The Sword of Song

102 1903 SCIENCE AND BUDDHISM (Inscribed to the revered Memory of Thomas Henry Huxley.) I. THE purpose of this essay is to draw a strict comparison between the modern scien- tific conceptions of Phenomena and their explanation, where such exis ts, and the ancient ideas of the Buddhists; to show that Buddhism, alike in theory and practice, is a scientific religion; a logical superstructure on a basis of experimentally verifiable truth ; and that its method is identical with that of science. W e m ust resolutely exclude the accidental features of both, es pecially of Buddhism; and unfortunately in both cases we have to deal with dishonest and shame- less attempts to foist on either opinions for which neither is willing to stand sponser. Professer Huxley has dealt with one in his “Pseudo-Scientific Realism”; Professer Rhys Davids has demolished the other in that one biting comment on “Esoteric Buddhism” that it was “not Esoteric and certainly not Buddhism.” But some of the Theosophic mud still sticks to the Buddhist chariot; and there are still people who believe that sane science has at leas t a friendly greeting for Atheism and Materialism in their grosser and more militant forms. Let it be understood then, from the o utset, that if in Science I include metaphysics, and in Buddhism meditation-practices, I lend myself neither to the whittlers or “ recon- cilers” on the one hand, nor to the A nimistic jugglers on the other. Apart from the Theosophic rubbish, we find Sir Edwin Arnold writing: “Whoever saith Nirvana is to cease, Say unto such they lie.” Lie is a strong word and should read “translate correctly.”1 I suppose it would not scan, nor rhyme: but Sir Edwin is the last person to be deterred by a little thing like that. Dr. Paul Carus, too, in the “Gospel of Buddha,” is pleased to represent Nirvana as a parallel for the Heaven of the Christian. It is sufficient if I reiterate the unanim ous opinion of com petent scholars, that there is no fragment of evidence in any canonical book sufficient to establish such interpretations in the teeth of Buddhist tradition and practice ; a nd t hat a ny p erson who persists in tuning Buddhism to his own Jew’s harp in this w ay is risking his reputation, e ither f or scholar-ship or good faith. Scientific men are common enough in the West, if Buddhists are not; and I may safely leave in their h ands the task of castigating the sneak-thieves o f t he P hysical area. II. The essential features of Bhuddism have been summed up by the Buddha himself. To me, of course, what the Buddha said or did not say is im material; a thing is true or not true, whoever said it. We believe Mr. Savage Landor when he affirms that Lhassa is an im portant town in Tibet. Where only probabilities are concerned we are of cours e influenced by the moral char- acter and mental attainments of the s peaker, 1 See Childers, Pali Dictionary, s.v. Nibbana.