DUALISM OF BRAHMANICAL AND ZOROASTRIAN PHILOSOPHERS. 38 
For this reason the term “Self” (implying personality), 
sometimes preferred to both “ Spirit” and “ Soul” by trans- 
lators of the word Atman, seems open to exception. 
Finally, I may note here a form of Monism said to be in 
favour with some European Scientists, who maintain that 
what is termed “ Vital Force” (Sanskrit Prana?) is the only 
existing Essence, and that this all-pervading Energy evolves 
infinite forms of matter which are periodically dissolved, 
and by their dissolution furnish a constant succession of raw 
material for the reproduction and perpetuation of life. 
Clearly every one of these monistic theories may be 
regarded as also pantheistic, so that there will be as many 
ditferent kinds of Pantheism as of Monism. 
As to the term Dualism, itis evident that there may be one 
kind of Dualism which simply asserts that Spirit and Matter 
exist as separate co-eternal substances. 
Another kind of Dualism—and this I may remark is the 
true Dvaita of Sanskrit philosophers—simply asserts the 
duality of Spirit, meaning by the term Duality that God’s 
Spirit and man’s Spirit have had a real separate existence from 
all eternity, and will continue to have such an existence. 
Note, however, that this Duality theory might more suitably 
be called Plurality, inasmuch as it holds that human spirits 
are not only distinct from the Supreme Spirit, but from each 
other, and are infinitely numerous. 
Again, the term Dualism may be used to express the 
eternal separate existence of two opposing principles—the 
respective originators of good and evil, knowledge and igno- 
rance—as exemplified in the teaching of Zoroaster, and in 
the later philosophy of the Manicheans. The idea may have 
arisen from the supposed impossibility of believing that the 
Creator of good is also the Creator of evil; or else from a simple 
belief in the existence of some eternal law of antagonism as 
a necessary factor in the equilibrium of the Universe. 
Turning now more particularly to the monistic, pantheistic, 
and dualistic theories current in India, I may remark that 
there are two well-known Sanskrit philosophical terms, Dvaita 
and Advaita; of which the two equivalent cognate English 
expressions are, Duality and Non-duality. 
But in an introduction to the Advaita philosophy, just 
published by Pandit Dvivedi, Professor of Sanskrit at 
Bhaunagar, the word Monism, as well as Non-duality 
(equivalent, he says, to “‘inseparability ”), is used for Advaita. 
And I[ may state that almost every learned Brahman in 
India is a believer in the spiritual Monism of the Vedanta 
B 2 
