The learned Brahmun objects to the term indescribable, although universally assigned to the Supreme Being by the Ved, and by the Vedant theology, saying (p. 37, 1. 20), "it is a wonderful interpretation of "the Vedant to say that God is indescribable, although "existing, unless indeed he be looked upon as the "production of magic; as existing in one sense, and "non-existent in another." And again (1. 14), “he, "therefore, who asserts that the Supreme Being is "indescribable and at the same time existing, must "conceive that He, like the world, is mutable," &c. In answer to which I beg to refer the learned Brahmun to the 11th text of the 3d Brahmun of the 4th chapter of the Brehdarunyuc, the principal part of the Ujoor Ved, as commented upon by the celebrated Sunkaracharjya: "The Ved having so far described God, by "various absolute* and relative epithets, † was con"vinced of its incapability of giving a real description "of the nature of the Godhead: language can convey "a notion of things only either by the appellations by "which they are already known, or by describing "their figure, accidents, genus, and properties; but "God has none of these physical circumstances: the "Ved therefore attempted to explain him in negative "terms;" (that is, by declaring that whatever thing may be perceived by the mental faculties, or the external senses, is not God.) "The Ved's ascribing to God "attributes of eternity, wisdom, truth, &c., shews that "it can explain him only by ascribing those attributes, "and applying those epithets, that are held by man As eternal, true, and intelligent.

+ As creator, preserver, and destroyer.

"in the highest estimation, without intending to "assert the adequacy of such description. He is the "only true existence amidst all dependent existences, "and the true source of our senses." Also in the "Hence no vision can

text 3d of the Cenopanishad :

approach him; no language can describe him; no in"tellectual power can compass or determine him. We "know nothing of how the Supreme Being should be 66 explained: He is beyond nature, which is above com"prehension: our ancient spiritual parents have thus "explained Him to us." It cannot, however, be inferred, from our acknowledged ignorance of the nature and attributes of the Supreme Being, that we are equally ignorant as to His existence. The wonderful structure and growth of even so trifling an object as a leaf of a tree, affords proof of an Almighty Superintendent of the universe; and even the physical world affords numerous instances of things whose existence is quite evident to our senses, but of whose nature we can form no conception; such as the causes of the sensations of heat and vision.

The learned Brahmun attempts to prove the impossibility of an adoration of the Deity, saying (p. 33, 1. 15): "That which cannot be conceived, cannot be wor"shipped." Should the learned Brahmun consider a full conception of the nature, essence, or qualities of the Supreme Being, or a physical picture truly representing the Almighty power, with offerings of flowers, leaves, and viands, as essential to adoration, I agree with the learned Brahmun with respect to the impossibility of the worship of God. But, should adoration imply only the elevation of the mind to the conviction

of the existence of the Omnipresent Deity, as testified by His wise and wonderful works, and continual contemplation of His power as so displayed; together with a constant sense of the gratitude which we naturally owe Him, for our existence, sensation, and comfort,-I never will hesitate to assert, that His adoration is not only possible, and practicable, but even incumbent upon every rational creature. For further explanation, I refer the learned Brahmun to the text 47, sect. 4, chap. 3, of the Vedant.

To his question,* "what are you yourselves?" I suppose I may safely reply for myself, that I am a poor dependent creature;-subject, in common with others, to momentary changes, and liable to sudden destruction.

At p. 45, 1. 30, the learned Brahmun, if I rightly understand his object, means to insinuate, that I have adopted the doctrines of those who deny the responsibility of man as a moral agent. I am quite at a loss to conceive from what part of my writings this inference has been drawn, as I have not only never entertained such opinions myself, but have taken pains to explain the passage in the Ved on which this false doctrine is founded. In page 93 of the Preface to the Ishopanishad, I have said that, "the Vedant by declaring that "God is every where, and every thing is in God, means "that nothing is absent from God, and that nothing "bears real existence except by the volition of God." And again, in the same page I quoted the example of the most revered teachers of the Vedant doctrine, who,

66

although they declared their faith in the Omnipresent "God, according to the doctrines of the Vedant, assigned to every creature the particular character and 66 respect he was entitled to."

66

I omitted to notice the strange mode of argument which the learned Brahmun (at p. 29) has adopted in defence of idolatry. After acknowledging that the least deficiency in judgment renders man incapable of looking up to an Omnipresent Supreme Being, whereby he mistakes a created object for the great Creator, he insinuates that an erroneous notion in this respect is as likely to lead to eternal happiness, as a knowledge of truth. At 1. 5, he says: "And although a person through deficiency in judgment, should be "unable to discover the real nature of a thing, does "it follow, that his error will prevent the natural effect "from appearing? When a man in a dream sees a "tiger, is he not in as much alarm as if he saw it in "reality?"

66

This mode of claiming for idol-worship a value equal to that of pure religion, which it can never be admitted to possess, may have succeeded in retaining some of his followers in the delusive dream, from which he is so anxious that they should not be awoke. But some of them have, I know, begun to inquire into the truth of those notions in which they have been instructed; and these are not likely to mistake for true, the false analogy that is in the above passage attempted to be drawn; nor will they believe that, however powerful may be the influence of imagination, even under false impressions, future happiness, which depends on God alone, can ever be ranked amongst its effects. Such

enquirers will, I hope, at last become sensible that the system of dreaming recommended by the learned Brahmun, however essential to the interests of himself and of his cast, can bring to them no advantage, either substantial or eternal.

As instances of the erroneous confidence which is placed in the repetition of the name of a god to effect purification from sins, noticed by me in p. 168, I may quote the following passages.

He who pronounces "Doorga" (the name of the goddess), though he constantly practise adultery, plunder others of their property, or commit the most heinous crimes, is freed from all sins.*

A person pronouncing loudly, "reverence to Huri," even involuntarily, in the state of falling down, of slipping, of labouring under illness, or of sneezing, purifies himself from the foulest crimes.+

He who contemplates the Ganges, while walking, sitting, sleeping, thinking of other things, awake, eating, breathing, and conversing, is delivered from sins.‡

The circumstances alluded to in p. 168 of this treatise, relative to the wicked conduct of their supposed deities, are perfectly familiar to every individual Hindoo. But those Europeans who are not acquainted with the particulars related of them, may perhaps feel a wish to be in possession of them. I therefore, with a view to gratify their curiosity and to vindicate my assertion, beg to be allowed to mention a few instances in point, with the authorities on which they rest. As I have already noticed the debauchery of Krishna, and his • Vide Doorga nám Mahatmyu.

+ Vide Bháguvut.

Vide Mahabharuth.