"Therefore, I have done evil,' or that I have done good,' he passes beyond both these. He is not troubled with what he has or has not done. This is taught in the verse: Imperishable is the glory for him who knows Brahma, which works do not add to, nor take from. Let him know its nature; having known this, he is unaffected by (good or) evil works.' Therefore one who knows thus, being calm, self-controlled, free from desire, patient, and meditative, sees the Soul in himself, and all things in the Soul. Sin cannot overcome him, he overcomes all sin; sin cannot trouble him, he destroys all sin."-Brihadáraṇyaka, VI. IV. 22-23 (pp. 909 to 912, J. Vidyasagara's edition). The same thought is often expressed in more exaggerated forms:

"Indra, the god-spirit, by seeing with the eye of wisdom (ársheņa darsánena) his own soul as the Supreme Spirit according to Sástra, as 'I am indeed the Supreme Brahma,' taught, saying, 'Know Me.' . . . . He alludes to his cruelties of slaying Tváshtra, and then concludes with glorifying wisdom: 'Of such an one as I am, not a hair is destroyed. He who knows Me, by no work whatever can his world perish.' This means that even though I have done such cruelties, yet, by becoming Brahma, not a hair of mine is destroyed; nor, likewise, for any one else who knows Me, can his world perish by any work whatever.". Brahma Sútra, I. 1. 30.

Moksha takes the sting out of all past sins; and for the future, sin is as impossible as for Brahma himself. "Punyáyante kriyáh sarváh sushuptih sukritáyate" (MaháNirvana-Tantra). "All that he does is good work, if he sleeps soundly, it is a sound good work,' is another, and a paradoxical form of stating the same idea.

9. MOKSHA BY DIVINE GRACE.

Faith, or Śraddhá, is as essential to Moksha as it is to the Christian salvation. "Ajñas cá śraddadhánaś ca sansáyátmá vináśyati ?"—"the foolish, the unbelieving, and the

doubting spirits go to ruin."-Gítá. "When one has faith (Śraddhá), then one inquires, one does not inquire without faith; having faith, indeed, one inquires."-Chándogya, VII. XVIII. 1. 'Śraddha' here Sankara explains as 'Astikya-buddhi' (or the spirit of theism).

Any good work, if it should bear good fruit, it is taught, should be done with faith: "Show bounty with faith" (Sraddhayá deyan). Taittiríya, XII. 3.

Nor is there any ground whatever to maintain that Moksha is less dependent, in any sense, upon Divine Grace, than the Christian salvation. 66 Through God's mercy, by true knowledge (i.e., of God as the Self), the attainment of Release can be possible." "Grant that the human soul is part of the Supreme Spirit, like sparks of fire in that case as both sparks and fire have a similar power of heat and light, so should both the human soul and God possess a similar power of wisdom and divinity. . . Though the human soul and God were as part and whole, their oppositeness of qualities is quite clear: is it then that there exists no similarity of attribute of the human soul with God? Not that it does not exist, but that though it exists, it is veiled by ignorance. Although it is veiled, however, it is revealed again by the clearing up of ignorance, by Divine Grace (I'svara-prasádát)-even as by power of medicine, sight is restored in the blind though overpowered before by blindness; but it is not by nature manifest to all. . . The Bandha (bondage) proceeds from ignorance of Divine nature, and Moksha from knowledge of His nature."Brahma Sútra, III. 11. 5.

1 Isvarát tad-anujñayá . . . sansárasya siddhih; tad-anugraha-hetuken aiva vijñánena Moksha-siddhir bhavitu marhati ||—Brahma Sútra, II. 111. 41.

CORRESPONDENCE.

1. THE CROSS AND SOLOMON'S SEAL AS INDIAN EMBLEMS.

SIR,-In Captain Conder's very valuable work on "Heth and Moab" (London, 1883), I find it urged, as an argument against Mr. Fergusson's identification of certain rude stone crosses as Christian monuments, "that the cross in India is found as a sacred emblem amongst Buddhists and Brahmins alike from a very early period. Nothing," adds Captain Conder, "could be primâ facie more improbable than the erection of rude stone monuments by Christians in India" (p. 225). Is this argument founded on fact? In some years' study of Indian archæology I have not seen any instance of the use of a genuine cross as a sacred emblem by either Buddhists or Brahmins.

We have, indeed, the "Swastika" and its reverse form the "Varddhamana." But these might as well be called wheels or whirligigs as crosses; though they are certainly sacred emblems. Again we have several characters (especially one ancient numeral) in both ancient and modern Indian languages which might be called crosses. But these are by no means sacred; not even as the X which we use in 'Xmas' is with us.

Similar forms occur occasionally in decoration, not only with Hindus and (perhaps) Buddhists, but among the nonBrahmanical forest tribes. But I cannot find that they are a bit more sacred or symbolical than any other conventional ornament; say the Ionic Volute or the "Acanthus."

The crosses from which Mr. Fergusson argued (Rude Stone Monuments, p. 486 et seq.) are themselves monuments

as much as any in Ireland or Scotland, and as complete. To me they seem to be as clearly Christian crosses as these; and I think that there is one thing primâ facie more improbable than their erection by Christians, videlicet, their erection by any one else.

Again, in the same work (p. 56), I find Captain Conder stating that "Solomon's seal" and "David's shield" (the 5 and 6-pointed stars formed by combinations of triangles) are "Indian caste-marks." What evidence is there of this? Setting aside the common error of calling those devices "caste-marks," which are used by Hindus to indicate sect, and not caste, I think that there is a mistake in fact. I have never seen, nor heard of, the use of either of these patterns as a brow-mark or tattoo by any Hindus. And although they do occur as mason's marks in India, I think that they are confined to Musalman buildings, and are, in short, a comparatively modern imported luxury.

I should be glad if any member could give me any further light on either subject. Captain Conder, rather provokingly, quotes no authority, nor am I aware of his having any Indian experience such as would enable me to accept his own as conclusive.

In another

66 a caste

he mentions the swastika as passage mark amongst Vaishnavas." Setting apart, again, the incorrect term "caste-mark," and the more readily as the following term "Vaishnavas" implies some idea of the real use of the brow-marks, the thing seems likely enough. But where and who are those Vaishnavas who so use it?

The Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society.

W. F. SINCLAIR.

2.

London, 1888.

DEAR MR. RHYS DAVIDS,-Looking over your two little Buddhist books, the following notes occur; and, if new, may perhaps be worth putting on paper. In the animal-stories there are clearly two or three animals classed as "deer."