It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that many of the features which I have noticed as common to the religions of Eastern Asia—­such as the worship of nature spirits and ancestors—­are not peculiar to those countries but are almost, if not quite, universal in certain stages of religious development.  They can, for instance, be traced in Europe.  But whereas they exist here as survivals discernible only to the eye of research and even at the beginning of the Christian era had ceased to be the obvious characteristics of European paganism, in Asia they are still obvious.  Age and logic have not impaired their vigour, and official theology, far from persecuting them, has accommodated its shape to theirs.  This brings us to another point where the linguistic difficulty again makes itself felt, namely, that the word religion has not quite the same meaning in Eastern Asia as in Mohammedan and Christian lands.  I know of no definition which would cover Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and the superstitions of African savages, for the four have little community of subject matter or aim.  If any definition can be found it must I think be based on some superficial characteristic such as ceremonial.  Nor is there any objection to refusing the title of religion to Buddhism and Confucianism, except that an inconvenient lacuna would remain in our vocabulary, for they are not adequately described as philosophies.  A crucial instance of the difference in the ideas prevalent in Europe and Eastern Asia is the fact that in China many people belong to two or three religions and it would seem that when Buddhism existed in India the common practice was similar.  Paganism and spiritual religion can co-exist in the same mind provided their spheres are kept distinct.  But Christianity and Islam both retain the idea of a jealous God who demands not only exclusive devotion but also exclusive belief:  to believe in other Gods is not only erroneous; it is disobedience and disloyalty.  But such ideas have little currency in Eastern Asia, especially among Buddhists.  The Buddha is not a creator or a king but rather a physician.  He demands no allegiance and for those who disobey him the only punishment is continuance of the disease.  And though Indian deities may claim personal and exclusive devotion, yet in defining and limiting belief their priests are less exacting than Papal or Moslim doctors.  Despite sectarian formulas, the Hindu cherishes broader ideas such as that all deities are forms and passing shapes of one essence; that all have their proper places and that gods, creeds and ceremonies are necessary helps in the lower stages of the religious life but immaterial to the adept.