Statements like these cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed or uncontradicted, particularly if supported by the authority of a great name; and after having spoken so freely of the unscientific character of the mythological comparisons instituted by scholars like Sir William Jones and Lieutenant Wilford, who can no longer defend themselves, it would be mere cowardice to shrink from performing the same unpleasant duty in the case of a living writer, who has shown that he knows how to wield the weapons both of defence and attack. It is perfectly true that the mother of Buddha was called Mâyâ, but it is equally true that the Sanskrit Mâyâ cannot be the Greek Maiā. It is quite true, also, that the fourth day of the week is called _dies Mercurii_ in Latin, and Wednesday in English; nay, that in Sanskrit the same day is called _Budha-dina_ or _Budha-vâra_. But the origin of all these names falls within perfectly historical times, and can throw no light whatever on the early growth of mythology and religion. First of all, we have to distinguish between _Budha_ and _Buddha_. The two names, though so like each other, and therefore constantly mistaken one for the other, have nothing in common but their root. _Buddha_ with two d’s, is the participle of _budh_, and means awakened, enlightened.(53) It is the name given to those who have reached the highest stage of human wisdom, and it is known most generally as the title of Gotama, _S_âkya-muni, the founder of Buddhism, whose traditional era dates from 543 B. C. _Budha_, on the contrary, with one d, means simply knowing, and it became in later times, when the Hindus received from the Greeks a knowledge of the planets, the name of the planet Mercury.