It will not have escaped the reader's attention that many of the
features which I have noticed as common to the religions of Eastern
Asia--such as the worship of nature spirits and ancestors--are not
peculiar to those countries but are almost, if not quite, universal in
certain stages of religious development. They can, for instance, be
traced in Europe. But whereas they exist here as survivals discernible
only to the eye of research and even at the beginning of the Christian
era had ceased to be the obvious characteristics of European paganism,
in Asia they are still obvious. Age and logic have not impaired their
vigour, and official theology, far from persecuting them, has
accommodated its shape to theirs. This brings us to another point where
the linguistic difficulty again makes itself felt, namely, that the word
religion has not quite the same meaning in Eastern Asia as in Mohammedan
and Christian lands. I know of no definition which would cover
Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and the superstitions of African
savages, for the four have little community of subject matter or aim. If
any definition can be found it must I think be based on some superficial
characteristic such as ceremonial. Nor is there any objection to
refusing the title of religion to Buddhism and Confucianism, except that
an inconvenient lacuna would remain in our vocabulary, for they are not
adequately described as philosophies. A crucial instance of the
difference in the ideas prevalent in Europe and Eastern Asia is the fact
that in China many people belong to two or three religions and it would
seem that when Buddhism existed in India the common practice was
similar. Paganism and spiritual religion can co-exist in the same mind
provided their spheres are kept distinct. But Christianity and Islam
both retain the idea of a jealous God who demands not only exclusive
devotion but also exclusive belief: to believe in other Gods is not only
erroneous; it is disobedience and disloyalty. But such ideas have little
currency in Eastern Asia, especially among Buddhists. The Buddha is not
a creator or a king but rather a physician. He demands no allegiance and
for those who disobey him the only punishment is continuance of the
disease. And though Indian deities may claim personal and exclusive
devotion, yet in defining and limiting belief their priests are less
exacting than Papal or Moslim doctors. Despite sectarian formulas, the
Hindu cherishes broader