786 Review of L'histoire [No. 167. 



which Burnouf regarded it, in the hope, we may contribute to remove 

 some prejudices, which obstruct not only the study of the history of 

 Buddhism, but of all other religions. 



The question, whether Buddhism or Brahmanism be the more an- 

 cient religion, has not yet been decided to general satisfaction, though 

 there should not be any doubt about it among those who have studied 

 Indian antiquities. The incertitude, which still prevails on this subject, 

 appears to originate in the opinion of men, who not paying sufficient 

 attention to a most authentic document, — the ancient Sanscrit litera- 

 ture, allowed their judgment to be swayed by modern Buddhist sources. 

 And even these w*ere not critically examined by them, as the Buddhists 

 themselves explicitly, as well as implicitly, acknowledge the higher 

 antiquity of the religion of the Vedas. 



It is not difficult to discover the cause of this predilection for the 

 antiquity of Buddhism. We have above remarked, that the religion of 

 Buddha, as derived from more modern documents, offers an inextricable 

 web of history, legends, religious and philosophical tenets, which appear 

 to some, to have a close affinity to Christian doctrines (for instance, to 

 the dogma of the Trinity) ; to others, with the assertions of some ancient 

 Grecian philosopher ; in a word, the apparent depth of some opi- 

 nions, combined with the apparent want of historical documents, throws 

 it back also into the depth of time. There is with many persons 

 inclination to interest themselves in every thing which bears the 

 semblance of remote antiquity. An event that disappears in the mists 

 of time, has for them an enchantment which the most excellent histori- 

 cal statement of the real connexion of cause and effect would fail to 

 excite, as it thus would be encompassed in the notion of every-day 

 phenomena. 



The Buddhists themselves, although in sad contradiction with their 

 own statements, have always shown an inclination to push back 

 as far as possible the origin of their doctrine, or in other words, to 

 pronounce their religion without beginning and end, a proceeding, 

 which is quite in accordance with their position. The question of their 

 opponents, why Sakya Muni did not appear in any former period, was cut 

 off by the doctrine, that the universe always is under the government 

 of a Buddha. This assertion however well it accords with the wishes 

 of the Buddhist, has not the least foundation in the eyes of the critic. 





