We may now make some quotations from the Egyptian Ritual for the Dead (Bunsen's _Egypt_, Vol. V.). "O soul, greatest of things created" (p.

165); "I am the Great G.o.d, creating himself" (p. 172); "Oh Lord of the great abode, Chief of the G.o.ds" (p. 177). Throughout this invocation, however, the lord of the universe seems to be spoken of as the sun under various t.i.tles. There is frequent reference to the danger of the soul falling into the power of some malignant deity, and orthodoxy is secured by addressing every good G.o.d by his or her proper t.i.tle. There is no grand conception anywhere, and the endless repet.i.tions disgust the ordinary reader. I must add that the sun, Osiris, and the male organ, are spoken of as emblematic of each other.

If we next turn to the Shemitic religions, we have to contend with the difficulty produced by the paucity of written records, and the doubts which exist about certain epithets that relate to the G.o.ds. As far as I can discover, there was an idea of a Supreme Being, whose name was Jeho.

Io. Iou., or the like, and Il or El. His ministers were the sun, moon, planets, constellations, and stars. His emblems were the s.e.xual organs, and worship was, to a great degree, licentious. There was no conception of a spiritual life after death, or of a state of future rewards and punishments. Sacrifice was thought much of, but I doubt whether there was anything like what we know as prayer. At any rate, in all those parts of the Bible which seem to be the oldest, there is a singular absence of any formula or command for supplication. Solomon's prayer is comparatively of modern date. Indeed, this vacuity is implied in the expression of one of Jesus' disciples, "Teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples" (Luke xi. 1), thus showing clearly that the practice of prayer was not a Judaic, i.e., Mosaic one.*

* As a friend, who has been kind enough to a.s.sist me to correct these sheets in their pa.s.sage through the press, considers that I ought to give some reasons for the a.s.sertion made in the text, the following information is appended:--

I. There are, in all, about a score of different words in Hebrew which have been translated, "prayer," "I pray,"

"praying," &c. These are--(1) ahnah or ahna, (2) begah, (3) ghalah, (4) ghanan, (5) loo, (6) lahgash, (7) na, (8) gathar, (9) pagag, (10) pahlal, (11) tztlah, (12) seeagh, (13) shoal, (14) tephilah. The rest are different forms of the same roots.

II. These words do not, except in a few instances, really bear the signification of "prayer" or "intercession," which is given to them in the Authorised English Version of the Bible; as any one may convince himself by consulting Wigram's Hebrew concordance.

Thus, No. 1, in three instances, is translated in the A. V.

by the interjection "or,(OL)" No. 2, in the A. V. is once used as "praying," but in other parts as "seeking" for persons, "desiring" or "requesting," and "making." No. 8 is translated in various parts of the A. V. "I am weak" "I fell sick," "was not grieved," "a parturient woman crying,"

"to put one's self to pain," "is grievous," "hath laid," "is my infirmity," and these meanings are far more common than the signification of "prayer." No. 4 is only used twice, and is in one place translated "by showing mercy," and in the other by "making supplication." No. 5 is translated "O that," "peradventure," "would G.o.d that," "if," "if haply,"

"though," and only once "I pray thee." No. 6 is translated "enchantment," "orator," "earrings," "charmed," and once only "prayer," with the marginal reading "secret speech."

No. 7 is in one place "now," in another "Oh," "go to," as well as "I pray," and this in the same sense as we should use the words to a child "I wish you would be quiet" No. 8 is generally used in the sense of "intreaty" or "prayer,"

but it once is found as "earnest," and "multiplying words,"

as in a Litany. No. 9 is used to signify "he came,"

"reached," "thou shalt meet," "fall upon," or "kill," "he lighted" on a certain place, "they met together," and in the 53d chapter of Isaiah the same word is used in verse 6, "for the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," and in verse 12, for "and made intercession for the transgressors!" No. 10 is used almost exclusively for prayer, but it is only found six times in the whole Pentateuch, in one of which it is read "I had no thought"

in the A. V. No. 11 is only found twice, once in Ezra and once in Daniel, and signifies "prayer" in both. No. 12 has many interpretations in the A. V., viz., "meditation,"

"speaking," "talking," "complaining," "declaring," in one instance only is it translated "pray," and that in the apparently important text Ps. lv. 17, "Evening and morning and at noon will I pray." As a substantive the word is rendered as "complaint," "talking, meditation,"

"babbling," and only once "prayer," and that in Ps. lv. 2, "Hear my voice, O G.o.d, in my prayer." No. 13 is generally translated "ask," as we should remark, "well, if he asks me what must I say?" "beg," as "he shall beg in harvest;"

"consulted," in the text "he consulted with images,"

"salute," "to salute him of peace;" "enquired," "Saul enquired of the Lord;" "wished," "and wished in himself to die;" "lent," "I have lent him to the Lord," "so that they lent unto them." No. 14 is used exclusively for prayer, but the word is not to be found in the whole of the Pentateuch.

III. There is reason to believe that the most important of these words have come from the Persian, a language allied to the Sanscrit; and if so, it is clear that the idea of prayer was adopted by the Jews after they were patronised by the conquerors of Babylon. Some of the other words are Aramaic, and probably even more modern than the rest. For example, No. 10 is compared by Furst in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, to the Sanscrit phal, and No. 8 may also be derived from the Persian, and a Sanscrit root gad, which signifies "to speak to," or "call upon," Anahf No. 1, is Aramaic.

I think that it was Mons. Weill, in his remarkable book called Moise et le Talmud, who first drew attention to the influence of the Talmudists upon the Jewish Scriptures. He pointed out that in the Mosaic law there was no idea of prayer, intercession, or pardon; everything was based upon the "lex talionis," an eye was to be paid for with an eye, murder was to be avenged by murder, and ecclesiastical, ceremonial, and other transgressions were to be atoned, i.e., satisfaction was to be given by sacrifice and payments to the priest or tabernacle. But when the Jews, after their contact with the Chaldeans, Medea, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, began to study theology, two sects arose--the Talmudists, who explained away the older Scriptures, interpolated narratives, or simply texts therein, so as to suit their purposes; and the Sadducees, who refused to adopt as matters of faith anything which was not taught by Moses. The first was the strongest sect, and composed the majority in the Sanhedrim. They thus had power over the sacred canon, and could reject ma.n.u.scripts or adopt them according as the purposes which were aimed at were served. The Talmudic interpolations are supposed to b recognised chiefly in the more modern parts of the Old Testament, in Ezra, Nehemiah, the second Isaiah and Jeremiah, in the books of Zechariah and Malachi, in the Chronicles, Daniel, in many Psalms, more spa.r.s.ely in the older histories, but very largely in the Pentateuch.

From these considerations, from the absence of any order in the Mosaic law for the priests to offer any supplication, and from, the general absence of prayer from the sacrifices of all nations, we may conclude that "intercession" formed no part in the Jewish religion in the early days of its existence.

When working upon this subject I endeavoured to examine the curious Iguvian tables, on which Aufrecht, Eircher, and Newman have bestowed such pains. These are, I believe, the only tables extant which give directions to the old Umbrian, or any other ancient priests, how to conduct public sacrifices and the ensuing feasts. In them there are directions for invocations, but no formula for prayers, unless one can call invocations by that name. I fancy, that in some parts of the tables there are words which may be rendered "speak," or "mutter," or "meditate," or "pray silently."

The fact that a Hebrew historian has composed a prayer, and put it into the mouth of King Solomon, rather than into that of a high priest, shows that supplication for the people was not a strictly sacerdotal duty.

Even now, with all our liberality of thought, we take our prayers from the Archbishops, and not from the crown.

But what we have said points to another important consideration, viz., how far our Authorized Version can be trusted as a foundation upon which to build a theory respecting the use of prayer, when we find that the words given in English do not correspond with the words in the original Hebrew.

We have noticed in the text that both John and Jesus taught their disciples to pray; we may now call attention to the idea which the latter had of "prayer." In a parable, which was evidently intended to represent what was common enough in his day, he says, "Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican; the Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself--G.o.d, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are," &c (Luke xviii. 10-13). Surely one cannot call a boastful enumeration of one's virtues either "supplication,"

"prayer," or "entreaty;" but we understand readily that what we should call "meditation" was once included under the name "prayer." This anecdote unquestionably seems to prove that there was nothing like public prayer in the temple ritual. The idea of the Ancients was to obtain what they wanted by costly sacrifice; the idea of the Moderns is to obtain their desires by the expenditure of words only. We know that Pagans used long litanies, and that Christians do so too. In Jezebel's time "0 Baal, hear us" resounded on Mount Carmel in sonorous monotony.

We have replaced that heathen chant by another, and our cathedrals reverberate constantly with the musical rogation, "We beseech Thee to hear us, good Lord," uttered more than a score of times. Our orthodoxy consists in our using English instead Phoenician words, and in calling Baal by a word more familiar to us; and as the highest commendation which we can give to others is to imitate them, so we praise the Ancient heathen highly, who thought that they would be heard from their "much speaking." It is ever easier to change our words than our practice. Like the Pharisee, Christians boast that they are not as other men are; but by their proceedings they show that they are like the Jews, of whose paternity Jesus had not an exalted opinion. (See John viii. 44).

In further ill.u.s.tration of the absence of a set form of prayer in the temple worship in Jerusalem, and of the independence of all devout solicitors of priestly aid, I may point to Matthew vi. 5 to 8, wherein we find that hypocrites offered their supplications, not only in the temple, but at the corners of the streets. It is just possible that in the former locality there might have been some public worship going on, in which the saintly could join, but certainly there was no such ritual at street corners. But if there had really been divine service in the temple, it follows that those who joined in it would not have been conspicuous, or deserving the name of hypocrites. The fault of these which is mentioned by Jesus is ostentatious public prayer, i.e.9 the doing of that which had not been prescribed by Moses.

As I have, in a preceding volume, spoken at some length concerning the morals and manners of ancient races, and shown how, as a rule, their conduct has been the same as that of modern Christians, and as, moreover, the subject has been treated of in an essay by Lecky (_History of European Morals_), I will not pursue this part of my subject further than to remark, that we have scarcely two articles of faith--if, indeed we have more than one--i.e., respect for one day in seven--which we have not received, directly or indirectly, from Pagans. Even our Christianity is but a modified Buddhism, as I shall endeavour, in my next chapter, to show.

CHAPTER IV.

Christianity and Buddhism. The new and old world. An impartial judge is said to be a partisan. Works on the subject. Sakya Muni's birth, B.c. 620 (about), position in life, original views. Parallels between Brahmin-ism, Buddhism, Hebraism, and Christianity. History of Sakya Muni --that of Jesus corresponds with it marvellously. Sakya receives a commission from an angel--is henceforth a saviour. History of Jesus follows that of Sakya. Siddartha neither dictated nor wrote. A favourite garden. Sakya and the Brahmins. Buddha and Christ equally persecuted. Spread of Buddhism after Siddartha's death. Asoka a royal convert Buddhist missionaries, b.c. 307. Their wonderful successes.

Different development of Buddhism and Christianity.

Persecution a Christian practice, Buddha tempted by the Devil, and by women, like St Anthony. Buddha's life reduced to writing, at least B.c. 90. Hardy on Buddhist miracles.

His remarks criticised. Necessity for miracles is doubtful.

Sakya and a future life. Resurrection from the dead. Jesus not the first fruits of them that slept. Paul's argument worthless. Buddhists in advance of Christians. Priestcraft at time of Buddha and Jesus. Both did away with ceremonial.

Sakya's doctrine--compared with Christian teaching. Another parallel between Buddha and Jesus. Commandments of Tathagata (Buddha), or the Great Sramana. Rules for his saintly friends--for outsiders. Definition of terms. The Sra-mana's opinion of miracles--a comparison. The history of Jesus told without miracles. Buddhistic confession--remarks on in modern times. Filial respect. Public confession, murder absolved thereby. Asoka, about B.c. 263, sent out missionaries. Objections made against Buddhism. Ideas respecting G.o.d. Salvation. Buddha and Jesus. Nirvana. Heaven and h.e.l.l--Christian ideas. Apocalypse. The heaven of John and Mahomet compared with that of Buddha. Prayer not a Buddhist inst.i.tution--nor originally a Christian one. Nature of prayer. The developments of Buddhism, particulars-- comparison between the Eastern ancient and Western modern practice. Abbe Hue. No s.e.xual element in Buddhism and Christianity at first--it has crept into both in later times. Inquiry into the probable introduction of Buddhism into the West. Asceticism peculiar to Buddhism and Christianity. The Essenes, their faith and practice-- resemblance to Buddhism. John and Jesus probably Essenes.

If Jesus was inspired, so was Siddartha. Differences between Sakya and Jesus. Jesus 'believed in an immediate destruction of the world. Idea of preexistence in Jesus and Sakya adopted by their followers. The basis of the two faiths is morality--but an unsound one. Nature of the unsoundness. Morality has a reference to a life on earth only. The decalogue superfluous. Ideas of future rewards and punishments. Dives and Lazarus. The world can exist without a knowledge of a future life. G.o.d thought so when He taught the Jews. Dogma versus morality. See how these Christians live! There are a few good men amongst Christians.

Supplementary remarks.

From the Peruvian and Aztec religious systems in what we designate the New World, a phrase which involves the idea that its existence was for ages wholly unknown to the historians of the Eastern Hemisphere, we turn to another form of faith, which demands even greater attention. Buddhism has, probably, done more to influence the minds of men in Asia than any other religion in any part of the globe, and its history is so remarkable, that it deserves the attention of every philosophical student of mankind. To the Christian it ought to be especially interesting, inasmuch as there is strong reason to believe that the faith current amongst ourselves is to be traced to the teaching of Sakya Muni, whose original name, we may notice, in pa.s.sing, was no more "Buddha" than "Christ" was the cognomen of the son of Mary.

An ingenious author on one occasion wrote a charming essay "upon the art of putting things," and I cannot read any treatise upon Buddhism, written by a Christian, without thinking how completely "the advocate"

is to be seen throughout them all Ecclesiastical writers, who are Protestant preachers, endeavour laboriously to prove that the teaching of Sakya Muni could not have been inspired, and was certainly false; whilst other writers, who have no particular leaning towards Jesus, extol the author of Buddhism beyond that of Christianity. Truly, in such a matter it is extremely difficult not to appear as a partisan, however carefully the scales may be held. The very fact of endeavouring "to see ourselves as others see us" involves the necessity of "putting things"

in a different light to that which is most common or familiar to us. A b.u.mptious Briton thinks more of his own Islands than a Yankee thinks of them, and one who endeavours to describe "the wheel of the law" as an astute Buddhist would do, and who, at the same time, compares it with the teachings of the son of Mary, must seem to those who, without knowing its nature, despise the former, and yet implicitly believe in the latter, to be a partisan. Acting upon this belief, we shall not scruple to appear as an advocate, for we believe that "an opposition"

is as good in religion as in politics, and that it behoves us all to examine every important question in all its bearings.

In the following essay I shall not attempt to go into every detail about the life of Sakya Muni, for to do so would weary the reader. Anyone who wishes for such information may be referred to _Le Bouddha et sa Religion_, par J. Barthelemy Saint Hilaire, Paris, 1860, a book which may be fairly designated as exhaustive. The English reader may also consult _The Legends and Theories of the Buddhists_, by Rev. R. Spence Hardy, London, 1866, which, though very prejudiced, is extremely suggestive. Hardy's _Eastern Monachism_ and _Manual of Buddhists_ are about the same. _The Mahawanso_ translated by Tumour, is also a very valuable work of reference.

There appears to be little doubt that Sakya Muni was born about 622 years before our era, and that he died when about eighty years of age, i.e.f B.C. 542. He was thus a contemporary of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other Jewish prophets. Though of royal birth, and of the warrior or kingly caste, he does not appear to have been instructed in general history, if, indeed, any such was in existence in Hindostan at that or any other period; and we cannot find a t.i.ttle of evidence that he ever heard of any other religion than Brahminism, the dominant faith, apparently, of the Aryan invaders of India. In that he was taught a.s.siduously, and some of its tenets he most firmly believed. Amongst others, he held that men lived in a future world, in which each one was rewarded or punished according to his doings when in a human form. His teaching was founded upon the belief which the Brahmins inculcated, that all men endure misery in this world for their conduct in a previous state of existence, and that they would once again suffer after death, unless they conducted themselves, in this life, in a manner pleasing to the Almighty. In this creed is clearly involved, if not distinctly enunciated, a full acknowledgment of the existence and power of G.o.d, of the certainty of a future life, and a desire to escape from penalties to be inflicted therein by a supreme celestial Judge, for immorality or impropriety committed in the present state. For these points of doctrine Sakya did not contend, he merely laid down a different system to the Brahmins as to the method by which salvation was to be attained, and the penal consequences of a sinful life were to be avoided.

We may now, halting here for a moment, examine these matters for ourselves, and inquire in what way such faith differs from our own.

The Brahmin taught that man suffers pain, misery, and death for certain crimes committed in a previous state of existence; the Christian teaches that each one suffers for a fault committed by ancestors who lived thousands of years ago. Neither the one nor the other regard pain, sorrow, suffering, and death as the normal accompaniments of life, but both attribute them to the wrath of an offended deity, who can be, in some way, cheated, cajoled, appeased, or propitiated. Both a.s.sert that men are debtors to G.o.d, and that miseries are "duns" used to make men pay their obligations to heaven. The Brahmin taught that this could be effected by prayer, sacrifice, and sundry ceremonies to be performed by some man who had been specially appointed for the purpose. A due attention to morality was also inculcated, but it was apparently considered as of less importance than ritualistic observances.

The Jew, whom so many amongst us believe to have been especially taught by G.o.d, propounded a belief essentially similar to that of the Brahmin, with the single exception that he had no faith in a future existence, but thought that sacrifice and offerings, through a priesthood, were necessary to obtain comfort in this life.

The Christian teaches that the horrors of eternity can only be escaped by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts xvi. 30, 31), and by being moral in addition.

The "belief" here referred to is somewhat amplified in other parts of the Bible, and notably in John iii. 15-17, 36; vi. 39, 40; ix. 35; xi.

15; and Acts viii. 37; from which we learn that an item in the faith was a firm hold upon the idea that Jesus was the son, the only begotten son, of G.o.d. This dogma is still further extended in the "Apostles' Creed,"

wherein the Christians express, as articles of faith, their belief, that Jesus Christ was the only son of G.o.d, conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, &c. This tenet is somewhat varied in the Nicene Creed, which expresses the Christian belief to be, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of G.o.d--begotten of his Father before all worlds--being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, &c.

The fundamental teaching of Sakya was, that man can only escape the tortures of the d.a.m.ned, by a strict propriety of conduct in this world, and a persistent endeavour to renounce and think nothing of the gratifications which make life pleasant. The modern Buddhist adds to this a belief in the absolute divinity of the founder of his faith, not simply that he was a son of G.o.d, but a visible embodiment of a portion of the Creative Unity. Brahmins and Buddhists believe in transmigration of souls: the Christian does the like, only, instead of being converted into a beast, he imagines that he will become either an angel or a devil.

Within certain limits, we may, therefore, say that the Brahminic, the Jewish, the Buddhist, and the Christian religions are essentially alike, differing only upon minor points, such as the absolute value of morality, of ceremonial, of doctrine, of asceticism, the nature of a hypothetical antecedent, and an equally uncertain future existence, and the best means of escaping the penalties attached, in the second state, to impropriety of conduct in the first. If we deride the Brahmin and the Buddhist for the faith which they entertain, our laugh must necessarily recoil on ourselves, for we have no more unequivocal grounds for our belief than they have for theirs. We point in vain to what we call "Revelation," for they can do the same, and if priority in such matters is good for anything, the Brahminic must take precedence of the Jewish, and the Buddhist of the Christian code. Nor can we call miracles to our exclusive aid, for the religious books of the Hindoo are as full of them as are those of the Jew and Christian, and the stories told in the one can be readily paralleled in impossibility, incapacity, frivolity, and absurdity by the others.

We must remember, then, when speaking of the teaching of Sakya, that it was constructed upon the supposed fundamental truths of Brahminism, just as the doctrines of Jesus were built upon those of Judaism. By adopting these, respectively, the two preachers have demonstrated their belief in them, but neither the one nor the other have advanced our knowledge as to the reality of the earliest faith, nor demonstrated the truth of their subsequent a.s.sumptions.

If we now endeavour, for the sake of comparison, to place the Eastern and the Western points of belief in parallel columns, we shall be better able to see the points of resemblance and of difference than by any other plan.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 114]

[Ill.u.s.tration: 115]

These are only a few of the leading points of resemblance and difference, and might be almost indefinitely multiplied.

After this preface, we may proceed to notice that Siddartha--another name for Buddha--was of royal birth, and born in wedlock: his mother was called Maya Devi, and was herself the daughter of a king. His father was of the warrior caste, and, according to ancient usage, Sakya, like Jesus some centuries later, was presented in the temple of the G.o.d of his parents, and recognized by a Brahmin, whom we may designate as a predecessor, by some hundreds of years, of the Jewish Simeon (Luke ii 25, seq.)f as having the marks of a great man upon him. As Sakya grew up to man's estate he was found to be peculiarly clever, and soon distanced his masters, as Jesus was and did, when, at twelve years, he went into the temple and astonished the doctors. He was always thoughtful, and frequently remained alone. Once he wandered into a forest, (compare Matthew iv. 1-11), in which he was found lost in thought. When obliged to exhibit his talents, Siddartha was found to have every conceivable excellence, bodily and mental He was, by parental desire, married to a paragon of a wife, who showed her good sense by rejecting the use of a veil. In this Sakya differs from Mary's son, who never married, being, most probably, of the tribe of the Essenes. In later life Siddartha discouraged wedlock and every form of love. But, during all his outward happiness; Siddartha's thoughts ran upon the misery which he saw on every side to be common in the world, and he entertained a hope that he would be able to show man the road to a happy immortality. In these ideas the teacher was encouraged by a G.o.d, who appeared to him by night, and told him that the appointed time for the deliverer had come. This comforter also recommended him to leave his wife, his wealth, his father's house, and give up all he had, so as to be able to seek, unenc.u.mbered, the way of salvation. Compare here the pa.s.sage, Mark x.

20-30, wherein Jesus gives the same kind of advice as the angel gave to Sakya Muni. Having become satisfied of his mission from G.o.d, he resolutely abandoned everything, and, being really a scion of royalty, he had much to renounce. Siddartha thus became a mendicant, dependent upon others for food and raiment, and resembled that son of Mary, of whom we read that he had not a residence wherein to lay his head (Matt.

viii. 20; Luke ix. 58). He was about twenty-nine years of age when he thus became poor for the sake of mankind. Compare what is said of Jesus, Luke iii. 23. Though Siddartha was opposed to the Brahmins, he nevertheless studied their doctrines, as Mary's son did that of the Hebrew theologians, thoroughly, under one of the wisest of them, for many years. Then, leaving this teacher, he went about preaching and doing good. So much were men impressed with his beauty, his piety, and his doctrines, that they flocked in crowds to see him, and he taught them whilst sitting on the brow of Mount Pandava--even kings came to hear him. Compare here what is said of the Nazarene, Matt. iv. 23 to Matt. viii. 1. Sakya was persecuted for a long time by a relative, who ultimately became one of his most ardent disciples. Compare Matt. xvi.

22 and John xxi. 15, et seq. Siddartha's austerities and mortifications of himself, in every conceivable way, were excessive during the next six years, and these have been represented as a combat with the Devil, whose kingdom he destroyed. At the end of this probation, Sakya Muni, finding fasting and pain not profitable for eternal salvation, resumed the ordinary human habits of eating, &c. This disgusted many of his disciples, and "they walked no more with him." He was partly supported by a slave woman, and was content to clothe himself with vestments taken from the dead. Finally, this wonderful son of Maya heard within him a voice, which told him that he was divine, the saviour of the world, and the incarnation of the wisdom of G.o.d--Buddha, "the word" itself. Compare John i. 1, et seq. This was confirmed by a miracle, and thus, at the age of thirty-six, and at the foot of a fig tree, Sakya Muni received a divine commission, "and the word was made flesh." But, though thus divinely inspired, the saviour doubted his power to convert mankind, and at the first he only preached his new doctrines to a few. Even in this respect it is marvellous to see how closely the Christian story of Jesus follows that of his predecessor Siddartha. Some opposed Sakya, but these were soon converted by his majesty, and the glory with which he spake the words--"Yes," he said, "I have come to see clearly both immortality and the way to attain it; I am Buddha--I know all--I see all--I have blotted out my faults, and am above all law." Recognizing in Siddartha the teacher of mankind, the common people heard him gladly, and gave him homage, and he, in return, taught them his full doctrine. The Indian saviour then proceeded to the holy city, Benares, and taught there.