________________
91
(v) “His parents had, according to a tradition which seems trustworthy, been followers of Parcva, the previous tirthakara : as has already been pointed out, the doctrine of Mahavira was scarcely anything else than a modified or renovated form of Parcva's creech........
(P. 160).
(vi) “We cannot here enter upon any full investigation of the cloctrine of Mahavira. It must suffice liere to point out that it represents, probably, in its fundamental tenets one of the oldest modes of thought known to us, the idea that all nature, even that which seems to be most inanimate, possesses life and the capability of reanimation; and this doctrine the Jains have, with inflexible conservatisni, kept until modern times. This has nothing in common with the philosopliy of Buddha. There is, in reality, no resemblance between the two systems except in regard to such matters as are the commonplaces of all Hindu philosophy. Even for those superficial believers who looked more to the exterior appearance and mode of life than to the doctrine and faith, the two sects presented an aspect so completely different that one could not easily be confused with the other." (P. 161).
(vii) "Dr. Hoerule is no doubt right in maintaining that this good organisation of the
