Crowley - Science and Buddhism

84

I.

THE purpose of this essay is to draw a strictcomparison between the modern scien-tific conceptions of Phenomena and theirexplanation, where such exists, and theancient ideas of the Buddhists; to show thatBuddhism, alike in theory and practice, is ascientific religion; a logical superstructure ona basis of experimentally verifiable truth ;and that its method is identical with that ofscience. We must resolutely exclude theaccidental features of both, especially ofBuddhism; and unfortunately in both caseswe have to deal with dishonest and shame-less attempts to foist on either opinions forwhich neither is willing to stand sponser.Professer Huxley has dealt with one in his“Pseudo-Scientific Realism”; ProfesserRhys Davids has demolished the other in thatone biting comment on “Esoteric Buddhism”that it was “not Esoteric and certainly notBuddhism.” But some of the Theosophicmud still sticks to the Buddhist chariot; andthere are still people who believe that sanescience has at least a friendly greeting forAtheism and Materialism in their grosserand more militant forms.

Let it be understood then, from the outset,that if in Science I include metaphysics, andin Buddhism meditation-practices, I lendmyself neither to the whittlers or “recon-cilers” on the one hand, nor to the Animisticjugglers on the other. Apart from theTheosophic rubbish, we find Sir EdwinArnold 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 bedeterred by a little thing like that.

Dr. Paul Carus, too, in the “Gospel ofBuddha,” is pleased to represent Nirvana asa parallel for the Heaven of the Christian.It is sufficient if I reiterate the unanimousopinion of competent scholars, that there isno fragment of evidence in any canonical booksufficient to establish such interpretationsin the teeth of Buddhist tradition and practice ;and that any person who persists in tuningBuddhism to his own Jew’s harp in this wayis risking his reputation, either for scholar-ship or good faith. Scientific men arecommon enough in the West, if Buddhistsare not; and I may safely leave in theirhands the task of castigating the sneak-thievesof the Physical area.

II.

The essential features of Bhuddism havebeen summed up by the Buddha himself.To me, of course, what the Buddha saidor did not say is immaterial; a thing istrue or not true, whoever said it. Webelieve Mr. Savage Landor when he affirmsthat Lhassa is an important town in Tibet.Where only probabilities are concerned weare of course influenced by the moral char-

1 See Childers, Pali Dictionary, s.v. Nibbana.

1903

SCIENCE AND BUDDHISM

(Inscribed to the revered Memory of Thomas Henrey Huxley.)


85

acter and mental attainments of the speaker,but here I have nothing to do with what isuncertain.1

There is an excellent test for the value ofany passage in a Buddhist book. We are, Ithink, justified in discarding passageswhich are clearly Oriental fiction, just asmodern criticism, however secretly Theistic,discards the Story of Hasisadra or of Noah.In justice to Buddhism, let us not chargeits Scripture with the Sisyphean task ofseriously upholding the literal interpreta-tion of obviously fantastic passages.2 Mayour Buddhist zealots be warned by the fateof old-fashioned English orthodoxy! Butwhen Buddhism condescends to be vulgarlyscientific; to observe, to classify, to think ;I conceive we may take the matter seriously,and accord a reasonable investigation to itsassertions. Examples of such succinctnessand clarity may be found in The FourNoble Truths ; The Three Characteristics ;The Ten Fetters; and there is clearly adefinite theory in the idea of Karma. Suchideas are basic, and are as a thread on which

1 See Huxley’s classical example of the horse,zebra and centaur.

2 Similarly, where Buddhist parables are of amystical nature, where a complicatedsymbolism of numbers (for example) isintended to shadow a truth, we must discardthem. My experience of mysticism is somewhatlarge; its final dictum is that the parable x maybe equated to a, b, c, d . . . z by six-and-twentydifferent persons, or by one person in six-and-twenty different moods. Even had we a strongtraditional explanation I should maintain myposition. The weapons of the Higher Criticism,supplements by comon Sense, are perfectlyvalid and inevitably destructive against anysuch structure. But I am surely in danger ofbecoming ridiculous in writing thus to thescientific world. What I really wish to show isthat one ned not look for all the Buddhist fancydishes to the peril of the scientific digestion.And by a backhanded stroke I wish to impressas deeply as possible upon my Buddhist friendsthat too much zeal for the accidentals of ourreligion will surely result in the overwhelmingof its essentials in the tide of justly scornful orjustly casuistic criticism.—A. C.

the beads of Arabian-Night-Entertainmentare strung.3

I propose therefore to deal with theseand some other minor points of theBuddhist metaphysis, and trace out theirscientific analogies, or, as I hope to show,more often identities.

First then let us examine that greatSummary of the Buddhist Faith, the FourNoble Truths.

III.

THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS.

(1) SORROW.—Existence is Sorrow. Thismeans that “no known form of Existence isseperable from Sorrow.” This truth isstated by Huxley, almost in so many words,in Evolution and Ethics. “It was no lessplain to some of these antique philosophersthan to the fathers of modern philosophythat suffering is the badge of all the tribeof sentient things; that it is no accidentalaccompaniment, but an essential constituentof the Cosmic Process.” And in the sameessay, though he is disposed to deny morethan the rudiments of consciousness to thelower forms of life, he is quite clear thatpain varies directly (to put it loosely) withthe degree of consciousness. Cf. also“Animal Automatism,” pp. 236-237.

(2) SORROW’S CAUSE.—The cause ofsorrow is desire. I take desire here toinclude such a phenomenon as the tendencyof two molecules of hydrogen and chlorineto combine under certain conditions. Ifdeath be painful to me, it is presumably soto a molecule ; if we represent one opera-tion as pleasant, the converse is presumablypainful. Though I am not conscious of theindividual pain of the countless deaths in-volved in this my act of writin, it may bethere. And what I call “fatigue” may be theecho in my central consciousness of the

3 See Prof. Rhys Davids on the “Jataka.”


86

shriek of a peripheral anguish. Here weleave the domain of fact; but at least as farour knowledge extends, all or nearly all theoperations of Nature are vanity and vexationof spirit. Consider food, the desire for whichperiodically arises in all conscious beings.1

The existence of these desires, or rathernecessities, which I realise to be mine, isunpleasant. It is this desire inherent in mefor continued consciousness that is responsiblefor it all, and this leads us to the Third NobleTruth.

(3) SORROW’S CEASING.—The cessationof desire is the cessation of sorrow. This isa simple logical inference form the secondTruth, and needs no comment.

(4) THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH.—Thereis a way, to be considered later, of realisingthe Third Truth. But we must, before wecan perceive its possibility on the one hand,or its necessity on the other, form a clearidea of what are the Buddhist tenets withregard to the Cosmos; and, in particular, toman.2

IV.

THE THREE CHARACTERISTICS.

The Three Characteristics (which wemay predicate of all known existing things:

(a) Change. Anikka.(b) Sorrow. Dukkha.(c) Absence of an Ego. Anatta.

1 Change is the great enemy, the immediate

cause of pain. Unable to arrest it, I slow theprocess, and render it temporarily painless, byeating. This is a concession to weakness, nodoubt, in one sense. Do I eat really in order tocheck change, or to maintain myconsciousness? Change I desire, for my presentcondition is sorrow. I really desire theimpossible; completely to retain my presentegoity with all its conditions reversed.—A. C.

2 For an able and luminous exposition of“The Four Noble Truths” I refer the reader tothe pamphlet bearing that title by by old friendBikkhu Ananda Maitriya, published by theBuddhasasana Samagama, 1 Pagoda Road,Rangoon.—A. C.

This is the Buddhist assertion. Whatdoes Science say?

(a) Huxley, “Evolution and Ethics”:“As no man fording a swift stream can dip

his foot twice into the same water, so no mancan, with exactness, affirm of anything inthe sensible world that it is. As he utters thewords, nay, as he thinks them, the predicateceases to be applicable; the present hasbecome the past; the ‘is’ should be ‘was.’And the more we learn of the nature of thingsthe more evident is it that what we call restis only unperceived activity ; that seemingpeace is silent but strenuous battle. In everypart, at every moment, the state of the cosmosis the expression of a transitory adjustmentof contending forces, a scene of strife, inwhich all the combatants fall in turn. Whatis true of each part is true of the whole.Natural knowledge tends more and more tothe conclusion that “all the choir of heavenand furniture of the earth” are the transitoryforms of parcels of cosmic substance wendingalong the road of evolution, from nebulouspotentiality, through endless growths of sunand planet and satellite, through all varietiesof matter; through infinite diversities of lifeand thought, possibly, through modes of beingof which we neither have a conception, norare competent to form any, back to theindefinable latency from which they arose.Thus the most obvious attribute of the cosmosis its impermenance. It assumes the aspectnot so much of a permanent entity as of achangeful process, in which naught enduressave the flow of energy and the rationalorder which pervades it.”

This is an admirable summary of theBuddhist doctrine.

(b) See above on the First Noble Truth.(c) This is the grand position which Buddha

carried against the Hindu philosophers. Inour own country it is the argument of Hume,following Berkeley to a place where Berkeleycertainly never meant to go—a curiousparallel fulfilment of Christ’s curse againstPeter (John xxi.). The Bishop demolishesthe idea of a substratum of matter, and


87

Hume follows by applying an identicalprocess of reasoning to the phenomena ofmind.1

Let us consider the Hindu theory. Theyclassify the phenomena (whether well or illmatters nothing), but represent them all aspictured in, but not affecting, a certainchangeless, omniscient, blissful existencecalled Atman. Holding to Theism, theexistence of evil forces them to the Fichteanposition that “the Ego posits the Non-Ego,”and we learn that nothing really exists afterall but Brahm. They then distinguishbetween Jivatma, the soul-conditioned, andParamatma, the soul free; the former beingthe basis of our normal consciousness; thelatter of the Nirvikalpa-Samadhi conscious-

1 The Buddhist position may be interpreted

as agnostic in this matter, these argumentsbeing directed against, and destructive of, theunwarranted assumptions of the Hindus; but nomore. See Sabbasava Sutta, 10.

“In him, thus unwisely considering, theresprings up one or other of the six (absurd)notions.

“As something real and true he gets thenotion, ‘I have a self.’

“As something real and true he gets thenotion, ‘I have not a self.’

“As something real and true he gets thenotion, ‘By my self, I am conscious of my self.’

“As something real and true he gets thenotion, ‘By my self, I am conscious of my non-self.’

“Or again, he gets the notion, ‘This soul ofmine can be perceived, it has experienced theresult of good or evil actions committed hereand there; now this soul of mine is permanent,lasting, eternal, has the inherent quality of neverchanging, and will contiue for ever and ever!’

“This, brethren, is called the walking in de-lusion, the jungle of delusion, the wilderness ofdelusion, the puppet-show of delusion, thewrithing of delusion, the fetter of delusion.”

There are, it may be noted, only five (notsix) notions mentioned, unless we take the lastas double. Or we may consider the sixth as thecontrary of the fifth, and correct. The wholepassage is highly technical, perhapsuntrustworthy; in any case, this is not the placeto discuss it. The sun of Agnosticism breakingthrough the cloud of Anatta is the phenomenonto which I wished to call attention.—A. C.

ness; this being the sole condition on whichmorals, religion, and fees to priests cancontinue. For the Deist has only to advancehis fundamental idea to be forced round in avicious circle of absurdities.1

The Buddhist makes a clean sweep of allthis sort of nonsense. He analyses the phe-nomena of mind, adopting Berkeley’s para-dox that “matter is immaterial,” in a saneand orderly way. The “common-sense Phi-losopher,” whom I leave to chew the bitterleaves of Professer Huxley’s Essay “OnSensation and the Unity of the Structure ofSensiferous Organs,” observes, on lifting hisarm, “I lift my arm.” The Buddhist ex-amines this proposition closely, and begins:

“There is a lifting of an arm.”By this terminology he avoids Teutonic

discussions concerning the Ego and Non-ego.2 But how does he know this proposi-tion to be true? By sensation. The fact istherefore:

“There is a sensation of the lifting of anarm.”

But how does he know that? By percep-tion. Therefore he says:

“There is a perception of a sensation, &c.”And why this perception? From the in-

herent tendency.(Note carefully the determinist standpoint

involved in the enunciation of his FourthSkandha; and that it comes lower thanViññanam.)

“There is a tendency to perceive thesensation, &c.”

And how does he know that there is atendency ? By consciousness. The final analysisreads:

“There is a consciousness of a tendencyto perceive the sensation of a lifting of anarm.”

He does not, for he cannot, go furtherback. He will not suppose, on no sort ofevidence, the substratum of Atman uniting

1 As Bishop Butler so conclusively showed.2 I may incidentally remark that a very few

hours’ practice (see Section VIII.) cause “I liftmy arm” to be intuitively denied.—A. C.


88

consciousness to consciousness by its eternity,while it fixes a great gulf between them byits changelessness. He states the knowable,states it accurately, and leaves it there. Butthere is a practical application of this analysiswhich I will treat of later. (See VIII. Maha-satipatthana.)

We are told that the memory is a proof ofsome real “I.” But how treacherous is thisground! Did a past event in my life nothappen because I have forgotten it? O theanalogy of the river water given above ismost valid! I who write this am not I whoread it over and correct it. Do I desire toplay with lead soldiers? Am I the dodderingold cripple who must be wheeled about andfed on whisky and bread and milk? And ismy difference from them so conspicuouslyless than from the body lying dead of whichthose who see it will say. “This was AleisterCrowley”?

What rubbish it is to suppose that aneternal substance, sentient or not, omniscientor not, depends for its information on soabsurd a series of bodies as are groupsunder that “Crowley”!

Yet the Buddhist meets all arguments ofthe spiritual order with a simple statementwhich, if not certain, is at least not improb-able. There is, he will tell you, a “spiritual”world, or to avoid any (most unjustifiable)misunderstandings, let us say a world ofsubtler matter than the visible and tangible,which has its own laws (analogous to, if notidentical with, those laws of matter withwhich we are acquainted) and whose inhabi-tants change, and die, and are re-born verymuch as ordinary mortal beings. But asthey are of subtler matter, the cycle is lessrapid.1

As a nominalist, I hope not to bemisunderstood when I compare this to therelative mutability of the individual and thespecies.2 We have enough examples free

1 Cf. Huxley, cited supra, “possibly, through

modes of being of which we neither have aconception, nor are competent to form any. . . .”

2 Cf. “Evolution and Ethics,” note 1.

from such possibility of misinterpretation inour own bodies. Compare the longevity of abone with that of a corpuscle. But it is this“Substratum” universe, which must not beconfounded with the substratum, the argu-ments for whose existence Berkeley so utterlyshattered,1 which may conserve memory fora period greatly exceeding that of one ofits particular avatars. Hence the “Jataka.”But the doctrine is not very essential; itschief value is to show what serious difficultiesconfront us, and to supply a reason tostruggle to some better state. For if nothing

1 Without an elaborate analysis of the ideas

involved in the Ding an sich of Kant, and ofH. Spencer’s definition of all things as Modesof the Unknowable, I may point out in passingthat all these hypotheses are as sterile as the“vital principle” in biology, or “phlogiston” inchemistry. They lead literally nowhere. Thatthe phenomenal world is an illusion is all verywell; one girds up one’s loins to seek reality:but to prove reality unknowable is to shut allavenues to the truth-loving man, and open all tothe sensualist. And, if we accept either of theabove philosophies, it does not matter. That wefeel it does matter is sufficient refutation, for wemust obey the sentence awarded on our owntestimony, whether we like it or not.

I am aware that this is a somewhat cowardlyway of dealing with the question; I prefer toinsist that if we once admit that the unknowable(by reason) to consciousness may be known (byconcentration) to super-consciousness, thedifficulty vanishes.

I think Huxley goes too far in speaking of aman “self-hypnotised into cataleptic trances”without medical evidence of a large numberof cases. Edward Carpenter, who has metYogis, and talked long and learnedly withthem, tells a different story.

Even had we a large body of evidence fromAnglo-Indian medical men, the proof wouldstill be lacking. They might not be the realmen. The Indian native would take intensedelight in bringing round the village idiot to beinspected in the character of a holy man by the“Doctor Sahib.”

The Anglo-Indian is a fool; a minimummedical education is in most cases insufficientto abate the symptoms to nil, though perhapsit must always diminish them. The Hindu isthe Sphinx of civilisation; nearly all that hasbeen written on him is worthless; those whoknow him best know this fact best.—A. C.


89

survives death, what does it matter to us?Why are we to be so altruistic as to avoidthe reincarnation of a being in all pointsdifferent from ourselves? As the small boysaid, “What has posterity done for me?”But somethin does persist; somethingchanging, though less slowly. What evi-dence have we after all that an animal doesnot remember his man-incarnation? Or, asLevi says, “In the suns they remember,and in the planets they forget.” I think itunlikely (may be), but in the total absence ofall evidence for or against—at least withregard to the latter hypothesis !—I suspendmy judgement, leave the question alone, andproceed to more practical points that areoffered by these interesting but not over-useful metaphysical speculations.

V.

KARMA.

The Law of Causation is formally identicalwith this. Karma means “that which ismade,” and I think it should be consideredwith strict etymological accuracy. If I placea stone on the roof of a house, it is sure tofall sooner or later; i.e., as soon as the con-ditions permit. Also, in its ultimation, thedoctrine of Karma is identical with deter-minism. On this subject much wisdom, withan infinite amount of rubbish, has beenwritten. I therefore dismiss it in these fewwords, confident that the established identitycan never be shaken.

VI.

THE TEN FETTERS OR SANYOGANAS. 1. Sakkaya-ditthi. Belief in a “soul.” 2. Vikikikkha. Doubt. 3. Silabbata-parâ- Reliance on the effi-

mâsa cacy of rites andand ceremonies.

4. Kama. Bodily Desires.

5. Patigha. Hatred. 6. Ruparaga. Desire for bodily

immortality. 7. Aruparaga. Desire for spiritual

immortality. 8. Mano. Pride. 9. Udhakka. Self-righteousness.10. Avigga. Ignorance.

(1) For this is a petitio principii.(2) This, to a scientist, is apparently

anathema. But it only means, I think, thatif we are not settled in our minds we cannotwork. And this is unquestionable. Supposea chemist to set to work to determine theboiling-point of a new organic substance.Does he stop in the midst, struck by thefear that his thermometer is inaccurate?No! he has, unless he is a fool, tested itpreviously. We must have our principiafixed before we can do research work.

(3) A scientist hardly requires convictionon this point!

(4) Do you think to combine Newton andCaligula? The passions, allowed todominate, interfere with the concentrationof the mind.

(5) Does brooding on your dislikes helpyou to accurate observation? I admit thata controversy may stir you up to performprodigies of work, but while you are actuallyworking you do not suffer the concentrationof your mind to be interfered with.

(6 & 7) This Fetter and the next are con-tingent on your having perceived the suffer-ing of all forms of conscious existence.

(8) Needs no comment. Pride, likehumility, is a form of delusion.

(9) Is like unto it, but on the moralplane.

(10) The great enemy. Theists alonehave found the infamous audacity to extolthe merits of this badge of servitude.

We see, then, that in this classificationa scientist will concur. We need not discussthe question whether or no he would findothers to add. Buddhism may not be com-plete, but, as far as it goes, it is accurate.


90

VII.

THE RELATIVE REALITY OF CERTAIN

STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Whether we adopt Herbert Spencer’sdictum that the primary testimony of con-sciousness is to the existence of externality,or no;1 whether or no we fly to the extremeidealistic position; there is no question that,to our normal consciousness, things as theypresent themselves—apart from obviousillusion, if even we dare to except this—areundisprovable to the immediate apprehen-sion. Whatever our reason may tell us, weact precisely as through Berkeley had neverlived, and the herculean Kant had beenstrangled while yet in his cradle by the twinserpents of his own perversity and termi-nology.

What criterion shall we apply to therelative realities of normal and dreamconsciousness? Why do I confidently assertthat the dream state is transitory and un-real?

In that state I am equally confident thatmy normal consciousness is invalid. Butas my dreams occupy a relatively smallportion of my time, and as the law of causa-tion seems suspended, and as their vividnessis less than that of ordinary consciousness,and above all, as in the great majority ofcases I can show a cause, dating from mywaking hours, for the dream, I have fourstrong reasons (the first explanatory to someextent of my reasons for accepting the others)for concluding that the dream is fictitious.

But what of the “dreamless” state? Tothe dreamer his normal faculties and memo-ries arise at times, and are regarded as frag-mentary and absurd, even as the remembranceof a dream is to the waking man. Can wenot conceive then of a “dreamless” life, of

1 Mahasatipatthana (Sec. VIII.) does admit

this perhaps. Yet its very object is to correctconsciousness on the lines indicated by reason.

which our dreams are the vague anddisturbed transition to normal consciousness?

The physiological evidence goes literallyfor nothing. Even were it proved that therecipio-motor apparatus of a “dreamless”sleeper was relatively quiescent, would thatsupply any valid argument against the theory Ihave suggested? Suggested, for I admitthat our present position is completely ag-nostic in respect to it, since we have noevidence which throws light on the matter;and study of the subject would appear to bemere waste of time.

But the suggestion is valuable as affordingus a possibly rational explanation, conform-able to the waking man, which the dreamerwould indignantly reject.

Suppose, however, a dream so vivid thatthe whole waking man is abased before itsmemory, that his consciousness of it appears athousand times more real than that of thethings about him; suppose that his wholelife is moulded to fit the new facts thus re-vealed to him; that he would cheerfully re-nounce years of normal life to obtain minutesof that dream-life; that his time sense isuprooted as never before, and that theseinfluences are permanent. Then, you willsay, delirium tremens (and the intoxicationof hashish, in respect more particularly ofthe time sense) afford us a parallel. But thephenomena of delirium tremens do notoccur in the healthy. As for the suggestionof auto-hypnosis, the memory of the “dream”is a sufficient reply. However this may be,the simple fact of the superior apparentreality—a conviction unshakable, inépuisable(for the English has no word), is a sufficienttest. And if we condescend to argue, it isfor pleasure, and aside from the vital fact; askirmish, and not a pitched battle.

This “dream” I have thus described isthe state called Dhyana by the Hindus andBuddhists. The method of attaining it issane, healthy, and scientific. I would nottake the pains to describe that method, hadnot illiterate, and too often mystical advo-cates of the practice obscured the simple


91

grandeur of our edifice by jimcrackpinnacles of stucco—as who should hangthe Taj Mahal with fairy lamps and chintz.

It is simple. The mind is compelled tofix its attention on a single thought; whilethe controlling power is exercised and aprofound watchfulness kept up lest thethought should for a moment stray.1 Thelatter portion is, to my mind, the essentialone. The work is comparable to that of anelectrician who should sit for hours with hisfinger on a delicately adjusted resistance-boxand his eye on the spot of light of agalvanometer, charged with the duty ofkeeping the spot still, at least that it shouldnever move beyond a certain number ofdegrees, and of recording the more impor-tant details of his experiment. Our work isidentical in design, though worked withsubtler—if less complex—means. For thefinger on the resistance-box we substitutethe Will ; and its control extends but to theMind ; for the eye we substitute theIntrospective Faculty with its keen observa-tion of the most minute disturbance, whilethe spot of light is the Consciousness itself,the central point of the galvanometer scalethe predetermined object, and the otherfigures on the scale, other objects, connectedwith the primary by order and degree,sometimes obviously, sometimes obscurely,perhaps even untraceably, so that we haveno real right to predicate their connection.2

1 Huxley, Essays, V., 136.2 This last sentence will be best understood

by those who have practised up to a certainpoint. At first it is easy to trace back be aconnected chain of thoughts from the thoughtwhich awakes us to the fact that we arewandering to the original thought. Later, andnotably as we improve, this becomes firstdifficult, then impossible. At first sight this factsuggests that we are injuring our brains by thepractice, but the explanation is as follows:Suppose we figure the central consciousness asthe Sun, intent on seeing that nothing falls intohim. First the near planets are carefullyarranged, so that no collision can occur;afterwards Jupiter and Saturn, until his wholesystem is safe. If then any body fall upon theSun, he knows that it is not from any of those

How any sane person can describe thisprocess as delusive and unhealthy passes mycomprehension; that any scientist should do soimplies an ignorance on his part of the facts.

I may add that the most rigid necessityexists for perfect health of body and mindbefore this practice can begin; asceticismis as sternly discouraged as indulgence.How would the electrician do his workafter a Guildhall Banquet? The strain ofwatching would be too much, and he wouldgo off to sleep. So with the meditatior.If, on the other hand, he had been withoutfood for twenty-four hours, he might—indeed,it has been done often—perform prodigiesof work for the necessary period; but areaction must follow of proportionateseverity. Nobody will pretend that the bestwork is done starving.3

Now to such an observer certain pheno-mena present themselves sooner or laterwhich have the qualities above predicatedof our imaginary “dream” preceded by atransition-state very like total loss ofconsciousness. Are these fatigue phenomena?Is it that this practice for some as yetunknown reason stimulates some specialnerve-centre ? Perhaps; the subject re-quires investigation; I am not a physio-logist. Whatever physiology may say, itis at least clear that if this state is accom-panied with an intense and passionles blissbeyond anything that the normal man canconceive of, and unaccompanied with theslightest prejudice to the mental and physicalhealth, it is most highly desirable. And tothe scientist is presents a magnificent fieldof research.

planets with which he is familiar, and, lord ofhis own system, cannot trace the course ordivine the causes of the accident which hasdisturbed him. And he will accept thisignorance as a proof of how well his ownsystem is going, since he no longer receivesshocks from it.—A. C.

3 Hallucination especially is to be feared.Light-headedness from want of food is quitesufficient explanation for many “Mysticratures.” I do not care to invoke hysteria andepilepsy without positive evidence.—A. C.


92

Of the metaphysical and religious theorieswhich have been built upon the facts herestated, I have nothing to say in this place.The facts are not at the disposition of all;from the nature of the subject each manmust be his own witness. I was oncetwitted by some shallow-pated person withthe fact that my position cannot be demon-strated in the laboratory, and that therefore(save the mark!) I must be a mystic, anoccultist, a theosophist, a mystery-monger,and what not. I am none of these. Theabove criticism applies to every psychologistthat ever wrote, and to the man who makesthe criticism by the fact of his making it.I can only say : “You have your ownlaboratory and apparatus, your mind; andif the room is dirty and the apparatus illput together, you have certainly not meto blame for it.”

The facts being of individual importance,then, there is little use if I detail the resultsof my own experience. And the reasonfor this reticence—for I plead guilty toreticence—that to explain would damagethe very apparatus whose use I am advoca-ting. For did I say that such and such apractice leads one to see a blue pig, thesuggestion is sufficient to cause one class ofpeople to see a blue pig where noneexisted, and another to deny or suspectthe blue pig when it really appeared, thoughthe latter alternative is unlikely. The con-scious phenomenon, and the bliss, is of sostupendous and well-defined a nature that Icannot imagine any preconceived idea power-ful enough to diminish it appreciably. But forthe sake of the former class I hold my tongue.1

I trust it is now perfectly clear, if mystatements are accepted—and I can only

1 On the advisibility of so doing I am opento conviction. The scientific mind, I mightargue, will not readily fall into that error ;and for the others, they will be useless as aresearch phalanx, and may as well see blue pigsand be happy as not. In the past, nodoubt, research has been choked by themultitude of pseudo-blue-pig-people, from the“T.S.” to the “G.D.” We must distinguish bymethods, not by results.—A. C.

most seriously assure you that honest labo-rious experiment will be found to verifythem in every particular—that whateverarguments are brought forward destructiveof the reality of Dhyana, apply with farmore force to the normal state, and it isevident that to deny the latter seriouslyis ipso facto to become unserious. Whetherthe normal testimony may be attacked fromabove, by insisting on the superior realityof Dhyana—and à fortiori of Samadhi,which I have not experienced, and conse-quently do not treat of, being content toaccept the highly probably statements ofthose who profess to know, and who haveso far not deceived me (i.e. as to Dhyana),is a question which it is not pertinent tothe present argument to discuss.1 I shall,however, suggest certain ideas in the follow-ing section, in which I propose to discussthe most famous of the Buddhist medita-tions (Mahasatipatthana, its method, object,and results.

VIII.

MAHASATIPATTHANA.

This meditation differs fundamentallyfrom the usual Hindu methods by the factthat the mind is not restrained to thecontemplation of a single object, and thereis no interference with the natural functionsof the body as there is, e.g., in Pranayama.It is essentially an observation-practice,which later assumes an analytic aspect inregard to the question, “What is it that isreally observed?”

The Ego-idea is resolutely excluded fromthe start, and so far Mr. Herbert Spencerwill have nothing to object (“Principles of

1 The gravest doubts assail me on further

examination of this point. I am now (1906)convinced that the experiences to which I referconstitute Samadhi. The accursed pedentry ofthe pundits has led to the introduction of athousand useless subtleties in philosophicalterminology, the despair alike of the translatorand the investigator, until he realises that it ispedantry, and as worthless as the rest oforiental literature in all matters of exactitude.


93

Psychology,” ii. 404). The breathing, motionsof walking, &c., are merely observed andrecording; for instance, one may sit downquietly and say: “There is an indrawingof the breath.” “There is an expiration,”&c. Or, walking, “There is a raising ofthe right foot,” and so on, just as it happens.The thought is of course not quick enough tonote all the movements or their subtle causes.For example, we cannot describe the compli-cated muscular contractions, &c. ; but thisis not necessary. Concentrate on some seriesof simple movements.

When this through habit becomes intuitiveso that the thought is really “There is araising,” as opposed to “I raise” (the latterbeing in reality a complex and adult idea, asphilosophers have often shown, ever sinceDescartes fell into the trap), one may beginto analyse, as explained above, and the secondstage is “There is a sensation (Vedana) of araising, &c.” Sensations are further classedas pleasant or unpleasant.

When this is the true intuitive instantaneoustestimony of consciousness (so that “Thereis a raising, &c.” is rejected as a palpablelie),1 we procede to Sañña, perception.

“There is a perception of a (pleasant orunpleasant) sensation of a raising, &c.”

When this has become intuitive—why !here’s a strange result ! The emotions ofpain and pleasure have vanished. They aresubincluded in the lesser skandha of Vedana,and Sañña is free from them. And to himwho can live in this third stage, and live sofor ever, there is no more pain; only anintense interest similar to that which hasenabled men of science to watch and notethe progress of their own death-agony. Un-

1 “Why should you expect Vedana to make

Rupa appear illusory?” asked a friend of mine,on reading through the MS. of this essay. Thereason of my omission to explain is that to me ithad seemed obvious. The fact had beenassimilated. To meditate on anything is toperceive its unreal nature. Notably this is so inconcentrating on parts of the body, such as thenose. On this phenomenon the Hindus havebased their famous aphorism, “That which canbe thought is not true.”—A. C.

fortunately the living in such a state isconditional on sound mental health, andterminable by disease or death at any moment.Were it not so, the First Noble Truth wouldbe a lie.

The two further stages Sankhara and Viñ-ñanam pursue the analysis to its ultimation,“There is a consciousness of a tendency toperceive the (pleasant or unpleasant) sensa-tion of a raising of a right foot” being thefinal form. And I suppose no psychologistof any standing will quarrel with this.1

Reasoning in fact leads us to this analysis;the Buddhist goes further only in so far as hemay be said to knock down the scaffoldingof reasoning processes, and to assimilate theactual truth of the matter.

It is the difference between the schoolboywho painfully construes “Balbus murum ædi-ficavit,” and the Roman who announces thathistoric fact without a thought of his grammer.

I have called this meditation the mostfamous of the Buddhist meditations, becauseit is stated by the Buddha himself that if onepractices it honestly and intelligently a resultis certain. And he says this of no other.

I have personally not found the time todevote myself seriously to this Mahasati-patthana, and the statements here made arethose derived from reason and not from ex-perience. But I can say that the unreality ofthe grosser (rupa) relative to the sublterVedana and still more subtle Sañña be-comes rapidly apparent, and I can onlyconclude that with time and trouble theprocess would continue.

What will occur when one reaches thefinal stage of Vññanam, and finds no Atmanbehind it ? Surely the Viññanam stage willsoon seem as unreal as the former have be-come. It is idle to speculate; but if I mayescape the imputation of explaining the ob-scure by the more obscure, I may hint thatsuch a person must be very near the statecalled Nirvana, whatever may be meant by

1 I deal with Mr. Spencer and “Transfigured

Realism” in a note at the end of this section.—A. C.


94

this term. And I am convinced in my ownmind that the Ananda (bliss) of Dhyana willsurely arise long before one has passed evenup to Sankhara.

And for the reality, ’twill be a brave jest,my masters, to fling back on the materialiststhat terrible gibe of Voltaire’s at the mystery-mongers of his day: “Ils nient ce qui est, etexpliquent ce qui n’est pas.”

NOTE TO SECTION VIII.Transfigured Realism.

I will not waste my own time and that ofmy readers by any lengthy discussion of Mr.Herbert Spencer’s “Transfigured Realism.”I will not point out in greater detail how heproposes, by a chain of reasoning, tooverthrow the conclusions he admits asbeing those of reason.

But his statement that Idealism is butverbally intelligible is for my purpose themost admirable thing he could have said.

He is wrong in saying that idealists arebewildered by their own terminology ;the fact is that idealist conclusions are pre-sented directly to consciousness, when thatconsciousness is Dhyanic. (Cf. Section XI.)

Nothing is clearer to my mind that thatthe great difficulty habitually experienced bythe normal mind in the assimilation of meta-physics is due to the actual lack of experi-ence in the mind of the reader of thephenomena discussed. I will go so far as tosay that perhaps Mr. Spencer himself is sobitter because he himself has actual ex-perience of “Transfigured Realism” as adirectly presented phenomenon; for if hesupposes that the normal healthy mind canperceive what he perceives, Berkeley’s argu-ments must seem to him mere wantonstupidity.

I class the Hindu philosophy with theIdealist; the Bhuddistic with that of Mr.Herbert Spencer; the great difference be-tween the two being that the Buddhists re-cognise clearly these (or similar) conclusionsas phenomena, Mr. Spencer, inconsistently

enough, only as truths verified by a higherand more correct reasoning than that of hisopponents.

We recognise, with Berkeley, that reasonteaches us that the testimony of conscious-ness is untrue; it is absurd, with Spencer,to refute reason ; instead we take means tobring consciousness to a sense of its impro-bity. Now our (empiric) diagnosis is that itis the dissipation of mind that is chiefly re-sponsible for its untruthfulness. We seek (alsoby empiric means, alas!) to control it, to con-centrate it, to observe more accurately—hasthis source of possible error been sufficientlyrecognised?—what its testimony really is.

Experience has taught me, so far as I havebeen able to go, that Reason and Conscious-ness have met together; Apprehension andAnalysis have kissed one another. The re-conciliation (in fact, remember, and not inwords) is at least so nearly perfect that I canconfidently predict that a further pursuit ofthe (empirically-indicated) path will surelylead to a still further and higher unity.

The realisation of the hopes held out bythe hypothesis is then of clear evidentialvalue in support of that hypothesis, empiricas it was, and is. But with the growth andgathering-together, classifying, criticism ofour facts, we are well on the way to erect asurer structure on a broader basis.

IX.

AGNOSTICISM.

It should be clearly understood, and wellremembered, that throughout all these medi-tations and ideas, there is no necessary wayto any orthodox ontology whatever. As tothe way of salvation, we are not to rely onthe Buddha; the vicious lie of vicariousatonement finds no place here. The Buddhahimself does not escape the law of causation ;if this be metaphysics, so far Buddhism ismetaphysical, but no further. While deny-ing obvious lies, it does not set up dogmas;all its statements are susceptible of proof—a child can assent to all the more important.


95

And this is Agnosticism. We have a scien-tific religion. How far would Newton havegot if he had stuck to Tycho Brahe as theOne Guide? How far the Buddha had hereverenced the Vedas with blind faith? Orhow far can we proceed even from partialtruth, unless a perfectly open mind be keptregarding it, aware that some new pheno-menon may possibly overthrow our most fun-damental hypotheses ! Give me a reasonableproof of some (intelligent) existence whichis not liable to sorrow, and I will throw theFirst Noble Truth to the dogs without apang. And, knowing this, how splendid isit to read the grand words uttered more thantwo thousand years ago: “Therefore, OAnanda, be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye arefuge to yourselves. Betake yourselves tono external refuge. Hold fast to the truthas lamp. Hold fast as a refugee to thetruth.. Look not for refuge to any one be-sides yourselves.” (Mahaparanibbana Sutta,ii. 33.) And to such seekers only does theBuddha promise “the very topmost Height”—if only they are “anxious to learn.” Thisis the corner-stone of Buddhism; can scien-tific men deny their assent to these wordswhen they look back on the history ofThought in the West; the torture of Bruno,the shame of Galileo, the obscurantism ofthe Schoolmen, the “mystery” of the hard-pressed priests, the weapons carnal andspiritual of stake and rack, the labyrinths oflying and vile intrigue by which Science, thechild, was deformed, distorted, stunted, inthe interest of the contrary proposition?

If you ask me why you should be Buddhistsand not indifferentists, as you are now, I tellyou that I come, however unworthy, to takeup the sword that Huxley wielded; I tellyou that the Oppressor of Science in hergirlhood is already at work to ravish hervirginity; that a moment’s hesitation, idle-ness, security may force us back from thepositions so hardly won. Are we never togo forward, moreover ? Are our childrenstill to be taught as facts the stupid andindecent fables of the Old Testament, fables

that the Archbishop of Canterbury himselfwould indignantly repudiate ? Are minds tobe warped early, the scientific method andimagination checked, the logical facultythwarted—thousands of workers lost eachyear to Science?

And the way to do this is not only throughthe negative common-sense of indifference ;organise, organise, organise! For a flag weoffer you the stainless lotus-banner of theBuddha, in defence of which no drop ofblood has ever been, nor ever will be shed,a banner under which you will join forceswith five hundred millions of your fellow-men.And you will not be privates in the army ;for you the highest place, the place ofleaders, waits; as far as the triumphs of theintellect are concerned, it is to WesternScience that we look. Your achievementshave shattered the battle-array of dogma anddespotism; your columns roll in triumphantpower through the breaches of false meta-physics and baseless logic; you have foughtthat battle, and the laurels are on yourbrows. The battle was fought by us morethan two thousand years ago; the authorityof the Vedas, the restrictions of caste, wereshattered by the invulnerable sword of truthin Buddha’s hand; we are your brothers.But in the race of intellect we have fallenbehind a little; will you take no interest inus, who have been your comrades? ToScience Buddhism cries: Lead us, reformus, give us clear ideas of Nature and herlaws; give us that basis of irrefragable logicand wide knowledge that we need, andmarch with us into the Universe !

The Buddhist faith is not a blind faith ;its truths are obvious to all who are notblinded by the spectacles of bibliolatry anddeafened by the clamour of priests, presby-ters, ministers: whatever name they choosefor themselves, we can at least put themaside in one great class, the Thought-stiflers;and these truths are thosse which we havelong accepted and to which you haverecently and hardly won.

It is to men of your stamp, men of inde-


96

pendent thought, of keen ecstasy of love ofknowledge, of practical training, that theBuddhasanana Samagama1 appeals; it istime that Buddhism reformed itself fromwithin; though its truths be held untarnished(and even this is not everywhere the case),its methods, its organisation, are sadly inneed of repair; research must be done, menmust be perfected, error must be fought.And if in the West a great Buddhist societyis built up of men of intellect, of the men inwhose hands the future lies, there is then anawakening, a true redemption, of the wearyand forgetful Empires of the East.

X

THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH

To return from our little digression to theoriginal plan of our essay. It is time tonote the “Noble Eightfold Path,” referredto and its consideration deferred, in Sec-tion III.

In this Fourth Noble Truth we approachthe true direction of Buddhism; progress isbut another word for change; is it possibleto move in a direction whose goal is thechangeless? The answer is Yea and Amen!and it is detailed in the Noble EightfoldPath, of which I propose to give a shortresumé. First, however, of the goal. It maybe readily syllogised:

All existing things are (by nature, inevi-tably) subject to change.

In Nirvana is no change.∴ No existing thing is or can be in

Nirvana.Now here is the great difficulty; for this

syllogism is perfectly sound, and yet wespeak of attaining Nirvana, tasting Nir-vana, &c.

[We must distinguish the Hindu Nirvana,which means Cessation of Existence incertain Lokas; never absolute Cessation, as

1 Or International Buddhist Society, founded

in Rangoon in 1903.

the Buddhist tradition, the etymology, andthe logical value alike require for the wordas applied to the Buddhist goal. See Chidders,Pali Dictionary, sub voce Nibbana.]

The explanation is really as follows : onlyby this term Nirvana can we foreshadow toyou the reality; for even as the Dawn ofDhyana is indescribable in language, àfortiori Nirvana is so. To give an example,for that something of the sort is necessary Ifreely admit, to defend so apparentlymystical a statement, I may give thefollowing from my own experience.

In a certain meditation one day I re-corded:

“I was (a) conscious of external thingsseen behind after my nose had vanished.(b) Conscious that I was not conscious ofthese things. These (a) and (b) weresimultaneous.”

I subsequently discovered this peculiarstate of consciousness classified in the Ab-hidhamma. That it is a contradiction interms I am perfectly aware; to assign anymeaning to it is frankly beyond me; but Iam as certain that such a state once existedin me as I am of anything.

Similarly with Nirvana and its definition.The Arahat knows what it is, and describesit by its accidentals, such as bliss. I mustraise, very reluctantly, a protest against theidea of Professer Rhys Davids (if I haveunderstood him aright) that Nirvana is themental state resulting from the continuouspractice of all the virtues and methods ofthought characteristic of Buddhism. No;Nirvana is a state belonging to a differentplane, to a higher dimension than anythingwe can at present conceive of. It hasperhaps its analogies and correspondenceson the normal planes, and so shall we findof the steps as well as of the Goal. Eventhe simple first step, which every trueBuddhist has taken, Sammaditthi, is a verydifferent thing from the point of view ofan Arahat. The Buddha stated expresslythat none but an Arahat could really com-prehend the Dhamma.


97

And so for all the Eight Stages; asregards their obvious meaning on the moralplane, I can do no better than quote myfriend Bhikku Ananda Maitriya, in his“Four Noble Truths.”

“He who has attained, by force of pureunderstanding, to the realisation of the FourNoble Truths, who has realised the fact thatdepends from that understanding, namelythat all the constituents of bein are bynature endowed with the Three Character-istics of Sorrow, Transitoriness, and Absenceof any immortal principle or Atma—such aone is said to be Sammaditthi, to hold rightviews, and the term has come to mean oneof the Buddhist Faith. We may not havetaken the other and higher steps on theNoble Eightfold Path; but must have rea-lised those Four Truths and their sequentialthree Characteristics. He who has attainedSammaditthi has at least entered upon theHoly Way, and, if he but try, there willcome to him the power to overcome theother fetters that restrict his progress. Butfirst of all he must abandon all those falsehopes and beliefs; and one who has donethis is called a Buddhist. And this holdingof Right Views, in Pali Sammaditthi, is thefirst step upon the Noble Eightfold Path.

“The second stage is Right Aspiration—Sammasankappo. Having realised the woeand transitoriness and soullessness of alllife, there rises in the mind this Right Aspi-ration. When all things suffer, we at leastwill not increase their burden, so we aspireto become pitiful and loving, to cherish ill-will toward none, to retire from thosepleasures of sense which are the fruitfulcause of woe. The will, we all know, isever readier than the mind, and so, thoughwe aspire to renounce the pleasures of sense,to love and pity all that lives, yet perhapswe often fail in the accomplishment of ouraspiration. But if the desire to becomepitiful and pure be but honest and earnest,we have gained the Second Step upon thePath—Sammasankappo, Right Aspiration.

“He whose motives are pure has no need

to conceal the Truth—he who truly lovesand who has a malice towards none, willever speak only fair and soft words. By aman’s speech do we learn his nature, andthat one whose Right Aspirations are bearingfruit attains to the Third Step, Right Speech,Sammaváca. Speaking only the Truth inall things, never speaking harshly or un-kindly, in his speech realising the love andpity that is in his heart—that man hasattained to Stage the Third.

“And because of the great power of a man’sthoughts and words to change his being,because by thinking of the pitiful our actsgrow full of mercy, therefore is Stage theFourth called Right Conduct. To him whohas gained this Fourth Stage, his intense as-piration, his right understanding, his care-fully guarded speech—perhaps for many yearsof self-control—have at last borne outwardfruit, till all his acts are loving, and pure, anddone without hope of gain, he has attainedthe Fourth Step, called Sammakammanto.

“And when, growing yet holier, that habitof Right Action grows firm and inalienable,when his whole life is lived for the Faiththat is in him, when every act of his dailylife, yea, of his sleep also, is set to a holypurpose, when not one thought or deed thatis cruel or unpitiful can stain his being—when, not even as a duty, will he inflictpain by deed, word, or thought—then hehas gained the Fifth High Path, the Livingof the Life that’s Right—Sammá ajivo.Abstaining from all that can cause pain, hehas become blameless, and can live only bysuch occupations as can bring no sorrow intheir train.1

“To him who has lived so, say the HolyBooks, there comes a power which is unknownto ordinary men. Long training and restrainthave given him conquest of his mind, he can

1 From my point of view, this is of course

impossible. See Sec. III. If wilful infliction ofpain only is meant, our state becomes moral, oreven worse!—mystical. I should prefer tocancel this sentence. Cf. Appendix I.—A. C.[the story titled “The Three Characteristics.” –T.S.]


98

now bring all his powers with tremendousforce to bear upon any one object he mayhave in view, and this ability so to use theenergies of his being to put forth a constantand tremendous effort of the will, marks theattainment of the Sixth Stage, Sammávayamo,usually translated Right Effort, but perhapsRight Will-Power would come nearer to themeaning, or Right Energy, for effort hasbeen made even to attain to Sammaditthi.1

And this power being gained by its use he isenabled to concentrate all his thoughts andhold them always upon one object—wakingor sleeping, he remembers who he is andwhat his high aim in life—and this constantrecollection and keeping in mind of holythings, is the Seventh Stage, Sammasati.And by the power of this transcendentfaculty, rising through the Eight HighTrances to the very threshold of Nirvana, heat last, in the Trance called NirodhaSamapatti, attains, even in this life, to theDeathless Shore of Nirvana, by the powerof Sammasamadhi, Right Concentration.Such a one has finished the Path—he hasdestroyed the cause of all his chain of lives,and has become Arahan, a Saint, a Buddhahimself.”

But none knows better than the venerableBhikkhu himself, as indeed he makes clearwith regard to the steps Sammávayamo andabove, that these interpretations are butreflections of those upon a higher plane—the scientific plane. They are (I have littledoubt) for those who have attained to themmnemonic keys to whole classes of pheno-mena of the order anciently denominatedmagical, phenomena which, since the humanmind has had its present constitution, havebeen translated into language, classified,sought after, always above language, but notbeyond a sane and scientific classification, arigid and satisfactory method, as I mostfirmly believe. It is to establish such amethod; to record in the language, not ofthe temple, but of the laboratory, its results,

1 It is of course a special kind of effort, not

mere struggle.

that I make this appeal ; that I seek toenlist genuine, not pseudo-scientific men inthe Research ; so that our children may beas far in advance of us in the study of thesupernormal phenomena of the mind as weare in advance of our fathers in the sciencesof the physical world.1

Note carefully this practical sense of myintention. I care nothing for the academicmeanings of the steps in the Path; what theymeant to the Arahats of old is indifferent tome. “Let the dead past bury its dead!”What I require is an advance in the Know-ledge of the Great Problem, derived no longerfrom hearsay revelation, from exalted fanati-cism, from hysteria and intoxication; butfrom method and research.

Shut the temple ; open the laboratory!

XI.

THE TWILIGHT OF THE GERMANS.2

It is a commonplace of scientific menthat meta-physics is mostly moonshine; thatit is largely an argument in a circle cannoteasily be disputed; that the advance sinceAristotle is principally verbal none maydoubt; that no parallel advance to that ofscience has been made in the last fifty yearsis certain.

The reason is obvious.Philosophy has had two legitimate weapons

—introspection and reason; and introspec-tion is not experiment.

1 A few weeks after writing these words I

came across the following passage in Tyndall’s“Scientific Materialism” which I had notpreviously read: “Two-thirds of the rays emittedby the sun fail to arouse the sense of vision.The rays exist, but the visual organ requisite fortheir translation into light does not exist. Andso, from this region of darkness and mysterywhich now surrounds us, rays may now bedartin, which require but the development ofthe proper intellectual organs to translate theminto knowledge as far surpassing ours as ourssurpasses that of the wallowing reptiles whichonce held possession of this planet.”—A. C.

2 A Note showing the necessity and scope ofthe Work in question.


99

The mind is a machine that reasons; hereare its results. Very good; can it doanything else? This is the question not onlyof the Buddhist; but of the Hindu, of theMohammedan, of the Mystic. All try theirvarious methods; all attain results of sorts;none have had the genuine trainin whichwould have enabled them to record thoseresults in an intelligible, orderly form.

Others deliberately set their face againstsuch an attempt. I am not of them;humanity has grown up; if the knowledgebe dangerous in unexpected ways, what ofbacteriology? I have obtained one result; aresult striking at the very condition ofconsciousness; which I may formulate asfollows:

“If a single state of consciousness persistunchanged for a period exceeding a very fewseconds, its duality is annihilated; its natureis violently overthrown; this phenomenon isaccompanied by an indescribable sensationof bliss.”

Very well! but I want this formula verifieda hundred times, a thousand times, byindependent investigators. I want it betterstated; its conditions modified, defined ex-actly. I want it to leave its humble stationas my observation, and put into the class ofregular phenomena.

But I am verging back towards Hinduphilosophy, and it is a reminder well neededat this moment. For this experience of thedestruction of duality, this first phenomenonin the series, has, in all its illusory beauty,been seized upon, generalised from, by philo-sophers, and it is to this basis of partial andtherefore deceptive fact that we owe thesystems of Vedanta and Idealism, withtheir grotesque assumptions and muddle-headed “reconcilements” all complete.

One fact, O Sri Çankaracharya, does notmake a theory; let us remember your fate,and avoid generalising on insufficient evi-dence. With this word of warning, I leavethe metaphysician to wallow in his mire,and look toward better times for the greatproblems of philosophy. Remember that

when the solution is attained it is not thesolution of one learned man for his fellows,but one realised and assimilated by everyman in his own consciousness.

And what the solution may be none of uscan foreshadow. To hoist the problem on tothe horns of a dilemma will avail nothingwhen A=A may be no longer true ; and thisby no Hegelian word-juggle ; but by directapperception as clear as the sun at noon.

Therefore; no work more, but—to thework !

XII.

THE THREE REFUGES.

Buddham Saranangachami.Dhammam Saranangachami.Sangham Saranangachami.I take my refuge in the Buddha.I take my refuge in the Dhamma.I take my refuge in the Sangha.This formula of adhesion to Buddhism

is daily repeated by countless millions ofhumanity; what does it mean? It is no vainprofession of reliance on others; no cowardlyshirking of burdens—burdens which cannotbe shirked. It is a plain estimate of ourauxiliaries in the battle; the cosmic facts onwhich we may rely, just as a scientist “relies”on the conservation of energy in making anexperiment.

Were that principle of uncertain applica-tion, the simplest quantitative experimentwould break hopelessly down.

So for the Buddhist.I take my refuge in the Buddha. That

there was once a man who found the Wayis my encouragement.

I take my refuge in the Dhamma. The Lawunder-lying phenomena and its unchangingcertainty; the Law given by the Buddha toshow us the Way, the inevitable tendency toPersistence in Motion or Rest—andPersistence, even in Motion, negates changein consciousness—these observed orders offact are our bases.


100

I take my refuge in the Sangha.These are not isolated efforts on my part;

although in one sense isolation is eternallyperfect and can never be overcome,1 inanother sense associates are possible anddesirable. One third of humanity areBuddhists; add men of Science and we forman absolute majority ; among Buddhists avery large proportion have deliberately goneout from social life of any kind to tread thesepaths of Research.

Is the Way very hard? Is the brain tired?The results slow to come? Others areworking, failing, struggling, crowned hereand there with rare garlands of success.Success for ourselves, success for others; isit not Compassion that binds us closer thanall earthly ties? Ay, in joy and in sorrow, inweakness and in strength, do I take myrefuge in the Sangha.

XIII

CONCLUSION

Let me give a rapid resumé of what wehave gone through.

(a) We have stripped Science andBuddhism of their accidental garments, andadministered a rebuke to those who soswathe them.

(b) We have shown the identity of Scienceand Buddhism in respect of:

(1) Their fact.(2) Their theory.(3) Their method.(4) Their enemies.(c) While thus admitting Buddhism to

be merely a branch of Science, we haveshown it to be a most important branch,since its promise is to break down the wallsat which Science stops.

When Professor Ray Lankester has towrite, “The whole order of nature, includingliving and lifeless matter—man, animal, and

1 i.e., on normal planes

gas—is a network of mechanism, the mainfeatures and many details of which havebeen made more or less obvious to thewondering intelligence of mankind by thelabour and ingenuity of scientific investi-gators. But no sane man has ever pre-tended, since science became a definite bodyof doctrine, that we know or ever can hopeto know or conceive of the possibility ofknowing, whence this mechanism has come,why it is there, whither it is going, andwhat there may or may not be beyond andbeside it which our senses are incapableof appreciating. These things are not‘explained’ by science, and never can be,”he gives a curious example of that quaintscientific pride which knows the limits ofits powers, and refuses to entertain the hopeof transcending them. Unfortunately, he isas one who, a hundred years ago, shouldhave declared any knowledge of the chemistryof the fixed stars impossible. To inventnew methods, and to revolutionise thefunctions of the senses by training or other-wise is the routine work of to-morrow.1

But, alas ! he goes even further.“Similarly we seek by the study of

cerebral disease to trace the genesis of thephenomena which are supposed by somephysicists who have strayed into biologicalfields to justify them in announcing the‘discovery’ of ‘Telepathy’ and a beliefin ghosts.”

To talk of cerebral disease as the char-acteristic of one who merely differs fromyou (and that because he has more know-ledge than yourself) is itself a symptomfamiliar to alienists. (I may say I hold nobrief for Professor Lodge, here attacked.I am not even interested in any of hisresults, as such of them as I am acquaintedwith deal with objective and trivial pheno-mena.)

Of course, as long as what Darwin calledvariation is called disease by Professor RayLankester, we shall (if we accept his views,

1 See note p. 98


101

and it will go hard with us if we do not !)regard all progress in any direction asmorbid. So (as with Lombroso) “disease”will become a mere word, like its prede-cessor “infidelity,” and cease to carry anyobloquy.

If Science is never to go beyond itspresent limits; if the barriers which meta-physical speculation shows to exist are neverto be transcended, then indeed we arethrown back on faith, and all the rest of thenauseous mess of medieval superstition,and we may just as well have vital principleand creative power as not, for Sciencecannot help us. True, if we do not useall the methods at our disposal! But wego beyond. We admit that all mentalmethods known are singularly liable toillusion and inaccuracy of any sort. Sowere the early determinations of specificheat. Even biologists have erred. But tothe true scientist every failure is a stepping-stone to success; every mistake is the key toa new truth.

And the history of our Science is thehistory of all Science. If you choose to apeChristendom and put the pioneers ofrational investigation into the nature ofconsciousness on the rack (i.e. into lunaticasylums) I doubt not we shall find ourBruno. But it will add an additional pangthat persecution should come from thehouse of our friends.

Let us, however, turn away from theaspect of criticism which an accidentlacontroversy has thus caused me to notice,and so to anticipate the obvious line ofattack which the more frivolous type ofcritic will employ, and return to our properbusiness, the summary of our own positionwith regard to Buddhism.

Buddhism is a logical development ofthe observed facts; whoso is with me so faris Sammaditthi, and has taken the first stepon the Noble Eightfold Path.

Let him aspire to knowledge, and theSecond Step is under his feet.

The rest lies with Research.

Aum ! I take my refuge holy in the Light and Peace of Buddh.Aum ! I take my refuge, slowly working out His Law of Good.Aum ! I take my refuge lowly in His Pitying Brotherhood.

Documents

Crowley - Science and Buddhism