The Life of Buddha and Its Lessons | Page 2

this conclusion, for you know that Sabina, Bishop of Heracha,
himself speaking of the Council of Nicea, affirms that "except Constantine and Sabinus,
Bishop of Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures that
understood nothing"; which is as though he had said they were a pack of fools. And
Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council of Nicea, lets us into the secret that the Canon
was not decided by a careful comparison of several gospels before them, but by a lottery.
Having, he tells us, "promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council for
determination under a Communion table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the
Lord that the inspired writings might get up on the table, while the spurious writings
remained underneath, and it happened accordingly".
But letting all this pass and looking only to what is contained in the present Canon, we
see the same tendency to compel all nature to attest the divinity of the writer's hero. At
the nativity a star leaves its orbit and leads the Persian astrologers to the divine child, and
angels come and converse with shepherds, and a whole train of like celestial phenomena
occurs at various stages of his earthly career, which closes amid earthquakes, a pall of
darkness over the whole scene, a supernatural war of the elements, the opening of graves
and the walking about of their tenants, and other appalling wonders. Now, if the candid
Buddhist concedes that the real history of Gautama is embellished by like absurd
exaggerations, and if we can find their duplicates in the biographies of Zoroaster,
Shankaracharya and other real personages of antiquity, have we not the right to conclude
that the true history of the Founder of Christianity, if at this late date it were possible to
write it, would be very different from the narratives that pass current? We must not forget
that Jerusalem was at that time a Roman dependency, just as Ceylon is now a British, and
that the silence of contemporary Roman historians about any such violent disturbances of
the equilibrium of nature is deeply significant.
I have cited this example for the sole and simple purpose of bringing home to the
non-Buddhistic portion of my present audience the conviction that, in considering the life
of Sakya Muni and the lessons it teaches, they must not make his followers of to-day
responsible for any extravagant exuberances of past biographers. The doctrine of Buddha
and its effects are to be judged quite apart from the man, just as the doctrine ascribed to
Jesus and its effects are to be considered quite irrespectively of his personal history.
And--as I hope I have shown--the actual doings and sayings of every founder of a Faith
or a school of philosophy must be sought for under a heap of tinsel and rubbish
contributed by successive generations of followers.

Approaching the question of the hour in this spirit of precaution, what do we find are the
probabilities respecting the life of Sakya Muni? Who was he? When did he live? How did
he live? What did he teach? A most careful comparison of authorities and analysis of
evidence establishes, I think, the following data:
1. He was the son of a king.
2. He lived between six and seven centuries before Christ.
3. He resigned his royal state and went to live in the jungle, and among the lowest and
most unhappy classes, so as to learn the secret of human pain and misery by personal
experience: tested every known austerity of the Hindu ascetics and excelled them all in
his power of endurance: sounded every depth of woe in search of the means to alleviate it:
and at last came out victorious, and showed the world the way to salvation.
4. What he taught may be summed up in a few words, as the perfume of many roses may
be distilled into a few drops of attar: Everything in the world of Matter is unreal; the only
reality is in the world of Spirit. Emancipate yourselves from the tyranny of the former;
strive to attain the latter. The Rev. Samuel Beal, in his _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures
from the Chinese_ puts it differently. "The idea underlying the Buddhist religious system
is," he says, "simply this: 'all is vanity'. Earth is a show, and Heaven is a vain reward."
Primitive Buddhism was engrossed, absorbed, by one thought--the vanity of finite
existence, the priceless value of the one condition of Eternal Rest.
If I have the temerity to prefer my own definition of the spirit of Buddha's doctrine, it is
because I think that all the misconceptions of it have arisen from a failure to understand
his idea of what is real and what is unreal, what worth