1845.] du Buddhism, Indien, par E. Burnovf. 795 



gerated number of religious men and women, of gods of all classes, and 

 of Bodhi-sattwas, while in the simple Sutras these latter never make their 

 appearance. 



p. 120. The idea of one or more superhuman Buddhas, and of 

 Bodhi-sattwas, created by them, is as foreign to these books, as that 

 of an Adhibuddha, or of a god. 



p. 121. With all the attention I have bestowed on the simple 

 Sutras, I cannot discover the least trace of that vast mythological 

 machinery, where the imagination luxuriates through infinite spaces in 

 the midst of gigantic forms and numbers. I have only found Buddhas, 

 who are considered human beings, and of whom Sakya is the last, and 

 I have not even found a passage in which the qualification of human 

 Buddhas was not given them, while the conception of a Buddha, who 

 should not be a man, having attained the highest degree of holiness, is 

 beyond the circle of ideas, forming the foundation of simple Sutras. 

 In one word, the Buddhas, previous to Sakya, have by no means the 

 divine character of the Buddhas of contemplation, they are men as 

 himself, the sons of Brahmans or of kings. 



p. 128. The simple Sutras illustrate a very important point in the 

 history of Buddhism, viz. its connexion with Brahmanism, on which 

 point the merely speculative treatises preserve an almost complete 

 silence. This circumstance alone suffices to establish the opinion, that 

 these Sutras were composed, when both religions were cotemporane- 

 ous, in the same way as the presence of Buddhist anchorites in several 

 Brahminical dramas, proves the dramas to be written at a time, when 

 followers of Buddha were still in India. The study of the Sutras, 

 considered under this point of view, affords a new confirmation in favour 

 of the opinion, according to which I place these monuments nearest 

 to the preaching of Sakya. 



It solves moreover in the most decisive manner a question, the 

 discussion of which has been lately renewed, viz. of the comparative 

 antiquity of Brahmanism and Buddhism, on the ground, that most 

 epigraphic monuments in India belong to Buddhism, (page 129,) and not 

 to Brahmanism. Without entering into an examination of these monu- 

 ments, which, I must say, are not yet studied with sufficient atten- 

 tion and critical discretion, I observe, that from the existence of ancient 

 Buddhist inscriptions in Pali, and even from the priority of these inscrip- 



