ts, sciences, or languages except their own, and those
very imperfectly. The arts and sciences are like the phoenix of old:
they die but to revive. And when the question found on page 58 of
"Esoteric Buddhism" concerning "the curious rush of human progress
within the last two thousand years," was first propounded, Mr. Sinnett's
correspondent might have made his answer more complete by saying: "This
rush, this progress, and the abnormal rapidity with which one discovery
follows the other, ought to be a sign to human intuition that what you
look upon in the light of 'discoveries' are merely rediscoveries, which,
following the law of gradual progress, you make more perfect, yet in
enunciating, you are not the first to explain them." We learn more
easily that which we have heard about, or learnt in childhood. If, as
averred, the Western nations have separated themselves from the great
Aryan stock, it becomes evident that the races that first peopled Europe
were inferior to the root-race which had the Vedas and the pre-historic
Rishis. That which your far-distant forefathers had heard in the
secrecy of the temples was not lost. It reached their posterity, which
is now simply improving upon details.

Question IV.--Is the Moon immersed in matter?

No "Adept," so far as the writers know, has ever given to "Lay Chela"
his "views of the moon," for publication. With Selenography, modern
science is far better acquainted than any humble Asiatic ascetic may
ever hope to become. It is to be feared the speculations on pp. 104 and
105 of "Esoteric Buddhism," besides being hazy, are somewhat premature.
Therefore, it may be as well to pass on to--

Question V.--About the mineral monad.

Any English expression that correctly translates the idea given is
"authorized by the Adepts." Why not? The term "monad" applies to the
latent life in the mineral as much as it does to the life in the
vegetable and the animal. The monogenist may take exception to the term
and especially to the idea while the polygenist, unless he be a
corporealist, may not. As to the other class of scientists, they would
take objection to the idea even of a human monad, and call it
"unscientific." What relation does the monad bear to the atom? None
whatever to the atom or molecule as in the scientific conception at
present. It can neither be compared with the microscopic organism
classed once among polygastric infusoria, and now regarded as ve