destiny and the tyranny of time. Kreeshna's argument, it must be allowed, is defective. No sufficient reason is given why Arjoon should fight. Arjoon may be convinced, but the reader is not, for his judgment is not
"formed upon the speculative doctrines of the Sankhya Sastra." "Seek an asylum in wisdom alone,"—but what is wisdom to a western mind? He speaks of duty, but the duty of which he speaks is it not an arbitrary one? When was it established? The Brahman's virtue consists not in doing right, but arbitrary things. What is that which a man "hath to do?" What is "action?"
What are the "settled functions?" What is " a man's own religion," which is so much better than another's? What is " a man's own particular calling?" What are the duties which are appointed by one's birth? It is in fact a defence of the institution of casts, of what is called the "natural duty" of the Kshetree, or soldier, "to attach himself to the discipline," "not to flee from the field," and the like. But they who are unconcerned about the consequences of their actions, are not therefore unconcerned about their actions.—Yet we know not where we should look for a loftier speculative faith.
Behold the difference between the oriental and the occidental. The former has nothing to do in this world; the latter is full of activity. The one looks in the sun till his eyes are put out; the other follows him prone in his westward course. There is such a thing as cast, even in the West; but it is comparatively faint. It is conservatism here. It says forsake not your calling, outrage no institution, use no violence, rend no bonds. The State is thy parent. Its virtue or manhood is wholly filial. There is a struggle between the oriental and occidental in every nation; some who would be forever contemplating the sun,
