« PreviousContinue »
and Yão, who is said to have lived in the twenty-fourth century B.C. The author probably means to give the impression that Fû-hsî was the inventor of written characters.
The “Doctrine of the Tâo" is dated from the sixth century B. C., during the life of Confucius, though there was an earlier doctrine of the Tâo of which Hwang-tî is said to be the author. His rule is placed as beginning about 2697 B. C.
Buddhism came into China in the reign of the Emperor Ming (A. D. 58–75), though there has been a conjecture, of which this author says nothing, that an entrance was made some time in the third century B.C.
It is for the sake of Buddhism that the treatise is evidently written, and though the first two of the doctrines receive careful and painstaking attention, yet genuine enthusiasm appears only in his discussion of the third. His summary of the three and their relation to each other for practical religious living is interesting. He says:-
“The fundamental idea with the Literati is correctness of morality; with the Taoists veneration or giving honour to their Tâo; and with the Buddhists vastness. They agree in their love of life and dislike of putting to death, and so (the principle of) Benevolence is common to them; in their regard for others as themselves, and so (the sentiment of) Justice is common to them; in their repression of anger and opposition to lust, in their prohibition of excess and precautions against wrong, and so (the maintenance of) Self-Culture is common to them. They all, as if with the crash of thunder, penetrate the ears of the deaf, and, as with the brightness of the sun and moon, give light to the darkened understanding, and so a Transforming influence is common to them.
"It readily appears that there are only two paths of good and evil open to man, and it is the common aim of the three doctrines that all men should take the good path. One writer has said that Buddhism regulates the mind, Taoism the body, and the doctrine of the Literati, society. But the mind, the body, and society, require each of them to be regulated, and how can any one of the three doctrines be left uncultivated? Another writer has said, that the doctrine of the Literati cures the skin, Taoism the pulse, and Buddhism the marrow. But as the skin, the pulse, and the marrow, all require to be kept in healthy action, how can any one of the doctrines be allowed to fall into disuse?”
In his description of the doctrine of the Literati, which he shows has to do chiefly with the relationships of the social order, he says, it has to do simply with the bonds of society and the constant virtues, and the power and use of ceremonies, music, punishments, and government. With these dominant, a happy order prevails in heaven and in earth. There seem to be in this doctrine, two parts, namely, (1) that which analyzes human nature into its elements; and (2) that which distributes society into its constituent relationships. It does not appear in the exposition here given by Liû Mî, as Professor Legge thinks it should appear, that a most important element in the doctrine is the recognition of the fact, that man's existence, nature, and duties, are from a Supreme Being now called by the impersonal term Heaven, and now by the personal name of Supreme Ruler. Not only, says Professor Legge, was the doctrine of the Literati theistic, but even monotheistic, in character. Liû was probably not ignorant of the fact, though his interest in Buddhism made it easier for him to overlook it.
Of Taoism, he says that it makes “men pure and humble in the keeping of themselves, and lowly and retiring in the assertion of themselves. It washes away all practices of a heedless and disorderly character, and brings its professors back to the regions of quiet, silence, and non-action.” On Buddhism, he says that it makes “men put away what is vain, and seek after what is real; reject what is false, and turn to what is true; convert action which requires effort to that which is easy; to advance from what is profitable only to one's self to what is profitable to others. It is the dependence and resource of all living people, to which nothing can be added”; and he quotes the opinion of Lî Shih-Ch'ien, of the Sûi dynasty (589-618), that Buddhism may be compared to the sun, Tâoism to the moon, and the doctrine of the Literati to the five planets."
Commenting on the highest doctrine of each system, he says that the Literati achieve, as their best result, the regulation successively of the person, the clan or family, and finally the State. And by means of the State, all within the "four seas" are regulated, and the doctrine gains the widest acceptance. The Literati are scholars, he says, “complete and admirable,” of great service to rulers, and conferring great benefits on the people. They maintain the culture of society and produce the highest order and peace.
Taoism he sets forth as a kind of mysticism. It starts from the bod. ily person, but soon rises above the sky, and, mounting from forests and craggy peaks, soars in the boundless infinite to the golden gate of the great firmament. In its greatness it embraces the utmost limits of the sky, and in its minuteness it penetrates the atoms of the dust. Those who embrace the doctrine, study it with undistracted spirits, have union with the disembodied, living grandly in the region of absolute purity and few desires, accumulate meritorious performances and good deeds, and so de. liver themselves from the trammels of the body.
Of Buddhists he says, They will be pure and holy, they will be selfforgetful, they will be fearless, they will have contempt for riches or any possessions, their minds will be earnest and resolute, they will be virtuous, and free from error. And, after showing its superiority to the first two doctrines, he adds: “Students of the doctrine of the Literati die, and there is an end of them; they and their system are an affair of but a hundred years. Students of Taoism eagerly seek after long life; they and their life may endure for a thousand or a myriad years. Students of Buddhism wish to obliterate the distinction between life and death, and will consequently abide in a condition of tranquillity, passing through a multitude of kalpas innumerable and inexhaustible. The system of the Literati may be compared to a lamp which gives light fora single evening. When the bell sounds, or the clepsydra is exhausted, the oil is expended, and the lamp goes out. Tâoism may be compared to the lamps which the King Ajâtashatrû made to illuminate the relics of Buddha, but which would become extinguished after a hundred years. Buddhism may be compared to the illuminating power of the bright sun, shining constantly through myriads of years, disappearing in the West, but rising again in the East, with unceasing revolution."
The latter, he goes on to show most elaborately, penetrates every part of the world, and its essences, and is the final and enduring quality of all things. It is an interesting estimate by a Chinese scholar, who, with all his extravagances, is quite worthy of his own modest designation of himself as “Liû Mî, the Distinguished Scholar of the Quiet Study."
ON THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF RELIGION. “ Unter der Hülle aller Religionen liegt die Religion selbst." Nothing more profound or far-reaching, as affecting the method and scope of religious investigation, has ever been uttered than this impressive sentence. The exclusivism which, until within very recent times, obscured or misrepresented the religious tendencies of other nations than those which professed Christianity, seems to be in a fair way to break away, and we are coming into the sunlight, where the object is truth first, and particular dogma afterward.
But the pioneers in this investigation were men in whom the religious faculties had been more or less dulled, either by neglect or otherwise, and who brought to their task only the barren furnishing of cold intellectual theories, which, having no kinship with the theme, necessarily brought forth only a single phase of the truth which they were obligated to seek. A healthful spirit is beginning to prevail, which,when it is everywhere brought to bear on the questions at issue, cannot but produce a great deal of light.
At the Anthropological Congress, held during the World's Columbian Exposition at Chicago, there was read a very suggestive paper by Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania. Its title was “The Scope and Method of Historical Study of Religions.” It is interesting to find him suggesting a point which has appeared more than once, already, in these Notes, namely, the importance of applying the results of the new psychology to the historical study of religions. He says on this point:
“No less important than the utilization of researches made in this direction, are the bearings of the new psychology on the history of religions. The interdependence between psychical processes and physiological states, is the part of the subject which I have more particularly in mind. Complementary to the more general bearing of racial traits, we have in the study and interpretation of mental phenomena, a valuable aid to an understanding of special and individual religious temperaments. It is perhaps too early to apply the results of physiological psychology in their fullest extent, but one is quite safe in predicting that our view of the great religious teachers of mankind, more especially of the mystics, is certain of being both clarified and modified by a deeper penetration into the workings of the mind peculiar to them.”
Dr. Jastrow has here sounded a note of vast importance, and which, as he intimates, is bound to make a great difference in many of the received views about holy things and holy places, and in the regard which primitive man had for certain objects of worship. We shall find it not unlikely, that the rationale of the worship of sacred trees and stones, of caves and jinns, may have a very different foundation than that which is now commonly supposed. In the discussion of totemism, this view is sure to make a vast change of view. Of course the application can be neither complete nor thorough, until the phenomena of the primitive religious mind have been as carefully and thoughtfully gathered and classified, as those of primitive religious practice and worship have been. The emphasis upon the history has had as one of its injurious effects, as Dr. Jastrow indicates, but does not state, that the personal element has been almost entirely ignored. On the spirit of such study, he has also some very good words. He says:
"It is idle to disguise the fact, that in many even scientific circles, there prevails a certain fear upon entering what appears to be a thorny field; in other quarters there is a vague notion, that in some way the investigation of religions is bound to create havoc within the domain of religious faith. I venture to controvert both allegations involved. The scholar who permits himself, in his researches, to be swayed by any other motive or consideration than the pursuit of truth, is a traitor to his cause, and yet I see no reason why the scholar in dealing with matters that constitute the most sacred possessions of mankind, should not be reverent in his manner of treatment. He should remember that the ground on which he treads is holy--if not to him, then what is more important, to others. This is the one concession that may be legitimately demanded of him, or rather a proper regard for the feelings of others should be so natural to him as to remove the consciousness of making any concession."
It is the lack of this very spirit, for which the essayist so thoughtfully pleads, that has been productive of the greatest difficulties in the way of securing the wide acceptance of the best established results of modern scholarship, both in Oriental study and comparative religious research. It is in this one characteristic, that the English Semitic scholars so far excel their Continental brethren, that, though they are the inferiors of the latter often, in their breadth of view and the philosophical insight into the problems handled, yet they reach the popular mind and sway the popular thought. To some scientific men this is not a great achieve. ment, and radicals who imagine that they are accomplishing nothing if they are not slashing into the sensibilities of non-experts, will probably continue to accuse moderates of truckling to prejudices. But it will still remain true that the reverent scholar who has proper regard for the momentous character of the effects which his investigations will produce, will, all things considered, more surely and more wisely lead his generation out into the larger light of scientific views and rational interpretation.
Perhaps it is too early to expect a department of Psychological Anthropology, a division of the subject which shall have for its Aufgabe the gathering of the materials for the study of the mental life of primitive man. But here we shall find the missing link in our present theory of primitive religions. It is one of the most suggestive facts, that this demand comes from so many different sources simultaneously. Dr. Emmanuel Bonavia, who has just published a book on the “Flora of the Assyrian Monuments,” also calls for a re-examination of mythology from the psychological view. But that we should have supposed, or that we should have been asked to believe, that the primitive worshippers, without reason or rationale, built up a vast mass of symbolic ritual and religious practice, without a single thought in their minds as to the results they sought, or without any primary convictions as to themselves, -their deities, or the world in which they lived, will, in the light of such study as is here suggested, be very amusing. Perhaps we shall even find that the making of cosmogonies, which until now we have imagined to be a very late manifestation of the religious activity of earlier peoples, began at a much earlier period. At all events, in this as in other branches of the historical study, we shall endeavor to get all the facts, and follow, as Dr. Jastrow observes, the leading of the facts, without Tendenz indeed, but with a surer and more sound instinct for the truth. And we may be sure that no true interest of either religion or faith will sensibly suffer.
A. A. BERLE. BOSTON, Mass.