Ancient Faiths And Modern Part 8

When the modern Christian philosopher--and there really are a few who deserve the term--finds that the morality of Jesus did not materially differ from that of Sakya Muni, he endeavours to show that the doctrine of "faith in the son of G.o.d" is of more value than simple propriety, and that even the most virtuous life will not enable a man to attain to paradise unless he holds the Catholic faith. When the "Catholic faith,"

as it is termed, is placed in such a position, we are bound to examine its pretensions, and inquire in what way doctrines or dogmas are better than morality, and whether they are in any way superior to what the orthodox call "irreligion." To my mind the best method of solving the question is an appeal to history. If, as it is contended by the orthodox, the teaching of Christianity is far above that of any other religion, then it must follow that all those who believe in it, or even profess it, must be paragons amongst men as citizens and rulers. To what extent many theologians believe in this axiom may be judged by the frequency with which we hear, from the pulpit, an old anecdote to the effect, that the expression, "see how these Christians love one another," was, in olden time, nearly equal to the most powerful sermon in favour of the religion of Jesus. Without pointing a sneer, by requesting my readers to subst.i.tute the word Buddhists for Christians, let me lay the very heavy charge against the leaders of the faith, that the words in question are the heaviest condemnation possible against the supposed value of the doctrines of the son of Mary, as formerly and at present expounded. "See how these Christians love!" Aye, see how they love--read their own histories of the past, and their newspapers in the present; attend their meetings; listen to their speeches; and even follow them into private life. In every position "see how these Christians love one another" is the d.a.m.ning sentence which tells of the real value of the doctrine attributed to the son of Mary. Whilst I write (Jan. 7, 1870), a council, called OEc.u.menical, consisting of Roman Catholic Christian bishops, summoned to the capital of ancient Italy from all parts of the world, is sitting, and one of the subjects of its deliberation is, whether a certain individual, elected by men to a.s.sume the direction of a community of men holding a particular faith in common, shall be regarded, by those who join such branch of the church, as absolutely infallible in every statement of opinion which he makes as a high priest. Men positively have met to clothe, and now have invested, a man with an attribute of G.o.d, and millions of Christians will, by those men, be compelled to consider themselves bound by the decision!

"See how these Christians love!" they are persecuted by the world at first, then they persecute their oppressors, and ma.s.sacre each other; educated by Jesus, they gradually encourage ignorance until they reach a superst.i.tion as cra.s.s as the darkness of a dense fog in a moonless night. They oppose the advancement of knowledge and science, then, by degrees, endeavour to exalt each other, until, by common consent, they deify the chieftain of the order. There is not a known crime of which the leaders of the Christian church, as it is called, have not been guilty, both as men and ecclesiastical rulers. "See how these Christians love!" Yet these very men endeavour to deride, and affect to despise, those whom they call the G.o.dless. The latter, taking their stand upon morality and common sense, aver that all affairs between man and his maker ought to be referred to the arbitrement of Heaven. The Christian hierarchs, on the contrary, declare that they are the earthly agents of heaven, and that they, and the secular arm--a very mundane court--can act just as well, perhaps better, than the Supreme Judge. We will not say whether it was a pleasant pastime for the Spanish, and other Inquisitors, to torture individuals who were thought to be inimical to the true faith, inasmuch as we do not know their inmost mind; but we a.s.severate that all Europe, except those who had the power of persecution, and used it, rejoiced greatly when the enthusiastic armies, of what was designated atheistic France, annihilated the so-called Holy Inquisition.

I speak with sober earnestness when I say, that after forty years'

experience amongst those who profess Christianity, and those who proclaim, more or less quietly, their disagreement with it, I have noticed more sterling virtue and morality amongst the last than the first. Though I thus express myself, I must also acknowledge my belief in the dictum, "that many men are better than their creeds would make them," and, consequently, that all men are not to be taken as characteristic of their system of belief. I know, personally, many pious, sterling, good Christian people, whom I honour, admire, and, perhaps, would be glad to emulate or to equal; but they deserve the eulogy thus pa.s.sed on them in consequence of their good sense having ignored the doctrine of faith to a great degree, and having cultivated the practice of good works. They have picked out the best bits of the Bible, and rejected the worst. In my judgment the most praiseworthy Christians whom I know are modified Buddhists, though, probably, not one of them ever heard of Siddartha. I would gladly trace their character, but I forbear, as I think they would be horrified at the thought of my comparing them with those whom they have been taught to regard as followers of a false prophet, or something worse. Let it suffice to say that I honour consistent reasonable Christians everywhere, and that whatever remarks I make which seem to be opposed to this, are directed against those whose doctrines, morality, and conduct, ostensibly built upon the Bible, are irrational and bad.

Since the preceding remarks were written, there have appeared three very remarkable works upon Buddhism in addition to those which I have already noticed--and they have the advantage for general readers, of being clothed in an English dress. The first which I will notice, is _Travels of Fah-Hian and Sung-Yun: Buddhist Pilgrims from China to India_ (408 A.D., and 518 a.d.; London, Trubner, 1869, small 8vo. pp. 208.) This work is remarkable as ill.u.s.trating the fact, that there has been the idea, even in China, of sending men, or of devout persons spontaneously going, to distant places, to endeavour to seek for more perfect religious knowledge, than they believe themselves and their teachers to possess where they are. With such an example before us, we can give more easy credence to the stories told of Pythagoras, of Solon, and Herodotus; how they visited distant countries to learn the way of G.o.d and man more perfectly. Nor must we pa.s.s by the proof, which the journey of the Chinese travellers affords, that, what may be called missionary zeal is not an apanage of Christianity alone. An account of their travels will be found in the next chapter. The second publication to which we refer, is _Buddhaghosa's Parables_, translated from the Burmese, by Capt. T. Rogers; with an introduction containing _Buddha's Dhammapada_, or _Path of Virtue_, translated from the Pali, by Max Muller; London, Trubner & Co., 1870, 8vo. pp. 374. This work is of such importance to all students of the Science of Religion, that we shall notice it in a separate essay. The third contribution, is _The Modern Buddhist_, being the views of a Siamese Minister of State, on his own and other religions, translated, with remarks, by Henry Alabaster, interpreter of H. B. M., consulate-general in Siam; London, Triibner & Co., 1870, small 8vo. pp. 91. This has now arrived at a second edition, and is called _The Wheel of the Law_.

This last book is, perhaps, the most interesting of the three, inasmuch as it enables us to compare the modern development of the religion of Buddha, and that of Christ. It enables us, moreover, to see ourselves and modern Christian doctrines as others see them, and to discover the essential points at issue, between the followers of the son of Maya Devi, and of Mary.

The first point to which we would call attention, is the statement that the Siamese are nowhere excelled in the sincerity of their belief, and the liberality with which they support their religion. "In Bangkok alone, there are more than a hundred monasteries, and ten thousand monks and novices. More than this, every male Siamese, sometime during his life, and generally in the prime of it, takes orders as a monk, and retires for some months or years, to practise abstinence and meditation in a monastery." Against this, or side by side with it, what can Great Britain, or any other Christian country show? We have, it is true, plenty of monasteries in Christendom, and in the majority of western kingdoms, there are colleges and universities for the education of youth, and there is, in some such inst.i.tutions, a pretence of meditation and of abstinence. Yet the finger of scandal points, and has pointed, for many hundred years, to the disreputable conduct pursued in almost the whole of such Christian inst.i.tutions; whereas, not even its enemies can find evidence to convict Buddhist ascetics of indulging in sensual gratifications of any kind whatever.

We learn, from Mr Alabaster's preface, that the late king of Siam, though "eminent amongst monks for his knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures, boldly preached against the canonicity of those of them, whose relations were opposed to his reason, and his knowledge of modern science." "His powers as a linguist were considerable, and enabled him to use an English library with facility." They are his views--which royal etiquette prevented him from writing, that inspired his prime minister.

What have we here? Surely it is an example that British rulers, and especially divines, should follow. Yet with all our boasted skill, science, and powers of thought, our theologians prefer to preach, and to uphold, doctrines which they know to be repugnant, both to reason and to science, rather than abandon that which was propounded when reason and knowledge were almost in their infancy. Certainly, in this respect, the believers in Sakya Muni show themselves more sensible than those in Jesus.

Again, let us quote the following paragraph--pointing out the a.n.a.logy we wish to draw, by using a literary contrivance--and calling attention to the fact, that no Roman Catholic authority in Christian Europe, has yet dared to say, what a Buddhist ruler does.

"Our {Siamese Papal} literature is not only scanty, but nonsensical, full of stories of {genii saints} stealing {women relics} and {men saints} fighting with {genii devils} and {extraordinary persons Elijah and Philip} who could fly through the air, and bring dead people to life. And, even those works, which profess to teach anything, generally teach it wrong; so that there is not the least profit, though one studies them from morning to night" (p. 7).

The following observation is equally powerful--Chaya. Phya.

Praklang--the name of the Siamese author, might, "as a Buddhist, believe in the existence of a G.o.d, sublimed above all human qualities and attributes--a perfect G.o.d, above love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly resting in a quiet happiness that nothing could disturb; and of such a G.o.d he would speak no disparagement, not from a desire to please Him, or fear to offend Him, but from natural veneration. But he cannot understand a G.o.d with the attributes and qualities of men, a G.o.d who loves and hates, and shows anger, a Deity, who, whether described to him by Christian Missionaries, or by Mahometans, Brahmins, or Jews, falls below his standard of even an ordinary good man" (p. 25).

After the pa.s.sages which we have quoted, the translator gives many pages of accounts of conversation between missionaries and the Siamese minister, which well repay a perusal. They are too long for quotation entire, but there are three paragraphs that deserve commemoration, as they show us the reasoning powers of the Buddhist in favourable contrast to the bigotry of his would-be instructor. "I said, 'then you consider that even a stone in the bladder is created by G.o.d?' He replied, 'Yes, everything, G.o.d creates everything.' 'Then,' answered I, if that is so, G.o.d creates in man that which will cause his death, and you medical missionaries remove it, and restore his health! Are you not opposing G.o.d by so doing? Are you not offending Him in curing those whom He would kill?' When I had said this the missionary became angry, and saying 'I was hard to teach,' left me" (p. 29). Again, when he and Dr Gutzlaff were discussing the story of the creation and "the fall," as taught in the Christian and Jewish Bible, and the Buddhist has clearly the best of the argument, the missionary told him, that if any spoke as the minister had been doing in European countries, he would be put in prison--and Chaya Phya adds, "I invite particular attention to this statement" (p.

34). Thus, not only in other parts of his work, but here also, he points out how that which Christian emissaries say is "a religion of peace on earth and good will to men" is, in reality, one of intolerance and persecution, even on the showing of its own ministers. In the third example to which I refer, Gutzlaff is again talking with Chaya upon the curse of man, and the Siamese speaks thus--"Besides, the Bible says, by belief in Christ, man shall escape the consequences of Eve's sin; yet I cannot see that men do so escape in any degree, but suffer just as others do." The missionary answered, "It is waste of time to converse with evil men, who will not be taught, and so he left me" (p. 35). When men like Gutzlaff, who is really eminent in his way, can be so readily silenced and put to flight by a native of Siam, whose mind is not familiar with the science and logical training of European thinkers, it is by no means surprising that cultivated Englishmen should refuse to believe in the childish stories and foolish doctrines that are promulgated by Christians at home, as being an inspired and infallible revelation from the Almighty. Alas, for our country and her people!

they have much to unlearn as well as to learn before they can lay a fair claim to the position which they a.s.sume to hold.

We may next quote the following, as being useful to missionary societies here. After having described the religion of Papists, Protestants, and Mormons, Chaya says, "All these three sects wors.h.i.+p the same G.o.d and Christ, why, then, should they blame each other, and charge each other with believing wrongfully, and say to each other, 'You are wrong, and will go to h.e.l.l; we are right, and shall go to Heaven?' You make us think that it is one religion which Christians hold, yet how can we join it when each party threatens us with h.e.l.l if we agree with another sect, and there is none to decide between them? I beg comparison of this with the teaching of the Lord Buddha, that whoever endeavours to keep the commandments, and is charitable, and walks virtuously, must attain to Heaven" (p. 43). The commandments referred to are--

1st. Thou shalt not destroy nor cause the destruction of any living thing.

2d. Thou shalt not, either by fraud or violence, obtain or keep that which belongs to another.

3d. Thou shall not lie carnally with any but proper objects for thy l.u.s.t.

4th. Thou shalt not attempt, either by word or action, to lead others to believe that which is not true.

5th. Thou shalt not become intoxicated.

We much fear, that if the commandments which nominal Christians observe are contrasted with those kept by the Buddhists, that the former must be regarded as much lower in the scale of religious civilization than the latter.

The Siamese author next discusses the question, "how shall a man select that religion which he can trust to for his future happiness?" His answer is, "He must reflect, and apply his mind to ascertain which comes nearest to truth." Then follow a few very true remarks about the difficulty of shaking off any faith once adopted--about the causes which determine men to change their belief, and, in ill.u.s.tration of the difficulties, the author quotes a sermon by Buddha to those who were in doubt, and desired to select a right religion. "And the Lord Buddha answered, You are right to doubt, for it was a doubtful matter. I say unto all of you, do not believe in what ye have heard, that is, when you have heard anyone say this is especially good or extremely bad; do not reason with yourselves, that if it had not been true it would not have been a.s.serted, and so believe in its truth. Neither have faith in traditions, because they have been handed down for many generations, and in many places.

"Do not believe in anything because it is rumoured and spoken of by many; do not think that is a proof of its truth.

"Do not believe merely because the written statement of some old sage is produced; do not be sure that the writing has ever been revised by the said sage, or can be relied on. Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because an idea is extraordinary, it must have been implanted by a Deva, or some wonderful being.

"Do not believe in guesses, that is, a.s.suming something at haphazard, as a starting point, and then drawing conclusions from it--reckoning your two and your three and your four before you have fixed your number one.

"Do not believe because you think there is an a.n.a.logy, that is, a suitability in things and occurrences--such as believing that there must be walls of the world because you see water in a basin, or that Mount Meru must exist because you have seen the reflection of trees, or that there must be a creating G.o.d because houses and towers have builders.

"Do not believe in the truth of that to which you have become attached by habit, as every nation believes in the superiority of its own dress, and ornaments, and language.

"Do not believe because your informant appears to be a credible person, as, for instance, when you see anyone having a very sharp appearance, conclude that he must be clever and trustworthy: or, when you see anyone who has powers and abilities beyond what men generally possess, believe in what he tells; or think that a great n.o.bleman is to be believed, as he would not be raised by the king to high station unless he were a good man.

"Do not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and masters, or believe and practise merely because they believe and practise.

"I tell you all, you must of yourselves know, that 'this is evil, this is punishable, this is censured by wise men, belief in this will bring no advantage to anyone, but will cause sorrow;' and when you know this, then eschew it" (pp. 45-47). Then follows a long account of the examples which Buddha gave to his disciples, examining them by questions, whose answer is obvious; but these, though wonderfully to the point, are too long for quotation, and we must refer our readers to the book itself.

Nor do we act thus, reluctantly, for we believe that every honest inquirer will thank us for the introduction. We should rejoice if some of our divines became acquainted with it. They might draw as many valuable texts from the discourses attributed to Buddha, herein described, as they do now from Jesus' sermon on the mount. We may add, in pa.s.sing, that, in the conversation of Sakya Muni, he says, "it is better to believe in a future life, in which happiness or misery can be felt, for if the heart believes therein, it will abandon sin and act virtuously; and even if there is no resurrection, such a life will bring a good name and the regard of men. But those who believe in extinction at death, will not fail to commit any sin that they may choose, because of their disbelief in a future; and if there should happen to be a future after all, they will be at a disadvantage--they will be like travellers without provisions" (p. 54).

The following exposition of modern Buddhist belief well deserves attention.

"Buddhists believe that every act, word, or thought, has its consequence, which will appear sooner or later in the present, or in some future state. Evil acts will produce evil consequences, i.e., may cause a man misfortune in this world, or an evil birth in h.e.l.l, or as an animal in some future existence. Good acts, etc., will produce good consequences; prosperity in this world, or birth in heaven, or in a high position in the world in some future state" (p. 57).

We will only add, that if the value of Buddhism, like Christianity, is to be known by its fruits, it is clear, that the former, as practised generally in Siam, is decidedly superior to the latter as practised in Great Britain, America, and Christendom, generally.

CHAPTER V.

Priority of Buddhism to Christianity. Strange a.s.sumptions.

When was India first known to Christians? Thomas the Apostle, When Asceticism was introduced into Christianity.

Results of inquiry into the introduction of Christianity into India. Tars.h.i.+sh and Ceylon. Peac.o.c.ks known as the Persian birds to the Greeks, temp. Aristophanes. Indian elephants in army of Darius. Roman traffic with India, b.c.

30. Buddhist missionaries. The gift of tongues. Rise of Asceticism in Western Asia. Essenes again. Collection of Buddhist writings, 450 b.c. Degeneracy of original Faith.

Missionaries from China to Hindostan in search of Buddhist works and knowledge. Travels of Fah Hian, their experience and remarks. Quotations from their writings. Footprints of Buddha and Peter. Immaculate conception of Sakya. Old Simeon--a repet.i.tion. Wise men from the East. St. Ursula.

Three Buddhist councils to compile scriptures. Buddhism lapsed into image-wors.h.i.+p and processions. Progress of the pilgrims. Return by sea. Deductions. Developments of Christianity and Asceticism. Observations about travelling.

Conclusions.

With the usual pertinacity of Englishmen, there are many devout individuals who, on finding that Buddhism and Christianity very closely resemble each other, a.s.severate, with all the vehemence of an a.s.sumed orthodoxy, that the first has proceeded from the second. Nor can the absurdity of attempting to prove that the future must precede the past deter them from declaring that Buddhism was promulgated originally by Christian missionaries from Judea, and then became deteriorated by Brahminical and other fancies! It is really difficult, sometimes, to discover what are the real tenets of the obstinate orthodox to whom we refer; but, so far as we can learn from the character of their opposition, it would appear that they do not deny the existence of such a man as Sakya Muni, to whom his followers gave the name of Buddha. Just in the same way, we may add, as his followers gave the name of Jesus Christ to Ben Panther. Whilst allowing that Siddartha founded a new religion, the orthodox a.s.sert that all its bad parts are human, whilst all its good parts consist of doctrines tacked on to the original, after Christianity had been introduced into India, by one or more of Jesus'

apostles or disciples.

If, for the sake of argument, we accord to such cavillers the position of reasonable beings, and ask them to give us some proof of the a.s.sertion, that early Christian people went to Hindostan and preached the gospel there; or even to point out, in history, valid proofs that India was known to a single apostle, we find that they have nothing to say beyond the vaguest gossip.

What the testimony is we may find by turning to the article Thomas, in Kitto's _Cyclop?dia of Biblical Literature_, which was written by a learned professor of Gottingen. Therein we see, and the statement is amply vouched by quotation from authorities, that the Apostle in question is said to have preached the gospel in Parthia and in Persia, and to have been buried in Edessa; and that, according to a later tradition, Thomas went to India, and suffered martyrdom there. Then follows a statement that this account has been a.s.sailed, &c. Similar traditions are mentioned by Dean Stanley in Smith's "_Dictionary of the Bible_" with the addition that it is now believed that the Thomas of Malabar Christian fame was a Nestorian missionary.

Eusebius writes, book v., ch. 10, speaking of Pantaenus, about a.d. 190--"He is said to have displayed such ardour... that he was const.i.tuted a herald of the gospel of Christ to the nations of the East, and advanced even as far as India; and the report is, that he there found his own arrival antic.i.p.ated by some who were acquainted with the gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had preached, and had left them the gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew, which was also preserved unto this time. Pantaenus became finally the head of the Alexandrian school." Such a piece of gossip no historian can trust for a moment.

Socrates, in his _Ecclesiastical History_, about a.d. 420, writes, "We must now mention by what means the profession of Christianity was extended in Constantine's reign, for it was in his time that the nations, both of the Indians in the interior, and the Iberians, first embraced the Christian faith. But it may be needful briefly to explain why the expression in the interior is appended. When the apostles went forth by lot amongst the nations, Thomas received the apostles.h.i.+p of the Parthians. Matthew was allotted Ethiopia, and Bartholomew the part of India contiguous to that country; but the interior of India, which was inhabited by many barbarous nations, using different languages, was not enlightened by Christian doctrine before the time of Constantine," about 320 A.D. Then follows a story of a Tynan philosopher, who, with two youths, took s.h.i.+p, and arrived somewhere in India, just after the violation of a treaty between that country and the Romans. Everyone in the s.h.i.+p was killed but the two lads, who, being young, were sent as a present to the Indian king. One became a cupbearer, the other the royal recorder. The king died, freeing the youths, and the queen, left with a young son, made the strangers his tutors, or regents. One, who was the highest, then began to inquire whether, amongst the Roman merchants trafficking with that country, there were any Christians to be found.

Having discovered some, he induced them to select a place for wors.h.i.+p, and he subsequently built a church, into which he admitted some Indians, after previous instruction. The other youth comes back to Tyre, and then the regent comes to Alexandria, talks to Athanasius, and begs him to send a bishop and clergy to the place he has left, to which no name is given. To the latter youth Frumentius, ordination is given, and he returns to India to preach, to perform miracles, and build oratories, [--Greek--]. The historian, adds Rufinus, a.s.sures us that he heard these facts from the former king's cupbearer, Edesius, who was afterwards inducted into the sacred office at Tyre.

We may next quote the _Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius_ (who wrote about A.D. 425), compiled by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Therein we may observe how completely the first contradicts Socrates as before quoted, and may also infer the reason why. In book ii., ch. 6, the words run, "The impious Philostorgius relates, that the Christians in Central India, who were converted to the faith of Christ by the preaching of St. Bartholomew, believe that the son is not of the same substance with the father." He adds that "Theophilus, the Indian who had embraced this opinion, came to them and delivered it to them as a doctrine; and also that these Indians are now called Homeritae, instead of their old name, Sabaeans, which they received from the city of Saba, the chief city of the whole nation."

This leads me to doubt very strongly whether the ecclesiastical writers in early days did not group, under the name of India, the southern parts of Arabia, Persia, and Beloochistan.

Sozomen, writing about the period of 325 A.D., says, book ii, ch. 24, "We have heard that about this period some of the most distant of the nations that we call Indian, to whom the preaching of Bartholomew was unknown, were converted to Christianity by Frumentius, a priest." Then follows an enlarged edition of the legend told by Socrates, and the words, "it is said that Frumentius discharged his priestly functions so admirably that he became an object of universal admiration." Theodoret, writing about 420 A.D., places the conversion of the Indians about 328 A.D., and gives substantially the same account as the preceding writers whom we have quoted.

We will not, however, content ourselves with this short notice, but will first inquire whether, if the accounts of the earlier reporters, Eusebius, Socrates, Clement, and Rufinus, who wrote about a.d. 320, 390, 190, and 370, are not to be trusted, we can believe the stories of Gregory n.a.z.ianzen, Ambrose, Jerome, Nicephorus, and Abdias, who wrote about a.d. 380, 380, 400, 815, and 910 respectively. If we believe one set of Christian "fathers," that Thomas the apostle died in Syria, we cannot credit a set of Christian "sons," who affirm that he was martyred in India. But--and the point is an important one--we can see reason why the children should invent an account of which the parents saw not the necessity. About the period of Gregory n.a.z.ianzen arose that asceticism which sent Simeon Stylites upon the top of his pillar in a.d. 394, and kept him there for the rest of his life, and that peopled the Thebaid with hermits of the most approved Buddhist order--celibates shunning luxury, and cultivating filthiness of the outer to cleanse the inner man. The way in which the original faith, preached by Jesus and modified by Paul, was distorted during the first few centuries in Egypt can only be rationally accounted for by a spread of Buddhist doctrines by Indian missionaries, or promulgated by Christian merchants, who had travelled to the Indies, and modified their original faith by what they saw and heard from the followers of the great Sramana; and it was natural for the Alexandrian Christians to adopt the modifications referred to, and to stamp the innovations with the a.s.sertion that they were apostolic reflections--rays of divine light falling from "the sun of righteousness" upon the mind of the blessed Saint Somebody, Thomas, for this purpose, being a name which answered as well as any other. There is positively no evidence whatever--except some apocryphal Jesuit stories about certain disciples of Jesus, found by Papal missionaries at Malabar--that any disciple of Mary's son ever proceeded to Hindostan to preach the gospel during the first centuries of our era. Those who know the history of the "Decretals," and of Prester John, can readily estimate the value of tales told by Jesuits in India, where there was not at the time anyone to test their veracity.

Being myself desirous of ascertaining what evidence really exists--or existed in the times of ancient authors, whose works have come down to us--of the knowledge of India by Europeans in days gone by, I inst.i.tuted an inquiry, with the determination to be impartial. The results obtained were the following:--