and this Church was so corrupt that it had even lost the rite of baptism and is said to have held that the third person of the Trinity was the Madonna[1087] and not the Holy Ghost.  Surely this doctrine is an extraordinary heresy in Christianity and far from having inspired Hindu theories as to the position of Vishnu’s spouse is borrowed from those theories or from some of the innumerable Indian doctrines about the Sakti.

It is clear that the Advaita philosophy of Sankara was influential in India from the ninth century to the twelfth and then lost some of its prestige owing to the rise of a more personal theism.  It does not seem to me that any introduction or reinforcement of Christianity, to which this theistic movement might be attributed, can be proved to have taken place about 1100, and it is not always safe to seek for a political or social explanation of such movements.  But if we must have an external explanation, the obvious one is the progress of Mohammedanism.  One may even suggest a parallel between the epochs of Sankara and of Ramanuja.  The former, though the avowed enemy of Buddhism, introduced into Hinduism the doctrine of Maya described by Indian critics as crypto-Buddhism.  Ramanuja probably did not come into direct contact with Islam,[1088] which was the chief enemy of Hinduism in his time, but his theism (which, however, was semi-pantheistic) may have been similarly due to the impression produced by that enemy on Indian thought.[1089]

It is easy to see superficial parallels between Hindu and Christian ceremonies, but on examination they are generally not found to prove that there has been direct borrowing from Christianity.  For instance, the superior castes are commonly styled twice born in virtue of certain initiatory ceremonies performed on them in youth, and it is natural to compare this second birth with baptismal regeneration.  But, though there is here a real similarity of ideas, it would be hard to deny that these ideas as well as the practices which express them have arisen independently.[1090] And though a practice of sprinkling the forehead with water similar to baptism is in use among Hindus, it is only a variety of the world-wide ceremony of purification with sacred water.  Several authors have seen a resemblance between the communion and a sacred meal often eaten in Hindu temples and called prasad (favour) or mahaprasad.  The usual forms of this observance do not resemble the Mass in externals (as do certain ceremonies in Lamaism) and the analogy, if any, resides in the eating of a common religious meal.  Such a meal in Indian temples has its origin in the necessity and advantage of disposing of sacrificial food.  It cannot be maintained that the deities eat the substance of it and, if it is not consumed by fire, the obvious method of disposal is for mankind to eat it.  The practice is probably world-wide and the consumers may be either the priests or the worshippers.  Both varieties of the rite are found