germ of others, but by custom one speaks of one's body as one's own. If what is the product of others can be regarded as one's self, where is the difficulty of regarding the bodies of others as one's own? That one is always the same person is not true; yet one imagines himself to be the same person. Is it more difficult to imagine one's oneness with others? If there is no ātman, all beings are equally void. Is not then the fundamental oneness of all beings obvious? Such is the manner in which the Buddhist argues. For the ordinary Buddhist the doctrine of Karma may serve as the all-important motive force for the moral life. But for the wise man the main-stay of morality is the internal perception of nairātmya, the realization of the selflessness (cunyata) of all beings and the consequent fundamental equality of all beings with one another. It is this realization which forms the well-spring of cheerfulness (mudita), compassion (karuna), and benevolence (maitri), which are the bases for all good deeds.

With deep insight did the Blessed One percieve two thousand years ago truths which modern science declares to us at the present day. Man," teaches Science, "is but a single cell in the organism of humanity. His worth as an individual is nothing apart from the rest of the organism. Apart from other human beings the individual cannot be so much as begotten and born. All his latent powers he owes to the ancestral lives that are seeing within his eyes and listening within his ears. Even his natural endowments and capabilities can find no suitable employment and proper development apart from the society of other human beings. Only in and with the grand life of mankind as a whole can the individual live as a human being. Not only has he been produced by the vital energies of mankind, but they also maintain him till death. With the elevation of humanity the individual rises in the scale of being, and with its downfall he degenerates. Being but an insignificant episode in the life of mankind, he can lay no claim to everlasting life. But as the generations before him have contributed to his being, so can he also contribute to the well-being of future generations. If the individual desires perpetual life, he can secure it only by living in the whole and for the whole.

Hence what is good for all mankind, what creates better conditions for its existence and its perfectation, is also good for the individual. What jeopardises the life of humanity or degrades it is also bad for him. A perfected humanity is his heaven, a decaying humanity is his hell. To preserve and enhance the worth of human life is virtue; to degrade humanity and lead it to perdition is vice."

If a man desires to hasten his deliverance from sorrow and suffering, he must necessarily follow the laws of the good. This motive is indeed egoistic, but it alone can work with dynamic precision. A man will necessarily desist from injuring others, if he sees clearly that his interests are bound up with theirs. He will even forego some of his own goods for the sake of others, if he is sure that his sacrifice will redound to his own advantage. A man will not hate his enemy, if he knows that the love of his enemy will carry him forward to bodhi. No man loves others merely from his love for them. On the other hand he loves others because for some reason they please him. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Vāgnavalkya says rightly to his wife Maitreyi: "Not out of love for the husband is a husband loved, but the husband is loved for love of self. A wife is loved, not out of love for the wife, but for love of self. Children are loved, not out of love for children, but for love of self. Wealth is loved, not out of love for wealth, but for love of self. The priestly order is loved, not out of love for that order, but for love of self. The order of the warrior is loved, not out of love for that order, but for love of self. The states are loved, not out of love for the states, but for love of self. The gods are loved, not out of love for the gods, but for love of self. Existence is loved, not out of love for existence, but for love of self. Not out of love is any loved, but for love of self are all loved." King Prasenajit once asked his wife Mallika: "Have you ever loved any better than yourself?" With surprising naïveté she answered: "Truly, great king, I have not loved any one better than myself". Undaunted the king said the same thing of himself, and they both communicated their conversation to the Blessed One, who good humouredly replied as follows:

'I have through all regions wandered;
Still have I none ever found

Who loved another more than himself.
So is one's own self dearer than another,
Therefore out of love to one's own self
Doth no one injure another."

In Buddhism morality rightly rests on egoism, and altruism 'becomes applied egoism. No more solid basis can be found in this world for the love of one's neighbour than the love of one's self. As Hume says, "whatever contradiction may vulgarly be supposed between the selfish and social sentiments or dispositions, they are really no more opposite than selfish and ambitious, selfish and revengeful, selfish and vain. It is requisite that there be an original propensity of some kind, in order to be a basis for self-love, by giving a relish to the objects of its pursuit; and none more fit for this purpose than benevolence or humanity. The goods of fortune are spent in one gratification or another. The miser who accumulates his annual income, and lends it out at interest, has really spent it in the gratification of his avarice. And it would be difficult to show why a man is more a loser by a generous action, than by any other method of expense ; since the utmost which one can attain by the most elaborate selfishness, is the indulgence of some affection." So far from saying that men have naturally no affection for anything beyond themselves, we ought to say that though it may be difficult to find one who loves any single person better than himself, still it is as difficult to find one in whom the sympathetic affections taken together do not overbalance the selfish.

In the Vedanta also morality is made to rest on egoism. The wise man perceives the ātman, the self, to be identical with Brahmam, the universal self. Hence the I is all, and all is I. So my neighbour is identical with myself. I must love my neighbour not like myself, but as my own self. When I see another suffer or enjoy, it is myself that suffers or enjoys. The apparent duality between myself and others is only an illusion (Māya). To the enlightened man all differences vanish, and everything is self. Tat tvam asi. That thou art. I love everything because everything is myself. Thus by broadening the idea of self the egoism of the

Vedanta becomes transformed into an altruism. However, between the egoism of the Vedanta and that of Buddhism there is an essential difference. Buddhism denies the existence of an atman, and its self is consequently illusory. As there is no real self, all possibility of a real egoism disappears. With the Vedanta, on the other hand, the egoism is real, and its morality consists in the knowledge that all is I. But in Buddhism the knowledge of anātmata only leads the way to the moral life. Just as sunlight cannot be perceived and utilized except by reflection, so the internal perception of nairatmya cannot be attained except by right relationship to your fellows in thought, word and deed. Only when this internal perception has found its fullest expression in love (maitri), compassion (karuna), cheerfulness (mudita), and equanimity (upeksha) will perfect bliss be attained.

In another respect also the Vedanta differs from Buddhism. In the Vedanta only the three higher castes, the "twiceborn", are spiritually qualified for salvation. On the contrary, Buddhism throws its doors open to all men without any distinction. Further, the Vedanta lays great stress on the efficacy of rites and purificatory ceremonies, whereas Buddhism regards these as an obstacle to the attainment of salvation. In this respect the Samkhya resembles Buddhism, but it lays no weight on morality. Besides, the Samkhya and its later development, the Yoga, sharply differ from Buddhism in enforcing asceticism. The Buddha found out the inefficacy of asceticism as a means to salvation while dwelling in the forest of Uruvela, and entirely discarded it.

The end and aim of man cannot be the acquisition of wealth or the satisfaction of natural inclinations. But, as the Dharma teaches, it is the attainment of that perfection which consists in perfect wisdom, perfect charity and perfect freedom. Can this faith in the future perfection of mankind inspire man with enthusiasm ? Yes; it has acted in the past as an impelling force leading mankind upward. And there is apparently no reason why it should not be equally serviceable now or in the future. Humanity, as we see it now, consisting of poor pitiful beings, "with their wild hopes and vain attempts to realise them, with their struggles and failures

and successes more bitter than failures, or, worst of all, with the resignation of an irremediable despair: all alike, young and old, rich and poor, good and bad, drifting down the long thoroughfare of life, with no end before them but the grave, may excite more pity than enthusiasm. But an ideal humanity, like the Buddhas ever abiding in the Dharmakāya, would necessarily arouse in man an enthusiasm driving to action. "The mind by an original instinct tends," says Hume, to unite itself with the good, and to avoid the evil, though they be conceived merely in idea, and be considered to exist in a future period of time." And history shows how strongly man has been moved by the contemplation of ideal objects, whose existence he may not assert. Nay more; history proves how men have sacrificed their possessions,their blood, and their everything for ideal aims. Even in religious belief the most effective part has been similar to that which we have in the objects of imagination. Nor is an ideal at any time absolutely non-existent. It is always partially realiz ed, even though the extent of such realization may be infinitesimally small. In man are always present the traces of what he may become, the germs of enlightenment that even in savage bosoms stir up

“longings, yearnings, strivings

For the good they comprehend not."