tament;
and it is virtually assumed by them that a period between the date of
the Old Testament on the one side, and the present time on the other,
should necessarily be assigned to every book in the whole range of Vedic
and Sanskrit literature, and to almost every event of Indian history.

III. It is often assumed without reason that every passage in the Vedas
containing philosophical or metaphysical ideas must be looked upon as a
subsequent interpolation, and that every book treating of a
philosophical subject must be considered as having been written after
the time of Buddha or after the commencement of the Christian era.
Civilization, philosophy and scientific investigation had their origin,
in the opinion of these writers, within the six or seven centuries
preceding the Christian era, and mankind slowly emerged, for the first
time, from "the depths of animal brutality" within the last four or five
thousand years.

IV. It is also assumed that Buddhism was brought into existence by
Gautama Buddha. The previous existence of Buddhism, Jainism and Arhat
philosophy is rejected as an absurd and ridiculous invention of the
Buddhists and others, who attempted thereby to assign a very high
antiquity to their own religion. In consequence of this erroneous
impression every Hindu book referring to the doctrines of Buddhists is
declared to have been written subsequent to the time of Gautama Buddha.
For instance, Mr. Weber is of opinion that Vyasa, the author of the
Brahma Sutras, wrote them in the fifth century after Christ. This is
indeed a startling revelation to the majority of Hindus.

V. Whenever several works treating of various subjects are attributed to
one and the same author by Hindu writings or traditions, it is often
assumed, and apparently without any reason whatever in the majority of
cases, that the said works should be considered as the productions of
different writers. By this process of reasoning they have discovered
two Badarayanas (Vyasas), two Patanjalis, and three Vararuchis. We do
not mean to say that in every case identity of name is equivalent to
identity of personality. But we cannot but protest against such
assumptions when they are made without any evidence to support them,
merely for the purpose of supporting a foregone conclusion or
establishing a favourite hypothesis.

VI. An attempt is often made by these writers to establish the
chronological order of the events of ancient Indian histor