71
must rest upon its own strength. In my humble opinion it is clearly erroneous and unphilosophical.
I shall now take leave of Mr. Oxley and request him to kindly excuse me for the adverse criticism contained in my artictes. I shall be very glad if my strictures can Induce him to re-examine carefully the philosophy of spirit contained in Bhagavat-Gita and scrutinize the reasons for the conclusions arrived at by him in his book on the fundamental questions of occult philosophy and ethics. With his intuition and intelligence, he will no doubt be in a position to open out for himself a way to understand the mysteries of the Eastern arcane sciences,—if he only avoids the temptation to leap to general conclusions from insufficient data, and draw inferences prematurely before the whole range of our ancient science and philosophy is carefully explored by him.
I am very happy to hear that my learned antagonist has joined our Theosophical association, and I hope he will henceforth work in fraternal concord with his Eastern brothers for recovering the grand truths taught by the ancient Hierophants and promoting the cause of Universal Brotherhood.
retrogression in re-birth.
In his able review of Mr. Oxley's "Philosophy of Spirit," Mr. Subba Row, criticising the author's views of the hierosophic doctrine, remarks:—
"The second proposition (there is no re-birth in the materail human form, there is no retrogression at any time) is opposed to all the ancient traditions of Eastern nations and the teaching of all the Eastern adept."
The italics are mine. The proposition is certainly not in union with "all the ancient traditions of Eastern nations," but is the portion of it which I have italicised (there is no retrogression at any time), though certainly opposed to ancient Hindu traditions, really at variance with the "teaching of all the Eastern adepts"? Unless I am mistaken, you have all
