[152]. Spence Hardy, Manual of Buddhism, p. 187, quoting the Pujáwaliya, said to be later than the thirteenth century A.D.
[153]. Sutta Nipâta, Sacred Books of the East, vol. x. Part ii. p. 17.
[154]. Ibid. vol. x. Part ii. pp. 31, 45.
[155]. Mahâparanibhâna Sutta, iv. 49, 50, ibid. vol. xi. p. 81.
[156]. Bigandet, op. cit. p. 323; Spence Hardy, Manual, p. 347; Mahâparinibhâna Sutta, vi. 11-16.
[157]. Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zur Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre; Leipzig, 1882.
[158]. Let any one compare the prediction of the so-called Indian Simeon, the Nalaka Sutta, in vol. x. p. 125 of Sacred Books of the East, with Luke ii. 25; the account of the Temptation by Mara, in the Romantic Legend, pp. 204, 224, or in Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism, p. 183, with Matt. iv. 1; the so-called Transfiguration in Mahâparinibhâna, iv. 49, vol. xi. Sacred Books of the East, p. 81, with Matt. xvii. 1-8; the feast of the courtesan Ambopali, in Mahâparinibhâna Sutta, ii. 16. 25, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi. p. 30, with Christ’s treatment of the Magdalene in Luke vii. 36, and he will see at once how improbable and even absurd is the theory that the Evangelists borrowed from the Buddhist compilers. That we are dealing with quite an inferior order of facts is apparent when we compare one of the most touching coincidences, Buddha’s last discourse to the Beloved Ananda in Mahâparinibhâna Sutta, v. 34. 35, “Let not yourself be troubled,” with John xiv. 1-6. In some of the miracles accompanying the birth and temptations of Buddha, there are not only gross absurdities but positive indecencies, which by the simplicity and modesty and reticence of the Gospel narratives are powerfully condemned. See Lalita Vistara, chaps. vi. and vii., and Buddhist Birth-Stories, vol. i. pp. 58, 68.
[159]. This is a very great assumption indeed. Foucaux, its translator, assigns it to the first century B.C., but T. W. Rhys Davids assigns it to some Nepaulese poet “who lived between six hundred and a thousand years after Buddha’s death” (Hibbert Lectures, pp. 197, 204). A Chinese version is said to have been in existence about 70 A.D. Rajendralal Mitra, its English translator, admits this in his Introduction, p. 48, but whether that was a version, or another book altogether, or how far it corresponded with the Lalita Vistara, no scholar has been confident to say. Dr. Beal also mentions a life of Buddha by Asvaghosha as probably in circulation about the middle of the Christian era (Chinese Buddhism, p. 73).
[160]. Mahâparinibhâna Sutta, translated by T. W. Rhys Davids, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi.
[161]. The blessed Buddha rebuked Pindola Bhâradvâga (for having won a bowl of sandalwood by performing a miracle), saying, “This is improper, not according to rule, unsuitable, unworthy of a Samana, unbecoming, and ought not to be done. How can you for the sake of a miserable wooden pot display before the laity the superhuman quality of your miraculous power of Iddhi?... This will not conduce either to the conversion of the unconverted or to the increase of the converted” (Kullavagga, v. 8. 2). The danger of performing a miracle by power of Iddhi, for self-glorification, is exemplified in the story of Devadatta in Kullavagga, vii. 1. 2, 3. In the Mahavagga, Kullavagga, Sutta Nipâta, and similar books, however, miracles are ascribed to Buddha, and conversions attributed to their performance.