Turning to Dr Hooker's "Himalayan Journal," I find (i. 135), "The Lepchas profess no religion, _though_ acknowledging the existence of good and bad spirits.... Both Lepchas and Limboos _had, before the_ introduction of Lama Boodhism from Tibet, many features in common with the natives of Arracan, especially in _their creed_, _sacrifices_, faith in omens, worship of many spirits, absence of idols, and of the doctrine of metempsychosis" (p. 140). We have already seen (_supra_, p. 224) that they had a very distinct tradition of the Deluge; indeed there is much in the account of them which reminds us of the primitive monotheism. So, too, Sir John asserts, p. 469, "Once more Dr Hooker states that the Khasias, an Indian tribe, _had no religion_. Col. Yule, on the contrary, says that they have, but he admits that breaking hens' eggs is the principal part of their religious practice." It is true that Dr Hooker says (ii. 276), "The Khasias are superstitious, but have no religion;" he adds, however, "_like the Lepchas, they believe in a Supreme Being_, and in deities of the grove, cave, and stream." It seems, however, that the only outward manifestation of their religion is in "breaking hens' eggs"! What can be more ludicrous! yet here, too, would seem to be a vestige of primitive tradition. We know (_vide_ Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians," second series) how primitive truth was concealed under material symbols. Gainet (i. 127) also says, "Even upon the hypothesis that these fragments of the Egyptian cosmogony were lost, one of the hieroglyphics which this people has left us would suffice to convince us of their belief in a Creator. It is the image of the god Kneph, whom they represent with _an egg_ in his mouth; _this egg_ being the natural image of the world taking its birth from this divinity." Again, p. 115, "In the mysteries of Bacchus[256] the dogma of the Creation was proposed under the emblem of that celebrated _egg_, of which the poets have so often spoken, which contained the germ of all things." "_The egg_," says Plutarch, "is consecrated to the sacred ceremonies of Bacchus, as a representation of the Author of nature who produces and comprehends all things in himself." There is a passage in Athenagoras to the same effect. [256] Compare with pp. 156, 214.