Either the argument must proceed on simple facts and inferences, and without the use of similes, or, when it is attempted to be proved solely from figures, then no apology should be presented that it is only a figure, and it should not be strained. The simile was expressly used for demonstrating to the ignorant, how the thing is possible and conceivable, and when the ignorant man following the simile, asks if the same antecedents are present in the thing compared, to warrant the conclusion, what answer does the Vedantin give him? "This apparent division of Him (as 'you' and 'me' and the dog) is caused by looking at Him, through the net-work of time, space and causality." 'Looking at Him' indeed! When? And by whom? How is this 'looking at Him,' and this delusion possible, before the actual division itself? The operation of the division of Him into 'you' and 'me' and animal, must precede the operation of 'you' and 'me' etc, looking upon each other and Him delusively. Does the delusion come in before the evolution of 'Brahman' into 'you' and 'me' and 'animal,' or after such evolution? To any thinking being, it must occur that this delusion must have occurred before, and not after; and the Brahmavadin sees this, and states below that there will be in the universe a final duality, Atman and delusion (mark here and elsewhere the word delusion is simply used as a synonym for Maya), and this objection is brushed aside on the ground that delusion is no-existence, and that to call it otherwise is idle sophistry! And yet 'you' and 'me' and others, were all this while under a delusion! Were we or were we not? Is that a fact or a delusion itself? Is the evolution of God into men, women and animals, is that a fact or not? If a fact, is the question, 'how is this evolution brought about,' a possible question or an impossible question? If not a fact, why is the statement made in another paragraph, that there are perfect men and imperfect men, men like Christ, Buddha and Krishna, who have to be worshipped, and men, like ourselves, who have to worship them.

This evolution of God into man and animals, is put in one place on a possible and rational basis, in that God wants to know Himself, wants to see Himself and realize Himself by means of His reflexions (why and'wherefore it is not stated), in as much He cannot know and see Himself otherwise, in the same way as we on earth cannot see our face, except in a mirror! Again, we ask, is the distinction between a perfect man and an imperfect man real or not? And does our learned brother contemplate the possibility of seeing his beautiful face distorted in a mirror?* Whose fault was this? It was our brother's fault in not choosing a good mirror. And does he mean to attribute to the Most Intelligent such fault, in not choosing such a vessel in which He can see Himself and know Himself to the best advantage? The Perfect cannot seek to know Himself in the imperfect and the ignorant, the wicked and the sinful, the sorrowing and the suffering. If all this is a play of His and no such distinction, as the imperfect, the wicked and the sinful and the sorrowing and the suffering, exists, and all this is a hallucination, myth, non-existence (we use his own choice words), why should any man aspire to be a good man, a perfect man, a Jivan-mukta? Why should he realize his identity with the Absolute? God, in trying to realize Himself (for His sport or for what?), became man and woman and brute; and look at the bother of this man, woman or brute, doing good acts, acts without attachment, real tapas, yoga and jnana to realize his identity with the Absolute! What guarantee is there that, after all this bother, a Jivan-mukta may not again be differentiated from the Absolute into a man, woman or animal? How senseless and vain all these efforts seem, how ignoble, the purpose of creation and evolution? To the question why does the Perfect become the imperfect, which question our brother states in all its various forms, vulgar and highly philosophic, our brother's answer is that this question is an impossible one, and it should not be put at all! We have already pointed out how inconsequential this question and answer is.

But the same question has been put in, and answers, attempted by learned men who are of our brother's ilk; and these answers are various and conflicting in themselves. Of these, Svami Vivekananda gets most glory. His answer is 'I do not know.' Mr. Mukhopadhyaya replies that the Svami is wrong, and that the Perfect does not become the imperfect, God does not become man. Man is only a reflexion and as such cannot be God According to the Brahmavdin man is a reflexion, is unreal;

*We have seen in the Bangalore Palace of His Highness, The Maharaja of Mysore, a number of mirrors in which one's face is distorted in the ugliest and most horrible manner.

but the unreality itself is unreal, and as such man is God. And so no question arises of the Perfect and the imperfect. According to Paul Deussen, the answer is, 'the never ceasing new creation of the world is a moral necessity, connected with the doctrine of samsara, "A moral necessity for Atman? What a contradictio in adjecto!" exclaims his critic*. "Atman as we all agree is that which is beyond all necessity and causality, that is, causality reigns or exists only in our manifested world, of individual consciousness of any sort." And the critic's own explanation is that existence is the manifestation of the will to exist, and this will is trishna, tanha, the desire for enjoyment. Well, whose will, we ask; who desires for enjoyment? The Absolute, the Sachchidananda, or any other? What, call this hell, an earth, an enjoyment for Him? We leave our learned Doctor to fight out Professor Deussen by himself, and proceed to state another learned lady's opinion. If we remember correctly, she said, Ishwara evolves into man and brute, to gather experience, to improve himself by means of his animal sheaths, and that there could be no perfect Brahman, at any time; It goes on improving Itself, day after day.