170 REV. RICHARD COLLINS, M.A. 
we should expect to be received by a Hindu. The doctrines 
of the cross, the atonement, the vicarious sufferings of Christ, 
which were “to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the 
Greeks foolishness,” would be equally foolishness to the 
Hindu, and could not be accepted by him unless he became 
an absolute convert to Christianity. They could not be in 
any way adopted as a portion of Hinduism. Itis remarkable, 
however, that there is a weird and most impressive picture 
drawn near the close of the Mahabharata, after the great 
war was over, totally different from anything that could be 
suggested by the Hindu doctrines of transmigration of souls, 
or absorption into the deity after death. The Pandavas, who 
had survived the war, were lamenting their friends, husbands, 
sons, and kinsfolk, whom they had lost in the great war, 
when, while bathing in the Ganges, the river “ began to foam 
and boil,” and suddenly the great chiefs who had perished in 
the war, ‘‘in full armour, seated in their chariots, ascended 
out of the water, with all their armies arrayed as they were 
on the first day of the Mahabharata .... All appeared in 
great glory and splendour, and more beautiful than when 
they were alive... . enmity had departed from among 
them ... . widows, orphans, and kinsfolk were overjoyed, 
and not a trace of grief remained among them . . . . widows 
went to their husbands, daughters to their fathers, mothers 
to their sons, and sisters to their brothers, and all the fifteen 
years of sorrow which had passed since the war were forgotten 
in the ecstasy of seeing each other again. Thus the night 
passed away in the fulness of joy ; but when the morning kad 
dawned, all the dead- mounted their chariots and horses, and 
disappeared.” May not this be an echo of the Christian 
description of the resurrection? I would suggest that these 
gleanings from the Christian story, if such they were, were in 
all probability obtained, not from a study of the Christian 
writings, but from what was orally taught. This is, of course, 
only a suggestion of probability; I have no kind of proof to 
offer that such must have been the case. If so, however, it 
would, perhaps, further account for the fragmentary and 
partial knowledge that we seem to encounter. 
18. With regard to the position taken by Mr. Proctor, which 
I mentioned in the early part of the paper, that the history of 
Krishna illustrates the Sun-God myth, in that he was born in 
a cave, that his mother was a virgin, &c., I do not find, in 
what must be the earlier accounts of Krishna’s birth, that 
such was the case. His mother, Devaki, was the wife of 
Vasudeva, who was his father. The birth was not in a cave, 
but in an ordinary dwelling. He was, moreover, the eighth 
