The god Brahm[=a] of this dialoge is for the time being playfully accepted by Buddha as the All-god.  To the Buddhist himself Brahm[=a] and all the Vedic gods are not exactly non-existent, but they are dim figures that are more like demi-gods, fairies, or as some English scholars call them, ‘angels.’  Whether Buddha himself really believed in them, cannot be asserted or denied.  This belief is attributed to him, and his church is very superstitious.  Probably Buddha did not think it worth while to discuss the question.  He neither knew nor cared whether cloud-beings existed.  It was enough to deny a Creator, or to leave no place for him.  Thaumaturgical powers are indeed credited to the earliest belief, but there certainly is nothing in harmony with Buddha’s usual attitude in the extraordinary discourse called [=A]kankheyya, wherein Buddha is represented as ascribing to monks miraculous powers only hinted at in a vague ’shaking of the earth’ in more sober speech.[47] From the following let the ’Esoteric Buddhists’ of to-day take comfort, for it shows at least that they share an ancient folly, although Buddha can scarcely be held responsible for it:  “If a monk should desire to become multiform, to become visible or invisible, to go through a wall, a fence, or a mountain as if through air; to penetrate up or down through solid ground as if through water ... to traverse the sky, to touch the moon ... let him fulfil all righteousness, let him be devoted to that quietude of heart which springs from within ... let him look through things, let him be much alone.”  That is to say, let him aim for the very tricks of the Yogis, which Buddha had discarded.  Is there not here perhaps a little irony?  Buddha does not say that the monk will be able to do this—­he says if the monk wishes to do this, let him be quiet and meditate and learn righteousness, then perhaps—­but he will at least have learned righteousness!

The little tract called Cetokhila contains a sermon which has not lost entirely its usefulness or application, and it is characteristic of the way in which Buddha treated eschatological conundrums:  ’If a brother has adopted the religious life in the hope of belonging to some one of the angel (divine) hosts, thinking to himself, “by this morality or by this observance or by this austerity or by this religious life I shall become an angel,” his mind does not incline to zeal, exertion, perseverance and struggle, and he has not succeeded in his religious life’ (has not broken through the bonds).  And, continuing, Buddha says that just as a hen might sit carefully brooding over her well-watched eggs, and might content herself with the wish, ‘O that this egg would let out the chick,’ but all the time there is no need of this torment, for the chicks will hatch if she keeps watch and ward over them, so a man, if he does not think what is to be, but keeps watch and ward of his words, thoughts, and acts, will ’come forth into the light.’[48]