^{page 324 note 1} A Study of Religion, vol. i. p. 1.

^{page 325 note 1} It is, of course, true that both Buddhism and Jainism acknowledge the existence of a multitude of so-called “gods,” but since the term is merely used to denote spirits of the highest rank in the universe, endowed with exceptional power and blessedness, but as much members of the cosmos and as completely subject to its laws as spirits of the lowest order, both religions are commonly and correctly classed as atheistic.

^{page 325 note 2} According to McTaggart, time is unreal. Consequently our perceptions of simultaneous or successive events are in fact misperceptions of unchanging entities and the relations subsisting among them. For our percepta in reality form a non-temporal order (the “C” series), each term of which includes within itself all the anterior terms of the series, and is in like manner included in all those posterior.

^{page 326 note 1} The same suggestion might well be made in the case of Jainism.

^{page 326 note 2} Katha Upanishad, Hume's translation.

^{page 326 note 3} The Nature of Existence, secs. 738–9.

^{page 327 note 1} The Nature of Existence, sec. 913.

^{page 327 note 2} Ibid., sec. 523.

^{page 329 note 1} The Nature of Existence, secs. 459 and 461.

^{page 329 note 2} Ibid., sec. 850.

^{page 330 note 1} The Nature of Existence, sees. 850–1.

^{page 330 note 2} Ibid., sec. 471.

^{page 331 note 1} The Nature of Existence, sec. 471.

^{page 331 note 2} Ibid., sec. 491.

^{page 331 note 3} Ibid., sec. 495.

^{page 331 note 4} Ibid., sec. 494.

^{page 332 note 1} The Nature of Existence, sec. 496

^{page 332 note 2} Ibid., sec. 499.

^{page 333 note 1} Professor R. A. Nicholson has translated the following account of an incident in the life of Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad, which, as he truly says, would be touching if it were not so edifying: “One day he had in his lap a child four years old, and chanced to give it a kiss, as is the way of fathers. The child said: ‘Father, do you love me?’ ‘Yes,’ said Fudayl. ‘Do you love God?” ‘Yes.’ ‘How many hearts have you?’ ‘One.’ ‘Then,’ asked the child, ‘how can you love two with one heart?’ Fudayl perceived that the child's words were a divine admonition. In his zeal for God he began to beat his head and repented of his love for the child, and gave his heart wholly to God.” (The Mystics of Islam, p.109.)

^{page 333 note 2} Ibid., p. 109.

^{page 333 note 3} Thus the poet just quoted could also write, Ye who in search of God, of God pursue, Ye need not search, for God is you, is you!Why seek ye something that was missing ne'er?Save you none is, but you are—where, oh, where?Ibid., p. 119.

^{page 333 note 4} McTaggart was quite content to have his system described as pantheistic. But it was not pantheistic in the same sense as the systems of Spinoza or Bradley, for instance, in which the self enjoys only an apparent or adjectival existence. For McTaggart the self is real, substantival, and eternal. It is, however, an atheistic pantheism, since in his opinion the term God should be used only to connote a personal being who is supreme (Studies in Hegelian Cosmology, sect. 96; Some Dogmas of Religion (second edition), sects. 152–3.) Any attempt to employ it in a wider sense could, he held, result in nothing but misunderstanding and confusion.

^{page 335 note 1} Thouless, R. H., The Lady Julian, p. 116.Google Scholar