ed as a most dishonourable relative. The greatest enmity was, therefore, on both sides cherished. Daksha made a great sacrifice at his own abode, and invited all the Rishis, Gods, and Kings. Dáksháyanì saw her fifty-nine sisters on their way to the sacrifice, gliding through the air in heavenly cars in company with their husbands, and having their persons adorned with diamonds and jewels. The sight grieved her exceedingly; and the affront done her by her father, she could not brook. She, therefore, said to her husband "Let us go to the sacrifice with the rest". "To go without an invitation", he replied, "is unworthy of the great. Therefore do not think of going even yourself. If you do, you will cer tainly lose your life". She could not rest, however, and therefore went without obtaining the consent of her husband. When Daksha looked upon her dirty and beggarly appearance, he abused her exceedingly. Feeling this intolerable, she threw herself into the fire, and was reduced to ashes. When Shiva was told by Náráda what had happened, he was greatly enraged, and, striking his matted hair on the ground, he produced an enormous Giant, who had three eyes, and who, from his great power, was called Virabhadra, and who was commanded to destroy the sacrifice of Daksha. Taking with him every species of devil, ghost, and hobgoblin, Vírabhadra destroyed the sacrifice and cut off Daksha's head. Upon this Brahma and Vishnu came bend

ing as suppliants at the feet of Shiva, and at their request he put a goat's head on Daksha's body. Dakshayanì afterwards became the daughter of Himálaya Parvata (Mountain) from which she is called Parvatì and was given in marriage to Shiva.* The very names of this imaginary God are indicative of his wickedness, and horribleness. He is called, Krittivása, he who wears a skin; Ugra, the furious; Virúpáksha, the hideous eyed; Kapálabhrita, the bearer of a human skull; Bhúteshvara, the Lord of the Devils; and Bhúta, a very devil.

Who can peruse the preceding narratives without shame? They are all extracted from the books reckoned sacred by the Hindus; but when rightly considered they form infallible and uncontrovertible proofs that these books did not come from God. This remark holds true whether it be alleged by the Brahmans that they are statements of real occurrences, or whether it be alleged that they are merely allegorical descriptions. The theory of Mora Bhatta Dandekara concerning the exhibition of God by Brahmá, Vishnu, and Shiva, reflects the greatest dishonour on the Supreme Being. I shall afterwards shew that his attempts to excuse their sins are altogether futile. God will most certainly neither take such incarnations as these, nor tolerate his representation by such forms. They are

*The preceding story is related in almost the precise words of the Bhagavata,

completely opposed to one another, and can have no connexion with the Supreme God. "If you say" says Braja Mohana, a native author at Calcutta, "that they are not separate beings, but one being under different forms, we reply, that if those gods with different bodies, different residences, different families, different objects of pursuit, influenced by love and by-hatred, now quarrelling with each other, and now making peace, are all one, and the same being, why may not a brass utensil, a mat, beasts, men, and every thing else in the world, be esteemed one and the same thing" "Before "Before we acknowledge that those beings are the same which have different forms, colours, situations, desires, and actions, we must extinguish our eyes, ears, and all our faculties".*

Before I consider the excuses and palliations of the sins of Brahmá, Vishnu, and Shiva, proposed by my opponent, I must bring under review the conduet of KRISHNA, and RA'MA, who are likewise greatly praised, and strenuously defended by him. The subject of the sins of the gods, as far as it is treated by the Bhatta, will consequently be at once before us, and such a reply will be given as will best secure lucidness, and prevent répetition.

So highly improper, indecorous, and sinful, are the acts of KRISHNA, the Avatára of Vishnu, that his name in many districts of India, is proverbi* See Appendix E..

ally applied to the most abandoned profligates and black-guards. He is described in the Shástras as lecherous. All know how he procured Rádhá, the wife of A'yanghosha, the Veishya, and the manner in which he cohabited with her. The phrase "Krishna Rádhá”, is consequently applied to all which is base, and iniquitous? What but the most impure mind can read without shame the accounts of his lascivious sporting with the sixteen thousand milk-maids, and his vain, but disgraceful, endeavours to procure the horse of Dandá which was reported to have every night assumed the form of a beautiful woman? He ought to be called a thief; for he frequently stole curdles, and other articles, from the milkmen, and he robbed a washerman of his clothes when he was proceeding to witness a sacrifice, and other individuals of necklaces, sandalwood, &c. He was so very quarrelsome that he was seldom out of broils needlessly engendered. He proved himself to be a liar, when he urged Yudhishthíra to tell a falsehood, and brought such a calamity upon him in consequence, that he lost his thumb, and was terrified by a sight of the torments of hell. He exhibited himself as a murderer by slaying his maternal uncle Kansa, and the washerman whom he had plundered, and by destroying his whole offspring. He subjected himself to the irremovable charge of weakness, and ignorance, by allowing himself to be slain

G

C

without his knowledge, desire, or consent, by the the arrow of Válí.*

The history of RA'MA CHANDRA is not so bad as that of Krishna. It is such, however, as is altogether unworthy of an Avatára of God. It marks his character as composed of selfishness, folly, ignorance, weakness, and sin. Though Rávana, the giant of Lanká, had long imprisoned, and oppressed the 330,000,000 gods, who are said to have worshipped Ráma, he never stirred a foot to liberate them. When his wife was stolen from him, however, he immediately became distracted, ran about the forest, ignorant of her fate, seeking her and bewailing her, embraced the trees in a fit of phrensy, and immediately vowed revenge on him who had stolen her. He knew little which was not told him by Hanumana Sugríva, and others, and he could do little without their aid. In order to get the services of Sugriva, he wickedly shot an arrow and killed Válí when engaged with Sugriva in single combat. He was unable to leap like Hanumána across the sea from Rameshvara to Lanká, and he impiously threw a temple of Shiva into the sea to enable him to form a bridge, and led his army of monkeys over it, who trampled upon the god, and all his sacred paraphernelia. When flattered by Ravana, he promised unconditionally that he would never destroy him, but when the gods, through fear of losing their power, tempted Ravana to reproach him, Appendix F.

1