India and the West, by C. R. Lanman, Journal of the American Oriental Society, October, 1920.

This is the Presidential Address delivered by Professor Lanman, of Harvard University, before the American Oriental Society, at Ithaca, on April 6, 1920. The full title is: "India and the West with a Plea for Team-Work among Scholars"; and Professor Lanman defines team-work with both humour and feeling as "work done by the players of a team collectively, for example, by the players of a football eleven.' These must do each his best for the success of his team as a whole. To this end, they must be free from the slightest feeling of personal jealousy, and must not allow the hope of personal advantage to influence any thought or act." The Address is, therefore, a plea for the study of Indian and other Oriental religions and literatures in this generous and gentle spirit.

Developing his subject, Professor Lanman reminds us that India has for many centuries been more or less in touch with the West, as also with the Far East. After Alexander's expedition, with the wealth of writings in Greek which flowed from it, there were many travellers. Professor Lanman has something to say also of the Chinese pilgrims who, inspired by the Buddhist missionaries from India, went thither to learn the Indian tongues in order that they might study the Good Law at its source. Such was Fa-hien, of whom it was said: "Since the Great Doctrine flowed on to the East, there has been no one to be compared with Fa-hien in his forgetfulness of self and search for the Law. . .

Western knowledge of Sanskrit began with studious and able members of the East India Company's service in Bengal, such as H. T. Colebrooke and Sir William Jones, instrumental in founding the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784. From Colebrooke, Professor Lanman quotes this amusing comment on Charles Wilkins:

"I have never yet seen any book which can be depended on for information concerning the real opinions of the Hindus except Wilkins' 'Bhagvat Geeta.' That gentleman was Sanskrit-mad and has more materials and more general knowledge respecting the Hindus than any other foreigner ever acquired since the days of Pythagoras."

And we are reminded that Wilkins, such was his zeal for Eastern learning, himself cut the punches for the first Indian type.

Coming to the heart of his subject, Professor Lanman says:

"An Occidental who would faithfully interpret India to the West must also know the life of India from actual observation and experience, and must be able to look at it from the Eastern angle of vision. .. And, on the other hand, since the Hindus themselves are already actively engaged in interpreting the East to the West, it is needful also that they visit us, not merely to learn our way of doing things, but also to look at life as we look at it, and thus find out what things such, let us say, as repose of spirit or the simple life-the West most needs to learn from the East."

Professor Lanman says, a
While it is altogether to be

With the fullest sympathy for everything that student of Theosophy would be inclined to add this: desired that the scholars of the West should work cordially with the scholars of the East, they must, if they really desire to sound the depths of Eastern scriptures,

do something more. They must do all in their power to gain the insight possessed, and generously shared, by the living Masters of the East, who are scholars and something more, and who really know what the Western scholars seek to know.

That Professor Lanman has no prejudice against the word "Theosophy," is shown by this sentence: "At least four small volumes should be devoted to specimens from the Rig Veda, the Atharva Veda, the Brahmanas and the Upanishads. These last might well be entitled 'Theosophy of the Hindus: their doctrine of the all-pervading God.'"

The reviewer is tempted to supplement this by a quotation from a contribution by Professor Lanman to the Journal of the American Oriental Society for June, 1920, on "Phrase-words and Phrase-derivatives." To illustrate the way phrasewords have come into being in Sanskrit and Pali, Professor Lanman quotes this modern instance of the creation of a phrase-word admirable in its concise expressiveness: A very small boy was asked: "Is that puppy yours or your little brother's?"

Earnestly he replied: "It's both-of-us's!"

C. J.

What is the Kingdom of Heaven? (Scribner's, 1920), by A. Clutton Brock, English historical writer and man of letters: a stimulating and provocative criticism of Christ's teaching as to the Kingdom of Heaven, ably presented from the point of view of one who has studied the New Testament sympathetically and intelligently. The style is direct, bold, sincere to the point of being downright, and yet in nowise harsh or repellent.

Mr. Brock purposely assumes the intellectual position of a modern, pagan, and cultivated mind, hostile to narrow orthodoxy; but he has himself been irresistibly attracted, and won, by the eternal verities of Christ's revelation. His method is winning; his enthusiasm is catching; the reader is impelled to agree with his penetrating logic.

The inconsistency and "failure of belief" in the world of "orthodoxy" lead to a direct appeal to the source of Christianity, to what the writer maintains is its central teaching,—that of the Kingdom of Heaven. The significance of this teaching, if men would only accept it, live it, is clearly seen and forcibly presented. "To the orthodox," the conduct described in the Sermon on the Mount is "surprising", but it "is what God commands; to Christ it is the conduct natural to man when he knows the Kingdom of Heaven, as natural as eating and drinking are to men who see food and are hungry" (p. 33). "The fatal error of the orthodox" is that "they believe on or in the Lord Jesus Christ, but they do not believe Him; for they have not even tried to understand what He said. It was the Kingdom of Heaven that He wished men to believe in, to see, to make . Belief in Christ is a burden which the world is throwing off, because it has never believed Him" (p. 39). Mr. Brock's application of the fundamental principles of the Kingdom-"The Logic of the Doctrine”,—both to politics and to the individual, shows unusual penetration. "The proper function of the Church ... is to see the Kingdom of Heaven to be a fellowship of those who are seeking the Kingdom of Heaven in the manner laid down by Christ" (p. 76). "Vox populi is not vox Dei." "It is not the voice of the people unless it is also the voice of God," which "is the true meaning of the words" (pp. 93-100). "The problem of capital is not, finally, the problem of its ownership, but the problem of its use" (p. 104). "Men cannot live without either the real Kingdom or a false one. Man is of such a nature that he must be in some relation to the Kingdom, a relation of acceptance or refusal.

. Insensitiveness is not, as some suppose, the result of a crude, strong, physical organization; it is a weakness, a refusal of the mind that grows with the mind's refusal. It is, as it were, a morbid thickening of the mind's outer skin, the result of which is, not that the mind is protected from harm, but that it is cut off from that relation with the Kingdom of Heaven which is health, so that it breeds within itself its own unconscious illusions" (p. 122). A. G.

QUESTION NO. 248.-How can I tell whether I am making progress along the Path? Please give, if possible, some very simple tests. I am so often discouraged. The years are slipping by, and I have the very same faults that I had when I started.

ANSWER.-Why be discouraged? Are you sure your faults are the same? Can you not see them more clearly than when you started? It is far better to have a "thorn in the flesh" like St. Paul, and to keep constantly at work on it, than to get the feeling of satisfaction that says, "Now I have done something; I have eradicated that fault." In that very moment another fault has come up. The only thing is to keep at the job doggedly and grimly, offering up the results as a sacrifice. Ever keep trying; make an offering of any success and even of failure, remembering that the only failure is to cease to try. I should say, do not trouble about tests. Life brings us all such numberless opportunities and tests. If we stop to think whether we have any of us succeeded here or succeeded there, we have wasted time. Let us try to become simple again. Like a little child let us bring as an offering the best we have, and leave the results to Him we serve.

A. K.

ANSWER.-Would not the surest test be: Have I more, or less, of the will to do, the determination to master myself, my desires, my emotions; and am I better able now to get that will on top quickly, in a crisis? Beyond that, why apply a measuring rod to our achievements-we are no judge of them. The fault that now seems the same as some years back, may be the same fault several stages higher up; or circumstances may now be such as to provoke it much more severely; or the failure to conquer that fault may be the best possible means toward teaching us humility, patience, or understanding of another's difficulty. As Saint Teresa says, "Leave that to the Master of the house: He is wise and powerful and knows what is best for you and for Himself." P. T. O.

ANSWER. Suppose you are making no progress; what then? Are you going to stop trying? Suppose you are, quite unknown to yourself, making great progress; what then? In either event, are you going to slacken your effort? Or perhaps, if you could know that your progress was disappointingly slow, you think you could do better. If you could, why not do it, at once? Is it possible for us to make too complete, too devoted an effort to follow and to serve the Masters who spare themselves in nothing, to aid us?

If tests are longed for, if there must be a measure, here is one: Are you better able, than in the beginning, to forget self, to lose self in devotion to the work, to the cause of Masters? Then there has been progress. Test it by your willingness to let go all this testing. Centre your interest in the road ahead, not in the number of yards traversed. It is a very long road. Since we know we want to travel it to the very end, why use the yardstick? E.

QUESTION NO. 249.-What would you advise a new member-at-large to undertake, as distinctive work for the Movement? So far as I know there is nobody in

my environment who has any interest in Theosophy. My friends are patiently or impatiently bored when I talk about it. What can I do that will really help?

ANSWER-First, translate the ideas and principles which you appreciate in Theosophy into terms familiar to all in your environment. To do this, you will have to think all these things out for yourself and they will become real for you. Then you will shape your life and acts accordingly. As those in your environment insensibly appreciate this you will find that they will either lean towards the truth you represent or away from it, according to their own natures: at least they will no longer be bored. You will find you have quite enough to do for some time, and meanwhile you will find that your environment has altered. Do not talk about Theosophy, but live it. A. K.

ANSWER.-It has been said that every member of The Theosophical Society is, if he so choose, an ambassador from the Lodge of Masters to his community. To represent them properly, he evidently needs to learn all that reading and meditation will give him-about their ways of dealing with mankind; what they value; how they work; how they are best served. One point would be clear from the startthey have always encouraged men to offer them deeds rather than words. They have given an example of their scale of values by ceaselessly working for mankind while seldom breaking in upon it with advice or direction of any sort. E.

QUESTION NO. 250.—We are living to-day in the midst of such threatened and actual social upheavals that it is puzzling to know how principles should be applied. When everything slides out of place, as during a storm at sea, what is one to do? The carpenter, whom I call in to do some simple repairs, treats me as if I were shortly to be his tenant, if allowed a house at all. How am I to treat him honestly, and yet get my work done?

ANSWER.-Do what you do in the storm at sea. Then you tie everything in place or wedge it there so that it does not shift. You cannot take the ship or yourself out of the storm. You cannot take your principles out of the social upheaval. So get firm hold of them, and the underlying verities in nature; treat and talk to your carpenter or your employee, of whatever grade, from that point of view. It is "up to you" to cause him to feel that you are able to give him direction because you are what you are, and not because of any accidental position of birth or any other enviable possessions. Principle and character are the means by which we can weather these social upheaval storms, and there is nothing else firm enough to tie to. The "social-upheavalists" are endeavouring to obtain possessions; the first things they strive for are money and position and a "good time", which they think to secure by means of self-assertion. Well, they strive after the moon that way. Your part is surely to give them of your best:-yourself, and what you have made of yourself through the principles by which you have chosen to shape your life. Your carpenter will yield to the force of your character, and respect you for it. So will you be your “brother's keeper” and give of your best in your own environment. A. K.

QUESTION NO. 251.—Is there any way to hold oneself up to the level of consciousness attained in prayer and meditation, and to avoid dropping back to one's ordinary level?

ANSWER.-Surely, there must be: but as surely that way involves constant practice, until "practice makes perfect". To avoid dropping back means the attainment of "continuous meditation," or the stage of contemplation perfected. But this involves little short of perfection from our ordinary human point of view. We, who are in the midst of ordinary life, have the opportunity of endeavouring to practise holding ourselves up to the level with all sorts of distractions around us

to divert our attention. We can follow Krishna's injunction, “Think of Me and fight"; can offer up all our acts and thoughts on the altar of the heart, making of each an offering consciously made to the Master. Our ordinary life thus constitutes a splendid opportunity of practising "recollection", not merely as a definite performance at a specified hour, but in each act and thought of the day. A life so lived becomes a sum total of consecration, and it is by such means that we shall avoid dropping back. A. K.

QUESTION NO. 252.-How do you explain Joan of Arc's "Voices"? Were they psychic delusions of some sort, or real guidance?

ANSWER.-I explain them in the way she explained them. I think she is the best judge. She spoke of them as the voices of her brothers in Paradise. I think that is what they were. She had given her whole life to a purpose. She was used as the instrument of divine forces for the working of a miracle. That miracle stands forth in history undisputed. There was nothing in a girl, a peasant girl, to work that miracle, unless there was a divine power back of her. Quite simply, she said her brothers in Paradise told her what to do. She did not want to do it. She pleaded to be left alone. Finally, she went; giving her life in obedience. That is one of the tests. M.

ANSWER.-At all times, in all ages, there have been those who have talked with their brothers in Paradise. They did not have to die in order to do it. They were perfectly wide-awake. They knew what they were doing. Remember again, the pure in heart shall see God. The pure in heart, with all that that implies: clearly that must mean singleness of soul; singleness of purpose; absolute un-self-consciousness; the desire to do what the Masters wish, what the Law wishes, what God wishes,-to do it without reference to self. They were willing to pay any price. The pure in heart have always seen Him, and always will. H.

QUESTION NO. 253.-At a recent Theosophical Society Branch meeting we were advised, in thinking of the great war, not to confine ourselves to its incidents or outer causes, but to seek the purpose back of it. The speaker said that modern science entirely neglected, and even sought to banish purpose from the universe, but that real students of Theosophy sought the purpose in all things. Does this mean that there is a purpose in every trivial happening of daily life and that we ought to seek to find it?

ANSWER.—We are all of us familiar with people who are perpetually bubbling over with talk simply for the love of talking. What they say is a matter of no importance to themselves or any one else; they go through life incessantly creating noise for the sake of hearing the sound of their own voices and giving expression to the vapidity that arises within them. Are we to imagine that God-or the Lodge or the Power back of evolution, or whatever term you choose to use for the great creative Power of the universe-is equally vapid, and creates worlds and events the way children break dolls' heads, just to hear the noise they make?

"The universe exists for the purposes of the soul." It was created by the Soul for the soul, and nothing arises or can ever arise that should not be used for the growth of the soul. This applies as well to the events that we, in our ignorance of true proportion, are pleased to call trivial, as to those that we call great. One way to learn to see the purpose of daily events, is to set ourselves to find how each one may be used to develop character, to help in the acquisition of some power that our souls need,-patience, sympathy for others in place of irritation, humility instead of vanity, endurance and courage instead of fear and self-pity, or whatever the lesson may be. Always beneath the outer covering lies Life's gift to us, if we will but take it. M.