which still require to be carefully handled. How far, for instance,
are we entitled to regard the present Sutras as genuine and
sufficiently accurate copies of those which were accepted by the
Councils before our Christian era? Can anything be done to trace the
rise of the legends and marvels of Sakyamuni's history, which were
current so early (as it seems to us) as the time of Fa-hien, and which
startle us so frequently by similarities between them and narratives
in our Gospels? Dr. Hermann Oldenberg, certainly a great authority
on Buddhistic subjects, says that "a biography of Buddha has not come
down to us from ancient times, from the age of the Pali texts; and,
we can safely say, no such biography existed then" ("Buddha--His Life,
His Doctrine, His Order," as translated by Hoey, p. 78). He has also
(in the same work, pp. 99, 416, 417) come to the conclusion that the
hitherto unchallenged tradition that the Buddha was "a king's son"
must be given up. The name "king's son" (in Chinese {...}), always
used of the Buddha, certainly requires to be understood in the highest
sense. I am content myself to wait for further information on these
and other points, as the result of prolonged and careful research.

Dr. Rhys Davids has kindly read the proofs of the Translation and
Notes, and I most certainly thank him for doing so, for his many
valuable corrections in the Notes, and for other suggestions which
I have received from him. I may not always think on various points
exactly as he does, but I am not more forward than he is to say with
Horace,--

"Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri."

I have referred above, and also in the Introduction, to the Corean
text of Fa-hien's narrative, which I received from Mr. Nanjio. It