The biased British Indologists

The first Westerners to investigate the Vedic literatures were the British, in the last half of the eighteenth century. It is best to understand their work in the larger historical context1 of the British rule of India.

?A Brief History of the British in India

?Early invaders of India included the Persians (600 B.C.) and the Greeks under Alexander the Great (300 B.C.). India’s first great Hindu empire, the Maurya Empire founded by Candragupta (300 B.C.), expanded under Emperor A?oka to embrace the whole subcontinent, and it also fostered Buddhism. After A?oka, assorted northern tribes invaded India, until the reign of another Gupta dynasty, which united a section of the country for centuries. In the seventh century the Arab Muslims began conquering India, and various Muslim leaders developed empires up until the Mogul Empire, whose chief ruler was Akbar. During the reign of Akbar’s son Jahangir (1605–1627), the British established their first trading station in India. The Portuguese had been the first Europeans to arrive, and they competed with the French and English for commercial control of port cities. Through treaties with local rulers, the trading companies became more powerful than the Mogul Empire. The companies received official monopolies from their governments and held huge armies of mercenaries. By defeating an Indian army at the Battle of Plassey, in 1757, the British East India Company finally gained supremacy. Through the eighteenth century, the company made treaties or annexed areas by military campaigns; at last in full control of India, it ceded the country to the British government.

At first, the British government was careful not to force any change in religion upon the Indian people. This policy had always seemed most judicious for ruling the several hundred million Indian citizens without precipitating rebellion. Thus, under Lord Cornwallis (1786–1793, 1805) laissez-faire had dominated the East India Company’s attitude toward the Indian way of life.2 Through the East India Company’s regulations of 1793, the governor general had promised to “preserve the laws of the Shaster and the Koran, and to protect the natives of India in the free exercise of their religion.”3 However, a year before these regulations went into effect, Charles Grant had written, “The company manifested a laudable zeal for extending, as far as its means went, the knowledge of the Gospel to the pagan tribes among whom its factories were placed.”4 In 1808, the same author described openings of Christian schools and translations of the Bible into Indian dialects as “principal efforts made under the patronage of the British government in India, to impart to the natives a knowledge of Christianity.”5

Historian Vincent Smith describes three broad tendencies in Britain’s policy at the start of the 1800’s.6 The conservatives were interested in improving the Indian way of life, but recommended extreme caution for fear of violent reaction; they saw no easy overthrow of Indian tradition. The liberals felt the need to introduce Western ideas and values, but they hoped to integrate gradually. The rationalists, led by George Berkeley and David Hume, had a more radical approach. They trusted that reason could abolish all human ignorance. And since the West was the champion of reason, the East could only profit by the acquaintance.

To most eighteenth-century Englishmen (whether at home or abroad), religion meant Christianity. Naturally, racism played its part also. “This attitude of Europeans toward Indians was due to a sense of racial superiority—a cherished conviction which was shared by every Englishman in India, from the highest to the lowest.”7 Thus, upon arriving in India in 1813, the governor general marquis of Hastings wrote, “The Hindoo appears a being merely limited to mere animal functions, and even in them indifferent … with no higher intellect than a dog.”8

Without governmental sanction or license, the Christian evangelists came to India and proselytized to undermine the “superstitions of the country.”9 Alexander Duff (1806–1878) founded Scots College, in Calcutta, which he envisioned as a “headquarters for a great campaign against Hinduism.”10 Duff sought to convert the natives by enrolling them in English-run schools and colleges, and he placed emphasis on learning Christianity through the English language. Another leading missionary, a Baptist, William Carey (1761–1834), smuggled himself into India and propagandized against the Vedic culture so zealously that the British government in Bengal curbed him as a political danger. On confiscating a batch of Bengali-language pamphlets produced by Carey, India’s Governor General Lord Minto described them as “scurrilous invective.…Without arguments of any kind, they were filled with hell fire and still hotter fire, denounced against a whole race of men merely for believing in the religion they were taught by their fathers.”11 Duff, Carey, and other missionaries gradually gained strength and became more aggressive; finally, they gained permission to conduct their campaigns without governmental license. The missionaries actively opposed the British government’s attempt to take a neutral stand toward Indian culture and worked with optimism for the complete conversion of the natives. They did not hesitate to denounce the Vedic literatures as “absurdities” meant “for the amusement of children.’’12

Historian Arthur D. Innes writes, “The educators had hardly concealed their expectations that with Western knowledge the sacred fairy tales of the East would be dissolved and the basis of popularly cherished creeds would be swept away.”13 The suspicion of religious coercion disrupted British-lndian relations and in 1857 helped touch off the Sepoy Rebellion (of Indian mercenaries).14

The First Scholars

Such was the setting in which the first Indologists appeared. These first Vedic scholars did not form a unified political or academic party; they were variously conservative, liberal, and radical. Sir William Jones, the first Britisher to master Sanskrit and study the Vedas, drew fire from the eminent British historian James Mill for his “hypothesis of a high state of civilization.”15 Typically, Mill believed that the people of India never had been advanced and that therefore their claim to a glorious past (which some of the early Indologists supported) was historical fantasy. At any rate, by translating the Vedas for the Western reader and thus evincing the ancient Vedic genius, the scholars increased India’s prestige in the West. On the other hand, as Aubrey Menen has said, “It should be remembered that they [the English of the seventeenth century] were not the almost pagan English of today. Every man was a Christian, and it was a Christian’s duty to wash the heathen in the blood of the lamb.”16

Nonetheless, some of the early scholars rather admired the Vedic culture they were investigating, even though they initially conceived of themselves as bearers of Christian light to the sacred darkness of the heathens.

?Sir William Jones (1746–1794), Charles Wilkins (1749–1836), and Thomas Colebrooke (1765–1837) are considered the fathers of Indology.17 Jones was educated at Oxford and there began his studies in Oriental and other languages; he is said to have mastered a total of sixteen. In addition, he wrote a Persian grammar, translated various Oriental literatures, and also practiced law. After his appointment as judge of the Supreme Court, Sir William went to Calcutta, in 1783. There he founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal and was its president throughout his life. He translated a number of Sanskrit works into English, and his investigations into languages mark him as one of the most brilliant minds of the eighteenth century. Sir William was not prone to invective against another’s religion, particularly the Vedic, which he admired. In his view the narratives of the East, like those of Greece and Rome, could enrich both the English tradition and the human mind. Notwithstanding, Sir William’s stance was that of “a devout and convinced Christian.”18 Thus, he described the Bh?gavata Pur??a as “a motley story,”19 and he speculated that the Bh?gavata came from the Christian gospels, which had been brought to India and “repeated to the Hindus, who ingrafted them on the old fable of Ce’sava [Ke?ava, a name for K???a], the Apollo of Greece.”20 Of course, this theory has been discredited since records of K???a worship predate Christ by centuries.21

?H. H. Wilson ( 1786–1860), described as “the greatest Sanskrit scholar of his time,”22 received his education in London and journeyed to India in the East India Company’s medical service. He became secretary of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1811–1833), and medical duties notwithstanding, he published a Sanskrit-English dictionary. He became Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford in 1833, librarian of the India House in 1836, and director of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1837. Titles credited to his name include Vi??u Pur??a, Lectures on the Religious and Philosophical Systems of the Hindus, and ?g Veda, among others. Also, he helped Mill’s History of India and edited several other translations of Eastern literatures. He also proposed that Britain restrain herself from forcing the Hindus to give up their religious traditions. Compared to the evangelists, he appears to have been a champion of the preservation of Vedic ideas. Yet we may be a little startled by his stated motives:

From the survey which has been submitted to you, you will perceive that the practical religion of the Hindus is by no means a concentrated and compact system, but a heterogeneous compound made up of various and not infrequently incompatible ingredients, and that to a few ancient fragments it has made large and unauthorized additions, most of which are of an exceedingly mischievous and disgraceful nature. It is, however, of little avail yet to attempt to undeceive the multitude; their superstition is based upon ignorance, and until the foundation is taken away, the superstructure, however crazy and rotten, will hold together.23

Ultimately, Wilson felt that the Christian culture should simply replace the Vedic culture, and he believed that full knowledge of the Indian tradition would help effect that conversion. In his modulated conservatism he seemed to echo the East India Company. Aware that the people of India would not easily give up their tradition, he made this shrewd commentary:

The whole tendency of brahminical education is to enforce dependence upon authority—in the first instance upon the guru, in the next upon the books. A learned br?hma?a trusts solely to his learning; he never ventures upon independent thought; he appeals to memory; he quotes texts without measure and in unquestioning trust. It will be difficult to persuade him that the Vedas are human and very ordinary writings, that the Pur??as are modern and unauthentic, or even that the tantras are not entitled to respect. As long as he opposes authority to reason, and stifles the workings of conviction by the dicta of a reputed sage, little impression can be made upon his understanding. Certain it is, therefore, that he will have recourse to his authorities, and it is therefore important to show that his authorities are worthless.24

?Wilson also warned that the Vedic adherents were likely to show “tenacious obstinacy” about their “speculative tenets … particularly those regarding the nature and condition of the soul.”25 But he was hopeful that by inspired, diligent effort the “specious” system of Vedic thought would be “shown to be fallacious and false by the Ithuriel spear of Christian truth.”26 As the first holder of Oxford’s Boden Chair for Sanskrit, H. H. Wilson delivered public lectures to promote his cause. He intended that the lectures “help candidates for a prize of two hundred pounds … for the best refutation of the Hindu religious system.”27 Wilson’s writings are full of similar passages, including a detailed method for exploiting the native Vedic psychology by use of a counterfeit guru-disciple relationship. Now, in Wilson’s case, the charge of bias has become aggravated by charges of invalid scholarship. Recently, Natalie P. R. Sirkin presented documented evidence that betrays Wilson as a plagiarist: his most important publications were collected manuscripts by deceased authors whose works he credited to himself, as well as works done without research. “He wrote an analysis of the Pur??as without reading them.”28

Another renowned pioneer Indologist was F. Max Muller (1823–1900), born at Dessau and educated in Leipzig. He learned Sanskrit and translated the ancient Hitopade?a before coming to England, in 1846. Comissioned by the East India Company to translate the ?g Veda, he lived at Oxford and wrote many books on mythology and comparative religion. Muller is best known for his series Sacred Books of the East, a fifty-volume work which he devoted himself to editing in 1875.

In 1876, Muller wrote to a friend, “India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of Saint Paul.”29 He added that he would not like to go to India as a missionary, because that would make him dependent on the government. His preference was this: “I should like to live for ten years quite quietly and learn the language, try to make friends, and then see whether I was fit to take part in a work, by means of which the old mischief of Indian priestcraft could be overthrown and the way opened for the entrance of simple Christian teaching.”30 Muller regarded Vedic philosophy as “Aryan legend” and “myth,” and he believed that Aryan civilizations had simply helped bring about the evolution of Christianity. “History seems to think that the whole human race required gradual education before, in the fullness of time, it could be admitted to the truths of Christianity.”31 Muller added, “The ancient religions of the world may have but served to prepare the way of Christ by helping through its very errors.”32

H. H. Wilson’s successor in Oxford’s Boden Chair was Sir Monier Monier-Williams (1819–1899). Born in Bombay, Monier-Williams attended the East India Company’s college and later taught there. After his appointment as a professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, in 1870, he delivered an inaugural lecture entitled “The Study of Sanskrit in Relation to Missionary Work in India.” Monier-Williams also wrote a book called Hinduism (1894), which was published and distributed by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. He is best known to twentieth-century Indology students for his Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Also, he dedicated twenty-five years to founding an institution at Oxford for disseminating information about Indian literature and culture. He succeeded, and the Indian Institute formally opened in 1896. Monier-Williams disapproved of Muller’s evolution-to-Christianity view of the Vedic ??stra:

There can be no doubt of a greater mistake than to force these non-Christian bibles into conformity with some scientific theory of development and then point to the Christian’s Holy Bible as the crowning product of religious evolution. So far from this, these non-Christian bibles are all developments in the wrong direction. They all begin with some flashes of true light and end in utter darkness.33

Monier-Williams further wrote, “It seems to me that our missionaries are already sufficiently convinced of the necessity of studying these works, and of making themselves conversant with the false creeds they have to fight against. How could an army of invaders have any chance of success in an enemy’s country without a knowledge of the position and strength of its fortresses, and without knowing how to turn the batteries they may capture against the foe?”34

Another early Indologist was Theodore Goldstucker (1821–1872), born at Konigsberg and educated there and at Bonn, where he studied Sanskrit, philosophy, and Oriental languages. After settling in England, in 1850, he received appointment as a professor of Sanskrit at London’s University College; he held this post until his death. Goldstucker wrote a number of books on Sanskrit literature and founded the Society for the Publication of Sanskrit Texts. He also participated in many writing and research projects concerning India. The Dictionary of lndian Biography describes him as an authority on ancient Hindu literature.35 Goldstucker regarded the people of India as being burdened by Vedic religion, which had only brought them worldwide “contempt and ridicule.” Thus, he proposed to reeducate them with European values. Goldstucker wrote, “The means for combating that enemy is as simple as it is irresistible: a proper instruction of the growing generation in its ancient literature.”36 In his book Inspired Writings of Hinduism, Goldstucker assailed the validity of Vedic literature. His aim was to demonstrate to the new generation of Vedic followers that he had scholastically annihilated their scripture and that they should show their appreciation by adopting European values and improving their character.

It is lamentable that this sectarian raison d’etre clouded the early study of Vedic literature. At any rate, when reading the theories or analyses of these early Indologists, the student would do well to bear in mind the bias behind the brilliant scholarship.

?Their Influence on Modern Scholarship

?Of course, college Sanskrit departments no longer award prizes for “the best refutation of Hinduism.” In fact, when one samples the current selection of books by Vedic scholars, he finds the authors describing themselves as “sympathetic outsiders,” “friends of India,” and “admirers of the tradition of tolerance in Indian religion.”

?Nonetheless, some of the missionary Indologists’ main theses still crop up as time-honored facts. Simply by being the pioneers, Wilson, Monier-Williams, Muller, and others have left a lasting impression of how one should go about studying the ??stras. “The foundations for the recovery of India’s past were laid by certain eminent classical scholars, including Sir William Jones, James Prinsep, H. T. Colebrooke, and H. H. Wilson.… the debt owed these men is great.”37

Modern Vedic scholars are hardly missionaries; still, largely out of academic habit, they give tacit approval to many of the first Indologists’ conclusions. For instance, the early researchers portrayed Vedic literature as a hodgepodge of disharmonious texts. Sir Monier Monier-Williams wrote, “Yes, after a lifelong study of the religious books of the Hindus, I feel compelled to publicly express my opinion of them. They begin with much promise amid scintillations of truth and light and occasional sublime thoughts from the source of all truth and light, but end in sad corruptions and lamentable impurities.”38 Like their predecessors, today’s scholars discredit the Pur??as, although the Vedic ?c?ryas themselves have accepted the Pur??as on a par with the other Vedic ??stras. Recently, one scholar has commented that Muller attempted to change Hinduism to a “new and purer form” and failed, but that “his conception of the history of Hinduism, which presented an antithesis between its Vedic form and the so-called Puranic form … still survives in a modified version.”39 In addition, many of today’s scholars still teach that the Vedas are essentially mythological and that the Pur??as are not even consonant with the Vedic mythology. In other words, the scholars disavow what the ?c?ryas affirm—namely, that the Vedic literatures form a coherent whole, and that the Pur??as are the culmination. But since it is the Pur??as that substantiate monotheism, if we dismiss them we miss part of the Vedic picture of the Absolute Truth.

As we would expect, many of today’s students are coming to think of the Vedic literature as lacking clarity and conclusiveness. More often than not, as one begins his Indological studies he hears that Vedic authority is dubious, that eternal existence is simply a wish for self-perpetuation, and that God and the demigods are ipso facto myths. In fact, the Vedas’ compiler, Vy?sadeva, often receives no mention. Moriz Winternitz writes that the names of the authors of Vedic literature are unknown to us and that sometimes “a mythical seer of primitive times is named as author.”40 Yet Vedic evidence confirms Vy?sadeva as the literature’s actual compiler: “Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, ?ré Vy?sadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavaté, wife of Par??ara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches.”41 Still, Winternitz makes this comment: “The orthodox … believe the same Vy?sa who compiled the Vedas and composed the Mah?bh?rata, who also in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the present age of the world, was the author of the eighteen Pur??as. But this Vy?sadeva is a form of the exalted God Vi??u Himself.”42 And thus, without further word, Winternitz rejects the possibility of Vy?sadeva’s authorship and goes on to discuss other possible authors: since the Pur??as present Vy?sadeva as an avat?ra, he obviously could never have existed. In this way, Vedic personalities and statements become suspect, even “mythological,” simply because they are supramundane. The student of the Vedas should understand plainly that the Vedas do describe the supramundane, and that to reject their statements on this basis is really self-defeating. One should approach the Vedas with an open mind and let them speak for themselves. Otherwise, they will remain a hodgepodge of “sad corruptions and lamentable impurities.”

Today many scholars continue to minimize the existential and transcendental validity of the Vedas, often without so much as an explanation why empiric knowledge should take precedence over ?abda, knowledge from authority. Thus, subtly but surely, the Indological scholars of the present day have inherited the pioneers’ bias, and though today’s bias is not “evangelist” but “empiricist,” it slants just the same. With all deference to the laudable efforts of the empiricists, we suggest that the student try to take a fresh look at Vedic literature, through the eyes of the Vedas themselves. Momentarily setting aside the legacy of the British Indological pioneers, the new student of Vedic literature will benefit by returning to the primary sources—the original ??stras and the commentaries of the ?c?ryas. In this way, without preconceived notions, the student may better appreciate the coherent and many-faceted knowledge that the Vedas offer.

?RVL: Appendixes: Bibliography

?Bibliography

?ACYUT?NANDA SV?Mé. comp. Songs of the Vai??ava ?c?ryas. New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1974.

?ALLAN. J. et al. The Cambridge Shorter History of India. Delhi: S. Chand and Co., 1964.

?BASHAM. A.L. The Wonder that Was India London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1954.

?BASU, MAJOR B.D., I.M.S., ed. The Sacred Book of the Hindus, vol. 1. Allahabad: Panini Office, n.d.

?BHAKTISIDDH?NTA SARASVATé GOSV?Mé ?H?KURA. ?ré Brahma-saàhit?. Madras: Trida?òé ?ré Bhaktipraj?a Yati, 1973.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. Bhagavad-gét? As It Is. New York: Macmillan Co., 1972.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. K???a, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, vol. 3. New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1974.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. The Nectar of Devotion (a summary study of ?réla Rüpa Gosv?mé’s Bhakti-ras?m?ta-sindhu). New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1970.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. The Nectar of Instruction (a summary study of ?réla Rüpa Gosv?mé’s ?ré Upade??m?ta). New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1975.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. ?ré Caitanya-carit?m?ta, ?di-lél?, vols. 1, 2; Madhya-lél?, vol. 8. New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1974–1975.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. ?ré é?opani?ad New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1974.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. ?rémad-Bh?gavatam, First Canto, vol. 1; Fourth Canto, vol. 3. New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1974.

?BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUP?DA. A.C. Teachings of Lord Caitanya. New York: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1974.

?BUCKLAND. C.E. Dictionary of Indian Biography. London: Swan Sonnerschein and Co., 1906.

?CARDONA. GEORGE et al., ed. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans: Papers Presented at the Third International Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1971.

?CHATFIELD, ROBERT. The Rise and Progress of Christianity in the East. London, 1808.

?CHATTERJEE SATISCHANDRA. The Fundamentals of Hinduism. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press, 1970.

?CHAUDHURI, NIRAD C. Scholar Extraordinary. London, 1974.

?CHAVARRIA-AGUILAR, O.L., ed. Traditional India Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

?CHRISTIAN LITERATURE SOCIETY FOR INDIA. Hindu Series: Epic Poems and Pur??as. London and Madras, 1898.

?COOMERSWAMY, ANANDA K., ed. Am I My Brother’s Keeper? New York: John Day Co., 1974.

?COOMERSWAMY. ANANDA K., Hinduism and Buddhism. New York: Philosophic Library, n.d.

?DE BARY, WILLIAM THEODORE et al., ed. Approaches to Asian Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964.

?DODWELL, H.H., ed. The Cambridge History of the British Empire. Cambridge: University Press, 1964.

?DUNNE. FINLEY P. JR., ed The World Religions Speak on the Relevance of Religion in the Modern World. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk N.V. Publishers, 1970.

?EMBREE. AINSLEE T. The Hindu Tradition. New York: Vintage, 1972.

?EMINENT ORIENTALISTS. Madras: G.A. Natesan and Co., 1922.

?ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA. 30 vols. Chicago, 1974.

?ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS. 12 vols. New York, 1922.

?FRAZIER, KENDRICK. “Human Evolution,” Science News July, 1975.

?GAMBHIRANANDA. SWAMI. trans. Eight Upani?ads, II. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1966.

?GARBE, RICHARD. India and Christendom. The Historical Connection Between Their Religions. Translated by Lydia J. Robinson. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1959.

?GOKHALE, DINKAR VISHNU. ed The Bhagavad-gét? with the Commentary of ?ré ?aìkar?c?rya. Poona, India: Oriental Book Agency, 193L

?GUPTA, MUNILALA, trans. Vi??u Pur??a. Gorakha Pura, India: Gét? Press, n.d.

?GOLDSTUCKER, THEODORE. Inspired Writings of Hinduism. Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1952.

?HART, GEORGE L. III. A Rapid Sanskrit Method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Department of Indian Studies, 1972.

?“H.H. WILSON AND GAMEMANSHIP IN INDOLOGY.” Asian Studies 3 (1965): 303.

?HIRIYANNA, MYSORE. Popular Essays in Indian Philosophy. Mysore, India: Kevalaya Publishers, 1952.

?HOCKETT, CHARLES F. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan Co., 1958.

?HOPKINS, THOMAS. The Hindu Religious Tradition. Encino, Calif: Dickenson Publishing Company, 1971.

?HOUSE OF COMMONS, ed. Observations on the State of Society. London, 1823.

?HUME, ROBERT ERNEST. trans. The Thirteen Principal Upani?ads. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

?INNES, ARTHUR D. Shorter History of the British in India. London, 1902.

?JONES, SIR WILLIAM. The Works of Sir William Jones. London, 1807.

?“JONES TRADITION IN BRITISH ORIENTALISM.” Indian Arts and Letters 20 (1946): 10.

?LANNOY, RICHARD. The Speaking Tree: A Study of Indian Culture and Society. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

?LATIF, SYAD, ed. An Outline of the Cultural History of India. Hyderabad: Institute of Indo-Middle East Cultural Studies, 1958.

?MAHAJAN, V.D. Ancient India. New Delhi: S. Chand and Co., 1974.

?MAJUMDAR, R.C. et al., ed. History and Culture of the Indian People. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1965.

?MENEN AUBREY. The Mystics. New York: Dial, 1974.

?MONIER-WILLIAMS, SIR MONIER. Religious Thought and Life in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1885.

?MORELAND W.H. et al. A Shorter History of India. London: Longmans Green and Co., 1957.

?MULLER, F. MAX. A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature as It Illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmins. Varanasi: Chowkhambha Sanskrit Series Office, 1968.

?NIKHILANANDA, SWAMI. trans. The Upani?ads: A Second Selection. London: Phoenix House, 1954.

?ORGAN, TROY WILSON. Hinduism. Woodbury, New York: Barron’s Educational Series, 1974.

?PIGGOT, STUART. Prehistoric India to 1000 B.C. London: Cassell and Co., 1962.

?POTTER, KARL H. Presuppositions of India’s Philosophies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

?RADHAKRISHNAN, SARVEPALLI and MOORE, CHARLES A. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957.

?RADHAKRISHNAN, SARVEPALLI. Indian Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Co., 1923.

?RAWLINSON, H.G. The British Achievement in India. London: Hodge, 1948.

?RAYCHARIDHURI, HEMCHANDRA. Studies in Indian Antiquity. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press, 1958.

?RENOU, Louis. Hinduism. New York: Washington Square Press, 1969.

?REYNA, RUTH. Introduction to Indian Philosophy. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., 1964.

??AìKAR?C?RYA. Viveka-cuò?ma?i. Mayavati, India: Advaita Ashrama, 1926.

?SANYAL, DR. NISIKANTA. BH. S., comp. ?ruti-ratna-m?l?. Nadia, West Bengal: Sundara Vidy?vinoda, 1941.

?SASTRI, NALINIMOHAN S. A Study of ?aìkara. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1942.

?SAYANA, ACARYA, trans. ?g Veda. Mathur?, India: Vedanurgi Acarya Gopala Prasada, 1868.

?SCHWEITZER, ALBERT. Indian Thought and Its Development. Boston: Beacon Press, 1936.

?SIDDH?NTé GOSV?Mé, BHAKTI ?Ré RüPA et al., trans. Ka?ha Upani?ad Calcutta: S?rasvata Gauòéya Mission, 1971.

?SIDDH?NTé GOSV?Mé, BHAKTI ?Ré RüPA et al., Mu?òaka Upani?ad. Calcutta: S?rasvata Gauòéya Mission, 1971.

?SIDDH?NTé GOSV?Mé, BHAKTI ?Ré RüPA, ed. ?rémad Bhagavad-gét? with the Gét?-bhü?a?a Commentary of ?réla Baladeva Vidy?bhü?a?a. Calcutta: S?rasvata Gauòéya Mission, 1967.

?SIDDH?NTé GOSV?Mé, BHAKTI ?Ré RüPA et al., trans. ?vet??vatara Upani?ad Calcutta: S?rasvata Gauòéya Mission, 1971.

?SIDDH?NTé GOSV?Mé, BHAKTI ?Ré RüPA et al., trans. Ved?nta-sütra. Nadia, West Bengal: S?rasvata Gauòéya Mission, 1968.

?SIRKIN, NATALIE P.R. “H.H. Wilson and Gamesmanship in Indology,” Asian Studies 3 (1965).

?SMITH, VINCENT A. The Oxford History of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958.

?SMITH, GEORGE. Dictionary of National Biography (21 vols.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950.

??RéDHARA SV?Mé, Subodhiné-?ik? (on Bhagavad-gét?). Calcutta: Gauòéya Mission, 1946.

?TEIGNMOUTH. BARON JOHN S. Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Correspondence of Sir William Jones. London: J. Hatchard, 1804.

?VEDA-VY?SA, K???A DVAIP?YANA. ?rémad-Bh?gavata Mah?-Pur??a. Gorakha Pura, India: Gét? Press, n.d.

?VIDYARNAVA, RAI B.S.C. VASU trans. B?had-?ra?yaka Upani?ad Allahabad : The Painini Office, 1933.

?VIVEKANANDA ROCK MEMORIAL COMMITTEE. India’s Contribution to World Thought and Culture. Madras, 1970.

?WALLBANK, T. WALTER. India: A Survey of the Heritage and Growth of Indian Nationalism. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1948.

?WATSON, PATTY JO. Explanation in Archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.

?WEBER, MAX. The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism. Translated by Hans Garth et al. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958.

?WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE. Cleveland: The World Publishing Co., 1964.

?WHEELER, SIR MORTIMER. Civilizations of the Indus Valley and Beyond. London: Thames and Hudson, 1966.

?WILSON, H.H. Works. London: Trubner and Co., 1862.

?WINTERNITZ MORIZ. A History of Indian Literature, vol. 1. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1927.

?ZIMMER HEINRICH. Philosophies of India. New York: Pantheon Hooks, 1951.

References:

1. https://www.radha.name/digital-books/practical-application