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 history by means of the various stages in the growth or development of the Sanskrit language and Indian literature.  The time required for this growth is often estimated in the same manner in which a geologist endeavours to fix the time required for the gradual development of the various strata composing the earth’s crust.  But we fail to perceive anything like a proper method in making these calculations.  It will be wrong to assume that the growth of one language will require the same time as that of another within the same limits.  The peculiar characteristics of the nation to whom the language belongs must be carefully taken into consideration in attempting to make any such calculation.  The history of the said nation is equally important.  Any one who examines Max Muller’s estimate of the so-called Sutra, Brahmana, Mantra and Khanda periods, will be able to perceive that no attention has been paid to these considerations.  The time allotted to the growth of these four “strata” of Vedic literature is purely arbitrary.