130
to use as there are yogees and sannyasis of various sects in India. A Visishtadwaita yogi will contend the correctness of the meaning as given by an Adwaitee-ascetic, and a devotee of Chaitanya or a Bhakti-yogee will never accept the interpretation of the Vedas or Bhagavadgita made by a Brahmo or an Arya. Thus truth is everywhere and may be said to be nowhere. For us it is absolutely and solely in the Arhat esoteric doctrines; and we remain firm in our convictions, all our opponents being quite as free as ourselves to adhere by their own views. We have met in the N. W. P. with an erudite Pundit, a renowned Sanskritist, the most learned authority with, and at the head of the Vaishnavas, and recognized as such by many others; and he wanted us to believe that the culmination of "Raj-yoga" was the practical and absolute powers it conferred upon the Raj-yogee over all the female sex in creation!! Shall we believe every exponent of the Vedas, the Shastree of every sect, only because he may be an authority to those who belong to the same denomination with him, or shall we make a judicious selection, following out the dictates of our reason, which tells us that he is most right and nearer to truth, who diverges the less from logic and—Science? The occult philosophy we study, uses precisely that method of investigation which is termed by Spinoza the "scientific method." It starts from, and proceeds only on "principles clearly defined and accurately known," and is therefore "the only one" which can lead to true knowledge. Therefore, be this philosophy, and no other shall we abide. And now we must leave the venerable Swami and his views to the dissecting knife of Mr. T. Subba Row.
PRAKRITI AND PURUSHA.
The editorial at the head of the article that precedes will explain to the learned Hermit of Almora and the readers of the Theosophist the reason for my having undertaken to write the following lines in connection with the controversy raised by the Swami as regards Prakriti layam (dissolution of Prakriti).
I am really quite delighted to be informed by the respected ascetic that his "motives are not shallow," and that he has raised the present controversy "for scientific purpose." But it is certainly a very dangerous task to enter into controversy with a disputant who, according to his own candid confession, is unable to give a clear expression to his thoughts, but who,
