more intelligent class) were not unacquainted with metaphysical subjects; that allegorical language or description was very frequently employed to represent the attributes of the Creator, which were sometimes designated as independent existences; and that, however suitable this method might be to the refined understandings of men of learning, it had the most mischievous effect when literature and philosophy decayed, producing all those absurdities and idolatrous notions which have checked, or rather destroyed, every mark of reason, and darkened every beam of understanding.

The Veda from which all Hindoo literature is derived, is, in the opinion of the Hindoos, an inspired work, coeval with the existence of the world. It is divided into four parts, viz., Rik, Yajus, Sama and Atharva; these are again divided into several branches, and these last are sub-divided into chapters. It is the general characteristic of each Veda, that the primary chapters of each branch treat of astronomy, medicine, arms, and other arts and sciences. They also exhibit allegorical representations of the attributes of the Supreme Being, by means of earthly objects, animate or inanimate, whose shapes or properties are analogous to the nature of those attributes, and pointing out the modes of their worship immediately or through the medium of fire. In the subsequent chapters, the unity of the Supreme Being as the sole ruler of the universe is plainly inculcated, and the mode of worshipping him particularly directed. The doctrine of a plurality of gods and goddesses laid down in the preceding chapters is not only controverted, but reasons assigned for its introduction; for instance, that the worship of the sun and fire, together with the whole allegorical system, were only inculcated for the sake of those whose limited understandings rendered them incapable of comprehending and adoring the invisible Supreme Being, so that such persons might not remain in a brutified state, destitute of all religious principle. Should this explanation given by the Veda itself, as well as by its celebrated commentator Vyasa, not be allowed to reconcile those passages which are seemingly. at variance with each other, as those that declare the unity of the invisible Supreme Being, with others which describe a plurality of independent visible gods, the whole work must, I am afraid, not only be stripped of its authority, but be looked upon as altogether unintelligible.

It is my intention to give, with the blessing of God, in my next publication, an account of the relation betwixt those attributes and the allegorical representations used to denote them.

I have often lamented that, in our general researches into theological truth, we are subjected to the conflict of many obstacles. When we look to the traditions of ancient nations, we often find them at variance with each other; and when, discouraged by this circumstance, we appeal to reason as a surer guide, we soon find how incompetent it is, alone, to conduct us to the object of our pursuit. We often find that, instead of facilitating our endeavours or clearing up our perplexities, it only serves to generate a universal doubt, incompatible with principles on which our comfort and happiness mainly depend. The best method perhaps is, neither to give ourselves up exclusively to the guidance of the one or the other; but by a proper use of the lights furnished by both, endeavour to improve our intellectual and d. moral faculties, relying on the goodness of the Almighty Power, which alone enables us to attain that which we earnestly and diligently seek for,

THE

KENA UPANISHAD

OF THE

SAMA VEDA.

1st. WHO is he [asks a pupil of his spiritual father,] under whose sole will the intellectual power makes its approach to different objects! Who is he under whose authority breath, the primitive power in the body, makes its operation? Who is he by whose direction language is regularly pronounced? And who is that immaterial being that applies vision and hearing to their respective objects?

2nd. He, [answers the spiritual parent,] who is the sense of the sense of hearing; the intellect of the intellect; the essential cause of language; the breath of breath; the sense of the sense of vision ;-this is the Being concerning whom you would enquire. Learned men, having relinquished the notion of self-independence and self-consideration from knowing the Supreme Understanding to be the sole source of sense, enjoy everlasting beatitude after their departure from this world.

3rd. Hence no vision can approach him, no language can descrlbe him, no intellectual power can compass or determine him. We know nothing of how the Supreme Being should be explained: he is beyond all that is within the reach of comprehension, and also beyond nature, which is above conception. Our ancient spiritual parents have thus explained him to us.

4th. He alone, who has never been described by language, and who directs language to its meaning, is the Supreme Being, and not any specified thing which men worship; know THOU this.

5th. He alone, whom understanding cannot comprehend, and who, as said by learned men, knows the real nature of understanding, is the Supreme Being, and not any specified thing which men worship; know THOU this.

6th. He alone, whom no one can conceive by vision, and by whose superintendence every one perceives the objects of vision, is the Supreme Being, and not any specified thing which men worship: know THOU this.

7th. He alone, whom no one can hear through the sense of hearing, and who knows the real nature of the sense of hearing, is the Supreme Being, and not any specified thing which men worship: know THOU this.

8th. He alone, whom no one can perceive through the sense of smelling, and who applies the sense of smelling to its objects, is the Supreme Being, and not any specified thing which men worship: know THOU this.

9th. If you [continues the spiritual parent], from what I have stated, suppose and say that "I know the Supreme Being thoroughly," you in truth know very little of the Omnipresent Being; and any conception of that Being which you limit to your powers of sense, is not only deficient, but also his description which you extend to the bodies of the celestial gods, is also imperfect; you consequently should enquire into the true knowledge of the Supreme Being. To this the pupil replies: "I perceive that at this moment I begin to know God." 10th. "Not that I suppose, continues he, "that I know God thoroughly, nor do I suppose that I do not know him at all: as, among us, he who knows the meaning of the above-stated assertion, is possessed of the knowledge respecting God, viz., that I neither know 'him thoroughly, nor am entirely ignorant of him.'"

11th. [The spiritual father again resumes:] He who believes that he cannot comprehend God, does know him; and he who believes that he can comprehend God, does not know him: as men of perfect understanding acknowledge him to be beyond comprehension; and men of imperfect understanding suppose him to be within the reach of their simplest perception.

12th. The notion of the sensibility of bodily organs, which are composed of insensible particles, leads to the notion of God; which notion alone is accurate, and tends to everlasting happiness. Man gains, by self-exertion, the power of acquiring knowledge respecting God, and through the same acquisition he acquires eternal beatitude.

13th. Whatever person has, according to the above stated doctrine, known God, is really happy, and whoever has not known him is subjected to great misery. Learned men, having reflected on the Spirit of God extending over all moveable as well as immoveable creatures, after their departure from this world are absorbed into the Supreme Being.

* The sum of the notion concerning the Supreme Being given in the Vedanta, is, that he is "the Soul of the universe, and bears the same relation to all material extensions "that a human soul does to the individual body with which it is connected".