Present-day problems of Christian thought

Front matter

I

Until

I

Contents

PAGB

I. Christianity and Buddhism— an Antithesis. 3

II. Christian Strategy in the Mission Field. 47

I. Christianity And Buddhism — An Antithesis

Attempts have been made by a certain class of writers to use the religion of Buddha as a means of weakening the force of the claim which Jesus of Nazareth makes for Himself, and for the religion of which He is the founder and the head. The argument may be stated thus : Jesus claims to be the Light of the World, and to have established a religion which is the absolute religion, before which all other religions must give way, because it is true and they are false ; it is supernaturally revealed — they are of purely natural origin. But the religion of Buddha presents so many resemblances and parallels to the religion of Christ, — in its ethical code, in its spirit, and in the life of its founder, that the exclusive claims of the latter cannot be maintained; and every open-minded man must see that both of these great religions are divine revelations, or neither is.

But it may be shown, in answer to this, that the alleged points of resemblance between the two religions, when closely scrutinized, are in many cases unreal, in many others greatly exaggerated, and that the residuum of real likeness is totally insufficient to outweigh the contrasts, which are radical, fundamental, and irreconcilable; so that Buddhism, notwithstanding its acknowledged features of ethical excellence, must still, when taken as a whole, be classed as a false religion ; while Christianity, notwithstanding the extremely interesting features of resemblance in it to the religion of Buddha, stands unique and alone among the religions of the world, in solitary and unapproachable grandeur — the one system without spot or blemish, the one really supernatural and sufficient revelation from God to man. It may be shown, also, that whereas the time and the place in which Christianity appeared are definitely and indubitably ascertained, and both stand out in the broad light of historical knowledge, the origin of Buddhism is lost in the mists of obscurity and uncertainty, twenty different dates being assigned to the death of Buddha, and these varying from 368B. C. to 2420 B. C, while even the most eminent recent specialists in Oriental literature still differ by about 175 years in the dates assigned. Moreover, while the most important of the books of the New Testament can be traced back to the very generation in which the events they describe occurred, (and this is now conceded by the ablest and most candid skeptical critics, after a long and obstinate battle,) the sacred books of the Buddhists are believed by competent specialists to be from 400 to 1,000 years later than the events they record — its oral traditions being at least 200 years later than the events, and its written records 200 years later still. The legend of Buddha, so far as its features resembling Christianity are concerned, cannot be shown to be as old as the Christian era ; while it is considered certain that all the various versions of the legend into

CHRISTIANITY AND BUDDB1SM. 5

Chinese, Thibetan, Siamese, and Burmese, are of later date than Christianity.*

Add to these facts a consideration of the fundamental contrasts between the two systems — that Buddhism is a gigantic system of atheism, or at the best of agnosticism concerning God ;f that its purpose is not to deliver man from sin, but from pain and sorrow ; that though it has much to say about " sin," yet the word connotes in its system an idea totally different from the Christian idea of sin, as an offence against God ; that its conception of " salvation " is the very antipodes of the Christian view ; and finally, that it makes no approach to the Christian idea of man as a child of God, capable of eternal life, since it actually denies the existence of the soul, or the possibility of a personal immortality, — and the absurdity of classing it with Christianity needs no further demonstration. It is the purpose of the following pages to present a picture of Buddhism sufficiently full and detailed to enable the reader to judge whether or not there is any such resemblance between it and the religion of Christ as to weaken the claim of the latter to be the absolute religion.

I.

THE HISTORY OF BUDDHISM.

A brief historical review will be of advantage in this discussion. Buddhism took its rise in India probably

*See " The Light of Asia and the Light of the World," by S. H. Kellogg, D. D., p. 103.

tMaurice indeed calls it " this Theistic, Atheistic, Pantheistic Human Doctrine. ,, — Religions of the World, page 80.

6 CBMST1ANITY AND BUDDHISM.

between the sixth and the fourth century before the Christian era, and quickly overspread that vast and populous region of the earth, supplanting the Brahmanism, from whose bosom it sprang, but to which it was fundamentally opposed. It was eagerly welcomed by a people groaning under an oppressive and intolerable system of caste, since it asserted practically the equality of man, and broke the iron yoke of a burdensome and senseless ritualism. It owed its success largely to its moral earnestness and its intellectual grasp. It appealed at once to the conscience and to the intellect, and combined catholicity of aim with intensity of ethical conviction. But after flourishing and extending its sway in India for several centuries, it began, about the beginning of the Christian era, to decline, and though a Chinese pilgrim who visited India about A. D. 400 found it still flourishing over a wide area,* it continued to lose ground until, in the eighth and ninth centuries, it was subjected to fierce persecutions and was finally so utterly exterminated that to-day it is said that there is not a Buddhist in all India. Students of the subject tell us that internal decay had preceded external disaster. The society or order of Mendicant Monks, which constituted the heart of the movement, had degenerated (as ascetic orders always have done) into a useless band of idle ecclesiastics, possessed, moreover, of a wealth which rivalled that of the most powerful monastic orders of the Middle Ages. The ethical precepts and the philosophical principles of the system were buried under a mass of senseless legends of the Buddha, and the people relapsed into the devil-worship, and even

*Cyc. Britt., Art. " Buddhism," p. 437.

the idolatry from which Buddhism had formerly delivered them. But before this internal corruption had begun to change the true character of the system, Buddhism had been introduced into Ceylon, and thence in the fifth century into Burinah, whence it penetrated in the seventh century into Siam. Its adherents in these countries are called the Southern Buddhists, and attention is invited to the fact that they differ widely in belief and practice from the Northern Buddhists of Nepaul, China, Thibet, and Japan — so widely that it is in reality an absurdity to call these respective religions by the same name.

It was early in the Christian era that the system of the great Indian teacher found entrance and gained sway in China, which, till then, and for centuries had been dominated on the one hand by the practical, worldly philosophy of Confucius (born 551 B. C), and on the other by Taoism, which had degenerated into a system of demonology. We have only space for a single remark in relation to the development of Buddhism in the vast Chinese Empire, and that is, that it accommodated itself to the religious systems already on the ground, and lost its distinctive features, so that to-day Chinese Buddhism differs fundamentally and irreconcilably from Southern Buddhism, and from Primitive Buddhism. The last is absolutely atheistic. But Foism, or Chinese Buddhism, attempts to " combine irreconcilable principles of atheism and polytheism," and it is said to be " easier to find a god than a man in China."*

* "Christ and Other Masters," by Chas. Hardwick, M. A., p. 334.

The Buddhism of Thibet, on the other hand, differs essentially from that of China, and both are absolutely diverse from the Buddhism of Sakya Muni and his primitive followers. The reader will observe, then, first, that Buddhism, as it exists to-day, is not a compact or consistent system; that it is characterized by multiformity rather than by uniformity ; and that its several forms are no more harmonious than Catholic Christianity and the Deism of Voltaire, or the Agnosticism of Mr. Herbert Spencer, or the Atheism of Mr. Robert Ingersoll. What becomes, then, of that imposing spectacle of a Buddhism which embraces within its poles four or five hundred millions of the human race, far over-shadowing numerically the religion of Jesus Christ? Imposing indeed were such a vast and towering mass as this, however false in its principles — but when we approach, lo, it breaks up into fragments, and we see it no longer one system, whether of philosophy or religion, but many, and these inconsistent and mutually contradictory! In fact, Buddhism, as it exists to-day, is as heterogeneous as the great image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, whereof the head was of gold, the breast and the arms of silver, the belly and thighs of brass, the legs of iron, the feet part of iron and part of clay. What wonder, then, if we Christians expect the day will come when the religion of Jesus, like the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, will smite the great image and break it into pieces? It will also be observed that, in the light of a closer scrutiny, the proportions of this great religion of Buddha shrink to one-fourth or one-fifth the size generally assumed. The number of its adherents is commonly put at from

400,000,000 to 500,000,000. But Sir Monier Williams, Professor of Sanscrit in the University Of Oxford, who has devoted more than forty years of his life to the study of Oriental literature, states that it does not number more than 100,000,000 of adherents, and that it is rapidly declining. Another veteran scholar puts the number at 73,000,000. The vastness, then, of the numbers of the adherents of this ancient system is by no means so overpowering after all.

II. The Legend Of Buddha

Let us next examine the alleged features of resemblance between the story of Gautama Buddha, or Sakya Muni, and the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

They have been thus strikingly stated : The Buddha " came from heaven, was born of a virgin, welcomed by angels, received by an old saint who was endowed with prophetic vision, presented in a temple, baptized with water, and afterwards baptized with fire. He astonished the most learned doctors by his understanding and answers. He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, and, having been tempted by the devil, went about preaching and doing wonders. The friend of publicans and sinners, he is transfigured on a mount, descends to hell, ascends to heaven."

Truly, if we might accept this statement as correct, the coincidences between the two narrations were indeed remarkable. But when we scrutinize these alleged resemblances, many of them are found to be imaginary, others to be grossly exaggerated, and the residuum of real likeness small.

Take the doctrine of the pre-existence of Buddha and compare it with what is taught in the New Testament of the pre-existence of Christ. The latter is represented as unique and peculiar — no other human being had existence previous to this mundane life. But the Buddha, in that he pre-existed, shared the common lot of all ; every human being is by that system supposed to have lived in some previous state of being. Moreover, the pre-existence in the two cases was utterly dissimilar. The Buddha had lived in many states and forms of being. " Eighty-three times he had been an ascetic, fifty-eight times a king, twentyfour times a Brahman, twenty times the God Sekka, forty-three times a tree-god, five times a slave, once a devil-dancer, twice a rat, twice a pig!" * It may here be remarked, parenthetically, that "there are limits to the variety of births possible to a Bodhisat. He can never be born as a serpent, or as any kind of vermin, or as a woman — in a word, in no form lower than a snipe." f Contrast with this the New Testament doctrine of Christ's pre-existence : " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." " Father, glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the foundation of the world." "The only begotten son which is in the bosom of the Father— He hath declared Him." It appears, then, that upon this point the two stories are absolutely diverse instead of wonderfully alike.

Take next the alleged virginal birth of the Buddha. If it were as alleged, there would be therein no matter of surprise, for the idea that he who is to be a deliverer and Saviour of men shall be supernaturally born is said to be common to many peoples. Ancient heroes are frequently represented as the sons of virgins. But the original form of the legend lends no support to the idea ; and moreover, primitive Buddhism recognized no spirit, holy or unholy ; so that there was no room for such a representation as that of the Christian creed, "Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin."

If next, we scrutinize the alleged baptism of the Buddha, just before his temptation, we find it was not a baptism at all, but a bath which he took in a certain river, upon which occasion (so the story runs) " thousands of the sons of the gods, wishing to render offerings to the Bodhisat, strewed divine aloes and sandal powder and celestial essences and flowers of all colors over the water." The resemblance between this and the narrative of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist exists nowhere save in the imagination of a certain class of writers.

It is not possible within our limits to consider all the alleged points of resemblance between the story of Jesus of Nazareth and the legend of Gautama Buddha. If the salient features are examined and shown to be illusory it will be sufficient for our purpose. Pass we then next to the presentation of the Buddha in the temple, which is brought forward as a parallel to the

12 CHBISTIANITY AND BUDDHISM.

gospel story. In the bare fact of such a presentation there is a coincidence, though there is nothing remarkable in it ; but how totally unlike the two incidents are will be evident as soon as we give attention to the Buddhist account. We are told that " when the Buddha was taken to the temple 100,000 gods drew the carriage which contained him, and showers of flowers were rained down by heavenly nymphs ; the earth quaked as he entered the temple ; music sounded from invisible performers in heaven; the images of the gods in the temple came down from their places and advanced and humbly fell at the feet of the Buddha Child." * No wonder that a learned skeptical critic (Kuenen) declares that the difference far overbalances the resemblance.

Another parallel is sought to be established in the miracles which are related of the Buddha. Perhaps we cannot better illustrate the futility of this comparison than by giving one or two examples of the miracles attributed to him in the legend. Thus, u in an athletic contest he astonished all by throwing an elephant sixteen miles. Just before his attainment of Buddhahood, having eaten the rice given him by the girl, Punna, he took the golden vessel and said, c If I shall be able this day to become a Buddha, let this pot go up the stream/ whereupon he threw it into the water and it went eighty cubits swiftly as a race-horse up the stream, and then, diving into a whirlpool, it went to the palace of the Black Snake King!" f We need hardly say that to compare such grotesque and senseless exhibi-

tions of power with the miracles of Jesus Christ, which always had a moral and redemptive purpose, gives eviidence, to say the least, of a strange absence of the sense of proportion.

Certain writers allege even a parallel to the resurrection of Christ in the Buddhist legend. But the event recorded in the latter is not a resurrection, but a post mortem momentary apparition, and has no reference to a conquest of death, or to an eternal life, or to the rehabilitation of the human body. It carries with it no message of deliverance from death and the grave for the rest of mankind; nor has it any inspiration of moral victory for the world. To compare it with the resurrection of Christ is like comparing a graveyard ghost with an archangel glowing with the light of heaven. Moreover, the Buddhist scriptures repeatedly declare that when the Buddha died it was "with that utter passing away in which nothing whatever remains behind." The grand and inspiring thought of a risen and ascended living Lord finds no parallel whatever in the religion of Sakya Muni.

Up to this point our inquiry has resulted in dissipating and scattering, like a structure of vapor, the resemblances which the school of writers alluded to have been at such pains to build up between Christianity and Buddhism. The fancied analogies have for the most part proved illusory — either because they were superficial, covering deep and vital differences, or because they were imaginary, growing out of the equivocal meaning of words which connote in the different systems ideas quite distinct, if not contradictory. But now we approach a feature in which the resemblance is real. We allude to the temptation which, in the legend of Buddha as in the history of Jesus, is recorded as immediately preceding the entrance upon the active ministry of each. " The Buddha, we are told in the later accounts, suffered a terrible temptation from the evil one, Mara the destroyer. In the struggle he conquered, and his conquest, according to Buddhist representations, brought light and hope to man. Then began his ministry. So also Christ is represented as having had in like manner, just before His entrance on His public ministry, a solitary struggle with the evil one. He also conquered and his victory was ours. That there is in this instance a very remarkable agreement between the two stories will not be denied. Especially striking is it to find that — not indeed on the occasion of the great temptation, but at an earlier time — Mara is made to promise the future Buddha a universal kingdom if he will but renounce his intention of going out to seek a way of salvation for the world." The able writer, from whom we have quoted, cautions us, however, against exaggerations, even here, of the likeness between the two stories, and justly animadverts upon the violence done to the Buddhist story by Sir Edwin Arnold in his poem " The Light of Asia." This charming composition conveys a quite false impression of the character of Buddhism, and particularly of its resemblance to the Christian religion. The poet has pushed poetic license far beyond the limits of honest truth, and, by using Christian terms and turns of expression in describing the life of Gautama Buddha, has, however unwittingly, produced a picture as inaccurate as it is beautiful. In the story of the temptation, for example, the Buddha is represented by the poet as tempted to the sin of selfishness, and then to the sin of the lust of fame. But the specialists tell us that a careful study of the terms employed reveals the fact that the sins alluded to were — in the one case the affirmation of the existence of the soul, in the other the desire for life in a future world. To believe that he had a soul, and to desire immortality, these were the two sins to which Gautama was tempted ! How different from self-indulgence and ambition, as the poet interprets the terms.

After all, then, it appears that the inner nature of the great temptation was radically diverse in the two cases — so much so as to leave the Christian narrative unapproached in the grandeur of its significance by the Buddhistic legend. Still, the residuum of likeness is most striking and interesting, and we cannot but ask very earnestly indeed, how the likeness is to be accounted for.

The writer already quoted is of opinion that the true account of it is, that in each case a great moral cause was operating; viz. this, that the human heart cannot but feel that the power of evil must be met and overcome by every man who undertakes to be a moral deliverer or saviour of his fellows. This, with the reflection in the universal heart of man, in all climes, of the primitive story of the temptation and the fall, were the materials out of which the legend of the temptation of Buddha sprang.

Yet another instance of these analogies between the revealed religion of Christ and the human system of Buddha ought to be brought under review.

We allude to the remarkable story, found in a very late authority, of the Buddha's first sermon, when " though he spake in the language of Magodha, each one thought he spoke in his own language." The similarity to the preaching of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost is obvious. Now, considering the fact that the document in which the story is found is not earlier than the year 1267 of our era, and the fact that the gospel had penetrated to India in the apostolic age through the preaching of St. Thomas, and to China in 636 A. D. through Nestorian missionaries, it is natural to infer that the Buddha legend had incorporated into itself some of the features of the Christian story, and that the account of this Buddhist gift of tongues is an instance of this.

We touch here a very interesting line of inquiry and of speculation — viz., how far may not only this, but many other features of external resemblance between the two systems, be accounted for by the introduction of Christian elements into the Buddhist legend ? There was opportunity for it. The two systems met in India, and also in China, at a period earlier than many of the sacred books of Buddhism. It is affirmed by a competent specialist that " there is no existing authority for the Buddha legend, which can be traced back in its present form so far as the first Christian century ; w and again that " No one has yet proved that a single feature in the Buddha legend which could possibly suggest a dependence of the gospel on that legend, or vice versa, dates from a period earlier than, sev* eral centuries after Christ."*

The striking resemblance between the story of Krishna, the Brahman, and that of Christ is thought to be clearly due to the transference of Christian elements. The same may be true also of Buddhism. But why may not the New Testament writers have borrowed from the Buddhist story ? First, because there is no evidence of any Buddhist influences in Palestine at the time the books of the New Testament were written. Secondly, because the Gospels are proven to have sprung from the circle of Christ's immediate followers, who could not have palmed off upon contemporaries as veritable history any elements of the Buddhist legend. This opinion is confirmed by two such able specialists as Professor Kuenen and Dr. Ehys Davids. The latter, alluding to the opinion that the New Testament is indebted to Buddhism, writes: "I must be allowed to enter a protest against an inference which seems to be against the rules of sound historical criticism." And Professor Kuenen: "I think we may safely affirm that we must abstain from assigning to Buddhism the smallest direct influence on the origin of Christianity. However attractive the hypothesis that brings Jesus in connection with the Buddhists may possibly appear, and however it may lend itself to romantic treatment, yet sober and strict historic research gives it no support and indeed condemns it." *

Two conclusions seem established by the labors and investigations of scholars in the vast and tangled jungle of Oriental literature: first, that there is no evidence to show, and no reason to consider it probable, that the religion of Buddha exercised any influence

* Hibbert Lectures, pp. 251-2.

whatever upon the early records of Christianity, so as to give the faintest color to the supposition that the gospel story has borrowed any single feature or incident from the Buddha legend; and secondly, that it is conceded J;hat the gospel story was introduced into India and China at a period anterior to the writing of much of the Buddhist literature, so that there was opportunity for a transference of some of the features of the Christian history into the Buddhist legend; and moreover there is no little probability that such a transference of Christian ideas into Buddhist literature did take place.

And now let us try to sum up in one view the result of a comparison of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and the legend of Sakya Muni, or Gautama the Buddha. The one was bred in poverty, the adopted son of a carpenter. The other was the son of a prince and was bred in wealth and splendor. The one was from his infancy to the end sinless, without spot or blemish upon his life. The other lived in the world's pleasures, a life of carnal indulgence, with no pretence of sinlessness, until he reached the age of twenty-nine. The one is represented as quitting the throne of the universe and taking human nature upon Him that He might redeem mankind from sin and death, and open the gates of everlasting life to all who would open their hearts to His saving power. The other, overwhelmed with the thought of his own wretchedness and that of the whole race of man, renounced his wife and child and his father's kingly court, and the prospects of earthly honor, that he might grapple with the problem of human pain and misery and find out the solution of it. In this, we may pause to remark, lies the beauty and strength of the Buddha story. Self-renunciation for the weal of others is always beautiful, noble, inspiring, and the marvelous success of Buddhism is in no small degree due to the influence of this story of "the great renunciation" upon the human heart. Add to this, that Gautama is represented "as a man of gentle, ardent, pensive, philanthropic nature," beautiful in person, magnetic in his address, and gifted with marveleus eloquence, and that he preached a morality far more lofty than any other heathen teacher.

But even so, mark the fundamental differences between Jesus of Nazareth and the Hindu deliverer/ The object of the one was to save the world from moral corruption, from guilt, and from the consequences of sin. The object of the other was to save man from pain. The one accomplished his end by giving His life a ransom, by making on the cross a sacrifice for sin, shedding His blood for the remission of sin, putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself ; this was the central thought and purpose of His work for the human race. . But the other repudiated altogether the idea of sacrifice, never hinted at an atonement for sin, never professed to do anything for the purgation of sin ; but came forward simply as a teacher to show man how to save himself from the evils and calamities of life. Accordingly he lived to the age of eighty, continuing his teaching to the end, and dying at last in peace. In a word, Jesus Christ died to save men from sin and to open to them the gates of everlasting life. Buddha lived and preached and labored to establish a system of

CHRISTIANITY AND B UDDI1ISM.

metaphysical and social philosophy by which men might be emancipated from the desire of life and all things in it, and so at last attain to Nirvana— that is to say, extinction, utter and absolute cessation of consciousness .and of existence. Some writers indeed speak of the "Path of immortality" as the aim of the Buddhist's teaching, and Sir Edwin Arnold paints Gautama as contemplating, as the result of his self-sacrifice,

" That shall be won for which he lost the world, And death should find him conqueror of death."

But such use of words is utterly misleading, for Buddha teaches us that the only escape from death is to escape from existence ; unless you conquer desire — all desire, including desire of life, here and hereafter — you will be born again and die again in an endless cycle of misery. But when once you have conquered desire, you will enter into Nirvana — unconsciousness, the absolute cessation of being. So shall you conquer death by escaping the necessity of a future new birth and shall pass away as the smoke vanishes or the early mist. And this is the consummation of the hope of the Buddhist, and the crowning achievement of the philosophy of Sakya Muni ! Could any two systems be more diverse in their principles, in their aims, in their real significance ? Is it not plain that notwithstanding the striking resemblance between the life of Jesus and the legend of Sakya Muni in some few external and superficial particulars, the spirit and the significance and the purpose of the two lives are completely diverse ?