inspiration of the Bible.
Most of the Darsanas attach importance to the _pramanas_, sources or
standards of knowledge. They are variously enumerated, but one of the
oldest definitions makes them three: perception (pratyaksha),
inference (anumana) and scripture (sabda). The Veda is thus formally
acknowledged to have the same authority as the evidence of the senses.
With this is generally coupled the doctrine that it is eternal. It was
not composed by human authors, but is a body of sound existing from
eternity as part of Brahman and breathed out by him when he causes the
whole creation to evolve at the beginning of a world period. The
reputed authors are simply those who have, in Indian language, seen
portions of this self-existent teaching. This doctrine sounds more
reasonable if restated in the form that words are the expression of
thought, and that if thought is the eternal essence of both Brahman
and the soul, a similar eternity may attach to words. Some such idea
is the origin of the Christian doctrine of the Logos, and in many
religions we find such notions as that words have a creative
efficacy,[739] or that he who knows the name of a thing has power over
it. Among Mohammedans the Koran is supposed to be not merely an
inspired composition but a pre-existing book, revealed to Mohammed
piecemeal.

It is curious that both the sacred texts--the Veda and the Koran--to
which this supernatural position is ascribed should be collections of
obviously human, incongruous, and often insignificant documents
connected with particular occasions, and in no way suggesting or
claiming that they are anterior to the ordinary life of man on earth.
It is still more extraordinary that systems of philosophy should
profess to base themselves on such works. But in reality Hindu
metaphysicians are not more bound by the past than their colleagues in
other lands. They do not take scripture and ask what it means, but
evolve their own systems and state that they are in accordance with
it. Sometimes scripture is ignored in the details of argument. More
often the metaphysician writes a commentary on it and boldly proves
that it supports his views, though its apparent meaning may be
hostile. It is clear that many philosophic commentaries have been
written not because the authors really drew their inspiration from the
Upanishads or Bhagavad-gita but because they dared not neglect such
important texts. All the Vedantist schools labour to prove that