II. a a

354
LAST ESSAYS.
protoplasm, and that the whole world was evolved from it by purely mechanical or external agencies. If we have once recognized in all the genera or generations of the natural world, not simply the unknown, or a substance and power that is in- scrutable, but the thoughts and will of a mind, that mind, so far from being inscrutable, undergoes a constant scrutiny in its endless manifestations at the hand of human science. It is in fact the one subject of all our knowledge, from the first attempts at roughly grouping and naming it to the latest efforts of scientific research, intended to classify, to compre- hend, and understand it. The whole of our know- ledge of nature becomes thus a recognition of the logoi of nature by the Logos of ourselves. Each genus becomes a logos, an eternal thought or an eternal word ; nay, it seems to follow from this that there is in nature no room for anything but genera ; no room for species or el 877 in the proper sense of these terms. Here we see how the Science of Lan- guage becomes the Science of Thought. If it is unity of origin that constitutes a genus, true science knows indeed of individuals which represent a genus, but not of species, though for practical purposes the human mind may give that name to varieties in their moie or less inheritable and permanent form ; such varie- ties being in reality no more than the necessaiy consequence of individualization and manifoldness. If each individual differs, and must differ, by some- thing from all other individuals of the same genus, the accumulation of these differentiating somethings leads naturally to the formation of what is called a species. We may then speak, lor instance, of
WHY I AM NOT AN AGNOSTIC.
355
different varieties or even species of horses, includ- ing the three-toed hipparion ; but there is but one Itthottis, if we have but the eye to see it, as Plato used to say.
I hardly venture to say whether I know all this, or whether I only believe it. I cannot help seeing order, law, reason or Logos in the world, and I cannot account for it by merely ex post events, call them what you like — survival of the fittest, natural selec- tion, or anything else. Anyhow, this Gnosis is to me irresistible, and I dare not therefore enter the camp of the Agnostics under false colours. I am not aware that on my way to this Gnosis I have availed myself of anything but the facts of our direct consciousness, and the conclusions that can be logically deduced from them. Without these two authorities I do not feel bound to accept any testimony, whether revealed or unrevealed. It is history alone which can tell us how these ideas arose and how they grew from cen- tury to century. What I have tried to do, however imperfectly, is to discover the causes which in the history of the world have led men to accept what, according to some philosophers, rested neither on the evidence of their senses nor on the logical conclusions of their reason. I have lately attempted to trace these causes and their historical progress in my Gifford Lectures, more particularly in the last volume, called Theosophy , or Psychological Religion. In one sense I hope I am, and always have been, an Agnostic, that is, in relying on nothing but historical facts and in following reason as far as it will take us in matters of the intellect, and in never pretending that con- clusions are certain which are not demonstrated or
A a 2
356
LAST ESSAYS.
demonstrable. This attitude of the mind has always been recognized as the conditio sine qua non of all philosophy. If, in future, it is to be called Agnosti- cism, then I am a true Agnostic ; but if Agnosticism excludes a recognition of an eternal reason pervadin the natural and the moral world, if to postulate rational cause for a rational universe is called Gnosti- cism, then I am a Gnostic, and a humble follower of the greatest thinkers of our race, from Plato and the author of the Fourth Gospel to Kant and Hegel.
bD
IS MAN IMMORTAL?1
MOST people would feel reluctant to express their opinion on the immortality of the soul, a subject which has occupied the thoughts of men since the first dawn of recorded thought and has elicited utterances, more or less inspired, from the best and wisest in every country and every century. We possess to-day no more materials for the satisfactory treatment of this problem than did the sages of Egypt, Palestine, India, Persia, and Greece. Are we likely, then, to see further than they or are our arguments likely to be more conclusive or more persuasive than those of Plato or St. Paul?
There is an excellent book by Alger, published in America, on The Doctrine of a Future Life, with a valuable appendix by Ezra Abbot, librarian of Harvard College, containing the titles of 4,977 books relating to the nature, origin, and destiny of the soul. Is not that enough? Can we hope that anything may be said on the immortality of the soul that has not been said before, whether for or against it ? Shall we ever know anything about the soul after the death of this body ? It stands to reason that if we take 1 to know ’ in the ordinary sense of the word we cannot even in this life know the soul or anything relating to its nature, origin, and destiny, and yet there are these
1 American Press Association, 1895.
358
LAST ESSAYS.
4,977 books and probably a good many more ! Know- ledge possessed by men can have but one beginning. It begins with the senses. It does not end there — far from it. But, just as every man has to begin with being a babe, all human knowledge, however abstract and sublime in the end, must make its first entry through the narrow gate of the senses. This may easily be misunderstood. But if properly understood it cannot be denied, whether by Gnostics or Agnostics.
If, then, no human eye has ever seen, no human ear has ever heard, no human hand has ever handled the soul, how are we to know the soul, and how are we to predicate anything of it, particularly such a px-edicate as immortal, which likewise has never come within the sphei'e of our sensuous experience1? If I attempt to answer this question, it is chiefly because I believe it ofiei's a good opportunity for showing once more what I have tried to prove in several of my books, and moi’e particularly in my Science of Thought, 1887 — namely, that all philosophy must in the end become a philosophy of language, and because it is from this point of view alone that I may hope to throw a new ray of light on the problem of the immortality of the soul.
I am quite aware that this ray of light will seem anything but light to many among the 7,000,000 readers for whom these papers on ‘ The Immortality of the Soul ’ are intended. But that cannot be helped. We must learn Hebrew if we want to understand the Old Testament. We must know English if we wish to appreciate Shakespeai-e.
I therefore warn my readers that a cei'tain ac- quaintance with the language of philosophy will be
IS MAN IMMORTAL 1
359
required if they wish to know something about the soul, something more than its name, which we all use so glibly.
In spite of certain objections by which this thesis of mine, the inseparability of word and thought, was greeted when first put forward, its truth, its palpable truth has since been recognized, directly or indirectly, by many philosophical writers who take the trouble to think for themselves, instead of merely repeating the watchwords whether ol Locke or Hume, ot Kant or Hegel. That I do not claim to have been the first to discover this self-evident truth I have tried to show in an article on ‘My Predecessors,’ published in The Contemporary Review , vol. liv1.
One lesson in the philosophy of language which hardly anybody would venture to deny, though few seem inclined to avail themselves of it, is that before we reason, before we combine our terms, we are in duty bound to define them. Before we say that the soul is or is not immortal we must say what we mean by the word soul.
The word we have, we hear it, we learn it, and we use it constantly in all kinds of meanings, but before we use it, and before we reason about it, we ought surely to try to find out whence the word came to us and how it first arose. The history of the words for soul in the various languages is a very long history, far too long to be given here. I have given it in several of my books ( Anthropological Religion, 189a, p. 196 seq.), and the result may be summed up in a few words. Words for soul mostly turn out to have been at first words for the visible or tangible wind, or the breath
1 Last Essays, series i. p. 27.
360
LAST ESSAYS.
issuing from the mouth. They became gradually divested of their material and visible attributes till they were brought to mean the vital breath or some- thing stirring and striving within us, something of which breath was the visible sign, and when this breath of life also had been discovered as something accidental, something that comes and goes, then what remained — that which was not breath or anima, but of which anima, as living breath, formed only an attribute, was singled out and signed b}^ its own name, whether psyche or thymos , or soul or d/rne, all having meant originally breathing or commotion. Whenever the old words for the visible breath were retained in their material meaning, a new word had to be formed to distinguish that which breathed from its outward manifestation — the actual breath ; while, if new words had been used for the breath that went in and out of the nose and mouth, the old word for it was often retained in a higher and immatei'ial sense. It must be clear that a word cannot mean more than what it was meant to mean, so that we may truly call things the meanings of our words. This true nomina- lism is nowhere more clearly recognized than in Sanskrit, where even in ordinary parlance things are called parlarthas — i. e. meanings of words. Even when we do not know a thing we ask in Sanskrit : Kam padartham pasyasi ? What thing do you see ?— literally, Wliat word-meaning do you see 1 I doubt whether any other language can match this.
By the ordinary process of divestment or abstrac- tion the word which, after being freed from its ety- mological and traditional meanings, remained for soul no longer meant anything visible. It no longer
IS MAN IMMORTAL1?
361
meant breathing or life or even thinking, with the whole of its ars combinatoria, but it was meant for that of which all these are essential attributes ; so that without it the body would not be the body, nor breath breath, nor spirit spirit, nor life life, nor thought in all its varieties thought. We see, then, that after it was understood that the word soul was not open to mean breath, spirit, life, or thought, there remained but one positive predicate — namely, that the soul is that which is, and without which body, breath, life, and thought would not be what they are. Now that without which other things that are cannot be may surely claim being for itself. We may go on divesting the soul of ever so many things, in the end there must always remain that which was divested — the naked, the invisible soul.
Of course it may be said that soul is a mere word, though I thought I had shown that there could be no such thing as a mere word, a vox et praeterea nihil. The logicians will, of course, trot out their centaur and defy us to prove that centaur is anything but a mere word. Now, whatever the etymology of centaur may be, whatever its original purpose may have been, whether cloud or anything else, we are quite willing to admit that there is no such word in rerum natura as a horse with a human head. But what exists in rerum natura are horses and men, and Greek poets had as much right to combine the two as the Assyrians to assign wiDgs to bulls. The com- bination does not exist, but the two things combined exist and are brought by the senses to the knowledge of man. This combining of things by themselves incompatible, and giving a fanciful name to such
362
LAST ESSAYS.
combination, is a very different process from selecting any natural object and taking away from it all that can be taken away without actually destroying it. To use a practical illustration, we may take a man and remove his hair and beard, his nails, his fingers, hands, arms, feet, and legs, and yet, if he happily survive the process, as we know he may, the living stump remains and is still the man. He is not a mere centaur. In the same way the indistinct embryo, without as yet feet and legs and fingers and hands and arms, is something, whatever we may call it— is, in fact, the man, and not a mere product of fancy. And so it is with the soul of man, if we simply define soul as that without which breath, life, feeling, move- ment, and thought could not be, and which is itself neither breath, nor life, nor feeling, nor movement, nor thought : we may not know what this soul is apart from its living body, but we do know that it is something — nay, something more real — than any- thing that has been taken from it, and not a mere chimera sprung from the poet’s brain.
It may also be said that we have never established our right to this kind of abstraction, to this violent process of divesting things of what belongs to them in rerum natura. This, however, would be tantamount to saying that we have no right to think. We should have no longer any right to speak, for instance, ol a circle, but only of a cart-wheel or a cheese. We should not be allowed to say that a circle is a figure in which the radii from the centre to the circumference must be equal. All we might possibly be allowed to say would be that a wheelwright has to cut all the spokes of a cart-wheel of the same length. We could
IS MAN IMMORTAL1?
363
not speak of a centre or a circumference, but only of an axle and a felly, and such an expression as ‘ must would have to be altogether tabooed. All such pro- positions as that the radii of a circle must be equal, or that the straight line — lineci directa — must be the shortest or most direct line, would have to be set aside as merely nominal definitions ; and as there is in the world of the senses no such thing as a circle or a straight line — as these, in fact, are mere words we are told that soul also is nothing but a word. It is curious that philosophers who hold such opinions do not see that they themselves would have no arguments whatever to support them, no words even with which to form a syllogism, for every syllogism requires general terms, and every general term would in their eyes be a mere word or noise. But the world we live in is not a world of empty noises, but of significant words. Our knowledge, though it is not a mere knowledge of words, is certainly knowledge by means of words. We know nothing, not even a stone, or a tree, or an animal, except through words. The senses, which we share with the animal, never give us an animal, or a tree, or a stone. There is no such thing as an animal in the whole world. There is not a quadruped or a bird, there is not even a dog or a sparrow. All these are the creatures of language. Nay, our whole world as really known— that is, as conceived by us — is the creation of language, and in this sense nothing is truer than that in the beginning was the word, and all things were made by it, and without it was not anything made that was made. This may be called neo-Platonism or Mysticism or anything else. It is nevertheless the truth, the whole
364
LAST ESSAYS.
truth and nothing but the truth, though no doubt it requires a certain effort to see through the veil of words and realize the truth that is behind them and in them. Many words are certainly imperfect and misleading, so much so that the whole history of philosophy may truly be called a battle against words. The words for soul also have played us many tricks.
A man speaks of his soul, but who or what the possessor of a soul could be we ask in vain. The soul maj7' be said to possess the ego — not the ego the soul. If spirit is used for soul, people have actually maintained that they have seen spirits, and ghosts are recognized as visible spirits or souls. It is difficult to frame a word for soul. The best name I know is the Sanskrit name at man, which means self. This atman is very carefully distinguished from the aham, or ego. It lies far beyond it, and, while the aham has a beginning and an end and is the result of circum- stances, the atman is not, but is and always has been and always will be itself only. We must accept this atman, this self, or the soul, as something of which we know that it is. This may seem very little, but to be is really far more important and far more wonderful than to breathe, to live, to feel, or to think. Thinking, feeling, living, and breathing are impossible without a being. Being may be called the poorest, but it is at the same time the most marvellous concept of our whole mind, for the soul, being that which is ( ovala ), is at the same time that without which nothing else can be. It is the sine qua non of all we are, we see, we hear, we apprehend and comprehend. It is not our body nor our breath, nor our life nor our heart, nor what is most difficult to give up— our mind
IS MAN IMMORTAL?
365
and intellect. It is simply that in which all these reside — that, in fact, in which we move and have our being.
We can now take a second step. If what we mean by soul, unknown as it may be otherwise, is at all events known to be not the body, on what possible ground could we make the assertion that the soul is mortal? Mortal is applicable to the body only, for it means originally decaying, crumbling, falling to pieces. Mor-bus, illness, is that which wears the body ; mors, death, that which wears it out and utterly dissolves it. This we can see with our eyes, but no experience has ever taught us that the soul, or what we mean by soul, is worn out, does ever decay or crumble or dissolve. The breath may fail, the body may die, the intellect also may grow weak, but of the soul we can never say that it is at any time more or less than it has always been. What right have we, then, to call the soul mortal and to apply a term such as mortal, which is peculiar to the body, to that which is not the body, the soul ? Whatever else we may or may not predicate of the soul, our very opponents would not allow us to create such a centaur as a mortal soul, and if we are not allowed to call the soul mortal why should we not call it nonmortal or immortal? To deny the nonmortality of the soul would be the same as to deny its existence. But all this would probably not satisfy those who want to be certain not only that the soul cannot die, but who wish to know how it will fare with it after the decay and death of its present mortal body. They want, in fact, to know what they know quite well that they cannot know, and were not meant to know. Let us remember that
366
LAST ESSAYS.
we do not know what the soul was before this life — - nay, even what it was during the first years of our childhood. Yet we believe on very fair evidence that what we call our soul (though it is not ours, but we are his) existed from the moment of our birth. What ground have we, then, to doubt that it was even before that moment ? To ascribe to the soul a beginning on our birthday would be the same as to claim for it an end on the day of our death, for whatever has a begin- ning has an end. If, then, in the absence of any other means of knowledge, we may take refuge in analogy, might we not say that it will be with the soul hereafter as it has been here, and that the soul, after its earthly setting, will rise again, much as it rose here ? This is not a syllogism, but it is analog}7, and in a cosmos like ours analogy has a right to claim some weight, at all events in the absence of any proof to the contrary.
Soon, however, follows another question, a question which has probably been asked by every human heart. Granting that what we mean by the word soul cannot, without self-contradiction, be mortal, will that soul be itself, know itself, and will it know others whom it has known before? For the next life, it is said, would not be worth living if the soul did not recollect itself, recognize not only itself, but those also whom it has known and loved on earth — in fact, if it did not retain its mundane experience, its knowledge of Greek, Latin, and English. Here, too, analogy alone can supply some kind of answer.
‘ It will be hereafter as it has been ’ is not, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, an argument that can be treated with contempt, least of all by
IS MAN IMMORTAL ?
367
those who hold that all our knowledge must be positive, must be based on past experience. In this case, it is true that we have had but one experience ; but is that any reason why, because it is unique, we should reject it? Our soul here may be said to have risen without any recollection of itself and oi the circumstances of its former existence. It may not even recollect the circumstances of its first days on earth, but it has within it the consciousness of its eternity, and the conception of a beginning is as impossible for it as that of an end, and if souls were to meet again hereafter as they met in this life, as they loved in this life, without knowing that they had met and loved before, would the next life be so very different from what this life has been here on earth — would it be so utterly intolerable and really not worth living?
Personally I must confess to one small weakness. I cannot help thinking that the souls towards whom we feel drawn in this life are the very souls whom we knew and loved in a former life, and that the souls who repel us here, we do not know why, are the souls that earned our disapproval, the souls from which we kept aloof in a former life. But let that pass as what others have a perfect right to call it — a mere fancy. Only let us remember that if our love is the love of what is merely phenomenal, the love of the body, the kind- ness of the heart, the vigour and wisdom of the intellect, our love is the love of changing and perishable things, and our soul may have to grope in vain among the shadows of the dead. But if our love, under all its earthly aspects, was the love of the true soul, of what is immortal and divine in every man and woman, that
368
LAST ESSAYS.
love cannot die, but will find once more what seems beautiful, true, and lovable in worlds to come as in worlds that have passed. This is very old wisdom, but we have forgotten it. Thousands of years ago an Indian sage, when parting from his wife, told her in plain words: ‘We do not love the husband in the husband, nor the wife in the wife, nor the children in the children. What we love in them, what we truly love in everything, is the eternal atman, the immortal self,’ and, as we should add, the immortal God, for the immortal self and the immortal God must be one.
INDEX.
ABSTRACTION, no right to, 362.
Abufazl, 328-330.
— quoted, 330.
Accommodation question, 3 1 6. Adam the Monk, 310.
— and Pragma, 313.
African prayers, 45-47.
Agni, hymn to, 62.
Agnoia, 349, 351, 353.
Agnosticism, 356.
Agnostics, 347, 349.
Afsdpos, 80, 81.
Aithiops, 79, 80.
Ak, 6, 7.
Akbar knew nothing of the Veda,
329-
Akbar’s religious council, 328,
335-
Jews and Christians invited,
329-
Alb, Dalmat:c, &c., 27.
Alger, doctrine of a future life,
. 357-
Ame, 360.
Amitabha, endless light, 305. Anaxagoras, 352.
Ancestral spirits, worshipped in Africa, 45.
Andaman islanders, 91.
Angels, belief in, 250.
Animism, jo, 266, 267.
Ant-gold, 86, 87.
Anthropology, 15, 19. Anthropomorphism, 10.
Arabia, Christianity in, 244.
IT. B
Arawyakas, or forest-books, 113. Archaeology, 15.
Arius, 327.
Aryan family of speech, 5, 6.
— religions, II.
Asoka and Buddhism, 13 1.
— sent missionaries to Kashmir
and Kabul, 308.
Asoka’s pillars, 233, 234.
— Council, 327.
only Buddhists present, 327.
Assyrian and Babylonian prayer*,
66-68.
Atheism, 340.
Atman, or self, 114.
— best word for soul, 364.
BADAONI, 328.
Barnacle geese, 1 7 1 .
Barrows, Dr., 324, 333.
Being and Not Being, 20.
Bible, which religion has the largest, 222-224.
Blavatsky, Madame, 100-111,124, i36, 156, 157.
— her miracles, 103, 126, 138,
174-
— her his Unveiled, 104, 135,
1.37-
— her ignorance of Greek, 104.
and eastern languages, 104.
Bonney, President, 324.
Book religions, 337.
Books burnt in China, 273.
Bopp, 5, 20.
Bos w or th Sm i th ’s Mohammed , 2 4 2 .
b
370
INDEX.
Boxer conspiracy, 321.
Brahman life, four stages of, TI2- ii3-
Brinton, Dr., 13.
Brinton, Myths of the New World, 49. ‘
Browning quoted, 326.
Buddha condemns mysticism, 122- 1 24.
— recognizes miracles, 125.
— little dogma in his teaching,
128.
— golden statue of, 308.
Buddha’s death, 144, 145, 159. its esoteric meaning, 144,
169.
Buddha’s birthplace now dis- covered, 233-235.
shown to Asoka, 236.
Buddhism, 70.
— does not allow prayer as peti-
tion, 71.
— and Christianity, likenesses be-
tween, 99.
— change of Brahmanism into,
121.
— numerous sects in, 128, 129.
- — in China, 285, 308, 309.
- — ■ why divided, 304.
— with Sanskrit Canon, 307. the one accepted in China,
3o7-
— spread of, in Asia, 308.
— and Taoism, 309.
Buddhist priests in Oxford, 71.
— monks, 1 21.
— Canon, complete catalogue of,
165-377.
— teachers in China, 300-301.
— Canon, 302.
— monasteries in China, 303.
— MSS. in China, 303, 304.
— Council, the fourth, 306.
— monasteries in China, 314.
— missionaries in third century,
322.
— pilgrims in fifth century, 322. Buddhists from India in China,
302-303.
— persecutions of, in China, 304.
Bilhler, Dr., 239.
Bulgarian troubles, 243.
Bunyiu Nanjio, his catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka, 302. Buriates, price paid by, for Bud- dhist Canon, 226.
Burnouf, 238.
CALDWELL, Bishop, 13. Centaur, 361.
Cerinthus, 346.
Chandragupta, 238.
Chinese religions, II.
— religion closely connected with
language, 262.
naturalistic origin of, 262,
269.
■ — ■ religious sects in, 320.
Christ, Mohammed’s view of, 24S, 249.
— lived Christianity, 257. Christian prayers, 78.
— Buddhists, 99.
— missionaries in China, 309.
introduced matches, 309.
at Akbar’s court, 329.
— doctrines in Persia, India, &c.,
312.
— settlements in Asia in seventh
century, 322.
Christianity, 70.
— liked by Buddhists in China,
3°9-
Christians annihilated in China, 3T4-
— expelled from China, 317.
— persecuted, 318.
Clarke, Freeman, his Ten Great Religions, 47.
Codrington, Dr., 41.
Confucianism, 54, 269.
— prayers, 54-56, 57.
— belief in intermediate spirits, 54. Confucius, 259, 261.
— did not found a new religion,
261.
— teaching of, 270-277.
— latinized form of, 278 n.
— and Lao-tze, 282.
agree in several points, 2S7.
INDEX.
371
Congresses, international, 213. Csoma Korosi and his Tibetan Catalogue, 177.
Ctesias, 87.
— his tales, SS, 91.
Cute, acute, 6.
Cuvier, 3.
DARWIN, 19-22.
— great influence of, 23. Darwinism, 22.
Dayananda Sarasvati, 102, 107. Decrees of God, 253.
Deeds, world of, 337, 338.
Devas, or Brights, 14.
Docta Jgnorantia, 349.
Douglas, Mr. Archibald, 184.
— his disproof of Notovitch’s
story, 185-193.
— his visit to Himis, 185, 190. Dugald Stewart, 252.
Dvi-ga, twice-born, 341.
Dyaus, Zeus, 38.
EGYPTIAN PRAYERS, 68, 69.
— Maftt, 291 n.
Ekagarbhas, the, 89.
Elephant, War of the, 244. Epoche, 349.
Esoteric Buddhism, 100-11 1, 124- 152.
— numbers many converts, 106.
— Sinnett’s explanation of, 149. Ethnic religions, 40, 41. Ethnology, 15.
Evans, Mr. Arthur, quoted, 17. Evolution, 18.
FA-HIAN, 303.
Ferrars, Mr., and the Kutho-daw, 228.
Fetishism, 266-269.
— progress from, 10. Fetish-worshippers, 9.
Filial piety, 273-276.
Fo, or Buddha, 300.
Forest life, 113, 114, 116. Forscher, forsehung, 37.
Fiihrer, Dr., 233.
Future life in Kordn, 254, 255.
GALILEO, 347.
Gautama Buddlia, 117, 120.
— his teaching presupposes Brah-
manism, 118.
George, Henry, 29, 31.
Ghosts and spirits, difference be- tween, 41.
Gifford Lectures, 355.
Gnostic, 346, 349.
Gnosticism, 356.
God, existence of, 340.
Godhead, unity of the, 248, 249. Gods of nature, 39, 40.
Goethe, 18.
Golden rule found in Confucianism, 270.
Gordon, General, 320.
Greek fables borrowed from India, 82.
— and Roman prayers, 64-66. Grimm, 5, 20.
HAHN, Dr., 13.
Hale, Horatio, 13.
Heaven, will of, 272.
Hegel, 18, 160, 359.
Hekataeos, 82.
Helmholtz, 22.
Hermann, Gottfried, 19.
— his doctrine of man’s creation,
19.
Herodotus, 83.
— his travellers’ tales, 83, 84.
— in Persia, 86.
Herrada and Alfara, 315.
Himis monastery, 173, 178, 180,
1 81, 204-206.
Hinayana in China, 287.
— or Pali canon, 304.
denies a personal God, 304.
— changed to Mahayana, 305,307.
— Buddhists, 305, 307.
have no chronology, 306.
— — in Ceylon, Burmah, and
Siam, 307.
Hiouen-thsang, 232, 234, 235, 3°3, 3!2-
Iiissarlik, Schliemann at, 16, 17. Historical and theoretical schools, 4-17.
B b 2
372
INDEX.
Historical or analytic school, 5, II, 13, 14, 15. 16, 17, 20, 21, 23. — great advantage of, 25. Hoei-seng and Song-yan, 303. Hoernle, Dr., 323.
Hospitality not enjoined in the Kings, 318.
Hsian-fu, monument of, 310. Hsiao-King, the, 272, 274, 278. Humboldt, A. and \V. , 20.
Hume, 359.
IMMORTAL, 358.
Immortality of the soul, 340. Index verborum of Rig-veda, 228. India, travellers’ tales of, 87-92. — mysterious wisdom in, 92, 96,
97-
Individual religions, 41, 69. Infinite, knowledge of the, 14. Inspiration, 28, 29.
Inspired books, belief in, 250, 251. Interjections the ultimate facts of language, 8.
Islam, many sects in, 247.
Issa, or Jesus, 176.
I-tsing, 303, 312.
JACOLLIOT, La Bible dans VInde, 94-97.
— quoted, 105.
Jesuits in China under Ricci, 315.
— tutors to Crown Prince, 316.
— their work condemned by the
Pope, 316, 317.
Jewish merchants in India, 176. dews in Arabia, 244.
Joldan’s declaration, 193. Judgement, day of, 252.
Julien, Stanislas, 238, 269.
KALACHAKRA, wheel of time,
3°4-
Kaudjur, 177, 236.
Kanerkes, 307.
Kauishka, King, 306.
Kant, 19, 350-359^
Kant’s Critique, 348. Kapilavastu, 231-236.
Karma, 154.
Khotan, chief seat of Buddhism, 308.
Kings, the Five, 259.
Klamaths, the, 343.
Knowledge, our, 363. Konakamana, stftpa of, 234.
Kordn, cruelty not sanctioned by the, 244.
— six articles of faith in the,
247-253-
Kutho-daw, 227-229.
— alphabet of, 227.
Kynokephaloi, the, 91.
LAMA, of Himis, 191, 193, 194, 198, 209.
— of Wokka and Lamayuru, 194. Language, Chinese religion closely
connected with, 262.
— and thought, sciences of, 354. Lao-tz^, 278, 279.
— legends about, 283.
Legge, Dr., on Chinese atheism, 263.
— on origin of Chinese religion,
262, 269.
— his translations in Sacred Books
of the East, 278.
— on the Tao-teh-King, 285. Leumann, Dr., 323.
Levy, M. Sylvain, his lecture on Buddha’s birthplace, 231. Liddell, Dr., 2.
Locke, 359.
Logic, 353.
Logos, 284, 343-345, 352, 353- 355-
— substitute for Tao, 288.
Love, if true, is immortal, 367,
368.
Lumbinl, parts of, 232, 235.
MAHATMAS, of Tibet, 107,109- iii, 140, 158, 159.
— meaning of the word, ill, 14S. Mahayana,or Northern Buddhism,
little known, 131.
— in China, 287.
— admits a personal God, 305.
— why so called, 306.
INDEX.
373
Mahayana, the Buddhism of China,
3°7- .
— Buddhism in China, Turkestan,
&c., 307, 30S.
Mancliu dynasty, 316, 320. Marcion, 346.
Marco Polo, 91.
Matanga, miracles of, 305. Melanesian prayers, 41-44. Mexican prayers, 49-51.
Mingti, the Emperor, 300, 301. 308.
— sent officials to India to study
Buddhism, 302.
Miracles, 340.
Missionaries in China, mistakes made by, 319.
Missions from China to India, 302, 303-
Mitre, Stole, &c., 27, 28. Mohammed, character of, 257. Mohammed’s wives and advisers, 245-
Mohammedanism, 70, 74, 75.
— early, 244.
and Christianity, 244, 247.
Morbus, 365.
Mors, 365.
Mortal, 365.
Mosaism, 69, 70.
— prayer, 76, 77.
Muller, Johannes, 20, 21.
— Otfried, 20.
Mysticism, 363.
NAGARGUNA, founder of the Mahayana, 306, 307.
Nagas, 306, 307.
National religions, 40, 53. Nationalized land, 30.
Nature worship in Chinese, 263, 269.
Neo-Platonism, 363.
Nestorian monument, 310-312. Nestorians in China, 310.
Nicaea, Council of, 327.
Niebuhr, 5, 20.
Nirvana, 118.
North American Indian prayers, 48.
Notovitch, M., and his Vie iu- connue de Jems- Christ, 173.
— the MSS. he saw, 174.
— what the Life asserts, 175.
— his broken leg, 174-180, 190,
196.
— untruth of his story, 182, 190-
193, 202, 209.
— his perversion of the Bible
story, 199, 200, 207, 208. Nous, 352.
OKEN, 18, 20.
Olcott, Colonel, 126, 158.
Old Boy, name for Lao-tzd, 279. Old and New Testaments, number of words, &c., in, 232, 233. Olopun, 312.
One God, belief in, in China, 268. Origen, 342, 344.
Oronyha Teka, 211.
PALI Canon, what it consists of, 225.
Rhys Davids on, 226.
Spence Hardy on, 226.
Chinese translation of, 226.
PawLitantra, the, 81, 82.
Papuan prayer, 48.
Parlarthas, meanings of words, 360 . Parliament of Religions, 214, 324, 329-
all religions represented,
33L 332-
no discussion at, 336.
PA S, 6.
Pec-u, cattle, 6.
Peel, Sir R., 64.
Peripatetics, 352.
Peruvian prayers, 49, 57. Phenomenal world, 349-352.
— knowledge, 351.
Philosophy is philosophy of Lan- guage, 358.
Plato, 352.
— and Aesopian fables, 81-82. Polygamy, 255, 256.
Pope’s false claims in China, 318. Prar/na, his translations from Sanskrit into Chinese, 313.
374
INDEX.
Prayer, meaning of, 36.
— belief in the efficacy of, 39.
— wheels, 7 1 j 72- Prayers to the departed, 37.
— to the powers of nature, 38.
— for rain, 38.
— and sacrifice, 56.
Precarious, 37.
Precious ones of Buddhism, 287. Prichard, Dr., 20.
Proper names, 80.
Protoplasm, 18.
Psyche, 360.
Pure Holy Ones, 286.
Puseyism, 22.
QAT and MAEAWA, 44-45-
RED AND YELLOW MONKS of Ladakh, 197.
Religion, three classes of, 40.
— number of followers of each,
219-221.
— Chinese idea of, 301.
— a universal, 339.
— fundamental doctrines, 341. Religions with and without Sacred
Books, 11.
— of Red Indians, Africans, and
Australians, 12.
— number of, 331.
— all of Eastern origin, 331.
— feelings changed about alien,
333-335-
— divisions in, 339.
Rdmusat on theTao-teh-King, 284. Renan, M., 179.
Reville, M., 49.
Rhys Davids, 238.
Ricci, Jesuit father, 315, 319. Rig-veda, prayers in, 56-63.
Rita, 290-293.
Roman See, its pretensions in China, 314.
SACRED BOOKS, relative age of, 217-219.
of the East, 1, 2, 132, 133,
334. 337. 338-
of purely historical interest^.
Sacred Books of the East, what use to the West, 32-35, 216.
none written by the founder
of a religion, 338.
St. Clement, 342-344.
Salisbury, Lord, 2.
Sama?ia or Nramawa, 119, 120. Savfcrny, 5, 20.
Schelling, 18.
Schliemann, Dr., 323. Schopenhauer on prayer, 63, 102. Semitic religions, 11, 70.
Sdnarfc, M., 238, 239, 323. Sensuous intuition, 350.
Shang-Ti, 264, 268.
Shapirah’s MS. of the Pentateuch,
93-
Shft, or four philosophies, 259. Si-gnan-fu, 312, 313.
Sinnett, Mr. A. P., 134, 160.
— claims to be the founder of
Esoteric Buddhism, 135-138.
— his appeal to native scholars,
161.
Skylax in India, 82, 90.
Socrates, 348.
Soul, 358.
— definition of, 359-366.
• — words for, 359.
— a mere word, 361.
— - possesses the ego, 364.
— atman, best word for, 364.
— without beginning or end, 366.
— will it recognize other souls
hereafter? 366, 367.
Spencer, Herbert, 21.
Spirits of Nature and of the departed, 266, 267.
Stanislas Julien, 238, 269. Stanley, Dean, 26, 27.
Strong Buffalo, 21 1.
Sukhavati, paradise, 305. Surplice, 26.
TAE-PINGS, rebellion of the, 320, 321.
TAN, 6.
Tandjur, 177, 178, 226.
Tao, doctrine of, 2S3, 288-297.
— or God, 289.
INDEX.
375
Tao, or Bits,, 290, 293.
— in nature, 293, 294.
— in the individual, 294-296.
— applied to political life, 296-
299.
Taoism, 278-300.
— modern forms of, 279, 280.
— and the Emperor WO, 2 So,
281.
— worship of spirits, 281.
— corruption of, 281.
— when established, 285.
— debased, 299.
Taoist temple, images in, 2S6. Tao-teh-King, 279, 283, 285, 288, 299.
— R^musat on the, 284.
Ta-tsin, monastery of, 310-313. Terai of Nepal, 236, 237, 239. Te-tsung separates the Buddhist
monks from Christians, 310.
— Emperor, 313.
Th changed to s, 80.
Theoretical or synthetic school, 5,
8, 12, 15, 17, 21, 23. Theosophy, 141-153.
Thymos, 360.
Tien, Chinese, 264.
— word for heaven, 265.
— Supreme Lord, 268.
Travellers’ tales, 83-85.
Trinity, false doctrine of, time of
Mohammed, 246, 247, 252. Tripii'aka or Southern Buddhist Canon, 130.
Tripifaka, written in Pali, 225.
— or Three Baskets, 225.
Turkey, intercourse with, in
Elizabeth’s reign, 242.
Turks, no drinking among, 241.
— morality among, 241.
— European feeling against, 242.
— and Frederick the Great, 243. Tylor, Dr., 47.
UPANISHADS, 115.
Urschleim, 18.
VALENTINUS, 346.
Vedanta doctrines called secret,
98.
Virchow, 24.
WADDELL, Surgeon-Major, and Kapilavastu, 233, 239. Werden, das, 18.
Wilford, Lieut., his articles on Indian learning, 93, 94. Williamson, Dr., and the Nes- torian monument to Hsian-fu, 311-
Word and thought, inseparable,
359-
XAVIER, Franfois, 314.
YA(?UR and Sama-vedas, 59. Yellow Terror, 31 1.
ZOROASTRIANISM, 70,72-74.
OXFORD : HORACE HART PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
% Classified
OF WORKS IN
GENERAL LITERATURE
PUBLISHED BY
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.,
39 PATEMOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, and 32 HORNBY ROAD, BOMBAY.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Badminton Library (The) . 12
Biography, Personal Memoirs,
Etc 8
Children’s Books . . .31
Classical Literature, Trans- lations, Etc. . . . .21
Cookery, Domestic Management,
Etc 35
Evolution, Anthropology, Etc. 21 Fiction, Humour, Etc. . . 25
Fine Arts and Music (The) . 36
Fur, Feather and Fin Series . 14 History, Politics, Polity, Po- litical Memoirs, Etc. . . 1
Language, History and Science
of 19
PAGE
Mental, Moral and Political
Philosophy . . . .16
Miscellaneous and Critical
Works 37
Miscellaneous Theological
Works 39
Poetry and the Drama . . 23
Political Economy and Eco- nomics 20
Popular Science . . .29
Silver Library (The) . . 32
Sport and Pastime . . .12
Stonyhurst Philosophical
Series 19
Travel and Adventure, The Colonies, Etc. . . .10
Works of Reference . . 30
History, Politics, Polity, Political Memoirs, etc.
Abbott.— A HISTORY OF GREECE. By Evelyn Abbott, M.A., LL.D.