nal world
which underlies it? What if the discovery be imperfect, the figure
in many features erroneous? Is not the wonder to us, the honour to
him, that the figure should be there at all? Inexplicable to us on
any ground, save that one common to the Bhagavat-Gita, to the gospel.
"He who seeks me shall find me." What if he knew but in part, and
saw through a glass darkly? Was there not an inspired apostle, who
could but say the very same thing of himself, and look forward to a
future life in which he would "know even as he was known"?

It is well worth observing too, that so far from the moral of this
Bhagavat-Gita issuing in mere contemplative Quietism, its purpose is
essentially practical. It arises out of Arjoun's doubt whether he
shall join in the battle which he sees raging below him; it results
in his being commanded to join in it, and fight like a man. We
cannot see, as Mr. Vaughan does, an "unholy indifference" in the
moral. Arjoun shrinks from fighting because friends and relatives
are engaged on both sides, and he dreads hell if he kills one of
them. The answer to his doubt is, after all, the only one which
makes war permissible to a Christian, who looks on all men as his
brothers:

"You are a Ksahtree, a soldier; your duty is to fight. Do your duty,
and leave the consequences of it to him who commanded the duty. You
cannot kill these men's souls any more than they can yours. You can
only kill their mortal bodies; the fate of their souls and yours
depends on their moral state. Kill their bodies, then, if it be your
duty, instead of tormenting yourself with scruples, which are not
really scruples of conscience, only selfish fears of harm to
yourself, and leave their souls to the care of Him who made them, and
knows them, and cares more for them than you do."

This seems to be the plain outcome of the teaching. What is it,
mutatis mutandis, but the sermon "cold-blooded" or not, which every
righteous soldier has to preach to himself, day by day, as long as
his duty commands him to kill his human brothers?

Yet the fact is undeniable that Hindoo Mysticism has failed of
practical result--that it has died down into brutal fakeerism. We
look in vain, however, in Mr. Vaughan's chapter for an explanation of
this fact, save his assertion, which we deny, that Hindoo Mysticism
was in essence and at its root wrong and rotten. Mr. Maurice ("Moral
and Metaphysical Philosophy," p. 46) seems to point to a