The later Buddhist writings are perhaps not less extravagant than the Puranas, but the Pitakas are relatively sober, though not quite consistent in their account of the Buddha’s attitude to the miraculous.  Thus he encourages Sagata[716] to give a display of miracles, such as walking in the air, in order to prepare the mind of a congregation to whom he is going to preach, but in other narratives[717] which seem ancient and authentic, he expresses his disapproval of such performances (just as Christ refused to give signs), and says that they do not “conduce to the conversion of the unconverted or to the increase of the converted.”  Those who know India will easily call up a picture of how the Bhikkhus strove to impress the crowd by exhibitions not unlike a modern juggler’s tricks and how the master stopped them.  His motives are clear:  these performances had nothing to do with the essence of his teaching.  If it be true that he ever countenanced them, he soon saw his error.  He did not want people to say that he was a conjurer who knew the Gandhara charm or any other trick.  And though we have no warrant for doubting that he believed in the reality of the powers known as iddhi, it is equally certain that he did not consider them essential or even important for religion.

Somewhat similar is the attitude of early Buddhism to the spirit world—­the hosts of deities and demons who people this and other spheres.  Their existence is assumed, but the truths of religion are not dependent on them, and attempts to use their influence by sacrifices and oracles are deprecated as vulgar practices similar to juggling.  Later Buddhism became infected with mythology and the critical change occurs when deities, instead of being merely protectors of the church, take an active part in the work of salvation.  When the Hindu gods developed into personalities who could appeal to religious and philosophic minds as cosmic forces, as revealers of the truth and guides to bliss, the example was too attractive to be neglected and a pantheon of Bodhisattvas arose.  But it is clear that when the Buddha preached in Kosala and Magadha, the local deities had not attained any such position.  The systems of philosophy then in vogue were mostly not theistic, and, strange as the words may sound, religion had little to do with the gods.  If this be thought to rest on a mistranslation, it is certainly true that the dhamma had very little to do with devas.  The example of Rome under the Empire or of modern China makes the position clearer.  In neither would a serious enquirer turn to the ancient national gods for spiritual help.