DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9550#0215
MONOTHEISTICAL SYSTEM OF THE VEDS. 107
that a description of it is prohibited by common
decency, or in a shape so ridiculous as that piebald
kite called Kshyemunkuree, and that of another bird
called Neelkunth, or of jackals, &c. And it is equally
difficult to believe that a rational being can make use
of such objects to bring the All-perfect Almighty Power
to his recollection.
He further says (p. 31,1. 32) : " If any one assert
" that the case is otherwise, that the deities, mankind,
",the heavens, and other objects have an existence
" independent of God, that faith in him is sufficient
" without worship, that they (the deities) cannot meet
" with reverence, how can that person affect to
" disbelieve the doctrine of independent existence,
" or assert that he is a believer in universality, or a
"follower of the Vedant?" To acquit myself from
such gross but unfounded accusation as that of my
believing material existence to be independent of God,
I repeat a few passages from the abridgment of the
Vedant. (P. 6, 1. 8): " Nothing bears true existence
excepting God." Again in 1. 9, " The existence of
whatever thing that appears to us, relies on the existence
of God." Besides, there is not, I am confident, a
single assertion in the whole of my publications, from
which the learned Brahmun might justly infer that I
believed in the independent existence of deities,
mankind, the heavens, or other objects. The public,
by an examination of these works, will be enabled to
judge how far the learned Brahmun has ventured to
brave public opinion, in the invention of arguments
for the defence ot idolatry.
He again says (p. 34, 1. 28) : " If, by the practice
that a description of it is prohibited by common
decency, or in a shape so ridiculous as that piebald
kite called Kshyemunkuree, and that of another bird
called Neelkunth, or of jackals, &c. And it is equally
difficult to believe that a rational being can make use
of such objects to bring the All-perfect Almighty Power
to his recollection.
He further says (p. 31,1. 32) : " If any one assert
" that the case is otherwise, that the deities, mankind,
",the heavens, and other objects have an existence
" independent of God, that faith in him is sufficient
" without worship, that they (the deities) cannot meet
" with reverence, how can that person affect to
" disbelieve the doctrine of independent existence,
" or assert that he is a believer in universality, or a
"follower of the Vedant?" To acquit myself from
such gross but unfounded accusation as that of my
believing material existence to be independent of God,
I repeat a few passages from the abridgment of the
Vedant. (P. 6, 1. 8): " Nothing bears true existence
excepting God." Again in 1. 9, " The existence of
whatever thing that appears to us, relies on the existence
of God." Besides, there is not, I am confident, a
single assertion in the whole of my publications, from
which the learned Brahmun might justly infer that I
believed in the independent existence of deities,
mankind, the heavens, or other objects. The public,
by an examination of these works, will be enabled to
judge how far the learned Brahmun has ventured to
brave public opinion, in the invention of arguments
for the defence ot idolatry.
He again says (p. 34, 1. 28) : " If, by the practice