through whom the Logos appeared, but the Logos itself. Perhaps our respect will only be enhanced, when we see that this is the case of the Logos descending into a human being for the good of humanity. It is not encumbered with any particular individuality in such a case, and has perhaps greater power to exert itself for the purpose of doing good to humanity—not merely for the purpose of doing good to one man, but for the purpose of saving millions.
There are two dark passages in the Mahābhāraṭa, which will be found very hard nuts for the advocates of the orthodox theory to crack. To begin with Rāma. Suppose Rāma was not the individual monad plus the Logos, but in some unaccountable manner the Logos made flesh. Then, when the physical body disappeared there should be nothing remaining but the Logos—there should be no individual ego to follow its own course. That seems to be the inevitable result, if we are to accept the orthodox theory. But there is a statement made by Nāraḍa in the Lokapāla Sabhā Varṇanā, in the Mahābhāraṭa, in which he says, speaking of the court of Yama, who is one of the Ḍevas, that Ḍasaraṭha Rāma was one of the individuals present there. Now, if the individual Rāma was merely a māyā—not in the sense in which every human being is a māyā but in a special sense—there is not the slightest reason why he should subsist after the purpose for which this māyā garb was wanted was accomplished. It is stated in the Rāmāyaṇa that
