[132]. Oldenberg, Buddha, etc., p. 71.
[133]. See Year-Book of Protestant Theology for 1883 for an account of the views of Professor Loman of Amsterdam.
[134]. M. Senart, Legend of Buddha, Paris, 1875; Kern, History of Buddhism in India: Schoebel. Buddh. Actes de la Soc. Philol.; Paris, 1874, vol iv. pp. 160 seq.
[135]. Annual Report of the Asiatic Society; Paris, July 1875.
[136]. Cunningham, Ancient Geog. of India, vol. i. p. 147; Oldenberg, Buddha, etc., p. 95; Beal, Chinese Buddhism, p. 67.
[137]. “Mâra eat le démon de l’amour, du péché et de la mort,” says Burnouf in his Introduction to the Study of Indian Buddism, p. 76; see also Sutta Nipâta, Sacred Books of the East, vol. x. Part ii. p. 159, for the popular conception of Buddha’s temptation; the arrows of Mâra are “flower-pointed,” like Kama’s, the Hindu god of love. See Dhammapada, Sacred Books of the East, vol. x. Part i. p. 17.
[138]. Geikie, Life of Christ, vol. i. p. 449.
[139]. Mahavagga, i. 5. 2; Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvii.
[140]. This is not the place to discuss the substance of their respective teachings. Their aims seemed to be similar, for both proclaimed freedom to be gained by the Truth, or saving knowledge, but their conceptions of the knowledge that saves are as widely contrasted as are their ideas of salvation. If we put the Sermon on the Mount side by side with Buddha’s first sermon (translated in vol. xi. p. 146 of Sacred Books of the East) we find contradiction in almost every sentence. “Blessed are the poor in spirit” is an utterance not only foreign to but in direct antithesis to the preaching of Buddha. He has no sympathy with the “poor in spirit,” if we take the phrase in the light of the old Hebrew concept of it. His benediction is reserved for the self-conscious and self-reliant, who are bent upon self-culture and self-development. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc., and thy neighbour as thyself.” Buddha found no higher to adore, and no other than self to consider. The moral precepts in his law are based on no appeal to conscience, and are inspired by no sense of duty. Others were regarded as the occasion for winning merit, and kindness done to them was not done for their sake, but with the view of securing the safety of the doer.
[141]. Dr. Oldenberg (Buddha, etc., p. 148) very properly remarks that Ambapali the courtesan was no Mary Magdalene, and that she was not regarded by Buddha as the woman that was a sinner was regarded by Christ. Buddha had not Christ’s horror of sin, and therefore felt none of His boundless pity for the frailty of its victims; of hatred of sin in the Christian sense Buddhism knows nothing. Its highest virtue is imperturbability, a serenity that is apathetic in regard to the most outrageous wrong or the most heinous wickedness. Cariya Pitaka, iii. 15; also Sacred Books of the East, vol. x. Part ii. p. 151.