132 
G. S. Leonard —The Mythic History of the God Viraj. [No. 2, 
former case it must be infinite and in tlie latter case it is equally so, being 
an effluence of the same nature, wherefore he is called Avyaya or imperish¬ 
able, even after the dissolution of the world. 
From the above reasoning, Viraj ism falls under the charge of a third 
kind of Pantheism, called the Dualistic, ascribing the co-existence of the 
finite world and its infinite soul, as the passage says “ though Viraj is 
infinite, yet he is inseparably connected with the finite world.” But this is 
a false objection raised by materialists, as two co-eternals and co-infinites are 
impossible in nature, one of them, i. e. the creative power must be anterior 
to the created object, and united to it in spirit for its government. Hence 
it is no dualism but monotheism. 
Again Virajism is brought under the charge of materialism from Viraj’s 
being the product (Karya sarira) of the partition and combination (panchi 
karana) of the five atomic principles or elementary bodies of the material 
world, just as the material force of bodies is produced by the union of 
substance and particles. But it must be borne in mind that the Viraj 
spoken of in the S'astras as a Purusha or sensible spirit cannot be the result 
of any mechanical or chemical force : and he is said to be chaitanya or 
intelligent soul, which can never spring from galvanism or electricity. He 
is styled the mundane soul, which must be a particle or modification of the 
eternal, self-existent supreme soul of God (Brahm). 
The multiplicity of divine personages from Brahm to Viraj and the 
plurality of individuals in the person of the latter, viz. a Vaisvanara, Vis- 
varupa, and Visva, all tend to prove both Brahmaism and Virajism as 
regular polytheistic systems, notwithstanding their pretensions to simple 
monotheism. 
In refutation of this charge of polytheism I may mention that the 
Hindus consider these gradations of divine beings, not as so many indepen¬ 
dent, self-existent persons, but as modifications of the Supreme being, and 
entirely dependent and subordinate to him for the purposes of creation and 
the preservation of the universe. The Hindu never ventures to declare 
them as all co-eternals or co-omnipotents with the Supreme soul. There¬ 
fore if the Christian Trinitarian with his creed of three co-existent and 
self-independent persons in the triad is viewed as a monotheist, why should 
not the Hindu Unitarian with his faith in the triads be reckoned so like¬ 
wise P 
Another objection that is raised against Virajism with any degree 
of plausibility, is that of idolatry from the representations given of Viraj 
in the Puranas. But is there any possibility of making an idol with a 
thousand heads, hands, eyes and feet, and whose dimensions are as extensive 
as nature herself P Does the description of the Being in the Psalms 
“ whose canopy is the Heaven and whose footstool is the earth,” amount 
