INTRODUCTION.
XXI their terminology were opponents of the Cainas, but not vice versa.
Lassen, as a second argument in favour of the priority of Buddhism, adduces the fact that both sects worship mortal men, their prophets, like gods, and erect statues of them in their temples. As Buddhism and Cainism excepted none of the many sects, the founders of which pretended, like Buddha or Mahavlra, to omniscience and absolute perfection, have continued long enough to come within the reach of our knowledge—and all or many of them may, for aught we know, have given the same divine honours to their saints, as the Buddhists and Gainas did to their own prophets—it cannot be alleged that the practice of the Buddhists rather than of any other sect was imitated by the 6^ainas, or vice versa. On the contrary, there is nothing in the notion of Buddha that could have favoured the erecting of statues and temples for his followers to worship them, but rather much that is inconsistent with this kind of adoration, while the Cainas commit no inconsistency in worshipping Mah&vira in his apotheosis. But I believe that this worship had nothing to do with original Buddhism or fJainism, that it did not originate with the monks, but with the lay com¬ munity, when the people in general felt the want of a higher cult than that of their rude deities and demons, and when the religious development of India found in the Bhakti the supreme means of salvation. Therefore instead of seeing in the Buddhists the originals, and in the Gainas the imitators, with regard to the erection of temples and worship of sta¬ tues, we assume that both sects were, independently from each other, brought to adopt this practice by the perpetual and irresistible influence of the religious development of the people in India.
The third point of resemblance between both sects, the stress which is laid on the ahiwsa or not killing of living beings, will be treated more fully in the sequel. For this reason I quickly pass over to Professor Lassen’s fourth argument, viz. that the Buddhists and Cainas measure the history of the world by those enormous periods of time which bewilder and awe even the most imaginative fancy.
XXll GAINA sdxRAS.
It is true that regarding this the trainas outdo the Bud¬ dhists, but they have the idea of such periods in common not only with the latter but also with the Brahmans. The main features of the chronological system of the G^ainas equally differ from those of the Buddhists as from those of the Brahmans. For it is impossible to derive the Ut- sarpi«t and Avasarpi«i eras, with their six Aras, from the Buddhistical four great and eighty smaller Kalpas, which are as it were the acts and scenes in the drama of the suc¬ cessive creations and dissolutions of the universe, nor from the Yugas and Kalpas of the Brihmans. I am of opinion that the Buddhists have improved on the Brahmanic system of the Yugas, while the G^ainas invented their Utsarpiwt and Avasarpi«i eras after the model of the day and night of Brahma.
We have postponed the discussion of Professor Lassen’s third argument, the ahimsk, because it will be better treated together with the other moral precepts of both sects. Professor Weber’ has pointed out the near relation existing between the five great vows of the Gainas and the five cardinal sins and virtues of the Buddhists; and Pro¬ fessor Windisch ^ has compared the G^aina vows (mahdvrata) with the ten obligations of the Buddhists (dasasil).
The Ten Precepts for the Buddhist ascetics are the following®: I. I take the vow not to destroy life.
1. I take the vow not to steal.
3. I take the vow to abstain from impurity.
4. I take the vow not to lie.
5. I take the vow to abstain from intoxicating drinks which hinder progress and virtue.
6. I take the vow not to eat at forbidden times.
7. I take the vow to abstain from dancing, singing, music, and stage plays.
8. I take the vow not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments.
* Fragment der Bhagavatl, II, pp. 175, 187.
‘‘ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, XXVIII, p. 222, note. ^ Rhys Davids, Buddhism, p. 160.
INTRODUCTION.
xxm 9. I take the vow not to use a high or broad bed.
10. I take the vow not to receive gold or silver.
The Buddhists have also Eight Precepts (ai?/^ahgaslla), of which the first five (pa«/^asila) are binding on every Buddhist, while the rest are only recommended to pious laymen ^: 1. One should not destroy life.
2. One should not take that which is not given.
3. One should not tell lies.
4. One should not become a drinker of intoxicating drinks.
5. One should refrain from unlawful sexual intercourse — an ignoble thing.
6. One should not eat unseasonable food at nights.
7. One should not wear garlands or use perfumes.
8. One should sleep on a mat spread on the ground.
The five Buddhist vows nearly agree with those of the 6^aina ascetics, viz.: 1. Not to destroy life {ah\msk).
2. Not to lie (sunnta).
3. Not to take that which is not given (asteya).
4. To abstain from sexual intercourse (brahma/^arya).
5. To renounce all interest in worldly things, especially to call nothing one’s own (aparigraha).
The fifth precept of the 6^ainas is much more compre¬ hensive than the corresponding one of the Buddhists, but the other precepts are the same, in a different order, as Nos. 1-4 of the Buddhists. The agreement is indeed so striking that it would seem hard to avoid the conclusion that one sect borrowed their precepts from the other. Yet the question whether the Buddhists or the ffainas were the borrowers, would still remain an open one. It can be shown, how¬ ever, that neither the Buddhists nor the G^ainas have in this regard any claim to originality, but that both have only adopted the five vows of the Brahmanic ascetics (sawnya- sin). The latter must keep the following five vows ^: * Rhys Davids. Buddhism, p. 139.
^ Baudhiyana II, 10, i8; see Biihler’s translation. Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 375.
XXIV GAINA sOtRAS.
1. Abstention from injuring living beings.
2. Truthfulness.
3. Abstention from appropriating the property of others.
4. Continence.
5. Liberality.
And five minor vows; 6. Abstention from anger.
7. Obedience towards the Guru.
8. Avoidance of rashness.
9. Cleanliness.
10. Purity in eating.
The first four great vows of the Sa;«nyasin agree with those of the Gaina Bhikshu, and are enumerated in the same order. It is therefore probable that the 6^ainas have borrowed their own vows from the Brihmans, not from the Buddhists, because the latter have changed the order of the vows, making truthfulness either the third or fourth cardinal virtue instead of giving it the second place. Be¬ sides it is highly improbable that they should have imitated the Buddhists, when they had in the Brahmanic ascetics much older and more respected models.
It is worth remarking that the fifth great vow or precept is peculiar to each of the three religious systems, probably because the Brahmanic fifth vow, viz. liberality, could not be enjoined on mendicants such as the monks of the Buddhists and Gainas were. The Gainas previous to Mah^vira’s time had only four great vows, since the fourth was included in the fifth. But Mahavira brought the number of the vows again up to five, a number which seems to have been regarded as solemn, since the Buddhists have adopted it likewise in their moral code.
Our foregoing inquiry suggests where we have to look for the originals of the monastic orders of the Gainas and Buddhists. The Brahmanic ascetic was their model, from which they borrowed many important practices and insti¬ tutions of ascetic life. This observation is not an entirely new one. Professor Max Muller has already, in his Hib- bert Lectures (p. 351), started a similar opinion; likewise Professor Biihler, in his translation of the Baudhdyana Sfitra INTRODUCTION.
XXV (passim); and Professor Kern, in his History of Buddhism in India. In order to show to what extent the life of (Jaina monks is but an imitation of the life of the Brahmanic ascetics, I shall now compare the rules given to the latter in Gautama’s and Baudhiyana’s law-books^ with the rules for Gaina monks. In most cases the Buddhists conform to the same rules; this will also be briefly noticed.
11. ‘An ascetic shall not possess (any) storeThe Gaina and Buddhist monks are also forbidden to have any¬ thing which they could call their own. See the fifth vow of the Gainas (aparigraha). Even those things which the Gaina monk always carries about himself, as clothes, alms-bowl, broom, &c., are not regarded as his property, but as things necessary for the exercise of religious duties (dharmopakarawa).
12. ‘(He must be) chaste.’ This is the fourth great vow of the Gainas and in Baudhayana, the fifth of the Buddhists.
13. ‘ He must not change his residence during the rainy season ®.’ Biihler remarks in a note: ‘ This rule shows that the Vasso of the Bauddhas and Gainas is also derived from a Brahmanic source.’
14. ‘He shall enter a village only in order to beg.’ The Gainas are not so strict in this respect, as they allow a monk to sleep in a village or town. However he must not stay too long*. Mah^vira did not stay longer than one night in a village or five nights in a town 15. ‘ He shall beg late (after people have finished their meals), without returning twice ®.’ The Gaina monks collect food in the morning or at noon, probably to avoid meeting with their rivals. They generally but once in a day go out begging; but one who has fasted for more than one day may go a begging twice a day'^.
’ See Buhler’s translation, Sacred Boots of the East, vol. ii, pp. 191, 192. The numbers in the text refer to the paragraphs in Gautama’s third book. The similar passages of Baudhayana are referred to in the notes.
“ Compare Baudhayana II, 6,11,16. * Baudhayana II, 6,11, 20.
' Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, § 119.
XXVI GAINA SUTRAS.
16. ‘ Abandoning all desires (for sweet food).’ The same is prescribed in the fourth clause of the fifth great vow of the (Fainas^, and is, besides, the apparent motive in many rules for the acceptance or rejection of alms.
17. ‘He shall restrain his speech, his eyes, (and) his actions.’ This nearly agrees with the three Guptis of the Gainas, or the restraining of the mind, speech, and body^.
18. ‘ He shall wear a cloth to cover his nakedness®.’ The Gaina rules about dress are not so simple; for they allow a Gaina to go naked or to wear one, two, or three garments, but a young, strong monk should as a rule wear but one robe*. Mahavira went about naked®, and so did the Ginakalpikas, or those who tried to imitate him as much as possible. But they also were allowed to cover their nakedness®.
19. ‘Some (declare that he shall wear) an old rag after having washed it.’ Baudh^yana'^ says; ‘ He shall wear a dress dyed yellowish-red.’ This rule agrees more with the practice of the Buddhists than that of the Gainas. The latter are forbidden to wash or dye their clothes, but they must wear them in the same condition in which they are given®. However, the Gainas have only carried into the extreme the original intention of the Brahmanic rule, viz. that the dress of ascetics should be as simple and mean as possible. For they seem to take a sort of pride in outdoing their Brahmanic rivals as regards rigorous conduct, mistaking nastiness and filthiness for the highest pitch of ascetic virtue®, while on the other hand the Buddhists studied to bring their conduct in accordance with the dictates of humanity.
20. ‘ He shall not take parts of plants and trees except such as have become detached (spontaneously).’ The Gainas have the same precept, but they go still farther ^ Kalpa Sfltra, Lives of the Ginas, §118.
® Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, §117. * Aiarahga Sfltra I, 7, 7, i.
INTRODUCTION.
XXVll in allowing- a Caina to eat only such vegetables, fruits, &c. as have no trace of life left^.
ai. ‘Out of season he shall not dwell a second night in (the same) village.’ We have seen above that Mahavira carried out this precept whatever may have been the prac¬ tice of the monks in general.
aa. ‘ He may either shave or wear a lock on the crown of the head.’ The fFainas have improved on this rule as they make baldness binding for all monks. According to Bau- dhiyana^ a Brahman on becoming an ascetic had to cause ‘ the hair of his head, his beard, the hair on his body, and his nails to be cut.’ The same practice, at least as regards the cutting of the hair, was observed by the 6^ainas on the same occasion. Hence the phrase: ‘becoming bald (or tearing out one’s hair) to leave the house and enter the state of houselessness®.’
23. ‘ He shall avoid the destruction of seeds.’ The reader will observe, in many passages of the second book of the A^arahga Sutra, how careful Gaina monks should be of avoiding to injure eggs, living beings, seeds, sprouts, &c. It seems therefore that the (Fainas have only generalised the above rule in applying it to all small beings of the animal and vegetable world.
24. ‘ (He shall be) indifferent towards (all) creatures, whether they do him an injury or a kindness.’
25. ‘He shall not undertake (anything for his temporal or spiritual welfare).’
The last two rules could just as well be taken from a sacred book of the (Fainas, for they are in full accordance with the drift of their religion. Mahavira strictly carried them out. ‘ More than four months many sorts of living beings gathered on his body, crawled about it, and caused there pain^.’ ‘ Always well guarded, he bore the pains (caused by) grass, cold, fire, flies, and gnats; manifold pains®.’ ‘ He with equanimity bore, underwent, and suffered all pleasant ^ Baudhayana II, ro, 17,10.
® Mumrfe bhavitta agarao a«agariyam pavvaie.
XXVlll GAINA sdxRAS.
or unpleasant occurrences, arising from divine powers, men, or animals It is frequently said of the ascetic in the last stage of his spiritual career that‘he does desire neither life nor death There are some more precepts in Baudhayana which bear a close resemblance to such of the (Fainas. ‘ With the three means of punishment, (viz.) words, thoughts, and acts, he shall not injure created beings®/ This is only an amplifi¬ cation of the first great vow (see above). ‘ Means of punish¬ ment’is what the G^ainas call weapon (jastra^).
‘ He shall carry a cloth for straining water for the sake of purification.’ ‘ He shall perform the necessary purifications with water which has been taken out (of a well or a tank) and has been strained ®.’ These rules are strictly observed by the G^aina monks. They also carry a cloth for straining water. The commentator Govinda explains pavitra, ‘ a cloth for straining water,’ by ‘ a bunch of Kuja grass for removing insects from the road®.’ If Govinda be right, and had the authority of a really old tradition, which I do not doubt, we have here the Brahmanic counterpart of the broom (r^^ohara«a or pddapro%Mana) with which the G'aina monks sweep the road and the place where they walk or sit down, for removing insects.
The outfit of a Brahmanic ascetic consists in ‘ sticks, a rope, a cloth for straining water, a water vessel, and an alms- bowH.’ The G’aina monks also carry sticks, at least now- a-days, though I remember no passage in the Pi^akas expressly allowing the use of a stick. They have also a rope belonging to the alms-bowl®, an alms-bowl, and a water vessel®. Of the cloth for straining water, and the broom, we have already spoken. The filter for the mouth (mukhavastrika) remains as the only article exclusively used ' Kalpa Sfltra, Lives of the Ginas, §117, towards the end.
* E. g. Kalpa Sutra, Rules for Yatis, § 51.
* See Professor Biihler’s translation, p. 260, note.
® Though a monk is allowed to carry a water vessel besides his alms-bowl, still it is thought more meritorious to have but one bowl.
INTRODUCTION, XXIX by the 6^ainas. On the whole, therefore, the 6^ainas were outfitted very much like their Brahmanic models, the Sa^nyasins or Bhikshus.
‘ Let him eat food, given without asking, regarding which nothing has been settled beforehand, and which has reached him accidentally, so much only as is sufficient to sustain life^.’ The reader will find on perusing the 6^aina ‘rules for begging^’ that only that food is considered ‘pure and acceptable’ which has been obtained under exactly the same circumstances as have been laid down in the above rule of Baudhayana for Brahmanic ascetics. The Bud¬ dhists are not so strict in this regard, as they accept invita¬ tions for dinner, of course, prepared especially for them.
From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the 6^aina monk, it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. But now the question may be raised whether the Nirgrantha is a direct copy of the Sa»?nydsin, or an indirect one. For it might be assumed that the Nir¬ grantha copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu, who himself was but a copy of the Sa^nyasin. As I have hinted above, this suggestion is not a probable one, for there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the 6^ainas would proba¬ bly have conformed rather to it than to the less respected and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists. But besides this primi facie argument against the assumption in question, the adoption of certain Brahmanic rules, noticed above, by the Chinas, which were not followed by the Buddhists, proves that the latter were not the model of the former.
There remains another possibility, but a still more im¬ probable one, viz. that the Brahmanic ascetic copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu or Gaina monk. I say still more im¬ probable, because, firstly, the Sa^nydsin makes part of the system of the four stages, or Ajramas, which if not so old as Brahmanism itself, is at least much older than both Buddhism and 6^ainism; secondly, the Brahmanic ascetics were scattered all over India, while the Buddhists were ‘ Baudhayana II, lo, i8,13.
^ Aiarahga Sutra II, I.
XXX GAINA StjTRAS.
confined, at least in the first two centuries of their church, to a small part of the country, and therefore could not have been imitated by all the Sawnydsins; thirdly, Gau¬ tama, the lawgiver, was certainly older than the rise of Buddhism. For Professor Biihler thinks that the lower limit for the composition of the Apastamba Sfltra must be placed in the fourth or fifth century B.C.^ Baudhayana is older than Apastamba; according to Biihler^, the dis¬ tance in years between them must be measured rather by centuries than by decades. Again, Gautama is older than Baudhdyana®. Gautama, therefore, and perhaps Baudha¬ yana, must have lived before the rise of Buddhism, and as the former teaches already the complete system of Brah- manic ascetism, he cannot have borrowed it from the Buddhists. But if Biihler should be wrong in his estima¬ tion of the time when those codes of sacred laws were composed, and if they should turn out to be younger than the rise of Buddhism, they certainly cannot be so by many centuries. Even in that case, which is not a probable one, those lawgivers are not likely to have largely borrowed from the Buddhists whom the Brahmans at that time must have despised as false pretenders of a recent origin. They would certainly not have regarded laws as sacred which were evidently appropriated from heretics. On the other hand the Buddhists had no reason not to borrow from the Brah¬ mans, because they greatly respected the latter for the sake of their intellectual and moral superiority. Hence the Gainas and Buddhists use the word Br 4 hma«a as an honorific title, applying it even to persons who did not belong to the caste of Brahmans.
It may be remarked that the monastical order of the Gainas and Buddhists though copied from the Brihmans were chiefly and originally intended for Kshatriyas. Buddha addressed himself in the first line to noble and rich men, as has been pointed out by Professor Oldenberg*. For * Buddha, sein Ixben, &c., p. 157 seq.
INTRODUCTION.
XXXI Buddha, in his first sermon at Benares, speaks of his reli¬ gion as that yass’ atthaya kulaputti sammad eva ag^rasma anagariyaw pabba^anti: for the sake of which sons of noble families leave the house and enter the state of houselessness That the G^ainas too gave the Kshatriyas the preference over the Brdhmans is proved by that curious legend about the transfer of the embryo of Mahavlra from the womb of the Brihmawi Devanand& to that of the Kshatriyawi Trijali, it being alleged that a Brahma#! or another woman of low family was not worthy to give birth to a Ttrthakara^.
On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brah¬ mans were entitled to enter the fourth Ajrama, and as a “ This legend is rejected as absurd by the Digambaras, but the 5 ’vetambaras staunchly uphold its truth. As it is found in the Aiarsinga, the Kalpa Sutra, and many other books, it cannot be doubted that it is very old. However, it is not at all clear for what reason so absurd a legend could have been invented and have gained currency. Yet I may be allowed to offer my opinion on this dark point. I assume that Siddhartha had two wives, the Brahman! Devdnanda the real mother of Mahavlra, and the Kshatriyanl Trisala; for the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. Rishabhadatta, cannot be very old, be¬ cause its Prakrit form would in that case probably be Usabhadinna instead of Usabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Gaina only, not to a Brihman. I therefore make no doubt that R/shabhadatta has been invented by the Gainas in order to provide Devanand^ with another husband. Now Siddhtrtha was connected with persons of high rank and great influence through his marriage with Trisala. It was, therefore, probably thought more profitable to give out that Mahflvlra was the son, and not merely the step-son of Trisala, for this reason, that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations. This story could all the more easily have gained credence as Mahavlra’s parents were dead many years when he came forward as a prophet. But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryos was invented. The latter idea was not an original conception of the Gainas, but it is evidently borrowed from the PurS.»ic story of the transfer of the embryo of Kn'shna from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohinl. The worship of Kr/shna seems to have been popular during the first centuries of the development of the Gaina creed; for the Gainas have reproduced the whole history of Kn'shna, with small alterations, in relating the life of the twenty-second Tlrthakara, Arishta- nemi, who was a famous Yfldava.
xxxii GAWA SUTRAS.
proof for this theory a verse of Manu, VI, 97, as Professor Biihler informs me, was quoted. But not all commentators drew the same inference from that verse. Leaving aside this controverted point, it certainly became, in later times, the custom that a Brahman, as a rule, passed through four, a nobleman through three, a citizen through two, a ^hdra through one of the four Ajramas^.
From all this it becomes probable that the non-Brahma- nic ascetics even in early times were regarded as an order separate and distinguished from the Brahmanic ascetics. We can understand that this position of non-Brahmanic ascetics led to the formation of sects inclining to dissent. That the untrue ascetics had such an origin, may be col¬ lected from a remark of Vasish/^a. It is known that the performance of religious ceremonies was discontinued by the ascetics, but some went beyond this and discontinued the recitation of the Veda. Against transgressors of this kind Vasish^'^a^ has the following quotation: ‘ Let him dis¬ continue the performance of all religious ceremonies, but let him never discontinue the recitation of the Veda. By neglecting the Veda he becomes a 5 udra; therefore he shall not neglect it.’ An inhibition pronounced so em¬ phatically presupposes the real occurrence of the practices forbidden. If therefore some ascetics already had ceased to recite the Veda, we may conclude that others began to disregard it as revelation and the highest authority. That those who were regarded as a sort of inferior ascetics, the non-Brahmanic ascetics, were most likely to make this step, is easy to imagine. We see thus that the germs of dissent¬ ing sects like those of the Buddhists and the 6^ainas were contained in the institute of the fourth Ajrama, and that the latter was the model of the heretical sects; therefore Buddhism and 6^ainism must be regarded as religions de¬ veloped out of Brahmanism not by a sudden reformation, but prepared by a religious movement going on for a long time.
' Max Muller, The Hibbert Lectures, p. 343. ^ Chapter x, 4. Buhler’s translation.
INTRODUCTION.
XXXlll We have seen that neither the 6^aina legends about their last prophet, nor the ascetic life ordained for 6^aina monks, nor any other religious practices adhered to by the faithful, warrant our assuming that the 6^aina sect has developed, in one way or other, out of the Buddhistical church. It remains for me to show that the difference of both creeds as regards the principal tenets is such as not to admit a common origin. Whatever Buddha may have taught and thought about the state of Nirvana, whether he went the length to identify it with absolute non-existence, or imagined it to be a sort of existence different from all we know or can conceive, it is beyond doubt, and a striking feature of Buddha’s philosophy, that he combated the Brahmanic theory of the Atman, as being the absolute and permanent soul, according to the pantheist as well as the monadic point of view. But the G^ainas fully concur in the Brahmanic theory of the Atman, with only this difference, that they as¬ cribe to the Atmans a limited space, while the Br&hmans of the Sahkhya, Nyiya, and Vaueshika schools contend that the Atmans are co-extensive with the universe. On the other hand, the Buddhistical theory of the five Skandhas with their numerous subdivisions have no counterpart in the psycho¬ logy of the G^ainas. A characteristic dogma of the G^ainas which pervades their whole philosophical system and code of morals, is the hylozoistic theory that not only animals and plants, but also the smallest particles of the elements, earth, fire, water, and wind, are endowed with souls (.g'lva). No such dogma, on the other hand, is contained in the philosophy of the Buddhists. To Indian philosophers the various degrees of knowledge up to omniscience are matters of great moment. The G^ainas have a theory of their own on this head, and a terminology which differs from that of the Brahmanic philosophers and of the Bud¬ dhists. Right knowledge, they say, is fivefold: (i) mati, right perception; (a)jruta, clear knowledge based on mati; (3) avadhi, a sort of supernatural knowledge; (4) mana/^- paryaya, clear knowledge of the thoughts of others; (5) kevala, the highest degree of knowledge, consisting in omniscience. This psychological theory is a fundamental c XXXIV GAINA SUTRAS.
one of the G^ainas, as it is always before the mind of the authors of the sacred books when describing the spiritual career of the saints. But we search in vain for something analogous in the Buddhist scriptures. We could multiply the instances of difference between the fundamental tenets of both sects, but we abstain from it, fearing to tire the reader’s patience with an enumeration of all such cases. Such tenets as the G^ainas share with the Buddhists, both sects have in common with the Brahmanic philosophers, e. g. the belief in the regeneration of souls, the theory of the Karman, or merit and demerit resulting from former actions, which must take effect in this or another birth, the belief that by perfect knowledge and good conduct man can avoid the necessity of being born again and again, &c. Even the theory that from time immemorial prophets (Buddhas or Tlrthakaras) have proclaimed the same dogmas and re¬ newed the sinking faith, has its Brahmanic counterpart in the Avataras of Vish«u. Besides, such a theory is a necessary consequence both of the Buddhistical and Gaina creed. For what Buddha or Mahavira had revealed was, of course, regarded by the followers of either as truth and the only truth; this truth must have existed from the beginning of time, like the Veda of the Brahmans; but could the truth have remained unknown during the infinite space of time elapsed before the appearance of the prophet? No, would answer the pious believer in Buddhism or