tettMStf 
 
 
 3 1 £9 
 
 A i s /3 
 
 1 H& 
 
 Cf V U 5 <s 
 
 1J 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 / A 
 
 -$- Z , ^ 
 
 '/ 
 
 * 
 
 A 
 
 secants ®efe»ce 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MONQTHEISTlCAL SYSTEM 
 
 o? 
 
 THE YEDSj 
 
 IN REPLY TO 
 
 Sit Stpoloofi? fot tfje present 
 
 state 
 
 OF 
 
 HINDOO WORSHIP. 
 
 BY RAMMOHUN ROY. 
 
 : 
 
 PRIST ZD AT CALCUTTA * 
 1811 
 

 4 . • . A -I 
 
 
 T 
 
 ’ - * i 
 
 ; c. c . 
 
 > ' ^ :■ 
 
 , . -• 
 
 . f 
 
 
 t 1 
 
 c : 
 
 
 r V 
 
 : • 
 
 ... 
 
 4 
 
 
 *’ 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
C 1 ] 
 
 The learned Brahman in his defence of 
 idolatry thus begins : “ Let it not be suppos- 
 
 “ ed that, the following treatise has been 
 f( written with a view to refute, the doctrines 
 (C of those assuming’ inventors and self-inter- 
 “ ested moderns” &c. ff It is solely with 
 " the intention of expressing the true mean- 
 f ‘ ing of these authorities that this brief trea- 
 “ tise has been composed” : and he thus con 
 eludes: “ The vedant chundrica, or lunar 
 * “ light of the vedant, has thus been made 
 
 “ apparent, and thus the glow-worm’s light 
 has been eclipsed ” It is very much to be feared 
 that, from the perusal of this treatise, called 
 the lunar light of the vedant, but filled up 
 with* satirical fables, -j* abusive expressions, and 
 
 * P, 1st L. 26th; P. 2nd L. 17th, P. 19 
 and 20lh, margin. 
 
 t P- 1st, P. 3rd L. 9th, P. 8th L. 
 17 th, P. 38th L. 14th, P. 48th L. 19th. 
 &c. &c. 
 
 A 
 
contradictory assertions, sometimes admitting 
 monotheism, but at the same time blending 
 with it and defending polytheism, *J- those 
 foreign gentleman, as well as those na- 
 tives of this country who are not acquainted 
 with the real tenets of the Vedant, might ore 
 a superficial view, form a very (unfavourable 
 opinion of that theology., which however treats with 
 perfect consistency of the unity and nniver= 
 sality of the Supreme. Being, and forbids 
 positive!}', treating with contempt or behaving 
 ill toV{ k'i'ds any creature whatsoever. 
 
 As to the satire* ano! abuse, neither my edu, 
 cation permits any return by means of similar 
 language, nor docs the system of my religion 
 admit even a desire of unbecoming retaliation : 
 situated as 1 am, I must bear them tranquilly. 
 
 Besides ; a sect of people, who are apt to 
 make use of the most foul language, when 
 
 * P. 13th L . 14th, 
 
 f Vide the " Apology,” passim. 
 
[ 3 ] 
 
 they f ee ] angry with their supposed deities,* 
 cannot of course be expected, when irritated 
 with contradiction, to pay due attention, un- 
 less checked by fear, to the propriety of the 
 U9e of decent expressions, either in common 
 conversation, or in religious controversy. 
 
 The total sum of the arguments, set forth as 
 far as page 13 of the translation of this trea- 
 tise, (however inconsistent they are with each 
 other,) seems intended to prove that, faith in the 
 Supreme Being, when united with moral 
 works, leads men to eternal happiness. 
 
 This doctrine, I am happy to observe. 
 
 * As may be observed when at the annual festival 
 of Juggunnath, the car, in which he is conveyed, 
 happens to be impeded in its progress by any 
 unseen obstacle. In this case, the difficulty is 
 supposed to be occasioned by the malicious op- 
 position of that god, on whom the most 
 gross abuse is liberally bestowed by his devotees. 
 
C * ] 
 
 strongly corroborates every assertion, that I 
 have made in my translation ; a few para- 
 
 graphs of which 1 beg leave to repeat here, 
 for the satisfaction of my readers. — In the 
 abridgment of the Vedant, page 11th: “ The 
 Vedant shews that, moral principle is a 
 part of the adoration of God, viz. a 
 
 command over passions and over the ex- 
 * f ternal senses of the body, and good acts, 
 ff are declared by the ved to be iridispensi- 
 “ ble in the mind’s approximation to God ; 
 
 they should therefore be strictly taken care 
 <e of, and attended to, both previously and 
 
 “ subsequently to such approximation to the 
 “ Supreme Being ; that is to say, we should 
 not indulge our evil propensities, but should 
 “ endeavour to have entire control over them : 
 reliance on and self-resignation to the on- 
 ly true Being, with an aversion to worldly 
 considerations, are included in the good acts 
 
 above alluded to.” In the introduction to 
 
 • , 
 
 the Ishopanished (page 5.) cc Under these 
 impressions, therefore, I have been impelled 
 
t 5 3 
 
 “ to lay before them genuine translation? of 
 parts of tl eir scriptures, which inculcate 
 ,l not only the enlightened worship of One God, 
 “ but the purest principles of morality.’' Hut 
 
 the learned Brainin asserts, in two instances, 
 among arguments above noticed, that, the wor- 
 ship of a favoured deity and that of an image, 
 are also considered to be acts of morality. 
 The absurdity of this assertion will be shown 
 afterwards, in considering the subjects of idol- 
 worship. To english readers however it may be 
 proper to remark that, the Sung scrit word which 
 signifies ivorks, is not to be understood in the 
 same sense, as that which it implies in Christian 
 theology, when works are opposed to faith. 
 Christians understand by works, actions of 
 moral merit ; whereas Hindoos use the term 
 in their theology, only to denote religious rites 
 and ceremonies prescribed by hindoo law- 
 givers, which are often irreconcilable with the 
 commonly received maxims of moral duty ; As 
 for instance the crime of suicide prescribed to 
 
C 6 i 
 
 widows, by Ungeera, and to pilgrims at holy 
 places, by the Nursingh and Koorma Porans, 
 
 I do not, therefore, admit that works, taken in 
 the latter sense, (that is the different religions 
 acts prescribed by the Sastra to the different 
 classes of Hindoos respectively) are necessary to 
 attain divine faith, or that they are indispensa, 
 ble accompaniments of holy knowledge ; for the 
 Vedant in the chapter 3rd, section 4, text3?th, 
 positively declares that the true knowledge of 
 God may be acquired without observing the 
 rules and rites prescribed by the Sastra to each 
 class of Hindoos ; and also, examples are fre- 
 quently found in the Ved, of persons, who, 
 though they neglected the performance of reli- 
 gious rites and ceremonies, attained divine 
 knowledge and absorption, by control over their 
 passions and senses, and by contemplation of the 
 Ruler of the universe. Menu the first and 
 chief of all hindoo lawgivers, confirms 
 
 the same doctrines in describing the duties of 
 laymen in the texts 22nd, 23rd and 21th of the 4th 
 
C 1 i 
 
 chapter of his work : and in the Bhashya, or Con*' 
 mentaries on the Ishopanishead and on the 
 other upanishads of the \eds, the illustrious 
 Sankaracharjya declared the attainment of faith 
 in God, and the adoration of the Supreme 
 Being, to be entirely independent of brah- 
 minical ceremonies ; and the V e d affirms that, 
 “ Many learned true believers never worship* 
 ** ped fire nor any celestial god through fire.’* 
 The learned Bfahmun, although he has ac- 
 knowledged himself in p. 9th. line 6th. of 
 his treatise, that, “ In the opinion of San* 
 “ karacharjya the attainment of absorption 
 “ does not depend on works of merit,” 
 (or properly speaking on religious rites,) 
 ydt forgetting the obedience he has express- 
 ed to be due to the instruction * of that 
 celebrated commentator, has immediately con- 
 tradicted his opinion, when he says in p„ 
 
 * P. 2 L . 1* 
 
9. 1. 9.— — <r It has also been ascertained 
 
 ' f that acts of merit/’ (brahminical rites) 
 
 “ must be performed previously to the at- 
 * ( tainment of divine knowledge /’ for, if di- 
 vine knowledge were to be dependent on 
 the observance of brahminical rites, and absorp- 
 tion dependent on divine knowledge, it would 
 follow necessarily, that absorption would depend 
 on brahminical rites, which is directly con- 
 trary to the opinion of the commentator 
 
 quoted by the learned Brahmuii himself. 
 
 Moreover the learned Brahmun at first 
 states (p. 11th. 1. I2th.) that, “ In the 
 
 “ ancient writers we read that a know- 
 t( ledge of Brahm, or holy knowledge, is 
 “ independent of acts” (religious rites;) but 
 he again contradicts this statement, and en- 
 
 deavours to explain it away, p. 1 1th. I. 
 24th. “ Thus when the Sastras state that 
 
 “ absorption may be attained even though 
 the sacrificial fires be neglected, the praise 
 of that holy knowledge is intended, but 
 
C 9 ] 
 
 not the depreciation of meritorious acts, (brahmi- 
 “ nical rites.) Here he chuses to accuse his 
 scripture and ancient holy writers, of exagger- 
 ated and extravagant praise of holy know- 
 ledge, rather than that the least shock should 
 be given by their authority to the structure 
 of paganism and idolatry. From this instance the 
 public may perceive, how zealous the learned 
 Brahmun, and his brethren are, in respect to 
 the preservation of their fertile estate of ido- ' 
 latry, when they are willing to sacrifice to 
 it, even their own scriotnral authorities. 
 
 Upon a full perusal of the treatise, it appears, that 
 the arguments employed bv the learned Brahmun 
 have no other object, than to support the 
 weak system of idol-worship ; in as much 
 as he repeatedlv declares, that the adoration of 
 330,000000 deities, especially the principal ones, 
 such as, Siva, Vishnu, Kali, Gunesh, the sun 
 and others, through their several images, has 
 been enjoined by the Shastras, and sanctioned 
 
 B 
 
[ 10 ] 
 
 by custom. I am not a little surprized to observe, 
 that after having perused my Preface to the 
 Ishopanishad in Bengali, (of which during 
 the last twelve months I have distributed near- 
 ly five hundred copies amongst all descriptions of 
 Hindoos) the learned Brahinun has offered no 
 objection to what J have therein asserted, relative 
 to the reason assigned by the same Shastras, as 
 well for the injunction to worship these figured 
 beings, as for the general prevalence of idol 
 worship in this country, 
 
 In that work I admitted, that the worship of 
 these deities was directed by the Shastra : but, at 
 the same time, I proved by their own authori- 
 ty, that this was merely a concession made to 
 the limited faculties of the vulgar, with the 
 \iew of remedying in some degree, the mis- 
 fortune of their being incapable of comprehend-; 
 ing and adopting the spiritual worship of the 
 true God. Thus, in the aforesaid preface, I re- 
 marked ; for they (the Poorans, Tuntras, &ca.) 
 repeatedly declare God to be o'h£, and above 
 
C n 3 
 
 *' the apprehension of the external and internal 
 “ senses. They indeed expressly declare the di- 
 “ vinity of many gods, and the mode of their 
 “worship; but they reconcile those contradicting 
 “ assertions by affirming- frequently that, the di- 
 “ rections to worship any celestial beings, are 
 “ only applicable to those who are incapable of 
 “ elevating their minds Lo the idea of an invisible 
 “ being.” And, with the view to remove every doubt 
 as to the correctness of my assertion, 1 at 
 the same time quoted the most unquestionable 
 authorities ; a few of which I shall here re- 
 peat. “ T^hus corresponding to the natures of 
 “ different powers and qualities, numerous figures 
 have been invented for the benefit of those who 
 tc are not possessed of sufficient understanding.” 
 “ The vulgar look for their gods in water ; men 
 te of more extended knowledge, in celestial bo- 
 “ dies; the ignorant, in wood, bricks, and stones, 
 “ but learned men in the universal soul.” “It 
 “ is impossible for those who consider pilgcirn- 
 “ age a* devotion, and believe that the divine 
 
[ >2 ] 
 
 4 
 
 “ nature exists in the image, to look up to, 
 
 '* communicate with, to petition, and to serve 
 true believers in God.” 
 
 Such indeed is the prevalent nature of truth, 
 that when to dispute it is impossible, the 
 learned Brahrnun has not been always success- 
 ful in concealing it, even when the admission 
 is most fatal to his- own argument — In P. 28 — 
 L. 34 — he says, “ Bnt to those it is enjoined 
 who from a defective understanding, do not 
 “ perceive that God exists in every thing, that 
 they should worship him through the medi- 
 “ urn of some created object.” In making this 
 acknowledgement the learned Brahmun has 
 confirmed the correctness of all my assertions; 
 thou ah the evident conclusion is that he and all 
 his followers must either immediately give up 
 all pretensions to understanding or forsake ido- 
 latry. 
 
 In my former tract, I not only proved that the a- 
 d oration of the supreme Being in spirit 
 w hs prescribed by the \ ed to men of under** 
 
[ 13 J 
 
 standing, and the worship of the celestial 
 bodies, and their images to the ignorant, but 
 I also asserted that, the Ved actually prohibited 
 the worship of any kind of figured beings, 
 by men of intellect and education. A 
 few of the passages quoted by me in my 
 former publications on which this assertion rests, 
 
 I also beg leave to repeat. 
 
 “ He who worships any god except the 
 “ supreme Being, and thinks that he himself is 
 te distinct and inferior to that God, knows no- 
 " thing, and is considered a domestic beast 
 “ of these gods." A state even so high as that 
 “ of Brahma, does not afford real bliss." 
 " Adore God alone. None but the Supreme 
 “ Being is to be worshipped, nothing excepting 
 •' him should be adored by a wise man." I 
 repeat also the following tex't of the Vedant, 
 “ The declaration of the Ved that, those that 
 ,( worship the celestial gods are the food of 
 <( such gods, is an allegorical expression, and 
 “ only means that they are comforts to the 
 
[ n ] 
 
 te celestial gods, as food to mankind ; for he 
 tc who lias no faith in the supreme Being, i» 
 i( rendered subject to these gods ; The Ved 
 affirms the same.” No reply therefore is, I pre- 
 gume required of me to the arguments adduced by the 
 learned Brahmnn in his treatise' for idol worship ; 
 except that I should offersome additional authorities, 
 confirming exclusively the rational worship of 
 the true God, and prohibiting the worship of 
 the celestial figures and their images. I bt ? g 
 leave accordingly to quote, in the first instance^ 
 a few texts of the Ved.* Men may ac- 
 ,s quire eternal beatitude, * by obtaining a 
 “ knowledge of the supreme Being alone;. 
 tc there is no other way to salvation. ”f 
 ** To those that acquire a knowledge of 
 te him, the ruler cf the intellectual power* 
 
 J I. O 'fit J 
 
 * Sooctu. 
 
 f Catha. 
 
 I OJ sjiolil 
 
[ 15 ] 
 
 e f who is eternal amidst the perishable, universe 
 Cf and is the source of sensation among ail 
 “ animate existences, and who alone assign^, 
 to sc many objects their respective purposes,, 
 cc everlasting beatitude is allotted; but not. 
 “ to those vrho are not possessed of that 
 “ knowledge.” And in the 4,5, 6,7, and 8th 
 texts of the Cenopar.ishud, the Yed has, five 
 times successively, denied the divinity of any 
 specific being, which men in general worship; 
 and has affirmed the divinity of that Being 
 solely, who is beyond description and compre- 
 hension, and out of the reach of the power 
 of vision and of the sense of hearing or of 
 smelling. The most celebrated Sankaracharjya., 
 
 in 
 
 his commentary 
 
 upon these texts 
 
 staler 
 
 tint 
 
 , lest people 
 
 should suppose 
 
 Vish- 
 
 nu. 
 
 Mahadetra., Poven, Indra or any 
 
 other 
 
 to 
 
 be a supreme 
 
 spirit, the Ved 
 
 in this 
 
 passage disavows positively the divinity of 
 all of them. — Again the Yed says.* *' Those 
 
 * Ishopanishad. 
 
[ IS ] 
 
 “ that neglect the contemplation of the 
 u supreme spirit, either by devoting them - 
 “ selves solely to the performance of the 
 rg ceremonies of religion, or by living desti - 
 €c tute of religious ideas, shall, after death, 
 
 <e assume the state of demons, such as that of 
 rt the celestial gods, and of other created 
 tr beings, which are surrounded with the dark- 
 te ness of ignorance.” It will not, I hope, be 
 supposed inconsistent with the subject in ques- 
 tion, to mention in this place, in what manner 
 the Vedant treats of these celestial gods, an d 
 how the Ved classes them among the other 
 beings. The Vedant C. 1st, S. 3d T. 26th, 
 has the following passage. ,r Vyas affirms 
 ct that it is prescribed also to celestial gods 
 <c and heavenly beings to attain a knowledge of 
 <e the supreme being, because a desire of ab- 
 t( sorption is equally possible for them.” And 
 the Ved in the Moonduc Upanishad thus 
 declares, “ From him, who knows all things 
 ff generally and particularly, and who only by 
 
c y> ] 
 
 u his omniscience, created the universe, Bruh- 
 (e ma, and whatever bears appellation, and 
 “ figure as well as food, all are produced. % 
 <( 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 produc- 
 “ ed.” In the Debee Mahatmya a work, 
 which is as much in circulation among the 
 Hindoos as their daily prayer book,f (C. 1st, 
 T. 66th) the creation of Vishnu, Brahma, and 
 Xlahadeva is most distinctly affirmed. 
 
 * The Ved having in the first instance personifF 
 ed 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 w'ere real 
 beings, ascribing to them birth, animation, senses, 
 and accidents, as well as liability to annihilation, 
 f Pooja Patal. 
 
 C 
 
• c 
 
 t is i 
 
 Munnoo the best of ali the commentators 
 of the Veds, says, chap: 12th, text 85th; 
 
 “ Of all those duties, answered Bhrigoo, 
 
 the principal is to acquire ; om the 
 
 “ Upanishad , a true knowledge of the one 
 
 “ Supreme Spirit, that is the most exalted 
 “ of all sciences, because through that 
 (e knowledge eternal beatitude is obtained.” 
 And the Same author in the conclusion of 
 liis work on rites and ceremonies, thus di- 
 rects T, 92nd, C. 12th. “ Thus must the chief of 
 “ the twice born, though he neglect the 
 tf ceremonial rites mentioned in the Slias- 
 “ tras, be deligent in attaining a knowledge 
 ff of God, in controlling his organs of sense, 
 
 “ and in repeating the Yed.” In the 
 Coolarnuva, absorption is not to be ef- 
 ' f fected by the studies of the Veds nor 
 *' by the reading of other Shastras: absorp- 
 « tion is effected by a true knowledge 
 « of the Supreme Being. O 1 Pai^utee 
 « except that knowledge there is no other 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 way to absorption/’ — <f Cast or religious 
 (c order belonging to each sect, is not 
 
 rf calculated to be the cause of eternal 
 " beatitude, nor is the study of Dursbuns 
 
 <c or any other Shastras sufficient to pro- 
 duce absorption; a knowledge of the 
 
 “ Supreme Spirit is alone the cause of 
 
 “ eternal beatitude.” — Muhauervana. f He who 
 “ believes that, from the highest state of 
 ef Brahma to the lowest state of a straw, 
 te all are delusions, and that the one Su- 
 “ preme Spirit is the only true being, 
 “ attains beatitude.” “ Those who believe that the 
 (C divine nature exists in an image made of 
 earth, si one, metal, wood, or of other rftateri- 
 “ als, reap only distress by their auste- 
 “ rilies ; but they cannot without a know- 
 “ ledge of the Supreme Spirit, acquire 
 “ absorption,” 
 
 I am really sorry to observe that, notwithstand- 
 ing these authorities and a thousand others of a 
 similar nature, the learned Brahmun appears al- 
 
C 20 3 
 
 together unimpressed by the luminous man- 
 ner, in which they inculcate the sublime 
 
 simple spiritual belief in, and worship of 
 one God, and that on the contrary, he 
 
 should manifest so much zeal in leading 
 people into an idohitrous belief in the di- 
 vinity of created and perishable beings. 
 
 Idolat- ry as now practised by our coun- 
 trymen, and which the learned Brahmun 
 so zealously supports as conducive to mo- 
 rality, is not only rejected by the Shas- 
 tra9 universally, but must alao be looked 
 upon with great horror by common-sense, 
 as leading directly to immorality and de- 
 structive of social comforts. For every Hin- 
 doo, who devotes himself to this absurd 
 worship, constructs for that purpose a cou- 
 ple of male and female idols, sometimes 
 indecent in form, as representatives of his 
 favourite deities : He is taught and enjoin- 
 
 ed from his infancy (o contemplate and 
 repeat the history of these, as well as of 
 
[ 21 ] 
 
 their fellow deities ; though the actions as* 
 eribed to them be only a continued se- 
 ries of debauchery, sensuality, falsehood, 
 ingratitude, breach of trust and treache- 
 
 ry to friends.* There can be but one o- 
 pinion respecting the moral conduct to be 
 expected of a person, who has been brought 
 up with sentiments of reverence to such 
 
 beings, — who refreshes his memory relative 
 to them almost every day, and . who has 
 been persuaded to believe that, a repetiti- 
 on of the Holt name of one of these 
 deities,* or a trifling present to his image 
 or to his devotee, is sufficient not only 
 
 to purify and free him from all crimes 
 
 whatsoever, but to procure to him future 
 beatitude. 
 
 As to the custom or practice, to which the 
 learned Brahmun so often refers in defence of 
 idolatry, I have already, I presume, explained 
 in the pretace ot the Ishopanishad, the acci- 
 
 * Vid. Note at the end. 
 
[ & ] 
 
 dental circumstances which have caused kM- 
 worship to flourish, throughout the greater 
 part of India; but as the learned Brahmori 
 has not condescended to notice any of my re- 
 marks on this subject, I beg leave to repeat 
 here, a part of them. “ Many learned Brahmans 
 are perfectly aware of the absurdity of idola- 
 try, and are well informed of the nature of the 
 pure mode of divine worship, but as in the rite3, 
 ceremonies and festivals of idolatry they find 
 the source of their comforts and fortune, th’ey 
 not only never fail to protect idol- worship from 
 all attacks, but even advance and encou- 
 rage it to the utmost of their power, by keeping 
 the knowledge of tlieir scriptures concealed 
 from the rest of the people.” And again ; “ It is 
 however evident to every one possessed of com- 
 mon sense, that custom or fashion is quite dif- 
 ferent from divine faith ; the latter proceeding 
 from spiritual authorities and correct reason ingi 
 and the former being merely the fruit of vul- 
 gar caprice. What can justify a man, who- 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 believes in the inspiration of his religious books; 
 in neglecting the direct authorities of the same 
 works, and subjecting himself entirely to cus<* 
 tom and fashion, which are liable to perpetu- 
 al changes, and depend upon popular whim. 
 But it cannot be passed unnoticed, that those, 
 who practise idolatry, and defend it under the 
 shield of custom, have been violating their 
 customs almost every twenty years, for the 
 sake of a little convenience, or to promote 
 their worldly advantages 5 '. Instances of this sort 
 are mentioned atp. 13 and 14 of the preface to the 
 Bengalee translation, (P. 21 English translation 
 of the Ishopanishad) and to those I beg leave 
 to recal the attention of the learned Brahmuu. 
 
 Every reader may observe that, the learned 
 Brahmun in his treatise, written, (as he says) on the 
 doctrines of the Vedani, has generally neg- 
 lected to quote any authority for his asser- 
 tions ; and when he cites the Ved or the 
 Vedant (which he does sometimes) as his au- 
 thority, he carefully omits to mention the text 
 
/ 
 
 Z 2 * ] 
 
 or part to w' icb his assertion refers: The 
 validity of logical controversy, chiefly de- 
 pends upon scripiural authority, but when 
 no authority is offered, the public may 
 judge how far its credibility should extend: 
 I shall, however, make a fevy remarks on 
 the absurd and contradictory assertions with 
 which the treatise abounds. 
 
 The learned Brahmun observes ;* c( But if 
 tf the divine essence itself and not the e- 
 tf nergy be extolled, it will be adored under 
 ff the forms of Brahnta, Vishnu, and Indra 
 
 and other male deities.” And in other 
 places P. 30 L. 27. “ So by paying a- 
 
 te doration to any material object animate 
 ffr or inanimate, the Supreme Being him- 
 *' self is adored.” If the truth of the lat- 
 ter assertion be admitted, (namely that God 
 himself is adored by the adoration of any 
 Iking whatsoever,) no mark of distinction be- 
 
 p. n l. n. 
 
C 25 3 
 
 tween the adoration of any visible objects 
 and male deities will exist; and the for- 
 mer assertion respecting the adoration of 
 
 the Supreme Being through the male deities 
 only, will ap.pear an absurd restriction. 
 
 The learned Brahmun states P. 19 L. 31 
 that, “ If you believe on the authority of 
 
 “ the scriptures, that, there is a Supreme Be- 
 
 “ ing, can you not believe that he is united 
 
 “ to matter?” A belief in God is by no means 
 connected with a belief of his being united 
 to matter : for those that have faith in the 
 
 V 
 
 existence of the ^Almighty, and are endued 
 with common sense, scruple not to confess 
 their ignorance as to his nature or mode of 
 existence in regard to the point of his relation 
 to matter, or to the properties of mtter. 
 How therefore can a belief in God’s being 
 united to matter, be inferred as a necessary 
 consequence of a belief in his existence ? The 
 learned Brahmun again contradicts himself, on 
 
 D 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 this point, (P-38 L. 19.) “ The divine 
 
 " essence being- supernatural and immaterial, s? 
 " knowledge of it, is to be acquired solely frorfi 
 *' revelations. ” 
 
 < i v *. ' 
 
 The learned Brahmun in P. IS L, 4, 
 
 states that, “ A quality cannot exist in- 
 
 “ dependently of its substance, but sub- 
 
 “ stance may exist independently of any qua- 
 
 lity.” Every one possessed of sensation is con- 
 vinced, that a substance is as much depen- 
 dent on the possession of some qualify or quali- 
 ties, for its existence, as a quality an some 
 substance. It is impossible even to imagine a 
 substance divested of qualities. Despoil it a« 
 much as you please, that of magnitude must 
 
 still remain. 1 therefore trust that the pub- 
 
 - * ' *» ’ * 4 
 
 lip will not suppose the above stated doc- 
 trines of the learned Brahmun to have been 
 derived from those of the Vedant. 
 
 It is agajn stated, P. 21 L. 4 that, “ In 
 “ point of fact, if you admit the existence 
 of matter, as far as it regards yourself, 
 
[ 27 ] 
 
 “ with its twenty f >ur accidents, -as confirmed 
 et by universal experience, you can easily 
 ff conceive that the ear*e properties belong' 
 to the Sup rein e Being. ” It. is easy enough 
 for the learned Brail mu n to conceive, that the 
 twenty four properties, which are peculiar 
 to animals, and among which all sources of 
 carnal pleasures are included, belong to his 
 supposed deities; but it is difficult, or rather 
 impossible, for 3 man untainted with idolatrous 
 principles, to ascribe' to God alt such proper- 
 ties as he allows to exist in himself. 
 
 The learned Brahman has drawn an analo- 
 gy between the operation of the charms of 
 the Y’eds, and that of magic; whereon In? says. P. 
 18 L. 1st. “ Cannot the charms of the Ved's ope- 
 f< rate as powerfully as th’ose of magic in produc- 
 <! ing effects where the cause is not present ?” 
 If the foundation of the Veils, is held not to 
 be stronger, as the learned Brail in uu seems 
 to consider it, than that of magic, 1 am 
 
 afraid it w'dl be found to rest on so slender a 
 
C 28 J 
 
 % 
 
 footings that its doctrines will hardly be north 
 discussion. 
 
 In P. 24lh L. IC/th the learned Brahmun 
 states that, te The Yedant itself, in treating of 
 “ the several deities, declares them to be poss- 
 “ essed of forms, and their actions and enjoy- 
 <c ments are all dependent on their corpo- 
 '' real nature." But (P. 21st L I9th) 
 be says ; “ Because the male and female deities, 
 “ whose being 1 contend for, are nothing 
 ‘‘ more than accidents existing in the Supreme 
 “ Being.” 
 
 He thus at one time considers these deities 
 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 under- 
 stand how the learned Brahmun could admit 
 so dark a contradiction into his “ Lunar 
 '• light of the I edant." 
 
 The learned Brahmun in P. 27th L. 6th thus as- 
 similates the worship of the Supreme Being to that 
 
C 29 3 
 
 of an earthly king; saving, f ' Let us drop the di*- 
 “ course concerning a Supreme and Invisible 
 r< Being; (ake an earthly king. It is evident 
 that to serve him, there must be the me- 
 ” dium of materiality. Can service to him 
 
 “ be accomplished otherwise, than by atten- 
 “ dance on his person, praising his qualities 
 
 or some similar method ?” Those who 
 
 believe God to be an almighty f omnisci- 
 ent, and independent existence, which, per- 
 vading the universe, is deficient in no- 
 
 thing; and also know the feeble and depen- 
 dent nature of earthly kings, as liable to sud- 
 den ruin, as harassed by incessant cares and 
 wants, ought never, I presume, to assimi- 
 late the contemplation of the Almighty power 
 with any Corporeal service acceptable to an 
 earthly king. But as by means of this ana- 
 logy, the learned Brahmuit and his brethren, 
 have successfully persuaded their followers to 
 make, in imitation of presents and bribes of- 
 ■ered to princes, pecuniary vows to these sup* 
 
[ 30 ] 
 
 posed deities, to which it would seem rone 
 but the learned Brahmun and Iris brethren 
 have" exclusive claim, — and as such analogy has 
 thus become the source of their comforts and 
 livelihood, 1 shall say no more upon so ten- 
 der a subject. 
 
 He further observes in (P. 22u d L 27th) 
 In reverting to the subject, you af- 
 “ firm, that you admit the existence of matter 
 “ in human beings, because it is evident to 
 
 ** your senses; but deny it with respect to 
 
 God, because if is not evident to your sens- 
 
 ** es” &c. and, " If this be you’r method 
 
 r te of reasoning, it would appear that your 
 “ faith is confined to those objects only, 
 ts which are evident to your senses.’' As far 
 as my recollection’ goes with respect to the 
 contents of my publications, both in the na- 
 tive language and in english, 1 believe, l 
 never denied the materiality of God on the 
 mere ground of its not being evident to our 
 lenses. The assertion which 1 quoted or 
 
[ 3 ! ] 
 
 made use of in my former treatises is, that 
 the nature of the godhead is beyond the 
 
 comprehension* of external and internal 
 senses; which I presume implies neither de- 
 nial of the materiality of God, on the sole 
 ground of ips being invisible, nor the limita- 
 tion of my faith, merely to objects evident 
 to the senses. For many things that far 
 
 surpass the limits of our senses to perceive, 
 or experience to teach, may yet be rendered 
 credible or even demonstrated by inferences 
 drawn from our experience. Such as the mu- 
 tual gravitation of the earth and moon to- 
 
 wards each other, and of both to the sun, 
 which facts cannot he perceived by any of 
 our senses, but may be clearly demonstrated 
 by reasoning drawn from our experience. 
 
 Hence it appears that a thing is justly denied 
 
 * The preface to the Ishopanishad. P. 2 L. 
 9 P 3 L. 2. The abridgement of the Vedant 
 p. 1st aud 2nd. 
 
[ 3 « ] 
 
 only when found contrary to sense and reason* 
 and not merely because it is not perceptible 
 to the senseg. 
 
 1 have now to notice the friendly advice given 
 me by the learned Brahmun in (P. 23 L. 
 
 J6) “ But at all the events divest yourself of the 
 
 “ uneasy sensations you profess to experience, 
 “ at witnessing the worship paid to idols, pre- 
 ft pared at the expence and labour of ano- 
 
 " ther.” In thanking him for his trouble in 
 offering me this counsel, l must however beg 
 
 the learned Brahmun to excuse me, while I 
 
 acknowledge myself unable to follow it ; and 
 that for several reasons. 1st A feeling for the 
 misery and distress of his fellow ere iturcs is, 
 to every one not overpowered by selfish mo- 
 tives, I presume, rather natural than optional., 
 Sndly I, as one of their countrymen, and 
 ranked in the most religious sect, of course 
 participate in the disgrace and ridicule to 
 
 which they have subjected themselves, in defi- 
 ance of their scriptural authority, by the wor- 
 
[ 35 ] 
 
 •hip of idols, very often under the mo S £ 
 shameful forms, accompanied with the foulest 
 language, and most indecent hymns and ges- 
 tures. 3rdly A sense of the duty, which one 
 man owes to another, compels me to exert 
 my utmost endeavours to rescue them from 
 imposition and servitude, and promote their 
 comfort and happiness. 
 
 He farther observes; (P. 30 L. 19) III 
 *' the like manner, the king of kings 
 
 " is served equally by those worship* 
 
 *' pers who are acquainted with his real 
 
 " essence, and by those who only recognize 
 
 *’ him under the forms of the deities ; but in 
 t( the future distribution of rewards, a dis- 
 tinctiou will be made.” As the learned Brah- 
 man confesses, that the same reward is not 
 promised to the worshippers of figured deities 
 as to the adorers of the Supreme Being, it 
 seem3 strange, that he should persist in alleg- 
 ing that God is truly worshipped in the adora- 
 
 E 
 
[ 34 1 
 
 t\on of figured gods; for if the worship be in both 
 the same, the reward bestowed by sl 
 jnst God must be the same to both; but th® 
 rewards are not the same to both, and there- 
 fore the worship of figured deities cannot bfi 
 considered equal to the adoration of God. 
 
 In the same page, L. 7th, he compares. 
 Goff to a, mighty emperor; saying . — ' c As s. 
 
 mighty emperor travels through his king- 
 %< Join in the garb of a peasant, to effect 
 rc the welfare of his subjects, so the king of 
 <c kings pervades the universe, assuming a 
 <e . divine or even an human form, foy the same 
 " benevolent purpose.” This comparison seems 
 extremely objectionable, and the inference from 
 it totally inadmissible. For a king being ig- 
 norant of things out of the reach of his sight, 
 and liable to be deceived respecting the se- 
 crets and private opinions of his subjects, 
 
 may some times be obliged to travel through 
 his kingdom, to acquire a knowledge of their 
 condition, and t,o promote then welfare person- 
 
C 35 J 
 
 5 *lly. But there can be obviously no inducement 
 for an omnipotent being, in whose omniscience 
 also the learned Brahmun, I dare say, believes, 
 to assume a form in order either to acquaint himself 
 with the affairs of men, or to accomplish any 
 benevolent design towards his creatures. 
 
 He again observes that, these figures and 
 idols are representations of the true God, a 
 sight of which serves, as he alleges, to bring 
 that Being to his recollection, (P. SO. L. 5.) 
 
 “ They are as pictures which recal to the me- 
 mory a dear aud absent friend, or like the wor- 
 ship of (he Moon, reflected in various waters.” 
 
 This observation of the learned Bracnun, in- 
 duces me to suppose, that he must have formed a 
 notion of Godhead quite strange and contemp- 
 tible. For it is almost impossible for a man, 
 who has a becoming idea of God’s superiority 
 to all creatures, to represent him, as the Hin- 
 doos very often do, in a form so shameful, that 
 a description of it is prohibited by common de- 
 cency, or in a shape so ridiculous, as that pie- 
 
[ 36 ] 
 
 bald kite called Kshyemunkuree, and that of 
 another bird called Neelkunth, or of Jackals &c. 
 And it is equally difficult to believe that a ra- 
 tional being, can make use of such objects to 
 bring the all perfect, almighty power to his 
 recollection. 
 
 He further says, P. 31 L. 32 “ If any one 
 tc assert that the case is otherwise, that the 
 “ deities, mankind, the heavens and other ob- 
 ee jects have an existence iudependent of God, 
 f r that faith in him is sufficient without wor- 
 ie ship, 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 
 ff universality or a follower of the Vedant?" 
 To acquit m 3 self from such gross but unfound- 
 ed accusation as that of my believing materi- 
 al existence, to be independent of God, I re- 
 peat a few passages from the abridgement of the 
 Vedant, (P. 6 th L. 8 th) “ Nothing bears true 
 y “ existence excepting God/' Again in L. 
 
t 27 3 
 
 te Tlbe existence of whatever thing* that appear^ 
 " to us, relies on the existence df God.” Be- 
 sides 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 ob- 
 jects. 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 of idolatry. 
 
 He again says, P. 34 L. 28 : ec If by the 
 " practice of the prescribed forms in a church, 
 " a temple, or a mosque, God be worshipped, 
 *' how can he be dishonoured by being wor- 
 “ shipped under the form of an image how- 
 ,l ever manufactured?” Those who contemplate 
 God in a church or mosque, or elevate their 
 minds to a notion of the Almighty power in 
 any other appropriated place, for the sake of 
 good example, never pay divine homage to 
 
[ S3 ] 
 
 these places; but those that pretend to Worship 
 God under the form of an image, consider if, 
 to be possessed of divine nature, and at the 
 same time most inconsistently, as imbued with 
 immoral principles. Moreover the promoters 
 ©f the worship of images, by promulgating 
 anecdotes illustrative of the supposed divine 
 power of particular idols, endeavour to excite 
 the reverence of the people, and specially of 
 pilgrims; who under these superstitions ideas, 
 are persuaded to propitiate them with large sa- 
 crifices of money, and some times even by 
 that of their own lives. Having so far enter- 
 ed into this subject, the learned Brahmuri 
 will, I hope, be convinced of the impropriety 
 of the analogy which he has drawn between? 
 a worship within a certain material object 
 and a worship of a material object. 
 
 As to his question (P. 34 L. 32) Is 
 • r the sight of the image unpleasing ?” My 
 answer must be affirmative. It is extremely 
 natural that, to a mind whose purity is 
 
t *9 J 
 
 siot corrupted by a degrading superstition,' 
 the sight of images which are often of the 
 snost hideous or indecent description, and which 
 puist therefore excite disgust in the minds of 
 the spectator, should be unpleasing. A visit 
 to Calighaut,* or Barahnagur,f which are on- 
 ly distant four miles from Calcutta, will suffi- 
 ciently convince the reader of the unpleasant 
 nature of their beloved images. He again, 
 asks in the same P. L, 33 ” Will a beloved 
 * e friend be treated with disrespect by being 
 <c seated on a chair, when he arrives in your 
 ,c house, or by being presented with fragrant 
 ee flowers and other offerings?” To which £ 
 shall say no; but at the same time I must 
 assert that, a friend worthy of reverence would 
 not, we may be sure, be at all pleased at 
 
 * The temple of Kali, 
 f Where there are 12 temples dedicated to 
 Siva, 
 
C 40 ] 
 
 being exhibited some times in a form,* * * § tha 
 bare mention of which would be considered as 
 
 a gross insult to the decorous feelings of the 
 public, and sometimes in Lire shape of a 
 rnonkeyf fish^ Hog,§ or elephant,! or at being 
 represented as destitute of every virtue, and 
 altogether abandoned. Nor would he believe 
 bis host to b£ possessed of common sense, who 
 as a token of regard, would altogether neg- 
 lect his guest, to go and lay fruits and flow- 
 ers befoi. e h 5s P icture - 
 
 It is sard £& SUui h, 23) " In the accounts 
 <r of ancient Greece we rneet with the worship 
 ot idols, and the practice of austerities, but these 
 *x acts haye been contemned by the more en« 
 t< lightened modernss” I am really gM to observe. 
 
 * Under which Siva, is adored, 
 
 f Hunooman. 
 
 + The fust incarnation of Vishnu. 
 
 § The third incarnation of Ditto. 
 ! Gunesh. 
 
[ « ] 
 
 that the learned Brahmun more liberally and 
 plainly than could be expected, confesses that 
 idolatry will be totally contemned as soon as 
 the understanding is improved. I, however, beg 
 leave to remark on this instance that, though 
 the idolatry practised by the Greeks and Ro« 
 inans was certainly jQst as impure, absurd, and 
 puerile as that of the present Hindoos, yet the 
 former was by nd means so destructive of the 
 Comforts of life, or injurious to the texture of 
 *ociety as the latter. The present Hindoo idol- 
 atry, being made to consist in following cer- 
 tain modes and restraints of diet, (which ac- 
 cording to the authorities of the Mahabharut 
 and other histories Were never observed by 
 their fore- fathers) has subjected its unfortu- 
 nate votaries to entire separation from the 
 rest of the world and also from each other, 
 and to constant inconveniences and dis- 
 tress. 
 
 A Hindoo for instance, who affects parpen* 
 
 P 
 
 - 
 
C 42 j 
 
 lar purity* cannot even partake of food dressed! 
 by his own brother, when invited to his house ; 
 and if touched by him while eating, he must 
 throw away the remaining part of his meal. 
 In tact owing to the observance of such pe- 
 culiar idolatry, directly contrary to the authori- 
 ties of their scripture, they hardly deserve the 
 name of social beings. 
 
 The learned Brahman farther says, P. 23 L' 
 Srd <e If you affirm that you are not an infi- 
 del, but that your arguments are in confor- 
 " mity with those of the philosophers who 
 “ were* ignorant of the veds”&c. A remark 
 of this kind cannot, I am sure, be considered 
 as at all applicable to a person who has sub- 
 jected himself to this writer’s remarks, only by 
 translating and publishing the principal parts 
 
 of the Ved and by vindicating the vedant 
 
 •(. > i* t n 4 
 
 * A person of this description is distirr- 
 
 i 
 
 guished by the name of Svrayung pak; on* 
 who is his own cook. 
 
 
[ 43 ] 
 
 theology ; and who never advanced on reli- 
 gious controversy, any argument which was not 
 founded upon the authorities of the Veds and 
 their celebrated commentators. It is however 
 
 f 
 
 remarkable that, although the learned Brahmun 
 and his brethren frequently quote the name of 
 the Veds, and other Shastras, both in writing and 
 in verbal discussion ; they pay lit'tle or no at- 
 tention in practise to their precepts, even in 
 
 <i 
 
 the points of the most important nature; a few 
 of which I beg leave to notice here. 1st. The 
 adoration of the invisible supreme Being, although 
 exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads or thb 
 principal parts of the Veds, and also by the 
 Vedant, has been totally neglected aiid even 
 discountenanced by the learned Brahmun and 
 his followers; the idol worship, which those 
 authorities permit only to the ignorant, having 
 been substituted for that pure worship. 2ndly 
 Ungeera, and Vishnu, and also the modern 
 Kughouundun, authorize a widow to burn her- 
 self voluntarily along with the corpse of her 
 
C ** ] 
 
 husband; but modem Brahmuns, in direct op«* 
 position to their authority, allow her relations 
 to bind the mournful and infatuated widow to 
 the funeral pile, with ropes and bamboos, as 
 soon as she has expressed a wish to perform. 
 
 the dreadful funeral sacrifice, to which the 
 
 Brahrauns lend a ready assistance. 3rdiy. AI- 
 tho* an acceptance of money cr of a present in 
 the marriage contract of a daughter is most 
 strictly prohibited by the Veds and by Munoo, 
 (text 98 and 100 of chap: 9) yet the sale of 
 female children under pretence of marriage is 
 practised by nearly two thirds of the Brah- 
 mans of Bengal and Tirhoot, as well as by 
 
 their followers generally. 
 
 4ih)y Yagnyubulkya has authorized the se= 
 cojnd marriage of a man, while his former 
 
 wife is living, but only under certain circum- 
 stances of misconduct or misfortune in the 
 latter; such as the vice of drinking wine, of 
 deception, of extravagance, of using disagree- 
 able language or shewing manifest dislike to- 
 
t 45 ] 
 
 Wards her husband ; long protracted and incur* 
 able illness, barrenness, or producing only fe» 
 in ale offspring. In defiance however of this 
 restraint, some of them marry thirty or forty 
 women, either for the sake of money got with 
 them at marriage or to gratify brutal inclinations. 
 Madhosingh the late Rajah of Tirhoot, through 
 compassion tqvvar4s that helpless sex, limited, I 
 am told, withip. these 3G or 40 years, the Brah- 
 mans of that district to -four wives only. This 
 regulation although falling short both of the writ- 
 ten law end of that gf reason, tends to alleviate in 
 
 some measure, the misery to which vvomen were 
 before exposed, as well as to diminish in some 
 degree domestic strife and disturbance. 
 
 Sthly — According to the authority of Munoo 
 (text 155 chap: Si;d) respect and distinction 
 are due to a Brnhmun, merely in proportion 
 
 to his knowledge; but on the contrary amongst 
 modern Hindoos, honor is paid exclusively to 
 certain families of Brahmuns, such a* the 
 JCoolins, however void of knowledge and 
 
C 46 ] 
 
 principle they may be. This departure from 
 hi. ,y and justice, was made by the authority of 
 a native prince of Bengal, named Bullalsen: 
 within the last 3 or 4 hundred years. And this, 
 innovation may perhaps be considered as the 
 chief source ofthat decay of learning and virtue* 
 which, I am sorry to say, may be at present 
 observed. For wherever respectability is confined 
 to birth only, acquisition of knowledge aad 
 the practise of morality, in that country, must 
 rapidly decline. 
 
 The learned Brahmun objects to the term 
 indescribable , although universally assigned to 
 the Supreme Being by the Ved and by the 
 Vedant theology, saying (P. 37. L. 20.) 4 ' It 
 
 ?? is a wonderful interpretation of the Vedan^ 
 t€ tp say, that God is indescribable, al though \ 
 (t existing, unless indeed he be looked upon 
 f€ as the production of magic, as existing in 
 ** one sense, and non-existent in another/’ and 
 pgain (L. 14.) r He, therefore, who asserts 
 " that the Supreme Being is indescribable and 
 
[ « ] 
 
 u at the same time existing, must eoncerva 
 
 te that he like the world is mutable &c.” la 
 
 answer to which I beg to refer the learned 
 
 Brahman to the 11th text of the 3rd Brahmua 
 
 of the 4 th chapter of die Brehdarunyuc, the 
 
 principal part of the Ujoor Ved, as comment* 
 
 ed upon by the celebrated Sunkaracharjya, 
 
 e * The Ved having so far described God, by 
 
 “ various absolute,* and relative epithets, f was 
 
 ** convinced of its incapability of giving a real 
 
 “ description of the nature of the God head: 
 
 “ language can convey a notion of things only 
 
 “ either by the appellations by which they are 
 
 " already known, or by describing their figure,, 
 
 * s accidents, genus and properties; but God 
 
 “ has none of these physical circumstances » 
 
 f< the Ved therefore attempted to explain him 
 
 y in negative terms;” (that is by declaring 
 
 # 
 
 'J tlrat whatever thing may be percieved by tli# 
 
 * As eternal, true and intelligent. 
 
 + As creator, preserver and destrayer.’ 
 
E 48 3 
 
 *' mental faculties, or the external senses, is net 
 God) “ The Ved’s ascribing to God attributes 
 of eternity, wisdom, truth, &c. shews that it 
 e ‘ can explain him only by ascribing those attri- 
 *' bates and applying those epithets, that are held 
 by man in the highest estimation, without in- 
 te tending to assert the adequacy of such descrip- 
 e * tion: He is the only true existence amidst all 
 dependent existences, and the true source of 
 et our senses” Also, in the text 3rd of the Ce- 
 te nopanishad. ff Hence no vision Can approach 
 him; no language can describe him; no in- 
 tellectual power can compass or determine him. 
 We know nothing of how the supreme Being 
 should be explained : He is beyond nature, 
 which is above comprehension: Our ancient 
 
 spiritual parents have thus explained him - to 
 us. ,s It cannot however be inferred from our 
 acknowledged ignorance of the nature and at- 
 tributes of the supreme Being, that we are e- 
 
 ■ i' : i 
 
 qually ignorant as to his existence. The won- 
 derful structure and growth of even so trilling? 
 
[ 49 ] 
 
 Art object as a leaf of a tree affords proof of 
 an almighty Snperintendant of the Universe— ■ 
 and even the physical world affords numerous 
 instances of things, whose existence is quite evi- 
 dent to mtr senses, but of whose nature wa 
 can form no conception; such as the can es of 
 
 the sensations of heat and vision. 
 
 The learned Brahmun attempts to prove the 
 impossibility of an adoration of tile deity, say- 
 ing (P, S3 L. 15) “ That which cannot be 
 
 ' f conceived, cannot be Worshipped;” should the 
 learned Brahmun consider a full conception of 
 the nature, essence, or qualities of the Su- 
 preme Being, or a physical picture truly repre- 
 senting the almighty power, with offerings of 
 flowers, leaves and viands, as essential to 
 adoration, I agree with the learned Brahmurt 
 with respect to the impossibility of the wor- 
 ship ot God. But should adoration imply on- 
 ly the elevation of the mind to the conviction 
 ©f the existence of the omnipresent deify, as 
 , G 
 
[ 50 ] 
 
 testified by bis wise and wonderful works, and 
 continual contemplation of his power as so 
 displayed; together with a constant sense of 
 the gratitude which we naturally owe him, for 
 our existence, sensation, and comfort, — I nev- 
 er will hesitate to assert that his adoration is 
 not. only possible, and practicable, but even incum- 
 bent upon every lational creature. For fur- 
 ther explanation, I refer the learned Brah- 
 min to the text 47. sec. 4 chap. 3 of the Vedant. 
 
 To his question* “ what are you yourselves?” 1 
 suppose 1 may safely reply for myself that 1 am 
 a poor dependent creature ; — subject, in common 
 A\ith others, to momentary changes and liable to 
 sudden destruction. 
 
 At (P. 45 L. 30.) The learned Brahmun, if I 
 rightly understand his object, means to insinuate 
 that I have adopted the doctrines of those who deny 
 the responsibility of man as a moral agent. I 
 am quite at a loss to conceive from what part 
 
L 51 ] 
 
 of mv writings this inference has been drawn; 
 as I have not only never entertained such opi- 
 nions myself, but have taken pains to explain 
 the passage in the Ved on which this false 
 doctrine is founded. — In page 17 of the preface 
 to the lshopanishad I have said that, “ The 
 “ Vedant by declaring that God is every where 
 
 and every thing is in God, means that nothing 
 “ is absent from God, and that nothing bears 
 
 real existence except by the volition of 
 “ God." >nd again, in page 18, I quoted the 
 example of the most revered teachers of the Ve- 
 dant doctrine, who ' f although they declared 
 er their faith in the omnipresent God, accord- 
 * e ing to the doctrines of the Vedant, assigned 
 “ to every creature the particular character 
 f( and respect he was entitled to." 
 
 1 omitted to notice the strange mode of ar- 
 gument which the learned Brahmun (at P. 
 5K)lh) ha3 adopted in defence of idola- 
 try. After acknowledging that nothing but de- 
 ficiency in judgement renders man incapable 
 
[ 52 } 
 
 l! 
 
 Hooking up to an omnipresent Supreme Being, 
 
 whereby he mistakes a created object for the 
 great Creator, he insinuates that an erroneous 
 notion in this respect is as likely to lead to e- 
 fernal happiness, as a knowledge of truth. At 
 L. 5. he says. And although a person 
 
 ec through deficiency in judgement, should be 
 ee unable to discover the real nature of a 
 tiling, does it follow that his error will pre- 
 
 -i 1 ■ ■ : . < 
 
 vent the natural effect from appearing? 
 ec When a man in a dream sees a tyger, is he 
 
 Cf not in as much alarm as if he saw it in 
 
 ,e reality ?” > 
 
 This mode of claiming for idol-worship a va- 
 lue eqqal to that of pure religion, which it can 
 never be admitted to possess, may have suc- 
 ceeded in retaining some of his followers in 
 the delusive dream, from which he is so anxi- 
 ous that they should not be awoke. But some 
 of them have, I know, begun to enquire into 
 the truth of those notions in which they have 
 
 teen instructed; and these are not likely to 
 ■ 
 
t SS } 
 
 mistake for true, (lie false analogy that is ru 
 the above passage attemped to he drawn, nor 
 
 • v. : '■ ' 
 
 will they believe that, however powerful may 
 be the influence of imagination, even under 
 false impressions, future happiness, which de° 
 pends on God alone, can ever- he ranked a- 
 rnongst its effects. Such enquirers will, I hope, 
 at last become sensible, that the system of 
 
 * • i , : v 
 
 dreaming recommended by the learned Brahman, 
 —however essential to the interests of himself 
 and of his cast, — can bring to them no advantage 
 either substantial or eternal. 
 
 t ’ * , 
 
 As instances of the erroneous confidence which 
 is placed in the- repetition of the name of a god 
 to effect purification from sins, noticed by me 
 iu P. 21, I may quote the following' passages. 
 
 He, who pronounces Doorga,” (the name 
 of the goddess) though he constantly practise 
 adultery, plunder others of their property, oj? 
 commit the most heinous crimes, is freed fron) 
 all sins.* 
 
 * Vid, Door o a nam Alahatmyu*’ 
 
[ bi ] 
 
 A person pronouncing* loudly " reverence ta 
 "Hun,” even involuntarily, in the state of fal- 
 ling* down^ of slipping, of labouring under ill- 
 ness, or of sneezing, purifies himself from the 
 foulest crimes.* 
 
 He who contemplates the Ganges, while walk- 
 ing, silling, sleeping, thinking of other things, 
 awake, eating, breathing, and conversing, is 
 delivered from sins.f 
 
 The circumstances alluded to in P. 21 of this 
 treatise, relative to the wicked conduct of their 
 supposed deities, are perfectly familiar to every 
 individual Hindoo_But those Europeans who 
 are not acquainted with the particulars relat- 
 ed of them, may perhaps feel a wish to be in 
 possession of them. I therefore with a vievr 
 to gratify their curiosity and to vindicate my 
 assertion, beg to be allowed to mention a few 
 instances in point, with the authorities on which 
 
 * Vid. Bhaguvut. 
 f Yid Mahabharuth. 
 
[ 53 J 
 
 they rest. As I have already noticed the de- 
 bauchery of Krishna, and his gross sensuality, 
 and that of his fellow deities, such as Siva and Bruh- 
 ma, in the 21, 22 and 26th P. of my reply to the 
 observations of Sunkarasastri, instead of repeat- 
 ing them here, 1 refer my readers to that reply, 
 and also to the tenth division of the 
 
 Bhaguvut, to the llurybungsu or last division 
 of the M aha bhar utli, and to the Negums, aa 
 well as to the several Agums, which give 
 a detailed account of their lewdness and 
 debauchery. As to falsehood, their /favourite 
 deity Krishna is more conspicuous than the 
 rest. Jurra-Sundh, a powerful prince of Be- 
 har, having heard of the melancholy murder 
 of his son-in-law perpetrated by Krishna, har- 
 rassed and at last drove him out of the place 
 of his nativity (Mulhoora) by frequent military 
 expeditions : Krishna, in revenge, resolyed to 
 deprive that prince of his life by fraud, and 
 in a most unjustifiable manner. To accomplish 
 his object, he and his two cousins, Bheema 
 
[ 55 J 
 
 »nd Urjoona, declared themselves to be Brah- 
 rnuns; and in that disguise entered bis palace; 
 where finding him weakened by a religious 
 fast, and surrounded only by bis family and 
 priests, they challenged him to fight a duel, 
 lie accordingly fought Bheema, the strongst 
 of the three • who Conquered and put him to 
 death, vid. Subha Purba or 2nd Hook of the Ma - 
 ha Bharuth. Krishna again persuaded Joodlusthir 
 his cousin, to give false evidence in order to 
 accomplish the murder of Dron their spiritual fa- 
 ther — Vid. Dron Purba , or 1th Book of tlia 
 JU aha- Bharuth. 
 
 Vishnu and others combined in a conspiracy 
 against Buli, a mighty emperor; But finding 
 his power irresistible, that deity was determined 
 to ruin bin by stratagem : and for that purpose' 
 appeared to him in the shape of a dwarf, begging 
 alms. Notwithstanding Bnli w-as warned of the 
 intention of Vishnu, yet, impressed with a high 
 sense of generosity, he could not refuse a boon 
 to a. beggar, that grateful deity in return, noi 
 
[ 57 1 
 
 only deprived him of his whole empire, which 
 he put himself in possession of by virtue of 
 the boon of Buli, but also inflicted on him the 
 disgrace of bondage, and confinement in Pa- 
 tal : lid latter pert of the Hurri Bungs , or last 
 book of the J\laka Bharuth. 
 
 When the battle of CoorooJjsbetru ivas de- 
 cided by the fatal destruction of Dooijodhun, 
 the remaining part of the army of his rival 
 Yooddhisthir, returned to the camp to rest during 
 the night, under the personal care and protec- 
 tion of Mahadeva' — That deity having, however 
 been cajoled by the flattery offered him by 
 Usvvathama, one of the friends of the unfortunate 
 Dooijodhun, not only allowed him to destroy 
 the whole army that was asleep under the confi- 
 dence of h.is protection, but even assisted him 
 with his sword to accomplish his bloody purpose. 
 
 Vid. Sousuptik Purl ; or 1 \lh book of the Malta - 
 Bharuth. 
 
 VVhen the Uesoors at the churning of the 
 H 
 
[ « ] 
 
 Ocean gave the pitcher of the water of immor - 
 talili) in charge to Vishnu, he betrayed his trust 
 by delivering it to their step-brothers and ene- 
 mies, the celestial Gods — V id — 1st book or adt 
 Purb of the Maha Bharuth, 
 
 Instances like these might be multiplied beyond 
 number: and crimesof a much deeper dye might 
 easily be added to the list, were l not unwill- 
 ing to stain these pages by making them the 
 veh’icle of such stories of immorality and vice. 
 May God speedily purify the minds, of my 
 countrymen from the, corruptness which such 
 tales are too apt to produce ; and lead 
 their hearts to that pure morality which is in- 
 separable from the true worship of Hun !