Though his doctrines, however, have become greatly corrupted and perverted the greatness of Lao-tzŭ himself has not diminished. From the time of the Empress (竇) of the West Hans, near the end of the Chou dynasty, the beginning of his honour dates, and from the time of the Chin and Liang dynasties down to the Great Tʽang dynasty, his doctrines and his name were glorified.[4] He was promoted to be a God, and wonderful things were invented about him and the _Tao_ of which he spoke so much. One of the Tʽang emperors conferred on him the sublime title—Great Ruler of the very exalted mysterious Beginning. Nor has he remained without honour among outside barbarians. Cunningham says:—“He (Lao-tzŭ) was therefore a contemporary of Sakya Muni, by whom he is said to have been worsted in argument. By the Tibetan Buddhists he is called Sen-rabs; but this perhaps signifies nothing more than that he was of the race or family of Sena. His faith continued paramount in Great Tibet for nine centuries, until Buddhism was generally introduced by Seong-Stan in the middle of the seventh century.”[5] It seems to me more than doubtful, however, whether these Tirthikas of India, to whom Cunningham alludes as the adherents of Lao-tzŭ’s faith, can be regarded as such. A large and influential school could not be established in so short a time as elapsed between the time when Lao-tzŭ flourished and the time of Buddha’s preaching, if indeed any time whatever elapsed. It is perhaps sufficient to observe that there is a considerable amount of similarity between the tenets imputed to the Tirthikas and those of the Chinese philosopher.