s
borrowing.

It has been claimed, as we have incidentally stated, that the Logos
doctrine was imported from India. Were this so, it would, indeed, be a
fact of great historical importance, but, interesting as would be such
a loan, we cannot see that the suggestion is based on data of cogent
character. The history of the doctrine in India and Greece is simply
this: V[=a]c, Speech or Word, appears in the Rig Veda (in the hymn
cited above, p. 143) as an active female divine power, showing grace
to mortals. In the Brahmanic period V[=a]c becomes more and more like
the Greek Logos, and it may truthfuly be said that in this period "the
Word was God." In Greece, on the other hand, the conception of Logos
begins with Heraclitus, passes on to the Stoics; is adopted by Philo;
becomes a prominent feature of Neo-Platonism; and reappears in the
Gospel of St. John. It is certainly legitimate to suppose that
Heraclitus might have received the idea indirectly, if not directly,
from contemporary Eastern philosophers; but the fact that he did so
remains unproved; nor is there any foundation for the assumption of
borrowing other than the resemblance between the Grecian and Indic
conceptions. But this resemblance is scarcely marked enough in
essential features to prejudice one in favor of Weber's theory
(amplified by Garbe), as it is not detailed enough to be striking, for
V[=a]c is never more than one of many female abstractions.

With the exception of the one case to be mentioned immediately, we are
forced to take the same position in regard to the similarity between
other forms of early Greek and Hindu philosophy. Both Thales and
Parmenides were indeed anticipated by Hindu sages, and the Eleatic
school seems to be but a reflexion of the Upanishads. The doctrines of
Anaximander and Heraclitus are, perhaps, not known first in Greece,
but there is no evidence that they were not original to Greece, or
that they were borrowed from India, however much older may be the
parallel trains of thought on Indic soil.

Quite as decidedly, however, as we deny all appearance of borrowing on
the part of the founders of other early Grecian schools, must we claim
the thought of India to be the archetype of Pythagorean philosophy.
After a careful review of the points of contact, and weighing as
dispassionately as possible the historical evidence for and against
the originality of Pythagoras, we are unable to come to any other
conclusion than that the G