SAIVA-SIDDHANTA

THE HOUSE OF GOD, 1$
words are ambiguous, any interpretation as to its real meaning
by other evidence is permissible at all. Then, again, when we
begin to enquire into the truth of any particular custom and
tradition, we find how difficult it is to arrive afc an uniform
conclusion, when we have to rely on mere oral evidence and
;
any documentary evidence (we use it in the strictly legal sense)
if available, is of the utmost importance, and the older the
^document, the greater the value thereof. Then, again, consider
the difference between the verbal accounts of a dozen people
who witnessed a particular scene all at the same time, and the
actual scene photographed by an ordinary Kodak. We might
be sure to discover
discrepancies and contradictions in the oral
testimony, though it might be perfectly honest. Of course,
there might be exceptionally trustworthy witnesses, as there
might be untrustworthy cameras. The test we have proposed
above, may, as such, be seen to possess all the elements of an old
and ancient document, and a trusty camera. And the more so,
when we know, as a matter of fact, that the written language of
the primitive mankind consisted of pictures only. The most
ancient Sumerian, the Chaldean, the Egyptian and the Chinese,
were all pictorial languages ;
and it is well known that these
were the people who have tried to leave their highest thoughts
on religion and philosophy behind them, in pictures and statues
and monuments.
In proceeding therefore to unravel the mysteries connected
with our symbolism, we must confess that the task is not one
which we can conscientiously think of adequately discharging.
In attempting the impossible therefore, we have no other excuse
than the one which Sage Sekkilar had before him :
"
Though impossible to reach its limits,
Insatiate love drives me to the task."
Before we do so however, we have to get
clear of two sets
of men, who pester us often with their cant. One of such will