Page:A Collection of Esoteric Writings.djvu/103

89 The generality of the public (at least in this country) are accustomed to associate every religions and social movement with some particular belief regarding the subject under consideration. In their opinion every system of philosophy, science, or ethics which does not inculcate some particular doctrine with respect to the problems in question is necessarily imperfect. The importance of every religious movement, the usefulness of every association and the value of every philosophical system, is always estimated by them in connection with such belief or doctrine. An association, like the Theosophical Society, composed of various religionists and established for the purposes of religious and scientific enquiry, is a novelty to them. Consequently, enquiries are constantly being made regarding the views of the founders of the Theosophical Society and our great Teachers of the Himavat about the questions under consideration. It is represented to them by some people that they are Nastikas. When the great mass of the people are unaccustomed to philosophical enquiry and precise modes of thinking, the charge of Atheism is sufficient to lower in their estimation any particular individual or association. When any man's Atheism is condemned almost without hearing, no particular connotation hardly ever attached to the word; but it is associated with a large cluster of vices and deformities. It is highly desirable therefore to state to the public in clear language the doctrine of the Arhat philosophy regarding the problem in question and point out such misconceptions as are likely to arise from a perusal of the letter under review. Before proceeding further, I beg to inform my readers that in his letter "H. X." speaks of the Adwaita doctrine under the heading of impersonal God and introduces the Arhat doctrine under that of Atheism. It would have been better if he had referred to these two systems of philosophy under their proper designations. The general public have not yet accepted any one difinition of the so-called impersonal God, and the word atheism, as above stated, conveys but a very vague idea. Without attempting, therefore, to ascertain the significance of the