The second letter, dated 29th April 1830, is an answer to Mr. Hodgson’s strictures on subjects contained in Csoma’s preceding communication. We find in what follows another proof of the writer’s diffidence and modesty, which Mr. Torrens so forcibly points out as “the surprising trait of Csoma’s character.” In this letter Csoma postpones his full reply to a more favourable opportunity, because, he adds, “I know not how to write Sanskrit and Tibetan words in Roman characters,” and that he was “unacquainted with the Sanskrit,” nor had he the “command of the English language.” “Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of the pamphlet, together with your letter of the 15th of February last, which reached this place on the 14th instant. I am much obliged for your kindness. 2. “I have seen with much satisfaction the great coincidence of the Buddhistic faith in Nepal with that of Tibet. The figures on the Plates I., II., IV., the list of the Buddha Scriptures on p. 4, &c., and the whole sketch of Buddhism, exhibit a wonderful agreement, with a few exceptions. Since I am unacquainted with Sanskrit, neither know I how to write the Sanskrit and Tibetan in Roman characters to be intelligible, nor have I the command of the English language, I beg you will kindly excuse me for my not having entered upon particulars on the subject. I shall find opportunity, perhaps, hereafter to supply the defect of my present communication. 3. “I beg you will pardon me; I have never said that the Tibetans have only one alphabet of their own. If you will inspect the second paragraph of my former letter to you, you will find that I have stated there, ‘In the whole of Tibet there is but one mode of writing, with respect to orthography, &c.’ But since you seem to have been offended at my expression, I beg now to state: out of the four alphabets printed opposite page 418 of the volume formerly sent to me, the three first are Tibetan, called capital, small, and running hand; the fourth, or Lantsa (Lanja), is of India, but used sometimes in Tibet too for inscriptions in Sanskrit. And the infinite variety of letters given opposite to page 420 of the volume referred to are not Tibetan, neither are used by Tibetans, but belong to different parts of India, whence they were brought to Tibet in ancient times. 4. “The six predecessors of Shakya, occasionally mentioned in the Tibetan volumes too, I think are imaginary Buddhas, like those one thousand others (among whom Shakya also is described with his predecessors) that are to appear hereafter, and that are particularly in the Bhadra Kalpika, the first volume of the Door Sútra class of the ‘Kah-gyur.’