The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1885-01-28

an lnnmtely UeulouS system Oh SeII-nd-
nipulations.
Buddhism is blank atheism, and hence,
utterly ignores all duties to God, in that
it ignores His very existence.
How does it deal with our duties to
our fellowmen? We will look on while
Mr.. Wilkinson examines its teaching on
two capital points of morality as between
man and man. What does it teach in
regard to the two crimes of murder and
lying? Let us take the first. The be-
nightly" of Buddhism has been much
lauded by Mr.. Arnold, and at the first
glance, it would seem, justly. 1t pro-
hibits all killing, as represented In the
books which contain the system, and In
Mr.. Arnold's lines
"KIll not for PHYS sake-and lest ye slay
The meanest thing upon its upward way"
1t would seem from this fact that the
" benignity" of Buddhism was far beyond
that of Christianity in its regard for hui
man life, and that of Mr.. Bergh and the
"Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals" in it's care for the brute Gre
alton. "He prohibited absolutely and
universally all taking of life-of human
life not only, but of animal life of every
kind and every degree. Under the @gis
of this indiscriminate prohibition, the
smallest insect was as safe as the most
exalted man-theoretically.
1t would seem too, as if there was some
thing of that spirituality in the teachings
of Buddhism on this subject which we
see in that of our Saviour, when He tells
US that murder turks in the angry feel
ing and the angry word which expresses
it.
"The crime of murder may, according
to Buddha, be committed by the body,
as when weapons are used by word, as
when a superior commands an inferior to
take life; or By the mind, as eOhea the
death Of another as desired.
This looks very much like the teaching
of the New Testament on the subject of
murder. But couple with it the follow
ing explanations, and see if this strict
teaching is not neutralized.
"When a command is given to take
the life of particular person, and that
person is killed, it is murder but if an
other be killed instead it is not murder.
When command is given to take the
life of a person at particular time,
whether in the morning or in the even
ing, in the night or in the day, and he
be killed at the time appointed, it is
murder; but if he be killed at some other
time, and not at the time appointed, it is
not murder. When command Is given
to take the life of person at a particu
lar place, whether it be in the village or
city, or desert, on land or on water, and
he be killed at the place appointed it is
murder but if he be killed at some other
place, and not at the place appointed, it
is not murder. When a command is
given to take the life of person in a
particular position, whether it be walk
ing, standing, sitting, or lying down, and
he be killed whilst in the position APP
pointed, 1t is murder but if he be killed
whilst in some other position, and not In
the position appointed, it is not murder.
When a command is given to take the
life of person by particular weapon,
whether 1t be sword or spear, and he be
killed by theeweapon appointed, it is
murder; but if he be killed by some
other weapon, and not by the weapon APP
pointed, it is not murder" This all
sounds like set of grim okes. But
Buddha has never been accused of levity
IL 10 oil seriously meduJj dDSuTu DIS IL 49,
and from the cheapness of human life
wherever the Buddhist system prevails,
it would seem that it is fully made use
of by those who feel disposed to take hu-
man life. Mr. Wilkinson we'll remarks,
Dull of wit, indeed would the murderer
be, who, under such provisions as these,
could not accomplish his murderous de-
sign without mourning the guilt of MUIR
der" He calls this casuistry a strange
parallel--by anticipation--for Jesuit
ism.
What he denominates the freakish-
ness of Buddhist ethics is illustrated by
the following provision concerning muir
der when the life of man is taken,
the demerit increases in proportion to the
merit of the person slain but he who
Stays a cruel man has greater demerit
than he who Stays a man Of kind dis
position"
Let us see how Buddhism deals with
lying. 1t is forbidden indeed but what
does this amount to when the prohibition
is accompanied with such Jesuitical ex-
plantations as the following?
Four things are necessary to oonsti-
tute lie l. There must be the utter
ance Of the thing that is not. g. There
must be the knowledge that it is not.
3. There must be some endeavor to pre-
vent the person addressed from learning
the truth. a. There must be the discov-