n a mighty influence in Indian religion,
orthodox as well as unorthodox. Such conceptions as Prakriti and the
Gunas colour most of the post-Vedic religious literature. Their
working may be plainly traced in the Mahabharata, Manu and the
Puranas,[762] and the Tantras identify with Prakriti the goddesses
whose worship they teach. The unethical character of the Sankhya
enabled it to form the strangest alliances with aboriginal beliefs.

Unlike the Sankhya, the Vedanta is seen in its most influential and
perhaps most advantageous aspect when stated in its most abstract
form. We need not enquire into its place of origin for it is clearly
the final intellectual product of the schools which produced the
Upanishads and the literature which preceded them, and though it may
be difficult to say at what point we are justified in applying the
name Vedanta to growing Brahmanic thought, the growth is continuous.
The name means simply End of the Veda. In its ideas the Vedanta shows
great breadth and freedom, yet it respects the prejudices and
proprieties of Brahmanism. It teaches that God is all things, but
interdicts this knowledge to the lower castes: it treats rites as a
merely preliminary discipline, but it does not deny their value for
certain states of life.

The Vedanta is the boldest and the most characteristic form of Indian
thought. For Asia, and perhaps for the world at large, Buddhism is
more important but on Indian soil it has been vanquished by the
Vedanta, especially that form of it known as the Advaita. In all ages
the main idea of this philosophy has been the same and may be summed
up in the formula that the soul is God and that God is everything. If
this formula is not completely accurate[763]--and a sentence which
both translates and epitomizes alien metaphysics can hardly aspire to
complete accuracy--the error lies in the fact to which I have called
attention elsewhere that our words, God and soul, do not cover quite
the same ground as the Indian words which they are used to translate.

Many scholars, both Indian and European, will demur to the high place
here assigned to the Advaita philosophy. I am far from claiming that
the doctrine of Sankara is either primitive or unchallenged. Other
forms of the Vedanta existed before him and became very strong after
him. But so far as a synthesis of opinions which are divergent in
details can be just, he gives a just synthesis and elaboration of the
Upanishads. It is true