280 DR J. MUIR'S account OF THE 



tion) ; the third is that of an illusion. The first theory, that of the Logicians and Mimansakas is this : 

 atoms of four descriptions — earthy, aqueous, igneous, and atmospheric — beginning with compounds of 

 two atoms, and ending in the egg of the Brahma (the world), originate the universe ; and effects pre- 

 viously non-existent come into being fi'om the action of a causer. The second theory, that of the 

 Sankhyas, Patanjalas, and Pasupatas, is that Pradhdna (or Prakriti, nature), consisting of the three 

 gunrxs (qualities), sattva, rajas, and tamas (goodness, passion, and darkness) is evolved, through the 

 successive stages oi mahat (intellect), ani ahankdra (consciousness), &c., in the shape of the world ; 

 and that effects which had previously existed in a subtile form are (merely) manifested by the action 

 of a cause. Another form of the theory of evolution is that of the Vaishnavas, who hold the 

 world to be a development of Brahma. The third view, that of the Brahma-vadls (i.e., the Vedan- 

 tists), is that Brahma, the self-resplendent, the supremely happy, and the one sole essence, assumes, 

 unreally, the form of the world through the influence of his own illusion (Md(/d) ." 



Having thus explained the principles of the different systems, the author pro- 

 ceeds, — 



"The ultimate scope of all the sages (munis), the authors of these different systems, is to sup- 

 port the theory of illusion, and so to establish the existence of one God, the sole essence ; for these 

 sages could not have been mistaken [as some of them must have been, if they were not all, of one 

 opinion], since they were omniscient. But as [they saw that] men, addicted to the pm-suit of ex- 

 ternal objects, could not all at once penetrate into the highest truth, they held out to them a variety 

 of theories, in oi'der that they might not fall into atheism. Misunderstanding the object which these 

 sages thus had in view, and representing that they even designed to propound theories contrarj- to 

 the Veda, men have come to regard the specific doctrines of these several schools with preference, 

 and thus become adherents of a variety of systems." 



So far Madhusudana. The vast amount of thought which has been expended 

 upon these philosophical systems is evinced by the large number of commentaries 

 and treatises which have been composed for their illustration. It has frequently 

 occurred that the most celebrated commentaries have themselves in turn formed 

 the subject of glosses by later writers. The effect of this unceasing and long- 

 continued speculation has been, as might have been anticipated, that the doctrine 

 of the several schools has in process of time undergone, in some respects, con- 

 siderable modifications, and that some of the schools have become subdivided. 

 But the activity of the Hindu mind in philosophical thinking is not to be judged 

 by a reference to these six so-called orthodox systems only. There are many 

 others, such as those of the Ramanujas, Madhwacharyyas, Pasupatas, which are 

 regarded as less authoritative, and some which are characterised as absolutely 

 heretical,— such as those of the different Buddhist schools, and the Charvakas, 

 or Materialists, &c. &c. 



Besides these sj^stems of philosophical speculation, there is a large body of 

 literature of other kinds which has grown out of the desire to understand the 

 Veda aright, and apply its texts and precepts correctly to the various exigencies 

 of religious worship and of social life. This literature is technically divided into 

 six Vedangas, or members of the Veda, — viz., the sciences of pronunciation, reli- 

 gious ceremonial, grammar, prosody, astronomy, and interpretation. The rules 

 of pronunciation are minutely explained in the ancient treatises called Pratisakh- 

 yas, of which several are extant. The rules of religious worship, as well as 

 prescriptions for the regulation of domestic and social life, are contained in certain I 



