BUDDHISM, AND "THE LIGHT OF ASIA." 167 



by Professor Max Miiller translated " body," and by Professor 

 Childers " existence," in of course a much wider sense. No 

 doubt Buddha used Hindu philosophical terms in the sense in 

 which they were then understood. Even, however, as used 

 by the Brahmans, these terms are not always very easily 

 apprehended by us, even when assisted by the most learned 

 Pandits. And when we come to try to fathom their real 

 application in later Buddhist writings, we may not unfre- 

 quentl}^ come to wrong conclusions. He, for instance, who 

 hopes to reach the actual teaching of Buddha himself through 

 the study of the ^'Milinda Prasna " may easily arrive at con- 

 clusions very wide of the truth. 



One very remarkable word finds its way into what are un- 

 doubtedly early sayings in the Mahdvagga. I refer to the 

 word atta, Sanscrit atman. It is used in Mahdvagga i, 6, 

 38, &c,, to express the " self," " The body (rupa) is not the 

 self (atta)." What was understood in Buddha's day by atta, 

 or atman ? and why did he use the word ? This word was 

 used by the Brahmans to denote the self of the Infinite one, 

 the Deity, and the self of man. In its use it was exactly 

 analogous to the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. For 

 the human atman, after a purified life, Buddha promises 

 eternal rest and happiness. He nowhere, so far as indicated 

 by the writings we have, defines either the condition of this 

 Nirvana, or anything about the self, beyond postulating its 

 existence. But he uses a word, which by the Brahmans ot 

 his days meant an objective reality, the spirit of man, an un- 

 dying personality. There is nothing to show that Buddha 

 himself held the doctrine of the non-ego : but much to indi- 

 cate that that doctrine was developed afterwards in the course 

 of Buddhistic argument. 



The fact is, we can say nothing with certainty as to the 

 actual teaching of Buddha himself beyond this, — that he 

 taught the value of a purified life, and pointed to a better 

 hope for the future, than the miserable outlook of Metempsy- 

 chosis. In this respect he may be said, in a very important 

 sense, to have been " the Light of Asia " ; but we find in 

 his teaching, as handed down to us, no evidence that he dis- 

 closed a " power that makes for righteousness " outside the 

 mind of man, without a belief in which there can be no reli- 

 gion properly so called. The only cause, or power, disclosed 

 as working towards the Nirvana, was the destruction, by 

 man's own wisdom and efforts, of sin and attachment to this 

 worldly state ; a common enough human belief. This primary 



