"Give to him that asketh, even though it be but a little." ("Udânavarga," ch. xx. ver. 15.) "DO UNTO OTHERS," ETC. "With pure thoughts and fulness of love I will do towards others what I do for myself." ("Lalita Vistara," ch. v.) "PREPARE YE THE WAY OF THE LORD!" "Buddha's triumphant entry into Râjagriha (the "City of the King") has been compared to Christ's entry into Jerusalem. Both, probably, never occurred, and only symbolise the advent of a divine Being to earth. It is recorded in the Buddhist scriptures that on these occasions a "Precursor of Buddha" always appears. (Bigandet, p. 147.) "WHO DID SIN, THIS MAN OR HIS PARENTS, THAT HE WAS BORN BLIND?" (John ix. 3.) Professor Kellogg, in his work entitled "The Light of Asia and the Light of the World," condemns Buddhism in nearly all its tenets. But he is especially emphatic in the matter of the metempsychosis. The poor and hopeless Buddhist has to begin again and again "the weary round of birth and death," whilst the righteous Christians go at once into life eternal. Now it seems to me that this is an example of the danger of contrasting two historical characters when we have a strong sympathy for the one and a strong prejudice against the other. Professor Kellogg has conjured up a Jesus with nineteenth century ideas, and a Buddha who is made responsible for all the fancies that were in the world B.C. 500. Professor Kellogg is a professor of an American university, and as such must know that the doctrine of the _gilgal_ (the Jewish name for the metempsychosis) was as universal in Palestine A.D. 30, as it was in Râjagriha B.C. 500. An able writer in the _Church Quarterly Review_ of October, 1885, maintains that the Jews brought it from Babylon. Dr. Ginsburg, in his work on the "Kabbalah," shows that the doctrine continued to be held by Jews as late as the ninth century of our era. He shows, too, that St. Jerome has recorded that it was "propounded amongst the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional doctrine." The author of the article in the _Church Quarterly Review_, in proof of its existence, adduces the question put by the disciples of Christ in reference to the man that was born blind. And if it was considered that a man could be born blind as a punishment for sin, that sin must have been plainly committed before his birth. Oddly enough, in the "White Lotus of Dharma" there is an account of the healing of a blind man, "Because of the sinful conduct of the man [in a former birth] this malady has risen."