DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45392#0159
Samsara and Kamma
vidya,-. to That which is ‘not so, not so,’ attributes are
ascribed for purposes of worship or by way of accommoda-
tion to finite thought. This ascription of attributes, on
the part of laymen, is regarded by the philosopher with
lenience : for he understands that the Unshown Way, the
desire for That-which-is-not, is exceeding hard. Those
who have not yet won their way to idealism, may not
and cannot altogether dispense with idols.1 Brahmanism,
regarded as a Church, is distinguished from the Buddhism
of Gautama—not yet the Buddhism of the Buddhist
Church—by this tenderness to its spiritual children:—•
“ Let not him that knoweth much awaken doubt in
slower men of lesser wit.”2 Gautama, on the other
hand, is an uncompromising iconoclast. He preaches
only to higher men, such as will accept the hard sayings
of Dukkha, Anicca, and Anatta in all their nakedness.
This position enabled him to maintain one single argu-
ment with entire consistence; he needed not to acknow-
ledge even the relative value of other forms or degrees of
truth ; he wished to break entirely with current absolutist
and animistic thought.
This position emphasized for him the difficulty of express-
ing what he wished to teach, through the popular and
animistic language of the day ; and yet he could not avoid
the use of this language, except at the cost of making
himself unintelligible. This difficulty may well have
1 Those spiritual purists who insist that absolute truths, such as anatta
(non-egoity), and neti, neti (not so, not so) ought alone to be taught,
and who despise all theological and eesthetic interpretation of these
realities as false, should consider the saying of Master Kassapa : “ Moral
and virtuous Wanderers and Brahmans do not force maturity on that
which is unripe; they, being wise, wait for that maturity.”—Payasi
Sutta, Dialogues of the Buddha, ii, 332.
2 Bhagavad Gita, iii, 29.
105
vidya,-. to That which is ‘not so, not so,’ attributes are
ascribed for purposes of worship or by way of accommoda-
tion to finite thought. This ascription of attributes, on
the part of laymen, is regarded by the philosopher with
lenience : for he understands that the Unshown Way, the
desire for That-which-is-not, is exceeding hard. Those
who have not yet won their way to idealism, may not
and cannot altogether dispense with idols.1 Brahmanism,
regarded as a Church, is distinguished from the Buddhism
of Gautama—not yet the Buddhism of the Buddhist
Church—by this tenderness to its spiritual children:—•
“ Let not him that knoweth much awaken doubt in
slower men of lesser wit.”2 Gautama, on the other
hand, is an uncompromising iconoclast. He preaches
only to higher men, such as will accept the hard sayings
of Dukkha, Anicca, and Anatta in all their nakedness.
This position enabled him to maintain one single argu-
ment with entire consistence; he needed not to acknow-
ledge even the relative value of other forms or degrees of
truth ; he wished to break entirely with current absolutist
and animistic thought.
This position emphasized for him the difficulty of express-
ing what he wished to teach, through the popular and
animistic language of the day ; and yet he could not avoid
the use of this language, except at the cost of making
himself unintelligible. This difficulty may well have
1 Those spiritual purists who insist that absolute truths, such as anatta
(non-egoity), and neti, neti (not so, not so) ought alone to be taught,
and who despise all theological and eesthetic interpretation of these
realities as false, should consider the saying of Master Kassapa : “ Moral
and virtuous Wanderers and Brahmans do not force maturity on that
which is unripe; they, being wise, wait for that maturity.”—Payasi
Sutta, Dialogues of the Buddha, ii, 332.
2 Bhagavad Gita, iii, 29.
105