keep my precepts_." (_Imeccha Subhaddabhikkhu samma vihareiyum asunno loko Arahantehiassa._) [8] Kolb, in his _History of Culture_, says: "It is Buddhism we have to thank for the sparing of prisoners of war, who heretofore had been slain; also for the discontinuance of the carrying away into captivity of the inhabitants of conquered lands." [9] The fifth Sīla has reference to the mere taking of intoxicants and stupefying drugs, which leads ultimately to drunkenness. [10] The "soul" here criticised is the equivalent of the Greek _psuche_. The word "material" covers other states of matter than that of the physical body. [11] Upon reflection, I have substituted "personality" for "individuality" as written in the first edition. The successive appearances upon one or many earths, or "descents into generation," of the _tanhaically_-coherent parts (_Skandhas_) of a certain being are a succession of personalities. In each birth the _personality_ differs from that of the previous, or next succeeding birth. Karma the _deus ex machina_, masks (or shall we say reflects?) itself, now in the personality of a sage, again as an artisan, and so on throughout the string of births. But though personalities ever shift, the one line of life along which they are strung like beads, runs unbroken, it is ever _that particular line_, never any other. It is therefore individual--an individual vital undulation--which is careering through the objective side of Nature, under the impulse of Karma and the creative direction of Tanhā and persists through many cyclic changes. Professor Rhys-Davids calls that which passes from personality to personality along the individual chain, "character" or "doing". Since "character" is not a mere metaphysical abstraction, but the sum of one's mental qualities and moral propensities, would it not help to dispel what Professor Rhys-Davids calls "the desperate expedient of a mystery" (_Buddhism_, p. 101), if we regarded the life-undulation as individuality and each of its series of natal manifestations as a separate personality? We _must_ have two words to distinguish between the concepts, and I find none so clear and expressive as the two I have chosen. The perfected individual, Buddhistically speaking, is a Buddha, I should say; for a Buddha is but the rare flower of humanity, without the least supernatural admixture. And, as countless generations--"four_ asankhyyas_ and a hundred thousand cycles" (Fausboll and Rhys-David's _Buddhist Birth Stories_, No. 13)--are required to develop a man into a Buddha, and _the iron will to become one runs throughout all the successive births_, what shall we call that which thus wills and perseveres? Character, or individuality? An individuality, but partly manifested in any one birth, built up of fragments from all the births.