[paragraph continues] Though Atman's continuity is admitted to be a fact of experience, it is denied by him for the exigencies of a thesis. With a view to firmly establish the doctrine that all external objects are momentary, he spends much ingenuity in showing that whatever exists,--including Atman--exists only for a moment. In thus denying a fact of experience for the sake of an argument, he does not stand alone. The Mimamsakas,--of the school of Bhatta for instance,--in their zeal to demolish the Idealist's doctrine that external objects have no existence independent of the ideas of objects, i.e., independent of the states of consciousness which, as he maintains, are sue generis,--hold that an idea is not a fact of immediate experience; that it is, on the other hand, always a matter of inference only. As against the Idealist, they hold that the forms of objects presenting themselves to consciousness inhere in the external objects themselves, the existence of corresponding ideas or mental states being inferred from the existence of forms which are directly revealed in experience. To the Idealist, as to all others, the continuity of Atman is a fact of immediate consciousness expressing itself thus: ''I who now touch the object am the same entity who tasted it before." For the sake of argument, however, he persists in maintaining that Atman also is momentary. Again, the Mimamsaka holds that Atman is a doer and

enjoyer in himself, while the Vedantin maintains that Atman can be said to act or enjoy only when identified with an upadhi. As the Mimamsaka's main object is to demolish the materialistic doctrine of the Charvakas, he contents himself with showing that there is an entity independent of the body, who does works here and enjoys their fruits in a world beyond, so that all Vedic injunctions should be duly observed as conducing to the enjoyment of heavenly bliss. It does not serve the purposes of a ritualistic doctrine to prove that Atman is in himself pure and immutable, himself not a doer of an action nor an enjoyer of its effects. On the other hand such a teaching would prove prejudicial to the main purpose. The Mimamsakas having expounded their system with the object of supplying a rational basis to the ritualistic doctrine, they cannot be said to be directly averse to the doctrine that Atman in His essential nature is pure immutable Consciousness, Existence and Bliss.

35. Next as to the unity of Atman and the unreality of all else. No doubt, ail other schools of philosophy, such as the Sankhyas and the Naiyayikas, speak of the universe of matter and material objects as real, and assert that Atmans are infinite in number. They, however, declare that when Spirit is liberated, It dwells alone by Itself in Its own light, nothing else presenting itself to Its vision. Moreover, the Sankhyas and the Tarkikas