It is a mistake to suppose that the first introduction of Theism into India was due to the founders of the Brāhma Samāj, or modern Theistic Churches of Bengal. Some of the oldest hymns of the Ṛig-veda are decidedly monotheistic, and all the most pronounced forms of Indian pantheism rest on the fundamental doctrine of God's unity. “There is one Being and no second,” or in other words, “Nothing really exists but the one eternal omnipresent Spirit,” was the dogma enunciated by ancient Hindū thinkers. It was a dogma accepted by the philosophical Brāhman with all its consequences and corollaries. He firmly believed himself and the Universe to be parts of the one eternal Essence, and wrapped himself up accordingly in a kind of serene indifference to all external phenomena and circumstances. Again even the ordinary Hindū who practises the most corrupt forms of polytheism is never found to deny the doctrine of God's unity. On the contrary, he will always maintain that God is essentially one, though he holds that the one God exhibits Himself variously, and that He is to be worshipped through an endless diversity of manifestations, incarnations, and material forms.

One of the chief difficulties which I have to encounter in the study of Old-Javanese manuscripts consists in the faulty spelling introduced by the Balinese transcribers. The Balinese language is not closely related to Javanese, the latter being a foreign language in. Bali. Only a few words are identical in both languages, while many others have in each case a more or less different form. Thus, the Old-Jav. nyû, cocoanut, is nyuh in Balinese; hence, the Balinese transcribers, finding the word nyû in a Kawi composition, change it into nyuh. Again, being unable in their own language to distinguish between u, wu and hu, all three being pronounced u, they write promiscuously uçinâra, huçinâra, wuçinâra, as well as hûçinâra or wûçinâra, so that it is difficult to say which is really the Kawi form of this name. The metre sometimes helps us in settling the spelling of a word, but this can only be in the poems called Kĕkawin (from Kawi, poet), the metre of which is essentially Indian and is regulated by long and short syllables; but, clearly, not in the poems called Kiḍung, wherein the metre is regulated by rhyme and the number of syllables. The Kiḍung are of far greater interest than the Kĕkawin, the latter being simply imitations from the Sanskrit, containing nothing about ancient Javanese life, whereas the Kiḍung, on the other hand, supply us with valuable particulars in this respect. It is, therefore, a matter of regret that the manuscripts are so faulty.

The word “Nirvana” expresses the doctrine of immortal hope as held by the ten Buddhist nations; the Singhalese of Ceylon, the Ghoorkas of Nepaul, the Tibetans, Mongols, Chinese, Coreans, Japanese, Cochin Chinese, Siamese, and Birmese.

The presence of a large number of Sanskrit words in the Malay language has often been pointed out, and the purity with which they are reproduced has been a subject of remark, showing, as it probably does, that they have been borrowed direct from the parent-language, and not from any of the Sanskrit-derived languages of India. Their sense, equally with their pronunciation, has varied little, and though many of them are more commonly met with in books than in the colloquial dialects, they are more completely part of the language than the ever-increasing crowd of Arabic words which have been introduced into it since the faith of El-Islam became established among the Malays. There is no documentary evidence, however, to show that the Sanskrit character was ever known to the Malays. What their alphabet was before the introduction of the Arabic character, or whether they ever possessed one, is unknown, though it has been conjectured that the Battak alphabet, or one closely resembling it, may have been in use among them.

The origin of the Indian alphabet is a matter of very considerable interest and importance. Was the art of writing introduced from foreign lands, or was it an indigenous invention; and in what age did it first make its appearance? Opinions differ on these points, for there is no certain evidence; and the conclusions arrived at are based entirely on inference and probability. The balance of opinion has perhaps, hitherto, inclined to the theory of a Semitic origin, and a late writer on the subject, our learned colleague Dr. Burnell, has given a very decided opinion on that side of the question. To his judgment I pay due deference, but the arguments with which he supports it seem to me inconclusive and unsatisfactory. I propose, therefore, to review briefly the whole subject.