—««o0o»»—

The Church Quarterly Review.
for
April 1882; July 1882
Vol. XIV
London
Printed and Published by
Spottiswoode & Co., New-Street Square, E.C.
1882.

[...elided...].

—««o0o»»—

Art. V.—The Rise of Buddhism: Part One.— Page 88.
1. The History of Antiquity. From the German of Professor Max Duncker. By Evelyn Abbott, M.A., LL.D., Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. Vol. IV. (London, 1880).
{All six volumes freely available here}:
[www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/39312].
2. Buddhism: being a Sketch of the Life and Teachings of Gautama the Buddha. By T. W. Rhys Davids, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, and late of the Ceylon Civil Service. With Map. (London, 1880).
{The 1912 Revised Edition freely available here}:
[https://archive.org/details/buddhismbeingske00davi/page/n8/mode/1up].
3. The Hibbert Lectures, 1881. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by some points in the History of Indian Buddhism. By T. W. Rhys Davids. (London, 1881).
{A 2007 New Delhi Reprint freely available here}:
[https://archive.org/details/lecturesonorigin00twrh/page/n8/mode/1up].
4. Buddhist Birth Stories; or, Jâtaka Tales. Being the Jatakatthavannanâ. For the first time edited in the original Pâli, by V. Fausböll, and translated by T. W. Rhys Davids. Translation, Vol. I. (London, 1880).
{The 1880 Trübner & Co., edition freely available here}:
[https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7157/mode/1up].
5. The Sacred Books of the East. Translated by various Oriental scholars and edited by F. Max Müller. Vol. X. Part I. The Dhammapada. A Collection of Verses, being one of the Canonical Books of the Buddhists. Translated from the Pâli by F. Max Müller. Part II. The Sutta Nipâta. Translated by V. Fausböll. Vol. XI. Buddhist Suttas from the Pâli. Translated by T. W. Rhys Davids. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1881).
{The 1881 Vol. X. Part I. and Part II. translations freely available here}:
[https://archive.org/details/SacredBooksEastVariousOrientalScholarsWithIndex.50VolsMaxMuller/10.SacredBooksEast.VarOrSch.v10.Muller.Bud.Mull.Fausb.p1.Dhamm.p2.SutNip.TrPali.Oxf.1881./page/n9/mode/1up].
1882.—The Rise of Buddhism.—Page 89.
6. The Vinaya Pitakaṃ, one of the Principal Buddhist Holy Scriptures in the Pâli Language. Edited by Hermann Oldenberg. Vol. I. The Mahâvagga. (London, 1879).
{The 1879 Hermann Oldenberg Mahâvagga freely available here}:
[https://archive.org/details/vinayapiakaonep01oldegoog/page/n7/mode/2up].

Amongst the various forms of religion to which attention has been called in recent years, there is not one that can show a stronger claim to be made a subject of inquiry and reflection than Buddhism, nor is there one more fruitful in revelations, whether to the student of the history of philosophy, or to the student of humanity, or to the believer in the Christian religion, or to that very modern phenomenon the soi-disant {lit. ‘calling oneself thus’; self-styled; so-called or pretended} impartial student of religion in general.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: In the above opening sentence the author of this 1882 article in the April-July issue of ‘The Church Quarterly Review’ magazine—an anonymous writer putting pen to paper in a manner and style which conveys he is somehow both qualified and authorised to publicly speak for the High Church of England—is informing the reader as to how his attention had been called, in the late 1870’s through to the early 1880’s, to various forms of religion (albeit without either naming them—for the sake of that reader’s elucidation regarding the relative strengths of those other varieties vis-à-vis this rather sweeping claim he is making on behalf those four quite distinct types of inquirers he specifically names—or even explaining what it is about those various forms of religion which is such as to have his august attention being called to them and thus away from his own religion-of-choice) so as to present two conclusions he has thus come to ... (a) none of those unnamed various forms can show a stronger claim than Buddhism does to being made, by those four quite distinct types of inquirers, a “subject of inquiry and reflection” ... and (b) none of those unnamed various forms is as “fruitful in revelations” (whatever they may be), for those four quite distinct types of inquirers, than Buddhism is.

Then again, it may very well be but a hyperbolic way of saying the High Church is concerned that Buddhism is making inroads on Christianity’s thus far monopolistic hold on both the private and the public mind. Quite possibly it was the recent (July 1879) publication of the highly acclaimed “The Light of Asia”⁽*⁾, by Sir Edwin Arnold (1832-1904), and its rousing reception, which had launched a serious contender to the occidental throne of faith, such as their collective holinesses might begin getting the wind up unless this oriental upstart be put in its place (for such is the general thematic character of this scholarly-toned article).

⁽*⁾In the form of a narrative poem of eight books in blank verse, “The Light of Asia” endeavours to describe the life and time of Prince Gautama, who, after attaining enlightenment, became the Buddha, ‘The Awakened One’. The book presents his life, character, and philosophy in a series of verses. It is a free adaptation of the “Lalita-Vistara”. A few decades before the book’s publication, *very little was known outside Asia* about the Buddha and Buddhism. Edwin Arnold’s book was *one of the first successful efforts to popularise Buddhism* for a Western readership. (...elided...). After receiving the poem from theosophists, Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) was awed and his subsequent introduction to Madame Blavatsky, at the Blavatsky Lodge, and her “Key to Theosophy” inspired him to study his own religion. In his autobiography, he writes of when he was given a copy of “The Light of Asia” along with Edwin Arnold’s version of the Bhagavad-Gita, “The Song Celestial”, while he studied in London. He recalls: “Once I had begun it I could not leave off”. (...elided...). The book has been highly acclaimed from the time it was first published and has been the subject of several reviews. It has been translated into over thirty languages, including Hindi. [emphases added]. ~ (2011 Wikipedia Encyclopaedia).

Incidentally, the anonymous writer might very well be the Rev. Canon Arthur Cazenove, 1823-1893, Vicar of St. Mark’s, Reigate, 1859, Hon. Canon of Rochester, as a contemporary (14 Nov, 1881) New York Times reviewer of ‘The Church Quarterly Review’, No. 25. Vol. XIII, October, 1881, reported how it is “now said to be conducted by Canon Cazenove” due to the previous editor, Canon Arthur Rawson Ashwell, 1824-1879, having died prematurely in 1879.

End Editorial Note.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The inquirer whose aim it is to trace the development of human thought will be rewarded by finding beneath the rubbish-heaps of later accretions a marvellous insight into moral truth.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Either the anonymous writer is introducing a fifth type of inquirer—one whose aim is to trace the historical progression of human thought at large—or he is taking it upon himself to speak for all the four types he named in his opening sentence but in a more general human sense. For the sake of illumination here they are again:
(1) the student of the history of philosophy;
(2) the student of humanity;
(3) the believer in the Christian religion;
(4) the (self-styled) impartial student of religion in general.
And (possibly):
(5) the tracer of the development of human thought.

Be that as it may, two items are adroitly brought to the reader’s attention ... (1) Buddhism has “later accretions” which are to be classified as “rubbish-heaps” ... and (2) beneath those “rubbish-heaps” Buddhism has a “marvellous insight into moral truth”.

It is Item № 2, obviously, which catapulted Buddhism to the top of the list, among those unnamed various forms of religion the anonymous writer had his attention called to, as being ... (a) a subject to investigate and contemplate ... and (b) a subject fruitful in revelations (plural) inasmuch Buddhism’s “marvellous insight into moral truth” is evidently the first of those “fruitful revelations”.

All what remains now is an explication as to just what kind of “moral truth” it is, which this “marvellous insight” reveals, and then the reader will (presumably) be informed as to the next one of those “fruitful revelations” which exercised the anonymous writer’s contemplative faculty “in recent years” (i.e., during the late 1870’s through to the early 1880’s).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
He will be startled to find in one of the aspects of Buddhism a theory of the universe, formulated five centuries before the Christian era, which presents a singular parallel to one of the latest products of German philosophy.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As those “latest products of German philosophy” were based upon/ drawn from Indian philosophy, in general, and Buddhist philosophy, in particular, it is not at all surprising. What is actually reason to be “startled”, however, is the anonymous writer’s nescience as to the source of such “German philosophy” at large. Mr. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), for instance, was among the first occidental philosophers to share and affirm significant tenets of oriental philosophy and once the precedent was set more and more ‘great thinkers’ clambered aboard the part-orientalised occidental bandwagon as it gathered apace.

For example, asceticism (the world-as-appearance doctrine)—which describes a lifestyle characterised by abstinence from worldly pleasures for the purpose of pursuing mystico-spiritual goals—was taken down from early Christianity’s dusty shelves, where it had been relegated for centuries, and reinvigorated with new life insofar as the implications and ramifications of all time, all space and all matter being illusory were intellectually explored ad infinitum (none of the ‘great thinkers’ actually lived the lifestyle in order to experientially ascertain its truth or falsity).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Side by side with that theory he will be no less surprised to find ideas which are not merely reflected in the gnosticism ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Gnosticism = particular religious orientation and doctrines, all considered heresy by Christian Churches, held by certain pre-Christian, Jewish, and early Christian dualistic sects—who claimed possession of a superior revealed knowledge of the Christian God (i.e., ‘Gnosis’) which condemned matter as evil and explained the creation of the world in an emanational manner (distinguishing the Demiurge from the unknowable Deity)—that advocated Gnosis (i.e., a particular noumenal knowledge) as being more important than Faith, in conjunction with the practice of an esoteric mysticism involving the divine power or nature, known ‘Aeon’/ ‘Eon’, emanating from the Deity which played various roles in the operation of the universe), as a means to attain redemption for the spiritual element in humans and to obtain release from its bondage in matter, thus ensuring its eternal salvation.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[surprised to find ideas which are not merely reflected in the gnosticism...] and the Positivism ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Positivism = a strong form of empiricism, especially as established in the philosophical system of Mr. Auguste Comte, which rejects metaphysics/ metempirics and theology/ spirituality as to be seeking knowledge beyond the scope of physical/ empirical experience and holds that experimental investigation and observation (i.e., the humanist/ secular scientific method), along with excluding speculation upon ultimate causes or origins, are the only sources of substantial knowledge. In his 1830-to-1842 work ‘The Course in Positive Philosophy’ (translated into English in 1853 as ‘The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte’) he publicised “The Law of Three Stages” which, he said, society as a whole, and each particular science, develops: (1) the theological stage, (2) the metaphysical stage, and (3) the positive stage (a.k.a. the scientific stage).
(NB; the word ‘science’—from Middle English (fourteenth century), via Old French, from Latin scientia, ‘knowledge’, from scīre, ‘to know’—literally means “obtaining knowledge, learning”).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[surprised to find ideas which are not merely reflected in the gnosticism and the Positivism...] of to-day, but are amongst their {i.e., Gnosticism’s & Positivism’s} very watchwords or the mottoes inscribed upon the banners and the shields of their champions.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Again, not at all surprising as the very basis of study and learning in occidental universities—and especially so since their advent was of the Renaissance Period (fourteenth-sixteenth centuries CE)—has its source in Ancient Greek and Roman religiosities and philosophies which, in turn, were drawn from certain Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources which themselves are of an oriental derivation, stemming in part if not in the main from the Indian sub-continent, as is evidenced, for example, via the remarkable correspondence between the five ‘Classical Elements’ of Ancient Greece—viz.: γῆ (‘ge’; earth), πῦρ (‘pur’; fire), ὕδωρ (‘hudor’; water), ἀήρ (‘aer’; air), αἰθήρ (‘aither’; aether, a.k.a. ‘quintessence’ by Aristotle the Stagirite (BCE 384-322) due to it being unchangeable)—and the five ‘Great Elementals’—viz.: paṭhavī (earth), tejo (fire), āpo (water), vāyo (air/ wind), ākāsa (aether/ ether; a.k.a. the archaic ‘firmament’ or ‘empyrean’; i.e., the realm of pure light)—of Buddhism’s Pāli Canon (as contrasted to the modern-day classification of the four states of matter as being solid (e.g.: ice), liquid (e.g.: water), gas (e.g.: steam), and plasma (e.g.: lightning).

Furthermore, direct Indian-Greek contact was instituted in antiquity by ‘Alexander the Great’ who, after his forays into the Punjab (BCE 327-326), established the Ancient Kingdom of Bactria/ Bactriana (a region between the Hindu Kush mountain range and the Amu Darya river) which later expanded into the Punjab, during the reign of Menander I Soter (i.e., ‘Milinda’ in Pāli), 165-130 BCE, and as far east as Pataliputra (Patna). Pyrrho of Elis (circa 360-270 BCE)—who inspired the philosophy known as Pyrrhonism—travelled with ‘Alexander the Great’ (along with Anaxarchus of the school of Democritus) and studied under the Gymnosophists in India and the Magi in Persia.

Another example of direct India-Greek contact in antiquity is Megasthenes, an ambassador for an ex-general of Alexander known as Seleucus I Nicator (BCE 358-281), who visited the monarch Mahārājā Chandragupta (a.k.a. Sandrokottos/ Androcottus, the founder of the Maurya Empire, and the grandfather of Mahārājā Aśoka) at his capital, Palibothra (Patna) and at the beginning of his book titled ‘Indika’, in which he recounts his Indian travels (BCE 302 to 298), he refers to older Indians who claimed knowledge of a prehistoric presence in India of Dionysus and Hercules. Be they fables or not is beside the point: the point being the prior knowledge required of such personages in order to be speaking of them.

Therefore—and also in view of the fact that the very word “gnosis” means the same as the word “bodhi” (from √budh meaning ‘to wake, wake up, be awake’, the basis of the words “Buddha” and “Buddhism”)—it is not at all surprising to find such “ideas” (a very poor choice of words, by the way, to depict sacred knowledge and/or numinous wisdom, such as metaphysical benightment a.k.a. metempirical agnosy being the root cause of all human mayhem and misery) in Gnosticism as are to be found in Buddhism.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
To the thoughtful Christian who anticipates with prayerful hope the subjugation of the world to the obedience of Christ ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The anonymous writer is remarkably honest, here, in revealing his deepest aspirations regarding “the subjugation”—as in, “the act of subduing and bringing under the power or absolute control of another” (Webster’s 1913 Dictionary), mind you—“of the world” as in, of every man, woman and child on the planet, no less, “to the obedience”—as in, “compliance with a command, prohibition or known law and rule of duty prescribed; the performance of what is required or enjoined by authority, or the abstaining from what is prohibited, in compliance with the command or prohibition” (Webster’s 1913 Dictionary), in fact—“of Christ”, as in, of the anonymous author’s particular ‘deus revalatus’ (revealed via the ‘deus incarnatus’ of later biblical lore and legend), as in, of his particular ‘deus absconditus’ (the hidden ‘deus absolutus’ of early biblical lore and legend), in sooth—regardless of what each and every one of those men, women and children might otherwise personally prefer and thereby individually chose for.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[To the thoughtful Christian who anticipates with prayerful hope the subjugation of the world to the obedience of Christ...] Buddhism should be a subject of uncommon interest.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As Buddhism requires neither the “the subjugation” nor the “obedience” of Christianity’s ‘deus revalatus’ on the part of its practitioners—in fact with Buddhism the successful Buddhist practician becomes Buddhism’s ‘deus absolutus’ themself (viz.: ‘brahmabhūto’ / ‘dhammabhūto’ = “become-brahma” / “become-dhamma”)—it cannot possibly be of interest (be it uncommon or otherwise) to the “thoughtful Christian” who anticipates thusly.

As it is quite the obverse, in reality, the anonymous writer’s ignorance of matters pertaining to the very core of Buddhism becomes even more obvious; he is so far out of his depth, in fact, he is not even aware there is any such depths to be so far out of.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
When he learns its past conquests and appreciates the extent of its present sway, nearly five hundred millions of human beings, or about one-third of the human race being, with whatever inconsistencies, its adherents, he will seek to know the secret of its power.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Again, the anonymous writer is remarkably honest, here, in revealing the primary reason for putting pen to paper ... to wit: “power”; specifically power over hundreds of millions of men, women and children who have otherwise personally preferred and thereby individually chosen for an earlier ‘deus revalatus’ (revealed via the ‘deus incarnatus’ of Vedic lore and legend), as in, a particular ‘deus absconditus’ (the hidden ‘deus absolutus’ of pre-Vedantic lore and legend) ... namely: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan; a.k.a. the sammāsambuddha.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
A twofold inquiry will seem forced upon him. He will ask, in the first place, what causes can be assigned for its rise and early progress.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Could those “causes” be a dissatisfaction and disillusionment with each and every other instance of ‘deus revalatus’ (each revealed via the ‘deus incarnatus’ of each of those many and various instances of a then-extant ‘deus absconditus’, as in, each of those many and various instances of a then-extant but hidden ‘deus absolutus’, as per human lore and legend at large), perchance?

After all, would anyone really want to be subjugated by (as in, be subdued and brought under absolute power and control, no less), and thus submissively obedient to, the Judaic ‘deus absolutus’ of early biblical lore and legend—the jealous and wrathful Old Testament god—once they realise it is possible to become the Vedic ‘deus absolutus’ of pre-Vedantic lore and legend?

Put simply: Christianity cannot even begin to compete with Buddhism in regards to its primary goal, and, thus, its core purpose, its raison d’etre.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It will be our aim in this paper to make it clear that modern scholarship {“modern”, that is, in an 1882 occident-centric context} supplies a fairly satisfactory answer to this question.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As “this question” is primarily about “power”—a question exercising the mind of this anonymous writer who “anticipates with prayerful hope” the world-wide “subjugation” of every man, woman, and child on the planet to “the obedience” of his particular ‘deus revalatus’ (revealed via the ‘deus incarnatus’ of later biblical lore and legend), as in, of his particular ‘deus absconditus’ (the hidden ‘deus absolutus’ of early biblical lore and legend)—it is rather mind-boggling that he seeks to resolve it, albeit only to a “fairly satisfactory” degree, via the occident-centric scholarship of 1882.

But then again—given the High Church Quarterly’s target audience is comprised, in the main, of the clerical community—it may very well be a case of verbum sapienti sat est (whereby resolving the fundamental issue superficially will be sufficient unto the purpose thereof as far as the clergy are concerned).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In the second place, he will ask why it is that this product of Indian civilisation has been able to hold its ground against Christianity, whereas Brahmanism, the parent and the rival of Buddhism, though after an internecine struggle it remained master of the Indian territory...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: According to Sir Charles Eliot, in his three-volume “Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch” (1921), there was no “internecine struggle”, as such, as it was invading Muslims who tolled the death-knell for Buddhism on the sub-continent. For instance, the blow which destroyed its power in Bihar (née Māgadha), where its clergy numbered several thousands and its learning was held in esteem, was struck by a Mohammedan invasion in 1193.

• [Sir Charles Eliot]: “In that year Ikhtiyar-ud-Din Muhammad, a general of Kutb-ud-Din, invaded Bihar with a band of only two hundred men and with amazing audacity seized the capital, which, consisting chiefly of palaces and monasteries, collapsed without a blow. *The monks were massacred to a man*, and when the victors, who appear not to have understood what manner of place they had captured, asked the meaning of the libraries which they saw, *no one was found capable of reading the books*. It was in 1193 also that Benares was conquered by the Mohammedans. I have found no record of the sack of the monastery at Sarnath but the ruins are said to show traces of fire and other indications that it was overwhelmed by some sudden disaster.
The Mohammedans had no special animus against Buddhism. They were iconoclasts who saw merit in the destruction of images and *the slaughter of idolaters*. But whereas Hinduism was spread over the country, Buddhism was concentrated in the great monasteries and when *these and their monks were destroyed* there remained nothing outside them capable of withstanding either the violence of the Moslims or the assimilative influence of the Brahmans. Hence Buddhism suffered far more from these invasions than Hinduism but still vestiges of it lingered long and exist even now in Orissa.
The Tibetan Lama Târanâtha (1575-1634), who completed his “History of Indian Buddhism” in 1608 (translated in 1869 by Anton Schiefner, 1817-1879), says that the immediate result of the Moslim conquest was the dispersal of the surviving teachers and this may explain the sporadic occurrence of late Buddhist inscriptions in other parts of India. He also tells us that a king named Cangalarâja restored the ruined Buddhist temples of Bengal about 1450. Elsewhere he gives a not discouraging picture of Buddhism in the Deccan, Gujarat and Rajputana after the Moslim conquest of Māgadha...”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 112-113, Chapter Twenty-Four, Volume Two, “Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch”, by Sir Charles Eliot; 1921, Edward Arnold & Co., London).

Sir Charles also charts the course of the decline of Buddhism thereafter from the scanty records available. Viz.

• [Sir Charles Eliot]: “In the life of Caitanya, 1485-1533 (“Caitanya-Caritâmrita”, Chapter Seven, by Kṛishṇadas, 1582; translated by Jadunath Sarkar), it is stated that when travelling in southern India, about 1510 A.D., he argued with Buddhists and confuted them, apparently somewhere in Arcot. Manuscripts preserved in Nepal indicate that as late as the fifteenth or sixteenth century Bengali copyists wrote out Buddhist works, and there is evidence that Bodh-Gaya continued to be a place of pilgrimage. In 1585 it was visited by a Nepalese named Abhaya Rājā who on his return erected in Patan a monastery imitated from what he had seen in Bengal, and in 1777 the Tashi Lama sent an embassy. (...elided...). The control of the temple passed into the hands of the Brahmans and for the ordinary Bengali Buddha became a member of India’s numerous pantheon. Pandit Harapraśad Sastri mentions a singular poem called “Buddhacaritra”, completed in 1711 and celebrating an incarnation of Buddha which apparently commenced in 1699 and was to end in the reappearance of the golden age. But the being called Buddha is a form of Vishṇu and the work is as strange a jumble of religion as it is of languages, being written in ‘a curious medley of bad Sanskrit, bad Hindi and bad Bihari’.
It is chiefly in Orissa that traces of Buddhism can still be found within the limits of India proper. The Saraks of Baramba, Tigaria and the adjoining parts of Cuttack describe themselves as Buddhists. (...elided...). Nagendranâth Vasu has published some interesting details as to the survival of Buddhist ideas in Orissa. He traces the origin of this hardy though degraded form of Mahayanism to Râmâi Pandit, a tantric Âcariya of Māgadha who wrote a work called “Śûnya Purâṇa” which became popular. Orissa was one of the regions which offered the longest resistance to Islam, for it did not succumb until 1568. (...elided...). Târanâtha states that the last king of Orissa, Mukunda Deva, who was overthrown by the Mohammedans in 1568, was a Buddhist and founded some temples and monasteries. (...elided...). A corrupt form of Buddhism still exists in Nepal. (...elided...). Since the time of Brian Houghton Hodgson, 1800-1894, the worship of the Âdi-Buddha, or an original divine Buddha practically equivalent to God, has been often described as characteristic of Nepalese religion and such a worship undoubtedly exists. But recent accounts indicate that it is not prominent and also that it can hardly be considered a distinct type of monotheistic Buddhism. (...elided...). The Nepalese Brahmans tolerate Buddhism. The Nepâla-mâhâtmya says that to worship Buddha is to worship Śiva, and the Svayambhû Purâna returns the compliment by recommending the worship of Paśupati...”. ~ (extracted from pp. 113-118, Chapter Twenty-Four, Volume Two, “Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch”, by Sir Charles Eliot; 1921, Edward Arnold & Co., London).

Sir Charles also traces what he calls the degradation and decadence of Buddhism in India, drawing on the accounts of the Chinese travellers, Hsüan Chuang and I-Ching—with the latter frankly deploring the decay of the faith which he had witnessed in his own life (circa 650-700)—starting on page 107.

And as he reports, on page 109, how “The revolution in Hinduism which definitely defeated, though it did not annihilate Buddhism, is generally connected with the names of Kumâriḷa Bhatta (circa 750) and Śaṅkara (circa 800)” it becomes quite evident it was not “Brahmanism” per se which prevailed over Buddhism but this revolutionised form of Hinduism known as Advaita Vedānta (literally, ‘non-duality’), whereby the term Advaita refers to the understanding that Brahman alone is ultimately real, the phenomenal transient world is an illusory appearance of Brahman, and the true self, Ātman, is not different from Brahman.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[In the second place, he will ask why it is that... Brahmanism...], is now, as Professor Max Müller tells us, only the lingering shell of a religion, a mere body of superstitions clung to by the uneducated, and whereas the religions associated with the higher civilisations of Greece and Rome, and reflected in the masterpieces of the world’s literature, have utterly perished before the banner of the Cross.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Once more, the anonymous writer is remarkably honest, here, in revealing that (a) he considers the nowadays-extinct Greek and Roman civilisations to be “higher” than still-existent “Indian civilisation” ... and that (b) he considers the literature of the “utterly perished” religions of those nowadays-defunct civilisations—when compared with that of the entire world (which, of course, includes that of the still-existent civilisation of the Indian sub-continent)—to be “masterpieces” despite being defunct ... and that (c) he considers “Brahmanism” to be “the parent” of Buddhism despite the clear evidence of the Buddhist scriptures (i.e., the Pāli Canon⁽*⁾) which pinpoints Vedism as occupying that role (being pre-Vedantic, Vedism pre-dates “Brahmanism”) ... and that (d) he considers that “Brahmanism” (the religion intrinsic to the way-of-life of an élite and highly-educated/ well-versed minority group) to be “a mere body of superstitions clung to by the uneducated” simply because an expatriate professor told him so ... and that (e) he considers “the banner of the Cross” to be the sole cause of the demise of the religions associated with those nowadays-extinct Greek and Roman civilisations.

⁽*⁾It is clearly stated in the Pāli Canon (in the Nagara Sutta; SN 12.65; PTS: S ii 104 for a specific instance) how it was via an ancient path, an ancient road, known to the ṛṣī (a.k.a., ‘Rishis’) of antediluvian lore and legend—(from the beginningless beginning, ‘ādi-anādi’, as it were)—that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan; a.k.a. the sammāsambuddha rediscovered, whilst resolutely sitting under an assattha/ pippal tree (‘Ficus religiosa’) some two and a half millennia ago, the unmanifest mind/ the unestablished consciousness (an acausal, atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal alterity of an ‘utterly other’ nature) which corresponds to the description in the well-known-in-the-west Nāsadīya Sūkta (Ṛgveda 10: 129), the 129th hymn of the 10th Mandala of the Rigveda, known as the ‘Hymn of Creation’ (Sanskrit sūkta = a Vedic hymn, a song of praise, a wise saying; a good recitation or speech, well or properly said or recited).
As briefly as possible: the ethereal/ empyreal brahmā dimension (or realm, plane, world and so on), which the unenlightened/ unawakened Mr. Siddhattho Gotama learnt how to attain to from Mr. Uddaka Rāmaputta (and known in Pāli as “nevasaññānāsaññāyatana”, the fourth introversive and/or mystical self-absorption state [“arūpa-samāpatti”] of the ascending abodes [“anupubbavihārā”], accessible via the 8th-stage [“sammā-samadhi”] of the octonary patrician way [“ariya aṭṭhangika magga”] travelled by each sammā-sambuddha of former times) corresponds to the description of the nature of the unmanifest mind/ the unestablished consciousness in the Rigveda—the Vedic words “nâsad āsīn nó sád āsīt tadâniṃ”, in the Nāsadīya Sūkta, translates as “neither non-existent nor existent” and/or “neither non-existence nor existence”—and which pre-dates Buddhism by at least a millennia (if not more).
Those who seek to comprehend the ‘buddhavacana’ via an understanding of, for instance, the (expatriate) Sinhalese, Burmese, Siamese and Cambodian iterations—disembedded from those very roots, uprooted from its (Vedic) soil, grafted onto exoteric root-stock—can only be illuding themselves that they thus know what the sammāsambuddha *rediscovered* under that ‘Ficus religiosa’ of buddhistic fame and fancy.
Incidentally, and just for the record up-front so there be no misunderstanding, a central feature of having attained fully-fledged spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment—no matter the racial, ethnic or cultural ancestry/ background of the particular attainer and/or experient and/or operant—is a nonpareil and thus uniquely memorable event occurring at a specific ‘timeless-moment’ of irreversible ego-death, or egoic dissolution (as distinctly contrasted to an irrevocable soul-death and/or spirit-death, or psyche-dissolution, as in an actual freedom from the human condition) and is *always* adducible else it be not classified as such (which would then be better depicted as self-realisation, self-illumination, or some-such description of gradational ego-sublimation/ ego-diminution, as exemplified by Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene).
To illustrate: for the historical human being referred to as either Mr. Siddhattho Gotama, wherein that first cognomen is his matronymic clan-name, or as Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, wherein that last cognomen is his patronymic tribal-identifier (i.e., ‘Sakya’) and, hence, ‘Gotama’ being his personal name, a specific moment of such an awakening into egolessness is attributed to the latter moments of the “Last Watch” of the night (2:00-6:00 AM), on a particular date around two and a half millennia ago, whilst resolutely sitting under that ‘Ficus religiosa’, and identifiable as such by his ringing declaration shortly thereafter: “Open are the doors to immortality!” (Viz.: “apārutā tesaṃ amatassa dvārā”; wherein ‘amata’ = deathless | immortal; vide: SN 6.1; Ayacana Sutta; PTS: S i 137).
And as ‘amata-pada’=‘nibbāna’ | ‘nirvāṇa’ (i.e., the region or place of the deathless) then what the sammāsambuddha is unambiguously declaiming is he has attained the refuge of immortality, the self-same refuge metaphorically referred to earlier, in Dialogue Ten of the Pārāyanavagga titled “Kappa-māṇava-pucchā” (Sn 5.5; PTS: Sn 1094 & 1095), as the isle of nothingness, the isle with nothing beyond, the isle free of worldly possession, the isle of immortality.
Indeed, this much sought after “refuge of immortality” | “isle of immortality” is central to what is arguably one of the most significant sentences, in this respect, in the entire Pāli Canon—(namely, “pahāya vo gamissāmi katamme saraṇamattano”, as uttered by the then-living sammāsambuddha just prior to his anticipated anupādisesa parinibbāna)—as it unambiguously refers to a personal post-mortem refuge [“saraṇam-attano”=‘my own refuge’] which he had established [“katam-me”=‘I established’] some fifty years previously under that nowadays famous tree—whereunder he was inspired by ‘Brahmā Sahampati’ to delay departure thenceforth for the sake of mentoring those with little dust in their eyes—for himself to go to [“gamissāmi”=‘I am going to’, just as ‘gacchāmi’=“I go to”] upon leaving the interlocutor [“payāya vo”=‘leaving you’] at the physical expiration of his embodying organism.
Hence, “pahāya vo gamissāmi katamme saraṇamattano” (“leaving you I am going to my own refuge which I established”) refers to the highly-prized refuge of immortality [i.e., ‘amata-pada’ a.k.a. ‘nibbāna’ | ‘nirvāṇa’].

As to “why it is” that Buddhism has held its ground against Christianity—as was evidenced by the infamous public debates, for instance, betwixt well-read and well-versed Christian missionaries and Buddhist renunciates at Panadura, Ceylon, on August 26th, 1873, less than a decade prior to this anonymous writer having his attention called to various forms of religion—it must surely have been obvious to all but the most purblind that Buddhism’s poor second-cousin, Christianity, began edging towards its use-by date in the mid-1870’s due to its abject record of failing to live up to its hype.

Also: Buddhism’s after-death salvation can be experienced here and now—viz.: “sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassika” (= ‘visible in this world’ + ‘immediate’ + ‘come and see’) and the ticket to its deliverance can be acquired whilst still alive (i.e., nibbāna/ nirvāna)—whereas the after-death salvation for Christians is to be largely taken on faith and its entrance-ticket is not conferred until ‘Judgement Day’ (viz.: 2 Cor. 5:10; Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 2:5; Heb. 9:27; et al.), the date of which Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is agnosic about (KJV; Mark 13:32 “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father”).

Ha ... composing these experientially-based examens and (nowadays) Pāli-sourced commentaries on clichéd critiques contrived by complacent canons, cliquish cardinals, and any other collusive clerics, is such fun!

(This ‘boy from the farm’ is again having a ball).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Page 90.—The Rise of Buddhism.—April.
Our present purpose being to speak chiefly of early Buddhism, we must forego any lengthened discussion of the second of these questions, notwithstanding its vast practical importance.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Given that it is late-Buddhism—a markedly different entity to “early Buddhism” by far—which has been able to “hold its ground against Christianity” then it is quite odd that the anonymous writer of this High Church of England apologetics would “speak chiefly of early Buddhism”.

And especially so in view of the fact it was “early Buddhism” which thrived in India for a thousand or more years—due mainly to Mahārājā Aśoka (anglicised as “Emperor Ashoka”) adopting it both personally and as a state religion, much as Emperor Constantine did with Christianity, along with the honorific Devanampiya (“Beloved of the Gods”) and its clearly-stated palingenetic doctrine (thus it is literally carved in stone how pre-schismatic precepts and practice were *not* on a par with the godless and soulless secularism being bruited abroad by professorial translators and the ilk)—co-existing all the while alongside both Bramanism and Hinduism, and not the degraded and decadent ‘late-Buddhism’ Sir Charles Eliot depicted, drawing on the first-hand witnessing by the Chinese travellers Hsüan Chuang and I-Ching, as presiding over the decline and eventual dissolution of buddhistic practice on the Indian sub-continent.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We are bound, however, to suggest that in so far as the question is not answered by the intrinsic excellence and the missionary spirit of Buddhism ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As “the question” is primarily about “power” the issue of the quality of “missionary spirit” is a non sequitur (essentially it is the quality of the product, and the desirability thereof, which ‘sells’ and, thus, not necessarily the persuasiveness of its ‘sellers’); besides which, it was academic scholars who were putting Buddhism in the public eye in the 1800’s, via the printed word in books, pamphlets, public lectures, &c., and not missionaries as such.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[We are bound, however, to suggest that...], it raises the doubt whether, with some splendid exceptions, modern missionary enterprise has been, at any rate until recent times, in any particular excepting zeal, worthy of its task ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The anonymous writer, a representative of the Church of England’s ‘High Church’, is now blaming the (mainly ‘Low Church’) missionaries for Buddhism’s looming pre-eminence over Christianity’s diminishing dominance.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[bound, however, to suggest...]; whether the full strength of the Church has been put forth to grapple with that task ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: That representative of a particular High Church is now pointing the finger at the very High Church he is a representative of.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[to suggest...]; whether the representatives of Christianity have set about the task in the right way ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: He is now accusing those missionaries of bearing “the banner of the Cross” the wrong way.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[to suggest...]; whether instead of presenting the grand Christian creed in its entirety, they have not carried into those distant lands their narrow and exclusive habit of magnifying, out of all proportion, separate and sometimes minor points of doctrine ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The anonymous writer is now blaming sectarian missionaries for their inveterate inter-denominational squabbling over doctrine.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[whether... they have not carried into those distant lands... separate and sometimes minor points of doctrine...], or even of opinion—a habit which explains that mutual contradiction between Christian teachers that forms a notorious stumbling-block to the alien ...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Yet Buddhists, collectively, have elevated Buddhism’s doctrinal disputations and sectarian differences to a high art form—refutation and counter-refutation, ad-infinitum, is a way of life for Buddhists (presumably, less they die of boredom otherwise)—inasmuch being aporetic, whereby insoluble contradictions or paradoxes in textual meanings is an occupational hazard for doctrinists everywhere, is second-nature to them.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[to suggest...]; whether, finally, they have not too often failed to exhibit a due measure of that large intellectual as well as emotional sympathy which constitutes an essential element of missionary success.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As it is none too clear just what a “large intellectual sympathy” actually is—although evidently connected with “emotional sympathy” somehow—it is just as well that “the question” (which is primarily about “power”) in regards to the quality of “missionary spirit” is moot.

It is, of course, far too much to expect that someone speaking for the High Church would be able to see that it is Christianity itself, as an institution, which is at fault ... hence the finger-pointing at its missionaries instead.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Our own generation has seen, we are aware, vast improvements in this department of religious effort, and from various quarters testimony is received of the devotion, self-denial, tact, and other noble qualities of the missionary band, whose labours in sowing the seed, we doubt not, will in due time be rewarded by an abundant harvest.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Due to the advantage of reading this writer’s words a hundred and thirty years after they were published it is evident that his quite optimistic “in due time” is still yet to arrive.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
If the want of sympathy in past days might find some excuse in the ignorance that concealed from the Christian teacher the moral excellences, the noble truths, which are enshrined in other systems and which might furnish ground common to himself and those whom he sought to win as subjects of his Divine Master, that excuse will avail no longer.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Although it is too early in the article yet, to be sure, at this stage it appears that “large intellectual sympathy” has something to do with (somewhat tardily) admitting there is commonality which exists betwixt “other systems” (e.g., Buddhism) and Christianity regarding the excellence and nobility of the moralities and verities enshrined in their respective doctrinal practices and religious beliefs.

(NB: It is the extent to which a heart-felt faith in specific ‘religious beliefs’ imbues a trust in them—and necessarily energised proportionate to the degree of fervency granted by the hope they will come true (which hope stems from the ‘promise’ characteristic to the very essence of the love felt to be divine in nature)—which elevates them unto the status of ‘religious truths’).

If that is indeed the case—essentially an “intellectual” admission, of the commonality betwixt Christian and Buddhist religious beliefs and doctrinal practices, as distinct from an earnest acknowledgement of their similarity if not sameness—then a fall-back contingency strategy is almost bound to be presented herewith such as to maintain a seeming superiority of the one over the other.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Modern erudition and enterprise have brought or are bringing to our hands in English dress the religious books of the world, and he who is preparing to labour in the mission field may start with advantages undreamt of before.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As this was written only a decade or so after those infamous public debates already mentioned—betwixt well-read and well-versed Christians and Buddhists in Ceylon (during which the Buddhists ‘won’ hands-down according to popular vote)—the writer is patently overlooking the lesson to be learned thereof ... namely: as the Buddhists also have in their hands the religious books of the Christians there is no such “advantages undreamt of before”. If anything the ready availability of the ‘religious books of the Christians’ is a distinct *disadvantage* as they do not stand close scrutiny—as so ably demonstrated in those public debates (especially the ‘Old Testament’ portion)—in the way in which the religious books of the Buddhists both can and do.

All of which basically leaves only bluff and bluster to fall back upon (in conjunction with an internal ‘ramping-up’ of faith, hope and, thus, trust in Christianity’s seeming superiority).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
And what should be his attitude, with regard to the religious and moral truth that exists outside the borders of the Christian Church?
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As “attitude” can mean stance, posture, pose, position, and so on—and given that it be, essentially, only an “intellectual” admission of commonality (as distinct from an earnest acknowledgement, of similarity if not sameness, whereby the attitude engendered would be imbued with sincerity)—then it may indeed be one born of a seeming superiority fuelled solely by the abovementioned intensification of fervency.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Of course we only smile at the idea of the ancient Christian writer who concluded that the Devil had originated a counterfeit presentment of the truth for the purpose of hindering the progress of the truth itself, or even at the less grotesque but certainly erroneous idea of other writers, both ancient and comparatively modern, that the truths found elsewhere must

1882.—The Rise of Buddhism.—Page 91.
have been derived from Holy Scripture. Educated thought has abandoned such views as these: what ought to be maintained in their stead?
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Hmm ... being able to similarly “smile at the idea” that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, mayhap?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It seems to us that while the Christian ought to recognise with the fullest sympathy whatever excellence he may find in any quarter whatsoever, he should at the same time stoutly assert that true Christianity alone...
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Well now, that “modern scholarship” approach, as advised in such an apparently civilised manner on Page 89, bit the dust well and truly, here, at the top of Page 91—with this quite conspicuous resort-to-assertion in its stead—as to “stoutly assert” the supremacy of one’s own religious beliefs and doctrinal practices over the other’s, despite that “fullest sympathy” vis-à-vis the other’s “excellence”, is to have tacitly acknowledged defeat on “modern scholarship” grounds.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
...[he should at the same time stoutly assert that true Christianity alone...] sums up all the truths spiritual or moral that exist dispersedly elsewhere, that it alone presents them in fitting mutual proportion, and knows the secret of reconciling the most exalted spiritual aspirations and conceptions with the most energetic practical life.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: What the anonymous writer is advising his Christian reader to “stoutly assert” (despite that “fullest sympathy” vis-à-vis the other’s “excellence”) is as follows:
(1) that “true Christianity alone” provides a summation of all the moralities and verities which are not exclusive to Christianity (howsoever such a summation would actually look like in practical terms) ... and:
(2) that “true Christianity alone” presents all those not-exclusive-to-Christianity moralities and verities in “fitting mutual proportion” (whatever that type of proportion might be in practical terms) ... and:
(3) that “true Christianity alone” is privy to some secretive reconciliation process whereby “the most exalted”—read ‘the most other-worldly’ (i.e., ‘the most impractical’)—aims and ambitions of a non-physical nature can be combined with everyday physical reality.

(That last one seems to be aimed at the cloistered lifestyle of renunciate Buddhists which attracts much public attention in regards its outwardly demonstrable dedication of purpose; if so it overlooks the fact that it is the laity which constitutes the vast majority of Buddhists, and, furthermore, a laity which reconciled their other-worldly aspirations with their worldly reality—via the time-honoured “dānamaya puññaṃ” (dāna = alms-giving and puñña = virtue, merit) accruing for a ‘next-life’ successful ordination for themselves—many centuries before Christianity arrived on the scene).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

__________
• The Rise of Buddhism: Part Two.
• An Examen of “The Rise of Buddhism” Contents.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯