ing soul. Other deities, belonging to those several regions, are portions of the (three) gods; for they are variously named and described, on account of their different operations; but (in fact) there is only one deity; the great soul (Mahan atma). He is called the sun, for he is the soul of all beings; (and) that is declared, by the sage, "the sun is the soul of (jagat) what moves, and of (tast'hush) that which is fixed." Other deities are portions of him: and that is expressly declared, by the sage; The wise call fire, Indra, Mithra, and Varun'a, &c.' We cannot wonder at the degraded state in which the human mind has remained, in Hindostan, for so many centuries, when we see the doctrines of their religion involved in so much absurdity. In another part of the Vedas, a human form is said to have been first created, by the universal soul. From different parts of this body, almost all the various furniture of the universe was produced. These different parts of the creation were gods, who, entering into the human form, became the very parts and faculties, which, as we have been told just before, produced these gods.* Nothing existed before the production of mind, say the Vedas, except death, who desirous of acquiring a soul, framed mind.f They inform us, in another place, that the primeval being, afraid, as it would appear, because he was alone, considered that, as there was no other person or thing, he had no cause for fear.t In another part, we are furnished with a legend, the scope of which it is to teach that heaven is the head of the universal soul; the sun, its eye; air, its breath; the ethereal element, its trunk; water its abdomen; and the earth its feet. * Asiatic Researches, Vol. 8. p. 421, 422. † Ibid. p. 439. VOL. I. Ibid. p. 440. Ibid. p. 468. Yet this is the pure and rational religion which Ram Mohun Roy wishes to clear from subsequent abuses, and to restore to its original excellence. Surely he could not find in christianity, were he to take the trouble to examine its pretentions, any thing, to which, as a philosopher, he is bound to be so hostile, as that religion of the Vedas, around whose standard he wishes his countrymen to rally. But how does it happen that this religion has become so corrupted. We are informed, by Mr. Coleridge, who has examined the Vedas with much attention, that they either mention, or indicate most of the gods which are at present worshipped in the Indian peninsula.* It is therefore of but little moment that other sacred writings, whose authority Ram Mohun Roy does not deny, together with the influence of custom, during a long succession of years, have given a new aspect to the national religion. Many subsequent fables, would naturally spring up, with the efflux of time, and be added to the old stock, and it avails but little against idolatry, that its more modern forms should be excepted to, while it remains prescribed in those very books which assert the divine unity. But we return to a survey of the pamphlet of Ram Mohun Roy. 'I cannot admit,' says he,' that the worship of these attributes, under various representations, by means of consecrated objects, has been prescribed, by the Ved, to the human race:' as this kind of worship of consecrated objects is enjoined, by the Sastra, to those only, who are incapable of raising their minds to the notion of an invisible Supreme Being. I have quoted several authorities for this assertion, in my preface to the Ishopanishad, and beg leave to repeat here one or two of them. The vulgar look for their God in water, men of more extended knowledge, in celestial bodies: the ignorant in wood, bricks, and stones: but learned men in the universal soul.' Thus corresponding to the nature of different powers, or qualities, numerous figures have * Asiatic Researches, vol. 8. p. 495. been invented for the benefit of those who are not possessed of sufficient understanding.' If we mistake not, Ram Mohun Roy, in the preceding extract, gives up his cause. It appears that the Sastra, or scriptures of the Hindus, have prescribed idolatry to much the largest portion of the human race, to wit, the ignorant. If the authors of these works, intending to establish a permanent religion directed a class of society which would, probably, always be numerous to use idolatry, Ram Mohun Roy cannot, on the authority of the founders of his religion, pretend to disturb the practices of a great majority of his countrymen. If he teaches monotheism to the enlightened, merely, and only wishes to enlarge that class, leaving the rest to idolatry, then the general position that the Vedas prescribe the pure worship of one God, should be qualified, in conformity with those writings, so as to admit that while they teach the divine unity to one class of mankind, they also teach polytheism to another. On the absurdity and inconsistency of such a system it is scarcely necessary to remark. In his second pamphlet we find Ram Mohun Roy, again giving up the question, as we apprehend, in the same manner, as appears by the subjoined extract. 'In that work,' (to wit, the preface to the Ishopanishad,) 'I admitted that the worship of these deities was directed by the Shastra: but, at the same time, I proved, by their own authority, that this was merely a confession made to the limited faculties of the vulgar, with the view of remedying, in some degree, the misfortune of their being incapable of comprehending and adopting the spiritual worship of the true God. Thus in the aforesaid preface, I remarked; for they (the Poorans, Puntras, &c.) repeatedly declare God to be one, and above the apprehension of the external and internal senses. They indeed expressly declare the divinity of many gods, and the mode of their worship; but they reconcile those contradicting assertions by affirming frequent ly that the directions to worship any celestial beings, are only applicable to those who are incapable of elevating their minds to the ideas of an invisible being.' It is a fact too plainly established by history to admit of any dispute, that all religions except the true one, involve in themselves contradictions and absurdities too glaring for the consent of any rational being. The modern deist, like the ancient Epicurean, considers that the Deity is a being so little concerned with his affairs as to require from him no regard or worship. The wisest of ancient philosophers, never pretend to devise or execute a suitable system of religious worship to the one true God. The Greek and Roman polytheist ascribed to his gods the most degrading vices. Mohomedan paradise consists in sensual pleasure. And Ram Mohun Roy, after having properly argued against Hindu idolatry from the grossly immoral pages of the Poorans and Puntras, and after having cited without contradiction the hyperbolical representation that the former of these books enjoins the worship of 330,000,000 of deities, gravely places both these writings, in our last extract, among the Shasta, or sacred scriptures of his religion, and accounts for their direct inculcation of false doctrines, as we suppose he would do for the vile immoralities which they depict, as a charitable condescension to the character of the mass of mankind. Captiousness, or the desire of novelty may lead men off from the true faith, among us, as the extinction of original light has done the Hindus; but all wanderers, however they may be pleased for a time with their ingenious phantasies, would find reason, were they capable of sufficient consideration, for acquiescing in mysteries which they cannot unravel, rather than submit to the absurdities in which they are always involved. The Vedas, Ram Mohun Roy, and the brahmin against whose defence of idolatry his second pamphlet is directed, seem to be united in a common confusion on the subject of the existence of their celestial gods. Ram Mohun Roy quotes the following passage from the Vedant.. Vyas affirms that it is prescribed also to celestial gods and heavenly beings to attain a knowledge of the Supreme Being, because a desire of absorption is equally possible for them.' And the following from the Vedas: From him (the Supreme Being) celestial gods of many descriptions, Siddha, or beings next to celestial gods, mankind, beasts, birds, life, wheat, and barley, all are produced.' In the above passages, the inferior divinities, worshipped by the Hindus, are treated as beings having an actual created existence. But it will be remembered that Ram Mohun Roy, as well as his opponent, in the first pamphlet had considered them merely as personified attributes of the Deity. And he charges this contradiction on the Vedas in the following terms. The Ved, having, in the first instance, personified all the attributes and powers of the Deity, and also the celestial bodies and natural elements, does, in conformity to this idea of personification, treat of them, in the subsequent passages, as if they were real beings, ascribing to them birth, animation, senses, and accidents, as well as liability to annihilation.' But he stigmatizes his opponent in the second pamphlet with this inconsistency, in the ensuing passage. In p. 24. l. 10., the learned brahmin states that The Vedant, itself, in treating of the several deities, declares them to be possessed of forms, and their actions and enjoyments are all dependant on their corporeal nature.' But (p. 21. l. 19.) he says; Because the male and female deities, whose being I contend for, are nothing more than accidents existing in the Supreme Being.' He thus at one time considers these deties as possessed of a corporeal nature, and, at another, declares them to be mere accidents in God; which are quite inconsistent with the attribute of corporeality. I am, really, at a loss to un |