It has been asked also whether those who had reached one of the four Meggas—that is to say, who had become a Thautapan, a Sakadagam, &c.—were always members of the Thanga, and could not live in the world. From the tenor of certain passages in the life of Gaudama we see that many pious laymen became Thautapan, Sakadagam, and even Anagam; that is to say, followed the three first Meggas, though they continued to live in the world. The father of Buddha, King Thoodaudana, the father of Ratha and many others, reached one of the above-mentioned states, though they continued to follow the ordinary pursuits of life. This fact deserves attention, because it shows that the institutions of Gaudama rested on a broad basis, and that a life in the world was not an obstacle to following the ways of perfection. ON THE WORD “NAT.” In a note on the Nats, the writer, having expressed the opinion that the word “Nat,” used by Burmans, was derived from the Sanscrit term Nath, which means lord, Major Phayre gave it as his decided opinion that the expression was a purely Burmese one, not at all derived from the Sanscrit. Leaving aside the etymological question, of which it may be said that _adhuc sub judice lis est_, we are happy to communicate to the reader the following reflections that have come from the pen of that distinguished scholar, who is so intimately acquainted with all that relates to Buddhism. “The modern Burmans acknowledge the existence of certain beings which, for want of a better term, we will call ‘almost spiritual beings.’ They apply to them the name Nat. Now, according to Burmese notions, there are two distinct bodies or systems of these creatures. The one is a regularly constituted company, if I may say so, of which Thagya Meng is the chief. Most undoubtedly that body of ‘Nat’ was unknown to the Burmans until they became Buddhists. Those are the real Dewah or Dewata. “But the other set of Nats are the creatures of the indigenous system, existing among all the wild tribes bordering on Burmah. The acknowledgment of these beings constitutes _their only worship_. On these grounds I consider that the Burmese acknowledged and worshipped such beings before they were converted to Buddhism.