3. “Many of the works enumerated, pp. 424, 427, 431, are to be found also in the Tibetan translations. Since I shall give the names or titles of all the several works contained both in the Kah-gyur and the Stan-gyur divisions of the Tibetan collection, I thought not necessary to specify those now I have found in the mentioned pages. The Lalita Vistára, as has been observed on page 424, is in Tibet also one of the chief authorities for the life and history of the Shakya. Likewise, in Tibet, too, the Buddha Scriptures are of the same twelve kinds as have been described on p. 426, the twelve Tibetan names being exactly translated from Sanskrit.
4. “In general the whole information given of Buddhism, of the character of Buddhistic works, and the lists of the Tathagatas, is mostly in the same tenor or spirit as it is taken in Tibet. During my reading of the Tibetan volumes, I have met frequently with these and other fancied Buddhas, Bodhisatwas, &c. At the beginning of some lectures, it is sometimes too tedious [[108]]to read over all the names of such supposed hearers. And it is especially at this occasion, that the author of the Sútras terribly mixes divine and human things together. The Buddhas, Bodhisatwas, and many other pretended divinities, good and evil spirits, are, in general, fancied or metaphysical beings, which in the Buddhistic Pantheon have been multiplied to an incredible number. It is impossible, therefore, and unnecessary too, to labour to describe them with any precision. Their names, epithets, or attributes being taken sometimes in a general, sometimes in a particular sense, many times as symbolical names, or as so many models of virtue, vice, mercy, wisdom, power, &c. Since the Buddhistic works consist not merely of wild metaphysical speculations, but contain several volumes of practical topics also, we should be acquainted with the whole, and judge accordingly. When Europeans shall have been acquainted with the practical part of the Buddhistic doctrine, with the language of Tibet, and with the several useful popular works it contains, then I think they will excuse them in some degree for the extravagance in the dogmatical part of their religion.
5. “(With respect to p. 434.) According to the testimony of several Tibetan writers, the Tibetans have derived their religion and literature in general from India, commencing about the middle of the seventh century after Christ, and have formed their alphabet in imitation of the Devanagari letters. Several Tibetan scholars resided for many years in India, and became well acquainted with the Sanskrit literature of the Buddhists of that country. Learned pandits were invited many times to Tibet to assist the Tibetans in the translation of the Sanskrit works. Many translations have been made in concert, and according to certain plans. By these means they have wonderfully improved and enriched the Tibetan language. They [[109]]have formed, with a few exceptions, words for the expression of everything that occurred in Sanskrit. Now the Tibetan language, if well understood, may be consulted with advantage for the explanation of many technical terms in the whole complicated system of the Buddhistic doctrine, there being extant several collections of Sanskrit and Tibetan words and phrases for this purpose.
6. “(With respect to the 422d page.) The doctrine taught by Shakya, according to many Tibetan authorities, was collected at three different times after his death. It was first collected immediately after his decease, by three of his principal disciples, whose names are mentioned. The second collection was made one hundred and ten years after the death of Shakya, in the time of the King Ashoka or Asoka. The third in the time of Kaniska, the king, four hundred years after the death of Shakya, when the followers of Buddha had separated themselves into eighteen different classes or sects. After that time, it is probable the Buddhistic doctrine in India itself has undergone several modifications, and the more so in the countries into which it was afterwards propagated. It was commenced to be introduced into Tibet in the seventh century after Christ, was very flourishing in the ninth, it was greatly persecuted and almost suppressed in the beginning of the tenth, it was again firmly re-established in the eleventh century. What progress it made afterwards in Tibet and in the Mongol countries, there are many historical documents thereof extant in the Tibetan books.
7. “Thus I have endeavoured to express my sentiments, with respect to some pages of the twelfth article of the volume, without touching the topics of higher speculation.
“I beg you will kindly excuse me for any defect. I shall do all in my power, in my further studies, to [[110]]merit the continuance of your favour. I have the honour to remain, with much respect,” &c.
The second letter, dated 29th April 1830, is an answer to Mr. Hodgson’s strictures on subjects contained in Csoma’s preceding communication. We find in what follows another proof of the writer’s diffidence and modesty, which Mr. Torrens so forcibly points out as “the surprising trait of Csoma’s character.” In this letter Csoma postpones his full reply to a more favourable opportunity, because, he adds, “I know not how to write Sanskrit and Tibetan words in Roman characters,” and that he was “unacquainted with the Sanskrit,” nor had he the “command of the English language.”
“Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of the pamphlet, together with your letter of the 15th of February last, which reached this place on the 14th instant. I am much obliged for your kindness.
2. “I have seen with much satisfaction the great coincidence of the Buddhistic faith in Nepal with that of Tibet. The figures on the Plates I., II., IV., the list of the Buddha Scriptures on p. 4, &c., and the whole sketch of Buddhism, exhibit a wonderful agreement, with a few exceptions. Since I am unacquainted with Sanskrit, neither know I how to write the Sanskrit and Tibetan in Roman characters to be intelligible, nor have I the command of the English language, I beg you will kindly excuse me for my not having entered upon particulars on the subject. I shall find opportunity, perhaps, hereafter to supply the defect of my present communication.
3. “I beg you will pardon me; I have never said that the Tibetans have only one alphabet of their own. If you will inspect the second paragraph of my former letter to you, you will find that I have stated there, ‘In the whole of Tibet there is but one mode of writing, with respect to orthography, &c.’ But since you seem to have been offended at my expression, I beg now to state: [[111]]out of the four alphabets printed opposite page 418 of the volume formerly sent to me, the three first are Tibetan, called capital, small, and running hand; the fourth, or Lantsa (Lanja), is of India, but used sometimes in Tibet too for inscriptions in Sanskrit. And the infinite variety of letters given opposite to page 420 of the volume referred to are not Tibetan, neither are used by Tibetans, but belong to different parts of India, whence they were brought to Tibet in ancient times.