to expound or announce; and the names of two of his followers, Damon and Pythias (or Dharmma and Buddha), have become celebrated for their disinterested friendship. All these coincidences can scarcely be accidental; and though we may not be able to trace the actual progress of Buddhism from India to Greece, yet the evidence in favour of its transmission is much too strong to be doubted. 6. The system of faith taught by Sákya Muni has been tersely and truly characterized by Mr. Hodgson as "monastic asceticism in morals, and philosophical scepticism in religion." This is especially the case with the two more ancient philosophical systems, the Swábhávika and Aiswárika, which he has made known to us from the Sanskrit books of Nepál. The former, Mr. Hodgson thinks, was that of primitive Buddhism; but as the Swábhávika was essentially a doctrine of materialism, it must have been closely allied to the Niriswara Sánkhya school of Kápila. In this system* Pradhan, or Mahá-Pradhán, or supreme nature," was held to be the Mula-Prakriti, or "plastic origin" of all things, from which Budhi, or "intelligence," was produced. Now this is the very system which SÁKYA had rejected, after six years' study at Rajagriha. The supremacy of Nature† taught by the Swábhávikas is also utterly at variance with the * Colebrooke, Trans. Roy. As. Soc. Hodgson, pp. 33, 77. The Swábhávikas were simple mate rialists. solemn address made by SÁKYA to his disciples from his death-bed under the Sál tree at Kusinagara.* "Bhikshus!" said the dying teacher, "if any points seem doubtful or incomprehensible to you regarding Buddho, Dhammo, Sangho, &c., inquire now." In this address, which was three times repeated, Buddha, or "supreme intelligence," is placed before Dharma, or "material nature," as the first person of the Triad. The system of faith taught by SÁKYA must, therefore, have been that of the Theistical Triad of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. This is placed beyond all doubt by the edict of Priyadersi, published after the meeting of the 3rd Buddhistical Synod in B. C. 247, at which the orthodox doctrines of Sákya were upheld. In this edict, the names of the orthodox Buddhist Triad are distinctly mentioned as Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. The existence of the Buddhist Triad at that particular period, is further proved by the occurrence of such names as Budha-Pálita, Dharma Rakshita, and Sangha-Mitra, among the colonnade inscriptions of No. 2 Tope at Sánchi. 7. When Sákya Muni began his religious career, he first tried the system of the Sámádhikas, who placed the attainment of everlasting bliss in the continued practice of Samádhi, or of deep and * Turnour, in Prinsep's Journal, vol. vii. p. 1007. + Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, are the Sanskrit names; the others are Páli. ↑ See Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, vol. ix. p. 619, where the three names of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, are improperly translated "Buddhist faith." devout abstraction.* Dissatisfied with this belief, 8. But though the early Buddhists admitted the existence of a Supreme Being, they denied his providence, in the full belief that without his aid, and solely by their own efforts of Tapas and Dhyán, or Abstinence and Abstraction, they could win for themselves the "everlasting bliss" (Moksha) of absorption into the Divine Spirit.§ * So complete was the power of abstraction held to be, that the author of the Mahawanso (p. 262) gravely relates the following story:-"This Raja (Dhátusena), at the time he was improving the Kálawápi tank, observed a certain priest absorbed in the Samádhi meditation; and, not being able to rouse him from that abstraction, had him buried under the embankment (of the tank) by heaping earth over him." + Hodgson, p. 39. Hodgson, page 35. The Tapas of the Buddhists was not penance, or self-inflicted bodily pain, like that of the Bráhmans, but a perfect rejection of all outward things (pravrittika). § Hodgson, p. 37. 1 9. One belief common to Buddhism is the doctrine of Nirvritti and Pravritti, or Rest and Action.* The latter state is that of MAN, and the former that of the celestial, self-existent BEING, whether Buddha or Dharma. According to the Aiswárikas, the Supreme Being Adi Buddha, or Iswara, though formless as a cypher or mathematical point, and separate from all things (in Nirvritti), is infinite in form, pervading all, and one with all (in Pravritti).† His proper and lasting state is that of Nirvritti, but for the sake of creation, he spontaneously roused himself into activity (Pravritti), and by means of his five spiritual faculties (Panchajnyána), and by five exertions of mental reflection (Panchadhyana), he created the Pancha-Dhyani-Buddha, or "five celestial Buddhas," together with the "five elements," the "five senses," and the five "objects of sense," in the following order: human beings, according as they passed secular or monastic lives. Thus Sákya, while Prince Siddharta, was exercising PravrittiMárga; but when he adopted the religious garb, and the devotional abstraction of the ascetics, he was then in a state of Nirvritti-Márga. Hodgson, pp. 40, 83, 111. 10. These five celestial Buddhas appear to be simple personifications of the five elements, and their inherent properties; or, to use Mr. Hodgson's expression, "of the active and intellectual powers of nature." The five Bodhisatwas, as well as the five Lokeswaras, or inferior celestials, likewise possessed Saktis. 11. I omit the long train of Bodhisatwas, Lokeswaras, and Buddhasáktis, as I believe that they formed no part of original Buddhism, but were engrafted afterwards when the religion of Sákya had become firmly established, and when its votaries took more delight in the indolent enjoyment of metaphysical speculations than in the active exertions of propagandism. I believe also that, as Buddhism gradually obtained an ascendancy over men's minds, the whole of the Bráhmanical schools, by an easy change of phraseology, accommodated their own doctrines so as not to clash with those of the dominant party. At least it is only by a supposition of this kind that I can account for the great similarity which exists between the philosophical systems of Buddhism and those of the Bráhmanical Sánkhyas. This similarity, which has already been noticed by Colebrooke,* is, indeed, so great as to render it difficult to discriminate the doctrines of the one from those of the other. The phraseology varies, but the ideas are the same; so that there is a distinction, but without a difference. * Colebrooke, Trans. Roy. As. Society, vol. i. p. 19—On the Philosophy of the Hindus. |