The closer one's acquaintance with the Sanskrit text, the better one realizes the complete accuracy of this translation.

Dr. Hume, who is Professor of the History of Religions in Union Theological Seminary, New York, gives a very attractive glimpse of his own life and personality in the Preface:

"In conclusion I would add a reverent salutation to India, my native land, mother of more religions than have originated or flourished in any other country of the world. In the very early years of childhood and later in the first period of adult service, it was the chief vernacular of the Bombay Presidency which furnished a medium, along with the English language, for intercourse with the wistful people of India, among whom are still many of my dearest friends."

The present reviewer is not convinced of the expediency of reversing the traditional order of the Upanishads, associated with the Commentaries which appear under the great name of Shankara Acharya, as Dr. Hume has practically done; and this, for two reasons: First, because the shorter Upanishads, with their ever varying colour and tone, are so much more readable, so much more likely to attract and hold the attention than the two very lengthy treatises which begin this version, forming 200 pages, of a total of 386; and, secondly, because of the formidable and somewhat forbidding character of the opening passages of both these treatises, which are likely to daunt and perplex more than they illuminate.

Again, there is much in the very valuable and thoughtful "Outline of the Philosophy of the Upanishads," forming the Introductory section of the book, which seems to fall short of finality. For example, the opening paragraph:

"Almost contemporaneous with that remarkable period of active philosophic thought the world over, about the sixth century B. C., when Pythagoras, Confucius, Buddha and Zoroaster were thinking out new philosophies and inaugurating great religions, there was taking place, in the land of India, a quiet movement which has exercised a continuous influence upon the entire subsequent philosophic thought of that country and which has also been making itself felt in the West. this movement giving rise to the Upanishads.

39

We know, with great accuracy, the dates of Confucius and Pythagoras; we can come very close to the Buddha's dates. But to suggest that we have anything like the same certainty in the case of the Upanishads, is a somewhat daring proceeding. In the one case, we have accurate chronological facts; but, in the other, we have only a tissue of conjecture and theory, far more deeply influenced than is generally realized by the chronology for which Archbishop Usher is responsible, and which attributed the creation of the world to the year 4004 B. C. We do not wish to imply that Dr. Hume accepts this chronology; but the point is, that his predecessors did, especially the pioneers who wrote the able essays in the Asiatick Researches, and all later speculation as to dates in ancient India is deeply coloured by their work.

These still open questions in no way detract from the excellence of this work, as a thoroughly accurate and scholarly translation of the great Upanishads; and that, after all, is the heart of the matter.

C. J.

QUESTION NO. 265.-What is the true function of art, and what is its proper relation to religion?

ANSWER.-Art,-whether in painting, music or literature-must be the true expression of genius, an illumination by that spark of the divine flame which is within each one of us. The function of art, therefore, must be the portrayal of the divine, the bringing of divine inspiration to the hearts and minds of men, the inculcation of divine principles. True art must be an expresson of true religion; through religion the true artist must find deeper and truer inspiration.

A.

ANSWER.-In the absence of a specific definition of what art means to the questioner, one must take the widest available which may cover all the so-called "arts." Then it would mean the expression and means of manifesting genius. Now genius is the activity of the soul-the life of the inner world. Then art is the translation of the activities of the soul into any form in which they can be expressed-by way of music, poetry, painting, sculpture and description. Allowing religion to be the search for and the expression of the soul and the inner life in external effects, real art and true religion are twin aspects of one great reality -life itself. A. K.

ANSWER. Remembering the various planes or strata of life, it would seem as if the function of art might vary on those planes, though with correspondences, also. What can we imagine of the spiritual plane where individuals have left behind the gross and petty forms of self that absorb our earthly attention? We can think of those individuals with their purified and enlarged faculties, ceaselessly and joyfully serving the August Presences that excel them in the power to serve. Would not the overflow of purified hearts be prayer as well as song? Might not their theme of joy include both delight at the fairness of the vision, and wonder over the marvellous manner of its working? In such song then, on the spiritual plane, there would be united,-religion as prayer, art as beauty, and science as the metaphysical structure of it all.

What is unified on high planes becomes differentiated on lower planes. That is why on our earth plane, art and science and religion are not often found together as one. The art with which we are acquainted would seem to be a translation from the spiritual plane to the psychic. And therein lies the great service it can render man. The life of the spiritual plane is so far outside the average man's field of interest as to be non-existent, unless the artist, as an intermediary, transposing it to a lower key, bring it within the range of ordinary apprehension; and thus, eventually, a few of those average persons who understand and love the transposition, through it, can arrive at its source.

The artist is an intermediary between the plane of earth and the plane of spirit. But the common opinion which holds the artist as a divine and holy creator is mistaken. The artist himself shares that popular mistake, inasmuch as,

having no scientific understanding of himself or the universe, he likewise believes that he creates what in truth he only sees as reflections or images of truth and beauty.

It is by reason of his psychic principle or faculty that the artist sees those reflections. The average man has to some extent that psychic faculty as well as the artist, but he does not develop it; on the contrary he too often occupies it with images of food, drink and his favorite sports. The artist, in whom it is developed, may be guilty of the same error; for the psychic plane, as a mirror, gives reflections and images both of high things and of low things.

C.

ANSWER.-A man's religion may, perhaps, be said to be his method of approach to God, to the Logos, the Divine. It is the path of his evolution toward his ultimate goal, toward his perfection, and toward union with the Heart and Source of Life, by whatever term we may choose to designate that Source. All that helps him on his path bears a direct relation to, is in fact a part of, his religion. Plato speaks of beauty, truth and goodness as merely different aspects of the same thing, different revelations of the same spirit. Without some measure of truth, the path cannot be found at all. Without goodness, it cannot be followed; yet those who go by the path of goodness alone, travel a long and dreary road. Those who add the power to see and to love true beauty, the beauty of the spirit, must travel, it is true, the same road, but they travel it on wings. Hence all that helps toward a love and understanding of true beauty, is a help to religion.

Natural beauty is meant to be an open door to the spiritual world, the world of spiritual consciousness, and we ought to use it to try to enter in and share that consciousness. We do not think often enough of God as the greatest of all artists, or look at His creations of landscape, tree or flower as we would look at a picture or a poem, seeking to enter into and feel the meaning of the artist. An artist would be great, would be fulfilling the true function of art, in proportion as he saw and felt this beauty and the meaning of the Great Artist back of it, and so seeing and feeling, made that meaning and beauty manifest to others through his work.

J. F. B. M.

ANSWER. To become aware of some new aspect of beauty is, by that much, to enter more deeply into life; for, surely, beauty is our name for one of those gates of consciousness through which life flows in upon us,-life the creator, life the destroyer. If, then, it is true that beauty is an inherent part of life itself, of consciousness itself, it follows of necessity that beauty is something that all of us know a great deal about, and that anything which we truly know by experience about life, we know, potentially, about beauty.

When, at last, a man stops floating down the stream of life, and starts toward his goal, he begins to learn by experience something of the nature of this current which he is now opposing. If he be prudent, he will seek the counsel and guidance of other men who have fought their way forward towards the same goal. But in the confusion of many teachings, what and whom shall he follow; for every man's life sends him some message, whether he know it or not, and some, in addition, have made record in books, on marble or canvas, in music, or built their aspiration into cathedral stone that towers toward the stars.

What is the true function of art? What else but truly to teach beauty, that is, truly to teach life. But there are many things in life that do not interest the man who seeks his true goal,-there is life for the sake of sensation, art for the sake of art, finesse for "piffle's" sake. In the midst of his struggle a man craves the companionship of men who have struggled, and who, from the heart of the conflict, have spoken or painted or sung of the battle of life.

We know, instinctively, how to find what we really seek. Listen to a man

for ten minutes, on any subject, and you know the quality of life which flows across the words from him to you. Glance at a book, at a painting, and you may know little about it, but this you will surely know, that it does or does not speak to you straight from the heart of the conflict. The conflict,-yes, but whose conflict? Are we, then, marauders, each fighting for his own way at his own will? No, every fighting man has a practical religion, some altar at which he sacrifices self, some banner, some leader for which he will die.

There must be a very close relation between art which teaches the lessons of life, and religion for which men pour out life itself. If religion can inspire a man to die gladly for a cause greater than himself, can it not inspire art? Would you trust anything less potent than religion to inspire a coward to turn and fight steadily, a traitor to turn and live loyally, a glutton to turn and live selflessly? Some day we shall know more about the transcendent beauty which is to be found only at the heart of the conflict, for there the greatest of artists and warriors has set His banner which blazons a cross and a sword.

A. D.

ANSWER.-Just as we can see and interpret any given object in terms of matter, or of force, or of consciousness, so we can see and interpret the Logos, or deity in manifestation, in terms of truth, or of beauty, or of goodness. In both cases, however, in order to obtain an "all round" view, we must combine the three aspects or points of view. Thus, we may describe a man as lean (seeing him in terms of matter), or as lazy (seeing him in terms of force), or as clever (seeing him in terms of mentality); but, if we limit ourselves to one set of terms, we shall see only one-third of the man, as it were, and shall probably misunderstand that one-third. In somewhat the same way, a landscape can be seen by an artist, in terms of beauty; by a scientist, in terms of geology, or of fauna and flora; by a religious person, in terms of ethics. Each point of view, taken alone, is narrow and misleading. But the true mystic, the Theosophist, does more than combine the three aspects suggested. He sees in each the remaining two, and he sees in each and in all a revelation of God's being,-in the beauty, a reflection of the divine beauty; in the geology, or in the fauna and flora, a manifestation of the eternal ways of God, at work also in the perfecting of his own soul; in the ethical lesson, an expression, not only of the character, but of the purpose and goal of divinity.

Religion, a word said to be derived from re, again, and lego, I gather, and which therefore suggests the idea of "gathering back to the source," or of reunion, ought to use art and science, as well as ethics, for this supreme purpose. It ought to recognize beauty and truth, no less than goodness, as aspects of the divine being, and also as interblending ladders, so to speak, up which man may ascend to reunion with God. Art, therefore, should be used by the Church as a path of devotion,-as an integral part of religion. Puritanism, at one time, tried to banish art from human life. The Roman Catholic Church, at one time, tried to banish science from human life. In neither case was the effort entirely insensate, because both art and science, divorced from goodness, lead directly to damnation. Yet "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world", led the hearts of men to revolt against these well-meant efforts to protect them, and to insist upon the opportunity to make right, instead of wrong use of truth and beauty. That the opportunity is misused, hideously and ceaselessly, is obvious. None the less, religion cannot solve the problem by an "act of divorcement", but only by an understanding of the facts and of their relation, -which means, in brief, by an understanding of Theosophy.

T.

The Convention of the British National Branch of The Theosophical Society was held at Newcastle-on-Tyne on September 18th, 1921. The meeting was called to order by Mr. E. H. Lincoln. Mr. Douglas was elected Chairman. The report of the Executive Committee, signed by A. Trood, E. Cassidy, C. G. Graves, J. Wilkinson, F. A. Ross, P. Douglas, E. H. Lincoln, was read and adopted. Mr. Lincoln, who reported as Secretary, concluded his statement by saying:

"May we, then, here and now, resolve that the coming year shall find us more efficient instruments in the Master's service, and that on the flood tide of this Convention we shall go forth strengthened and equipped for the warfare we must face and conquer, the warfare which is at the same time, the welfare, the real spiritual welfare of mankind."

The report of the Treasurer showed a balance in hand. Mrs. Lincoln, as Corresponding Secretary, told of most encouraging results with the unattached members. Books and pamphlets have been loaned, and the many letters written have evidently been much appreciated.

We now quote directly from the printed report of the Convention :

"A communication from the Members of the Executive Committee in New York, concerning the relationship of the British National Branch to The Theosophical Society and suggested action for the widening of the life of The Theosophical Society in the British Isles, was then put before the members by Mr. E. H. Lincoln, who also read a splendid letter from Col. Knoff (another member of the Executive Committee) heartily supporting the communication; the idea is that the Lodges shall be represented direct as Branches of The Theosophical Society, carrying on their business with Headquarters through their own officials. In the discussion on this subject it was shown that the Executive Committee of the British National Branch as such, and the existing Offices, would become nonexistent, and that in the long-run the adoption of the International System would be to the benefit of Branches and Members-at-large alike; it was also recommended that Members-at-large become members of Branches.

"The following Resolution was proposed by Mr. E. H. Lincoln, seconded by Capt. Graves and carried unanimously and afterwards signed by all the members present:

"Resolved that the British National Branch, as such, cease to exist, and that in future each Lodge would describe itself as the-Lodge of The Theosophical Society.' (Signed) J. Wilkinson, C. G. Graves, Marie Potter, A. F. Mann, I. W. Short, Fredk. A. Ross, Espoir Bagnell, Theodora Dodge, Gertrude Spooner, George Wood, Ralph Dunn, S. Dunn, Thomas W. Lincoln, Paul Vogler, Jane Arabella Corking, T. Mackey, Florence I. Olsen, Hannah Maughan, Eva Cassidy, Ethel M. Lincoln, Gertrude Mackay, J. W. Mein, Margaret Parkes, M. Douglas, F. E. Atkinson, A. Trevor, J. Crawford, P. W. Ward, C. G. Ward, Amy H. Golightly, Elizabeth Howe, John H. Hardy, P. Douglas, E. Howard Lincoln, By proxy: Alice Graves, Hope Bagnell, Margaret Richards, Maribel Davey, Gladys Pearce."

The THEOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY congratulates the British members of The Theosophical Society, and believes that their action will redound to the benefit of the work in Great Britain.