220 



fellow. The complicatiou in arriving at what the Buddhists may think 

 about Nirvana is very great. In respect to the question of burial, in 

 Thibet there are two modes, the terrestrial and the celestial ; and in 

 these they seem to show that they do not fear annihilation. The terrestrial 

 burial is this : after the body has been burned the ashes are mixed with 

 flour, on pieces of which, generally, an image of Buddha, and sometimes of 

 the deceased person, is stamped, and these little effigies are distributed to 

 the relatives, a proportion of them being placed in the mausoleum with the 

 deceased, where they may afterwards be found. The celestial or superior 

 mode is to have the body thrown to the dogs and devoured by them, so 

 that the utmost contempt may be shown for this body ; and I can quite 

 conceive, without entering into the extremely difficult questions raised 

 here, that a human being may be brought up to consider death almost in 

 the light of a pleasure, but, at any rate, as a welcome deliverance from the 

 troubles of life. Of course, it all very much depends on the way in which death 

 is lookedat, in contrast to the notion entertained by a restless, ambitious race, 

 such as those of Europe, who are not satisfied with a general immortality, 

 — a sort of mixture of one essence in the general essence, — but require an 

 individual immortality. I can quite conceive that races brought up to look 

 on death as an emancipation from evil may, perhaps, not fear death. This 

 consideration, of course, does not enter into that most important and vital 

 question Avhich relates to what was intended by Buddha, or to what 

 Buddhism really ought to be. I have merely to deal with the fact that 

 here we have a race, who, as far as I have seen, are certainly inferior to none 

 in actual honesty and goodness of heart, not fearing death to anything like 

 the same extent as the far braver races who willingly confront death in Europe, 

 and who, though they will thus meet and confront their fate, have, I think, 

 a greater horror of death than the race of which I am speaking. I do not 

 know whether I ought to say a few words about the pessimism of Buddha, 

 as I ought, perhaps, to leave that to Mr. Davids and others. I myself con- 

 sider that, perhaps, Buddha was not altogether such a pessimist as he is 

 said to have been, nor that Schopenhauer is his apostle in Germany. With 

 regard to Krishna, when I see the learning shown in these pages, it astonishes 

 me that Mr. Collins should consider that the story of the god Krishna is 

 a manifest parody of the history of Christ. Was not Krishna a living 

 and popular prince, who has been elevated to the rank of a deity l 

 And how far can we imagine that such erratic conduct as characterised 

 Krishna in his dealings with the Go^jis or milkmaids, can in any way 

 be a parody of the history of Christ ? We have to deal with a living prince 

 of philanthropic tendencies, although these seem to have included one 

 sex, rather than humanity generally, — one whose exploits are known 

 and who afterwards was raised to the rank of a deity. Why should we 

 consider that, whatever may have been the subsequent embellishments of 

 what Avas attributed to the god Krishna, they were a manifest parody of the 

 history of Christ ? This deity has surely an historical basis. When, however, 



