deficient in precision, but they imply a greater amount of knowledge than any other writer seems to have possessed since the time of Megasthenes. The Brahmans are divided by him into two orders, the one admitting family life, the others ascetics, living in seclusion, and eating only fruits that had fallen upon the ground. It was the peculiarity of these last that they wore no clothes, declaring that the Deity had constituted the body a covering for the soul. They designated God under the figure of light, not that of sun or of fire, but of the inward reason, the Logos, which found its expression not in articulate sound, but in the knowledge which is acquired by the wise. To this these Brahmans could alone attain, inasmuch as they only cast off all vain opinion, the last garment of which the soul ever strips itself. They saw that men were captive to their own evil passions, sensuality and concupiscence, anger, joy, sorrow, and the like. Against these, warring in their members, they maintained perpetual conflict; he only who had reared a trophy over them, had access to God. Some of these principles are in singular harmony with the leading tenets of Buddhism. On the other hand, the conquest of all the evil passions centring round an ill-regulated individuality, was necessarily the aim of all ascetics everywhere. Buddhism knew nothing of any mystic intuition of the Deity; and the language in which these Brahmans are said to have expressed their conception of a pervading reason, would have sounded strange to the true followers of Gotama. In these naked philosophers it is probable that we must see the sect of the Niganthas or Jains, who were originally closely connected, if not identical with Buddhists, but subsequently became highly odious to them.107

Thus, then, do the notices of Indian thought become, as might be expected, a little more explicit as the centuries advance. But even at the latest they are singularly meagre, and afford little ground for the assumption of any widespread acquaintance with even the most rudimentary ideas of Brahmanism and Buddhism. No clue has yet turned up which may serve in any way to connect Christianity with these far-off systems. But it has been strongly urged that between Gnosticism and Buddhism, at least, there are affinities which cannot be overlooked, and through these, possibly, we may retrace our steps to some hidden links which have left no marks on ordinary literature. The first person to call attention to the apparent resemblances between Gnosticism and Buddhism was Dr. J. J. Schmidt, whose studies in Tibetan Buddhism contributed so much to open up new and unfamiliar fields.108 His researches were largely employed

107 Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 128; Childers' Dictionary, art. Nigantho. 108 Forschungen im Gebiete der Bildungsgeschichte der Völker Mittel-Asiens, p. 241, sqq., St. Petersburg, 1824; Ueber die Verwandtschaft der Gnostisch-Theosophischen Lehren mit den Religionssystemen des Orients, vorzüglich dem Buddhaismus, &c., Leipzig, 1828.

by Baur, in his important investigations into Gnostic systems.109 Subsequent writers have laid stress on the same points in the direction thus pointed out. Von Bohlen refers the Gnostic doctrines of the inherence of evil in matter, of the access through virtue to union with the Deity, and of the psychic and pneumatic man, to Indian sources, 110 a view which also receives the support of Weber.111 The resemblances between Gnosticism and Buddhism are summed up by Lassen under three heads: (1) the opposition between matter and spirit, and the consequent worthlessness of all worldly things: (2) the representation of creation as a series of emanations from the supreme principle: (3) the high importance attached by Buddhists and Gnostics to righteousness.112 The first two of these doctrines are very closely connected, and rest upon the same philosophical foundation. There can be no doubt that Adi Buddha, to whom Lassen resorts for the spirit which is intrinsically opposed to matter, largely fulfils the Gnostic requirements. When in the beginning all was perfect void, or ever the elements came into being, Adi Buddha ( the first wise') was revealed in the form of flame or light. He is the cause of all existences; from his profound meditation was produced the universe. He thus stands in essential contrast with matter, and the existing system of things is only derived from him through five successive acts of Dhyana or contemplation. Each one of these produces a Buddha of its own. In the line of descent these Buddhas stand related to each other as father and son, but they are only third in the scale of existence, Adi Buddha being the first.113 That there is here a system which presents many elements of affinity with the Gnostic schemes, is at once apparent. Only one circumstance is wanting to establish the possibility of their dependence on it. It is that of time. Ādi Buddha, so far from being the first wise,' is himself a creation of the tenth century. Primitive Buddhism knew nothing of spirit. No immaterial existence came within its view.114 A supreme essence filling the mystic space in silence before the worlds were, had no place in a system of endless change, decay, and death. But as if to anticipate the truth of Voltaire's epigram, its later votaries, having no God, were obliged to invent one. This great departure from the original principles of Gotama Buddha only took place, however, in comparatively modern times. In the southern schools Adi Buddha is still unknown. Even in Tibet itself the doc

6

109 Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 56, sqq. Mansel in his reference to the influence of Buddhism on Gnosticism appears to have contented himself with following Baur, The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries, pp. 29-32. I find here that I have unwittingly travelled over ground already occupied by the writer of an article referred to by Dr. Lightfoot, Ep. to Colossians, &c., p. 157, in the Home and Foreign Review, 1863. For his remarks on Gnosticism and Buddhism see p. 143, sqq. 110 Altes Indien, i. p. 371.

112 Ind. Alterth. iii. p. 384.

111 Indische Skizzen, p. 91.

113 Hodgson, Essays, &c. p. 27, sqq.

14 Brahmajāla Sutta, in Grimblot's Sept Suttas Palis.

trine concerning him is not canonical. Only in Nepal has it reached the dignity of an article of faith. The evidence which Lassen produces in favour of its earlier origin cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Although there is no literary trace of Adi Buddha, or the five-fold Dhyāna, for at least ten centuries after our era, he boldly assumes that they were developed in the interval between the third Buddhist synod under Asoka, and the fourth under Kanishka, the contemporary of Augustus.115 The foundation on which this hypothesis is erected is surprisingly insecure. It consists of a single coin of the Bactrian kings, on which he believes that he detects the legend 'Odi Bod.' 116 The theory has been overthrown by the recent demonstration of the incorrectness of this decipherment, and in the absence, therefore, of any distinct proof of the existence of the doctrine of Adi Buddha, and of communication of thought between India and the West, the dependence of Gnosticism on Buddhism cannot so far be regarded as confirmed.

The third of the resemblances enumerated by Lassen is hardly sufficiently strong to avail much by itself, though it might be thrown in as an additional weight where the scale is already well loaded. That Buddhism and Gnosticism should both attribute a high importance to righteousness, is not enough to vindicate any relationship between them. The same may be said in a broad sense for Christianity, and for every other great religion all the world over; and the analogy fails completely in its most essential point. To the Buddhist karma, the doctrine of merit and demerit, Gnosticism presents no parallel ; and if the moral law is administered by the Gnostic demiurg, he has no likeness whatever to the impersonal power which directs the destinies of men through the vicissitudes of successive births.118 The terminology, methods, and aims of Gnosticism, all betray the sources whence it was derived, Jewish, Christian, Greek. What further influences contributed to its development must probably be sought in Persia rather than in India; so that not even here do we find any vehicle for the transmission of Buddhist thought to Europe."

115 Lassen, Ind. Alterth. iii. pp. 384, 389.

119

116 Ibid. ii. 2nd ed. p. 845. What is here stated as 'most probable,' is afterwards assumed as 'firmly established,' p. 1103.

117 Sallet, Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen in Baktrien und Indien, Berlin, 1879, p. 193.

118 On the supposed affinities of Origen with Buddhism, see Schultz, in Jahrbb. für Protest. Theologie, p. 224, 1875.

119 Want of space prevents me from following this inquiry through the curious story of Terebinthus-Buddha connected with the origin of Manichæism by Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, and Socrates. But its late date, and the extraordinary perversion of facts which runs through it, add further evidence of the ignorance of Western writers concerning the great Indian reformer. The Arabic accounts of Manichæism do not connect it in any way with India, nor do they mention Buddha's name; see the extracts from Arabic sources given by Flügel, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften. The first satisfactory evidence of acquaintance with any version of the story of Gotama appears in the very curious romance of Barlaam and Josaphat, of

It would be easy to gather analogies far more striking than those just examined from sources unquestionably independent: 120 but the fact is that the existence of even a large number of analogies between different systems of thought and life, or even between the precepts of different teachers, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence of their connexion. Every approach to truth must inevitably produce these resemblances; but they may be easily overrated, and it should not be forgotten that the likeness between many of the sayings of Jesus and of Gotama covers a deep-rooted divergence. That a system which knows of no God, and preaches for its hope of deliverance the extinction of all being, should even bear any superficial affinities to Christianity, may appear at first sight strange. They are alike, however, animated by a passionate enthusiasm of humanity;' they both protested against the worn-out traditions of a sacred caste, and flung wide open the way of truth to all. An absolute universality is common to them both, and each proclaims that in conduct lies the true path of salvation. But Gotama founded his teaching of righteousness upon a profound metaphysical theory of the power of accumulated merit or demerit to determine the conditions of men in successive existences; Jesus saw in it the realisation here of the will of the Father who is in heaven.' The essential conceptions of Buddhism are intellectual rather than spiritual. The very name Buddha, the enlightened,' indicates the avenue through which deliverance is sought. When the awakened believer has conquered all evil desires, his final task is to free himself from ignorance; and even universal charity is scarcely so much an end in itself as it is the removal of the last cloud over that perfect wisdom which will lead to peace. Nowhere perhaps is this distinction brought more clearly into view than in the striking description of the 'whole armour' of Buddhism.

6

121

Converting uprightness into a cloak, and meditation into a breastplate, he covered mankind with the armour of religion, and provided them with the most perfect panoply. Bestowing on them memory as a shield, and intellect as a sceptre, he conferred religion on them as the sword that vanquishes all that is incompatible with uprightness, investing them with the three wisdoms (i.e. of the three great truths, viz., the impermanence of all things, the presence of sorrow, and the nonexistence of a soul), as an ornament, and the four phalé (the fruit of the four paths) as a tiara. He also bestowed on them the six branches of wisdom as a decoration such as flowers to be worn; assigning the supreme law to them as the white canopy of dominion which subdues the sins (of heresy), and procuring for them the consolation (of redemption from transmigration) which resembles a fullblown flower, he and his disciples attained Nirvana. 122

which the Greek form apparently dates from the ninth century. See Prof. Max Müller, Contemporary Review, July 1870.

12 Compare the extraordinary affinities of Mexican religion (Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States of Central America, vols. ii. and iii.) with Roman Catholicism; or the parallel developments of Greek and Indian philosophy.

121 This is the last of the Ten Fetters. Davids, Buddhism, p. 109, sq.

122 Buddhaghoso's Commentary on the Buddhawanso, translated by Turnour in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. vii. p. 796.

In short, the fundamental idea of Christianity, that of a personal relation between the soul and God, is diametrically opposed to a system which denies in the most unqualified manner the existence of either soul or God: and if from these positive and negative poles of faith apparently similar results proceed, it is because when the currents of moral impulse play upon the needs of men, they find that whatever be the truth about the soul and God, the sores and sins of the world are everywhere the same. The rarest of all gifts is that of clearing the vision of darkened hearts, and creating new ideals of life and duty. No two men of all our race, it would seem, have possessed this power in such large measure as the Indian philosopher and the Syrian prophet. And our trust in the capacities of humanity receives large increase when we recognise that it has produced independently the two careers of Gotama Buddha and Jesus Christ.

J. ESTLIN CARPENTER.