enormous-far beyond the powers of any one man, and I know full well, far beyond my own powers. All I can promise you is to help to clear the ground and to lay the foundation; but to erect a building, such as Lord Gifford shadowed forth in his Last Will, to raise a temple wide enough, strong enough, high enough for all the religious aspirations of the human race, that we must leave to future generations -to younger, to stronger, and to better hands.

IF

LECTURE II.

DEFINITION OF RELIGION.

Definition of Religion, why wanted.

F the Science of Religion is to be treated as one of the natural sciences, it is clear that we must begin with a careful collection of facts, illustrating the origin, the growth, and the decay of religion.

But we shall find it impossible to do so, unless we first enter on a preliminary and, I must add, a somewhat difficult inquiry, namely, What is meant by religion. Unless we can come to a clear understanding on that point, we shall find it impossible to determine what facts to include, and what facts to exclude in collecting our evidence for the study of religion.

What then is religion? To many people this will sound a very easy question, as easy as the question, What is man? Practical people object to such questions, and consider any attempt to answer them as mere waste of time. Now it is quite true that there is a kind of public opinion, which for all ordinary purposes settles the meaning of words, and by which we may allow ourselves to be guided in the daily concerns of life. But in philosophical discussions this is strictly forbidden. What is philosophy but a perpetual criticism and correction of language, and the history of philosophy but a succession of new definitions assigned to old and familiar terms?

Great differences in defining Religion.

Besides, there is anything but agreement on the true meaning of religion. Most people, whatever their opinions might be on other points, would probably hold that religion must always have something to do with God or the gods. But even that is not the case. Buddhism, for instance, which is a creed professed by the largest number of human beings, recognises, as taught by Buddha Sâkyamuni, no god, or at all events no creator of the universe, and it has been held in consequence that Buddhism could not be called religion.

Is Buddhism a Religion?

Now it is quite true, we may so define religion that the name could not be applied to Buddhism; but the question is, who has the right so to narrow the definition of the word 'religion' that it should cease to be applicable to the creed of the majority of mankind? You see that the right of definition is a most sacred right, and has to be carefully guarded, if we wish to avoid the danger of mere logomachies. How often have I been asked, Do you call Buddha's religion a religion, do you call Darwin's philosophy philosophy, or Wagner's music music? What can we answer under such provocation, except, Define what you mean by religion, define what you mean by philosophy, define what you mean by music, and then, and then only, we may possibly come to an agreement as to whether Buddha's doctrines may be called religion, Darwin's writings philosophy, and Wagner's compositions music. I know full well that nothing irritates an adversary so much as to be asked for a definition; and yet it is well known, or ought to be well known, that defini

tion formed the very foundation of the philosophy of the ancients, of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, while the absence of proper definitions has been and is still the curse of modern philosophy1.

Definition of Definition.

But before we can give a definition of religion, we must first give a definition of definition itself, however pedantic such a request may appear.

There are at least three kinds of definitions, the etymological, the historical, and the dogmatic.

Etymological Definition.

Many people still imagine that an etymology is in itself a definition. This was an impression which prevailed widely in early times 2, before the true principles of etymology had been discovered; and it prevails even now, though there is no longer any excuse for it. Homer, for instance, is very fond of etymologies which are to account for the peculiar character of certain gods and heroes. Plato extends this practice even more widely, though he often leaves us in doubt whether he is really serious in his etymologies or not. You know how in his Cratylus (410) he derives anp, air, from alpew, to raise, as the element which raises things from the earth; how he explains αιθήρ, ether, as ἀειθήρ, because this element is always running in a flux about the air (àeì Оeî àépa péwv). He derives coí, the gods, also from the same root leîv, to run, because he suspected, as he says, that the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven, which are still the

1 See Mill, Three Essays on Religion, p. 4.

2 Cf. Sânkhyatattvakaumudî, § 4; tannirvakanam ka lakshanam, 'the etymological interpretation is the definition.'

3 Cratylus, 397 C.

gods of many barbarians, were the only gods known to the aboriginal Hellenes; and seeing that they were always moving and running, from this their running nature, they called them gods or runners; and afterwards, when they had discovered all the other gods, they retained the old name.' Aristotle was more sparing in his etymological definitions, yet he too derived alonp, the ether, from aeì Oeîv, because it was always running and moving1.

The Romans followed the example of the Greeks 2. Poets like Lucretius and Ovid indulged in etymologies, whenever they seemed to agree with their opinions, and to the latest times Roman lawyers delighted in supporting their definitions of legal terms by more or less fanciful derivations.

In India also these etymological definitions were recognised from the earliest times. They are generally introduced in the following way: 'This is the saddlehood of a saddle that we sit on it'; 'this is the roadhood of a road that we ride 3 on it'; 'this is the heaven-hood of heaven that it has been heaved on high.' Only, while these etymologies are historically correct, any etymology is welcome to the authors of the Brahmana or the Nirukta, if only it explains some meaning of the word.

In some cases these etymological definitions are very useful, but they require the greatest caution. First of all, many popular etymologies are phonetically untenable and historically wrong. God, for in

4

1 De Mundo, ed. Didot, vol. iii. p. 628, 1. 28; dɩà tò ảeì deîv.

2 Lersch, Die Sprachphilosophie der Alten, vol. iii; Cic. Nat. Deor. iii. 24. 3 See Academy, Dec. 1888; also Plutarch, Fragm. 21, 27. + Varro, L. L. v. 7, ed. Egger. 'Quattuor explicandi gradus: infimus is quo etiam populus venit. Quis enim non videt unde arenifodînae et viocûrus?' Lersch, 1. c. vol. iii. p. 126.