Page:A Collection of Esoteric Writings.djvu/130

116 our contributors, and our space being limited, we cannot consent to crowd out more interesting matter to make room for just $15 1⁄2$ columns of quotations profusely mixed with reprimands and flings of any correspondent, even though the latter be as, we learn from his own words, "a modest hermit of the jungle." Therefore, with all our profound respect for our opponent, we had to curtail his too long paper considerably. We propose, however, to show him his chief mistake, and thus to blunt a few of the most pointed shafts intended to pierce through the points of the editorial harness.

If, after the humble confession quoted above from our February number, the editorial reply that followed another paper from the same ascetic, namely, the In re "Adwaita Philosophy," in the March number—was still taken as emanating from one who had just confessed her incompetency to hold a disputation with the learned Swami upon Adwaita tenets—the fault is not ours. This error is the more strange since, the Swami had been clearly warned that his points would be disputed and questions answered in future by our brother Mr. T. Subba Row, as learned in Adwaita philosophy as in the esotericism of the sacred books of the East. Therefore we had a right to expect that the Paramahansa would have remembered that he was ventilating his not over-kind remarks upon the wrong person, since we had nothing to do personally with the replies. Thus the disagreement upon various topics in general, and the abstruse tenets of esoteric Adwaita Philosophy especially, between the "Almora Swami" and Mr. T. Subba Row, can, in no way, or with any degree of justice, be laid by the former at the door of either the "foreigners who have come to India for knowledge," nor of "Western Theosophy;" for, in this particular case he has found an opponent (quite as learned, we love to think as himself) in one of his own race and country—a real Adwaitee Brahmin. To take therefore to task theosophy for it or the conductor of this magazine, expressing dissatisfaction in such very strong terms, does not show either that philosophical