_Ṭ_, _ṭ_, as in _t_rue (_ṭ_ru); _Ṭh_, _ṭh_, as in an_th_ill (an_ṭh_ill); _ḍ_, _ḍ_, as in _d_rum (_ḍ_rum); _ḍh_, _ḍh_, as in re_dh_aired (re_ḍh_aired); _Ṇ_, _ṇ_, as in _n_o_n_e (_ṇ_u_ṇ_). _T_, _t_, as in wa_t_er (as pronounced in Ireland); _Th_, _th_, as nu_t-h_ook (but more dental); _D_, _d_, as in _d_ice (more like _th_ in _th_is); _Dh_, _dh_, as in a_dh_ere (more dental); _N_, _n_, as in _n_ot, i_n_. _P_, _p_, as in _p_ut, si_p_; _Ph_, _ph_, as in u_ph_ill; _B_, _b_, as in _b_ear, ru_b_; _Bh_, _bh_, as in a_bh_or; _M_, _m_, as in _m_ap, ja_m_. _Y_, _y_, as in _y_et; _R_, _r_, as in _r_ed, yea_r_; _L_, _l_, as in _l_ie; _V_, _v_, as in _v_ie (but like _w_ after consonants, as in t_w_ice). _Ṡ_, _ṡ_, as in _s_ure, ses_s_ion; _Sh_, _sh_, as in _sh_un, hu_sh_; _S_, _s_, as in _s_ir, his_s_. _H_, _h_, as in _h_it. In Tibetan the vowels, including even _e_ and _o_, have generally the short sound, but accentuated vowels are comparatively long. I have marked such words as Lāma with a long mark to denote this, but Koeppen and Jäschke write Lama. Jäschke says that the Tibetan alphabet was adapted from the Lañćha form of the Indian letters by Thumi (Thonmi) Sambhoṭa (see p. 270) about the year 632. OBSERVE. It is common to hear English-speakers mispronounce the words Buddha and Buddhism. But any one who studies the rules on the preceding page will see that the _u_ in _Bud_dha, must not be pronounced like the _u_ in the English word ‘_bud_,’ but like the _u_ in b_u_ll. Indeed, for the sake of the general reader, it might be better to write Booddha and Booddhism, provided the _oo_ be pronounced as in the words ‘wood,’ ‘good.’ ADDENDA and CORRIGENDA. It is feared that the long-mark over the letter A may have been omitted in one or two cases or may have broken off in printing. [In this electronic edition, corrections were incorporated in the text; additions were inserted as new footnotes and tagged—_Corr._] BUDDHISM. LECTURE I. _Introductory. Buddhism in relation to Brāhmanism._ In my recent work[3] on Brāhmanism I have traced the progress of Indian religious thought through three successive stages—called by me Vedism, Brāhmanism, and Hindūism—the last including the three subdivisions of Ṡaivism, Vaishṇavism, and Ṡāktism. Furthermore I have attempted to prove that these systems are not really separated by sharp lines, but that each almost imperceptibly shades off into the other.