shall hereafter point out, draws a clear line of distinction between the two; and the importance of the distinction will be seen when you take note of the various misconceptions to which a confusion of the two has given rise in various systems of philosophy. Now bear in mind that this Mulaprakrti which is the veil of Parabrahmam is called Avyaktam in Sankhya philosophy. It is also called Kutastha in the Bhagavad-Gita, simply because it is undifferentiated; even the literal meaning of this word conveys more or less the idea that it is undifferentiated as contrasted with differentiated matter. This light from the Logos is called Daiviprakrti in the Bhagavad-Gita; it is the Gnostic Sophia and the Holy Ghost of the Christians. It is a mistake to suppose that Krshna, when considered as a Logos, is a manifestation of that Avyaktam as is generally believed by a certain school of philosophers. He is on the other hand Parabrahmam manifested; and the Holy Ghost in its first origin emanates through the Chritos. The reason why it is called mother of the Christos is this. When Christos manifests himself in man as his Saviour, it is from the womb, as it were, of this divine light that he is born. So it is only when the Logos is manifested in man that he becomes the child of this light of the Logos--this Maya--but in the course of cosmic manifestation this Daiviprakrti, instead of being the mother of the Logos, should, strictly speaking be called the daughter of the Logos. To make
