kara's or Rfondmiga's famous commentaries on the Vedlnta Sfctras. But both were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of that philosophy, which is, in fact, like the air .breathed more or less by every Hindu who cares for philosophy or religion. It is difficult to say whether we should treat the Ved&nta as philosophy or religion, the two being really inseparable from the Hindu point of view.
What is curious, however, both in Keshub Chunder Sen's and in Rlmaknishfla's utterances, is the admixture of European ideas. Neither the one nor the other would have spoken as they did, before the English Government began its educational work in India. The bulk of their teaching is, no doubt, Indian to the backbone. It is the old Indian philosophy, properly called Veddnta or the highest goal of the Veda, but there is clearly a sprinkling, and sometimes far more than a mere sprinkling, of European thoughts in Keshub's writings; and we often meet with quite unexpected references to European subjects, not ex- cluding railways and gas, in the sayings of R&makr/sha.
It is necessary to explain in a few words the character of that VecUhata-philosophy which is the very marrow running through all the bones of RSmakwsh^a's doctrine. It is by no means easy, however, to give a short abstract of that ancient philosophy, particularly if we consider that it exists now, and seems always to have existed, under three different forms, the Advaita School (non-duality school), the Vi.rish*a-advaita School (non-duality school, with a difference), and the Dvaita School (real duality school), the last of which seems hardly to have a right to the name
