In accord with its insistence upon the balance of mental and emotional activity, Buddhism requires not only an intellectual acceptance of the non-existence of the ego, but also an emotional aversion to the mere idea of one. For a concise, complete, and convincing list of horrors that attend the ego, I have never seen anything to equal the Buddhist enumeration of the loathsome qualities which accompany all individual creatures, and all the evils the body is heir to. Nor are these to be merely read over and forgotten. They are subjects for meditation, and are a part of the "Four Intent Contemplations," specially designed to do away with the belief in an ego.

It may be somewhat puzzling to see how, if reincarnation is accepted by Buddhism, as it is by nearly every Indian religion, it can come about when there is no soul to be embodied. The explanation is this: that which we call the soul is merely the five elements, form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness. In one way or another the Wheel of Existence got started (though really it had no temporal beginning) through ignorance on the part of some combination of elements we call a person. On account of this ignorance the consciousness of the person does not see the evil in the round of rebirth, and seizes upon this with the idea that it is happiness. So it performs Karma, that is, enters into action, not knowing that this is the cause of rebirth. Next it feels desire and consequently pain, and tries to stop this by further Karma, though Karma is the origin of all misery. There follows the thought that some other form of existence will prove to be the cessation of misery, or that sacrifices or austerities will lead to the cessation of pain. This, of course, is not true.

In each of these stages the consciousness seeks pleasure through the other four elements of being, and it is through this seeking that it develops new desires. But the consciousness is not capable of controlling the

laws according to which it itself and the elements which it desires develop. Once it begins to attach itself to the other constituents of being it finds itself influenced by the changes that take place in these according to the law of Karma. Sensations follow sensations in a fixed order, one always being the necessary result of the one before it, and the cause that will bring as its necessary effect the sensation after it. So it is with all the constituents of being, including consciousness: once they have all been assembled in an individual, they all keep up a continual stream of becoming, independent of the guiding principle of an ego. Thus it is said that the groups (sensation, etc.) are the reapers, each of them possessing an inherent activity which must bring about a certain fruit that, when attained, brings pleasure or suffering to the individual who "did" the action.

No doer is there does the deed,

Nor is there one who feels the fruit;
Constituent parts alone roll on;

This view alone is orthodox.

Now at death all the groups but the predispositions and consciousness are scattered. These enter the new form of life, the consciousness having the predispositions as its object (these being merely the Karma of the late lamented). If the consciousness through ignorance does not perceive the evil in these predispositions it desires them. Then Karma imbeds itself once more in objects. of sense, consciousness follows after them, and so again, through desire and ignorance, the weary round of existence is entered upon by the consciousness.

The consciousness of the two existences is not identical, for it is never the same for any two instants, nor is it absolutely different, for the consciousness of the second existence arose from the first, much as sour milk arises from fresh.

But it is quite true to say that Karma does accompany a person from one existence to another:

But every deed a man performs,

With body, or with voice, or mind,
"Tis this that he can call his own,
This with him take as he goes hence.
This is what follows after him,

And like a shadow ne'er departs.

This whole doctrine of the soul is preeminently Sankhyan. If the almost entirely inactive soul-principle, or purusha, were removed from the Sankhya altogether, merely its illuminating power being left, this last might well become consciousness, and the result would be a nearly Buddhistic scheme, save for the fact that here consciousness would be eternal. Of course in the Sankhya, Karma attaches itself only indirectly to the soul, whereas in Buddhism, Karma is an accepted part of the soul, without which it could not exist.

In the Sankhya, Soul, at death, has gathered to itself a certain portion of Goodness, Passion, and Darkness. In the next birth these qualities, following the material law under which they must act, will keep on working, the deluded soul attached to them believing that he is doing the work. Thus the character of the Sankhyan is material in its nature, while in the case of Buddhism it is nothing but an aggregation of qualities. These may be composed of what we call matter, but it cannot be matter in the scientific sense, eternal and indestructible."

The methods of the Sankhyan and the Buddhist in attaining release from further rebirth are quite similar. Both must, by continual intellectual striving, recognize that nothing they do is done by an ego, but only by qualities, these being for the Sankhyan, material, and for

5 It is strange that "qualities' should be the nearest translation for gunas, for "quality" in our understanding of the term might well apply to the five groups of Buddhism. With this in mind we could say that both in the Sankhya and Buddhism, all the work of the universe was done by “qualities.’’

Gen

the Buddhist neither material nor non-material. erally speaking, the ideal of Buddhism is more difficult of attainment, for its disciple must realize that there is no ego at all, while the Sankhyan's task is finished when he apprehends that nothing he does is done by an ego. Again the Sankhyan is given the positive good of non-activity toward which to strive, while the Buddhist must recognize that there is no good in either activity or non-activity.

Regarding the ideal state of the self, Krishna says (Gita 14:23), "He who remains like an onlooker, unperturbed by the gunas (Goodness, Passion, and Darkness), realizing that the gunas alone roll on, stands unwavering." The Buddhist ideal, expressed in the following stanzas," is quite similar:

Just as the earth, whate'er is thrown
Upon her, whether sweet or foul,
Indifferent is to all alike,

Nor hatred shows, nor amity:

So likewise thou in good or ill,

Must even-balanced ever be;

And when this Tenth Perfection's gained,
A Buddha's wisdom shall be thine.

Buddhism more than the Gita takes particular pains to emphasize the evil of the unconquered personality. All the nobler emotions and sentiments are discouraged and hindered by the belief in any such abiding entity. This belief must lead to some sort of worry or bother about the ego, which, in turn, must result in the partial obscuring of the higher sentiments of man. But if the "I" is non-existent, the bother is also, and the result is a perfectly clear field for the action of every altruistic and noble motive.

In this connection I should like to call attention to verse 380 of the Dhammapada which certainly belongs in the Gita: "For self is the lord of self, self is the refuge

6 Buddhism in Translations, 29.

of self; therefore curb thyself as the merchant curbs a good horse." Now the Dhammapada is a Buddhist collection of verses dealing with ethical problems, and for it to speak of the evil and illusory self as the means by which the individual is freed from the Wheel of Existence seems rather strange after the usual orthodox denunciation of self. Of course there is no real difficulty, for the verse probably has reference to the fact that it is one's self alone that can effect his release, and no one else's.

Again, sorrow and individuality have precisely the same origin. Sorrow is the result of the effort which an individual has to make to keep separate from the rest of existence. If an individual thing comes into being, it must some day be destroyed, and it is to the effort to delay that dissolution that all sorrow and pain are due. Individuality necessitates limitation; from limitation comes ignorance; from ignorance comes error; and from

error comes sorrow.

There is no way in which a man can consider himself as separate from the world. Back of him there is an infinite sequence of events that make his existence possible. He is merely another event.

A greater contrast to this view of the unimportance of the individuality could hardly be found than in the Vedanta. Here the individuality of each separate person is believed to be a true "abiding entity," which is identical with the self of every other person and of the universe.

This finishes the discussion of the soul, concerning which Buddhism and the Gita differ widely. From this point on I believe there are more resemblances than differences between the two doctrines.

(To be concluded.)