The daily morning journal and courier., 1894-09-04
- 7-7'= - RELIGIOUS fDEis.
The Chief Difference Between christiani- ty and Various Oriental Religious.
 IL I-.-l.

From the lndependeht,l It is difficult for those trained in western modes of thought to define clearly what the oriental thinkers of past centuries have meant by what We call metempsyehosls. or the transmit grafton of soul
 The difficulty nriscs from three cir- eumstances: The religionists Of the orient have no very clear and well-de- fined expression of the doctrine; the Aryan races. as distinguished from the Semitic. seem always tu have taken the doctrine for granted In all their varied forms of belief. and Christian writers are necessarily somewhat confused In their efforts 10 define the doctrine be- cause of the lncogrectness of their own terminology with reference to the soul life. It Is only recently that Christian philosophers have attempted 10 distin- guish between that soul-life and spirit life as Is so clearly Indicated in the teaching of St. Paul when he prays that the Christians of Thessalonica may be preserved in spirit. in soul. and In body: and when. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (assuming that he Ia the au- thor of that letter.. he declares that the word of God Is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.
 The teaching of the New Testament would seem to Imply that man Is Of tripartite nature, With Hindus and Buddhists such Is not the case. Noth- ing Is more contrary to their concep- ton of human life than the supposi- ton that 1t is of tripartite nature. With them God is life. eternally and un- iversally diffused life. It Is. therefore, confusing to employ the word "soul' In the discussion of the subject. In fact. the expression "transmigration of sour' Is neither a correct rendering nor even correct translation of the word me tempsychosis. II is 'transmigration Of life"
 The ancient Vedas of the Hindus teach that there is only one real ex- isting life with which all material sub stances are identified. and from which the life of all animated beings, whether men. animals, vegetables or even min erals and stones flor these they un- derstand to be animated do proceed.
 The following is an extract from the Upanishads, or the philosophical sec tion of the Vedas:
 Whatever exists within this universe Is all to be regarded as enveloped
 By the great Brahm, as if wrapt in a
 vesture.
 There is only one Being who exists.
 The expression Brahm must not be confused with the Hindu Brahma, who with Vishna and Shiva constitute the Hindu Trinity;:f for with them the trini- ty is simple emanation.
 The Vedas describe what we call the living souls of mankind as proceeding from Brahm (God) just as consubstan- tial sparks proceed in a thousand ways from blazing fire. Each one of these sparks having been cast into space be- comes separate eternity, and env1- roned with different conditions.
 The Persian Mystics convey the same idea by likening God to a great ocean of divinity, and the soul of man to a drop from the great ocean, pure in it. self, but polluted in it's contact with worldly conditions.
 With Brahmanical philosophers the word Altman is the self, the ego-con- sciousness, that something in man that says l. This Altman is conceived as a metaphysical entity behind mans sen sations, thoughts and activities. It is not the eye that sees, but the seer in the eye; it is not the ear that hears, but the nearer in the ear, &c. That mysterious being in man which says, l am this person; I possess eyes, ears, nose, tongue, &c, is only the agent of mans activity; behind it all is the Alt man, or self, the mind stuff, which looks on as spectator.
 It is this peculiar conception of hu- man existence which causes such con- fusion in Oriental thought asd ethics with regard to the responsibility of man for his moral and even immoral actions. Some mystics have main- tained that the ego of consciousness Is not responsible for the actions of the body.
 It is difficult to understand the teach ing of the Oriental Mystic as to the mutual relation of life and body, or, as they would say, mind and body; but there is, perhaps, some consolation in the fact that these worthies themselves are very often confused regarding the question.
 Jalalud din ar Rumi, in his great | work, "The Masnavi," represents the human soul as seeking admission into | the sanctuary of Divinity, thus: One knocked at the door of Divinity ] and a voice from within inquired
 "Who is there?' Then he answered
 Tt is l." And the voice from within | replied, This house will not hold thee and me- So the door remained shut
 Then he sped away into the wilderness | and lasted and prayed in solitude
 Then, after d year, he returned and
 knocked at the door of Divinity, and l the voice again demanded, Who is
 there?" and the traveller replied, Tt is thou" Then the door of Divinity | opened wide and the traveller entered | in.
 In other words, he was, according tc
 the Stuff Mystic, absorbed into the ocean
 of Divinity. according to the Hinde philosophy he re-entered into the eter'
 nal Brahm, and, according to Gautama
 the Buddha, he obtained Nirvana. | It seems to have been a characteris
 tic of Buddhism that 1t swept away te
 some extent the Brahminical notion ol