And you might say they came next because they denied the existence of God admitted by Theists. Yet such is the argument covered up in statements frequently made that, of the six systems of Philosophy, one was first and the other arose out of it. They do not at all refer to any historical growth or chronological order. Even in the days of Rig Veda they believed in Gods and in one God, and we presume there were unbelievers also. Mr. Johnstone is also wrong in saying that the postulate of three powers of nature - we presume he means Satva, Rajas and Tamas - is peculiar to the Sankhya, as also the divisions of Jnatha, Jneyam and Jnanam. We fail to understand what he means by Sankhya Yoga reconciler. Sankhya, if Kabila's (Pure atheism) postulated no God and Yoga postulated God. And is there any meaning where one talks of a book reconciling Atheism and Theism? And of course, another writer talks similarly of Vedanta-Sankhya reconciler. In every school there are certain postulates or padarthas which are affirmed and some which are denied.

Some postulate only one padartha, some two, some three and some none, and are we to talk of reconciling these, one with the other, simply because one of the postulates, very often things and their qualities which could not be denied by any one, is common to all or some? This is often the kind of writing that passes for sound knowledge and liberalism and universal philosophy. We dare say the Vedanta as understood by San-kara was not even in existence at the time of the battle of Kurukshetra nor was it probably known to the writer of the Mahabharata and Gita, in his days whenever he wrote it. The whole Mahabharata has to be studied to know what the teach-ing of Gita is and in its historical surroundings. The phrase 'Sankhya and Yoga' is used throughout the Mahabharata as often as possible and in such conjunctions where the meaning is unmistakeable as referring to the postulate of a Supreme Being.* If Kabila † is praised by Krishna as the greatest among sages, it is because the same book Mahabharata shows elsewhere, how Kabila from being an atheist was afterwards converted to the knowledge of God, and as all such converts, he obtained greater glorification at the hand of his quandom opponents.

And as we have shown elsewhere that the Gita is a clear controversial treatise, he could not do better than cite Kabila himself, who gave up his former faith, in refutation of the school of Atheistic Sankhya. Scholars have observed how the writer of the Uttara Mimamsa Sariraka Sutras spends all his energy and skill in refuting the Sankhya and only casually notices the other schools, it being the reason that in the days of Vyasa and Krishna the Atheistic Sankhya school was the most predominant, in the same way as in later times, Buddhism and Jainism came to have a larger share of treatment in the hands of Hindu saints and writers. It has also to be noticed that the word Vedanta nowhere occurs in the Gita or other Upanishats as meaning Sankara's system and the Brahmavadin has, as such, taken a broader platform, in pro-perly including under the term, both Advaita of Sankara, the Dvaita and Visishtadvaita systems and we now hear of Advaita Vedanta, Dvaita Vedanta etc., though the Western habit of calling Sankara's system as Vedanta is still used confusingly enough by people, as in the passage we quoted above from the Brahmavadin 'the later Vedantic sense.' (The other Indian schools, be it noted, do not indeed call Sankara's system Vedanta or Advaita but have other names for it).

* of The following passages in the Anusasana Parva.

"I seek the protection of Him whom the Sankhyas describe and the Yogins think of as the Supreme, the foremost, the Purusha, the Pervader of all things and the Master of all existent objects " etc. etc.

"I solicit boons from Him who cannot be comprehended by argument, who represents the object of the Sankhya and the Yoga systems of Philosophy and who transcends all things, and whom all persons conversant with the topics of enquiry worship and adore."

"The which is Supreme Brahman, that which is the highest entity, that which is the end of both the Sankhyas and the Yogins, is without doubt identical with thee."

† of. The same Parva pp. 140 and 141. P. C. Roy's edition.

"After this, Kabila, who promulgated the doctrines that go by the name of Sankhya, and who is honoured by the gods themselves said - I adored Bhava with great devotion for many lives together. The illustrious deity at last became gratified with me and gave me knowledge that is capable of aiding the acquirer in getting over rebirth."

The Temple at the foot of Tirupati hill is called Kabilesvara and is the place where tradition says the sage worshipped Bhava or Siva.

Mr. Johnstone no doubt says that Krishna quotes directly from many Upanishats (one writer is carried away by his veneration for Gita to say that the Upanishats quote from the Gita!) and a number of verses, notably in the second book (we should like to know very much what they are), which have the true ring of the old sacred teachings, and yet art not in them (in which?) as they now stand. And then he airs his theory that Vedanta is the peculiar birth-right of the Kshatriyas and not of Brahmans. The reason why this unacknowledged quota tions in the Gita and other similar books are found, is that every Brahman in the olden days had committed to memory the whole of the Vedas and Vedanta (Upanishats) and as such when they wrote and when they spoke, these old thoughts and verses very naturally flowed from their pen and their mouths,* and it is never the habit of the Indian scholar to quote his authority, chapter and verse. And we come to the fact that the whole of the chapters 9, 10 and 11 of the Gita is a mere reproduction and a short abstract of that central portion of the whole Vedas, called the Satarudriya of the Yajur Veda. What is called transfiguration is the Visvasvarupa Darsana, or the vision of the lord as the All, as manifested in the whole universe.