhetheranysuchpersonas theBuddhaever existed at all.2Most scholarsto-daydo not indeedgoso far asthis,thoughSenart maintains thatalthoughGautamamusthavebeen ahistoricalpersonage, yetthelegend,aswehaveit,isessentiallya solarm^th,whereinthemythicaland the historical are sointerwroughtthatnoone cannowdeterminewithany certaintywhatishistoryandwhatis not.3But Senart has not alargefollowing;it iscommonlyagreedthattheBuddhalived,andalso that the dates earlier thanthe middle of thesixthcenturyB.C. are to berejected.Andyet,as remarkedabove,the ablest critics still differ as much asnearlytwohundredyearsinassigningthe date of theBuddhas death.Manywriters takethe date for thiseventaccepted bythe southern(Ceylonese)school ofBuddhists,whichfixes the endof the Buddhas life at543 B.C.4Thetendency,however,of criticaljudgment is atpresentto a later date. Professor Max1Edkins,ChineseBuddhism, p.12.Hardyhasgivenalonglistofvariousdateswhichhavebeenassignedtothedeathof theBuddhainhisLegendsandTheoriesoftheBuddhists, p.78.2Essay on Buddha and Buddhism,"JournaloftheRoy.Asiat.Soc.,vol. xvi.pp.247,248.3Essai sur laLegendeduBuddha. Asummaryof his views isgivenbyRhysDavids,Buddhism,pp.190-193.4So, among others,H. H.Wilson,St.Hilaire, Burnouf,Dr. W.W.Hunter,Childers.IT.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.23Miiller makes the Buddha to have died 477 B.C.;Earth,482-472B.C.;Mr.KhysDavids,410B.C.;Kern,388B.C.;whileWestergaardand Weberbringthe timedownto370-368 B.C. Furtherinvestigationmay,nodoubt,somewhat reduce thisdiscrepancyofopinion;butthatwhenthe critics shall have finishedtheir workanddonetheirbest,weshall be able to fixthe date of the life of the Buddhawithanythingliketheprecisionwith which wecan that of Christ thisthere is nogoodreason toexpect.Thereason for thisliesvery deep,andhas beenpithilyandtrulyput byProfessorOldenberg,thus:"For theWhen ofthingsmengenerallyin India have never had aproperorgan."1All thissimplymeansthatweare not surewithin onehundredandseventy-five yearsas to whenthe Buddhareallylived. As to the wholeargumentuponthesubject,ProfessorOldenbergand Mr.EhysDavids tell us that"the details are intricate and theresult uncertain;"andwhiletheythink that the uncertaintyof afew decadeswhich still remains in theirmind is a matter of nogreat consequence, they yetexpresstheirregretthat"our comfort is drawn fromno better source thanourwantofknowledge."2Now,whenwecontrast the facts in this case withthe state of the case asregardsthe date of the life ofChrist,it isplainthat thesignificanceof the contrastis most momentous. For while it is certain that1Buddha,seinLeben,seineLehre,seineGemeinde,S. 82.2Introductionto TextsfromtheTinaya,S.B.E.,vol. xiii.p.xxiii.24THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.whether thetestimony, e.g.,of Paul orMatthew,betrue orfalse,sincetheylived in the first half of thefirst Christiancentury,theymayat least becompetentwitnesses,it isequallycertain thatwecannot bethussure ofthecompetencyofanywitness for the life andtheteachingsoftheBuddha. Weare notsureastoanywitness thathelived nearertotheBuddhathanalmosttwohundredyears.When,aboutforty years ago,thecritics oftheTubingenschool flattered themselves thattheyhad succeeded inshowingthat none of ourGospelscouldbetracedupto thegenerationin whichJesuslived,all feltthatifthatwereindeedestablished,the claim of thosegospelsto our faith wouldbeveryseriouslyweakened. But theuncertaintyas to thedistance ofthetestimonyto the life and theteachingsof the Buddhafromhislifetime,is evengreaterthanthatwhich theTubingencritics would have attachedto the date ofourGospels.Oneneeds for this reasonto beverycautious indrawingconclusions as to whattheBuddhahimselfactually taughtanddid, as,indeed,the best Buddhist scholars are. And wheneveranysuch conclusionsmayseem toanyto conflict withwhat has beenregardedas essential Christiantruth,we are ever to remember thatbynopossibilitycanthis uncertaintestimony concerningtheteachingsandexperiencesof the Buddha be made tooutweigh,orevencounterpoise, positive testimonysuch as we haveto theteachingandtheworksandexperiencesofJesusChrist;atestimony,which,whatever its valuemaybeii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.25in otherrespects,atleast,bycommonadmission,comesfromwitnesseswholived in the same time andplacewithHimofwhomtheywrote. Andthetruthofthisremark willappearabundantlyevident in thesequel.For even this is not the whole statement of thecase on thisquestionof thecomparativeevidence ofBuddhismandChristianity.It must also be remembered that the life of Jesus falls in no obscureperiodofhistory,norwas it lived in aregionof the world atthattime little known. ForJesuslivedandtaughtintheEomanEmpire,in oneofits bestknownprovinces,andin the fullsunlightoftheAugustan age.TheageofJesuswastheageofVirgil,ofTacitus,of Suetonius.It wasnot,as oftencarelesslyasserted,anageofeasygoing credulity,but thecontrary;it was anageinwhichmen,disgustedwith the oldsuperstitions,thehollowness andabsurdityof whichtheyhaddiscovered,wereratherreadyin toomanyinstances torejectthesupernatural altogether.Thetestimony,therefore,whichwehaveto the life ofJesus,be it true orfalse,wasat leastgivenunder conditions and circumstancesfavourable tounprejudiced investigation.Andwhenwe remember theamazingly rapidextension of thenewreligionin that firstcentury, formallyattested tousbyaEomanofficial,1it seemsimpossibleto avoidadmittingthepresumptionthatthatprimitivetestimony,stillpreservedfor us in theGospelsandEpistles,did1LetterofPlinytheYoungertotheEmperorTrajan. Plinii,lib.t. 96[al. 97].26THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.set forth factswhich,howevermarvellous,wereyetfound to beundeniable.But let us now contrast these conditions underwhichChristdid Hiswork,with thosewhichobtain inthe case ofthe Buddha. As for thetheatreonwhichhelived andtaught,instead ofbeingone of the bestknownpartsof theworld,Indiawas aland of whichat that time we havescarcely anyhistorical accountwhichwecan trust. Dr.Hunter,thelearnedhistorianofIndia,whohas written the article on India for theEncyclopaediaBritannica,makesthe externalhistoryofIndia tobegin onlywith the Greek invasion underAlexander theGreat,in327B.C.,almost half acenturyafter the latest date that has ever beenassignedfor the death of the Buddha;andin this heisquite right.Ahistoryof India in theagewhenthe Buddhalivedwehave not;all is left to inferenceanduncertainconjecture.Again,theEomansand Greeks werepeoplesof ahistoricalspirit,so that writers likeHerodotus,Thucy-dides,and Tacitusdeservedlyrank still as witnessesof thehighest veracity.NeithercantheJewsthemselves berightly chargedwith a lack of thisfacultyforhistory.As contrasted withthese,theHindoos,among whomtheBuddhadidhiswork,fromtheearliestantiquityuntil thisdayhave been notedbeyondanyother cultivatedpeopleof the world for the totalabsence of the historicspirit. Theyhave never concerned themselves topreservean accurate record ofii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WOULD. 27anyhistoricalevents,even of those which have mostvitallyaffected theirownhistory.Quitecharacteristictherefore is the factwhich,withgoodreason,ProfessorOldeiiberg emphasisesas apropositionfundamental tothe whole discussion of the historical character ofthetraditionconcerningtheBuddha, namely:"Abiographyof the Buddha out ofantiquityout of the time ofthe sacred Palitexts hasnotreachedus, and,as wemay saywithconfidence,has never existed."*Andthe reason which heassignsfor thisfact,a factwhich,when we consider the remarkable characterwhich the founder of such areligionas Buddhismmust havehad,seems soextraordinary,hegivesin these words:"Theconceptionof abiographywas in itselfforeignto the consciousness of thattime."2Andso it comestopassthat,whether the Buddhalived in the fourth orthe sixthcenturyB.C.,it mattersnot. In neither case have weanycontemporaneoushistoryinIndia,whether writtenbyfriend orfoe,whichmighteitherdirectlyorindirectlywitness to somuchas the existence ofthe Buddhaorthemanneroftheearly propagationof his doctrine.Indeed,eventhe Buddhiststhemselves donot claim thatanyrecordofthe life andteachingof theBuddhawas committedtowritingin hislifetime,orforalongtime afterwards.Andthisbringsustoanothermarkedcontrastbetween1Buddha,seinLeben,seineLehre,seineGemeinde,S. 80.2Ibid.28THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND [CHAP.the evidencewhich we have asregardsthe Buddhistscriptures,andthatuponwhichwerest our faith as tothe historicalcredibilityoftheGospelsandEpistlesoftheNewTestament.Constrainedbythe irresistible force of historicalevidence,eventhe most radical ofunbelievingcriticshave made the reluctant admission that the writtentestimonyto the facts ofthelifeandteachingofChristcomes from aperiodwithin a hundredyearsof Hisdeath;andthatmanyof themostimportantbooks ofthe NewTestament,inparticulartheGospelsofMatthew,Mark,andLuke,existed inessentiallytheirpresentform before thegenerationin which Jesuslived hadpassed away.It suits a certain class ofsceptics, imperfectlyinformed andhastyinjudgment,toignorethisfact,andcarelesslyassert that no manknowswhentheseGospelswere written.Unbelievers,however,who arereallyat once learned andcandid,knowbetterthan to makesuch statements.Asallwhoare familiarwith thecontroversyknow,thedateoftheGospelofJohnhasbeenmorefrequentlycalled inquestion thanthatof eitherof theotherGospels.Inanycase it isagreedthat it was the last writtenof the four. But the stress of historical evidencehassteadilydriven those critics whoseprinciplesledthemto maintain as late a date for thisGospelaspossibleyearbyyearbackward,nearer and nearer to the timeofChristslife,till nowthemostextreme critics admitthat even this fourthGospelwascertainlywritten atii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.29least before thecontemporariesof theapostleJohn,Christs nearestfriend,had allpassedaway.Thefactsstand as follows :Aboutforty years agoBaur andSchweglermaintained that theGospelofJohnwaswritten not earlierthan 160-1*70 A.D. The force of thetestimonyofwriters of the secondcentury,however,compelledZeller and Scholten to set the date of the fourthGospelback to 150A.D.;stilllater,HilgenfeldandKeim have fixed it at 120-140 A.D.;while Schenkelthinks that it was written between 115 and 120A.D.Thus,even ifweconfine our attention to the latestofthe canonicalGospels,andadmitonlythejudgmentofcritics ofthe rationalisticschool,still wemaysafelysaythattheverylatest oftheGospelrecords wasgivento the world within ahundredyearsof the death ofJesus,and withinthirty yearsof the death of thelast ofHisapostles.But the case for theGospel testimonyto the lifeandteachingsof Jesus is muchstrongerthan this.ForevenBaur,whoassigned160-170 as the date oftheGospelofJohn,placedtheoriginof theGospelofMatthew at130,and that of Lukebetween 130 and110 A.D. But these extremeopinionsarenowabandonedevenbythe most radical critics.Volkmar,forexample,fixesthedateofMatthewsGospelat105-110A.D.;while Schenkelsaysit wascomposedafter 70A.D.;andKeim,retreatingstillfurther,giveshisjudg-30 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.mentthat it waswrittenbeforethe destruction ofJerusalem. Andwith thisopinionsober criticismcloselyagrees.ThustheGospelofMatthew,accordingto themostextremeopinionof theradicalcritics,waspublished,at thelatest,within five or tenyearsafter the deathofJohn,butaccordingtothepresentjudgmentofmostof the ablestscholars,rationalistic as well asorthodox,within at mostforty yearsafter thecrucifixion,andthereforeduringthe lifetime of thecontemporariesofJesus.Closelysimilar are the factsregardingthe dateof theGospel accordingto Luke. While Baur andZeller,ageneration ago,fixed the date of thisGospelat 110-130A.D.,Hilgenfeld,Volkmar,andKeimmakeit notlater than 100 AD. Soberercriticism, however,assignsit to a date still earlier; as,e.g.,Weiss andKenan,1whoplaceitspublicationbetween 70 and 80A.D.,while Godetextends these limits to 64-80 A.D.Thecompositionof theGospelofMark,as is nowcommonlyagreed,must beplacedearlier than eitherof the other threeGospels.Keim,indeed,unlike themost,assignsfor thecompositionof thisGospelthedate 115-120A.D.;but Volkmar makes it 73A.D.;Schenkel,before 60A.D.;whileHitzigmorepreciselynames 55-57A.D. as the time ofitscomposition.Inanycase it isevident,from thesefacts,thataccordingto thegeneralconsensusof radicalcriticism,this GospelofMark,again, presentsus withcontemporary1Vid.Renan, LifeofJesus, p.9.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.31testimonyto thefactsconcerningthelifeandteachingsofJesus.Normustweoverlook here the additional fact thatfourofthe mostnotablePaulineepistles namely,thoseto theGalatians,theRomans,and the two to the Corinthians areassigned bythepracticallyunanimousconsent of bothbelievingandunbelievingcritics tothe sameearly periodbefore the destruction ofJerusalem.Indeed,until within threeyearsthe consent ofthe critics has beenquite unanimous,and hasonlynowbeeninterruptedbytheextraordinaryattemptofProfessorLomanofAmsterdamto showthat neitherPaul nor Jesus everexisted,and that whatwehavein theGospelsandEpistlesis in each casemerelyanincarnation,sotospeak,ofapopularconception.1Butthe utter untenableness of hispositionhasalreadybeenfullyshown,andhehasbeencompletelyanswered,notbytheologiansandcritics oftheevangelicalschool,butbyextreme radicals like ScholtenandKuenen.Tosumupthen,it is to be observed that themostextreme school of modernunbelievingcriticism admitsthat of the books which are our chief authorities forthelifeandteachingofJesus,thelatest cannotpossiblybeplacedlater than about 130A.D.,while the earliestofthemwasprobablywritten not later than73A.D.,andverypossiblyasearlyas 55 A.D. thatis,within1See YahrbucherfurProtestantischeTheologie, 1883,merlesHeft;article,"ZurLiteraturgeschichteder KritikundExegesedes NeuenTestaments,"whereinProfessorLomanstheoryandtherepliesof hiscriticsarefullydiscussed.Bruno,Bauer,andPierson hadnofollowing.32 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.twenty-two yearsof the death ofJesus,less timethanhasyetelapsedsincetheclose ofthe civil warbetweentheNorthandSouth. Thismeans,ofcourse,that themost essential and fundamental of the records whichformthe basis ofChristian faith canbe tracedupintotheverygenerationin which the events narrated aresaid to have occurred.1How stands the case withtherecords whichprofesstogiveus the life and theteachingsof the Buddha? Thequestionhasbeeninpartalreadyanswered,butdeserves a full consideration.Inreplyingto thisquestion,wehave first to recalltomindthe factalreadyremarked,that themostrecentandcompetentcritics differ in theirjudgmentto theextent offull onehundredandseventy-five yearsas tothe date of the death of theBuddha,and also bear inmindthatthisfactcarrieswithitanequaldegreeof uncertaintyastowhetherwe haveanyrecorddatingnearerthanthis to thatevent.Indeed,Mr.EhysDavidstellsusthatit isevendoubtfulwhethertheartofwriting wasknowninIndia soearlyasthe date(410B.C.)whichhefixesasthatofthe Buddhasdeath.2Butpassing bythisadditional elementofuncertainty,it isplainthatevenifwecould traceupthe Buddhist records in the formin whichwenowhavethemtoapointoftime as nearto the most recent datewhich has beenassignedforthe deathoftheBuddha,as thesynopticGospelsstandto the death ofChrist,there would still remain the1SoRenan: seeLifeof Jesus, pp.12, 13,21.2Buddhism, p.9;S. B.E.,vol. xi.p.xxii.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 33uncertaintywhetherthissupposeddateoftheBuddhasdeath werenearlycorrect,andwe should be still farfromhavingassurance thatwepossessedworksdatingback to thatgenerationwhich saw thework of theBuddha.Buteven ifweignorethegreat diversityofopinionamongBuddhistscholarsastothe date ofthe Buddhasdeath,andassume that the latest datewhichanyhaveassignedto that event iscorrect,still it is notyetpossibletoprovethatwe haveanywritten record ofthe events of the Buddhas life which reaches backnearlyso far as this date of368-370 B.C. Thefactswhichbearuponthisquestion,so far asascertained,are as follows :The authorities for the life andteachingsof theBuddhaare :(1)theTripitaka,which is the canon ofthe Southern Buddhists; (2)the commentariesonthesame,called Arthakatha;(3)the canon of theNorthernBuddhists,asacceptedin ThibetandChina.Now,unfortunately,at thevery beginningof ourinquiryas to the date and trustworthiness of thesewritings,we are confrontedbythe fact that alargepartofthese workshas notyetbeen made accessibletoEuropeanscholars. Whatknowledgewe have isderived fromcomparativelyfew books. Ofthese,again,manyare notthemselvesoriginals,but translations of earlier works. Neither have weanyassurance thatthese latter are in allcases,or even inanycase,accurate versions of theoriginalswhichtheyD34 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND [CHAP.professtorepresent.If wemaytrust thetestimonyofspecialistsin Buddhistliterature,welook in vain inthese versions of variouspartsof the Buddhistscriptures for evidence of that conscientious care whichChristian scholars havegivento the various translations ofthe Oldand NewTestaments. ProfessorMaxMiiller remarkswhenspeakingof these old Buddhisttranslations,"The idea of afaithful,literal translation seemsaltogether foreignto Oriental minds."lOfone ofthemostfamousandreputableofthese translators,Buddhaghosha(430 A.D.),hesays,"In thebroaddaylightof historical criticism theprestigeof such awitness asBuddhaghoshafadesaway,and his statements as tokingsand councilseighthundredyearsbefore his time are in truth worth no morethanthestories told ofArthurbyGeoffreyofMonmouth,ortheaccounts wereadinLivyoftheearlyhistoryofKome."2Thethree collections whichmakeuptheTripitakaareseverallyentitled theVinayaPitaka,which is acollectionofdiscoursesaddressedtotheOrderof monks;the SwttaPitaka,or discourses intendedspeciallyforthelaity;andlastly,theAbhidhammaPitaka,whichdevelopsmorespeciallythemetaphysicsofthesystem.3Of theVinayatexts alarge parthas been madeaccessible to theEnglish-readingstudent in the SacredBooksoftheEast,bytranslationsbyMr.EhysDavids1ChipsfromaGermanWorkshop,vol. i.p.95.2Ibid.,pp. 195,197.3Foradetailed list oftheircontents,seeRhysDavidsBuddhism,pp.18-21.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WOULD.35andProfessorOldenberg.1OfthesetranslatedVinayatexts weare told that all thosealready publishedmayberegardedasdatingback,in theopinionof thetranslators,to aperiod thirtyyearsearlierorlaterthan360 or 370 B.C.2TheP&timokkhaespeciallyissupposed bythem to be "one of theoldest,if nottheoldest,of all Buddhist text-books."3These containverylittle, however,but a collection of rules for thedailylife ofthemonkish Order. Ofhistorical matterthey giveus little ornothing. Manyincidents areindeed related of theBuddhawhichserve as asettingfor therules,but the translators tell us thatthey"havealtogethertheappearanceofbeingmereinventions,"that"actual remembrance of the Buddhaandof his time could have sufficedonlyin the rarestinstances togivea correct historical basisfor the rulesor ceremonies whichhadto beexplained."^Accordingto Mr.KhysDavids,"the oldest andmost reliable"5of all the Buddhist authorities for thelegendof the Buddha is theMaliaparinibbanaSutta,orBookofthe GreatDecease, which,accordingto hisjudgment, maybeassignedto the latter end of thefourth or thebeginningof the thirdcenturyB.C. Heiscareful, however,toemphasisethe caution that this"should not be lookeduponasanythingmorethan agood working hypothesis,""only probability,not1Vols. xiii. andxvii.2TextsfromtheVinaya, p.xxiii.;S. B.E.,vol. xiii.3Ibid., p.ix.4Ibid.,p.xx.5Buddhism, p.14.36 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.certainty."lWhateverdatemaybeassignedto thisSutta,,whichforms apartofthe second division oftheTripitaka,to about the sameperiod,in Mr. Davidsjudgment,mustbeassignedalso the other six Suttaswhich are translated in vol. xi. of the SacredBooksofthe East? Butnone of these Suttasgive anyaccountof the life of theBuddha,excepting onlythat theMahaparinibbanaSuttapurportstogivean.account ofthe eventsimmediatelyconnected with his death.Of the authors of these or ofanyof the bookswhichmakeupthe Buddhistscriptures, nobodyknowsanything.More thanthat,Mr. Davids tells us asregardsthe sevenimportantSuttas of whichwe havebeenspeaking,that"theycannotunfortunatelybedepended uponasentirelyauthentic;and it willalwaysbedifficult,evenwhenthe whole of the Suttashavebeenpublished,toattempttodiscriminatebetweentheoriginaldoctrine ofGautama,and the later accretions to or modifications of it."3The SuttaNipata,anotherimportant authority,from the second of the threePitakas,recentlytranslatedbyProfessor Fausboll in vol. x. of the SacredBooksoftheEast,isregarded byhim as"veryold,"andbelongingto theperiodofprimitive Buddhism,for whichopinionhegives cogentreasons.4Butwho1SacredBooksoftheEast,vol. xi.p.xi.2DhammacaJckappavattana, Tcvijja,AJcanTcheyya, Cetokhila,Mahd-sudassana,andSabbdsavaSuttas.3SacredBooksoftheEast,vol. xi.p.xx.4Op. cit.,part 2, pp.xi. xii.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 37was thewriter,howfar itpresentsthe actual teachingsof theBuddha,to what extent it has beenpreserveduncorrupted,this no one is able tosaywithprecision.As to the life of the Buddha it tells usscarcely anything.OneofthehighestauthoritiesforBuddhasdoctrine,though,liketheforegoing,it tellsusnothingof hislife,is theDTiammapada,anotherportionofthesecondpartof theTripitdka.But ofthis,again,theauthorshipandexact date ofcompositionis involved in the samehaze ofuncertaintyas that ofthe others mentioned.ProfessorBeal,who haspublisheda translation ofa Chinese version of this work notwhollyidentical,however,withthe text of the Palioriginaltells usthataccordingto the Chinese that text of theDham-mapadawascompiled byone Dharmatra.1Butas towhen this Dharmatra lived there is extreme uncertainty.ProfessorBealis inclinedtoplacehimatabout70 B.C. ProfessorMaxMiilleragreeswithhim in theopinionthat the firstcenturybefore Christ wasprobablythe timewhenthe text of theDhammapadawasformallysettled2inwriting.Thatthese,in common with otherportionsof the Buddhistscriptures,came downorallyfroman earlierperiod,there is noreason todoubt,buthowmuchearlier it isimpossibletosay.Professor Miillergiveshisopinionasregards1OrDharmatrata. See Texts fromtheDhammapada^p.8.2IntroductiontoCaptainT.Rogers translationfromthe BurmeseofBuddhagTiosha}sParables, p.xxx.THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.the date of theDhammapadain thefollowingwords:"I cannot seeanyreasonwhywe should not treatthe versesoftheDhammapada,ifnot as theutterancesofBuddha,at least as what were believedbythemembers of the Council under Asoka in 242 B.C.to have been the utterances of the founder of theirreligion."lBut noneof thesescriptures giveus more thanafewmeagrehints as to the life andexperiencesof theBuddha. WheretheGospelhistories andepistlesarefull of allusions to theprofane historyof thetime,which enable us to test with satisfaction thequestionoftheir dateandauthorship,theseBuddhistauthoritiescontain not a trace ofanythingof this kind. Onthiswholematter wemayagain quotethe decisive wordsof that eminentPalischolar,ProfessorOldenberg.Hetells us that theoriginalPalitexts of the Buddhistscriptures"contain neither abiographyoftheBuddhanoreventheslightesttrace of the former existence ofsuch a work."2Aseveryone, however,whohas read at all on thissubjectknows,thereis,if not abiography,at least alegendofthe Buddha. Theoldest formin which thishas beenmadeaccessible to thepublicis theJdtakaor BookofBirthStories,translated intoEnglishfromthe PalibyMr.EhysDavids.3This book consists of1IntroductiontoCaptainT.Rogers translationfromthe BurmeseofBuddhaghoshasParables, p.xxiv.2Buddha,seinLeben,seineLehre,seineGemeinde,S.80,note 1.3ThePali title is Jatakatthavannana. All the stories it containsii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 39twoelementsnamely,theoriginaltexts of the BirthStories,and aCommentaryon those stories. Asregardsthe Birth Storiesthemselves,the Buddhistsdeclare that these weregathered immediatelyafterthe death of theBuddha,andgiveavery particularaccount of their transmission thereafter. But Mr.Davids assures us that thisopinionof theirs"restsupona foundationofquicksand;"and that"theBuddhist belief that mostof their sacred books were inexistenceimmediatelyafter the Buddhas death is notonlynotsupported,but iscontradicted,bythe evidenceof those books themselves." He continues:"Withthepresent inadequateinformation at our commandit isonlypossibleto arrive atprobabilities."lIn thisprovisionalmannerheholdsas the result ofinvestigationthusfar,thatthe Birth Storieswerealreadypopularlyknownin the third or fourthcenturyB.C.2TheCommentary, byanunknownauthor,whichforms thelarger partof the book aspublished byMr.Davids,heassignsto a much laterdate,certainlynot earlierthan thebeginningof the fifthcenturyof ourera,or almost a thousandyearsafter the death of theBuddha.3Themostcelebratedwork,embodyingthelegendofarealsofound in theCariyaPitakaof theSecond Pitaka. SeeBuddhistBirthStories,vol. i.p.liii.1BuddhistBirthStories,vol. i.pp.ii. iii.2Ibid.,p.Ixxxii. But not until thistime,in hisopinion,werethesestoriesappliedto theBuddha.3Ibid., pp.Ixiii-lxvi.40 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.theBuddhain its fullestform,does notbelongto thePaliCanon,but is the Sanskrit LalitaVistara,astandardauthoritywith the NorthernBuddhists,theeighthof a series of nine works called the NineDhammas.Again,asregardsthis workalso,wefindthesameutter lack ofdefinite data whichmightformthe basis for a confidentopinionas to the date of itscomposition.A Thibetan version of this work1isattributedbyFoucauxto aperiodnot earlier thanthesixthcenturyofour era. Howmucholdertheoriginalmaybe we do not know. The eminent Orientalscholar,Kajendralal Mitra,saysthat as to the date ofthecompositionof this work "we havenothingmorepositivethan inference foundedon insufficientconjecture."2Elsewhere, indeed,heapparentlyadmits thata Chinese translation of the work was made about69 or 70 A.D.3And soalso,accordingtoSeydel,Stanislaus Julien isauthorityfor the statement that aChinesecatalogueof thewritingscontained in thefirstgreat compilationoftheThibetanBuddhistCanon,enumeratesno less thanfour translations into Chineseof the LalitaVistara,andrepresentsthe oldest ashavingbeen made about this date of 70 B.C.4Butwhethertheworkknownas theLalita Vistara at thattimewasthesameas thatwhich nowbears thename,1UnderthetitleRgyatcherrolpa.2LalitaVistara, Introduction, p.48(BibliothecaIndica).3Ibid.,p.39.4DasEvangeliumvon Jesu in seinen Verhaltnissen zu BuddhaSageundBuddhaLehre,S.77,78.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.41or to whatextent itcorrespondedwithit,this nomancansay.Mr.EhysDavidssaysthatFoucaux, who,in the Introduction to his translation of the Thibetanversion,assignstheLalita Visthra to the firstcenturybeforeChrist,does so"withoutanyevidence whatever;"1and adds that it is"quiteuncertain" howmuch older than the Thibetan version "thepresentform of the Sanskrit workmaybe."2In a laterwork heexpressestheopinionthat it was"probablycomposedinNepal,andbysome Buddhistpoetwholived between six hundred and a thousandyearsafter the death of the Buddha."3As to the date ofthiswork, then,so much usedbythose who wouldinsist on theagreementsbetween thelegendof theBuddhaand thestoryofChrist,it will beperceivedthat there is anuncertainty amongthe most competent judgesto theextent of several hundredyears.Therealauthorityof this work is wellcompared byProfessorOldenbergto that oftheapocryphal Gospels,or,betterstill,to that of thelegendsof the MiddleAgeswithregardto Christ.4Anotherworkof somecelebrity,the sixth of thissame series of the Nine Dhammas of the NorthernBuddhism,is theSctddharmapundarlka,5or Lotusof1Buddhism,p. 11,note 1.2Ibid., p.11.3Lectures on theOriginand Gh^owthof Religion,etc.(HibbertLectures, 1881), p.197. Seealsopp.198-204.4Buddha,seinLeben,seineLehre,seineGemeinde,S. 75.5Translated into FrenchbyBurnoufunder thetitle,LaLotusdelaBonneLoi.42THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.the TrueLaw. Thevalue ofthis workwithregardtoprimitiveBuddhism isnothing.Like the LalitaVistara,in itspresentform,it is a lateproduction.TheBuddha,accordingto thisbook,is theSupremeBeing,"the Father of the"World,the Self-born." Hehas not become extinct and never will.1Thus inmany thingsthe doctrine of this work is the exactreverse of theprimitivePalicanon. Professor Kernhassummedupthe evidence as to itscompositionanddate as follows. Hesays,"It canhardlybequestioned thatthese works(theNineDhammas)containpartsofverydifferentdates,andderived fromvarioussources;"2and,withregardto thepresentwork inparticular,"wemayfeel thatcompositionsfrom different timeshavebeen collected into a notveryharmoniouswhole;wemayeven be able toprovethatsomepassagesare asdecidedlyancient as others aremodern;butanyattempttoanalysethecompositionandlaybare itscomponent partswould seem to bepremature.Under thesecircumstances,inquiryafterthe date of theworkresolves itself into thequestionat what time the book received itspresent shape."3Thisquestionheanswersbyreference to thefollowingfacts. Theoldest ofthe Chineseversions of the workwasmadebetween 265 and 316A.D. In this versionfive ofthepresent twenty-seven chaptersarewanting;1Saddharmapundarlka, chap.xiv., passim;S. B.E.,vol. xxi.pp.302, 309,310.-Ibid., Introduction, p.xi.3Ibid.,p.xx.THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.thesearereasonablyto beascribedtoalaterdate."Theother andmoreancientpartcame from a time somecenturiesearlier,"howmany,hedoes notsay,butadds,"Greaterprecisionis for thepresent impossible."1Anotherauthority,also out of the Northern Buddhism,hasbeen translated intoEnglish bythe Eev.SamuelBeal,Professor of Chinese inOxford,underthenameof TheRomanticLegend.This is a versionof a Chinese translation of a Sanskritworkcalled theAbhinishkramanaSutra, itself,again,anenlargedandaltered rendition oftheLalita Vistara.This Chineseversion Professor Beal attributes to about 70A.D.Thenfromthe fact that certain of the stories in theChinese version arerepresentedincarvingson theBuddhisttopesinIndia,which hesupposesto besomewhatolder thanthe Christianera,he infers thatthe Sanskritoriginalof the version must have beencomposedsomewhat earlierthanthis,probablybetween300 B.C. andthe Christian era. This isvagueenough,but even thisopinionis contradictedbyDr.Eitel,whoasserts that"nearlyall"thelegendsin this andotherworks"whichclaim to refer to events centuries beforeChrist,cannotbeprovedto have been in circulationearlier thanthe fifth or sixth centuries after Christ."2Anotherwork,to whichfrequentreference is madein thisdiscussion,is theManualofBuddhism,bytheEev. Mr.HardyofCeylon,which consistschieflyof1Saddharmapuudarlka,Introduction;S. B.E.,vol. xxi.p.xxii.2ThreeLecturesonBuddhism,p.15.44THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.translations from theVisuddhimaggosanne,1MilindaPrasna,Pansiyapanasjatakapota,andsevenotherworks.Ofthese,the first is a translation intoSinghaleseoftheveryancient Pali work ofBuddhaghosha (410-432A.D.)TheMilindaPrasnais aSinghalesetranslation of an ancient Paliwork;itsprecisedate isnot fixed. ThePansiyapanasjatakapotais a Palicommentaryonone of the books of the SuttaPitaJca,ofhigh antiquity,andheld ofequal authoritywiththetext. Of theremainingworks from which translations aregiven byMr.Hardy,noneseem to beolder,and some aremuchlater thanthePujawaliya(1267-1301).2Bp. Bigandet,ofBurmah,in TheLegendofGaudama,hasgivena translation ofaBurmeseLife oftheBuddha,entitled Malalankara Vatthu. But thiswaswrittenonlyin the lastcentury, though followingcloselyolder authorities.3Mr.Alabaster,ofSiam,hastranslateda Siamese LifeoftheBuddha,calledPothiyaSamlodJiiyan,but of the authorand date of the worknothingis told us.4All thismayhave seemedtedious,but it hasappearednotneedlesstogive,evenattheriskofapparentprolixity,some details of thesehopelessuncertaintiesofopinion,in order to enablethe reader toappreciatethe almost immeasurable contrast whichobtains,asregardsourknowledgeof the date andauthorship,1Sanne ="translation."2Hardy,ManualofBuddhism,pp.101,529-540.3TheLegendof Gaudama,vol. ii.p.149.4Publishedin The WheeloftheLaw.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 45betweenthe Buddhist authorities andthe books of theNew Testament. On the one hand we havesharphistoricalprecision,on the other the haze of uncertaintyandconflicting conjectures.1Butgreatas this contrastis,itbecomesthestrongerwhenweobservethat in all this discussion ofthe dateof theoriginof the Buddhistscriptureswehavenotyettouched,except incidentally,thequestionof theoriginof these authorities in their writtenform,butonlythat of the oral tradition whichwas at last embodiedin thenowexistingbooks. Forwhile afew ofthe extant Buddhist authorities arebythe criticsreferred to aperiodsoearlyas two or three hundredyearsbeforeChrist,orperhapsfromonetotwohundredyearsafter the death of theBuddha,it iscommonlyagreedthat these were not committed towritingtillabouttwohundredyearslater !More than this is not claimedbythe Buddhiststhemselves. The Buddhisthistorian,Mahanama(459-457 A.D.),states that the Buddhistscriptureswere first committed towritingin thereignof Vatta-gamini,86-76 B.C.2And while hisauthoritycannot1Professor MaxMiiller,reviewingtheevidence,concludes that"we canhardlyeverexpecttogetnearertothe Buddha himself andtohispersonal teaching"than "the Councilunder Asoka,in246 B.C."IntroductiontoEuddhaghoshasParables,p.xxiv.2TheMahavansa,with the translationsubjoined, byHon. Geo.Tumour,Esq., CeylonCivilService, Ceylon,Catta Church MissionPress, 1837,chap,xxxii.p.207. The words are: "Theprofoundlywisepriestshad heretoforeorally perpetuatedthe PdliPitakatrayaand its AtthaKatM(Commentary).Atthisperiodthepriests,fore-46 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.beregardedasabsolutelydecisive,yetProfessor MaxMtiller,with othercompetent judges,is inclinedtoacceptthis statement.1That the sacred wordswere committed towritingat first is claimedbyno one.Thus,even ifwesupposewhatProfessorOldenbergthinkspossible,that the interval between the oldestpartsof the BuddhistPali texts andthe death of theBuddha was"not muchlonger, perhaps,ingeneral,notlongerthan the interval between the death ofJesus and thecompositionof ourGospels,"2still thecase wouldnotbeparallelwiththatoftheGospelsandEpistles.Forin the latter case it is not"parts,"butthe whole;and not mere doctrines andrules,butbiographicalmatter also;3notmerelytheirorigination,buttheir committal towritingthatweare able to fixin the first Christiancentury;while in the case ofthe Buddhistscriptures,all that we have is derivedfroma stream of oraltradition, which,although partsof itmaybe traced almost to the time of theBuddha,yetwas not committed towriting, accordingtoanyauthoritythatwehave,until from three to five hun-seeingtheperditionofthepeople(fromtheperversionsof the truedoctrine)... inorderthatreligion mightendureforages,recordedthe same in books." SeealsoIbid., p.ix.1SacredBooksoftheEast,vol. x.part1,pp.xiii. xiv.2Buddha,seinLeben,seineLehre,seineGemeinde,S. 78.3ProfessorOldenbergis carefultostatethattheseoldestportionsofthePalitexts,which,inhisopinion, may havecomefroma timesoneartheBuddha,containnobiographyoftheBuddha. Thewholelegendbelongstoalaterperiod.Vid.sup. p.27.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 47dredyearslater.1In the West this fact would besufficient almostentirelytodestroythe value of thesedocuments as evidence.2Butalthough anyone whoknows the remarkablepowersofmemorywhich theHindoospossesswilleasilybelieve thatthey mighttransmit the substance of the voluminous documentswhichmakeuptheBuddhistCanonwith adegreeofaccuracywhichwould beimpossibleto westernminds,yetthere are limits even to thepowersofthe Hindoosin thisrespect.The Eev. Mr.Hardy,for morethanaquarter centuryindailyintercourse with the Buddhists ofCeylon,declares theallegedoraltransmissionthroughsolongaperiodto havebeenimpossibleevenin India. Wemaysafely saythat it wasutterlyimpossiblethat,even with all thespecial safeguardswhichweknowto have beenadopted,extensive corruptionsshould not in the course of centuries havecreptinto the text.1Mr.RhysDavidshasexpressedadoubtwhethertheartofwritingwas knowninIndia soearlyas thetime of theBuddha. Inthe Introduction to the TextsfromtheVinaya, part 1, byMr.Davids andProfessorOldenberg,wearetoldthatthesetextsshow,asisplainonthereading,that the art ofwritingwas known at the time "when theVinayatexts wereputinto theirpresent shape;but:thattheyalsoindisputablyshowthatitwas not used at thattimefortherecordingofasacredliterature." S.E.K,vol. xiii.pp.xxxii. xxxiii.2It is withgoodreason that Professor MaxMiiller remarkswithregardtotheprobabledateoftheBuddhistcanon,that "theevidenceonwhichwehavetorelyis suchthat wemustnotbesurprisedifthosewho are accustomed to test historical andchronologicalevidence inGreece and Rome decline to be convincedbyit." B.E.,vol. x.part1,pp.x. xi.48 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND [CHAP.ProfessorBeal,forexample,admitstheprobabilityofextensive additions to thelegendof the Buddha ascontainedin theAbhinishJcramanaSutra,a translationofthe Chineseversion ofwhichhehasgivenus in theRomanticLegend.His words are :"It would seemthatoriginallythestoryof the Abliinislikramanawassimplythat of Buddhasflightfrom hispalaceto becomean ascetic. . . .Afterwards,the same title wasappliedtothecompletelegend. . . whichincludeshispreviousandsubsequent history."*How much ofthis or ofany existingversion of thelegendwas inanycase in theoriginalofanygivenbook,it wouldseem aboutimpossibleever to determine with certainty.Andindeed,thatthe oral tradition onwhich theseextant authorities are basedwas not transmitted withanythinglikeperfect purity,is admittedbythe Buddhists themselves.Theytell us in somanywordsthatthe reasonof the committal ofthe Canonto writingat the late datenamed,was the fact that such adiversityofrenderinghadcreptinto the oral traditionthat the reductiontowritingwasnecessaryin ordertopreventfinalhopeless corruption.The authoroftheCeylonesechronicle,theDlpavansa, chargesthateventhe membersof the GreatCouncil whichis saidto have committed the Canon towriting,themselvescorruptedit worse than before. Weread,accordingto Mr.EhysDavids1RomanticLegend, p.v.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 49"Themonks of the GreatCouncilturned thereligion upsidedown;Theydistorted the sense and theteachingof the fiveNiMyas.Inparttheycast aside the SuttaandtheVinayasodeep,And made an imitation SuttaandVinaya,changingthisto that"1Whileinthesestatementstheremayeasilybeexaggeration duetoparty spirit, yetboththepresumptionandwhattestimonywe have is more than sufficient toprovethat such solid assurance as we have of theidentityoftheNewTestamentbookswiththeoriginaldocuments,isutterlyunattainable withrespectto thesacredbooks ofthe Buddhists.The contrast in the two cases will be the moreevidentwhenwerememberthatasregardsthegenuinenessoftheNewTestamentbooksandthepurityofourpresenttext,wehave twoimportantlines ofevidence,both ofwhichareabsolutelyandhopelesslywantinginthe case ofthe Buddhistscriptures.Inthefirstplace,thepresenttextofthe NewTestamentauthoritiescan becomparedwithmanuscriptswhichdate back to withinthree orfourhundredyearsofthetimeoftheapostles.Thatthese ancientmanuscripts presenta text essentiallyidentical with theNew Testamentas we have itto-day,is known toevery intelligent person.To1Buddhist BirthStories,vol. i.p.Ivii. Tothe sameeffect is thestatement in theMahavansa, chap,xxxii.p.207. Vid.sup. p.45,note 2.E50 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.parallelthis in the case of the Buddhistscriptures,itwould benecessarytoproduce manuscriptswhichshould date back to the time of Christ or earlier;inotherwords,since the tradition wasnotcommitted towritingtill the firstcenturybeforeChrist,theoriginaldocuments,or at least firstcopies.But this is notpossible.Forbecause of theperishablenature of thematerialused forwriting,and theravagesof climateand insects inIndia,it has come topassthat thereis not asingleBuddhistmanuscriptin existenceolder than a thousandyearsat the most;while itwouldbe almostimpossibletoproduceanymanuscriptso much as five hundredyearsold.1Tocompare,therefore,existingcopiesof the Buddhist sacred bookswithearlyauthoritieswhichmightcertifytheirgeneralcorrectness andfreedomfromcorruption,is notmerelydifficult but for everimpossible.Andthen,again,theintegrityof the Christianrecords is further certified to usbyabundant citationsin thewritingsof theearlyChristianfathers,andbythevarious versions madewithin the first two orthree hundredyearsafter Christ. But ofanalogous1AccordingtoDr.Eitel,"not asingleancientmanuscriptof the Buddhistauthoritieshassurvivedtheravagesoftime." ThreeLecturesonBuddhism,p.25. WiththisopinionProfessor MaxMiillerfullyagrees.Hesays,"All Indian MSS.arecomparativelymodern,and onewhohas handledprobablymore Indian MSS.thananybodyelse,Mr. A.Burnell,haslatelyexpressedhisconvictionthat no MS. writtenonethousandyears agois nowexistent inIndia,and that it is almostimpossibletofindonewrittenfivehundredyears ago."SacredBooksoftheEast,vol. x.part1;IntroductiontotheDhammapada, p.xi.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 51writings datingfrom a similarperiodafter the compositionof the Buddhistscriptures,there is an utterlack.Thus,notonlywere the Buddhist books notcommitted towritingtill two or three hundredyearsafter thedeath oftheBuddha,butalso,for thereasonsgiven,it isimpossibleforanyone toprove,thatmanyofthem,atleast,havenotbeengreatlycorruptedsincefirsttheywere written.Neither,again,dowe knowthat theoriginalBuddhistCanonwasco-extensivewiththeCanonofto-day.Primitive lists ofthebookscomprisedintheCanon,such as havecomedownto us ofthe booksofthe Oldand NewTestaments,therearenone whatever withtheBuddhists. Wholebooks,foraughtanyonecanproveto thecontrary,mayhave been added since the firstallegedsettlingofthe Northern BuddhistCanonat theCouncil of Kanishka in the firstcenturyof our era.Tousethewordsof Dr.Eitel,"Noreliableinformationexists as to the extentandcharacter of the Buddhistscripturessaid to have beenfinallyrevisedbythatcouncil. Theveryearliestcompilationof themodernBuddhistCanon thathistorycanpointout is that ofCeylon.Butthe CanonofCeylonwas handeddownorallyfromgenerationtogeneration.Part of it wasreduced towritingabout 93 B.C. . . . The wholeCanon,however,was firstcompiledandfixed inwritingbetweentheyears412and432 ofour era."x1ThreeLectures onBuddhism, pp. 16,17. Onp.25healsoshowsthattheChineseBuddhistCanonwasnotcompleteduntil 1410A.D.52 THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.We are nowpreparedto sumup brieflythispartof ourargument.Inthe case of Christweare abletotraceupthe stream of doctrine which Heis said tohavetaught,andthe narratives ofHislife,to theverylipsof Hiscontemporariesandcompanions.Eenanhas toldus,and noone will accuse himofpartiality,thatthe threesynopticalGospelsare"composedofthetenderremembrancesandsimplenarratives ofthe firstand second Christiangenerations,andproceedfromthatbranch of the Christianfamilynearest to Jesus;"andthatMarksGospel,inparticular,"is fullof minuteobservations,comingdoubtless from aneye-witness ;"andthat,inaword,theGospelsofMatthew,Mark,andLukewerewritten"insubstantiallytheirpresentform"bythe men whose namestheybear. To the sameeffect,asregardsboththeseGospelsandmanyof theEpistles,is themostrecenttestimonyofmanyof themostradical ofanti- Christian critics.Thefact also stands outclear andindisputablethatthistestimonyoftheapostolic preachersto thegeneralfacts recorded in theGospelswhichformthe basis ofChristianfaith,was received as truebymultitudes intheverygenerationandevenamongthevery peopleamong whomJesushadlived,taught,and died;while,ontheotherhand,not asolitaryvoice ofcontemporaryunbelief is heard evenattemptingtodisprovethattestimony.Such,then,are therecords; and,accordingto the common consentofintelligentcritics,these1LifeofJesus, pp.12, 13,21.ii.]THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.53recordshavecomedown to us from the time of theirfirstpublicationwithout asingle corruptionwhichcouldpossiblyaffectanythingin the least essential tothe faith.In contrast with allthis,the Buddhist authoritiesarevariouslyestimated asdating,in their writtenform,fromaperiod varyingfordifferentbooks of fromfourhundred to a thousandyearsafter the death of theBuddha;andeventheantecedentoraltraditions,whichthesewritings embody,whileno doubtcontainingnotalittle matter whichmay reasonablybe attributed tothe Buddha or his immediatedisciples,areyetconfessedbythe Buddhists themselves to have becomecorruptedanddivergentat anearly day.Andat lastthese traditions themselvesdisappearin a mist of distance whereinnothingcan be discerned with distinctness,at a time still from one to two hundredyearsbefore,ascendingthe stream ofhistory,we reach theageof the Buddha himself. As to the life of theBuddha,not asingle contemporaryvoice has comedowntous,whetherof friend orenemy,which shoulddirectlyandincontrovertiblyassure us of asinglefact.Whatweprobablydo knowonthesubjectisonlybywayof inference fromauthorities,none of whichcanbeprovedto havelivedwhenhe lived.Theapologetic bearingof these facts will beabundantlyevidentwhen insubsequent chapterswecometocomparethelegendof theBuddhawith the life ofChrist as recorded for us in theGospels.Meantime54THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND[CHAP.itmaynotbe amiss to call attention to thebearingofthese factsuponanobjectionwhich is sometimesheardfrom those who have notthoughtmuchordeeplyonthesequestions.It is sometimesasked,whatgoodreasonwecanshow,why,if wereceive all the extraordinarystories which are recorded in theGospelsofthedoingsofJesus,wecanjustly objectto themiraculous elementwhich is foundin some of the Buddhistauthorities,which tell us ofthedoingsof theBuddha?Or it is askedagain,why,if,on the otherhand,wereject,as we do withouthesitation,theextravagantstories which are told of theBuddha,weshould nottreat the mirac