English-Buddha & His Dhamma

SECTION THREE--DHAMMA TO BE SADDHAMMA MUST PROMOTE MAITRI

§ 1. Dhamma is Saddhamma only when it Teaches that Mere Pradnya is Not Enough: it must be accompanied by Sila

1. Pradnya is necessary. But Sila is more necessary. Pradnya without Sila is dangerous.

2. Mere Pradnya is dangerous.

3. Pradnya is like a sword in the hand of a man.

4. In the hand of a man with Sila it may be used for saving a man with danger.

5. But in the hand of a man without Sila it may be used for murder.

6. That is why Sila is more important than Pradnya.

7. Pradnya is Vichar Dhamma or thinking aright. Sila is Achar Dhamma, acting aright.

8. The Buddha prescribed five basic principles regarding Sila.

9. One relating to taking life.

10. Second relating to stealing.

11. Third relating to sexual immorality.

12. Fourth relating to telling a lie.

13. Fifth relating to drink.

14. On each of these the Blessed Lord directed the people not to kill; not to steal; nor to tell a lie; nor to indulge in sex immorality; and not to indulge in drinking.

15. The reason why the Buddha gave greater importance to Sila than to knowledge is obvious.

16. The use of knowledge depends upon a man's Sila. Apart from Sila, knowledge has no value. This is what he said.

17. At another place, he said, "Sila is incomparable in this world.

18. "Sila is the beginning and the refuge, Sila is the mother of all good. It is the foremost of all good conditions. Therefore, purify your Sila."

§ 2. Dhamma is Saddhamma only when it Teaches that besides Pradnya and Sila what is Necessary is Karuna

1. There has been some difference of opinion on the issue as to [the] foundation of Buddha's Dhamma.

2. Is Pradnya alone the foundation of his religion? Is Karuna alone the foundation of his religion ?

3. The controversy had divided the followers of the Buddha into two schools. One school held that Pradnya alone is the foundation of the Buddha's religion. The other school held that Karuna alone is the foundation of the Buddha's religion.

4. These two schools still remain divided.

5. Both the schools seem to be wrong, if judged in the light of the Buddha's own words.

6. There is no difference of opinion that Pradnya is one of the two pillars of the Buddha's religion.

7. The dispute is whether Karuna is also a pillar of his religion.

8. That Karuna is a pillar of his religion is beyond dispute.

9. His own words can be quoted in support of it.

10. In days gone by there was a country called Gandhara, in which was a very old mendicant afflicted with a very loathsome disease, which caused him to pollute every place he occupied.

11. Being in a certain Vihara belonging to the place, no one would come near him or help him in his distress.

12. On this Buddha came with his 500 followers, and obtaining all sorts of necessary utensils and warm water, they together visited the place where the old mendicant lay.

13. The smell in the place was so offensive that all the Bhikkus were filled with contempt for the man; but the World-honoured, causing Sakra-deva to bring the warm water, then with his own hand began to wash the body of the mendicant and attend to his maladies.

14. Then the earth shook, and the whole place was filled with a supernatural light, so that the king and the ministers, and all the heavenly host (Devas, Nagas, etc.) flocked to the place, and paid adoration to Buddha.

15. Having done so, they all addressed the World-honoured, and inquired how one so highly exalted could lower himself to such offices as these, on which Buddha explained the matter thus:

16. "The purpose of Tathagata in coming into the world, is to befriend those poor and helpless and unprotected, to nourish those in bodily affliction, whether they be Samanas or men of any other religion; to help the impoverished, the orphan, and the aged, and to persuade others so to do."

§ 3. Dhamma is Saddhamma only when it Teaches that More than Karuna what is Necessary is Maitri

1. The Buddha did not stop with teaching Karuna.

2. Karuna is only love for human beings. Buddha went beyond, and taught Maitri. Maitri is love for living beings.

3. The Buddha wanted man not to stop with Karuna, but to go beyond mankind and cultivate the spirit of Maitri for all living beings.

4. This he has well explained in a Sutta, when the Blessed One was staying in Shravasti.

5. Speaking about Maitri, the Blessed Lord told the almsmen:

6. "Suppose a man comes to dig the earth. Does the earth resent [it]?"

7. "No, Lord," the almsmen replied.

8. "Supposing a man comes with lac and colours to paint pictures in the air. Do you think he could do it?"

9. "No, Lord."

10. "Why?" "Because there are no dark patches in the air," said the Bhikkus.

11. "In the same way you must not have any dark patches in your mind which are the reflections of your evil passions."

12. "Suppose a man comes with a blazing wisp of bracken to set the River Ganges on fire. Could he do it?"

13. "No, Lord."

14. "Why?" "Because the Ganges has no combustibility in its water."

15. Concluding his address, the Blessed Lord said, "Just as the earth does not feel hurt and does not resent, just as the air does not lend [itself] to any action against it, just as the Ganges water goes on flowing without being disturbed by the fire, so also you Bhikkus must bear all insults and injustices inflicted on you, and continue to bear Maitri towards your offenders.

16. "So, almsmen, Maitri must flow and flow for ever. Let it be your sacred obligation to keep your mind as firm as the earth, as clean as the air, and as deep as the Ganges. If you do so, your Maitri will not be easily disturbed by an act however unpleasant. For all who do injury will soon be tired out.

17. "Let the ambit of your Maitri be as boundless as the world, and let your thought be vast and beyond measure, in which no hatred is thought of.

18. "According to my Dhamma, it is not enough to practise Karuna. It is necessary to practise Maitri."

19. In the course of the sermon, the Blessed Lord told a story to the almsmen which is worth remembering.

20. "Once upon a time there lived in Shravasti a lady named Videshika, who was reputed gentle and meek, and mild. She had a maid servant named Darkie, a bright girl, an early riser, and a good worker. 'I wonder,' thought Darkie, 'whether my mistress, who is so well spoken of, has really got a temper of her own which she does not show, or whether she has got no temper at all. Or do I do my work so well, that though she has got a temper, she does not show it? I will try her.'

21. "So next morning she got up late. 'Darkie! Darkie!' cried the mistress. 'Yes, madam,' answered the girl. 'Why did you get up so late?' 'Oh, that's nothing, madam.' 'Nothing , indeed, you naughty girl!' thought the mistress, frowning with anger and displeasure.

22. "'So she has got a temper, though she does not show it," thought the maid. 'It is because I do my work so well that she does not show it; I will try her further.' So she got up later next morning. 'Darkie! Darkie!' cried the mistress. 'Yes, madam,' answered the girl. 'Why did you get up so late?' 'Oh that's nothing, madam.' 'Nothing, indeed, you naughty girl!' exclaimed the mistress, giving vent in words to her anger and displeasure.

23. "'Yes,' thought the maid, 'she has got a temper, though she does not show it because I do my work so well; I will try her yet further.' So next morning she got up later still. 'Darkie! Darkie!' cried her mistress. 'Yes, madam,' answered the girl. 'Why did you get up so late?' 'Oh, that's nothing, madam.'

24. "'Nothing indeed you naughty girl, to get up so late!' exclaimed the mistress, and in her anger and displeasure she picked up the lynch-pin and struck the girl on the head with it, drawing blood.

25. "With her broken head streaming with blood, Darkie roused the neighbourhood with shrieks: 'See, lady, what the gentle one has done! See, lady, what the meek one has done! See, lady, what the mild one has done. What for? Just became her only maid got up late, she was so angry and displeased that she just jumped with the lynch-pin to strike her on the head and break it.'

26. "In the result, the lady Videshika got the reputation of being violent, anything but meek and mild.

27. "In like manner an almsman may be gentle and meek, and mild enough so long as nothing unpleasant is said against him. It is only when unpleasant things are said against him that you can test if he has Maitri, fellowship, in him."

28. Then he added, "I do not call an almsman charged with the spirit of Maitri if he shows it only to get clothes and food. Him only do I recognise as a true almsman whose Maitri springs from the doctrine."

29. "None of the means employed to acquire religious merit, O Monks, has a sixteenth part of the value of loving kindness. Loving kindness, which is freedom of heart, absorbs them all; it glows, it shines, it blazes forth.

30. "And in the same way, O Monks, as the light of all the stars has not a sixteenth part of the value of the moonlight, but the moonlight absorbs it and glows and shines and blazes forth; in the same way, O Monks, none of the means employed to acquire religious merit has a sixteenth part of the value of loving kindness. Loving kindness, which is freedom of heart, absorbs them; it glows, it shines, it blazes forth.

31. "And in the, same way, O Monks, as at the end of the rainy season, the sun, rising into the clear and cloudless sky, banishes all the dark spaces and glows and shines and blazes forth; and in the same way again, as at night's end the morning star glows and shines and blazes forth; so, O Monks, none of the means employed to acquire religious merit has a sixteenth part of the value of loving kindness. Loving kindness, which is freedom of heart, absorbs them; it glows, it shines, it blazes forth."

SECTION FOUR--DHAMMA TO BE SADDHAMMA MUST PULL DOWN ALL SOCIAL BARRIERS

§ 1. Dhamma to be Saddhamma must break down barriers between Man and Man

1. What is an ideal society? According to the Brahmins, the Vedas have defined what is an ideal society; and the Vedas being infallible, that is the only ideal society which man can accept.

2. The ideal society prescribed by the Vedas is known by the name Chaturvarna.

3. Such a society, according to the Vedas, must satisfy three conditions.

4. It must be composed of four classes. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras.

5. The interrelations of these classes must be regulated by the principle of graded inequality. In other words, all these classes are not to be on equal level but to be one above the other, in point of status, rights, and privileges.

6. The Brahmins were placed at the top; the Kshatriyas were placed below the Brahmins but above the Vaishyas; the Vaishyas were placed below the Kshatriyas but above the Shudras; and the Shudras were placed the lowest of all.

7. The third feature of Chaturvarna was that each class must engage itself in an occupation assigned to it. The Brahmins' occupation was to learn, teach and officiate at religious ceremonies. The Kshatriyas' occupation was to bear arms and to fight. The occupation of the Vaishyas was trade and business. The Shudras' occupation was to do menial service for all the three superior classes.

8. No class is to transgress and trench [=trespass?] upon the occupation of the other classes.

9. This theory of an ideal society was upheld by the Brahmins, and preached to the people.

10. The soul of this theory, it is obvious, is inequality. This social inequality is not the result of historical growth. Inequality is the official doctrine of Brahminism.

11. The Buddha opposed it root and branch.

12. He was the strongest opponent of caste, and the earliest and staunchest upholder of equality.

13. There is no argument in favour of caste and inequality which he did not refute.

14. There were many Brahmins who challenged Buddha on this issue. But he silenced them completely.

15. The story is told in the Assalayana-Sutta that once the Brahmins persuaded one of them, by name Assalayana, to go to the Buddha and controvert his views against caste and inequality.

16. Assalayana went to the Buddha and placed before him the case in favour of the superiority of the Brahmins.

17. He said, "Brahmins maintain, Gotama, that only Brahmins form the superior class, all other classes being inferior; that only Brahmins form the white class, all other classes being black fellows; that purity resides in Brahmins alone and not in non-Brahmins; and that only Brahmins are Brahma's legitimate sons, born from his mouth, offspring of his, creations of his, and his heirs. What does Gotama say hereon?"

18. The Buddha's answer simply pulverized Assalayana.

19. The Buddha said: "Assalayana, are not the Brahmin wives of Brahmins known to have their periods, and to conceive, and to lie and give birth? Notwithstanding this, do Brahmins really maintain all what you have said, though they are themselves born of women like everybody else?"

20. Assalayana gave no answer.

21. The Buddha went further and asked Assalayana another question.

22. "Suppose, Assalayana, a young noble consorts with a Brahmin maiden, what would be the issue? Will it be an animal or human being?"

23. Again Assalayana gave no answer.

24. "As to the possibility of moral development, is it only a Brahmin, and not a man of the other three classes, who in this country can develop in his heart the love that knows no hate or ill-will?"

25. "No. All four classes can do it," replied Assalayana.

26. "Assalayana! Have you ever heard," asked the Buddha, "that in the Yona and Kamboja countries and in other adjacent countries, there are only two classes, namely, masters and slaves, and that a master can become a slave and vice versa?"

27. "Yes, I have heard so," replied Assalayana.

28. "If your Chaturvarna is an ideal society, why is it not universal?" .

29. On none of these points was Assalayana able to defend his theory of caste and inequality. He was completely silenced. He ended by becoming a disciple of the Buddha.

30. A Brahmin by name Vasettha had embraced the religion of the Blessed Lord. The Brahmins used to abuse him for his conversion.

31. One day he went to Buddha and disclosed to him what the Brahmins said of him.

32. Then Vasettha said, "The Brahmins, Lord, say thus: 'Only a Brahmin is of the best social grade; other grades are low. Only a Brahmin is of a clear complexion; other complexions are swarthy. Only Brahmins are of pure breed; not they that are not of the Brahmins. Only Brahmins are genuine children of Brahma, born of his mouth--offspring of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.

33. "'As for you, you have renounced the best rank and have gone over to that low class, to the shaven recluses, to [the] vulgar rich, to them of swarthy skins, to the foot-born descendants. Such a course is not good, such a course is not proper: even this, that you, having forsaken that upper class, should associate with an inferior class, to wit, with shavelings, fair folks, menials, swarthy of skin, the offspring of our kinsmen's heels.'

34. "In these terms. Lord, do the Brahmins blame and revile me with characteristic abuse, copious, not at all stinted."

35. "Surely, Vasettha," said the Buddha, "the Brahmins have quite forgotten the ancient lore when they say so. On the contrary, the wives of Brahmins, like all women of other classes, are seen to be with child, bringing forth and nursing children. And yet it is these very womb-born Brahmins who say that Brahmins are genuine children of Brahma, born from his mouth; his offspring; his creation; and his heir ! By this they make a travesty of the nature of Brahma."

36. Once the Brahmin Esukari went to the Buddha to argue with him three questions.

37. The first question he raised related to the permanent division of occupations. In defence of the system he began by saying, "I have come to ask you a question. The Brahmins say they shall serve nobody because they stand above all. Everyone else is born to serve them.

38. "Service, Gotama, is divided into four--service of [a] Brahmin, service of [a] noble, service of a middle-class man, or by [=of] a peasant; while a peasant may be served only by a peasant, for who else could? What does the reverend Gotama say hereon?"

39. The Buddha answered him by asking a question, "Is the whole world in accord with Brahmins in their fourfold division of service?" asked the Lord.

40. "For myself, I neither assert that all service is to be rendered, nor that all service is to be refused. If the service makes a man bad and not good, it should not be rendered; but if it makes him better and not bad, then it should be rendered.

41. "This is the guiding consideration which should decide the conduct alike of nobles, of Brahmins, of middle-class men, and of peasant ; each individual should refuse service which makes him bad, and should accept only the service which makes him a better man."

42. The next question raised was by Esukari. "Why should ancestry and lineage not have a place in determining the status of a man?"

43. To this question the Buddha replied thus: "As against pride of ancestry, the station into which a man happens to be born determines only his designation, be it noble or Brahmin or middle-class or peasant. Even as a fire is called after the material out of which it is kindled, and may thus be called either a wood-fire, or a chip-fire, or a bracken-fire, or a cowdung fire, just in the same way the noble, transcendant doctrine, I aver, is the source of true wealth for every man, birth merely determining his designation in one of the four classes.

44. "Lineage does not enter into a man's being either good or bad; nor do good looks or wealth. For you will find a man of noble birth who is a murderer, a thief, a fornicator, a liar, a slanderer, a man of bitter tongue, a tattler, a covetous person, a man of rancour or of wrong views; and therefore I assert that noble birth does not make a good man. Or again you will find a man of noble birth who is innocent of all these vices; and, therefore, I assert that it is not lineage which makes a man bad."

45. The third question which Esukari raised was with regard to the ways of earning a living assigned to each class.

46. The Brahmin Esukari said to the Lord: "Brahmins give a fourfold assignment of income: from alms, for Brahmins; from his bow and arrows, for the noble; from ploughing and tending cattle, for the middle-class man; and for the peasant, by the carriage of crops on the pole slung over his shoulder. If anyone of these deserts his vocation for something else, he does what he should not do, not less than a guardian who appropriates what is not his. What does the reverend Gotama say on this "

47. "Is the whole world in accord with this Brahmin classification? asked the Lord.

48. "No," replied Esukari.

49. To Vasettha he said, "What is important is high ideals and not noble birth.

50. No caste; no inequality; no superiorit ; no inferiority; all are equal. This is what he stood for.

51. "Identify yourself with others. As they, so I.. As I, so they." So said the Buddha.

§ 2. Dhamma to be Saddhamma must Teach that Worth and not Birth is the Measure of Man

1. The theory of Chaturvarna, preached by the Brahmins, was based on birth.

2. One is a Brahmin because he is born of Brahmin parents. One is a Kshatriya because he is born of Kshatriya parents. One is a Vaishya because one is born of Vaishya parents. And one is a Shudra because one is born of Shudra parents.

3. The worth of a man, according to the Brahmins, was based on birth and on nothing else.

4. This theory was as repulsive to the Buddha, as was the theory of Chaturvarna.

5. His doctrine was just the opposite of the doctrine of the Brahmins. It was his doctrine that worth, and not birth, was the measure of man.

6. The occasion on which the Buddha propounded his doctrine has its own peculiar interest.

7. Once the Blessed One was staying in Anathpindika's Asram. One day in the forenoon he took his begging bowl and entered Shravasti for alms.

8. At that time a sacrificial fire was burning and an offering was prepared. Then the Blessed One, going for alms from house to house in Shravasti, approached the house of the Brahmin Aggika.

9. The Brahmin, seeing the Blessed One coming at a distance, became angry and said, "Stay there, O Shaveling! There, stay, ye wretched monk! Stay there, ye miserable outcast."

10. When he spoke thus, the Blessed One addressed him as follows: "Do you know, O Brahmin, who an outcast is, or the things that make a person an outcast?

11. "No, Gotama, I do not know who an outcast is. Nor indeed do I know what things make a man an outcast."

12. The Lord pleaded that nothing would be lost in knowing who is an outcast. "Now that you insist on my knowing it," the Brahmin Aggika said, "well, go on and explain."

13. The Brahmin having responded, the Blessed One spake as follows:

14. "The man who is irritable, rancorous, vicious, detractive, perverted in views, and deceitful--know ye that he is an outcast.

15. "Whosoever in this world harms living beings, once-born or twice-born, in whom there is no compassion for living beings--know ye that he is an outcast.

16. "Whosoever destroys and besieges villages and hamlets, and is known as an oppressor--know ye that he is an outcast.

17. "Whether in the village or in the forest, whosoever appropriates by theft what belongs to others, or what is not given--know ye that he is an outcast,

18. "Whosoever, having really taken a debt, flees, when pressed, saying, 'There is no debt to you,'--know ye that he is an outcast.

19. "Whosoever, desiring some trifle, kills a man going alone on the road, and pillages him--know ye that he is an outcast.

20. "Whosoever for his own sake, or for the sake of others, or for the sake of wealth, utters lies when asked as a witness--know ye that he is an outcast.

21. "Whosoever by force or with consent is seen transgressing with the wives of relatives or friends--know ye that he is an outcast.

22. "Whosoever, being rich, does not support aged mother and father who have passed their youth--know ye that he is an outcast.

23. "Whosoever, when questioned about what is good, counsels what is wrong. and teaches in a concealing way--know ye that be is an outcast.

24. "No one is an outcast by birth--and no one is a Brahmin by birth."

25. Aggika, on hearing this, felt greatly ashamed for the abuse he had hurled against the Blessed Lord.

§ 3. Dhamma to be Saddhamma must Promote Equality between Man and Man

1. Men are born unequal.

2. Some are robust, others are weaklings.

3. Some have more intelligence, others have less or none.

4. Some have more capacity, others have less.

5. Some are well-to-do, others are poor.

6. All have to enter into what is called the struggle for existence.

7. In the struggle for existence, if inequality be recognised as the rule of the game, the weakest will always go to the wall.

8. Should this rule of inequality be allowed to be the rule of life?

9. Some answer in the affirmative, on the ground that it results in the survival of the fittest.

10. The question, however, is: is the fittest the best from the point of view of society?

11. No one can give a positive answer.

12. It is because of this doubt that religion preaches equality. For equality may help the best to survive, even though the best may not be the fittest.

13. What society wants is the best, and not the fittest.

14. It is, therefore, the primary reason why religion upholds equality.

15. This was the viewpoint of the Buddha, and it was because of this that he argued that a religion which does not preach equality is not worth having.

16. Can you respect or believe in a religion which recommends actions that bring happiness to oneself by causing sorrow to others; or happiness to others by causing sorrow to oneself; or sorrow to both oneself and others?

17. Is not that a better religion which promotes the happiness of others simultaneously with the happiness of oneself, and tolerates no oppression?

18. These were some of the most pertinent questions which he asked the Brahmins who opposed Equality.

19. The religion of the Buddha is perfect justice, springing from a man's own meritorious disposition.

BOOK IV: RELIGION AND DHAMMA

Part I — Religion and Dhamma

Part II — How Similarities in Terminlogy Conceal Fundamental Difference

Part III — The Buddhist Way of Life

Part IV — His Sermons

PART I: RELIGION AND DHAMMA

§ 1. What is Religion?

1. The word "religion" is an indefinite word with no fixed meaning.

2. It is one word with many meanings.

3. This is because religion has passed through many stages. The concept at each stage is called Religion, though the concept at one stage has not had the same meaning which it had at the preceding stage, or is likely to have at the succeeding stage.

4. The conception of religion was never fixed.

5. It has varied from time to time.

6. Because most of the phenomena such as lightning, rain, and floods, the occurrence of which the primitive man could not explain, [were not understood], any weird performance done to control the phenomenon was called magic. Religion therefore came to be identified with magic.

7. Then came the second stage in the evolution of religion. In this stage religion came to be identified with beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, prayers, and sacrifices.

8. But this conception of religion is derivative.

9. The pivotal point in religion starts with the belief that there exists some power which causes these phenomena, which primitive man did not know and could not understand. Magic lost its place at this stage.

10. This power was originally malevolent. But later it was felt that it could also be benevolent.

11. Beliefs, rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices were necessary both to propitiate a benevolent power, and also to conciliate an angry power.

12. Later that power was called God or the Creator.

13. Then came the third stage: that it is this God who created this world and also man.

14. This was followed by the belief that man has a soul, and the soul is eternal and is answerable to God for man's actions in the world.

15. This is, in short, the evolution of the concept of Religion.

16. This is what Religion has come to be and this is what it connotes--belief in God, belief in [a] soul, worship of God, curing of the erring soul, propitiating God by prayers, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc.

§2. How Dhamma Differs From Religion

1. What the Buddha calls Dhamma differs fundamentally from what is called Religion.

2. What the Buddha calls Dhamma is analogous to what the European theologians call Religion.

3. But there is no greater affinity between the two. On the other hand, the differences between the two are very great.

4. On this account, some European theologians refuse to recognise the Buddha's Dhamma as Religion.

5. There need be no regrets over this. The loss is theirs. It does no harm to the Buddha's Dhamma. Rather, it shows what is wanting in Religion.

6. Instead of entering into this controversy, it is better to proceed to give an idea of Dhamma, and show how it differs from Religion.

7. Religion, it is said, is personal, and one must keep it to oneself. One must not let it play its part in public life.

8. Contrary to this, Dhamma is social. It is fundamentally and essentially so.

9. Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man and man in all spheres of life.

10. From this it is evident that one man, if he is alone, does not need Dhamma.

11. But when there are two men living in relation to each other, they must find a place for Dhamma whether they like it or not. Neither can escape it.

12. In other words. Society cannot do without Dhamma.

13. Society has to choose one of the three alternatives.

14. Society may choose not to have any Dhamma as an instrument of Government. For Dhamma is nothing if it is not an instrument of Government.

15. This means Society chooses the road to anarchy.

16. Secondly, Society may choose the police--i.e., dictatorship--as an instrument of Government.

17. Thirdly, Society may choose Dhamma, plus the Magistrate wherever people fail to observe the Dhamma.

18. In anarchy and dictatorship liberty is lost.

19. Only in the third [case] liberty survives.

20. Those who want liberty must therefore have Dhamma.

21. Now what is Dhamma? and why is Dhamma necessary? According to the Buddha, Dhamma consists of Prajna and Karuna.

22. What is Prajna? And why Prajna? Prajna is understanding. The Buddha made Prajna one of the two corner-stones of His Dhamma because he did not wish to leave any room for superstition.

23. What is Karuna? And why Karuna? Karuna is love. Because without it, Society can neither live nor grow; that is why the Buddha made it the second corner-stone of His Dhamma.

24. Such is the definition of the Buddha's Dhamma.

25. How different is this definition of Dhamma from that of Religion.

26. So ancient, yet so modern, is the definition of Dhamma given by the Buddha.

27. So aboriginal, yet so original.

28. Not borrowed from anyone, yet so true.

29. A unique amalgam of Pradnya and Karuna is the Dhamma of the Buddha.

30. Such is the difference between Religion and Dhamma.

§ 3. The Purpose of Religion and the Purpose of Dhamma

1. What is the purpose of Religion? What is the purpose of Dhamma? Are they one and the same? Or are they different

2. The answer to these questions are to be found in two dialogues--one between the Buddha and Sunakkhatta, and the other between the Buddha and the Brahmin Potthapada.

3. The Exalted One was once staying among the Mallas, at Anupiya, one of their towns.

4. Now the Exalted One ,having robed himself in the early morning, put on his cloak and took his bowl and entered the town for alms.

5. On the way, he thought it was too early to go for alms. Therefore he went to the pleasance where Bhaggava the wanderer dwelt, and called on him.

6. On seeing the Blessed One Bhaggava got up, saluted him, and said, "May it please you, sire, to be seated; here is a seat made ready for you."

7. The Exalted One sat down thereon, and Bhaggava, taking a certain low stool sat down beside him. So seated, Bhaggava, the wanderer, spake thus to the Exalted One :

8 "Some days ago, Lord, a good many days ago, Sunakkhatta of the Licchavis called on me and spake thus: 'I have now given up the Exalted One, Bhaggava. I am remaining no longer under him (as my teacher).' Is the fact really so, just as he said?"

9. "It is just so, Bhaggava, as Sunakkhatta of the Licchavis said," replied the Blessed One.

10. "Some days ago, Bhaggava, a good many days ago, Sunakkhatta, the Licchavi, came to call on me, and spake thus: 'Sir, I now give up the Exalted One. I will henceforth remain no longer under him (as my teacher).' When he told me this, I said to him: 'But now, Sunakkhatta, have I ever said to you, Come, Sunakkhatta, live under me (as my pupil)?'

11. "'No sir, you have not.'

12. "Or have you ever said to me: 'Sir, I would fain dwell under the Exalted One (as my teacher)?'

13. "'No sir, I have not.'

14. "Then I asked him 'If I said not the one, and you said not the other, what are you and what am I, that you talk of giving up? See, foolish one, in how far the fault here is your own.'

15. "'Well, but, sir, the Exalted One works me no mystic wonders surpassing the power of ordinary men.'

16. "Why now, Sunakkhatta, have I ever said to you: 'Come, take me as your teacher, Sunakkhatta, and I will work for you mystic wonders surpassing the power of ordinary men?'

17. "'You have not, sir.'

18. "Or have you ever said to me: 'Sir, I would fain take the Exalted One as my teacher, for he will work for me mystic wonders beyond the powers of ordinary men?'

19. "'I have not, sir.'

20. "'But if I said not the one, and you said not the other, what are you and what am I, foolish man, that you talk of giving up? What think you, Sunakkhatta? Whether mystic wonders beyond the power of ordinary man are wrought, or whether they are not, is the object for which I teach the Dhamma: that it leads to the thorough, destruction of ill for the doer thereof?'

21. '"Whether, sir, they are so wrought or not, that is indeed the object for which the Dhamma is taught by the Exalted One.'

22. "'If then, Sunakkhatta, it matters not to that object whether mystic wonders are wrought or not, of what use to you would be the working of them? See, foolish one, in how far the fault here is your own.'

23. "'But, sir, the Exalted One does not reveal to me the beginning of things.'

24. "Why now, Sunakkhatta, have I ever said to you: 'Come, Sunakkhatta, be my. disciple and I will reveal to you the beginning of things?'

25. "'Sir, you have not.'

26. "Or have you ever said to me: 'I will become the Exalted One's pupil, for he will reveal to me the beginning of things?'

27. "'Sir, I have not.'

28. "'But if I have not said the one and you have not said the other, what are you and what am I, foolish man, that you talk of giving up on that account? What think you, Sunakkhatta? Whether the beginning of things be revealed, or whether it be not, is the object for which I teach the Dhamma, that it leads to the thorough destruction of ill for the doer thereof?

29. "'Whether, sir, they are revealed or not, that is indeed the object for which the Dhamma is taught by the Exalted One.'

30. "'If then, Sunakkhatta, it matters not to that object whether the beginning of things be revealed, or whether it be not, of what use to you would it be to have the beginning of things revealed?'"

31. This illustrates that Religion is concerned with revealing the beginning of things and Dhamma is not.

§ 3 part 2 -- The other differences between Religion and Dhamma are brought out in the discussion between the Blessed One and Potthapada.

1. The Blessed One was once staying at Shravasti in Anathapindika's pleasance of the Jeta's wood. Now at that time Potthapada, the wandering mendicant, was dwelling in the hall put up in Queen Mallika's park for a debate on general systems of philosophical opinion.

2. There was with him a great following of mendicants; to wit, three hundred. A dialogue took place between the Blessed Lord and Potthapada. Potthapada asked:

3. "Then, sir, if that be so, tell me at least, is the world eternal? Is this alone the truth, and any other view mere folly?'"

4. "That, Potthapada, is a matter on which I have expressed no opinion," replied the Blessed Lord.

5. Then, in the same terms, Potthapada asked each of the following questions:

(i) 'Is the world not eternal?'

(ii) 'Is the world finite?'

(iii) 'Is the world infinite?'

(iv) 'Is the soul the same as the body?'

(v) 'Is the soul one thing, and the body another?'

(vi) 'Does one who has gained the truth live again after death?'

(vii) 'Does he not live again after death?'

(viii) 'Does he both live again and not live again, after death?'

(ix) 'Does he neither live again, nor not live again, after death?'

6. And to each questions the Exalted One made the same reply:--

7. "That too, Potthapada, is a matter on which I have expressed no opinion."

8. "But why has the Exalted One expressed no opinion on that?"

9. "Because this question is not calculated to profit, it is not concerned with the Dhamma, it does not redound even to the elements of right conduct, nor to detachment, nor to purification from lusts, nor to quietude, nor to tranquillisation of heart, nor to real knowledge, nor to the insight (of the higher stages of the Path), nor to Nirvana. Therefore is it that I express no opinion upon it. "

10. "Then what is it that the Exalted One has determined?"

11. "I have expounded, Potthapada, what Dukkha is; I have expounded what is the origin of Dukkha; I have expounded what is the cessation of Dukkha; I have expounded what is the method by which one may reach the cessation of Dukkha."

12. "And why has the Exalted One put forth a statement as to that?"

13. "Because that question, Potthapada, is calculated to profit, is concerned with the Dhamma, redounds to the beginnings of right conduct, to detachment, to purification from lusts, to quietude, to tranquillisation of heart, to real knowledge, to the insight of the higher stages of the Path, and to Nirvana. Therefore is it, Potthapada, that I have put forward a statement as to that."

14. In this dialogue it is clearly put forth what is the subject matter of Religion, and what is not the subject matter of Dhamma. The two are poles apart

15. The purpose of Religion is to explain the origin of the world. The purpose of Dhamma is to reconstruct the world.

§ 4. Morality and Religion

1. What is the place of morality in Religion?

2. As a matter of truth, morality has no place in Religion.

3. The content of religion consists of God, soul, prayers, worship, rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices.

4. Morality comes in only wherein man comes in relation to man.

5. Morality comes into religion as a side wind, to maintain peace and order.

6. Religion is a triangular piece.

7. Be good to your neighbour, because you are both children of God.

8. That is the argument of religion.

9. Every religion preaches morality, but morality is not the root of religion.

10. It is a wagon attached to it. It is attached and detached as the occasion requires.

11. The action of morality in the functioning of religion is therefore casual and occasional.

12. Morality in religion is therefore not effective.

§ 5. Dhamma and Morality

1. What is the place of morality in Dhamma?

2. The simple answer is, Morality is Dhamma and Dhamma is Morality.

3. In other words, in Dhamma morality takes the place of God, although there is no God in Dhamma.

4. In Dhamma there is no place for prayers, pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies, or sacrifices.

5. Morality is the essence of Dhamma. Without it there is no Dhamma.

6. Morality in Dhamma arises from the direct necessity for man to love man.

7. It does not require the sanction of God. It is not to please God that man has to be moral. It is for his own good that man has to love man.

§ 6. Mere Morality is not Enough: it must be Sacred and Universal

1. When is a thing sacred? Why is a thing sacred?

2. In every human society, primitive or advanced, there are some things or beliefs which it regards as sacred, and the rest [it regards] as profane.

3. When a thing or belief has reached the stage of being sacred (pavitra), it means that it cannot be violated. Indeed it cannot be touched. It is taboo.

4. Contrary to this, a thing or a belief which is profane (apavitra), i.e., outside the field of the sacred, may be violated. It means one can act contrary to it, without feeling any fear or qualms of conscience.

5. The sacred is something holy. To transgress it is a sacrilege.

6. Why is a thing made sacred? To confine the scope of the question to the matter in hand, why morality should [=should morality] have been made sacred?

7. Three factors seem to have played their part in making morality sacred.

8. The first factor is the social need for protecting the best.

9. The background of this question lies imbedded in what is called the struggle of existence and the survival of the fittest.

10. This arises out of the theory of evolution. It is common knowledge that evolution takes place through a struggle for existence, because the means of food supply in early times were so limited.

11. The struggle is bitter. Nature is said to be red in claw and tooth.

12. In this struggle, which is bitter and bloody, only the fittest survive.

13. Such is the original state of society.

14. In the course of [the] ancient past someone must have raised the question, is the fittest (the strongest) the best? Would not the weakest, if protected, be ultimately the best for advancing the ends and aims of society?

15. The then prevailing state of society seems to have given an answer in the affirmative.

16. Then comes, the question what is the way to protect the weak?

17. Nothing less than to impose some restraints upon the fittest.

18. In this lies the origin and necessity for morality.

19. This morality had to be sacred, because it was imposed originally on the fittest, i.e., the strongest.

20. This has very serious consequences.

21. First, does morality in becoming social become anti-social?

22. It is not that there is no morality among thieves. There is morality among businessmen. There is morality among fellow castemen and there is also morality among a gang of robbers.

23. But this morality is marked by isolation and exclusiveness. It is a morality to protect "group interest." It is therefore anti-social.

24. It is the isolation and exclusiveness of this kind of morality which throws its anti-social spirit in[to] relief.

25. The same is true where a group observes morality because it has interests of its own to protect.

26. The results of this group organisation of society are far-reaching.

27. If society continues to consist of anti-social groups, society will remain a disorganised and a factional society.

28. The danger of a disorganised and factional state of society is that it sets up a number of different models and standards.

29. In the absence of common models and common standards, society cannot be a harmonious whole,

30. With such different models and standards, it is impossible for the individual to attain consistency of mind.

31. A society which rests upon the supremacy of one group over another, irrespective of its rational or proportionate claims, inevitably leads to conflict.

32. The only way to put a stop to conflict is to have common rules of morality which are sacred to all.

33. There is the third factor which requires morality to be made sacred and universal. It is to safeguard the growth of the individual.

34. Under the struggle for existence or under group rule the interests of the individuals are not safe.

35. The group set-up prevents an individual from acquiring consistency of mind, which is possible only when society has common ideals, common models. His thoughts are led astray, and this creates a mind whose seeing unity is forced and distorted.

36. Secondly, the group set-up leads to discrimination and denial of justice.

37. The group set-up leads to stratification of classes. Those who are masters remain masters, and those who are born in slavery remain slaves. Owners remain owners, and workers remain workers. The privileged remain privileged, and the serfs remain serfs.

38. This means that there can be liberty for some, but not for all. This means that there can be equality for a few, but none for the majority.

39. What is the remedy? The only remedy lies in making fraternity universally effective.

40. What is fraternity? It is nothing but another name for [the] brotherhood of men--which is another name for morality.

41. This is why the Buddha preached that Dhamma is morality; and as Dhamma is sacred, so is morality.

PART 2: HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE

SECTION ONE--REBIRTH

§ 1. Preliminary

1. What happens after death, is a question often asked.

2. The contemporaries of the Buddha held two different views. One set was called Eternalist, and the other was called Annihilationist.

3. The Eternalist said that the soul knows no death: therefore life is eternal. It is renewed by rebirth.

4. The thesis of the Annihilationists was summed up in one word, Ucchedvad, which meant that death is the end of everything. There is nothing left after death.

5. The Buddha was not an eternalist. For it involved a belief in the existence of a separate, immortal soul, to which he was opposed.

6. Was the Buddha an annihilationist? With his belief in the non-existence of the soul, the Buddha would naturally be expected to be an annihilationist.

7. But in the Alagaddupamma-Sutta the Buddha complains that he is called an annihilationist, when as a matter of fact he is not.

8. This is what he says: "Though this is what I affirm and what I preach, yet some recluses and Brahmins, wrongly, erroneously, and falsely charge me, in defiance of facts, with being an annihilationist and with preaching the disintegration, destruction, and extirpation of human beings.

9. "It is just what I am not, and what I do not affirm, that is wrongly, erroneously, and falsely, charged against me by these good people who would make me out to be an annihilationist."

10. If this statement is a genuine one, and is not an interpolation by those who wanted to foist a Brahmanic doctrine on Buddhism, the statement raises a serious dilemma

11. How can the Buddha not believe in the existence of the soul, and yet say that he is not an annihilationist?

12. This raises the question: did the Buddha believe in rebirth?

§ 2. Rebirth of What?

1. Did the Buddha believe in rebirth?

2. The answer is in the affirmative.

3. It is better to split this question further into two parts: (1) Rebirth of What; and (2) Rebirth of Whom.

4. It is better to take each one of these two questions separately.

5. Here we may consider the first: Rebirth of What.

6. This question is almost always ignored. It is because of the mixing of the two questions that so much confusion has arisen.

7. According to the Buddha, there are four elements of Existence which go to compose the body. They are (1) Prithvi; (2) Apa; (3) Tej; and (4) Vayu.

8. Question is, when the human body dies, what happens to these four elements? Do they also die along with dead body? Some say that they do.

9. The Buddha said no: they join the mass of similar elements floating in (Akash) space.

10. When the four elements from this floating mass join together, a new birth takes place.

11. This is what the Buddha meant by rebirth.

12. The elements need not [be], and are not necessarily, from the same body which is dead. They may be drawn from different dead bodies.

13. It must be noted that the body dies. But the elements are ever-living.

14. This is the kind of rebirth in which the Buddha believed.

15. Great light is thrown upon the subject by Sariputta in his dialogue with Maha-Kotthita.

16. It is said that once when the Lord was staying at Shravasti in Jeta's Grove in Anathapindika's Ashram, the Maha-Kotthita, rising up at even-tide from his meditations, went to Sariputta and asked him to elucidate some of the questions which troubled him.

17. The following was one of them.

18. Maha-Kotthita asked, "How many factors has the first ecstasy (Dhyana) put from it, and how many does it retain?"

19. Sariputta replied, "Five of each. Gone are lusts, malevolence, torpor, worry and doubt. Observation, reflection, zest, satisfaction and a focussed heart persist."

20. Maha-Kotthita asked, "Take the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch,—each with its own particular province and range of function, separate and mutually distinct. What ultimate base have they? Who enjoys all their five provinces and ranges?"

21. Sariputta replied, "Mind (Mano)."

22. Maha-Kotthita asked, "On what do these five faculties of sense depend?"

23. Sariputta replied, "On vitality."

24. Maha-Kotthita asked, "On what does vitality depend?"

25. Sariputta: On heat."

26. Maha-Kotthita asked, "On what does heat depend?"

27. Sariputta replied, "On vitality."

28. Maha-Kotthita asked, "You say that vitality depends on heat; you also say that heat depends on vitality! What precisely is the meaning to be attached to this?"

29. Sariputta replied, "I will give you an illustration. Just as in the case of a lamp, the light reveals the flame and the flame the light, so vitality depends upon heat and heat on vitality."

30. Maha-Kotthita asked, "How many things must quit the body before it is flung aside and cast away like a senseless log?"

31. Sariputta answered, "Vitality, heat, and consciousness."

32. Maha-Kotthita asked, "What is the difference between a lifeless corpse and an almsman in trance, in whom perception and feelings are stilled?"

33. Sariputta replied, "In the corpse not only are the plastic forces of the body and speech and mind stilled and quiescent, but also vitality is exhausted, heat is quenched, and the faculties of sense broken up; whereas in the almsman in trance vitality persists, heat abides, and the faculties are clear, although respiration, observation, and perception are stilled and quiescent."

34. This probably is the best and most complete exposition of Death or Annihilation.

35. There is only one lacuna in this dialogue. Maha-Kotthita should have asked Sariputta one question: What is heat?

36. What answer Sariputta would have given, it is not easy to imagine. But there can be no doubt that heat means energy.

37. Thus amplified, the real answer to the question, What happens when the body dies? is: the body ceases to produce energy.

38. But this is only a part of the answer. Because death also means that whatever energy that had escaped from the body joins the general mass of energy playing about in the Universe.

39. Annihilation has therefore a two-fold aspect. In one of its aspects it means cession [=cessation] of production of energy. In another aspect it means a new addition to the stock of [the] general floating mass of energy.

40. It is probably because of this two-fold aspect of annihilation that the Buddha said that he was not an absolute annihilationist. He was an annihilationist so far as soul was concerned. He was not an annihilationist so far as matter was concerned.

41. So interpreted, it is easy to understand why the Buddha said that he was not an annihilationist. He believed in the regeneration of matter and not in the rebirth of the soul.

42. So interpreted, the Buddha's view is in consonance with science.

43. It is only in this sense that the Buddha could be said to have believed in rebirth.

44. Energy is never lost. That is what science affirms. Annihilation in the sense that after death nothing is left, would be contrary to science. For it would mean that energy is not constant in volume.

45. This is the only way by which the dilemma could be solved.

§3. Rebirth of Whom?

1. The most difficult question is Rebirth of Whom.

2. Does the same dead person take a new birth?

3. Did the Buddha believe in this thesis? The answer is, "Most improbable."

4. The answer depends upon the elements of existence of the dead man meeting together and forming a new body; then the possibility of the rebirth of the same sentient being is possible.

5. If a new body is formed after a mixture or the different elements of the different men who are dead, then there is rebirth but not the rebirth of the same sentient being.

6. This point has been well explained by sister Khema to King Pasenadi.

7. Once the Exalted One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta Grove, in Anathapindika's Ashram.

8. Now on that occasion the sister Khema, after going her rounds among the Kosalana, took up her quarters at Toranavatthu, between Shravasti and Saketa.

9. Now the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala was journeying from Saketa to Shravasti, and midway between Saketa and Shravasti he put up for one night at Toranavatthu.

10. The Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala called a certain man and said, "Come thou, good fellow! Find out some recluse or brahmin such that I can wait upon him today."

11. "Even so, your majesty," said that man in reply to the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala, and after wandering through all Toranavatthu he saw not any one, either recluse or brahmin, on whom the Rajah Pasenadi might wait.

12. Then that man saw the sister Khema, who had come to reside at Toranavatthu. And on seeing her he went back to the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala, and said:

13. "Your Majesty, there is no recluse or brahmin in Toranavatthu such that your majesty can wait upon him. But, your majesty, there is a sister named Khema, a woman-disciple of that Exalted One. Now of this lady a lovely rumour has gone abroad, that she is sage, accomplished, shrewd, widely learned, a brilliant talker, of goodly ready wit. Let your majesty wait upon her."

14. So the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala went to visit the sister Khema, and on coming to her saluted and sat down at one side. So seated, he said to her:

15. "How say you, lady? Does the Tathagata exist after death?"

16. "That also, maharajah is not revealed by the Exalted One."

17. "How then, lady? When asked 'Does the Tathagata exist after death?' you reply, 'That is not revealed by the Exalted One,' and when I ask...the other questions, you make the same reply. Pray, lady, what is the reason, what is the cause, why this thing is not revealed by the Exalted One?"

18. "Now in this matter, maharajah, I will question you. Do you reply as you think fit. Now how say you, maharajah. Have you some accountant, some ready reckoner, or calculator, able to count the sand in [the] Ganges, thus: There are so many hundred grains, or so many thousand grains, or so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand?"

19. "No, indeed, lady."

20. "Then have you some accountant, ready reckoner, or calculator able to reckon the water in the mighty ocean, thus: There are so many gallons of water, so many hundreds, so many thousands, so many hundreds of thousand gallons of water?"

21. "No, indeed, lady."

22. "How is that?"

23. "Mighty is the ocean, lady--deep, boundless, unfathomable."

24. "Even so, maharajah, if one should try to define the Tathagata by his bodily form, that bodily form of the Tathagata is abandoned, cut down at the root, made like a palm-tree stump, made some thing that is not, made of a nature not to spring up again in future time. Set free from reckoning as body, maharajah, is the Tathagata. He is deep, boundless unfathomable, just like the mighty ocean. To say, 'The Tathagata exists after death', does not apply. To say, 'The Tathagata exists not after death', does not apply. To say, 'The Tathagata both exists and exists not, neither exists nor not exists, after death', does not apply.

25. "If one should try to define the Tathagata by feeling--that feeling of the Tathagata is abandoned, cut down at the root...Yet free from reckoning as feeling is the Tathagata, maharajah, deep, boundless, unfathomable like the mighty ocean. To say, 'The Tathagata exists after death...exists not after death', does not apply.

26. "So also if one should try to define the Tathagata by perception, by the activities, by consciousness...set free from reckoning by consciousness is the Tathagata, deep, boundless, unfathomable as the mighty ocean. To say, 'The Tathagata exists after death...exists not after death', does not apply."

27. Then the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala was delighted with the words of the sister Khema, and took pleasure therein. And he rose from his seat, saluted her by the right, and went away.

28. Now on another occasion the Rajah went to visit the Exalted One, and on coming to him saluted him and sat down at one side. So seated, he said to the Exalted One:

29. "Pray, Lord, does the Tathagata exist after death?"

30. "Not revealed by me, maharajah, is this matter."

31. "Then Lord, the Tathagata does not exist after death."

32. "That also, maharajah, is not revealed by me."

33. He then asks the other questions and gets the same reply.

34. "How then, Lord? When I ask the question, 'Does the Tathagata exist?...does he not exist after death?' you reply, 'It is not revealed by me'. Pray, Lord, what is the reason, what is the cause, why this thing is not revealed by the Exalted One?"

35. "Now, maharajah, I will question you. Do you reply as you think fit. Now what say you, maharajah--have you some accountant...(the rest is exactly as before).'

36. "Wonderful, Lord! Strange it is, Lord, how the explanation both of Master and disciple, both in spirit and in letter, will agree, will harmonise, will not be inconsistent, that is, in any word about the highest.

37. "On a certain occasion. Lord, I went to visit the sister Khema, and asked her the meaning of this matter, and she gave me the meaning in the very words, in the very syllables used by the Exalted One. Wonderful, Lord! Strange it is, Lord, how the explanation both of Master and disciple will agree, will harmonise, in spirit and in letter, how they will not be inconsistent,--that is, in any word about the highest.

38. "Well, Lord, now we must be going. We are busy folk. We have many things to do."

39. "Do now what you think it is time for, maharajah."

40. Thereupon the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala was delighted with the words of the Exalted One, and welcomed them. And he rose from his seat, saluted the Exalted One by the right, and went away.

SECTION TWO--KARMA

§ 1. Is the Buddhist Doctrine of Karma the same as the Brahminic Doctrine?

1. There is no doctrine in the Buddha's Dhamma which has created so much confusion as this doctrine of Karma.

2. What is its place in the Buddha's Dhamma, and what is its significance which has already been told?

3. Ignorant Hindus, out of sheer want of understanding, say by comparing merely the similarity of words, that Buddhism is the same as Brahmanism or Hinduism.

4. The educated and orthodox section of the Brahmins also do the same. They do so deliberately, to mislead the ignorant masses.

5. The educated Brahmins know full well that the Buddhist Law of Karma is quite different from the Brahminic Law of Karma. Yet they keep on saying that Buddhism is the same as Brahmanism and Hinduism.

6. The similarity in terminology gives them an easy handle for their false and malicious propaganda.

7. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the position closely.

8. The Buddha's Law of Karma, however much may be similarity of words cannot be the same in its connotation as the Brahminic Law of Karma.

9. The premises of the two are so widely different, indeed so widely opposed that the result of the two cannot be the same. They must be different.

10. The principles of the Hindu Law of Karma may be stated seriatim [=systematically] for convenience.

11. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the soul. The Buddhist is not. In fact, there is no soul in Buddhism.

12. The Brahminic Law of Karma is hereditary.

13. It goes on from life to life. This is so because of the transmigration of the soul.

14. This cannot be true of the Buddhist Law of Karma. This is also because there is no soul.

15. The Hindu Law of Karma is based on the existence of a soul which is distinct from the body. When the body dies, the soul does not die. The soul flies away.

16. This is not true of the Buddhist Law of Karma.

17. According to the Hindu Law of Karma, what happens when a man does a karma is this: his act produces two-fold results. It affects the doer; and secondly it produces an impress upon his soul.

18. Each act he does produces an impress upon his soul.

19. When a man dies and when his soul escapes, the soul is full of such impressions.

20. It is these impressions which determine his birth and status in his future life.

21. This Hindu theory is inconsistent with the Buddhist theory of no-soul.

22. For these reasons, the Buddhist doctrine of Karma cannot be, and is not, the same as the Hindu doctrine of Karma.

23. It is therefore simply foolish to talk about the Buddhist doctrine of Karma being the same as the Brahminic doctrine of Karma.

24. All that one can say is, beware of this jugglery.