O, Thou, the Beginning, the Middle, the Limitless Limit, The Light, and the Wisdom, and All Things Manifest, The Indivisible One, The Female and the Male. Glory, Glory to Thy Dance in Tillai, The Intellectual Region of Universalism.

O, Thou, the Light from which speech and thought turn back, The very Form of Grace, The Wonderful Presence, The Crown resting on the rare Vedasiras, In the beautiful Chit-Sabha of Chit-Para-Vyoma, Thou dost dance delightedly. Glory, Glory, to Thy tinkling Foot.

O Thou Imperishable Triple Form, and Formless! O Thou Supreme,

Intelligence working steadfast in the six forms of Religion!

Who could know Thee after raising the curtain of Maya ?

Thou dost dance in the hearts of Those who think of Thee,

Thou art the Priceles Jewel; I Thou my eye;

Thou, the Supreme Panacea;

Thou the Ocean of Chinmudra Wisdom,

Who didst teach the four ancient sons,

Mauna Jnana from under the Sacred Banyan Tree

Thou, the Deva of Devas.

The first two verses we quote from Saint Sekkilar's Periyapuran and the last from Saint Tayumanavar, in praise of the famous Temple at Chidambaram and the sacred mysteries contained therein. We have elsewhere observed that even if we have lost our books on Veda and Vedanta, we could evolve the whole thing again from the symbols we possess, provided we had the tiny key to unlock these sacred mysteries. The hoariest and most ancient wisdom is thus enshrined in these unmistakable symbols, and when we understand them aright, we are enabled to test and know which is the true Philosophy and which is the true Religion, surrounded as we are to-day by a multitude of Religions and Philosophies conflicting in themselves and yet claiming to be the most ancient and the truest. It is the most unfortunate thing, in India and in Indian Religion, that the same books and the same texts furnish the authority and the sanction for every existing phase of belief and thought, and when this fact is coupled with such a blind ignoring of what is past and what is modern, and when the materials for applying such an historical test are not very considerable, the task of deciding which is the true interpretation and which is false, is rendered very difficult, though not impossible, and the value of a test as indicated above, cannot be lost sight of.

In interpreting documents, the rule ought no doubt to be, that where the words are plain and unambiguous, the plain meaning of the words ought to be made to prevail, and no casuistry could be all6wed to mar the effects of its plain meaning. It is only when the words are ambiguous, any interpretation as to its real meaning by other evidence is permissible at all. Then, again, when we begin to enquire into the truth of any particular custom and tradition, we find how difficult it is to arrive at an uniform conclusion, when we have to rely on mere oral evidence; and any documentary evidence (we use it in the strictly legal sense) if available, is of the utmost importance, and the older the document, the greater the value thereof. Then, again, consider the difference between the verbal accounts of a dozen people who witnessed a particular scene all at the same time, and the actual scene photographed by an ordinary Kodak. We might be sure to discover discrepancies and contradictions in the oral testimony, though it might be perfectly honest. Of course, there might be exceptionally trustworthy witnesses, as there might be untrustworthy cameras. The test we have proposed above, may, as such, be seen to possess all the elements of an old and ancient document, and a trusty camera.

And the more so, when we know, as a matter of fact, that the written language of the primitive mankind consisted of pictures only. The most ancient Sumerian, the Chaldean, the Egyptian and the Chinese, were all pictorial languages; and it is well known that these were the people who have tried to leave their highest thoughts on religion and philosophy behind them, in pictures and statues and monuments.

In proceeding therefore to unravel the mysteries connected with our symbolism, we must confess that the task is not one which we can conscientiously think of adequately discharging. In attempting the impossible therefore, we have no other excuse than the one which Sage Sekkilar had before him:

"Though impossible to reach its limits, Insatiate love drives me to the task."

Before we do so however, we have to get clear of two sets of men, who pester us often with their cant. One of such will raise the cry of sectarianism, and the other, with the catch-word, revivalism. There are some very estimable people belonging to both these classes, we admit, as well as their sincerity, but with most it is all mere cant, pure and unmitigated cant. They believe neither in the one nor in the other; they have neither inclination nor wish to study and think, and pause and enquire into the truth of things. They are themselves sectarians, so blind that they will not acknowledge themselves to be such. They start with the inborn conviction that this is trash and they have no patience with those who will honestly differ from them, and they clutch at a word, a phrase, to kick up a dust, with the evident object of besmearing the other side. No doubt, there is a sort of scepticism which we prize much, a scepticism which will lead one to doubt and inquire into the truth of things and not to scorn and scoff at everything. And in our inmost heart, we do not wish to wound the feelings of a single person, of whatever shade of opinion he may belong to.