426 Colonel Kennepy on the Védanta System. 
at all times in such an order, according to such laws, and with such proper- 
ties; nor is it an evident want of sense to philosophize respecting such 
appearance. ParMEnIpEs might answer, ‘men, animals, bodies, as well as 
their production, destruction, and changes, are in truth nothing but mere 
appearances ; but still you may comprehend why these appearances change 
themselves in so fixed and regular a manner. Represent to yourself that 
the first origin of them was fire and water, and that these two elements, 
through their various conjunctions, exhibit to you all that you take for 
reality ; you will gain so much at least that you will not imagine that 
you are living in an Utopian world, and thus you will be able to regulate 
your actions prudently, and to the best advantage, according to the laws of 
such appearance.”* 
But no account of the Eleatic system admits of its being concluded, that 
Parmenies had ever the slightest conception of the Védénta doctrine of 
Mcyza ; nor does it appear probable, either from the philosophical opinions 
that prevailed at the period when he lived, or from any impartial view given 
of his system, that he ever succeeded in drawing a marked distinction 
between matter and spirit. For if the latter had been the case, it is impos- 
sible that so many acute metaphysicians should have experienced any 
difficulty in at once determining whether ParmenipEs was a Pantheist or 
not. Supposing, however, that M. Cousin is correct in stating that Parms- 
NIDEs distinguished the zo za» from the zo <, and denied the existence of the 
former, his system would still remain dissimilar from the Véddnta, inasmuch 
as Parmentpes denied absolutely the existence of sensible objects. The 
Véddntica, on the contrary, gives to them, as far as the enlightened man is 
concerned, a positive existence ; as man’s perception of their being merely 
illusory appearances, depends entirely upon his acquisition of divine know- 
ledge. At the same time, also, that he contends that the system of Par- 
MENIDES was pure idealism, M. Cousin. shows how impossible it is for 
an European philosopher to form any conception of such a system as the 
Védunta. For he has observed: ‘*On the other hand, unity without 
plurality is not more real than plurality without unity. An absolute unity, 
which does not display itself, or merely appears as a shadow, may well 
overwhelm by its grandeur, and enchant by its mysterious charm; but it 
does not enlighten the mind, and it is forcibly contradicted by such of our 
* TrepMANn’s “ Geist der Spekulativen Philosophie,” vol. I. p. 192. 
