in Conjectural Sciences—­unless they could show, partially at least, how weak is the authority of the latter and on what foundations of shifting sands their scientific dicta are often built.  They may thus make it a thinkable conjecture that the former may be right after all.  Absolute silence, moreover, as at present advised, would have been fatal.  Besides risking to be construed into inability to answer, it might have given rise to new complaints among the faithful few, and lead to fresh charges of selfishness against the writers.  Therefore have the “Adepts” agreed to smooth in part at least a few of the most glaring difficulties and showing a highway to avoid them in future by studying the non-historical but actual, instead of the historical but mythical, portions of Universal History.  And this they have achieved, they believe (at any rate with a few of their querists), by simply showing, or rather reminding them, that since no historical fact can stand as such against the “assumption” of the “Adepts”—­ historians being confessedly ignorant of pre-Roman and Greek origins beyond the ghostly shadows of the Etruscans and Pelasgians—­no real historical difficulty can be possibly involved in their statement.  From objectors outside the Society, the writers neither demand nor do they expect mercy.  The “Adept” has no favours to ask at the hands of conjectural science, nor does he exact from any member of the “London Lodge” blind faith:  it being his cardinal maxim that faith should only follow inquiry.  The “Adept” is more than content to be allowed to remain silent, keeping what he may know to himself, unless worthy seekers wish to share it.  He has so done for ages, and can do so for a little longer.  Moreover, he would rather not “arrest attention” or “command respect” at present.  Thus he leaves his audience to first verify his statements in every case by the brilliant though rather wavering light of modern science:  after which his facts may be either accepted or rejected, at the option of the willing student.  In short, the “Adept”—­if one indeed—­has to remain utterly unconcerned with, and unmoved by, the issue.  He imparts that which it is lawful for him to give out, and deals but with facts.

The philological and archeological “difficulties” next demand attention.

Philological and Archeological “Difficulties”

Two questions are blended into one.  Having shown the reasons why the Asiatic student is prompted to decline the guidance of Western History, it remains to explain his contumacious obstinacy in the same direction with regard to philology and archeology.  While expressing the sincerest admiration for the clever modern methods of reading the past histories of nations now mostly extinct, and following the progress and evolution of their respective languages, now dead, the student of Eastern occultism, and even the profane Hindu scholar acquainted with his national literature, can hardly be made to share the confidence felt by Western philologists in these conglutinative methods, when practically applied to his own country and Sanskrit literature.  Three facts, at least, out of many are well calculated to undermine his faith in these Western methods:—­