.
Whatever other causes may have co-operated to produce the contrast between the Aryas of the Panjab and their descendants in the states of the Ganges, causes whose influence we cannot estimate with precision, such as a change of diet, two causes undoubtedly operated with much effect, viz. the more enervating climate and the religious system elaborated by the Brahmans, including in that system the oppressive and injurious restrictions of caste with its subordinate tyrannies, that of the Brahman and that of the king. The reader who desires to follow a connected account, the best that can be had where history there is none, of the steps by which the Aryas reached the conditions in the midst of which the founder of Buddhism was born, must be referred to Professor Max Duncker’s own pages.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: This is an apposite moment, then, to recall just what this anonymous writer’s primary motive and stated purpose is for being desirous of following a connected account of the steps by which those descendents of the warring denizens of the prehistoric Indus Valley civilisation reached the conditions in the midst of which Mr. Siddhattho Gotama was born (on some indeterminate date in or about the time-period contemporaneous to when the citizens of Rome rid themselves of tyrannical kingship and instituted a republican system of governance) ... to wit: having had his attention called in recent years to various forms of religion, amongst which he descried there is not one showing a stronger claim to be made a subject of inquiry and reflection, nor one more fruitful in revelations, than Buddhism, and, being a thoughtful Christian anticipating with prayerful hope the subjugation of the world to the obedience of Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, he can see Buddhism as a subject of uncommon interest inasmuch having learned its past conquests and appreciating 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 seeks to know the secret of its power.
Being firmly of the conviction that the rise of Buddhism in contemporary England (i.e., in the midst of the Victorian era of 1837-1901) cannot be understood unless he can represent to himself, even imperfectly, the earlier condition and fortunes and some mental conceptions of the people amongst whom it initially rose, he has taken chiefly as his guide Professor Max Duncker who has gathered for him—and in a manner deemed most masterly to boot—the fruits of other men’s labours and focused the scattered lights, which they have thrown upon special departments of inquiry, in his six-volume ‘History of Antiquity’.
Having thus had due recourse to the dour professor’s voluminous output he is currently in the process of providing the reader with a potted version of what is, essentially, an unhistorical account of the vastly differing time-periods, the several and distantly various locations, and the millions of multivarious
and multidimensional peoples who lived their lives in what was then known as the Middle
Land (‘majjhima-desa’)—the broad fertile
plains surrounding the Ganges and Yamuna rivers—of Bhāratavarṣa (as the
Indian Subcontinent was called back then).Howsoever, as already noted, the anonymous writer of this article is yet to explain just how any (un)historical information about “some mental conceptions” of those millions of peoples, held variously, circa 450 BCE is going to aid his understanding of “the rise of Buddhism”, amongst English people severally, circa the 1880s CE.
Incidentally, as very little was known outside Asia about Mr. Gotama the Sakyan—let alone any distinctively buddhistic credo—in the decades immediately preceding the rousing reception accorded to the 1879 publication of Sir Edwin Arnold’s highly acclaimed but quite fanciful “The Light of Asia” the most obvious clue is lurking in plain view
.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It is there described how, after the conquest of the land of the upper Ganges,
__________
[1]Quoted from Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, ‘Rigveda’. See ‘The History of Antiquity’, vol. iv. p. 35
.[2]See ‘The History of Antiquity’, vol. iv. p. 546
.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Page 96.—The Rise of Buddhism.—April.
which may have been completed about 1400 B.C., the immigrant tribes grew into nations and monarchies were set up; how the martial spirit which had carried forward their conquering arms expressed itself subsequently in the narrative of the great war, ‘the Epos of the Indians’, the Mahabharata, which, along with the later Ramayana is still a source of endless pleasure to the people[1]
;
how the three primitive classes, the sacrificing minstrels, the fighters, the
agriculturists, with the addition of a fourth class, the remnant of the conquered
non-Aryan tribes, became separated by insuperable barriers into the four castes, the
Brahmans, the Kshatryias, the Vaisyas, and the Sudras, to one or other of which all the
later divisions trace their origin.__________
• [Editorial Note]: And thus spake a nineteenth-century Englishman living in Victorian England—and writing in defence of the High Church of England mind you—which is an England until recent times separated, and for well-nigh a thousand years if not more, by insuperable barriers into the four classes, the royalty, the aristocracy, the middle-class and the working-class, to one or other of which all the minor divisions (such as highbrow, middlebrow and lowbrow) trace their origin.
Ha! The hoary gnome
regarding people who live in houses made of glass...&c
is particularly apt here.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The precise year in which the founder of Buddhism was born cannot be ascertained. Dr. Rhys Davids, relying chiefly upon Pâli accounts, an authority not absolutely conclusive, nor indeed quite self-consistent, places it between the middle and end of the sixth century B.C., an estimate which most probably does not err in regard to being too early. We may therefore assume it as definitely established that he was born in the midst of those conditions which Professor Max Duncker describes as characteristic of the Aryas on the upper Ganges in the sixth century. At this time the people suffered under grievous oppression. Royalty, provided that it respected the superior caste of the Brahmans, was upheld by them, and submission to it was inculcated in their teaching. The kings lived in luxury and splendour, though they were only monarchs of petty states, and often inflicted cruel and barbarous punishments for trivial offences. Besides this, they taxed their subjects without mercy. The caste system in its main outlines was rigidly established, and the accident of birth determined each man’s career in life as in an iron groove. The enervating influence of climate had repressed any tendencies to effective resistance on the part of those who suffered from the oppression of their rulers, while the common bond that united the first three castes against the aliens of the fourth had contributed to the riveting of the chains which separated those castes from one another.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: On pages 39-41 of his book “The Dhamma of Gotama the Buddha and the Gospel of Jesus the Christ”—sub-titled “A Critical Inquiry into the Alleged Relations of Buddhism with Primitive Christianity”
—the
Rev. Dr. Charles Francis Aiken, 1863-1925, wrote the following. Viz.:
__________They are indeed noble sentiments, and those “more striking ones”, culled out and finely translated by Sir Monier Monier-Williams in his 1889 “Brahmanism and Hinduism” book—now featuring in the above mouse-hover info tool-tip (the yellow rectangle with the capital “I” for info)—provide a wealth of information about an aspect of Brahmanism the similarly-dour anonymous writer is studiously ignoring (so as to paint as black a picture as possible, no doubt, as he relentlessly continues on with his propagandistic exercise in futility).
• “Through superstitious restrictions, freedom of action was very narrowly circumscribed for the devotee of Brahmanism. This was especially true of the Brahman himself, who was obliged to eschew many things which were lawful for members of the other castes. It is not surprising that the more scrupulous felt life to be a burden, and became imbued with the spirit of pessimism.
But if we abstract from this superstitious and arbitrary limitation of human conduct, and take into consideration the Brahman teaching of right and wrong in the recognised sphere of ethics, we are confronted with a largeness and depth of moral discernment which justly excites our admiration.
Truthfulness, honesty, self-control, obedience to parents and superiors, the moderate use of food and drink, chastity, and almsgiving were strongly inculcated. Especial stress was laid on the duty of acting charitably towards students, ascetics, the sick, the aged, and the feeble.
Though allowing, like other religions of antiquity, polygamy and repudiation, Brahmanism strongly forbade adultery and all forms of unchaste indulgence. It condemned, likewise, in severe terms suicide, abortion, perjury, slander, drunkenness, gambling, oppressive usury, hypocrisy, and slothfulness.
Its Christian-like aim to soften the hard side of human nature is seen in its many lessons of mildness, forbearance, respect for the aged, kindness towards servants and slaves, and in its insisting, though to an excessive degree, on not causing death to any living creature. Wanton cruelty to animals, met from the Brahman the reprobation it deserves.
Nothing is more striking than its insistence on the duty of forgiving injuries and returning good for evil. In the “Laws of Manu”, we read of the ascetic:• “Let him patiently bear hard words, let him not insult anybody; and let him not become anybody’s enemy for the sake of this [perishable] body.Nor did this standard, so remarkable, of moral right and wrong, apply simply to external acts. It penetrated to the secret chamber of the heart. It demanded recognition of the very will. The threefold division of good and bad acts into thoughts, words, and deeds, finds frequent expression in Brahmanic teaching.
• “Against an angry man let him not in return show anger, let him bless when cursed, and let him not utter speech, devoid of truth, scattered at the seven gates”. (Manu, vi. 47, 48).• “He, forsooth, whose speech and thoughts are pure and ever perfectly guarded, gains the whole reward which is conferred by the Vedanta”. (Manu, ii. 160).The “Laws of Manu” abound in noble sentiments like these. The more striking ones have been culled out by Monier Williams and finely translated in his work entitled “Brahmanism and Hinduism”
• “Let him not even, though in pain [speak words], cutting [others] to the quick; let him not injure others in thought or deed; let him not utter speeches which make [others] afraid of him, since that will prevent him from gaining heaven”. (Manu, ii, 160-161).
• “Neither [the study of] the Vedas nor liberality, nor sacrifices, nor any self-imposed restraint, nor austerities, ever procure the attainment [of rewards] to a man whose heart is contaminated with sensuality”. (Manu, ii. 97).
• “The wife who keeps chaste in thoughts, words, and body, and remains faithful to her husband, attains to a reunion with him in the next world and is called virtuous”. (Manu, v. 155; cf. xi. 232, 242; xii. 3-10)..
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Were there any consolations of religion? Was there in the Indian conception of the universe and its government
__________
[1]‘At all festivals and fairs ... episodes from one of the two poems are recited to the eager crowd of assembled hearers; the audience accompany the acts and sufferings of the heroes with cries of joy, or signs of sorrow, with laughter or tears’.—‘The History of Antiquity’, vol. iv. p. 109
.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1882.—The Rise of Buddhism.—Page 97.
anything corresponding to the patient trust of the Hebrew—the confidence in God, the belief in the All-powerful, All-holy Friend of every one who sought to live holily—which, out of the bitterest and darkest of human suffering, could distil sweetness and light; the belief that could lead a man to exclaim, ‘Unto the godly there ariseth up light in the darkness’.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The anonymous writer is speaking here of the situation and conditions prevailing in what he delineated further above as the “the sixth century” BCE—the biblical period designated as the Old Testament in the Christian scriptures—and to characterise the Old Testament era as “sweetness and light” and its jealous and wrathful god as “the All-powerful, All-holy Friend” of every one who sought to live holily
is simply risible.In a lengthy article titled “Violence in the Old Testament”
,
the Rev. Dr. Jerome Creach (the Robert C. Holland Professor of Old Testament at the
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of the 2013 book “Violence in Scripture”)
has thoughtfully provided a handy summary. Viz.:
__________The Rev. Dr. Jerome Creach’s entire article is well worth reading in order to gain a twenty-first century theologian’s perspective on the violence which features so prominently all throughout the Old Testament era (including in the Book of Psalms).
• “Violence in the Old Testament” may refer generally to the Old Testament’s descriptions of God or human beings killing, destroying, and doing physical harm. As part of the activity of God, violence may include the results of divine judgment, such as God’s destruction of “all flesh” in the flood story (Gen. 6:13) or God raining fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24-25). The expression may also include God’s prescription for and approval of wars such as the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 1-12). Some passages seem to suggest that God is harsh and vindictive and especially belligerent toward non-Israelites (see Exod. 12:29-32; Nahum and Obadiah), though the Old Testament also reports God lashing out against rebellious Israelites as well (Exod. 32:25-29, 35; Josh. 7).
Christians have wrestled with divine violence in the Old Testament at least since the 2nd century CE, when *Marcion
In the modern era interpreters have taken up the problem with new vigour and have treated it from fresh perspectives. Some attribute the Old Testament’s accounts of God destroying and killing to the brutality of the society that produced it, but they believe modern people are able to see the matter more clearly. They find support for this view in the apparent acceptance of cruel practices of war by Old Testament authors (Num. 21:1-3; Judg. 1:4-7; 1 Sam. 15).
Within this way of reading is also a feminist critique that sees in the Old Testament a general disregard for women, illustrated by some passages that present sexual abuse as well as general subordination of women to men with no explicit judgment on such atrocities (Judg. 19; Ezek. 16, 23).
Assessment of the significance of records of or calls for violent acts in the Old Testament are difficult, however, because of the complex literary and canonical context in which such passages appear and because of the incongruity between ancient Israelite culture and the culture(s) of readers today. Studies that compare the Old Testament presentation of violence with that of contemporary ancient Near Eastern nations offer potentially more controlled results. Comparative studies alone, however, cannot account for the multiple layers of tradition that often make up Old Testament references to violence.
That is, while Assyrian and Babylonian records of warfare presumably describe what Mesopotamian kings actually did in battle, the Old Testament often reports wars and military conflicts, and the aspirations of the leaders of Judah, from the perspective of a defeated people. Thus, even Judah’s desire to defend itself militarily morphed into an expression of hope in God.
Given the complexity of the development of the Old Testament canon, a fruitful and ultimately more accurate way of treating the subject is to determine how ancient Israelites thought about violence and how the subject then affected the overall shape of the Old Testament. A logical starting point in this endeavour is the Hebrew word ḥāmas. This term connotes rebellion against God that results in bloodshed and disorder and a general undoing of God’s intentions for creation.
Thus, violence appears to intrude on God’s world, and God acts destructively only to counteract human violence. For example, in Gen. 6:11-13 human violence ruined the earth and thus prompted God to bring the flood as a corrective measure. This way of understanding violence in the Old Testament seems to identify the Old Testament’s own concern of violence and presses a distinction between divine destruction and judgment and human violence.
Despite this potentially helpful approach to violence in the Old Testament, many problems persist. One problem is the violent acts that religious zeal prompts. Old Testament characters like Phinehas (Num. 25), Elijah (1 Kgs. 18:39-40; 2 Kgs. 1), and Elisha (2 Kgs. 2:23-25; 9) killed, ordered killing, or participated in killing in order to purify the religious faith and practices of the Israelites.
Nevertheless, most texts that contain problems like this also contain complementary or self-corrective passages that give another perspective. The complexity of the material with regard to violence makes it possible to argue that the Old Testament opposes violence and that the ultimate goal, and divine intention, is peace.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There was nothing of the kind. The fundamental article of the Brahmanic creed had an influence clearly contrary to that which supported the pious Israelite, and which created national heroes and raised up teachers of the world amongst his people.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The anonymous writer is reduced to extolling worldliness
as the major benefit of the Christian creed over the (unworldly a.k.a. otherworldly)
Brahmanic creed—as in it being the “fundamental article”
thereof—by drawing attention to the worldly teachers his credo raises and the
nation-wide (i.e., worldly) heroes it creates.Oh, what a tangled web he weaves...&c
.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In spite of our fuller knowledge of the highest points reached in Indian religious thought, and of its many excellences, in spite of our wonder at its marvellous subtlety, our admiration of the depth of its philosophic penetration, it still is true that when we pass from Indian ideas of God and man’s relation to Him to the perusal of a page of the Psalms, the sensation is like that of exchanging the unwholesome atmosphere of the jungle for the pure air of the mountain height, of exchanging the gloomy canopy of the one for the unclouded heaven of the other.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Well now, to pass from more than just a few of the Old Testament “ideas of God”—a self-declared jealous and wrathful god—and humankind’s relation to divine wrath (as depicted in the Book of Leviticus for instance) to the perusal of “a page of the Psalms” (albeit selectively skipping the verses on violence), is, in the main, no different inasmuch the sensation is like that of exchanging the unwholesome atmosphere of the direst dungeons for the pure air of the light of day, of exchanging the gloomy torture chamber of the one for the unclouded daylight of the other.
The Book of Psalms, in this regard, is somewhat of an outlier.
Howsoever, the anonymous writer is on a hiding to nowhere, and fast, by contrasting and comparing two sixth-century BCE religions.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
If to those dwellers by the Ganges life in its secular departments was a burden, the religion of the Brahmans, so far from bringing present consolation and the cheering hope of future redress, added pitilessly to the painfulness of the burden and seemed to crush the soul with the prospect of its endlessness.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Not necessarily, as even an ad hoc reading of ancient texts shows how the adage “hope springs eternal in the human breast” operated, in the main, with the predictable result whereby the immediate next life—if not the present one—would surely be the life wherein accumulated puñña (i.e., ‘merit’) would ensure cloistral ordination, or, peradventure, deliverance even.
In other words, only an abstract reasoner living aloof from the workaday world, in an august ivory-tower
institution, and preoccupied with rarefied thoughts—or indeed someone with a
particularly dour purview on life—would obsess over a (theoretically postulated)
soul-crushing prospect of a (quite abstract) pitiless endlessness.Note well how the words “quite abstract” are used judiciously as a merciful curtain is, in effect, drawn over past lives such that no palingenesist can know whether guerdon
or penalty lies ahead.And, just as no resurrectionist really anticipates eternal damnation would lie ahead—for themself—so too no palingenesist actually anticipates retribution to be their fate (see the above “hope springs eternal ...&c” as to why).
Incidentally, it has not escaped notice how the anoymous writer conveniently overlooks the hellfire-n-damnation aspect of his one-shot do-or-die
faith in order to criticise the (arguably much-fairer and/or more-just)
open-ended-opportunity aspect of the mainly-oriental religions.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
For the speculative reason had arrived by steps which we cannot now discuss at the conception that the basis and origin of all things is an impersonal Being {i.e., Brahma, the supreme godhead, the immanent and sempiternal
ground-of-being, out of which all gods and goddesses emerge, and have as their source,
and, thusly, all minera, flora, and fauna—all people, things and events—as well},
the one permanent existence, from whom all other beings are emanations which must
undergo a ceaseless succession of transient existences, until they attain, if they
ever do attain, final repose and unconsciousness by absorption into Deity.__________
• [Editorial Note]: To speak of the soul’s “final repose and unconsciousness by absorption into Deity” is a blatant misconstrual, of the summum bonum of religio-spiritual mystico-metaphysical aspiration, as the crowning achievement of the soul is to be that ‘deus absolutus’ of Brahmanism.
The anonymous writer has reached the zenith of his put-down tactics by characterising as “unconsciousness” what is depicted in the Pāli Canon as “brahmabhūto” (literally ‘become-brahma’).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In each of his existences the man was supposed to be reaping the due reward of his past deeds. There was but one way to escape from the endless chain of misery, a way which few could or would practise. Severe self-mortification, carried to such an extent as practically to annihilate the body, might result in the annihilation of the soul, or rather in its absorption through meditation into Brahma.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: To even think (let alone set it down in longhand with pen on paper) about how severe self-mortification practice, in the religion of the Brahmans after the conquest of the land of the upper Ganges—which may have been completed about 1400 B.C. the reader is inconsequentially informed—might result in “the annihilation of the soul” is just silliness in action given the subject matter is palingenesia
a.k.a. metempsychosis, rebirth, reincarnation, renascence, transmigration of souls
(expressed further above by the anonymous writer as [quote] “a *ceaseless*
succession of transient existences”
[emphasis added] in each of
which the man “was supposed to be reaping the due reward of
his past deeds”).It is materialists who propound the annihilation of the soul at physical death—soul as in the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature
—and
not religionists/ religionaries, spiritualists, metaphysicians, mystics, et al., for
whom the soul, representing the spiritual part of a person, is believed to exist after
death.
And the sammāsambuddha expressly
proscribes the ‘doctrine of annihilation’ [“ucchedavādā”],
such as what materialist’s champion and as opposed to what religionist’s espouse,
on numerous occasions in the Pāli Canon.Furthermore, to claim there was “but one way to escape from the endless chain” of palingenesia—via the severe self-mortification which was primarily a feature of Jainism—is to over-egg the pudding
.Moreover (and to reiterate for the sake of the emphasis it warrants): to speak of the soul’s “absorption through meditation into Brahma” is a blatant misconstrual of the summum bonum of religio-spiritual mystico-metaphysical aspiration as the crowning achievement of the soul is to be that ‘deus absolutus’ of Brahmanism (viz.: ‘brahmabhūto’ = “become-brahma”).
Almost needless is it to add how attaining to such a glorious fulfilment (read: vainglorious aggrandisement) of a myriad-of-lifetimes questing on the part of the (thereafter ex-transmigratory) soul is a far cry from attaining the above “final repose and unconsciousness by absorption into Deity” (let alone “to win absorption into that cold unsympathetic shadow” of divine protectors and helpers—absorption into “a neuter, unconscious First Cause” residuum of philosophic thought, in fact—as expressed so impertinently
,
much further below, by this impressively
meanspirited apologist for the High Church of England).And the term ‘meanspirited’
is used advisedly as it is surely conduct unbecoming a canon of such esteemed standing
as to be spokesperson for the High Church of England—presuming, that is, the
anonymous writer is indeed Reverend Arthur Cazenove (whose soon-to-be-born grandson,
via his daughter Margaretha’s then-forthcoming
marriage into a baronetcy, was to become Lt.-Col. Sir Rory Malcolm Stuart Baynes, 6th
Baronet)—to refer to the Supreme Being of one of the world’s major religions
in such a pejoratively offensive (and non-ecumenical) manner.An accredited Doctor of Divinity (a post-nominal DD or DDiv, from Latin Doctor Divinitatis, is typically conferred only for scholarly accomplishments beyond the Ph.D. level) must at the very least be cognisant, if not having first-hand knowledge—which the writer typing the explanatory clarifications and critical commentaries in these editorial notes has in extenso
—of
how any characteristics of a major religion’s Supreme Being are ineffable
by such deity’s very nature (i.e., that their attributes indeed be indescribable,
indefinable, inexpressible, unutterable, unspeakable, etcetera, or, in a word, ‘ineffable’).Hence ascriptions of attributes such as “cold” and “unsympathetic” and “unconscious” by someone who should have known better than to publish such nonsense look more like sour grapes from a patronisingly ignorant Christian than anything conducive to a furtherance of the inquiry and reflection—as advised in an apparently civilised manner in this article’s hortatory
opening paragraph—by
a thoughtful Christian to whom, it was further advised, Buddhism should be a subject
of uncommon interest.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________
• The Rise of Buddhism: Part Five.
• An Examen of “The Rise of Buddhism” Contents.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯