THEO. It is the name given to those who, though they have won the right to Nirvana and cyclic rest—(_not_ “Devachan,” as the latter is an illusion of our consciousness, a happy dream, and as those who are fit for Nirvana must have lost entirely every desire or possibility of the world’s illusions)—have out of pity for mankind and those they left on earth renounced the Nirvanic state. Such an adept, or Saint, or whatever you may call him, believing it a selfish act to rest in bliss while mankind groans under the burden of misery produced by ignorance, renounces Nirvana, and determines to remain invisible _in spirit_ on this earth. They have no material body, as they have left it behind; but otherwise they remain with all their principles even _in astral life_ in our sphere. And such can and do communicate with a few elect ones, only surely not with _ordinary_ mediums. ENQ. I have put you the question about _Nirmanakayas_ because I read in some German and other works that it was the name given to the terrestrial appearances or bodies assumed by Buddhas in the Northern Buddhistic teachings. THEO. So they are, only the Orientalists have confused this terrestrial body by understanding it to be _objective_ and _physical_ instead of purely astral and subjective. ENQ. And what good can they do on earth? THEO. Not much, as regards individuals, as they have no right to interfere with Karma, and can only advise and inspire mortals for the general good. Yet they do more beneficent actions than you imagine. ENQ. To this Science would never subscribe, not even modern psychology. For them, no portion of intelligence can survive the physical brain. What would you answer them? THEO. I would not even go to the trouble of answering, but would simply say, in the words given to “M.A. Oxon,” “Intelligence is perpetuated after the body is dead. Though it is not a question of the brain only.... It is reasonable to propound the indestructibility of the human spirit from what we know” (_Spirit Identity_, p. 69). ENQ. But “M.A. Oxon” is a Spiritualist? THEO. Quite so, and the only _true_ Spiritualist I know of, though we may still disagree with him on many a minor question. Apart from this, no Spiritualist comes nearer to the occult truths than he does. Like any one of us he speaks incessantly “of the surface dangers that beset the ill-equipped, feather-headed muddler with the occult, who crosses the threshold without counting the cost.”[40] Our only disagreement rests in the question of “Spirit Identity.” Otherwise, I, for one, coincide almost entirely with him, and accept the three propositions he embodied in his address of July, 1884. It is this eminent Spiritualist, rather, who disagrees with us, not we with him. ENQ. What are these propositions? THEO.