Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 1

Оглавление

Charles Eliot. Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 1

BOOK I. INTRODUCTION

1. Influence of Indian Thought in Eastern Asia

2. Origin and Growth of Hinduism

3. The Buddha

4. Asoka

5. Extension of Buddhism and Hinduism beyond India

6. New Forms of Buddhism

7. Revival of Hinduism

8. Later Forms of Hinduism

9. European Influence and Modern Hinduism

10. Change and Permanence in Buddhism

11. Rebirth and the Nature of the Soul

12

13

14. Eastern Pessimism and Renunciation

15. Eastern Polytheism

16. The Extravagance of Hinduism

17. The Hindu and Buddhist Scriptures

18. Morality and Will

19. The Origin of Evil

20. Church and State

21. Public Worship and Ceremonial

22. The Worship of the Reproductive Forces

23. Hinduism in Practice

24. Buddhism in Practice

25. Interest of Indian Thought for Europe

BOOK II. EARLY INDIAN RELIGION. A GENERAL VIEW

CHAPTER I. RELIGIONS OP INDIA AND EASTERN ASIA

CHAPTER II. HISTORICAL

CHAPTER III. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIAN RELIGION

1

2

3

4

CHAPTER IV. VEDIC DEITIES AND SACRIFICES

1

2

3

4

CHAPTER V. ASCETICISM AND KNOWLEDGE

1

2

3

4

CHAPTER VI. RELIGIOUS LIFE IN PRE-BUDDHIST INDIA

2

3

CHAPTER VII. THE JAINS250

1

2

3

4

5

6

BOOK III. PALI BUDDHISM

CHAPTER VIII. LIFE OF THE BUDDHA

1

2

3

4

5

CHAPTER IX. THE BUDDHA COMPARED WITH OTHER RELIGIOUS TEACHERS

CHAPTER X. THE TEACHING OF THE BUDDHA

1

2

3

4

5

6

CHAPTER XI. MONKS AND LAYMEN

1

2

CHAPTER XII. ASOKA

1

2

3

CHAPTER XIII. THE CANON

1

2

3

4

5

CHAPTER XIV. MEDITATION

1

2

CHAPTER XV. MYTHOLOGY IN HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM

1

2

3

4

Отрывок из книги

Probably the first thought which will occur to the reader who is acquainted with the matters treated in this work will be that the subject is too large. A history of Hinduism or Buddhism or even of both within the frontiers of India may be a profitable though arduous task, but to attempt a historical sketch of the two faiths in their whole duration and extension over Eastern Asia is to choose a scene unsuited to any canvas which can be prepared at the present day. Not only is the breadth of the landscape enormous but in some places it is crowded with details which cannot be omitted while in others the principal features are hidden by a mist which obscures the unity and connection of the whole composition. No one can feel these difficulties more than I do myself or approach his work with more diffidence, yet I venture to think that wide surveys may sometimes be useful and are needed in the present state of oriental studies. For the reality of Indian influence in Asia—from Japan to the frontiers of Persia, from Manchuria to Java, from Burma to Mongolia—is undoubted and the influence is one. You cannot separate Hinduism from Buddhism, for without it Hinduism could not have assumed its medieval shape and some forms of Buddhism, such as Lamaism, countenance Brahmanic deities and ceremonies, while in Java and Camboja the two religions were avowedly combined and declared to be the same. Neither is it convenient to separate the fortunes of Buddhism and Hinduism outside India from their history within it, for although the importance of Buddhism depends largely on its foreign conquests, the forms which it assumed in its new territories can be understood only by reference to the religious condition of India at the periods when successive missions were despatched.

This book then is an attempt to give a sketch of Indian thought or Indian religion—for the two terms are nearly equivalent in extent—and of its history and influence in Asia. I will not say in the world, for that sounds too ambitious and really adds little to the more restricted phrase. For ideas, like empires and races, have their natural frontiers. Thus Europe may be said to be non-Mohammedan. Although the essential principles of Mohammedanism seem in harmony with European monotheism, yet it has been deliberately rejected by the continent and often repelled by force. Similarly in the regions west of India1, Indian religion is sporadic and exotic. I do not think that it had much influence on ancient Egypt, Babylon and Palestine or that it should be counted among the forces which shaped the character and teaching of Christ, though Christian monasticism and mysticism perhaps owed something to it. The debt of Manichaeism and various Gnostic sects is more certain and more considerable, but these communities have not endured and were regarded as heretical while they lasted. Among the Neoplatonists of Alexandria and the Sufis of Arabia and Persia many seem to have listened to the voice of Hindu mysticism but rather as individuals than as leaders of popular movements.

.....

The relative absence of political unity seems due to want of interest in politics. It is often said that the history of India in pre-Mohammedan times is an unintelligible or, at least, unreadable, record of the complicated quarrels and varying frontiers of small states. Yet this is as true of the history of the Italian as of the Indian peninsula. The real reason why Indian history seems tedious and intricate is that large interests are involved only in the greatest struggles, such as the efforts to repulse the Huns or Mohammedans.

The ordinary wars, though conducted on no small scale, did not involve such causes or principles as the strife of Roundheads with Cavaliers. With rare exceptions, states and empires were regarded as the property of their monarchs. Religion claimed to advise kings, like other wealthy persons, as to their duties and opportunities, and ministers became the practical rulers of kingdoms just as a steward may get the management of an estate into his hands. But it rarely occurred to Hindus that other persons in the estate had any right to a share in the government, or that a Raja could be dispossessed by anybody but another Raja. Of that, indeed, there was no lack. Not only had every sovereign to defend himself against the enemies in his own house but external politics seemed based on the maxim that it is the duty of a powerful ruler to increase his territory by direct and unprovoked attacks on his neighbours. There is hardly a king of eminence who did not expand his power in this way, and the usual history of a royal house is successful aggression followed by collapse when weaker hands were unable to hold the inherited handful. Even moderately long intervals of peace are rare. Yet all the while we seem to be dealing not with the expansion or decadence of a nation, but with great nobles who add to their estates or go bankrupt.

.....