164 
“ Deum namque ire per ornnes 
Terrasque, tractusque maris, coelumque profundum.” . 
(Georg, lib. iv.) 
But I should like to ask a number of questions. I want to ask Bishop 
Claughton to tell us in his reply something about the connection of the . Vedic 
literature with Buddhism ; and of what importance to the Buddhists, his- 
torically, are the Rig-Veda and the other three ; or I should more correctly 
say two, since I suppose the Atharva-Veda is of no great account. I would 
also ask him to tell us whether there are not several forms of Bud^m- 
the Cingalese, the Chinese or religion of Fo, the Tartar and the Thibetan 
which is, I presume, the most .genuine of all. Lastly, 1 would ask whe 
it is not correct to say of Buddhism that it is, like every other religion, an 
exhibition to the world of that primitive truth which was revealed to man in 
the first instance, and has been retained by the Jews and by the Christian 
Church in its purity, but which is only shown in a distorted and degraded 
form in other religions! I find-in Buddhism much that I find m Christianity , 
but it is strangely distorted. I find the Omnipotent, but not as a personal 
Deity. I find that great truth of religion, the Incarnation, but where is t e 
God to be incarnate ? There is resignation to God’s will, but no God w ose 
will one may be resigned to ; and the resignation itself is contemplation 
until you lose your individual personalty, and are absorbed into harwana, or 
annihilation. (Cheers.) 
Bishop Claughton.— I am afraid my answer must be very unsatisfactory, 
but first let me say that I have listened with a great deal of interest to 
all those who have spoken upon this important and interesting question. 
I feel that in their minds Buddhism does command an absorbing interest, 
and I am not surprised; As to the question which Dr. Irons has put to me 
you must understand that what I know of Buddhism I know from what I 
have gathered with my own ears, and from the lips of others rather than 
from books. There will be many in this room who know more from books 
than I do With regard to the value of the antiquities and chronology ot 
Buddhism, my own idea is that we are in the same position as with regard 
to Roman history, when we find that Livy handed down a great deal that 
was legendary, and that a great portion of this had been lost altogether, and 
we were called on to believe a great deal of what was purely conjectura 
and much that was altogether wrong until a Niebuhr arose and put things 
somewhat into shape again. The same thing has occurred with regard to the 
history of Buddhism. The Buddhists themselves believe that a great portion 
of their early religious writings are missing, and that those we have now are 
very imperfect indeed. My own knowledge of them, I may tell you, simply 
amounts to this, that I have gone through the pages read and translated to 
me when I was learning the language, but since then I have been too busy 
to go through the various writings which English or European authors have 
composed to throw light upon the subject. I remember the writings of my 
See note to Mr. Row’s remarks, ante. 
