________________
Such, gentlemen, was the opinion of Prof. MaxMüller when he was seventy-six. I regret i have no time to dilate upon the subject further. But you will easily see from the little I have told you that ancient India has been much is-under stood. In ancient India there was not any ofie singlé religion or philosophy, but many religions and philosophies, three hundred and sixty-three or more. Who can tell the exact number? How can you say then that Jainism is a product of Brahmanism? How can
No borrowing in an- you say that the Jains borrowed clent lndia.
from Kapila or Kanada or Patanjali, Gautama or others ? Is it not possible that all borrowed from the common atmosphere of ancient India ? Is it not possible that the Vedantists, the Samkhyas, the Jains, the Charvakas and other sects, many of which have been buried into oblivion for ever, had all their advocates in ancient times? This idea of borrowing is very strange. Those who say that the Jains borrowed ought to prove when and how they borrowed. They ought to prove who borrowed. Why should they simply throw out guesses and create mis-understanding ? There is no such thing as borrowing in ancient India. This again bears the sanction of the noble Prof. Max Müller. He says : -- "If we are right in the description we have given
of the unrestrained and abundant Mus Muller's opinion.
We growth of philosophical ideas in an. cicor India, the idea of borrowing so natural to us, seems altogether out-of-place in ancient Iridia. A
