1849.] Brahmans and Buddhists. 109 



we could wish to see placed in a clearer light ; and to have the Pali 

 alloted its definitive position in Indian theology and literature. He 

 admits or reports that the language of the Sanscrit books on which 

 M. Burnouf s learned work rests is barbarous. But we would also desire 

 to learn their earliest dates and those of the character (or characters) 

 in which they are written, so that a close and rigid comparison might 

 be instituted betwixt that language and character or characters, and 

 the Pali and the language it clothed. The most barbarous of the two 

 in both of these respects might perhaps seem entitled, after such a 

 scrutiny, to claim the preference. If the Pali and Sanscrit were alike 

 barbarous at any given period, the brahmans could claim the merit of 

 having brought the latter quickly to perfection ; that the Buddhists, 

 fond as they were of recording their religious history in the Magadhi, 

 were induced at last to adopt it ; although perhaps this may have been 

 partly owing, as I have before noticed, to heretical innovations. 



If the Sanscrit and Pali character and language should be found to have 

 been the same originally, then we should have one clue to trace Sanscrit 

 to its fountain, namely, the most ancient specimens of Pali extant. 



We are still, I think, deficient in proofs that " the Buddhist religion 

 overcame that of the brahmans, on its own ground" It might rather 

 be said that the former outstripped the latter in the race — for there was 

 no hostility apparently betwixt the followers of either, but rather a phi- 

 losophical and polemical rivalry, which did not, until a long time had 

 elapsed become debased into a mutual virulence and hatred. 



It is asked, if Buddhism has been able to overcome the intellectual 

 barrier with a great number of the Hindus, the tenacious adherence to 

 their religious impressions — and also why should Christianity not be able 

 to exercise a similar influence over the Hindu mind ? 



To answer this question we require a much more correct knowledge 

 than we now possess of what the Hindus and Buddhists, particularly 

 the former, really believed and practised in ancient times. The Hindus 

 of those earlier days were not trammelled to the pantheistic car, which 

 they now so painfully, although willingly, drag along. Hinduism then 

 was not transcendental, but an incipient monster with undeveloped 

 energies, neither prepared to compel veneration nor to attract it, by 

 diffusing around itself a false glare and splendour. Besides, the Bud- 

 dhists and Brahmans had one or two connecting links. Both had appar- 



