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 |
