.
[Cont’d from Page 106...From the many striking resemblances that undoubtedly exist between Buddhism...and Christianity...some writers have jumped hastily to the conclusion that the former was the source of the latter...]. A recent attempt to establish this inference is made in a book referred to above and entitled “Buddha and Early Buddhism”.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Another one of the advantages of reading the anonymous writer’s words a hundred and thirty years after they were published is being able to know how the author of that 1881 ‘Buddha and Early Buddhism’
book, Mr. Arthur Lillie (1831-1911), Late Regiment of Lucknow, went on to publish eight
more in the same vein—‘The Popular Life of Buddha’,
in 1883, and ‘Buddhism in Christendom’,
in 1887, and ‘Buddha and His Parables’,
in 1890, and ‘India in Primitive Christianity’,
in 1893, and ‘The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity’,
also in 1893, and ‘Buddha and Buddhism’,
in 1900, as well as a revised edition of ‘India in Primitive Christianity’,
in 1909, plus ‘Rama and Homer’
(posthumously) in 1912—as well as being able to know that Rev. Charles Aiken, for
example, published an engaged response to this ‘similarities’ issue, in 1900, entitled
‘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”).⁽*⁾It is available to be read online here
.In his book (actually a dissertation for a doctorate) he also responds to Mr. Ernst von Bunsen’s 1880 book ‘The Angel Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians’
—who,
he says in a footnote, “seems to have found the suggestion of his work” in an
article by Professor Adolf Hilgenfeld, entitled ‘Der Essäismus und Jesus’, published
in the “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie”
(‘Journal for Scientific Theology’), 1867, Vol. 10, in which “he advocated the
theory that Jesus adopted Essene teachings and customs remotely of Buddhist origin”
as well—and also to Professor Rudolf Seydel
who, “drawing inspiration from Mr. Bunsens’s work, published two years later his
own dissertation on the indebtedness of Christianity to Buddhism”. (viz.: “Das
Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhaltnissen zu Buddha-sage and Buddha-lehre”
(‘The Gospel of Jesus in its Relation to Buddha-Sage and Buddha Teachings’); Leipzig,
1882).• [November 2023 Update]: Dr. Michael Lockwood, having taught philosophy for three decades at the Madras Christian College, and being lately in retirement (2013), presents his study on the relation of Buddhism to Christianity
.
(His study places him in the ‘No-Historical-Jesus’ school of thought). In December
2017, he published “Buddhist Influence in the Gospels; Two Catholic Views”. By way of
introduction he writes the following. Viz.:
• “These two Catholic scholars, whose lives so very briefly overlapped from 1923 to 1925, during the last two years of Charles Francis Aiken’s and the first two of J. Edgar Bruns’, reached very different views about Buddhist influence in the Gospels, during their careers. Aiken was a great Christian apologist, debating vigorously against the topic: ‘The Christian Gospels have been influenced by Buddhism’And it is precisely the latter feature—of having “explored the various parallels between Buddhism and Christianity” that is—which is lacking in this ‘Church Quarterly Review’ article by the anonymous writer, who, in his hortative
opening sentence,
conveys an impression of having made the buddhistic religion a subject of inquiry and
reflection as there were none more fruitful in revelations.Moreover, the apologist for the High Church of England is now singling-out “some writers” who have already made this oriental religion “a subject of inquiry and reflection” and is taking them to task for having thereby (a.) discovered it to indeed be “fruitful in revelations” and (b.) for thinking themselves qualified to “put forward original views” opposed to duly accredited and thusly august beings (whose main aim in life has, ofttimes, every appearance of being none other than to bedight
the halls of académie with shiny plaques emblazoned with as many post-nominal letters
as can possibly be crammed into a tenured lifetime).¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The writer having, as he says, devoted nine years to the study of the subject {!sic! “nine years” does not equate with “jumped hastily” by any stretch}, thinks himself qualified to put forward original views opposed to those of Burnouf, St. Hilaire, Professors Max Müller and Monier Williams, Dr. Rhys Davids, and, as he believes, almost every writer of note.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The words “as he believes”, following-on as they do from the equally dismissive “thinks himself qualified” wording, bespeaks of a criticaster
relying upon ‘style over substance’. Furthermore, that very word “qualified”,
when followed-up with the academic title “Professors”,
takes on a very restrictive meaning; i.e., an insinuation is thus planted that only
academically-qualified persons (and Messrs Eugène Burnouf and Barthélemy St. Hilaire
were both also of the professoriat as was Dr. Thomas Rhys Davids) are “qualified
to put forward original views opposed to those of...Professors”.Yet a sterling example of the quality Mr. Arthur Lillie brings to considered discussion—and the range, accuracy and pertinency of his footnoted references—can be read online in the “Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland” (a.k.a. ᴊ.ʀ.ᴀ.s.) on pp. 418-497; ᴀʀᴛ. xᴠɪɪ—“The Buddhism of Ceylon”, by Arthur Lillie, Esq., ᴍ.ʀ.ᴀ.s. of vol. xᴠ (New Series); 1883
.Anyone who closely follows the argument he presents (now reproduced in the above mouse-hover tool-tip), who carefully reads what he has to say, who follows-up on his foot-noted references, will surely have their eyes opened as to the true state of affairs vis-à-vis “late Buddhism” versus “early Buddhism” and other assorted matters (such as “The Greater Carriage to Nowhere” versus “The Lesser Carriage to Immortality”, for instance, at the reference provided in Footnote № 46).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Loud as is the trumpet-blast of the challenger {!sic! emotive words again}, we do not imagine that writers of note will think it worth while to engage in serious combat with him.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The anonymous writer of this article is herewith signalling loud and clear (viz.: “writers of note” no less) how he does not think it worthwhile to engage in a discussion about the evidence presented in “Buddha and Early Buddhism” (1881).
It is probably a wise course of action—albeit not for the reason he gives—because, whilst serving in the Colonial Service of the British Army in India, Lieutenant Arthur Lillie became a Buddhist. Taking an enthusiastic interest in the Gospel of the Hebrews he wrote those nine extensively-referenced books listed further above on religion in India—albeit with a limited appeal, of course, in the narrow-minded scholastic and/or theologic mise en scène due to their necessarily iconoclastic content—bringing to his work the deep study and extensive knowledge which, wrote Prof. Gilbert Keith Murray in 1912, gained him so high a reputation during his lifetime. Viz.:
• [Prof. Gilbert Keith Murray; March, 1912]: “Seeing a posthumous book through the press is a task not to be lightly undertaken (...elided...). When I was told that my old friend, the late Mr. Arthur Lillie, had in his last brief illness expressed a wish—a wish conveyed to me after his death in November, 1911—that I should undertake this task, knowing, as I well did from our many talks, how near to his heart the subject lay, it will be readily understood that, in spite of these perplexities and difficulties, any idea of shirking the responsibility was, of course, out of the question. We can but deeply regret that he who brought to his work *the deep study and extensive knowledge* contained in “Rama and Homer” did not survive to see in print this last product of his life’s labour. One indulgence I hope I may beg from the reader—that whatever shortcomings are discovered in this volume, the blame shall rest upon myself and not upon the author, *whose previous works gained him so high a reputation* ...”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. v-vi., ‘Preface’, to “Rama and Homer”, by Arthur Lillie, Late Regiment of Lucknow; 1912, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd., London)Taking all the above into consideration, it is indeed a wise course of action on the part of the apologist for the High Church of England not to “engage in serious combat with him” as anyone foolish enough to do so would indubitably come off second-best every time.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
He has read widely on the subject, but, as it seems to us, with an entire absence of that discriminating judgment which would alone entitle him to be listened to when propounding original views.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: First and foremost, to vacuously declaim (i.e., without offering a shred of textual evidence) that there is an “entire absence” of some literary quality—in this case “discriminating judgment” (whatever that might look like in practice)—in another’s oeuvre is self-evidentially a rhetorical device. Moreover, his follow-up pejorative comment confirms what is quite evident throughout this article ... to wit: the anonymous-by-choice author of all these ill-informed words (he of the royal “we” or editorial “us”⁽*⁾ it may also be noted) has not “listened to” those original views to any significant degree, be they propounded with a trumpet-blast or not, let alone read the book from cover-to-cover, and examined its many supportive references, as Rev. Charles Aiken, for example, quite clearly did.
⁽*⁾In regards the editorial “us”: see Addendum II, below this article, for the official explanation of the High Church’s policy of author anonymity.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In fact the part-quote from Mr. Arthur Lillie which this “we”/“us” persona presents (immediately below)—and which this “we”/“us” personifier dismisses out-of-hand (via mere assertion) but even then that task is relegated to a footnote—is the only instance in the entire article where anything of substance is introduced.
’Tis fascinating to observe the entire process in action.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
For example, he twice quotes S. Paul’s words, ‘preached to every creature under heaven’, in reference to the Gospel, in proof that ‘the higher Buddhism and the higher Christianity are the same religion’, and that S. Paul thought so[1]. Mr. Lillie’s naïve {!sic! pejorative wording} confession {!sic! emotive wording} as
__________
[1]See ‘Buddha and Early Buddhism’, by Arthur Lillie (late Regiment of Lucknow). London, 1881. Introduction, p. x
,
and pp. 217, 218.
S. Paul’s words are in Col. i. 23, not, as Mr. Lillie gives the reference both
times, v.3.__________
• [Editorial Note]: As a single missing digit (i.e., ‘2’) indicating the 23rd verse (e.g., ‘Col. i. 23’ rather than the above “v. 3” misquote by the anonymous writer of Mr. Lillie’s ‘i. 3’ error) amongst multiple quotations throughout an entire book—such as to readily elude even a professional proof-reader’s detection and correction—is such a trivial oversight the very fact this anonymous writer seeks to highlight same via pointedly drawing attention to it is telling in itself.
O that he had read the book he is supposedly reviewing with the same attention to detail.
Or his own article, for that matter, as in his Footnote № 1, at the bottom of page 98
,
he advises his readers to see Sir Henry Sumner Maine’s remarks on caste from his
Address to the University of Calcutta, published in the volume entitled ‘Village
Communities’, p. 219, and in Footnote № 3 he again advises them to see Sir H.
S. Maine’s ‘Village Communities’, albeit pp. 216, 217 this time around. Yet on
page 216,
entitled “Appendix II”, there is only a bibliographical list of twelve book titles
in the German language, and, other than the word “Index” in very large type, page
217
is blank, and page 218
is totally blank—(and pages 219-to-226,
following, are the index)—whereas the remarks on caste by Sir Henry which the
anonymous writer advises his readers to see is located on pages 56 and 57
.Ha! The hoary gnome regarding people who live in houses made of glass...&c is exquisitely apposite here.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Whether the πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει of the Apostle {Greek, lit. ‘to the whole creation’; colloquially: ‘to every creature’} be only an hyperbole, arising in this particular verse from the repeated use in the previous verses of the same or related expressions, or whether it have some mysterious fullness of meaning corresponding to the meaning of these expressions, it is quite certain that Mr. Lillie is egregiously mistaken.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: The highbrow usage of Greek script, in lieu of English, is a petty display of academicism.
Firstly, Mark 16:15, “...proclaim the gospel to the whole creation... &c.”, conveys what is presented in ‘Buddha and Early Buddhism’ as equally well as Colossians Chapter 1, Verse 23 does.
Secondly, Buddhism has been very successful at proselytising, at the express command of its founder, from its very inception.
Thirdly, to gratuitously introduce “only an hyperbole” versus “some mysterious fullness of meaning” is to bring irrelevance to the table, if not a red-herring, instead of an engaged response to the subject itself.
Fourthly, merely asserting it to be “quite certain”—that what is presented in ‘Buddha and Early Buddhism’ is its author being “egregiously mistaken” forsooth—does not an argument make.
Lastly, a postfactum explanation: the inserted curly-bracketed editorial observation in this article’s Page 100 Footnote № 1, now further above, about this anonymous-by-choice writer being “patronisingly dismissive” of both ‘Buddha and Early Buddhism’ and its author, stemmed from the fact that (a) the book is not listed with the six books at the beginning (of which five out of the six rather tellingly have Prof. Rhys Davids as author or co-author) and (b) he brought its author into the article via a vacuous slur about “the confusion of modern theorisers” in conjunction with a footnoted obiter dictum
about how “this theory” (that
the founder of Buddhism was the originator of “what they
are pleased to call” the higher Judaism and the higher
Christianity) was set forth so recently as 1881 [quote] “by
*a*
Mr. Arthur Lillie” [emphasis added], in stark contrast
to the manner in which those ‘duly-accredited’ personages were introduced, along
with those en passant words “We shall make some remarks
upon this work by-and-by” which were so indicative of the
lack-of-engagement which was to be forthcoming.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[Cont’d from Page 106...Mr. Lillie’s naïve confession as...] to the prime source of his superior enlightenment {!sic! emotive wording yet again} with regard to the principles of early Buddhism, is of itself sufficient to destroy all credit for his work.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Assailing the absence of academic accreditations (as per the deliberate linkage betwixt his “naïve confession” wording, above, and his “a nineteenth-century Nepalese Buddhist” below), instead of addressing the textual evidence presented, reeks of élitism.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
To rely, as he does, upon the testimony of a nineteenth-century Nepalese Buddhist who, however learned, could know but little of the Western science of criticism, and could certainly not be impartial, for information as to original Buddhism, is an infallible method of arriving at wrong conclusions.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: Ha! ... to rely, as the anonymous writer does, upon the interlingual renditions
(a.k.a. interpretations)
of a nineteenth-century English Comtist who is self-evidently incapable of being
impartial—and who, however learned, gives but little if any credence to the Eastern
art of well-nigh word-perfect chanted rememoration (each bhikkhu/ bhikkhuni tested
fortnightly for memoriter accuracy)—for information as to original Buddhism, is
increasingly proving itself to be the infallible method par excellence of
arriving at all those wrong conclusions presented hereinabove and/or hereinbefore.Also, tellingly enough, a marked absence of any fruitful and thus persuasive application of this “Western science of criticism” is compellingly evident throughout this article.
Moreover, all this malarky is from the very writer who openly wrote about “the darkness of our ignorance as to anything beyond the most meagre details of his life”, on Page 99, when referring to the founder of Buddhism.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The best scholars, even those without bias in favour of any religion as revealed, have come to the conclusion that similarities such as those referred to above are not to be explained by the easy method of supposing a passage en bloc in ancient times of a set of religious ideas from India into Palestine.
__________
• [Editorial Note]: As more than a few “best scholars” have come to differing, even opposite, conclusions (albeit not the sweeping “en bloc”
mischaracterisation) this ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’ (i.e., “appeal to
authority; argument from authority”), apart from being a well-known fallacy, is a
non sequitur.In 1897 Mr. Arthur Lillie published a book titled ‘Buddhism in Christendom (Jesus the Essene)’. What is of interest, in regards this ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’ reaction, is on page two where he responded en passant to the above “en bloc” misrepresentation of his 1881 work as follows (with the relevant section highlighted for easy location). Viz.:
• [Mr. Arthur Lillie]: “Origen informs us that all Scriptures have two meanings the one spiritual, the other “historical” or “bodily”, the last for those that are not prepared to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. These mysteries in all ancient religions were, in brief, that man had matter for a mother, and spirit for a father; and that the object of his earth-life was to conquer his material nature and unite himself with the Great Spirit of the universe. The Christian “mysteries” did not differ in essence from the other mysteries. This fact was put forward as a virtue by the early Fathers of the Church, although it has since been deemed a blemish and denied. The process by which man advanced in knowledge of spirit was called the “contemplative life” in Palestine; “magic” in Persia; the “Bodhi”, or “Buddhism”, in India; “Gnosticism”, the Greek equivalent of the Indian word in Alexandria.It has become glaringly obvious, by now, that the anonymous writer speaking for the High Church of England does not comprehend what the author—(whom he dismisses out of hand due to having read widely with “an entire absence of that discriminating judgment which would alone entitle him to be listened to when propounding original views”)—is actually talking about.
About two hundred years before the Christian era a remarkable mystical movement arose amongst the Jews. It came from Alexandria, but its head-quarters in Palestine nestled amongst the protecting malaria of the shores of the Lake Marea, for it was bitterly persecuted. In Egypt these mystics were called Therapeuts; in Palestine, Essenes and Nazarites. In the view of Dean Mansel (on Page 31, ‘The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries’; 1875)
I purpose further to show that Christianity emerged from this, the higher Judaism, and that its Bible, containing the life of its Founder, its rites, dress, teachings, hierarchy, architectural buildings, Councils to put down heresy, theogony and cosmogony, bear so minute a resemblance to the rites, etc., of Buddhism, that it seems hard to doubt that some communication existed and long continued between the two. *Does this mean that Christianity “was borrowed en bloc from Buddhism”? as the Church Quarterly Review, misquoting an early work of mine
To get the meaning of an ancient Scripture eighteen hundred years after it was written, it is important to study less the words than the writers of the words. Christianity and its gospel emerged from the mystical section of Israel. Have we any means of judging what canons of composition would guide such writers in framing a life of Jesus, or Samson, or David? Fortunately we possess the “Kabbalah”, the secret wisdom of these mystics. Listen to the “Sohar” on the Jewish Scriptures ...”. [emphasis added] ~ (page 2, ‘Buddhism in Christendom (Jesus the Essene)’, by Arthur Lillie; 1897)
(left-clicking the yellow rectangle with the capital ‘U’ opens a new web page).
Mr. Arthur Lillie is not loathe to give credit where credit is due, however, as is evidenced further on (on pp. 163-164) in the same book. Viz.:
• [Mr. Arthur Lillie]: “Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John ix. 3). Professor Kellogg in his work entitled “The Light of Asia and the Light of the World”Presumably, that “able writer” of October, 1885, was a different anonymous writer to the anonymous writer of this April, 1882, article.
Now it seems to me that this is an example of the danger of contrasting two historical characters when we have a strong sympathy for the one and a strong prejudice against the other. Professor Kellogg has conjured up a Jesus with nineteenth century ideas, and a Buddha who is made responsible for all the fancies that were in the world 500 B.C. Professor Kellogg is a professor of an American University, and as such must know that the doctrine of the ‘gilgal’ (the Jewish name for the metempsychosis) was as universal in Palestine A.D. 30 as it was in Râjagriha 500 B.C. *An able writer in the Church Quarterly Review of October, 1885, maintains that the Jews brought it from Babylon*[3]
*The author of the article in the Church Quarterly Review, in proof of its existence, adduces the question put by the disciples of Christ in reference to the man that was born blind*. And if it was considered that a man could be born blind as a punishment for sin, that sin must have been plainly committed before his birth. Oddly enough, in the “White Lotus of Dharma” there is an account of the healing of a blind man, “Because of the sinful conduct of the man (in a former birth) this malady has arisen[5]”
But a still more striking instance is given in the case of the man sick with the palsy (Luke v. 18). The Jews believed, with modern Orientals, that grave diseases like paralysis were due, not to physical causes in this life, but to moral causes in previous lives. And if the account of the cure of the paralytic is to be considered historical, it is quite clear that this was Christ’s idea when He cured the man, for He distinctly announced that the cure was effected not by any physical processes, but by annulling the “sins” which were the cause of his malady.
Traces of the metempsychosis idea still exist in Catholic Christianity. The doctrine of original sin is said by some writers to be a modification of it. Certainly the fancy that the works of supererogation of their saints can be transferred to others is the Buddhist idea of good karma, which is transferable in a similar manner[6]”
[1]Page 250; [2]Page 248; [3]Article, “Esoteric Buddhism”; [4]The “Kabbalah”, p. 43; [5]Chap. v.; [6]See Stone, “Christianity before Christ”, p. 209. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 163-164, ‘Buddhism in Christendom (Jesus the Essene)’, by Arthur Lillie; 1897)
(left-clicking the yellow rectangles with the capital ‘U’ opens each in a new web page).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________
• The Rise of Buddhism: Part Nine.
• An Examen of “The Rise of Buddhism” Contents.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯