|
In a lengthy review of A. Lillie's book, Buddha
and Early Buddhism, by M. A. (Oxon),
our esteemed friend, the critic, takes the opportunity
for another quiet little fling at his well-wishers,
the Theosophists. On the authority (?) of Mr.
Lillie, who seems to know all about it, the reviewer
contradicts and exposes the assertions made and
theories enunciated by the Theosophists. We will
now quote from his review "Buddhism and Western
Thought," published in the October number
of the Psychological Review:
"It will be evident
to any reader, who has followed me so far, that
the Buddhist belief is permeated by what I have
described as a distinctive, 'a peculiar note of
Modern Spiritualism--the presence and guardianship
of departed spirits' (!?)1 I confess that this struck me with some surprise, and, I may
say, pleased surprise, for I had come to think
that there was a marked antagonism between Eastern
and Western modes of thought and belief on this
point. We have heard much in disparagement
of this special article of faith from some friends
who have told us a great deal about the theosophical
beliefs of the Hindus, and who have chanted
the praises of the Buddhistic as against the Christian
faith with vehement laudation of the one,
and with abundant scorn of the other. . .
. But be this as it may, we have been told
so often, that we have come to accept it as a
lesson from those who know better than ourselves,
that our Western belief in the action of departed
human spirits in this world of ours is a crazy
fallacy. We have believed, at least,
that such was the Eastern creed. For
ourselves, we (some of us at least) prefer our
own experience to the instructions of any whose
dogmatic statements are so sweeping as those with
which we are met from Eastern experts. The statements
and claims made have seemed to us altogether too
vast. It may be, we are driven to think, that
departed spirits do not operate in the East, but
at any rate we find that they do act in
the West. And while we are far from declining
to recognize the truth that pervades much of the
Spiritualism of the East, and have tried our best
to induce our friends to widen their view by adopting
it in some degree, we have been sad to think that
it should so absolutely contradict the experience
of the West.
"Mr. Lillie affords me some consolation.
I find throughout his book not only most instructive
variety of opinion, which I can correlate with
my own beliefs and theories to benefit and advantage,
but I find that the belief in the intervention
of departed human spirits, which we had all of
us imagined to be anathema maranatha in
the East is, in effect, a permeating principle
of Buddhism in his estimation!"--(Part II,
p. 174.)
The writer, after that, proceeds to speak of
"Buddhistic Spiritualism" . . . a "root-principle"
of which is "a belief that the living may
be brought en rapport with their departed
friends"; of adepts being "highly developed
mediums"; and quotes an interesting clause
from a chapter of Mr. Lillie's book. Says the
last-named authority:
"I have dwelt at length on this supernaturalism,
because it is of the highest importance to our
theme. Buddhism was plainly an elaborate apparatus
to nullify the action of evil spirits by the aid
of good spirits operating at their highest potentiality,
through the instrumentality of the corpse,
or a portion of the corpse of the chief aiding
spirit. The Buddhist temple, the Buddhist
rites, the Buddhist liturgy, all seem based on
this one idea that a whole or portions of a dead
body was necessary. What were these assisting
spirits? Every Buddhist, ancient or modern, would
admit at once that a spirit that has not yet attained
the Bodily or Spiritual awakenment cannot be a
good spirit. It is still in the domains of Kama
(death, appetite).2
It can do no good thing; more than that, it must
do evil things. . . . The answer of Northern
Buddhism, if we consult such books as the 'White
Lotus of Dharma' and the 'Lalita Vistara,' is
that the good spirits are the Buddhas, the dead
prophets. They come from the 'fields of the Buddhas'
to commune with earth."
For all this M. A. (Oxon) rejoices, as he thinks
it corroborates the Spiritual theories and is
calculated to confound the Theosophists. We, however,
are afraid that it will confound, in the end,
but Mr. Lillie. "The life of Buddha is permeated,"
says the reviewer, "with what seems to me
uncompromising Spiritualism . . . "; and
in triumph adds: "It is a significant fact
that throughout this elucidation of Buddhistic
Spiritualism we have not once come upon an Elemental
or Elementary Spirit."
No wonder since they have in Buddhistic and Brahmanical
Esotericism their own special and technical names
whose significance, Mr. Lillie--if he understood
their meaning as correctly as he did the word
Kama--was just the person to overlook,
or include in the generic name of "Spirits."
We will not try to personally argue out the vexed
question with our friend, M. A. (Oxon), as our
voice might have no more authority with him than
Mr. Lillie's has with us. But we will tell him
what we have done. As soon as his able review
reached us, we marked it throughout, and sent
both the numbers of the magazine containing it,
to be, in their turn, reviewed and corrected by
two authorities. We have the weakness to believe
that these Specialists in the matter of esoteric
Buddhism may be regarded as far greater than Mr.
Lillie or any other European authority is likely
to ever be; for these two are:--(1) H. Sumangala
Unnanse, Buddhist High Priest of Adam's Peak,
Ceylon, the teacher of Mr. Rhys Davids, a member
of our General Council and the most learned expounder
of Southern Buddhism; and (2) the Chohan-Lama
of Rinch-cha-tze (Tibet) the Chief of the Archive-registrars
of the secret Libraries of the Dalai and Ta-shii-hlumpo-Lamas-Rim-boche,--also
a member of our Society. The latter, moreover,
is a "Pan-chhen," or great teacher,
one of the most learned theologians of Northern
Buddhism and esoteric Lamaism. From the latter
we have already received the promise of showing
how very erroneous are, in every case, the views
of both, the author and his reviewer, the message
being accompanied by a few remarks to the address
of the former which would have hardly flattered
his vanity as an author. The High Priest Sumangala,
we hope, will give his ideas upon "Buddhistic
Spiritualism" as well, as soon
as he finds leisure--no easy matter, by the way,
considering his engagements. If the authority
and learning of Mr. Lillie, after that, will still
be placed higher than that of the two most learned
Buddhist expounders of Southern and Northern
Buddhism of our day, then we will have nothing
more to say.
Meanwhile, none will deny that esoteric Buddhism
and Brahmanism are one, for the
former is derived from the latter. It well-known,
the most important feature of reform, perhaps,
was that Buddha made adeptship or enlightenment
(through the dhyâna practices
of Iddhi) open to all, whereas the
Brahmans had been jealously excluding all men
without the pale of their own
haughty caste from this privilege of learning
the perfect truth. Therefore, in the present connection
we will give the ideas of a learned Brahman upon
Spiritualism as viewed from the esoteric stand-point.
The author of the article which follows, than
whom, no layman, perhaps, in India is better versed
in the Brahmanical Occult Sciences3
outside the inner conclave of the adepts--reviews
in it the seven-fold principle in man, as given
in Fragments of Occult Truth, and
establishes for that purpose an exhaustive comparison
between the two esoteric doctrines--the Brahmanical
and Buddhistic--which he considers "substantially
identical." His letter was written at our
personal request, with no view to polemics, the
writer himself being probably very far from the
thought while answering it that it would ever
be published. Having obtained his permission,
however, to that effect, we now gladly avail ourselves
of the opportunity. Besides being the best review
we are likely to ever obtain upon so abstruse
a subject, it will show M. A. (Oxon), and our
other friends, the Spiritualists, how far such
authors as Mr. Lillie have seized the "root-principle"
of the Asiatic religions and philosophy. At all
events the readers will be enabled to judge, how
much modern Spiritualism, as now expounded, is
"a permeating principle" of Brahmanism,
the elder sister of Buddhism.
Theosophist, January, 1882
1
The italics and points of exclamation are ours.
We would like to know what the learned priests of
Ceylon, the lights of Buddhism, such as Sumangala
Unnanse, would have to say to this?--Ed.
back
to text
2 We have
not read Mr. Lillie's book: but if he teaches
in it many other things no truer than his idea
that Kama means "Death" his authority
is likely to prove of a most fragile kind Kama
never meant death, but lust, desire; in this
sense--a passionate desire to live again.--Ed.
back to text
3 See article
[by Subba Row] "The Twelve Signs of the
Zodiac" by the same author in the November
number of the Theosophist.--ED.
back to text
|
