The History of Antiquity, Vol. 4 (of 6)

With his entrance into the community of the initiated, the Bhikshu had left the world behind, and broken the fetters which bound him to his kindred. If married before his admission, he was no longer to trouble himself for his family: "those who cling to wife and child are, as it were, in the jaws of the tiger." He is separated from his brothers and sisters, and great as is the importance elsewhere attached in Buddhism to filial affection, he is not to lament the death of his father or mother. He is free from love; he holds nothing dear; for "love brings sorrow, and the loss of the loved is painful."672 He is without relations; nothing but his mendicant's robe is his own; he may not work. Not even labour in a garden is permitted to him; worms might be killed in turning up the earth. Thus for the initiated the fetters of family, possessions, and the acquisition of property, which bind us most strongly to life, are burst asunder. He has nothing of his own, and consequently can feel no desire to keep his possessions, or pain at their loss; he inhabits an "empty house."673 The rules of external discipline were not too many. Beard, eye-brows, and hair were to be shaved, a regulation which arose in contrast to the various hair-knots of the Brahmanic schools and sects, and was an extension of the Brahmanic view of the impurity of hair. With the Buddhists the hairs are an impure excretion of the skin, refuse which must be thrown away; the tonsure was performed at every new and full moon.674 The Bhikshu was never to ask for a gift, he must receive in silence what is offered. If he receive more than he requires, he must give the remainder to others. He must never eat more than is required for his necessities, nor after midday, nor may he eat flesh. Even among the Buddhists the rules of food are tolerably minute, and many of the prescripts of the Brahmans were adopted by them. Essential importance was attributed to moderation; desires were not to be excited by unnecessary satisfaction. The Bhikshu must especially guard against women. He must not receive alms from the hand of a woman, or look on the women he meets, or speak with them, or dream of them. "So long as the least particle of the desire which attracts the man to the woman remains undestroyed, so long is he fettered like the calf to the cow;"675 and Buddha is said to have declared that if there were a second passion as strong as the passion for women no one would ever attain liberation. It was reasons of this kind, of modesty and chastity, which made it a rule for the Bhikshus, in contrast to the nudity of the Brahmanic penitent, never to lay aside his garments: his shirt and yellow garment which came over the shirt as far as the knee – the rule required that it should be made of sewn rags – and his mantle, worn over the left shoulder. The Bhikshu is to watch himself like a tower on the borders, without a moment's intermission,676 and bridle his desires with a strong hand, as the leader holds back the raging elephant with the spear.677 He must always bear in mind that the body is a tower of bones, smeared with flesh and blood, the nest of diseases; that it conceals old age and death, pride and flattery; that life in this mass of uncleanness is death.678 In contrast to the multitude who are driven by desire like hunted hares,679 he is to live without desire among those who are filled with desire; the passions which run hither and thither like the ape seeking fruit in the forest, which spring up again and again like creeping-plants if they are not taken at the roots, he must tear up root and all, and strive after the sundering of the toils, the conquest of Mara (p. 481) and his troop. Freedom from desire is "the highest duty; and he is the most victorious who conquers himself."680 Victory is won by taming the senses, and schooling the soul; no rain penetrates the well-roofed house, no passion the well-schooled spirit.681 "A man is not made a Bhikshu by tonsure," nor by begging of another, nor by faith in the doctrine, but only by constant watchfulness and work. The Bhikshu who fails in these had better eat hot iron than the fruits of the field; the "ill practised restraint of the senses leads into hell."682

We know that the Bhikshus had to support each other mutually in this work. Following the pattern of the master they passed the rainy season, in common shelter, in monasteries. These, as we saw (p. 378), existed as early as the reign of Kalaçoka. At first they sought protection in hollows of the mountains like the cave of Niagrodha, near Rajagriha. Then these caves were extended artificially, and in this way they came by degrees to be cave cloisters with halls for assembly of considerable extent. In the detached monasteries the halls were the central points, and the monks had separate cells on the surrounding wall. The description given in the sutras of these Viharas is far from discouraging. Platforms, balustrades, lattice-windows were provided, and good places for sleeping. The sound of metal cymbals or bells summoned the monks to prayer or to meeting. In these monasteries the elders instructed the disciples, those who had advanced on the way of liberation, the less advanced. The four 'truths' were considered in common (p. 340); in common the attempt was made "to cleave the twenty summits of uncertainty with the lightning of knowledge." In the place of the sacrifice, expiations, and penances by which the Brahmans held that crimes, and sins, and transgressions of the rules of purity could be done away, Buddha had established the confession of sin before the brethren. Had a brother failed in the control of desire, and been over-mastered by his impulses, he was to acknowledge his error before the rest. As Buddha removed painful asceticism, so he desired no external and torturing expiations. "Not nakedness," we are told in the footsteps of the law, "nor knots of hair (such as the Brahman penitents wore), nor filthiness, nor fasting, nor lying on the earth, nor rubbing in of dust, nor motionless position, purify a man;"683 the only purification is the conquest of lust, the amelioration of the mind. Not on works, but on the spirit from which they proceed, does Buddha lay the chief weight. Sins when committed could be removed only by improvement of spirit, by the pain of remorse. Confession was the proof and confirmation of remorse, and thus the confirmation of a good mind. In Buddha's view confession removed the sin when committed, and was immediately followed by absolution.684 In the monasteries the initiated fasted in the days of the new and full moon, and after the fast came the confessional. The list of duties was read;685 after every section the question was thrice asked whether each of those present had lived according to the precepts before them. If a confession was made that this had not been the case, the offence was investigated, and absolution given by the president of the meeting. In accordance with Buddha's command a common confession of all the brethren in every monastery took place after the rainy season before the mendicants recommenced their travels.686 At a later time it was common at confession to divide the offences into such as received simple absolution, such as required reproof before absolution, such as were subject to penance, and lastly such as involved temporary or entire expulsion from the community. Obstinate heresy and unchastity entailed complete expulsion; the man who indulged in sexual intercourse could no longer be a disciple of Buddha. The penances imposed for errors of a coarser kind were very slight and are so still; the performance of the more menial services in the monastery, otherwise discharged by the novices, or the repetition of a forced number of prayers. No one was compelled because he had once taken a vow to observe it for ever; any initiated person could and still can come back into the world at any moment. The vow was not binding for the whole of life, and no one was to discharge his duties against his will.

Among the Bhikshus the authority of age was maintained; respect was paid to experience, proved virtue, and wisdom; the teacher ranked above the pupil, the older believer before the younger. Hence the Sthaviras, i. e. the elders, held the foremost place among them. Still it was not years, but liberation from the evil of the world, that made the Sthavira.687 Each monastery had a Sthavira at the head, whom the Bhikshus had to obey, for in addition to vows of poverty and chastity they took vows of obedience. Nevertheless Buddhism gave the greater weight to the feeling and sense of equality and brotherly love. Authority resided less in the Sthavira than in the assembly of the initiated. Had not the first disciples of Buddha established his sayings in common at the first council at Rajagriha, even though one of his most beloved followers presided over them? The second synod at Vaiçali was conducted in the same way; the community of the Bhikshus (sangha, the assembly) had given their authoritative sanction to the rules of discipline, which were to have general currency, after they had been fixed by the elders. The monasteries were similarly organised; there also the community gave the consecration of the priest, heard confession, imposed penances, ordered temporary or complete expulsion under the presidency of the Sthavira.

There were merits of another kind among the Bhikshus which transcended the rank of the teachers, of the elder, of the head of the monastery. These were the merits of religious service, of deeper knowledge, of more complete conquest over the natural man, the Ego. The Aryas, i. e. the honourable or the rulers, who had learned "the four truths" (p. 340), formed a privileged class of the Bhikshus. On the path "which is hard to tread,"688 the path of Nirvana, the Buddhists distinguish four stages. The first and lowest has been entered upon by the Çrotaapanna; he cannot any longer be born again as an evil spirit or an animal; and has only seven regenerations to pass through.689 The second stage is reached by the Sakridagamin, i. e. "the once-returning;" who will only be born once after his death. The third stage is that of the Anagamin, the not-returning, who has to expect his regeneration in the higher regions only, not as a man. On the highest stage stands the Arhat; he has entered on the path which neither the gods nor the Gandharvas know; his senses have entered into rest; he has overcome the impulse to evil as well as the impulse to good; he desires nothing more, neither here nor in heaven. He has "left behind every habitation, as the flamingo takes his way from the sea;"690 the gods envy him; he has attained the end after which all the Bhikshus strive; he has arrived at Nirvana, and is in the possession of supernatural powers. When he wills, he dies, never to be born again. Like the Brahmans the Buddhists attempted to express in numbers the eminence and value of those who had gone through the four stages. The Çrotaapanna surpasses the ordinary man ten thousand-fold; The Sakridagamin is a hundred thousand times higher than the Çrotaapanna, the Anagamin a million times higher than the Sakridagamin. The Arhat is free from ignorance, free from hereditary sin, i. e. free from desire, and attachment to existence; he is free from the limitation of existence, and therefore from the conditions of it. He possesses the power to do miracles, the capacity of surveying in one view all creatures and all worlds; of hearing all the sounds and words in all the worlds; he has knowledge of the thoughts of all creatures, and remembrance of the earlier habitations, i. e. of the past existences of all creatures.691

Buddha's system required, at bottom, that every man should renounce the world, and take the mendicant's robes, in order to enter upon the path of liberation. This requirement could not be realised any more than the demand of the Brahmans that every Dvija should go into the forest at the end of his life and live as a penitent; the Catholic view of the advantage of monastic over secular life has not brought all Catholics into monasteries; how could the Church live and the world exist if every one abandoned the world? Yet the Enlightened was of opinion that help might be given even to those who could not leave the world. In contrast to the pride and exclusiveness of the Brahmans it was precisely the promise of help to all, the strongly-marked tendency to relieve every one, even the meanest, the sympathy with the sorrows of the oppressed, the turning aside from the powerful and rich to the lonely and poor, – it was the fact that mendicants took the highest place in the new Church – which won adherents to Buddha's teaching from the oppressed classes of the people. If the layman, so Buddha thought, resolved to live according to the precepts of his ethics, he would not only lighten the burden of existence for himself and others; by the practice of these virtues he attained such merit that his regenerations became more favourable, and followed in "good paths," so that he was allowed eventually to receive initiation and thus attain the end of sorrows, death without any return to life. He who would adopt this doctrine, had only to declare that it was his will to perform the commands of its ethics. The formula of entrance and adoption into the community of the believers in Buddha ran thus: "I take my refuge in Buddha; I take my refuge in the law (dharma); I take my refuge in the community (sangha)," i. e. of the believers. With this declaration the convert took a pledge not to kill anything that had life, not to steal, to commit no act of unchastity, not to babble, nor lie, nor calumniate, nor disparage, nor curse; not to be passionate, greedy, envious, angry, revengeful. The layman is to control his appetites as far as possible, to moderate his selfishness, and in the place of his natural corrupt desires to put the right feeling of contentment and submission, of beneficence, and pity, and love to his neighbour, a feeling out of which, in Buddha's view, "the avoidance of evil and doing of good" spontaneously arose. This repose, patience, and moderation would cause even the laymen to bear the evils of existence more lightly, and keep themselves as far as possible from the complications of the world. His adherence to the doctrines of Buddha was to be shown in the first instance by gifts to the clergy. The Church had no means of subsistence except the alms of the laymen; their gifts, in the eyes of the Buddhists, bring salvation for the giver no less than the receiver; the latter ought humbly to beg the clergy to accept their presents.692

Buddha's doctrine acknowledged no God. It was man who by the power of his knowledge could attain to absolute truth; who by the force of his will, the eradication of desire, the sacrifice of his goods and his body for his nearest relations, the annihilation of his own self, would win complete virtue and sanctity. "Self is the protector and the refuge of self,"693 But were the inculcation of prayers and precepts, the discussion of the sayings of Buddha, on which they rested, enough to make the laity and clergy able and willing to observe and perform them? Must there not be some proof that these doctrines could be carried out, that they had the most beneficial results, that the object at which they aimed was really attainable? Clergy as well as laity needed a living pattern to strive after, a fixed support and rule on which they could lean in their conscience, their thoughts, actions, and sufferings, and by which they could measure themselves. This pattern was given in the person of the master, in his life, his acts, his end. His life and actions were to be the subject of meditation; on this a man might raise and elevate himself; after that pattern every one should guide his acts and thoughts. If the initiated clung to his lofty wisdom which saw through the web of the worlds, and could liberate self from nature and annihilate it, the picture of the mendicant prince, who had left palace and wife and child and kingdom and treasures in order to share and alleviate the lot of the poorest, could not be of less influence on the hearts of the laity. This wonderful religion had no object of worship beside the person of the founder; on this it must be concentrated. The pious remembrance of the profound teacher, thankfulness for the salvation which he brought into the world, the study of the pattern of wisdom and truth which he gave, of the ideal of perfect sanctification and liberation, displayed in him, – these motives quickly made Buddha an object of reverence, and ere long of worship, though to himself and his disciples he was no more than a mere man. In this religion of man-worship Buddha took the place of God; he was God to his believers.

But the religion could not long remain contented with a thoughtful remembrance, a vague recollection, and assurances of reverence towards the departed as the means of arousing the heart and elevating the spirit. Some external excitement, some symbol or sensuous sign was needed, however rationalistic in other respects Buddha's doctrine might be. But he who brought salvation and liberation into the world lived no longer in the other world; he was dead, never to rise again. Nothing was left of him but the bones and ashes of his body. We know that in ancient times the Aryas buried their dead; and afterwards they burned them. The additional emphasis which the old conceptions of the impurity of the corpse, the worthlessness of the flesh, had received in the system of the Brahmans, was no doubt the reason why they sought to remove the remains of the cremation, the ashes and bones, by throwing them into water. Buddha did not treat the body better than the Brahmans; with him, though not strictly the cause, it was the bearer and medium of the destruction and pain of mankind, inasmuch as in his eyes the perverse direction of the soul and its dependence on existence were destruction. This body, which Brahmans and Buddhists vied with each other in regarding as a perishable and worthless vessel containing the Ego, which a man must either break asunder, or liberate himself from it, the relics of which had been considered for so many centuries as impure and spreading impurity, received quite a new importance in the Buddhist religion. Not long after the death of the Enlightened, when the generation of disciples who had seen him and lived with him had passed away, the need of some representation and idea of the pattern and centre of these thoughts and efforts, of the person of their teacher, impelled the believers to pay honour to his ashes and bones, to his relics. This honour was soon extended to the bones of his leading disciples, a form of worship which must have been shocking to the Brahmans. Similar honour was then paid to the robes and vessels which Buddha had used, to his mendicant's garment, his staff, his jar for alms and pitcher, and also to the places which he had sanctified by his presence. Two centuries after the death of the Enlightened, this worship of relics and pilgrimage to the holy places were established customs. The believers in Buddha travelled to Kapilavastu, his father's city. There they beheld the garden in which Buddha had seen the light, the pool in which he was washed, the ground on which he had contended in exercises with his fellows, the places where he had seen the old man, the sick man, and the corpse. In the neighbourhood of Uruvilva on the Nairanjana pilgrims visited the dwellings where Buddha had lived for six years as an ascetic, at Gaya the sacred fig-tree under which in the night truth was revealed to him. Not far from thence was the place where the maiden of Uruvilva had given food to the son of Çakya, where he had first announced his doctrine to the two merchants. At Rajagriha the stone was pointed out which Devadatta had hurled from the height of the vulture mountain on Buddha. Even the bamboo garden at this city, which Buddha was said to have taken pleasure in frequenting, and the place at Çravasti where he had held his disputations with the Brahmanic penitents, were shrines of pilgrimage.694

From the same need of representing and realising the religious example, and of elevating the heart and spirit to that pattern, which gave rise to the worship of relics and shrines, there sprang, in addition, the worship of the pictures of Buddha. He who had placed the body of man so low was now thought to have had a body of the greatest beauty; his perfect wisdom and virtue had found expression in the most perfect body. The sutras compare Buddha's gentle eye with the lotus; they even tell us of the thirty-two signs of complete beauty, and the eighty-four marks of physical perfection in his body.695

Buddha's doctrine was definitely based on the fact that man must liberate himself by his own power and wisdom, and to himself and his disciples Buddha was a man and no more, but in a nation so eager for miracles and inclined to believe in them, Buddha's life and actions inevitably became surrounded with the supernatural. He could not remain behind the Brahman penitents and saints, who had done great miracles. Could anything so great as Buddha's life and doctrine have occurred without a miracle; was a mission possible without miracles; could the greatest mission, the liberation of the world from misery, have taken place without being accredited by miracles? Could he who had reached the summit of wisdom and virtue have been without supernatural powers? That sanctification and meditation were and must be followed by such powers, was a matter of course among the Indians. Even in the third century B.C. miraculous powers were ascribed to the Bhikshus who had attained the fourth stage in the path, and therefore the same must have been done even earlier for Buddha himself. The same legends which represent Buddha as saying to king Prasenajit of Ayodhya: "I do not bid my disciples perform miracles; I tell them; Live so that your good deeds may remain concealed, your errors confessed,"696 surround his birth and his penances at Gaya (p. 337 ff. 356) with miraculous signs; and in the disputations with the Brahmans they represent him as contending in miracles also, and gaining the victory. But these and other miracles of Buddha, though he travels with his disciples through the air, are nevertheless not to be compared with the achievements of the Brahmanic penitents, narrated in the Brahmanas and the Epos. They are for the most part the healing of disease and restoration to life, intended to bring out his compassion for living creatures,697 and beside these the exercise of the miraculous powers which the Buddhists ascribe to all who have attained the fourth stage in the path (p. 472).

It was not only the miraculous acts of the saints which forced their way from Brahmanism into Buddhism; even the gods and spirits, the heaven and hell of the Brahmans, had a place in the new religion. The old divinities of the Indian nation, as we have seen, could only maintain a very subordinate position in the system of the world-soul, inferior to that soul and to the great power of the rishis. They also had become emanations of the world-soul; though ranked among the earliest of these, they came immediately after the great saints of old time. But every penitent who by his asceticism concentrated a larger part of the power of the world-soul in himself, became superior to Indra and to the personal Brahman. The same position in respect to the ancient deities and the personal Brahman was allotted to Buddha. From the beginning of the third century B.C. he appears to have been worshipped by his followers as a god.698 This was due not merely to the desire to place the power of the penitent, of meditation and knowledge, higher than the power of the gods, but also to the deep necessity on the part of the new religion and the believers in Buddha to possess a God. Later legends put the deities far below Buddha. He converts the spirits of the earth, of the air, of the serpents to his doctrine, and in return these spirits serve and obey him. Even the great gods come and listen to his words, and Buddha declares the new law to Brahman and to Indra.699 In the relic-cell of a stupa of the second century B.C. Brahman is holding a parasol over Buddha, and Indra anoints him out of a large shell to be king of gods and men.700

Thus to his believers Buddha is not only the lion, the bull, and the elephant, stronger than the strongest, mightier than the mightiest, surpassing all men in compassion and good works, beautiful beyond the most beautiful of mankind; not only is he the king of doctrine, the ocean of grace, the founder of the eternal pilgrimages, he is also the father of the world, redeemer and ruler of all creatures, god of gods, Indra of Indras, Brahman of Brahmans. Nothing, of course, is now said of independent action, or power on the part of these Indras and Brahmans. To later Buddhism they are a higher but completely human class of beings; in the retinue of Buddha they are only a troop of supernumerary figures whose essential importance consists merely in bowing themselves before Buddha, serving him, and placing in the fullest light his power and greatness. Like men, these deities have to seek the light of higher wisdom, the salvation of liberation by effort and labour. To Indra, for instance, the Buddhists assign no higher dignity than that of the first stage of illumination; he stands on the level of the Çrotaapanna.701