ropose has nothing to
do with the disease. The cause of evil or suffering is removed by
purifying the heart and by following the moral law which sets high value
on sympathy and social duties, but an equally high value on the
cultivation of individual character. But training and cultivation imply
the possibility of change. Hence it is a fatal mistake in the religious
life to hold a view common in India which regards the essence of man as
something unchangeable and happy in itself, if it can only be isolated
from physical trammels. On the contrary the happy mind is something to
be built up by good thoughts, good words and good deeds. In its origin
the Buddha's celebrated doctrine that there is no permanent self in
persons or things is not a speculative proposition, nor a sentimental
lament over the transitoriness of the world, but a basis for religion
and morals. You will never be happy unless you realize that you can make
and remake your own soul.

These simple principles and the absence of all dogmas as to God or
Brahman distinguish the teaching of Gotama from most Indian systems, but
he accepted the usual Indian beliefs about Karma and rebirth and with
them the usual conclusion that release from the series of rebirths is
the _summum bonum_. This deliverance he called saintship (_arahattam_)
or nirvana of which I shall say something below. In early Buddhism it is
primarily a state of happiness to be attained in this life and the
Buddha persistently refused to explain what is the nature of a saint
after death. The question is unprofitable and perhaps he would have
said, had he spoken our language, unmeaning. Later generations did not
hesitate to discuss the problem but the Buddha's own teaching is simply
that a man can attain before death to a blessed state in which he has
nothing to fear from either death or rebirth.

The Buddha attacked both the ritual and the philosophy of the Brahmans.
After his time the sacrificial system, though it did not die, never
regained its old prestige and he profoundly affected the history of
Indian metaphysics. It may be justly said that most of his philosophic
as distinguished from his practical teaching was common property before
his time, but he transmuted common ideas and gave them a currency and
significance which they did not possess before. But he was less
destructive as a religious and social reformer than many have supposed.
He did not deny the existence nor forbid the worship of