Most of these sacred texts are now published in the original languages, and the more important of them have been rendered accessible to the stu dents of the history of religion by English trans lations published in the Sacred Books of time East. Though it seems self-evident that for an accurate and scholar-like knowledge of the great religions of the world, the books recognized as canonical and authoritative by the followers of each re ligion are indispensable, doubts have been raised by various scholars whether a religion lives really in its sacred books, or whether it does not rather lie buried in them. We know that a large and important branch of Christians set less value on the texts of the Bible than on the traditions of the church, that its priests actually dissuade the laity from reading the Bible, and that they hold certain doctrines and enforce certain practices for which there is no, or a very doubtful, authority in the Bible. According to them the church, the coun cils, the priesthood, or the head of the priest hood should be accepted as the recognized repre sentatives and infallible exponents of all religious truth. Others, again, see the real life of a re ligion in the faith of the individuals who profess to believe in it. According to them any poor widow has as much right to claim her faith to be the true Christian faith, as the most powerful preacher or the most learned professor. From a practical point of view there may be some truth in these ideas, but for historical purposes, and more particularly for a comparison of religions, such a view would simply be subversive of the scientific character of our studies. All studies on religion. all comparisons of the great religions of the world, must be founded on their sacred texts. Everything else is mere waste of time and (vexation of spirit. We ourselves would not ac cept every Christian bishop or minister, nor every educated Christian layman as an authority for the true doctrine of Christ, unless he was prepared to give us chapter and verse from the Bible for every statement made by him. In the same way no Buddhist, whether he conies from Ceylon or Bur mall, from China or Japan, whether he be a fol lower of the Hinayana, the Nlahayina, or the Gaina school, has any right to lay down the law with regard to Buddhism, unless he is prepared to give us his reference to passages in the Vinaya, the Sbtras, or the Abhidharma in support of his statements.
It was a well-known custom among the de fenders of Brahmanism to appeal to lost Silk:ills or lost branches of the sacred Scriptures in sup port of doctrines for which there was really no authority in their extant Vedas. This was done
for the last time in the controversy on widow burning carried on between Radhakantadeva, Pro fessor Wilson and myself. My answer to the learned Maharajah was the old one given by their own medieval casuists that it is impossible to ap peal to skull as a witness in a court of law. If our study of the religions of the world, and more particularly a comparative study of their funda mental doctrines, is to lead to any valuable or permanent results, we must no longer speak of what Hinduism, Buddhism, Parsism. of what Judaism or Christianity teaches. We must distin guish between Mantras. Brahmanas and Puranas; between Mahayana, Hinayana and Gaina Buddh ism; between Gatlia,Yasna and Sassanian Parsism; between the Judaism of the law and the prophets, and the Judaism of the Apocrypha ; between the Christianity of the Gospels, the Epistles, and that of the Ecumenical councils. If possible the zpsissima verbs of the originals should always be produced, and though I am well aware of the im perfections of all translations of ancient Oriental texts. the English translations given in my Sacred Books of the East may be accepted for the present as a sufficient authority. Strictly speak ing, no modern language can give us the exact equivalents of the words and ideas current at the time of the composition of these sacred texts. We must be satisfied with approximate accuracy, and we should remember that the differences that have arisen between competent Oriental schol ars in the interpretation of those ancient texts hardly ever affect their fundamental doctrines. Unless these warnings are taken to heart our study of the religions of the world will lead only to confusion, to acrimonious controversy and strife, not to the discovery of those eternal truths which lie hidden in all religions.
Nothing can be more welcome for our purpose than that learned natives also from eastern coun tries should give us their individual views of their own religions. But it should be a condition site qua non that they should always support their statements by references to their own sacred and canonical texts. No cardinal or bishop, no min ister or rabbi, would desire exemption from this rule, nor are other eastern religions without learned representatives who could substantiate their statements by quotations from their own sacred codes and hold their own against the best Oriental scholars of Europe; nay, even correct their views by their own more intimate acquaint ance with their sacred texts, and their more living knowledge of the present working of their religion. F. M. M.