Herbert Spencer,[17] in analysing the aim of existence, came to the conclusion that morality should be adjusted so as to make life as full and complete as possible. As a criterion of physical perfection, the English philosopher would accept only the complete devotion of all the organs to the accomplishment of all their functions, while his criterion of moral perfection was contribution to the general good. These views are plainly, if not exactly, expressions of the Greek ideal. While, then, rational philosophers in all the ages have sought the foundation of morality in human nature itself, and have held human nature to be good, or even perfect, many religious doctrines have displayed a very different view. Human nature was regarded as being composed of two hostile elements, a body and a soul. The soul alone was to be honoured, while the body was regarded as the vile source of evils. Such a view led to the flagellations and torturings of the body which form so strange and so widespread a phenomenon. The Hindu fakirs who swing themselves on hooks, the dervishes and Mussulman Assouans who beat in their skulls with clubs, the Russian Skoptsy who emasculate themselves, and many other instances make it plain that natural perfection is not taken as the basis for conduct. Buddha[18] in the clearest way showed his belief that human nature was base. Coming out from the apartments of the women, there came to him a “vivid idea of the impurity of the body, a feeling of repulsion from it, and of blame of it; regarding his own body and seeing its wretchedness, he began to despise it, and to formulate conceptions of impurity and purity; _from the sole of the feet to the crown of the head, to the limit of the brain, he saw that the body was born in impurity, came from impurity, and always let itself be drawn to impurity_.” These reflections led him to the conclusion: “What wise man, having regarded his own body, will not see in it an enemy?”