grapple with and to hold their own against the priests, nay, who were superior to them particularly in one subject, as we are told, namely, in their knowledge of the Atman, the Self. In the Maitrâyana-upanishad we read of King Brihadratha who gives up his kingdom, retires into the forest, and is instructed by the sage Sâkâyanya, whose name may contain the first allusion to Sâkas and their descendants in India. Such a royal pupil would naturally in the course of his studies become a sage and teacher himself.

Again, in the Khând. Up. V, 11 we see a number of eminent Brâhmans approaching King Asvapati Kaikeya, and making themselves his pupils. The question which they discuss is, What is our Self and what is Brahman (V, 11, 1)? and this question the king was supposed to be able to answer better than any of the Brahmans.

Buddhist Period.

When we leave the period represented by the Upanishads, and turn our eyes to that which follows and which is marked by the rise and growth of Buddhism, we find no very sudden change in the intellectual life of the country, as represented to us in the Sacred writings of the Buddhists. Though there is every reason to suppose that their sacred code, the original text of the Tripitaka, belongs to the third century B.C., and was settled and recited, though not written down, during the reign of Asoka, we know at all events that it was reduced to writing in the first century before our era, and we may therefore safely accept its descriptions as giving us a true picture of what took place in India

while Buddhism was slowly but surely supplanting the religion of the Veda, even in its latest offshoots, the Upanishads. It seems to me a fact of the highest importance that the Buddhists at the time when their Suttas were composed, were acquainted with the Upanishads and the Sûtras, at all events with the very peculiar names of these literary compositions. We must not, however, suppose that as soon as Buddhism arose Vedism disappeared from the soil of India. India is a large country, and Vedism may have continued to flourish in the West while Buddhism was gaining its wonderful triumphs in the East and the South. We have no reason to

doubt that some of the later Upanishads were composed long after King Asoka had extended his patronage to the Buddhist fraternity. Nay, if we consider that Buddha died about 477 B.C., we are probably not far wrong if we look upon the doctrines to which he gave form and life, as represented originally by one of the many schools of thought which were springing up in India during the period of the Upanishads, and which became later on the feeders of what are called in India the six great systems of philosophy. Buddha, however, if we may retain that name for the young prince of Kapilavâstu, who actually gave up his palace and made himself a beggar, was not satisfied with teaching a philosophy, his ambition was to found a new society. His object was to induce people to withdraw from the world and to live a life of abstinence and meditation in hermitages or monasteries. The description of the daily life of these Buddhist monks, and even of the Buddhist laity, including kings and nobles, may seem to us at first

sight as incredible as what we saw before in the Upanishads.

Prasenagit and Bimbisâra.

We read in the Tripitaka, the sacred code of the Buddhists, of King Prasenagit, of Kosala, drawing near to Buddha and sitting down respectfully at one side before venturing to ask him a question (Samyutta Nikâya III, 1, 4). We read likewise of King Bimbisâra, of Magadha, showing the same respect and veneration to this poor monk before asking him any questions or making any suggestions to him. Bânte or Lord is the title by which the paramount sovereigns of India address these mendicants, the followers of Buddha.

Brahma-gala-sutta.

If we want to get an idea of the immense wealth and variety of philosophic thought by which Buddha found himself surrounded on every side, we cannot do better than consult one of the many Suttas or sermons, supposed to have been preached by Buddha himself, and now forming part of the Buddhist canon, such as, for instance, the Brahma-gâla-sutta 1.

We are too apt to imagine that both the believers in the Veda and the followers of Buddha formed compact bodies, each being held together by generally recognised articles of faith. But this can hardly have been so, as we read in the Brahmagâla-sutta that even among the disciples who

1 We possess now an excellent translation of this Sutta by Rhys Davids. The earlier translations by Gogerly, by Grimblot (Sept Suttas Pâlis, 1876), were very creditable for the time when they were made, but have now been superseded.

followed Buddha, some, such as Brahmadatta, spoke in support of Buddha, in support of his doctrines. and his disciples, while others, such as Suppiya, spoke openly against all the three. Though there was a clear line of demarcation between Brâhmans and Samanas or Buddhists, as far as their daily life and outward ceremonial were concerned, the two are constantly addressed together by Buddha, particularly when philosophical questions are discussed. Brahmana is often used by him as a mere expression of high social rank, and he who is most eminent in knowledge and virtue is even by Buddha himself called 'a true Brâhmana.' Brâhman with us is often used in two senses which should be kept distinct, meaning either a member of the first caste, or one belonging to the three castes of the twice-born Âryas, who are under the spiritual sway of the Brâhmans.

We must try to get rid of the idea that Brâhmans and Buddhists were always at daggers drawn, and divided the whole of India between themselves. Their relation was not originally very different from that between different systems of philosophy, such as the Vedanta and Sâmkhya, which, though they differed, were but seldom inflamed against each other by religious hatred.

In the Brahma-gâla-sutta, i. e. the net of Brahma, in which all philosophical theories are supposed to have been caught like so many fishes, we can discover the faint traces of some of the schools of philosophy which we shall have to examine hereafter. Buddha mentions no less than sixty-two of them, with many subdivisions, and claims to be acquainted with every one of them, though standing himself above them all.

There are some Samanas and Brâhmans, we are told1, who are eternalists, and who proclaim that both the soul and the world are eternal. They profess to be able to remember an endless succession of former births, including their names, their lineage, and their former dwelling-places. The soul, they declare, is eternal, and the world, giving birth to nothing new, is steadfast as a mountain peak. Living creatures transmigrate, but they are for ever and

ever.

There are some Samanas and Brahmans who are eternalists with regard to some things, but not with regard to others. They hold that the soul and the world are partly eternal, and partly not. According to them this world-system will pass away, and there will then be beings reborn in the World of Light (Âbhassara), made of mind only, feeding on joy, radiating light, traversing the air and continuing in glory for a long time. Here follows a most peculiar account of how people began to believe in one personal Supreme Being, or in the ordinary God. When the world-system began to re-evolve, there appeared (they say) the palace of Brahmâ, but it was empty. Then a certain being fell from the World of Light and came to life in the palace of Brahmâ. After remaining there in perfect joy for a long period, he became dissatisfied and longed for other beings. And just then other beings fell from the World of Light, in all respects like him. But he who had come first began to think that he was Brahmâ, the Supreme, the Ruler, the Lord of all,

1

1 Brahma-gâla-sutta, translated by Rhys Davids, p. 26 seq. 2 This would be like the Sâsvata vâda.