24 SIR M. MONIER WILLIAMS ON THE MONISM, PANTHEISM, AND 
Mr. Robinson went on to question the authority of Sankara’s 
interpretation. With regard to Sankara, I can only repeat what I 
have pointed out in my book on “ Brahmanism,” (p. 55), that if it 
be possible to point to any one really historical concrete personality 
around which Brahmanical dogmas and their orthodox interpreta- 
tion may be gathered, it is certain that we mnst look to him rather 
than to any other native writer. Of course I could adduce many 
other passages from the sacred Sanskrit texts themselves, and, indeed, 
could point to the whole plot of the Ramayana and Mahabharata 
in support of my statement as to the conflict between good and 
evil spirits; but the very superabundance of my proofs and illus- 
trations leads me to forbear. Those interested in the subject will 
find it fully treated of in my chapter on Demon-worship (see 
‘“‘Brahmanism and Hindiism,” published by Murray, p. 230). As 
to Mr. Misra’s speech, I will only say that I agree with much that 
he said, and thank him cordially for the kind expressions he used 
in speaking of me, and of the researches which I prosecuted during 
my travels through all parts of India on three different occasions. 
I will only, in conclusion, express my cordial agreement with what 
fell from Professor Orchard. 
The Meeting was then Adjourned. 
the first time in the Journal of the Victoria Institute), Mr. Desai most 
unwarrantably allowed to be printed and published (in a certain maga- 
zine) two articles written by himself containing an amplification of his 
speech and founded on an wnrevised proof of my paper, sent to him merely 
for his convenience (that he might join more readily in the discussion) and 
marked ‘PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ in large type. This wncorrected 
proof was not adhered to verbatim by me in delivering my paper ; but, 
even if I had not changed the wording here and there, it is clear that by 
all codes of literary honour (whether European or Asiatic) a rough, un- 
corrected, and private proof ought not to have been made use of for the 
purposes to which Mr. Desai applied it.” 
