mortals gain admission, sometimes without dying. There the blest enjoy for ages a glorified continuation of their earthly existence, and there magic trees or fountains of life ensure immunity from all physical ills and death. Such notions characterize the imaginings of many primitive and savage peoples all the world over. Does the sameness of the conception in the examples I have quoted, and in many I have had to pass unnoticed, postulate a general borrowing or a derivation from a common origin? I think not.
It might seem reasonable to trace the Chinese notion to Indian sources, through the Buddhist Sukhāvatī ultimately to its prototype, the Brahmanic western paradise of Varuna, or directly to the latter. Such a theory would be difficult to prove. Some have claimed an Indian origin for the whole system of Taoism. On the other hand, Prof. Parker[1] discusses the plausibility of the tale that Lao Tzŭ emerged, after his disappearance from China into the West, to become himself the founder of Buddhism. Our knowledge of the mutual indebtedness between China and India in ancient times is hazy in the extreme. Even a.d. 67, the date generally accepted for the introduction of Buddhism into China, may be two or three centuries later than the actual event.[2] Then too, though it is not a very forcible argument, the Sukhāvatīvyūha was not translated into Chinese before the middle of the second century of our era;[3] and belief in the China island paradise is certainly more than five centuries older, as I shall show presently.
Less likely does it seem that a borrowing took place from ancient Mediterranean sources, though it is safer not to be too dogmatic when so many problems, notably in the realm of art, connected with the Grecian occupation of India remain unsolved. The pendulum of present day opinion
