Page:A Collection of Esoteric Writings.djvu/101

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

87

Polytheists rather than Atheists. Only it must be remembered that these, their Gods, are neither infinite nor absolute. They are finite; billions on billion of years as they subsist, they pass into non-existence (but whether into non-being or not the holders of these tenets are not agreed) with the close of the great day, and they are conditioned by the eternal inherent law of the infinite substance one of whose developments they are.

Why, they have preferred finite and conditioned Gods to one Infinite and Absolute God is clear. On the former hypothesis, the origin of evil, the existence of sin and suffering offer no difficulty; the Gods do their best; but there are laws of opposite polarity, of antagonistic, opposites, to which the universe owes its origin, and with it they themselves, which are above them and which they are powerless to control, although they can largely modify their results. They do their best; if there still remain misery and evil, it is becaase not being omnipotent, they cannot cure without medicine, cannot make light apparent without darkness.

Why, too; they deny the primal Will as giving with to the so-called inherent laws is also clear. So long as these are blind laws, self-existing, no one is responsible for all the sin and sorrow and suffering that these laws entail. But admit the will, then this as (exhypothese) Omnipotent becomes responsible for all the evil that evolves from its behests and could not therefore apparently be perfectly beneficent. Whichever way we turn, then there are difficulties. No solution of the fundament problem of the universe that in all these thousands of thousands years the mind of man has been able evolve is altogether unimpeachable.

Let us then each take the solution that best suits our mental and spiritual constitution, and let us leave our neighbours an equal freedom of choice; let us never hesitate to state and defend our own views and oppose those other views that we think wrong, but let us do all this as we would defend our own and oppose our opponent's game at chess, with no more feeling against our opponents than we have agaiust an adversary at the noble game.

Above all let us remember that in this present life, the high theoretical questions of Personal, Impersonal, and No-God, are of less concern to us than our own everyday life about the right conduct of which no similar difficulties exist.