112
hence it cannot necessarily mean "matter in a stage of perfect Laya." In what sense, then, does the learned querist want us to interpret the words "matter" and "spirit"? For, though we are aware that there exist, even in the present age of science and enlightenment, persons who, under the pretext of religion, teach the ignorant masses that there was a time when matter did not exist (since it was created) implying thus that there will come a moment when it will be annihilated, we have never yet met any one, whether atheist or deist, materialist or spiritualist, who would presume to say that spirit—whether we call it "void" or "divine breath"—can ever be annihilated; and if the word Laya means annihilation, the very expression used by the respected Swami involves an assumption that "spirit" can be destroyed in course of time. In such a case, we are evidently called upon to demonstrate that matter and spirit are eternal on the supposition that both have a period of Laya." If we are to avoid this extremely awkward conclusion, what is the purport of the Swami's question? Verily, it would have been better if he had allowed us the privilege of interpreting our own statements. Moreover, our learned opponent is not satisfied with merely giving us his own—begging his pardon—incomprehensible definition of matter and spirit, to enable us to prove our "assertion," but we are asked to answer the question "according to Patanjali's second and third Sutras, or, from the stand-point of esoteric theosophy." How or why should the Swami think or know, that we made the statement in question on the authority of Patanjali's treatise? Or is Patanjali's philosophy identical with esoteric theosophy in his opinion? If not, why should our statement be sine qua non proved only "according" to that philosopher's second and third Sutras? It would be just as reasonable to call upon us to prove the proposition under consideration from the stand-point of the Salvationists. As it is almost bopeless for us to understand his definition, or satisfy his curiosity under the extraordinary restrictions imposed, we shall, with the venerable Swami's permission, interpret our "assertion" in our own way and prove it agreeably to esoteric theosophy, and we hope, in accordance with the Adwaita philosophy, that our corrrespondent knows so well.
Our "assertion" then means the following Undifferentiated cosmic matter or Mulaprakriti, as it is called in Hindu books, is uncreated and eternal. It would be impossible to prove this assertion from â priori reasons, but its truth can be tested by the ordinary inductive method. In every objective phenomenon perceived, either in the present plane of consciousness or in any other plane requiring the exercise of spiritual faculties, there is but change of cosmic matter from one form to another. There is not a single instance, or the remotest suspicion of the annihilation of an atom of matter ever brought to light either by Eastern Adepts or Western scientists. When the common experience of generations of
