[Footnote 89:  It may of course be denied that Buddhism is a religion.  In this connection some remarks of Mr Bradley are interesting.  “The doctrine that there cannot be a religion without a personal God is to my mind entirely false” (Essays on Truth and Reality, p. 432).  “I cannot accept a personal God as the ultimate truth” (ib. 449).  “There are few greater responsibilities which a man can take on himself than to have proclaimed or even hinted that without immortality all religion is a cheat, all morality a self-deception” (Appearance and Reality, p. 510).]

[Footnote 90:  Mahavamsa, xii. 29, xiv. 58 and 64.  Dipavamsa, xn. 84 and 85, xiii. 7 and 8.]

[Footnote 91:  Essays in Criticism, Second Series, Amiel.]

[Footnote 92:  This definition of orthodoxy is due to St Vincent of Lerins. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.]

[Footnote 93:  I know that this statement may encounter objections, but I believe that few Indians would be surprised at the proposition that God is all things.  Some might deny it, but as a familiar error.]

[Footnote 94:  But orthodox Christianity really falls into the same difficulty.  For if God planned the redemption of the world and we are saved by the death of Christ, then the Chief Priests, Judas, Pilate and the soldiers who crucified Christ are at least the instruments of salvation.]

[Footnote 95:  Wm James, Psychology, pp. 203 and 216.]

[Footnote 96:  I quote this epitome from Wildon Carr’s Henri Bergson, The Philosophy of Change, because the phraseology is thoroughly Buddhist and appears to have the approval of M. Bergson himself.]

[Footnote 97:  Romanes Lecture, 1893.]

[Footnote 98:  Appearance, p. 298.]

[Footnote 99:  Thus the Svetasvatara Up. says that the whole world is filled with the parts or limbs of God and metaphors like sparks from a fire or threads from a spider seem an attempt to express the same idea.  Br.  Ar.  Up. 2. 1. 20; Mund.  Up. 2. 1. 1.]

[Footnote 100:  Appearance, p. 244; Essays on Truth, p. 409; Appearance, p. 413.  Though the above quotations are all from Mr Bradley I might have added others from Mr Bosanquet’s Gifford Lectures and from Mr McTaggart.]

[Footnote 101:  “The plurality of souls in the Absolute is therefore appearance and their existence not genuine ... souls like their bodies, are as such nothing more than appearance—­Neither (body and soul) is real in the end:  each is merely phenomenal.” Appearance, pp. 305-307.]