BUDDHISM, AND " THE LIGHT OF ASIA." 177 



tlie woild and its pleasures for the good of their fellow men, bat 

 we do not exalt them into the position of the " Saviour of the 

 world," and say they are "In Earth and Heavens and Hells in- 

 comparable." We do not give them adulation of that kind, and 

 apply language to them that men should rightly apply only to 

 the object of their worship. (Heai', hear.) I say Sir Edwin 

 Arnold's book is one of the most mischievous, and is chargeable 

 with having gi\eQ currency to the opinion among shallow, or 

 uninformed thinkers, that the Buddha was at least as gi-eat a man 

 as He whom Christians adore, and his religion in some respects 

 preferable to Christianity. I acknowledge its talent. I only 

 Avish it were in my power to write as sweetly. I should think it 

 was indeed a gift, and should try to use it. The danger of the 

 book lies in the fact that the great bulk of the British public, 

 who read it, cannot distinguish, and they have not the learning to 

 distinguish, between the sweetness of the singer and the truth, or 

 otherwise, whereof he sings. 



There is one point that I should like to refer to, namely, in 

 regard to the Upanishads. I do not think they were sacrificial 

 at all, but were purely philosophical. The sacrificial portion of 

 the old teaching of India is contained in the Vedas and in the 

 Bi'ahmanas. 



Professor H. Langhorxe Okchard, M.A., B.Sc. — We are in- 

 debted to Mr. Collins for leading us to discriminate between the 

 teachings of the great Buddha himself and those of his followers. 

 I aui sure we shall all concur in what the last speaker has said in 

 protesting with him against the title of " The Light of Asia," 

 whether it calls itself poetry or any other form of composition ; 

 Buddha's title to be " the Light of Asia ? " rests on a very poor 

 basis. Buddha appears to have been a moral ascetic (as has been 

 well pointed out), who sought after righteousness, but did not 

 seek after God. Hence his conception of sin was simply as a 

 means to avoid suifering, and his aim to remove sin was simply an 

 aim to remove the cause or means of suffering. He had no true 

 sense of sin as against God. It was offence against man, but not 

 offence against God. The reason why sin was to be avoided was 

 because it led to suffering. With I'egard to his conception of God, as 

 far as he had any, it was that of unconscious force. There are, I 

 think, seven principal reasons w^hy Buddhism obtained such an 

 influence over the human family. One, no doubt, was the personal 



