72 
Y. A. Smith— On the Civilization of Ancient India. [No. 1, 
L. v. Schroder, who has recently advocated this theory, does not, 
indeed, go so far as one of his predecessors, who wished to explain the 
name of Pythagoras as equivalent to Buddliagurn, but even he maintains 
that the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration of souls is derived 
from India, that is to say, from Buddhism. In fact only the latter 
assumption need be made, for it would seem that before Buddha this 
doctrine had not gained acceptance in India, whilst with him it forms a 
corner stone for his preachings intended for the people, especially the 
Jataka legends. Now the still imperfectly ascertained date of Buddha 
corresponds at least approximately with the fixed date of Pythagoras, 
namely, B. C. 540-500, or perhaps a little later. 
On mere a priori grounds it seems in a high degree unlikely that 
Buddha was the teacher, and Pythagoras the learner. Since direct 
relations between the two men are not to be thought of, but only in¬ 
direct ones by way of Egypt or Persia, we must, considering the diffi¬ 
culties of communication in those times, allow at least several decades, 
even if that be sufficient, for the establishment of such relations. More¬ 
over, the doctrine of transmigration of souls is in itself so agreeable to 
the human mind as a means of equalizing the injustices of life on earth, 
by reward or punishment of the actions of men, that it may be regarded 
as an idea of natural growth. Of course, we cannot affirm of it, as of 
the so-called Pythagorean theorem, that it gives an accurate result, but 
it may very well have arisen independently among various peoples, in 
various parts of the world, without obliging us to assume a mutual 
borrowing. 
When, however, we find Socrates, in the Gorgias, using the formula 
rd KaXd, dxpeXtfxa, rj Sea (or, as it is rendered in Latin, ‘ honestum, utile, 
dulce,’) to express the ideal of legislation and morality, this formula 
agrees so closely with the three Indian objects of living, dharma, artha , 
hama, and has such an individual colouring, that it is at least difficult 
to suppose that the conception originated independently in both places. 
In India this triad does not appear in the most ancient period, but 
only in more recent times, so that in this case I do not hesitate to give 
priority to Plato. 
The Brahmans of the Yedic period were not acquainted with the 
formula. The Buddhists and Jains lay special stress on it. They fre¬ 
quently use the words dharma and artha together in the senses respec¬ 
tively of ‘ law or precept,’ and ‘ meaning, or signification of dharma ,’ 
which differ completely from the sense the same words have when used 
in combination with the third word hama. This circumstance indicates 
that the triad was formed in consequence of a foreign suggestion. 
Just as Greek stories have fouud their way into the Jataka legends 
