they
are in harmony not only with the Upanishads but with the
Brahma-sutras. The philosophers of the Sankhya are more detached from
literature but though they ignore the existence of the deity, they
acknowledge the Veda as a source of knowledge. Their recognition,
however, has the air of a concession to Brahmanic sentiment. Isolated
theories of the Sankhya can be supported by isolated passages of the
Upanishads, but no impartial critic can maintain that the general
doctrines of the two are compatible. That the Brahmans should have
been willing to admit the Sankhya as a possible form of orthodoxy is
a testimony both to its importance and to their liberality.

It is remarkable that the test of orthodoxy should have been the
acceptance of the authority of the Veda and not a confession of some
sort of theism. But on this the Brahmans did not insist. The Vedanta
is truly and intensely pantheistic or theistic, but in the other
philosophies the Supreme Being is either eliminated or plays a small
part. Thus while works which seem to be merely scientific treatises
(like the Nyaya) set before themselves a religious object, other
treatises, seemingly religious in scope, ignore the deity. There is a
strong and ancient line of thought in India which, basing itself on
the doctrine of Karma, or the inevitable consequences of the deed once
done, lays stress on the efficacy of ceremonies or of asceticism or of
knowledge without reference to a Supreme Being because, if he exists,
he does not interfere with the workings of Karma, or with the power of
knowledge to release from them.

Even the Vedanta, although in a way the quintessence of Indian
orthodoxy, is not a scholastic philosophy designed to support
recognized dogma and ritual. It is rather the orthodox method of
soaring above these things. It contemplates from a higher level the
life of religious observances (which is the subject of the Purva
Mimamsa) and recognizes its value as a preliminary, but yet rejects
it as inadequate. The Sannyasi or adept follows no caste observances,
performs no sacrifices, reads no scriptures. His religion is to
realize in meditation the true nature, and it may be the identity, of
the soul and God. Good works are of no more importance for him than
rites, though he does well to employ his time in teaching. But Karma
has ceased to exist for him: "the acts of a Yogi are neither black nor
white," they have no moral quality nor consequences. This is dange