and solves none of the great questions which were afterwards started, and grappled with, by the Indian mind. That it was originally the common belief both of Brahmins and inferior castes, there seems no reason to doubt; altho the Veds are not without gleams of deep insight; but from the very nature of the Brahminical mind, it was sure to strike into profounder regions of thought; and whilst cleaving to the old doctrine, to surround it with new truths and spiritual illuminations. Thus the ancient faith of Transmigration was left to the Vulgar; whilst the Priests sought refuge in the speculations and conclusions of philosophy. In the sixth lecture of F. Von Schlegel's Philosophy of History, there is an account of the various systems of Indian metaphysics, which is based upon the authority of Mr. Colebrooke-a great Sanscrit scholar,—and may here be cited to answer the purpose which I have in view.

"The first system, which seems to be one of the most ancient, bears the name of the Sanchya philosophy, a name which signifies the philosophy of numbers. This is not to be understood in the Pythagorean sense, that numbers are the principle of all things, but the Sanchya system bears this name because it reckons successively the first principles of all things, and of all beings, to the number of four or five and twenty. Amongst these first principles, it assigns the highest place to Nature; the second to Understanding; and by this is meant, not merely human understanding, but general and even Infinite Intelligence; so that we may consider this system as a very partial philosophy of nature. It was, however, by no means a coarse materialism, or a denial of the Divinity and of every thing sacred. The doubts expressed in certain quoted passages by Mr. Colebrook, are directed far more against the Creation than against God; they regard the motive which could have induced the Supreme Being, the Spirit of Infinite Perfection, to create the external world, and the possibility of such a creation.

The Sanchya philosophy would be more properly designated in our modern philosophic phraseology, as a system of complete dualism, where two substances are represented as co-existent; on one hand, a self-existent energy of Nature, which emanated or eternally emanates from itself; and on the other, eternal truth, or the Supreme and Infinite Mind."

The second part of the Sanchya system-called the Yoga Philosophy,—completely abandons the principle of a self-existing energy in nature, and announces the Deity as all in all, and the absorption of the soul in him, as the aim and end of life. This is a remarkable conclusion to the scepticism and dualism of the first part of this philosophy, and seems rather to have been the theory of some later thinker, than that of its reputed author. There is indeed so wide a difference between scepticism and affirmation, that instead of calling the Yoga a part of the Sanchya system, one would be tempted to call it a system of mysticism, distinct in itself, if it were not for the sanction which the contrary opinion receives from the great Sanscrit scholar already alluded to. Nor does Schlegel's explanation of this great divergence, appear to me to throw much light upon the subject. He says: "We shall give a more correct and comprehensive idea of the Indian philosophy, if we observe beforehand, that the six Indian systems must be classed in couples, and that the first of each pair treats of the beginning of the subject discussed in the second; and the second contains the development and extension of the principles laid down in the first, or applies those principles

to another and higher object of enquiry." This exposition does not, at all events, apply to the Sanchya philosophy, for there is no connection between the first and second parts of it.

The Nyaya system, whose founder was Gautama-"a personage," says Schlegel, "whom several of the earlier investigators of Indian literature-especially Dr. Taylor, in his translation of the 'Prabodha Chandrodaya' (p. 116)— have confounded with the founder of the Buddhist sect, as both bear the same name. But a closer enquiry has proved them to be distinct persons; and Mr. Colebrooke himself finds greater points of coincidence or affinity between the Sanchya philosophy and Buddhism, than between the latter and the Nyaya system. This Nyaya philosophy proceeding from the act of thought, comprizes in the doctrine of particulars, distinctions, and subdivisions, the application of the thinking principle; and this part of the system embraces all which, among the Greeks, went under the name of logic or dialectic; and which with us is partly classed under the same head." He then observes that Mr. Colebrooke, who devoted most attention to this system, says that its "fundamental tenets comprize, not merely a logic in the ordinary acceptation of the word, but the metaphysics of all logical science." "The basis and prevailing tendency of the Nyaya system (to judge from the extracts with which we have been furnished) is most decidedly ideal. On the whole we can very well conceive that a system of philosophy beginning with the highest act of thought, or proceeding from the thinking self, should run into a course of the most decided and absolute idealism; and that the general inclination of the Indian philosophers to regard the whole external world of sense as vain illusion, and to represent individual personality as absorbed in the Godhead by the most intimate union, should have given birth to a complete system of self delusion, so very congenial with the principles of that most ancient of all anti-christian sects-the Buddhists.

"The Indian authorities cited by Mr. Colebrooke impute to the second part of the Nyaya philosophy a strong leaning to the atomical system. We must here recollect, that as the Indian mind pursued the most various and opposite paths of enquiry even in philosophy, there were besides the six most prevalent systems, recognized as generally conformable to religion, several others in direct opposition to the established doctrines on the Deity and on religion. Among these, the Charvaca philosophy, which, according to Mr. Colebrooke, comprizes the metaphysics of the sect of Jains, deserves a passing notice. It is a system of complete materialism founded on the atomical doctrines, such as Epicurus taught, and which met with so much favor in the declining ages of Greece and Rome.

“The third species or branch of Indian philosophy is that which is attached to the Vedas, and to the sacred revelations and traditions they contain. The first part of this philosophy-the Mimansa-is, according to Mr. Colebrooke, more immediately devoted to the interpretation of the Vedas, and most probably contains the fundamental rules of interpretation, or the leading principles whereby independent reason is made to harmonize with the word of revelation conveyed by sacred tradition. The second or finished part of the system is called the Vedanta philosophy, ... and is the one which now generally exerts the greatest influence on Indian literature and Indian life; and it is very possible that some

of the six recognized, or at least tolerated systems of philosophy, may have been purposely thrown into the background, or when they clashed too rudely with the principles of the prevailing system, have been softened down by their partizans, and have thus come down to us in that state. A wide field is here opened to

the future research and critical enquiries of Indian scholars.

"The Vedanta philosophy is, in its general tendency, a complete system of Pantheism; not the rigid, mathematical, abstract, negative Pantheism of some modern thinkers ...... but a modified, poetical, and half mythological system of Pantheism. Even in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and of the metempsychosis, the personal existence of the human soul inculcated by the ancient faith is not wholly denied or rejected by this more modern system of philosophy; tho on the whole it is certainly not exempt from the charge of Pantheism. But all the systems of Indian philosophy tend more or less to one practical aim, by the final deliverance and eternal emancipation of the soul from the old calamity, the dreaded fate, the frightful lot, of being compelled to wander thro the dark regions of nature, thrö the various forms of the brute creation, and to change ever anew its terrestrial shape. The second point in which the various systems of Indian philosophy mostly agree is this, that the various sacrifices prescribed for this end in the Vedas, are not free from blame or vice, partly on account of the effusion of blood necessarily connected with animal sacrifices; and partly on account of the inadequacy of such sacrifices to the final deliverance of the soul." I have by these long extracts from Schlegel, given what to me is a traditional account of the various systems of Indian philosophy down to the Vedanta or last system of which Veias is said to be the author. It is a curious and interesting investigation to trace the various forms which this philosophy assumed from the Sanchya to the Vedanta eras. All the regions of philosophy were traversed and explored by these old and aboriginal thinkers; who were familiar not only with the highest thoughts of modern times, but with those profound spiritual truths which we claim as a special revelation. In the presence of these august Fathers and Elders of the world, Theognes and Pythagoras, Phocylides, Solon and Plato, are but as the babes of yesterday.

I think, however, we may learn the great truth of the identity and unity of the common mind of man, from the philosophical and religious history of nations. It is too much to claim for any particular race the exclusive favoritism of heaven, and the monopoly of wisdom and truth, whilst we have the Bibles and literature of the Indians, Egyptians, Persians, and British Druids before us. We should be thankful for our own civilization, and leave the old world to repose with feelings of reverence and awe in the twilight of its vast and magnificent ruins; for these ruins are the fossil remains of the same spirit, in its earliest workings, which has since built up the material grandeur of Europe and America, and developed the religion, philosophy, and literature of modern times. I am ashamed to think what a narrow and limited outlook, even many of those men take upon the development and progress of mankind, whose names rank high in the Republic of Letters. There seems to be a fatality in all dogmatical religion which darkens the eyes and dwarfs the understanding of its votaries, and it is to this that I attribute the littleness I complain of.

The publication of the Hindoo books, and the deciphering of the ancient hiero

glyphics of Egypt, must eventually work a great change in the thoughts of men with reference to the nature and character of sacred revelations. For there is so great a similarity in the various Bibles of the world, not only in the truths revealed and the high moralities inculcated, but in the language wherein they are clothed, that we must either acknowlege God to have given many revelations to man, or that the alleged revelations were the natural growth of civilization and culture. We have been accustomed to regard India and Egypt as the lands of darkness and idolatry, from the very beginning of their history; and we receive with great suspicion any contrary statement which is made by our scholars and men of science, in their investigations of the literature and monuments of these old lands. This is another sign of the religious disease which infects us. I think we should welcome all truth, from whatever quarter it comes, or how much soever it may clash with our ancient modes of thought and our long established and most cherished systems. For truth is the friend of God and Man, whilst error is the common foe of both. Even when historic records are absent, as is the case in the early history of India to which I have already alluded, and with the exception of Manetho's great work (the Alexandrian library, which contained all the lore and mystery of Egyptian science, being destroyed) is the case likewise with Egypt, nothing but fanaticism would reject the evidences of antiquity, which the literature and monuments of these countries so conclusively prove. And whatever may become of the question as to the priority of Egyptian or Indian civilization, there can be no longer any doubt in the minds of men versed in the lore of these countries, that the human race is older, by several thousand years, than the date to which its origin is ascribed by Moses. Without intending to enter very largely upon this subject, I may say, (inasmuch as the statement will corroborate the view I have all along taken of the great antiquity of the Indian literature, one part of which it is my design very shortly to lay before the reader,) that Manetho, who 260 years B. C. wrote his history of the Kings of Egypt, the materials for which he found in the Alexandrian library, furnishes us with a list of 31 Egyptian dynasties, comprizing 378 Kings; the first of which, Menes, he places at 5867 B.C.; or 3519 years before the Deluge, according to the Bible, and 2621 years according to the Septuagint. Mr. Gliddon, late U. S. Consul at Cairo, in his book called 'Ancient Egypt, her Monuments, Hieroglyphics, History, Archæology,' etc., gives us the result of all the labors of the Brothers Champollion, Sir Henry Salt, Dr. Young, Quatremene, Rosellini and others, in their investigations of Egyptian antiquities, and this result confirms the truth of Manetho's history. Mr. Gliddon says: 'Manetho from his 16th dynasty (2272 B. C.) to the 31st (347 B. C.) is built on a rock. He is in names, times, and numbers, confirmed by the sculptures; whilst every further discovery gives new light corroborating HIS EARLIER arrangements.' 'Yet in the face of

this,' says an acute writer in No. 102 of the 'Reasoner,' 'Mr. Gliddon has the weakness to coincide with the prejudices of other writers, and to confine the previous 15 dynasties of Manetho to the paltry space of 443 years. Sir G. Wilkinson acts similarly in his 'Topography of Thebes,' Edition 1835, page 506. He, after giving the date of Menes at 2201 B. C., speaks in these words: 'I have not placed him earlier for fear of interfering with the date of the Deluge of Noah, which is 2349 B. C.' This placing of Mencs at 2201 B. C. crowns him

the first King, of the first dynasty, somewhere after the 16th dynasty, the date of which, as before stated, is incontrovertible." "Champollion declares, what the great mathematician Biot confirms, that the Astronomical dates, procured from the tombs of Kings at Thebes, would carry back the use of a national calender to 39 years before the Septuagint flood; and there is a record called the 'Alphonso Tables,' which gives Astronomical dates some 1400 years earlier than the Septuagint date of the Creation."

Such palpable evidence as this, of the antiquity of the Egyptian civilization, is a very strong collateral confirmation of the antiquity which is claimed for the Indians. Independently of this, however, the polished and refined character and beauty of the Sanscrit language, in which the old mythological epics of the Indians are written, viz. the Ramayana and the Mahabharrat, is of itself sufficient proof of the proposition. It is true I am not able to speak of this subject with the authority I could wish, inasmuch as I am unacquainted with the Sanscrit except thro the medium of translations, which however are pretty amply afforded by the labors of Mr. Wilkins-who translated the second epic above named-Sir W. Jones, Mr. Colebrooke, and others. It is clear, however, that the chief personages represented in these poems had an historical base, and that upwards of 4000 years ago they had become mythic thrö the traditions and lapse of ages. The action of the Mahabharrat, is fixed at 5000 years ago; or upwards of a thousand years before the era of Veias, its author. F. Von Schlegel is enthusiastic in his praise of this language and its literature. In speaking of the second era of Indian literature, in the age of Vikramaditya, who ruled some years earlier than the Emperor Augustus in the West, he names Calidas as "the author of the beautiful dramatic poem of 'Lacontala,' so generally known by the English and German Translations." He says, however, "that in the style of poetry, in art, and even in the language itself, there reigns a very great difference between the primitive heroic poems, and the works of Calidas and other cotemporary poets; the difference is at least as great as that which exists between Homer and Theocritus, or the bucolic poets of Greece. The oldest of the two epic poems of the Indians, the Ramayana, by the poet Valmiki, celebrates Rayma, his love for a royal princess, the beautiful Sita, and his conquest of Lanka, or the modern isle of Ceylon The whole body of ancient Indian traditions and mythological history, is to be found in the other great epic of the Indians, the Maha-Barata," (that is the Great Bharrat, founder of the House of Bhaurut.) He then notices what has struck me very powerfully in reading the Geeta, and other fragments of Indian literature, viz. the " close connection and almost entire fusion of poetry and philosophy amongst this people. Many of their more ancient philosophical works," he continues, "were composed in metre, tho they possess productions of a later period which display the highest logical subtlety and analysis. Their great old poems, whatever may be the beauty of the language and the captivating interest of the narrative, are generally imbued with, and pervaded by, the most profound philosophy; and among this people even the history of metaphysics ascends as far back as the mythic ages."... Again, "The epic narrative of the old Indian poems bears a great resemblance to the Homeric poetry, in its inexhaustible copiousness, in the touching simplicity of its antique forms, in justness of feeling and accuracy of delineation. Yet in its

......