"Can an Arhat fall from grace? Can he be guilty (unwittingly or through diabolic temptation) of indecency? Can he have ignorance, doubt, or error? Is there moral restraint among the gods?" "To all these questions, No" [unanimous].

"Is the Noble Path self-existent? or the Chain of Causation? or the Four Noble Truths? or Nirvana?" Again "No." [And yet these four things are the very groundwork of S'akyamuni's personal teachings. The very foundations of the Buddhist Faith had gone!]

"Is Nirvana a virtuous (moral) state?" "No."

There are also some very interesting points raised in what we may perhaps call "Buddhology."

"Was Buddha a true man? "Yes," [said most of the sects; but one sect affirmed that this was not so. The Buddha had remained all the time in the Tushita Heaven, and that which appeared upon earth was only a phantom. It was exactly what, at that very moment, heretics further west were saying about Christ!].

"Did Buddha himself preach the Law?" "No," said one sect; he never preached. It was Ananda that preached. [It was Ananda, it will be remembered, whose memory supplied so many of the Sutras after the death of S'akyamuni].

"Did the Councils alter S'akyamuni's doctrines or make it afresh?" [With one dissentient voice they all agreed that they had so tampered with the deposit of the Faith.]

"If there should be another Buddha, would it be possible for him to be born out of India?" "Impossible," said they all; "a Buddha can only be born within the limits of Jambudvipa." [And accordingly the Japanese, who want to have their share in everything that is great, have extended the limits of Jambudvipa (Ichi-Embudai) to include China and Japan as well.]

The lowest depth was reached by the question, "Were the Buddha's excretions of exceeding sweet savour?" And to this some answered one thing, and some another.