Such great expressions of emotional theism as the Ramayana of Tulsi Das are likely to find sympathetic readers in Europe, but the most original feature of Indian thought is that, as already mentioned, it produces systems which can hardly be refused the name of religion and yet are hardly theistic.  The Buddha preached a creed without reference to a supreme deity and the great Emperor Asoka, the friend of man and beast, popularized this creed throughout India.  Even at the present day the prosperous and intelligent community of Jains follow a similar doctrine and the Advaita philosophy diverges widely from European theism.  It is true that Buddhism invented gods for itself and became more and more like Hinduism and that the later Vedantist and Sivaite schools have a strong bent to monotheism.  Yet all Indian theism seems to me to have a pantheistic tinge[93] and India is certainly the classic land of Pantheism.  The difficulties of Pantheism are practical:  it does not lend itself easily to popular cries and causes and it finds it hard to distinguish and condemn evil[94].  But it appeals to the scientific temper and is not repulsive to many religious and emotional natures.  Indeed it may be said that in monotheistic creeds the most thoughtful and devout minds often tend towards Pantheism, as witness the Sufis among Moslims, the Kabbalists among the Jews and many eminent mystics in the Christian Church.  In India, the only country where the speculative interest is stronger than the practical, it is a common form of belief and it is of great importance for the history and criticism of religion to see how an idea which in Europe is hardly more than philosophic theory works on a large scale.

Later Buddhism—­the so-called Mahayana—­may be justly treated as one of the many varieties of Indian religion, not more differentiated from others than is for instance the creed of the Sikhs.  The speculative side of early Buddhism (which was however mainly a practical movement) may be better described as an Indian critique of current Indian views.  The psychology of the Pitakas has certainly enough life to provoke discussion still, for it receives both appreciative treatment and uncompromising condemnation at the hands of European scholars.  To set it aside as not worth the labour spent on elucidating it, seems to me an error of judgment.  As a criticism of the doctrine developed in the Upanishads, it is acute and interesting, even if we hold the Upanishads to be in the right, and no serious attempt to analyze the human mind can be without value, for though the facts are before every human being such attempts are rare.  It is singular that so many religions should prescribe and prophecy for the soul without being able to describe its nature.  Hesitation and diffidence in defining the Deity seem proper and natural but it is truly surprising that people are not agreed as to the essential facts about their own consciousness, their selves, souls, minds and spirits:  whether