29th Sept. Earvesr enquirers after Theosophic truth must have suffered a severe shock on reading in the July number of the Nineteenth Century the latest vindication of their creed by one of its most popular exponents. the author of "Esoteric Buddhism" and "The Occult World" somewhat erroneously styles his article "A Reply to Professor Max Miller." A misleading heading surely, for after perusing carefully every line of it, we confess ourselves unable to see what claim it possesses to such a dignified title. We have the greatest respect for Mr. Sinnett, and are surprised that he could give his name to a paper that could only be convincing to tue blindest of his adorers, and the most ignorant Theosophic novice. To others, unfortunately, Mr. Sinnett's so-called reply could be nothing but a most disappointing piece of work; calculated to do far more harm than good to the cause he advocates. Ihe fallacies in his arguments are so painfully apparent, and he so entirely begs the question raised by Professor Max Miller, that it is scarcely to be wondered that the latter came to the front again and once more routed the enemy in a brilliant and conclusive article. Max Muller points out that Mr. Sinnett's rejoinder is not in the least a defence of Madame Blavatsky that in fact her erst-while disciple culmly deposes her from the exalted position she held without question among Theosophists during her life; and devotes the bulk of his paper to shielding himself from an attack which was never made. His little gibes at the Professor are too ridiculous to be worth recording; but the statement at the end of the article declaring that he and privileged companions are standing on a lofty eminence of knowledge and information from which they survey hu-inanity with' that pity which is akin to contempt, cannot altogether be ignored, The uninitiated and the irreverent naturally ask by what means Mr Sinnett and his friends reached their eminence, and at this point, strangely enough, modern Theosophie tenchers are always dumb. Mr. Sinnett indeed tells us once for all that it does not matter in the least whether he evolved all this mystic philosophy out of his own head on procured is from beyond the Himalayas—but somehow this assertion fails to satisfy us. He is so seathing in his attacks on other creeds because of the lack of evidence he considers they produce of the truths they teach, that his own listeners may be pardoned if they insist on extorting their pound of flesh in the shape of chapter and verse for every heosophic dogwa. Mr. Sinnett forgets that those of who are not Arhats or Adepts, or whatever the correct term may be, are incapable of evolving for ourselves the process by which he has arrived at the present result. A new philosophy is suddenly hurled in our midst, and those of us who are really attracted by its teaching and incapable of exploring its authorities for ourselves, require very satisfactory evidence of its authenticity before we can agree to rise or fall with it. Max Muller, in his latest reply to Mr. Sinnett, hints that possibly that gentleman may be able to answer creditably all the questions that a carping, cavilling public may choose to put to him. If Mr. Sinnett really became possessed of his transcendent philosophy by making a long and perilous journey to the Himalayas, it would be most interesting to the world at large to be made the reipient of his experiences. We want to know whether Esoteric Buddhism can actually be learnt from the lips of Mahatmas on the snowy peaks of the Himalayan chain; and above all we are anxious to hear in what language Mr. Sinnett conversed with these mysterious beings, After reading Max Miiller's first paper, we awaited with some anxiety his opponent's reply, fully expecting that a great many of the apparent fallacies of the Theosophic Creed would be explained. Mr. Sinnett, however, has used his opportunity first by repudiating the idea that Madame Blavatsky was the parent of Esoteric Buddhism, and next by telling us that the title itself is a misleading one and was only bestowed on the religion in loyalty to the exterior faith preferred by those who gave the modern Prophet this information. So that at the outset we find ourselves seeing through a glass darkly, and the more we read of Mr. Sinnett's paper the farther we get into the mazes of alabyninth from which the author makes no attempt to extricate us. It finally concludes with a definition of what Mr. Sinnett means by Esoteric Buddhism, which the Suturday Review aptly rechristens Esoteric Bosh, and which Max Muller characterises as a very grave indiscretion, calculated to have serious consequences for the native scholars and Mahatmas from whom it may have originated—if, indeed it did not come from their disciple's own head. The Professor confesses frankly that he is quite incapable of following his adversary's philosophic flight, and adds: "Perhaps I need not be ashamed of this, for he tells us in so many words that he is in advance of us all, and that therefore he does not mind some disparaging glances from his less fortunate companions. Till therefore he condes-conds to adapt his teaching to the more limited capacities of his less fortunate companions it would be in vain for us to attempt to comprehend or to criticise his new philosophy, whether it springs from trans-Himalaya Mahatmas or from his own head. We must accept our fate among the rulgus profunum left aground in the rear and never able to realise the importance of new researches on which enquirers besides theosophists are now bent."
"The well-known story of the death of Buddha, which is said to have occurred at an advanced age from having eaten a meal of boar's flesh offered him by a friend, assumes quite a new interpretation in Mr. Sinnett's hands. As the Professor observes, he has been initiated by Mahatmas and he tells us that the roast pork of which Buddha partook was not roast pork at all, but was meant as a symbol of esoteric knowledge derived from the boar avatar of Vishnu, and that this avatar was an elaborate allegory which represents the incarnate god lifting the earth out of the water with his tusks—a transaction which Wilson in his translation of the Vishnu Purana explains as representing the extrication of the world from the deluge of iniquity by the rites of religion. Dried boar's flesh stands, as Mr. Sinnett assures us, for esoteric knowledge when prepared for popular use and reduced to a form in which it could be received by the masses, It was owing to this daring attempt of Buddha to -papulecits his esoteric wisdom that Buddhistic enterprise came to an end. If Buddha died of that attempt no one of lesser authority than himself, we ure told, must take the responsibility of giving out occult secrets, All this and more the Professor tells us; and he concludes by stating that Mr. Sinnett is' running a great. risk. "He has disregarded this very warning, He has swallowed roast pork, or what according to him is the same, he has ventured to expound esoteric mysteries. All we can hope for is that his digestion may Prove stronger than that of Buddha and that he will neverrepeatso dangerous an experiment, even though he meant it for the benefit of those who like myself Worship the letter that killeth and are apt to lose sight of common sensi Apparently, therefore, after wading through pages of this controversy, we find ourselves much in our origi trath about theosophy. So undeniably proved itself a faith that does not bear the test of enquiry; its most popular catchwords all seem capable of any other than their surface interpretation, and as it is quite impossible to procure the definite address of any member of the Tibetan brotherhood, we have no opportunity at present of interviewing a wily Mahatma. Possibly Mr. Stead's "Julia" may throw some light on the subject some day, and the pages of Borderland muy give to the public the information that Mr. Sinnett now guards so zealously.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.