52 



ON MIRACLES. 



reason expressly assigned leaves no loop-hole for escape ; 

 and to say, that although miracles might be ascribed to 

 magic by the masses who are utterly devoid of scientific at- 

 tainments, and therefore very credulous — may nevertheless 

 be exhibited to Ascetics— -a class, who, whatever might have 

 been their sectarian learning, were generally better inform- 

 ed, more intelligent, and more competent than the common 

 rabble to form an opinion as to the similarity of iddhi patiha- 

 riya to the feats of the Magician. In the second place, there 

 was no occasion to fear any extortion by the exhibition of 

 miracles to the laity. By a rule already enacted by G otama, 

 a priest could not ask for anything, Nor did Pingola Bhara- 

 dvaja ask for the bowl mentioned in the legend. It was a 

 free- will gift of the donor, who had been first satisfied of the 

 sanctity and the iddhi of the donee. The former witnessed 

 the miracle, and it is remarkable, did not ascribe it to 

 devilry or magic. He sincerely believed it to be iddhi 

 patihariya, and parted with his bowl in the spirit in which 

 he might have given it, had he been edified by a discourse- 

 on Nibbana. 



In the next place, if the exception was intended to 

 guard against extortion, how was the object to be attained 

 by limiting the exception to the laity ? True enough that 

 Bhikkus were ' beggars' or ' houseless mendicants,' and 

 had nothing to give ; but the same cannot be said of other 

 classes of ascetics — e. g. the Brahmans, the Tirthakas, the 

 Fir-eworshippers (supposing they came under the desig- 

 nation of Ascetics), and many others. 



But it is expressly stated that Buddha performed 

 miracles, doubtless with a view to conversion. This from 

 a Teacher who ' abhorred; refrained from, and censured 



