fest errors with which their
canonical commentaries abound, were brought to their notice, retreated
from their former position, and now assert that it is only the express
words of Buddha that they receive as undoubted truth.[87] There is a
passage in a Buddhist work which reminds us somewhat of the last page
of Dean Milman's 'History of Christianity,' and where we read:
'The words of the priesthood are good; those of the Rahats
(saints) are better; but those of the All-knowing are the
best of all.'
[Footnote 86: See Burnouf, 'Introduction,' p. 41. 'Abuddhoktam
abhidharma-_s_astram.' Ibid. p. 454. According to the Tibetan
Buddhists, however, Buddha propounded the Abhidharma when he was
fifty-one years old. 'Asiatic Researches,' vol. xx. p. 339.]
[Footnote 87: 'Eastern Monachism,' p. 171.]
This is an argument which Mr. Francis Barham might have used with more
success, and by which he might have justified, if not the first
disciples, at least the original founder of Buddhism. Nay, there is a
saying of Buddha's which tends to show that all metaphysical
discussion was regarded by him as vain and useless. It is a saying
mentioned in one of the MSS. belonging to the Bodleian Library. As it
has never been published before, I may be allowed to quote it in the
original: Sadasad vi_k_aram na sahate,--'The ideas of being and not
being do not admit of discussion,'--a tenet which, if we consider that
it was enunciated before the time of the Eleatic philosophers of
Greece, and long before Hegel's Logic, might certainly have saved us
many an intricate and indigestible argument.
A few passages from the Buddhist writings of Nepal and Ceylon will
best show that the horror nihili was not felt by the metaphysicians
of former ages in the same degree as it is felt by ourselves. The
famous hymn which resounds in heaven when the luminous rays of the
smile of Buddha penetrate through the clouds, is 'All is transitory,
all is misery, all is void, all is without substance.' Again, it is
said in the Pra_gn_a-paramita,[88] that Buddha began to think that he
ought to conduct all creatures to perfect Nirva_n_a. But he reflected
that there are really no creatures which ought to be conducted, nor
creatures that conduct; and, nevertheless, he did conduct all
creatures to perfect Nirva_n_a. Then, continues the text, why is it
said that there are neither creatures which arrive at complete
Nirva_n_a, nor creatures which conduct the
|