impressed by the philosophy of Hinduism and the fact that it permeates all things in Benares and other Hindu cities, says of Hinduism: 1" We must conceive, then, in the beginning and at the root of all things the absolute Being, pure and void, which is at the bottom of all forms and all germs. Developing itself outward it is subjected to Maya, illusion. . . . Illusion being recognized as such, what is more natural than a wish to escape from it? And how succeed in doing this, unless by destroying in one's self all that makes. part of this illusive and fugitive world; namely, desire, will, sensation? . . . For to immobility all Hindu philosophy practically leads. . . . That a man may enter into calm, he must hold his breath, fix his attention, destroy his senses, cease from speaking. He presses his palate with the tip of his tongue, breathes slowly, looks fixedly at a point in space, and thought ceases, consciousness is abolished, the feeling of personality vanishes.

...

'We shall cease to feel pleasure and pain, having attained immobility and solitude.' . . . 'As a spider rising by means of its own thread gains the open space, so he who meditates rises by means of the syllable Ом, and gains independence."" This syllable Oм recalls to the Brahman the three persons of the Hindu trinity: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; Siva, the destroyer and reproducer.

1 In India, André Chevrillon,

"Thought and will being abolished, the whole phantasmagoria of Maya disappears: 'We become like a fire without smoke, or like a traveller, who, having left the carriage which brought him, watches the revolution of its wheels.' . . . The man who sees a difference between Brahma and the world goes from change to change, from death to death.' That is to say, he will forever be reborn. . . 'He who, knowing the Vedas and having repeated them daily in a consecrated place, having made no creature suffer, concentrates his thoughts upon the Existence, and is absorbed therein, attains the world of Brahma and returns no more; no, he returns no more.' . . . Such is the supreme felicity reserved for the adepts of the mysterious doctrine celebrated by the Upanishads with a solemnity of language which gives an idea of the fervor, the enthusiasm, the restrained hope wherewith the Brahman is thrilled, as he looks forward to that day of deliverance after which he will never again say Me of himself.”

If the Hindu is striving daily to lose all sense of the Me, is it not possible for us to understand that he might submit with apathy to what would appear to us to be misfortune or disgrace, and even accept death with calmness and fortitude as did the Brahman Nuncomar, because he could hope to be absorbed into Brahma? Yet he might revolt in desperation against a thing that to us seems trivial, such as the greased cartridges that pre

cipitated the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, because he feared. the pollution which would compel him to be reborn.

By the year 1000 A.D., the inhabitants of India were so imbued with Hinduism that though the different tribes were not at peace with each other, they were ready to unite and fight with a heroic determination against the invasion of people of another faith. By this time, too, the Rajputs, or soldier caste, had grown very strong and powerful, and the Vaisyas had made riches for the country.

The Mohammedans. - Meanwhile in Arabia in the seventh century Mohammedanism had sprung up. This is the religion of the Moslems. Its adherents call it Al Islam. It rests on four pillars: (1) the Koran, (2) the traditions, (3) the consent of the learned doctors, (4) the reasoning of learned divines. It enjoins five great religious duties: (1) bearing witness that there is no god but God, and Mohammed is his apostle, (2) reciting in daily prayer, (3) giving the legal alms, (4) observing the monthly feast, (5) making a pilgrimage once in a lifetime to Mecca. The followers of this new religion set out to convert the world. One of the first expeditions was against India, but the Hindus repulsed them with such valor that they got no farther than the western part of the Sind, and their foothold there they soon lost. The Mohammedan Arabs had overrun Northern Africa and

conquered and settled in Spain before any incursions into India succeeded.

The following table gives the chief Mohammedan dynasties of India.

I. House of Ghizni. 1001-1180. (Turkish.)

II. House of Ghor.

(Afghan.)

III. The Slave Kings. (Chiefly Turkish.)

IV. House of Khilji.

V. House of Tughlak. 1320-1414.

Irruption of the Moguls under Tamer (Tamerlane).

VI. The Sayyids. 1414-1450.

VII. The Lodis. 1450-1526. (Afghan.) Feeble reigns; independent states multiply.

VIII. House of Tamer. (Mogul.).

1526-1530. Baber.

1707-1712.

Bahadur Shah, or Shah Alam I.

1748-1754. Death of Mohammed Shah, and accession of Ahmed Shah, deposed 1754.

1754. Alamgir II. Six invasions of India by Ahmen Shah Durani, the Afghan.

1759. Shah Alam II., titular Emperor.

1837-1857. Mohammed Bahadur Shah, titular Emperor; seventeenth and last Mogul Emperor; gave his sanction to the Mutiny of 1857, and died a state prisoner at Rangoon in 1862.

The first successful Mohammedan invasion of India founded the house of Ghizni. It was brought on by the Hindus themselves. The Hindu chief of Lahore had been annoyed by raids from the Mohammedans of Ghizni. He marched his Rajputs northwest to this town. They were repulsed; their retreat was cut off, and they barely saved themselves by promising great ransoms. When they got back to Lahore they repudiated their promises. Tradition tells that Jaipal was counselled by the Brahmans at his right hand not to disgrace himself by paying ransom to a barbarian, while his warriors on his left implored him to keep faith. The Mohammedans repaid this treachery by taking possession of Peshawar, which gave them control of both ends of the Khaibar pass. Using this pass as their gateway the Mohammedans invaded India.

The Mohammedan houses or dynasties, some Turks, some Slaves, and some Afghans, all Tartars that had become Mohammedans, fought in turn for control of Mohammedan India. The Hindu kings were defeated and routed again and again, but not subdued. Occasionally the Gurkhas and the Hillmen assisted by pouring down upon the Mohammedans, massacring thousands of them: If the Rajput kings had kept their forces together, they might have continued to withstand the Mohammedan invaders, but they quarrelled, and thus the Hindus lost control.