Buddhism, the ancient philosophies of the Egyptians and the Chaldæans, the speculations of the Rosicrucians, and almost every other system having the remotest connection with occultism from times long antecedent to the so-called historic periods.
I will now turn to the book itself:
Krshna is generally supposed to be an Avatar. This theory of Avatars plays a very important part in Hindu philosophy; and, unless it is properly understood, it is likely that great misconceptions will arise from the acceptance of the current views regarding this Avatar. It is generally supposed that Krshna is the Avatara of the one great personal God who exists in the cosmos. Of course those who hold this view make no attempt to explain how this one great personal God succeeded in setting up an intimate connection with the physical body of Krshna, constituted as the physical body of every man is, or even with a personality, or human individuality, that seems to be precisely similar to that of any other human being. And how are we to explain the theory of Avatars, as generally stated, with reference to the view of this particular Avatar to which I have referred? This view is without any support. The Logos in itself is not the one personal God of the cosmos. The great Parabrahmam behind it is indeed one and niramsha, undifferentiated and eternally existing, but that Parabrahmam can never manifest itself as any of these Avatars. It does, of course, manifest itself in