Whilst Brahmanism, without denying the existence, practically ignores the influence and power of a creating and controlling intelligence, Buddhism, exulting in the idea of the infinite perfectibility of man, and the achievement of the highest attainable happiness by the unfaltering practice of every conceivable virtue, exalts the individuals thus pre-eminently wise into absolute supremacy over all existing beings, and attempts the daring experiment of an atheistic morality.[1] Even Buddha himself is not worshipped as a deity, or as a still existent and active agent of benevolence and power. He is merely reverenced as a glorified remembrance, the effulgence of whose purity serves as a guide and incentive to the future struggles and aspirations of mankind. The sole superiority which his doctrines admit is that of goodness and wisdom; and Buddha having attained to this perfection by the immaculate purity of his actions, the absolute subjugation of passion, and the unerring accuracy of his unlimited knowledge, became entitled to the homage of all, and was required to render it to none.
1: M. REMUSAT announces, as the result of his researches, that neither the Chinese; the Tartars, nor Monguls have any word in their dialects expressive of our idea of a God.—Foĕ Kouĕ Ki, p. 138; and M. BARTHELEMY SAINT-HILLAIRE adds, that "il n'y a pas trace de l'idée de Dieu dans le Bouddhisme entier, ni au début ni au térme."—Le Bouddha, &c., Introd. p. iv. Colonel SYKES, in the xiith vol. of the Asiatic Journal, pp. 263 and 376, denies that Buddhism is atheistic; and adduces, in support of his views, allusions made by FA HIAN. But the passages to which he refers present no direct contradiction to those metaphysical subtleties by which the Buddhistical writers have carefully avoided whilst they closely approach the admission of belief in a deity. I am not prepared to deny that the faith in a supreme being may not have characterised Buddhism in its origin, as the belief in a Great First Cause in the person of Brahma is still acknowledged by the Hindus, although honoured by no share of their adoration. But it admits of little doubt that neither in the discourses of its priesthood at the present day nor in the practice of its followers in Ceylon is the name or the existence of an omnipotent First Cause recognised in any portion of their worship. MAUPIED has correctly described Buddhism both in Ceylon and China as a system of refined atheism (Essai sur l'Origine des Peuples Anciens, ch. x. p. 277), and MOUNTSTUART ELPHINSTONE gives the weight of his high authority in the statement that "The most ancient of Báudha sects entirely denies the being of a God; and some of those which admit the existence of God still refuse to acknowledge him as the creator and ruler of the world.... The theistical sect seems to prevail in Nepaul, and the atheistical to subsist in perfection in Ceylon."—History of India, vol. i. pt. ii. ch. 4. An able writer in the fourth volume of the Calcutta Review has also controverted the assertion of its atheistic complexion; but whatever truth may be developed in his views, their application is confined to Buddhism in Hindustan and Nepal, and is utterly at variance with the practice and received dogmas in Ceylon.
Externally coinciding with Hinduism, so far as the avatar of Buddha may be regarded as a pendant for the incarnation of Brahma, the worship of the former is essentially distinguished from the religion of the latter in one important particular. It does not regard Buddha as an actual emanation or manifestation of the divinity, but as a guide and example to teach an enthusiastic self-reliance by means of which mankind, of themselves and by their own unassisted exertions, are to attain to perfect virtue here and to supreme happiness hereafter. Both systems inculcate the mysterious doctrine of the metempsychosis; but whilst the result of successive embodiments is to bring the soul of the Hindu nearer and nearer to the final beatitude of absorption into the essence of Brahma, the end and aim of the Buddhistical transmigration is to lead the purified spirit to Nirwana[1], a condition between which and utter annihilation there exists but the dim distinction of a name. Nirwana is the exhaustion but not the destruction of existence, the close but not the extinction of being.
1: "Nirwana" is Sanskrit, ni (r euphon. causa) wana desire. The Singhalese name "Nirwana" is also derived from newanawa, to extinguish. See J. BARTHELEMY SAINT-HILAIRE, Le Bouddha, 133, 177, &c.
In deliberate consistency with this principle of human elevation, the doctrines of Buddha recognise the full eligibility of every individual born into the world for the attainment of the highest degrees of intellectual perfection and ultimate bliss; and herein consists its most striking departure from the Brahmanical system in denying the superiority of the "twice born" over the rest of mankind; in repudiating a sacerdotal supremacy of race, and in claiming for the pure and the wise that supremacy and exaltation which the self-glorified Brahmans would monopolise for themselves.
Hence the supremacy of "caste" is utterly disclaimed in the sacred books which contain the tenets of Buddha; and although in process of time his followers have departed from that portion of his precepts, still distinction of birth is nowhere authoritatively recognised as a qualification for the priesthood. Buddha being in fact a deification of human intellect, the philanthropy of the system extends its participation and advantages to the whole family of mankind, the humblest member of which is sustained by the assurance that by virtue and endurance he may attain an equality though not an identification with the supreme intelligence. Wisdom thus exalted as the sole object of pursuit and veneration, the Buddhists, with characteristic liberality, admit that the teaching of virtue is not necessarily confined to their own professors; especially when the ceremonial of others does not involve the taking of life. Hence in a great degree arises the indifference of the Singhalese as to the comparative claims of Christianity and Buddhism, and hence the facility with which, both under the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the British Government, they have combined the secret worship of the one with the ostensible profession of the other. They in fact admit Christ to have been a teacher, second only to Buddha, but inferior, inasmuch as the latter, who was perfect in wisdom, has attained to the bliss of Nirwana.[1]
1: Sir JOHN DAVIS in his account of the Chinese, states that the Buddhists there worship the "Queen of Heaven," a personage evidently borrowed from the Roman Catholics, and that the name of "Jesus" appears in the list of their divinities. (Chap. xiv.)
A curious illustration of the prevalence of this disposition to conform to two religions was related to me in Ceylon. A Singhalese chief came a short time since to the principal of a government seminary at Colombo, desirous to place his son as a pupil of the institution, and agreed, without an instant's hesitation, that the boy should conform to the discipline of the school, which requires the reading of the Scriptures and attendance at the hours of worship and prayer; accounting for his ready acquiescence by an assurance that he entertained an equal respect for the doctrines of Buddhism and Christianity. "But how can you," said the principal, "with your superior education and intelligence, reconcile yourself thus to halt between two opinions, and submit to the inconsistency of professing an equal belief in two conflicting religions?" "Do you see," replied the subtle chief, laying his hand on the arm of the other, and directing his attention to a canoe, with a large spar as an outrigger lashed alongside, in which a fisherman was just pushing off upon the lake, "do you see the style of these boats, in which our fishermen always put to sea, and that that spar is almost equivalent to a second canoe, which keeps the first from upsetting? It is precisely so with myself: I add on your religion to steady my own, because I consider Christianity a very safe outrigger to Buddhism."