The Tibetan Book of the Dead — ed. W. Y. Evans-Wentz

Thescmi-reformed Kargyutpa Sect, too, antedates the Gelugpa, having been founded in the last half of the eleventh

3069 Hhp. 234 course, merely hypothetical, seeing how little is at present known of the interdependent influences of Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Oriental religions and Christianity—it is Christianity which probably has been shaped, not only in its pre-Christian symbolology and in its rituals, but in its beliefs, by the Faiths preceding it, and out of which it evolved. For example, Christian monasticism, as best studied in the first centuries of the Christian era in Egypt, with its yoga-like practices, has had, apparently, direct relationship with the more ancient monastic systems such as those of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism. The two great doctrines of Christianity, namely, those of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, are not, as formerly believed, unique; not only did both develop in pre- Christian times in India, but were principal doctrines in the Osirian Faith of Egypt at least six thousand years ago, The primitive Christian Gnostic Church, as the exponent of an esoteric Christianity, was also in general accord with the old Oriental teachings touching Rebirth and A arma, which the later or exotcric Christian Church eventually repudiated, the Second Council of Constantinople, in A.D. 553, decreeing that ‘Whosoever shall support the mythical doctrine of the preexistence of the soul and the consequent wonderful opinion of its return, let him be anathema’. The Sermon on the Mount century by Marpa (sce p. 1357), whose chief gv was the Indian Pandit Atisha (cf. Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 54-75).

The Sermon on the Mount

century by Marpa (sce p. 1357), whose chief gv was the Indian Pandit Atisha (cf. Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 54-75).

1 Origen, the pupil of St. Clement of Alexandria, and the best-informed and most learned of the Church Fathers, who held the doctrine of rebirth and karma to be Christian, and against whom, two hundred and ninety-nine years after he was dead, excommunication was decreed by the exoteric Church, on account of his beliefs, has said; ‘But that there should be certain doctrines not made known to the multitude, which are [revealed] after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric’ (Ovigen Contra Celsum, Book I, c. vii). That Origen was a sound Christian in this view—despite his condemnation as a ‘heretic’ by the corrupt Second Council of Constantinople, held by the exoteric Church—is clear from sayings attributed to the Founder of Christianity Himself: ‘Unto you [the chosen disciples] it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God; but unto them that are without [i.e. the multitude] all these things are done in parable: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand’ (Mark, iv. 11-12); cf. St. Paul in x Corinthians, ii. 7; iii. 1-2; and Pistis Sophia, i. 9, 12, 15, and passim, translation by G. R. S. Mead (London, 1896).

p. 235

itself, as a study of the pre-Christian Pali Canon indicates, might very well be regarded, as many Buddhist scholars do regard it, as a Christian restating of doctrines which the Buddha, too, formulated as an inheritance from prehistoric Buddhas! It is chiefly the doctrines of the modern Christian Churches that pride themselves in having no esoteric teachings, and not those of primitive, or Gnostic, Christianity,that did propound an elaborate esotericism, which differ widely from the doctrines of Buddhism and other Oriental religions ; and among these doctrines the more outstanding are: (1) the doctrine of the one life on earth to be followed bya never-ending paradise or else an eternal hell; (2) of the forgiveness of sins through the blood sacrifice of a Saviour; and (3) of the uniqueness of the Divine Incarnation as exemplified in the Founder of Christianity.

For the student of the West, whose outlook has been more or less affected by this theology of Church-council Christianity, rather than by primitive, or Gnostic, Christianity, there is need to realize exactly how Buddhism differs in fundamentals from modern Christianity.

For the student of the West, whose outlook has been more or less affected by this theology of Church-council Christianity, rather than by primitive, or Gnostic, Christianity, there is need to realize exactly how Buddhism differs in fundamentals from modern Christianity.

Thus, unlike modern, or Church-council, Christianity which teaches dependence upon an outside power or Saviour, Buddhism teaches dependence on self-exertion alone if one is to gain salvation. In practice, and to a limited degree in theory, this fundamental doctrine of self-dependence is modified in Lamaism—as illustrated in the Bardo Tkidol— and direct appeal is made by the devotee to the Dhyani Buddhas and tutelary deities, very much as to Jesus and saints and angels by Christians. Similarly, Northern Buddhism and Church-council Christianity, unlike, Southern Buddhism, have their masscs and their eucharistical ceremonies.

Secondly, as pointed out above, Church-council Christianity condemns the doctrines of Rebirth and K arma(which primitive, or Gnostic, Christianity upheld), and Buddhism champions them.

Thirdly, the two Faiths hold divergent views concerning

1 Ct. A. J. Edmunds, Buddhist Texts in John (Philadelphia, ro11z); also
Buddhist and Christian Gospels (Philadelphia, 1908).

p. 236

the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Deity. ‘The Fatherhood of God’ as a personal and anthropomorphic deity is the corner-stone of Christian Theology, but in Buddhism— although the Buddha neither denied nor affirmed the existence of a Supreme Deity—it has no place, because, as the Buddha maintained, neither believing nor not believing in a Supreme God, but self-exertion in right-doing, is essential to comprehending the true nature of life.

The Buddha ‘argued not that Ishvara was cause, nor did He advocate some cause heretical, nor yet again did He affirm there was no cause for the beginning of the world’. He argued: ‘If the world was made by Ishvara deva,... there should be no such thing as sorrow or calamity, nor doing wrong nor doing right; for all, both pure and impure deeds, these must come from Ishvara deva.... Again, if Ishvara be the maker, all living things should silently submit, patient beneath the maker’s powcr, and then what use to practisc virtue? *Twere equal, then, the doing right or wrong,... Thus, you see, the thought of Ishvara is overthrown in this discussion (shéstra).’ 1