We refer to an article entitled 'Wisdom and Worship' in an issue of the Brahmavadin dated 5th June 1897. The first paragraph is devoted to the statement and exposition of the two postulates of existence, according to the Sankhyas, namely Nature and Souls, and the next paragraph shows how untenable this theory is, in the view of the Vedantin, and the article proceeds in its first half to expound the view of the Vedantin, on the same subject. As the article deals with some of the most fundamental questions connected with Hindu Philosophy, we proceed to-day to examine some of these statements contained in the first part of the article only, leaving the question of worship to be discussed hereafter. According to Sankhya, there is Nature (Pradhana), which changes and manifests all phenomena, and there are an infinite number of Souls, which being simple cannot change, and must, therefore, be different from Nature. Nature works out all phenomena for the liberation of the Soul, and Liberation consists in the Soul discriminating that it is not nature (Pradhana). The Soul is omnipresent also. The Vedantin answers that this is not a perfect sytem.

If Nature is simple, and the Soul is also simple, there will be two simples, and the Soul being omnipresent, Nature must be omnipresent also, and then Nature will be beyond time, space and all causation, and no change is possible as such in Nature. There is thus an impossibility of having two simples and two absolutes. How does the Vedantin solve this problem? His solution is this: - "Because, according to the Sankhyan there must be a Soul apart from Nature, for the reason that Nature in all her modifications, from gross matter up to chitta, or the intellect, is simply insentient (even the mind-stuff being insentient), so, there must be some sentient being as the motive-power behind Nature, making the mind think and Nature work. Now, says the Vedantin, this sentient being, which is behind the whole universe, is what we call God, and consequently this universe is not wholly (the italics are ours) different or apart from Him. It is but Himself, Who has somehow (the italics are ours) become this universe. He is not only the instrumental cause of the universe, but also the material cause thereof.

A cause is never altogether different from its effect, and an effect is but its own cause reproduced in another form." All Vedantins accept these propositions, it is stated, namely first, that God is both the instrumental and material cause of this universe,.and that everything that exists is He; and secondly, that Souls are also part of God, sparks of that Infinite Fire, and an Upanishat Text is quoted in proof of this. No, it is said further down, it is no spark, but the burning log itself, in as much as Brahman can have no parts. ' Then how can there be so many souls ?' We are led into another simile, the oft-repeated simile of the Sun and its myriad reflections in different particles of water: "so all these Souls are but reflections of Brahman and are not real. They are not the real ' I,' the One undivided Being; men, women, brutes are mere reflections of Him, and are unreal." There is but one Infinite Being, and he appears as 'you' and 'me', and the appearance of distinctions, is all a delusion. This apparent division of Him is caused by looking at Him through the net-work of time and space and causation. The Ego is He, the Non-Ego is He. They are not part of Him, but the whole of Him. "It is the Eternal Knower Who stands behind all phenomena; He Himself is the phenomena.

He is both the subject and object, He is the Ego and the Non-Ego." Here we might pause, before we proceed to the rest of the paragraphs.

In the first place, we must beg leave to state that the criticism of the Sankhya proceeds on a mere word-quibble; the word that is translated 'simple' is, we believe, 'Avyaktam,' that source of fruitful dispute between a number of learned heads, like the late Mr. T. Subba Rao, the Light of the Easi, the Thinker and the Brahmavddin itself etc., etc., i. e., where the word occurs in the Gita. The whole mistake is, no doubt, due to not remembering that this word, and others like Prana, Purusha, Atma, Kshetra, etc., are used in the older works in a number of acceptations, and any argument based on such a verbal semblance, is sure to end in fatal error. Now in regard to this word 'Avyakta', it is used in the 10th sutra of the Sankhya-Karika, to distinguish Mulaprakriti from its own products; and the Commentator no doubt says that the distinction might apply to the Soul also. The word might itself be applied to the Soul, but then it only means, 'uncaused' and 'causeless'. And Colebrooke translates it as 'undiscrete'. The 3rd Sutra makes clear this distinction in the very beginning, "Nature is no production; seven principles are productions and productive; sixteen are productions (unproductive). The Soul is neither a production nor productive." Herein lies all the difference, between the Soul as Avyakta and Nature (Pradhana) as Avyakta, and the mental and sensory planes.

Nature itself occupies a higher position, is more pervasive than the Intellect, and Intellect is more pervasive than the senses, and so on. That is to say, Intellect is omnipresent, and senses are not, when in relation to the senses themselves. But Intellect is not, when in relation to Pradhana, and Pradhana is omnipresent so far as regards its own productions, but its omnipresence is nothing when in the presence of the Soul, since the latter is the superintendent, the enjoyer, and the former ceases to exist when the Soul is in a state of abstraction. As such, the word 'omnipresence' itself is a relative term, as 'space' itself is, and it is absurd to conclude that since both are called simple and omnipresent, ergo, they must be two absolutes, and two such impossible things. We will explain ourselves more fully. Take, for instance, the five senses, the eye, the ear, etc. The eye covers a certain sphere in its operation, but it is limited; it cannot comprehend what the ear can perceive, and the ear cannot do what the nose can feel, and so on. Each sense, in fact, is limited and unpervasive; but take the Intellect in connection with this. The Intellect is omnipresent. It both sees and hears and smells etc.