257
absence" in Hindu books, the said classification is as conspicuous by its absence in Buddhist books. This, for a reason transparently clear: it was always esoteric; and as such rather inferred than openly tanght. That it is "misleading" is also perfectly true; for the great feature of the day—materialism—has led the minds of our Western theosophists into the prevalent habit of viewing the seven principles as distinct and self-existing entities, instead of what they are—namely, upadhis and correlating states—three upadhis, basic groups, and four principles. As to being unscientific," the term can be only attributed to a lapsus linguæ, and in this relation let me quote what Mr. Subba Row wrote about a year before he joined the Theosophical Society in one of his ablest articles, "Brahmanism on the sevenfold principle in man," the best review that ever appeared of the Fragments of Occult Truth—since embodied in "Esoteric Buddhism." Says the author:—
"I have carefully examined it (the teaching) and find that the results artived at (in the Buddhist doctrine) do not differ much from the conclusions of our Aryan philosophy, though our mode of stating the arguments may differ in form." Having ennmerated, after this the "three primary causes" which bring the human being into existence—i. e., Parabrahmam, Sakti and Prakriti—he explains: "Now, according to the Adepts of ancient Aryavarta, seven principles are evolved out of these three primary entities. Algebra teaches us that the number of combinations of things, taken one at a time, two at a time, three at a time, and so forth=2n-1. Applying this formula to the present case, the number of entities evolved from different combinations of these three primary causes amount to 23-1=8-1=7. As a general rule, whenever seven entities are mentioned in the ancient occult sciences of India in any connection whatsoever, you must suppose that these seven entities come into existence from three primary entities; and that these three entities, again are evolved out of a flingle entity or monad." (See "Five Years of Theosophy," p. 160.)
