DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9550#0187
HINDOO THEISM.
39
those attributes, and that of a king and his ministers,
is totaly inconsistent with the faith entertained by
Hindoos of the present day ; who, so far from consider-
ing these objects of worship as mere instruments by
which they may arrive at the power of contemplating
the God of nature, regard them in the light of independ-
ent gods, to each of whom, however absurdly, they
attribute almighty power, and a claim to worship, solely
on his own account.
' i ithly. The learned gentleman is dissatisfied with the
objection mentioned in my translation to worshipping
these fictitious representations and remarks, that " the
" objections to worshipping the attributes are not satis-
" factorily stated by the author." I consequently repeat
the following authorities, which I hope may answer my
purpose. The following are the declarations of the
Ved: " He who worships any God excepting the
Supreme Being, and thinks that he himself is distinct
" and inferior to that God, knows nothing, and is
" considered as a domestic beast of these gods." A
" state even so high as that of Brahma does not afford
" real bliss." " Adore God alone." " None but the
" Supreme Being is to be worshipped ; nothing excepting
" him should be adored by a wise man." I repeat also
the following text of the Vedant: " The declaration of
" the Ved, that those that worship the celestial gods are
" the food of such gods, is an allegorical expression, and
" only means, that they are comforts to the celestial
"gods as food to mankind ; for he who has no faith in
" the Supreme Being is rendered subject to these gods.
" The Ved affirms the same."
And the revered Sankaracharya has frequently
39
those attributes, and that of a king and his ministers,
is totaly inconsistent with the faith entertained by
Hindoos of the present day ; who, so far from consider-
ing these objects of worship as mere instruments by
which they may arrive at the power of contemplating
the God of nature, regard them in the light of independ-
ent gods, to each of whom, however absurdly, they
attribute almighty power, and a claim to worship, solely
on his own account.
' i ithly. The learned gentleman is dissatisfied with the
objection mentioned in my translation to worshipping
these fictitious representations and remarks, that " the
" objections to worshipping the attributes are not satis-
" factorily stated by the author." I consequently repeat
the following authorities, which I hope may answer my
purpose. The following are the declarations of the
Ved: " He who worships any God excepting the
Supreme Being, and thinks that he himself is distinct
" and inferior to that God, knows nothing, and is
" considered as a domestic beast of these gods." A
" state even so high as that of Brahma does not afford
" real bliss." " Adore God alone." " None but the
" Supreme Being is to be worshipped ; nothing excepting
" him should be adored by a wise man." I repeat also
the following text of the Vedant: " The declaration of
" the Ved, that those that worship the celestial gods are
" the food of such gods, is an allegorical expression, and
" only means, that they are comforts to the celestial
"gods as food to mankind ; for he who has no faith in
" the Supreme Being is rendered subject to these gods.
" The Ved affirms the same."
And the revered Sankaracharya has frequently