Some critics[304] seem to imply—­for their statements are not very explicit—­that Saktism formed part if not of the teaching of the Buddha, at least of the medley of beliefs held by his disciples.  But I see no proof that Saktist beliefs—­that is to say erotic mysticism founded on the worship of goddesses—­were prevalent in Magadha or Kosala before the Christian era.  Although Siri, the goddess of luck, is mentioned in the Pitakas, the popular deities whom they bring on the scene are almost exclusively masculine.[305] And though in the older Brahmanic books there are passages which might easily become tantric, yet the transition is not made and the important truths of religion are kept distinct from unclean rites and thoughts.  The Brihad-aranyaka contains a chapter which hardly admits of translation but the object of the practices inculcated is simply to ensure the birth of a son.  The same work (not without analogies in the ecstatic utterances of Christian saints) boldly compares union with the Atman to the bliss of one who is embraced by a beloved wife, but this is a mere illustration and there is no hint of the doctrine that the goal of the religious life is obtainable by maithuna.  Still such passages, though innocent in themselves, make it easy to see how degrading superstitions found an easy entrance into the noblest edifices of Indian thought and possibly some heresies condemned in the Kathavatthu[306] indicate that even at this early date the Buddhist Church was contaminated by erotic fancies.  But, if so, there is no evidence that such malpractices were widespread.  The appendices to the Lotus[307] show that the worship of a many-named goddess, invoked as a defender of the faith, was beginning to be a recognized feature of Buddhism.  But they contain no indications of left-handed Tantrism and the best proof that it did not become prevalent until much later is afforded by the narratives of the three Chinese pilgrims who all describe the condition of religion in India and notice anything which they thought singular or reprehensible.  Fa-Hsien does not mention the worship of any female deity,[308] nor does the Life of Vasubandhu, but Asanga appears to allude to Saktism in one passage.[309] Hsuean Chuang mentions images of Tara but without hinting at tantric ritual, nor does I-Ching allude to it, nor does the evidence of art and inscriptions attest its existence.  It may have been known as a form of popular superstition and even have been practised by individual Bhikshus, but the silence of I-Ching makes it improbable that it was then countenanced in the schools of Magadha.  He complains[310] of those who neglect the Vinaya and “devote their whole attention to the doctrine of nothingness,” but he says not a word about tantric abuses.[311]