eart. Yet it is the
uniform experience of the missionary that he frequently hurts unawares
the feelings of his Japanese fellow-workers. Few thoughts more
frequently enter the mind of the missionary, as he deals with
Christian workers, than how to say this needful truth and do that
needful deed so as not to hurt the feelings of those whom he would
help. The individual who feels slighted or insulted will probably give
no active sign of his wound. He is too polite or too politic for that.
He will merely close like a clam and cease to have further cordial
feelings and relations with the person who has hurt him.]

[Footnote CT: _Cf._ chapter xiii.]

[Footnote CU: See chapter xxix.]

[Footnote CV: P. 201.]

[Footnote CW: _Cf._ chapter vii.]

[Footnote CX: It seems desirable to guard against an inference that
might be made from what I have said about Hegel's "Nothing." Hegel saw
clearly that his "Nothing" was only the farthest limit of abstraction,
and that it was consequently absolutely empty and worthless. It was
only his starting point of thought, not his end, as in the case of
Brahmanism and of Buddhism. Only after Hegel had passed the "Nothing"
through all the successive stages of thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis, and thus clothed it with the fullness of being and
character, did he conceive it to be the concrete, actual Absolute.
There is, therefore, the farthest possible difference between Hegel's
Absolute Being and Buddha's Absolute. Hegel sought to understand and
state in rational form the real nature of the Christian's conception
of God. Whether he did so or not, this is not the place to say.]

[Footnote CY: I remark, in passing, that Western non-Christian thought
has experienced, and still experiences, no little difficulty in
conceiving the ultimate nature of being, and thus in solving the
problem, into which, as a cavernous tomb, the speculative religions of
the Orient have fallen. Western non-Christian systems, whether
materialism, consistent agnosticism, impersonal pantheism, or other
systems which reject the Christian conception of God as perfect
personality endowed with all the fullness of being and character,
equally with philosophic Buddhism, fail to provide any theoretic
foundation for the doctrine of the value of man as man, and
consequently fail to provide any guarantee for individualism in the
social order and the wide development of personality among the
masses.]

[Footnote CZ: _Cf._ chapter vi