Lord of the triple qualities, the cause Of man's existence, bondage and release, All knowing, tranquil, spotless, without blame, To mortal eyes, the mover of all beings, Diffused through endless space, yet of the measure Known only by the heart, whoever knows him I close these extracts from the Upanishads by a metrical version of part of the first chapter of a short Upanishad called Maitrāyaṇi or Maitrāyaṇīya, belonging to the Black Yajur-veda": In this decaying body, made of bones, Skin, tendons, membranes, muscles, blood, saliva, Full of putrescence and impurity, What relish can there be for true enjoyment?s In this weak body, ever liable To wrath, ambition, avarice, illusion, To fear, grief, envy, hatred, separation 1 Most of these epithets will be found in the following sections of the Svetāśvatara Upanishad VI. 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, IV. 14, 17, 19, &c. Compare the extract from the Purusha-sūkta given at p. 24. 2 Also called Maitrāyaṇī, Maitrāyaṇa, Maitrī, and Maitri. Under the latter name it has been well edited and translated for the Bibliotheca Indica by Professor E. B. Cowell. It is in seven chapters, the first of which was translated into prose by Sir W. Jones, but without any name. My version is partly based on his, but I have consulted Professor Cowell's more accurate translation. From those we hold most dear, association Grass, trees, and animals spring up and die. But what are they? Earth's mighty men are gone, But what are they? Beings greater still than these, 1 The following sentiment occurs in the text before the concluding line : Andhodapana-stho bheka iva aham asmin samsare: Living in such a world I seem to be A frog abiding in a dried-up well. Compare some of the Stoical reflections of Marcus Aurelius, given by the Rev. F. W. Farrar in his 'Seekers after God :' 'Oil, sweat, dirt, filthy water, all things disgusting-so is every part of life.' 'Enough of this wretched life, and murmuring, and apish trifles.' 'All the present time is a point in eternity. All things are little, changeable, perishable.' I LECTURE III. The Systems of Philosophy. MUST now advert in a general way to the six systems of philosophy which grew out of the Upanishads. They are sometimes called the six Sastras or bodies of teaching, sometimes the Shad Darśanas or six Demonstrations. They are 1. The Nyāya, founded by Gotama. 2. The Vaiśeshika, by Kaṇāda. 6. The Vedanta, by Bādarāyaṇa or Vyāsa. They are delivered in Sūtras or aphorisms, which are held to be the basis of all subsequent teaching under each head1. It is as impossible however to settle the date of any of them with certainty as it is to determine the period of the 1 These Sūtras are often so brief and obscure as to be absolutely unintelligible without a commentary. They are commonly called 'aphorisms,' but really are mere memorial suggestions of the briefest possible kind, skilfully contrived for aiding the recollection of the teachers of each system. Probably the first to comment upon the Sūtras thus delivered was the author of them himself. He was followed by a vast number of other commentators in succeeding generations (generally a triple set), and by writers who often embodied in treatises or compendiums of their own the tenets of the particular school to which they were attached. The most celebrated of all commentators is the great Sankara Āćārya, a native of Malabar, who lived probably between 650 and 740 A.D., and wrote almost countless works, including commentaries on the Upanishads, Vedanta-sutras, and Bhagavad-gītā. composition of any single work in Sanskrit literature. Moreover, it is scarcely practicable to decide as to which of the six systems of philosophy preceded the other in point of time. All we can say is, that about 500 years before the commencement of the Christian era a great stir seems to have taken place in Indo-Aryan, as in Grecian minds, and indeed in thinking minds everywhere throughout the then civilized world. Thus when Buddha arose in India, Greece had her thinker in Pythagoras, Persia in Zoroaster, and China in Confucius. Men began to ask themselves earnestly such questions as-What am I? whence have I come? whither am I going? How can I explain my consciousness of personal existence? What is the relationship between my material and immaterial nature? What is this world in which I find myself? Did a wise, good, and all-powerful Being create it out of nothing? or did it evolve itself out of an eternal germ ? or did it come together by the combination of eternal atoms? If created by a Being of infinite wisdom, how can I account for the inequalities of condition in it—good and evil, happiness and misery? Has the Creator form, or is he formless? Has he any qualities or none? Certainly in India no satisfactory solution of questions such as these was likely to be obtained from the prayers and hymns of the ancient Indo-Aryan poets, which, though called Veda or 'knowledge' by the Brahmans, did not even profess to furnish any real knowledge on these points, but merely gave expression to the first gropings of the human mind, searching for truth by the uncertain light of natural phenomena1. The second aphorism of the San-khya-kārikā states distinctly that Anusravika or knowledge derived from Sruti-the revelation contained in the Veda-is ineffectual to deliver from the bondage of existence. E Nor did the ritualistic Brahmanas contribute anything to the elucidation of such topics. They merely encouraged the growth of a superstitious belief in the efficacy of sacrifices and fostered the increasing dependence of the multitude on a mediatorial caste of priests, supposed to be qualified to stand between them and an angry god. Still these momentous questions pressed for solution, and the minds of men finding no rest in mere traditional revelation and no satisfaction in mere external rites, turned inwards, each thinker endeavouring to think out the great problems of life for himself by the aid of his own reason. Hence were composed those vague mystical rationalistic speculations called Upanishads, of which examples have been already given. Be it remembered that these treatises were not regarded as antagonistic to revelation, but rather as completory of it. They were held to be an integral portion of the Veda or true knowledge; and, even more -they so rose in the estimation of thoughtful persons that they ended by taking rank as its most important portion, its grandest and noblest utterance, the apex to which all previous revelation tended. Probably the simple fact was, that as it was found impossible to stem the progress of free inquiry, the Brahmans with true wisdom determined on making rationalistic speculation. their own, and dignifying its first development in the Upanishads with the title of Veda. Probably, too, some of their number (like Jāvāli) became themselves infected with the spirit of scepticism, and were not to be restrained from prosecuting free philosophical investigations for themselves. There are not wanting, however, evident indications that the Kshatriyas or second caste were the first introducers into India of rationalistic speculation. We shall presently point out that the great Buddha was a Kshatriya, and the Chandogya Upanishad (V. 3) has a remark |