Mr. Colebrooke on the Philosophy of the Hindus. 17 



expressed, concerning the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the uni- 

 verse.* An objection to this conclusion is raised, upon the ground of 

 discrepancy remarked in various texts of the vedas,\ which coincide, indeed, 

 in ascribing the creation to Brahme, but differ in the order and particulars 

 of the world's development. The apparent contradiction is reconciled, as 

 they agree on the essential points of the creator's attributes ; omnipotent and 

 omniscient providence, lord of all, soul of all, and without a second, &c. : 

 and it was not the object of the discrepant passages to declare the precise 

 succession and exact course of the world's formation. 



Two more sections are devoted to expound passages which define Brahme 

 as creator, and which are shown to comport no other construction. In one,t 

 cited from a dialogue between Ajatas'atru and Balaci, surnamed Gargya, 

 the object of meditation and worship is pronounced to be, ' he who was the 

 maker of those persons just before mentioned (regents of the sun, moon, &c.), 

 and whose work this universe is.' 



In the other, cited from a dialogue between Yajnyawalcya and Mai- 

 TREYi,§ soul, and all else which is desirable, are contrasted as mutual 

 objects of affection : ' it is for soul {citman') that opulence, kindred, and 

 all else which is dear, are so ; and thereunto soul reciprocally is so ; and 

 such is the object which should be meditated, inquired, and known, and 

 by knowledge of whom all becomes known.' This, it is shown, is said of 

 the supreme, not of the individual soul, nor of the breath of life. 



Under this last head several authorities are quoted by the author, for 

 different modes of interpretation and reasoning, viz. Asjiarat'hya, Audu- 

 LOMi and Casacristna, as jAniiNi under the next preceding (§ 5). 



The succeeding section|| affirms the important tenet of the Veddnta, 

 that the supreme being is the material, as well as the eflicient, cause of 

 the universe : it is a proposition directly resulting from the tenour of 

 passages of the vedas, and illustrations and examples adduced. 



The first lecture is terminated by an aphorism,^ intimating that, in the 

 like manner as the opinion of a plastic nature and material cause (termed 

 by the Sdmfhyas, pradhdna) has been shown to be unsupported by the 



* Br. .S. 1. 1. § 4. f Clihandogya, Tniltirij/a, and Aitarej/a. 



t CauMlaci Drahmana. Dr. S. 1. 4. § 5. (S. 16-18.) 



§ Vri/iad Aranyaca, Maiireyi brahmana. Br. Si'itr. 1. 4. § 6. (S. 19-22.) 



II Br. Sulr. 1. 4. § 7. (S. 23-27.) t I^d. § 8 (S. 28.) 



Vol. II. D 



