Mr. Coi.EBROOfrE on tJie Philosophy of Indian Sectaries. 573 



taneous : grass is not necessarily changed to milk ; for particular conditions 

 must coexist : swallowed by a cow, not by an ox, the fodder is so converted. 

 Or, granting that activity is natural to matter," still tliere would be no 

 purpose. The halt, borne by the blind, directs the progress : a magnet 

 attracts contiguous iron. But direction and contiguity are wanting to the 

 activity of plastic matter. The three qualities of goodness, foulness, and 

 darkness, which characterise matter, would not vary to become primary 

 and secondary in the derivative principles of intelligence and the rest, 

 without some external instigator whomsoever. Apart from the energy of a 

 thinking being, those qualities cannot be argued to have a natural tendency 

 to the production of such effects as are produced.'* 



' The Fiis'upalas' notion of Supreme God being the world's cause, as 

 governing both (pradJuina) matter and (purusha) embodied spirit, is incon- 

 gruous,' say again the Veddntins, ' for he would be chargeable with passion 

 and injustice, distributing good and evil with partiality. Nor can this 

 imputation be obviated by reference to the influence of works; for instiga- 

 tion and instigator would be reciprocally dependent. Nor can the objection 

 be avoided by the assumption of an infinite succession (without a beginning) 

 of works and tlieir fruits. 



' Neither is there any assignable connexion by which his guidance of 

 matter and spirit could be exercised: it is not conjunction, nor aggregation, 

 nor relation of cause and eflfect. Nor can the material principle, devoid of 

 all sensible qualities, be guided and administered. Nor .can matter be 

 wrought without organs. But, if the Supreme Being have organs, he is 

 furnished with a corporeal frame, and is not God, and he suffers pain, and 

 experiences pleasure, as a finite being. The infinity of matter and of 

 embodied spirit, and God's omniscience, are incompatible ; if he restrict 

 them in magnitude and number, they are finite ; if he cannot define and 

 limit them, he is not omniscient (and omnipotent).'! 



A further objection to the Sundhya doctrine, and consequently to the 

 Pdsfupata grounded on it, is ' its alleged inconsistencies and contradic- 

 tions :% one while eleven organs ai-e enumerated, at another seven only, the 

 five senses being reduced to one cuticular organ, the sense of feeling. The 

 elements ara in one place derived immediately from the great or intel- 



• Sane, Sfc. on lir. S'uir. 2. 2. § 1. (.S'. 1—10.) 



t Sane, SfC. on Br. Sulr. 2. 2. § 7. J li. 2. 2. § 1. (S. 2. and 10.) 



