Part 6

To them on a hill Gayāsīsa (Brahma-yoni), near Gayā, he preached his ‘burning’ fire-sermon (Mahā-v° I. 21): ‘Everything, O monks, is burning (ādittam = ādīptam). The eye is burning; visible things are burning. The sensation produced by contact with visible things is burning—burning with the fire of lust (desire), enmity and delusion (rāgagginā dosagginā mohagginā), with birth, decay (jarayā), death, grief, lamentation, pain, dejection (domanassehi), and despair (upāyāsehi). The ear is burning, sounds are burning; the nose is burning, odours are burning; the tongue is burning, tastes are burning; the body is burning, objects of sense are burning. The mind is burning, thoughts are burning. All are burning with the fire of passions and lusts. Observing this, O monks, a wise and noble disciple becomes weary of (or disgusted with) the eye, weary of visible things, weary of the ear, weary of sounds, weary of odours, weary of tastes, weary of the body, weary of the mind. Becoming weary, he frees himself from passions and lusts. When free, he realizes that his object is accomplished, that he has lived a life of restraint and chastity (brahma-ćariyam), that re-birth is ended.’

It is said that this fire-sermon—which is a key to the meaning of Nirvāṇa—was suggested by the sight of a conflagration. It was Gautama’s custom to impress ideas on his hearers by pointing to visible objects. He compares all life to a flame; and the gist of the discourse is the duty of extinguishing the fire of lusts, and with it the fire of all existence, and the importance of monkhood and celibacy for the attainment of this end.

Contrast in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount the words addressed to the multitude (not to monks), ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.’

The Buddha and his followers next proceeded to Rāja-gṛiha. Among them were two, afterwards called ‘chief disciples’ (Agra-ṡrāvakas), Sāriputta and Moggallāna (or Maudgalyāyana), who died before the Buddha, and sixteen leaders among the so-called eighty ‘_great_ disciples’ (Mahā-ṡrāvakas); the chief of these being Kāṡyapa (or Mahā-kāṡyapa), Upāli, and Ānanda (a cousin), besides Anuruddha (another cousin), and Kātyāyana. Of course among the eighty are reckoned the five original Benares converts. At a later time two chief female disciples (Agra-ṡrāvikās) named Khemā and Uppala-vaṇṇā (Utpala-varṇā) were added (see p. 86). Each leading disciple was afterwards called Sthavira, ‘an elder,’ or Mahā-sthavira, ‘great elder’ (Pāli Thera, Mahāthera; fem. Therī). Mark, too, that Bimbi-sāra, king of Magadha, and Prasenajit (Pasenadi), king of Kosala, were Gautama’s lay-disciples and constant patrons.

It was not long before the Buddha’s followers were more formally incorporated into a monastic Order (Saṅgha), and rules of discipline drawn up (see pp. 61, 72, 73, 83). And doubtless the success of Buddhism was due to the carrying out of this idea of establishing a brotherhood offering a haven of rest to all.

About forty-five years elapsed between Gautama’s attainment of Buddhahood and his death. During that period he continued teaching and itinerating with his disciples; only going ‘into retreat’ during the rains. A list of 45 places of residence is given. He seems to have resided oftenest at Ṡrāvastī (p. 21) in the monastery Jetavana given by Anātha-piṇḍika; but the whole region between Ṡrāvastī and Rāja-gṛiha (p. 29), for nearly 300 miles, was the scene of his itineration. Favourite resorts near Rāja-gṛiha were the ‘Vulture-peak’ and Bambu-grove (Veḷu-vana); but continual itineration was one chief means of propagating Buddhism.

It is said that his death occurred at Kuṡi-nagara[16] (Kusinārā), a town about eighty miles east of Kapila-vastu—the place of his birth—when he was eighty years of age, and probably about the year 420 B.C.[17]

The story is that Gautama died from eating too much pork (or dried boar’s flesh[18]). As this is somewhat derogatory to his dignity it is not likely to have been fabricated. A fabrication, too, would scarcely make him guilty of the inconsistency of saying ‘Kill no living thing,’ and yet setting an example of eating flesh-meat.

These were his words when he felt his end near:—

‘O Ānanda, I am now grown old, and full of years, and my journey is drawing to its close; I have reached eighty years—my sum of days—and just as a worn-out cart can only with much care be made to move along, so my body can only be kept going with difficulty. It is only when I become plunged in meditation that my body is at ease. In future be ye to yourselves your own light, your own refuge; seek no other refuge. Hold fast to the truth as your lamp. Hold fast to the truth as your refuge; look not to any one but yourselves as a refuge’ (Mahā-parinibbāna-sutta II. 32, 33).

Afterwards he gave a summary of every monk’s duties, thus:—‘Which then, O monks, are the truths (=the seven jewels, p. 127) it behoves you to spread abroad, out of pity for the world, for the good of gods and men? They are: 1. the four earnest reflections (Smṛiti, Sati-paṭṭhāna, on the impurities of the body, on the impermanence of the sensations, of the thoughts, of the conditions of existence, p. 127); 2. the four right exertions (Sammappadhāna, viz. to prevent demerit from arising, get rid of it when arisen, produce merit, increase it); 3. the four paths to supernatural power (Iddhi-pāda, viz. will, effort, thought, intense thought); 4. the five forces (Pañća-bala, viz. faith, energy, recollection, self-concentration, reason); 5. the proper use of the five organs of sense; 6. the seven ‘limbs’ of knowledge (Bodhy-aṅga, viz. recollection, investigation, energy, joy, serenity, concentration of mind, equanimity); 7. the noble ‘eightfold path’ (p. 44). See Mahā-parinibbāna III. 65.

Then shortly before his decease, he said, ‘It may be, Ānanda, that in some of you the thought may arise:—The words of our Teacher are ended; we have lost our Master. But it is not thus. The truths and the rules of the Order, which I have taught and preached, let these be your teacher, when I am gone’ (VI. 1).

‘Behold now, O monks, I exhort you:—Everything that cometh into being passeth away; work out your own perfection with diligence’ (III. 66).

Not long after his last utterances the Buddha, who had before through intense meditation attained Nirvāṇa or extinction of the fire of desires, passed through the four stages of meditation (p. 209) till the moment came for his Pari-nirvāṇa, whereby the fire of life also was extinguished. A couch had been placed for him between two Ṡāl trees (p. 23), with the head towards the north. In sculptures he is represented as lying on his right side at the moment of death, and images of him in this position are highly venerated.

The chief men of Kuṡi-nagara burnt his body with the ceremonies usual at the death of a Ćakravartin or Universal Ruler, which the Buddha claimed to be.

Then his ashes were distributed among eight princes, who built Stūpas over them (Buddha-vaṉsa 28).

A legend states that when the Buddha died there was an earthquake. Then the gods Brahmā and Indra appeared and the latter exclaimed: ‘Transient are all the elements of being; birth and decay are their nature; they are born and dissolved; then only is happiness when they have ceased to be’ (Mahā-p° VI. 16).

Contrast with Buddha’s last words the last words of Christ: ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit.’

A greater contrast than that presented by the account of the Buddha’s death and the Gospel narrative of the death of Christ can scarcely be imagined.

Of course as a result of discourses during forty-five years, a large number were gathered into Gautama’s monastic Order. His first aim was the founding of this Order, and his chief sermons were to his monks; but he accepted all men and ultimately multitudes attached themselves to him as lay-brethren (p. 87).

In fact Gautama’s doctrine of a universal brotherhood, open to all, constituted the corner-stone of his popularity. He spoke to them in their own provincial dialect, which could not have differed much from the Pāli of the texts—and he enforced his words by dialogues, parables, fables, reiterations, and repetitions. Probably he was the first introducer of real preaching into India, and by his practical method he seemed to bring down knowledge from the clouds to every man’s door.

The following parable is an example: ‘As the peasant sows the seed but cannot say: the grain shall swell to-day, to-morrow germinate, so also it is with the disciple; he must obey the precepts, practise meditation, study the doctrine; he cannot say to-day or to-morrow, I shall be delivered. Again: as when a herd of deer lives in a forest a man comes who opens for them a false path and the deer suffer hurt; and another comes who opens a safe path and the deer thrive; so when men live among pleasures the evil one comes and opens the false eightfold path. Then comes the perfect one and opens the safe eightfold path of right belief, etc.’ (p. 44, Oldenberg, 191, 192).

Six rival heretical teachers are alluded to. His chief opponent was his cousin Devadatta, who set up a school of his own, and is said to have plotted against the Buddha’s life. His efforts failed (Ćulla-vagga VII), and he himself came to an untimely end. Possibly he may have belonged to the rival Jaina sect (Nigaṇṭha) of naked ascetics, of which the great leader was Vardhamāna Mahāvīra Nāta-putta (=Jñāti-putra).

Gautama’s teaching gained the day. It claimed universality, and was aptly symbolized by a wheel rolling among all alike. Yet at first it had no attractions for the poor and the child-like.

By degrees, a fuller system, adapted in an ascending scale to laymen, novices, monks, nuns, and Arhats, was developed—a system which had its abstruse doctrines suited to men of philosophical minds, as well as its plain practical side. This constituted the Buddhist Dharma, which was ultimately collected in certain sacred books to be next described.

LECTURE III. _The Law (Dharma) and Sacred Scriptures of Buddhism._

Probably most educated persons are aware that Buddhists have their own sacred scriptures, like Hindūs, Pārsīs, Confucianists, Muhammadans, Jews, and Christians. It is not, however, so generally known that in one important particular these Buddhist scriptures, constituting the Tri-piṭaka (p. 61), differ wholly from other sacred books. They lay no claim to supernatural inspiration. Whatever doctrine is found in them was believed to be purely human—that is, was held to be the product of man’s own natural faculties working naturally.

The Tri-piṭaka was never like the Veda of the Brāhmans, believed to be the very ‘breath of God’[19]; the same care, therefore, was not taken to preserve every sound; and when at last it was written down the result was a more scholastic production than the Veda.

Moreover, it was not composed in the Sanskṛit of the Veda and Ṡāstras—in the sacred language, the very grammar and alphabet of which were supposed to come from heaven—but in the vernacular of the part of India in which Buddhism flourished. Indeed, it is a significant fact that while the great sages of Sanskṛit literature and philosophy, such as Vyāsa, Kumārila, and Ṡaṅkara, in all probability spoke and taught in Sanskṛit[20], the Founder of Buddhism preferred to communicate his precepts to the people in their own vernacular, afterwards called Pāli. Nevertheless, he never composed a single book of his own. In all probability he never wrote down any of his own precepts; for if writing was then invented, it was little practised, through the absence of suitable materials. This is the more remarkable as Buddhism ultimately became an instrument for introducing literary culture among uncivilized races.

All that Gautama did was to preach his Dharma, ‘Law,’ during forty-five years of itineration, and oral teaching. It was not till some time after his death that his sayings were collected (p. 97), and still longer before they were written down. Itineration, recitation of the Law, and preaching were the chief instruments for the propagation of Buddhism.

At present the Buddhist Canon is about as extensive as the Brāhmanical[21], and in both cases we are left in doubt as to the date when the books were composed. How, then, did their composition take place?

All that can be said is that at three successive epochs after the Buddha’s death, three gatherings of his followers were held for the purpose of collecting his sayings and settling the true Canon, and that a fourth assembly took place much later in the North.

The first of these assemblages can scarcely with any fitness be called a Council. Nor can the fact of its meeting together in any formal manner be established on any trustworthy historical basis. It is said that a number of monks (about five hundred, called Mahā-sthavirāḥ, ‘the great elders,’ Pāli Mahā-therā) assembled in a cave called Sattapaṇṇi, near the then capital city of Magadha—Rāja-gṛiha, now Rāj-gīr—under the sanction of king Ajāta-ṡatru, during the rainy season immediately succeeding the death of Gautama, to think over, put together, and arrange the sayings of their Master, but not, so far as we know, to write them down.

There, in all likelihood, they made the first step towards a methodical arrangement. But even then it is doubtful whether any systematic collections were composed. The assembled monks chose Kāṡyapa (or Mahā-kāṡyapa, p. 47), the most esteemed of all the Buddha’s surviving disciples, as their leader, and chanted the Thera-vāda (Sthavira-v°), ‘words of the elders,’ or precepts of their Founder preserved in the memory of the older men; the rules of discipline (Vinaya) being recited by Upāli[22], and the ethical precepts (Sūtra), which constituted at first the principal Dharma[23] (_par excellence_, in contradistinction to the Vinaya), being imparted by Gautama’s favorite Ānanda (p. 47); while the philosophical doctrines—then undeveloped—were communicated by the president, Kāṡyapa. If any arrangement was then made it was probably in two collections—the Vinaya and Dharma (say about 400 B.C.)

In regard to the Dharma, two main lines were, in all likelihood, laid down as the basis of all early teaching. The first consisted of the four sublime verities, as they are called—that is, of the four fundamental truths originally taught by the Founder of Buddhism, namely, the inevitable inherence of suffering in every form of life, the connexion of all suffering with indulgence of desires, especially with craving for continuity of existence, the possibility of the cessation of suffering by restraining lusts and desires, and the eightfold course leading to that cessation (see p. 44).

The second line of doctrine probably consisted of an outline of the twelve-linked chain of causality (nidāna), which traced back all suffering to a still deeper origin than mere lusts and desires—namely, to ignorance (p. 103).

It is not, however, at all likely that any philosophical or metaphysical doctrines were clearly and methodically formulated at the earliest assembly which took place soon after Gautama’s death. It is far more probable that the first outcome of the gathering together of the Buddha’s disciples was simply the enforcing of some strict rules of discipline for the Order of monks, and this may have taken place soon after 400 B.C.

After a time, certain relaxations of these rules or unauthorized departures from them (ten in number, such as reception of money-gifts, eating a second meal in the afternoon, drinking stimulating beverages, if pure as water in appearance[24]), began to be common. The question as to whether liberty should be allowed in these points, _especially in the first_, shook the very foundations of the community. In fact the whole society became split up into two contending parties, the strict and the lax, and a second Council became necessary for the restoration of order. All ten points were discussed at this Council, said to have consisted of 700 monks and held at Vaiṡālī (Vesālī, now Besārh), 27 miles north of Patnā, about 380 B.C.[25] The discussions were protracted for eight months, and all the ten unlawful relaxations were finally prohibited.

It has been observed that this second Council stands in a relation to Buddhism very similar to that which the Council of Nicæa bears to Christianity.

The exact date, however, of either the first or second assemblies cannot be determined with precision.

Not long afterwards occurred the political revolution caused by the well-known Ćandra-gupta (= Sandra-kottus)—sometimes called the first Aṡoka (or disparagingly, Kālāṡoka). This man, who was a low-born Ṡūdra, usurped the throne and founded the Maurya dynasty, after killing king Nanda and taking possession of Pāṭaliputra (or Palibothra, now Patnā, the then metropolis of Magadha or Behār), about 315 B.C. He extended the kingdom of Magadha over all Hindūstān, and became so powerful that when Alexander’s successor, Seleukos Nikator (whose reign commenced about 312 B.C.), invaded India from his kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by Ćandra-gupta, that the Greek thought it politic to form an alliance with the Hindū king, and sent his own countryman, Megasthenes, as an ambassador to reside at his court.

To this circumstance we owe the earliest authentic account of Indian customs and usages, by an intelligent observer who was not a native; and Megasthenes’ narrative, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which a fair inference may be founded that Brāhmanism and Buddhism existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth and third centuries B.C. There is even ground for believing that king Ćandra-gupta himself favoured the Buddhists, though outwardly he never renounced his faith in Brāhmanism.

Ćandra-gupta’s reign is thought to have lasted until 291 B.C., and that of his son and successor, Vindusāra, from 291 to (say) about 260 B.C. Then came Ćandra-gupta’s grandson, the celebrated Aṡoka (sometimes called Dharmāṡoka), who, though of Ṡūdra origin, was perhaps the greatest Hindū monarch of India.

It was about this period that Gautama Buddha’s followers began to develope his doctrines, and to make additions to them in such a way that the Abhi-dharma or ‘further Dharma’ had to be added to the Ṡūtra which constituted the original Dharma (p. 56). Even in Gautama’s time there were great dissensions. Afterwards differences of opinion increased, so that before long eighteen schools of schismatic thought (p. 158) were established. The resulting controversies were very disturbing, and a third Council became necessary. It consisted of a thousand oldest members of the Order, and was held in the 16th or 17th year of Aṡoka’s reign at Patnā (Pāṭali-putra), about 244-242 B.C.

This third Council was, perhaps, the most important; for through its deliberations the decision was arrived at to propagate Buddhism by missions. Hence missionaries, supported by king Aṡoka (see p. 66), were sent in all directions; the first being Mahinda (Mahendra), the king’s son, who carried the doctrine into Ceylon.

Dr. Oldenberg has shown that in a part of the Tri-piṭaka now extant, the first and second Councils are mentioned but not the third. The plain inference is that the portion of the Buddhist Canon in which the second Council is described cannot be older than that Council. Yet in all likelihood a great part of the Vinaya (including the Pātimokkha and the Khandhaka, p. 62) was composed before the second Council—possibly as early as about 400 B.C.—and the rest of the Canon during the succeeding century and a half before the third Council—that is, from 400 to 250 B.C. It was composed in the then vernacular language of Magadha (Māgadhī), where all three Councils were held.

It seems, however, probable that in each district to which Buddhism spread the doctrine of its founder was taught in the peculiar dialect understood by the inhabitants. It even appears likely that when Gautama himself lived in Kosala (Oudh) he preached in the dialect of that province just as he taught in Māgadhī when he resided in Magadha. The Ćulla-vagga (V. 33. I) makes him direct that his precepts should be learnt by every convert in the provincial dialect, which doubtless varied slightly everywhere. In time it became necessary to give fixity to the sacred texts, and the form they finally assumed may have represented the prevalent dialect of the time, and not necessarily the original Māgadhī Prākṛit[26]. This final form of the language was called Pāli[27] (or Tanti), and no doubt differs from the earlier Aṡoka inscription dialect, and from Māgadhī Prākṛit as now known.

Some think that the Pāli resulted from an artificial infusion of Sanskṛit. It is said that nearly two-fifths of the Pāli vocabulary consists of unmodified Sanskṛit.

At any rate, it was in this language that the Buddhist Law was carried (probably by Mahendra) into Ceylon, and the whole Canon is thought by some to have been handed down orally till it was written down there about 85 B.C. Oral transmission, we know, was common in India, but if edicts were written by Aṡoka (p. 67), why should not the Law have been written down also?

As, however, Pāli was not spoken in Ceylon, the Pāli commentaries brought by Mahendra were translated by him into Sinhalese, and the Pāli originals being lost, were not retranslated into Pāli till about the beginning of the fifth century of our era.

Turning next to the final arrangement of the Pāli Canon, we find that it resolved itself into three collections (called Tri-piṭaka, Pāli Tipiṭaka, ‘Three baskets,’ the word piṭaka, however, not occurring in the early texts), namely: 1. Yinaya, ‘discipline’ for the Order; 2. Sūtra-(Pāli Sutta), ‘precepts,’ which at first constituted the principal Dharma, or moral Law (p. 56); 3. Abhi-dharma (Abhi-dhamma), ‘further Dharma,’ or additional precepts relative to the law and philosophy.

This division was not logical, as each collection may treat of the subjects belonging to the others.

Taking, then, in the first place, the Vinaya or discipline portion of the Buddhist bible, we ought to observe that a portion of it (the Pātimokkha) is not only the oldest, but also the most important in its bearing on the whole theory of Buddhism. For, as we shall point out more fully hereafter, the Buddha’s paramount aim was to convince others that to get rid of ignorance, gain knowledge, practise morality, and obtain deliverance, it was incumbent on a wise man to renounce married life and become a member of a monastic Order.

Pure Buddhism, in fact, was pure monachism—implying celibacy, poverty, and mendicancy—and this could not be maintained without rules for discipline and outward conduct, which, as adopted by the Buddha, were simply a modification of the rules for the two religious orders of the Brahma-ćārī and Sannyāsī, already existing in Brāhmanism.

With regard to the classification of the Vinaya rules, they were divided into three sets: _a._ the Khandhaka, in two collections called Mahā-vagga (Mahā-varga), ‘great section,’ and Ćulla-vagga, ‘minor section’ (vagga = varga); _b._ the Vibhaṅga (including the two works called Pārājika and Pāćittiya), or a systematic arrangement and explanation of certain ancient ‘release-precepts’ (pratimoksha-sūtra, Pāli Pātimokkha) for setting free, through penances, any who had offended against the Order; _c._ Parivāra-pāṭha, or a comparatively modern summary of the above two divisions.

Mark, however, that the Vinaya abounds in details of the life and teaching of Gautama.