XV11 contingent being involves the necessary existence of Brahman. The nerve of this proof lies in the absurdity of supposing that there can be contingent without self-dependent Reality. ( निरधिष्ठान कल्पनानुपपत्तिः) The necessary existence of Brahman is Its Eter nity; for It is incapable of contingent necessity, since there is nothing real beside It on which It could be contingent (परानपेक्षत्वात् । न हि कारकापेकं वस्तुनस्तत्त्वम् । अविकारं च ब्रह्म, सर्वविकारहेतुत्वात् । ८. १११, ९८.. So understood, the ontological argument is valid, and does not come under Kant's criticism. And its validity depends upon the unique nature of the idea of Brahman. if you apply the ontological argument to anything except the whole and unique system of experience, Kant's criticism is unanswerable. If ex istence is necessarily included in the idea of Brahman, then Brahman must exist, is an analytical judgment. It is con• tradictory to think the subject without the predicate; but as Kant pointed out, it is not in the least contradictory to think neither subject nor predicate . You cannot conceive Brahman without conceiving it to exist, if existence is included in the content of its idea; but you need not conceive Brahman at all. But the cogency of this reasoning disappears the monment that Brahman stands for the whole Reality. Then you cannot get rid of the subject of your analytical judgement without removing that which all and any experience involves; you cannot refuse to conceive Brahman without ceasing to think or doubt or feel, in short, without ceasing to be (असन्नेव स भवति । असद्रौोति वेद चेत् । तै. उ'२.६ ). Hence, there is obviously a fundamental connection between the uniqueness and the self-determined existence of Brahman. ( एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । पृ. ९५). The Vedanta philosophy sets forth a very high and noble idea of God. It is not that of a personal God with which the other reli gions are contented. To the Vedantin personal God is a lower being (अपरब्रह्म). His God is a purely impersonal one. The Brahman
