Thus there is little reason to regard Christianity as an important factor in the evolution of Hinduism, because (a) there is no evidence that it appeared in an influential form before the sixteenth century and (b) there is strong evidence that most of the doctrines and practices resembling Christianity have an Indian origin.  On the other hand abundant instances show that the Hindus had no objection to borrowing from a foreign religion anything great or small which took their fancy.  But the interesting point is that the principal Christian doctrines were either indigenous in India—­such as bhakti and avataras—­or repugnant to the vast majority of Hindus, such as the crucifixion and atonement.  I do not think that Nestorianism had any appreciable effect on the history of religious thought in southern India.  Hellenic and Zoroastrian ideas undoubtedly entered north-western India, but, though Christian ideas may have come with them, few of the instances cited seem even probable except some details in the life of Krishna which affect neither the legend as a whole nor the doctrines associated with it.  Some later sects, such as the Kabirpanthis, show remarkable resemblances to Christianity, but then the teaching of Kabir was admittedly a blend of Hinduism and Islam, and since Islam accepted many Christian doctrines, it remains to be proved that any further explanation is needed.  Barth observed that criticism is generally on the look out for the least trace of Christian influence on Hinduism but does not pay sufficient attention to the extent of Moslim influence.  Every student of Indian religion should bear in mind this dictum of the great French savant.  After the sixteenth century there is no difficulty in supposing direct contact with Roman Catholicism.  Tukaram, the Maratha poet who lived comparatively near to Goa, may have imitated the diction of the Gospels.

Some authors[1101] are disposed to see Christian influence in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, particularly in the Amidist sects.  I have touched on this subject in several places but it may be well to summarize my conclusions here.

The chief Amidist doctrines are clearly defined in the Sukha vati-vyuha which was translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in the latter half of the second century A.D.  It must therefore have existed in Sanskrit at least in the first century of our era, at which period dogmatic Christianity could hardly have penetrated to India or any part of Central Asia where a Sanskrit treatise was likely to be written.  Its doctrines must therefore be independent of Christianity and indeed their resemblance to Christianity is often exaggerated, for though salvation by faith in Amida is remarkably like justification by faith, yet Amida is not a Saviour who died for the world and faith in him is coupled with the use of certain invocations.  The whole theory has close parallels in Zoroastrianism and is also a natural development of ideas already existing in India.