recognized the truth that variation is necessary to evolution. They never recognized that all these religions are true and suit minds in different stages of evolution. They never recognized that they all point towards the one great fact, that the end of evolution is to make man perfect by leading him into the super-conscious state. Else how do we account for their general agreement on this point? Why do two religions, which seem diametrically opposite in their rites and ceremonies and doctrines, speak the same story here? In mystical ceremonies in the garb of mythology, or in clear cut philosophical language, they all speak the same truth, that man in his real nature is perfect and universal, that the little personalities grow and expand till they all find themselves to be the one universal individuality, infinite and perfect, that it is not something extraneous, or, the exclusive property of one man or some men, but that it is natural in every one and is the gradual unfolding of what is within. We, in our ignorance, think that the saying of Jesus, that "I and my Father are one," is true in his case alone, or that when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, as the father in heaven is perfect," he is not to be taken literally. We, in our foolish ignorance, think that the superconscious stage, which transcends the realm of speech and thought is a lower stage, a stage very much the same as the unconscious or hypnotic stage brought about by the constant dwelling of the mind on one subject. Little do we dream in our arrogance that if the constant dwelling and concentration of the mind on one subject will produce hypnotism, we are already hypnotized by thoughts of love, of money or power or such trifling things which today are and tomorrow will not be. Little do we stop to think that if the going beyond consciousness by thinking on God, developing all our faculties to their highest and preserving all our energies from being squandered in the lower plane, be a hypnotized condition, it is a worse hypnotism to think in the face of naked facts to the contrary that we are free, that whatever our senses reach is true. Shake off all such foolish ideas, therefore, and follow your own religion or whatever form of belief you believe in; know that nothing can destroy you; you create your own heaven

or hell.

"The kingdom of heaven is within you," and you will find it as soon as you like. Find that within, and see that the universe is God's playground and he has not left the management of it in the hands of anybody, and that man, by whatever he is doing, is coming nearer and nearer to the Deity.

Arguments have been raised to the effect that the preaching of universal sympathy and the toleration shown towards all religions will destroy religion entirely, will take off the intensity from man's religious beliefs which proceeds from the fact of their recognition that their religion alone is the true one. Shall we, then, let men continue in their faith of the infallibility of their own religion alone? Will it not be better not to open our eyes at all to the light which the researches of reason, of history, of science and of real religion is bringing before us every day? The Vedanta answers in the first place to follow truth wherever it leads you. Truth will never conform itself to the individual or society, but they must conform themselves to it. Faith and belief gain their strength by being based on truth, but no amount of belief in any untruth will strengthen one's position.

Secondly, that it is unreasonable and false to say that the sympathy that you extend towards other religions would be at the expense of intensity of faith in your own. Believe as intensely as you can in the infallibility of your own; follow it out in your daily life; at the same time, believe that other religions are also as good in reaching God, for minds which think differently from you do. As in society there must be united action in conformity with the social laws and also liberty for individual action, so also in the field of religion, every religion must have perfect individual freedom and yet there must be active sympathy for all others. Does the individual unit when acting in conformity with the social laws, trying to do good for the whole, limit his own personal freedom or bring that good at the expense of the liberty of individual action? Hence, active sympathy and toleration are only possible when we look upon other religions in the same light as we do our own, when we believe in the infallibility of not only our own but of other religions also. We will

have to learn the great fact, that if one religion is false the others are false also and if one is true the others are true too. For if religion and revelation come through the process of evolution, it cannot be the exclusive property of any one sect or any one individual. It is common as God's wind and rain, which come both to the just and unjust, it is like the universal space, embracing everything that is sentient and insentient. (Applause).

VICE-PRESIDENT JANES:-Christianity owes to the religion of Zoroaster a debt which it will 'yet recognize, but which it has not yet fully comprehended. The Parsis of Bombay today constitute nearly all the survivors in the world of that once great religion,—that great religion still, in spite of the small number of those who profess it. The Parsis, the followers of Zoroaster, have always acted on the principle of the Golden Rule in their relations with other people. They have been beneficent in their dealings with the Hindu populations around them, and we of America are glad to remember that during the stress of our civil conflict, among the contributions to our Sanitary Commission was a considerable fund sent by the Parsis of Bombay. (Applause.) We seldom have a representative of that ancient faith with us, and it gives me great pleasure to present as the next speaker, Mr. Jehanghier D. Cola, of Bombay. (Applause.)

REMARKS OF MR. JEHANGHIER D. COLA.

It gives me indeed great pleasure to be amongst you this morning, and as I begin to read what few pages I have somewhat hurriedly written, I want you to understand that I personally have no "axe to grind.” axe to grind." We do not force any belief upon anybody else. And under the auspices of this Free Religious Association I come before you, having been asked by my friend and colleague, and director of the Monsalvat School of Comparative Religions, Dr. Lewis G. Janes. year ago I was asked by the founder of that wonderful Greenacre assembly, Miss Sarah Farmer, whether I would come there and speak on behalf of our people, the Parsis in Bombay, and say a few words regarding the essence of Zoroas

A

trianism, or properly called Mazdaism, meaning the religion of wisdom, for the name that we give to God is Ahura Mazda, which, literally translated, means "The Living Wisdom." I told her then that, being a layman, I would do the best I could, and since then I speak about the religion wherever and whenever I am asked. We have no monks nor nuns. Everyone, practically, is a preacher; everyone individually is a church unto himself, and I may say also a pope unto himself. (Applause.)

It is of the religion of Zoroaster that you are going to hear a few words. I will not go into all the details of the history or of biography of Zoroaster, or who he was or whence he came or exactly what he taught, for remember that we ourselves, the Parsis in Bombay, are laboring under a tremendous difficulty, owing to the fact that a majority of our scriptures were destroyed at several periods of the world's conquest of our ancient country, Persia. Principally we believe that during Alexander's conquest of Persia he destroyed the library at Persepolis. What remained from that destruction also succumbed partially to the onslaught of the Parthians. What still remained we tried to preserve as best we could. Still, about 650 A. D. the fanatical Mohammedan or Arab conquest, brought on principally by fire and sword, destroyed yet what remnant of the religious writings there was left to us. But all that we preserved and all that we have to-day is composed of about twelve sets of original hymns, and that is all that we have directly from the first Zoroaster. But we also have in our consciousness, in the tablets of memory, what was orally given forth in successive ages and repeatedly fostered, principally through our mothers at home. It is to them, our mothers, that we owe our fundamental religious training. In fact, I may say personally that so far as our family is concerned, we were taught, not that there was one God, but we were taught first of all to speak the truth. Truth, courage and obedience were the moulding principles of our youth. And we are also held responsible for all of our actions. This sense of responsibility is taught to us to be actualized after the seventh year.

Professor Max Müller, the greatest Oriental scholar of the

last thirty years, to whose labors, I am sure, the whole world is indebted, brought out the great truths of Oriental religion in a series of his volumes well known to you as "The Sacred Books of the East." Speaking of Zoroastrianism and of the Parsis, he says:

"Here is a religion one of the most ancient of the world, once the state religion of the most powerful empire, driven away from its native soil and deprived of political significance, without even the prestige of a powerful or enlightened priesthood, and yet professed by a handful of exiles-men of wealth, intelligence and moral worth in Western India, with an unhesitating fervor such as is seldom to be found in larger religious communities. It is well worth the earnest endeavor of the philosopher and the divine to discover, if possible, the spell by which this apparently effete religion continues to command the attachment of the enlightened Parsis of India, and makes them turn a deaf ear to the allurements of the Brahminic worship and the earnest appeals of Christian missionaries."

The spell that Professor Max Müller wonders at, perhaps you will understand by the time I have ended my discourse this morning.

Freedom of opinion, religious or otherwise, marks this Association above all the rest. This gives me the opportunity of expressing the standpoint of a lover of freedom as defined by Zoroaster.

To a Zoroastrian it forms the staple food for all his ideals. He is the very embodiment himself of that freedom. What do we mean by freedom?

It is the plastic bond that unites us with the Divine Sympathy or Love of which we are joint partakers in the blessings inherent in its very essence.

This essence has been, is and ever will be in the world. In man, its form culminates duly in a consciousness which is individual. It is realized only when it has become a potent factor in our individual consciousness, and resulted in deeds. rather than allowed to be cogitated about in the realm of intellectual self-abstraction. The Zoroastrian's faith subsists in the synthesis of the reason and individual will.