1898.] Annual Address. 45 



these are Buddha, the Law and the Order; but with the latter they are 

 Kight faith, Right cognition, and Right conduct. These mottoes, as 

 we might call them, of the two orders are significant. That of the 

 Buddhists refers to concrete, that of the Jaitis to abstract things. The 

 former shows that Buddhism was animated by a practical and active 

 spirit, while the latter shows Jainisra to have been speculative and unin- 

 terprising. The history of the two orders proves this inference. While 

 Buddhism, with its active missionary spirit, spread far and wide beyond 

 the borders of India, and outgrowing the narrow bounds of a mere 

 monastic order developed into popular religions in Ceylon, Burma, Tibet 

 and other lands, Jainism always lived a quiet, unobtrusive life within 

 the borders of India, travelling but little, if at all, beyond them. Again, 

 the term applied collectively to the order both by the Buddhists 

 and Jains was sarjgha or " the Order." But the Jains qualified it 

 by the addition of the further term caturvidha or " four-fold;" 

 With them the monastic order included four classes of persons : 

 monks, nuns, lay-brothers and lay-sisters. With the Buddhists the 

 order included only two classes : monks and nuns ; their lay-adherents 

 stood in no essential or organic connection with them. It is obvious 

 that no order of mendicant monks could possibly maintain its existence 

 without some sort of relation to the surrounding secular community. 

 It must of necessity depend for its sustenance and support on those 

 within that community who, out of reverence for the Order, supported it 

 with their alms. But the two orders observed a very different policy 

 towards their respective lay-adheients. With the Buddhists they had 

 no part and parcel in the monastic organization. They were not 

 formally admitted into communion with the order, they had not 

 to take any vows, there were no rules to regulate their position 

 or conduct, no regular devotional services were held for them, 

 neither was there any formal exclusion of any unworthy lay-person ; 

 in fact, the position of the lay-adherents was so loose and informal 

 that a lay-adherent of the Buddhistic order might at the same 

 time be also an adherent of another order ; there were no rules prohibit- 

 ing such an anomalous position. The proud feeling of being a member 

 of Buddha's great order and partaking of its spiritual benefits was not 

 permitted to the Buddhist lay-adherent. Yery different was the case 

 of the Jain lay-adherent. His position was exactly the reverse in all 

 the points just enumerated. He formed an integral part of the organi- 

 sation, and thus was made to feel that his interests were bound up 

 with those of his order. In this matter Buddhism made a fatal 

 mistake ; for their treatment of their lay-adherents was one of the 

 main causes of the eventual total disappearance of their order from 



