Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda - Vol-1
THE VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY
The Vedanta philosophy, as it is generally called at the present
day, really comprises all the various sects that now exist in
India. Thus there have been various interpretations, and to my
mind they have been progressive, beginning with the dualistic or
Dvaita and ending with the non-dualistic or Advaita. The word
Vedanta literally means the end of the Vedas - the Vedas being
the scriptures of the Hindus. Sometimes in the West by the
Vedas are meant only the hymns and rituals of the Vedas. But at
the present time these parts have almost gone out of use, and
usually by the word Vedas in India, the Vedanta is meant. All
our commentators, when they want to quote a passage from the
scriptures, as a rule, quote from the Vedanta, which has another
technical name with the commentators - the Shrutis. (The term
Shruti - meaning "that which is heard" - though including the
whole of the Vedic literature, is chiefly applied by the
commentators to the Upanishads.) Now, all the books known by the
name of the Vedanta were not entirely written after the
ritualistic portions of the Vedas. For instance, one of them -
the Ishâ Upanishad - forms the fortieth chapter of the
Yajur-Veda, that being one of the oldest parts of the Vedas.
There are other Upanishads which form portions of the
Brahmanas or ritualistic writings; and the rest of the
Upanishads are independent, not comprised in any of the
Brahmanas or other parts of the Vedas; but there is no reason to
suppose that they were entirely independent of other parts, for,
as we well know, many of these have been lost entirely and many
of the Brahmanas have become extinct. So it is quite possible
that the independent Upanishads belonged to some Brahmanas,
which in course of time fell into disuse, while the Upanishads
remained. These Upanishads are also called Forest Books or
Aranyakas.
The Vedanta, then, practically forms the scriptures of the
Hindus, and all systems of philosophy that are orthodox have to
take it as their foundation. Even the Buddhists and Jains, when
it suits their purpose, will quote a passage from the Vedanta as
authority. All schools of philosophy in India, although they
claim to have been based upon the Vedas, took different names
for their systems. The last one, the system of Vyâsa, took its
stand upon the doctrines of the Vedas more than the previous
systems did, and made an attempt to harmonise the preceding
philosophies, such as the Sânkhya and the Nyâya, with the
doctrines of the Vedanta. So it is especially called the Vedanta
philosophy; and the Sutras or aphorisms of Vyasa are, in modern
India, the basis of the Vedanta philosophy. Again, these Sutras
of Vyasa have been variously explained by different
commentators. In general there are three sorts of
commentators in India now; from their interpretations have
arisen three systems of philosophy and sects. One is the
dualistic, or Dvaita; a second is the qualified non-dualistic,
or Vishishtâdvaita; and a third is the non-dualistic, or
Advaita. Of these the dualistic and the qualified non-dualistic
include the largest number of the Indian people. The
non-dualists are comparatively few in number. Now I will try to
lay before you the ideas that are contained in all these three
sects; but before going on, I will make one remark - that these
different Vedanta systems have one common psychology, and that
is, the psychology of the Sankhya system. The Sankhya psychology
is very much like the psychologies of the Nyaya and Vaisheshika
systems, differing only in minor particulars.
All the Vedantists agree on three points. They believe in God,
in the Vedas as revealed, and in cycles. We have already
considered the Vedas. The belief about cycles is as follows: All
matter throughout the universe is the outcome of one primal
matter called Âkâsha; and all force, whether gravitation,
attraction or repulsion, or life, is the outcome of one primal
force called Prâna. Prana acting on Akasha is creating or
projecting the universe. At the beginning of a cycle,
Akasha is motionless, unmanifested. Then Prana begins to act,
more and more, creating grosser and grosser forms out of Akasha
- plants, animals, men, stars, and so on. After an incalculable
time this evolution ceases and involution begins, everything
being resolved back through finer and finer forms into the
original Akasha and Prana, when a new cycle follows. Now there
is something beyond Akasha and Prana. Both can be resolved into
a third thing called Mahat - the Cosmic Mind. This Cosmic Mind
does not create Akasha and Prana, but changes itself into them.
We will now take up the beliefs about mind, soul, and God.
According to the universally accepted Sankhya psychology, in
perception - in the case of vision, for instance - there are,
first of all, the instruments of vision, the eyes. Behind the
instruments - the eyes - is the organ of vision or Indriya - the
optic nerve and its centres - which is not the external
instrument, but without which the eyes will not see. More still
is needed for perception. The mind or Manas must come and attach
itself to the organ. And besides this, the sensation must be
carried to the intellect or Buddhi - the determinative, reactive
state of the mind. When the reaction comes from Buddhi, along
with it flashes the external world and egoism. Here then is the
will; but everything is not complete. Just as every picture,
being composed of successive impulses of light, must be united
on something stationary to form a whole, so all the ideas in the
mind must be gathered and projected on something that is
stationary - relatively to the body and mind - that is, on what
is called the Soul or Purusha or Âtman.
According to the Sankhya philosophy, the reactive state of the
mind called Buddhi or intellect is the outcome, the change, or a
certain manifestation of the Mahat or Cosmic Mind. The Mahat
becomes changed into vibrating thought; and that becomes in one
part changed into the organs, and in the other part into the
fine particles of matter. Out of the combination of all these,
the whole of this universe is produced. Behind even Mahat, the
Sankhya conceives of a certain state which is called Avyakta or
unmanifested, where even the manifestation of mind is not
present, but only the causes exist. It is also called Prakriti.
Beyond this Prakriti, and eternally separate from it, is the
Purusha, the soul of the Sankhya which is without attributes and
omnipresent. The Purusha is not the doer but the witness. The
illustration of the crystal is used to explain the Purusha. The
latter is said to be like a crystal without any colour, before
which different colours are placed, and then it seems to be
coloured by the colours before it, but in reality it is not. The
Vedantists reject the Sankhya ideas of the soul and nature. They
claim that between them there is a huge gulf to be bridged over.
On the one hand the Sankhya system comes to nature, and then at
once it has to jump over to the other side and come to the soul,
which is entirely separate from nature. How can these different
colours, as the Sankhya calls them, be able to act on that soul
which by its nature is colourless? So the Vedantists, from the
very first affirm that this soul and this nature are one.
Even the dualistic Vedantists admit that the Atman or God is not
only the efficient cause of this universe, but also the material
cause. But they only say so in so many words. They do not really
mean it, for they try to escape from their conclusions, in this
way: They say there are three existences in this universe - God,
soul, and nature. Nature and soul are, as it were, the body of
God, and in this sense it may be said that God and the whole
universe are one. But this nature and all these various souls
remain different from each other through all eternity. Only at
the beginning of a cycle do they become manifest; and when the
cycle ends, they become fine, and remain in a fine state. The
Advaita Vedantists - the non-dualists - reject this theory of
the soul, and, having nearly the whole range of the Upanishads
in their favour, build their philosophy entirely upon them. All
the books contained in me Upanishads have one subject, one task
before them - to prove the following theme: "Just as by the
knowledge of one lump of clay we have the knowledge of all the
clay in the universe, so what is that, knowing which we know
everything in the universe?" The idea of the Advaitists is to
generalise the whole universe into one - that something which is
really the whole of this universe. And they claim that this
whole universe is one, that it is one Being manifesting itself
in all these various forms. They admit that what the Sankhya
calls nature exists, but say that nature is God. It is this
Being, the Sat, which has become converted into all this - the
universe, man, soul, and everything that exists. Mind and Mahat
are but the manifestations of that one Sat. But then the
difficulty arises that this would be pantheism. How came that
Sat which is unchangeable, as they admit (for that which is
absolute is unchangeable), to be changed into that which is
changeable, and perishable? The Advaitists here have a theory
which they call Vivarta Vâda or apparent manifestation.
According to the dualists and the Sankhyas, the whole of this
universe is the evolution of primal nature. According to some of
the Advaitists and some of the dualists, the whole of this
universe is evolved from God. And according to the Advaitists
proper, the followers of Shankaracharya, the whole universe is
the apparent evolution of God. God is the material cause of this
universe, but not really, only apparently. The celebrated
illustration used is that of the rope and the snake, where the
rope appeared to be the snake, but was not really so. The rope
did not really change into the snake. Even so this whole
universe as it exists is that Being. It is unchanged, and all
the changes we see in it are only apparent. These changes are
caused by Desha, Kâla and Nimitta (space, time, and causation),
or, according to a higher psychological generalization, by Nâma
and Rupa (name and form). It is by name and form that one thing
is differentiated from another. The name and form alone cause
the difference. In reality they are one and the same. Again, it
is not, the Vedantists say, that there is something as
phenomenon and something as noumenon. The rope is changed into
the snake apparently only; and when the delusion ceases, the
snake vanishes. When one is in ignorance, he sees the phenomenon
and does not see God. When he sees God, this universe vanishes
entirely for him. Ignorance or Mâyâ, as it is called, is the
cause of all this phenomenon - the Absolute, the Unchangeable,
being taken as this manifested universe. This Maya is not
absolute zero, nor non-existence. It is defined as neither
existence nor non-existence. It is not existence, because that
can be said only of the Absolute, the Unchangeable, and in this
sense, Maya is non-existence. Again, it cannot be said it is
non-existence; for if it were, it could never produce
phenomenon. So it is something which is neither; and in the
Vedanta philosophy it is called Anirvachaniya or inexpressible.
Maya, then, is the real cause of this universe. Maya gives the
name and form to what Brahman or God gives the material; and the
latter seems to have been transformed into all this. The
Advaitists, then, have no place for the individual soul. They
say individual souls are created by Maya. In reality they cannot
exist. If there were only one existence throughout, how could it
be that I am one, and you are one, and so forth? We are all one,
and the cause of evil is the perception of duality. As soon as I
begin to feel that I am separate from this universe, then first
comes fear, and then comes misery. "Where one hears another, one
sees another, that is small. Where one does not see another,
where one does not hear another, that is the greatest, that is
God. In that greatest is perfect happiness. In small things
there is no happiness."
According to the Advaita philosophy, then, this differentiation
of matter, these phenomena, are, as it were, for a time, hiding
the real nature of man; but the latter really has not been
changed at all. In the lowest worm, as well as in the highest
human being, the same divine nature is present. The worm form is
the lower form in which the divinity has been more overshadowed
by Maya; that is the highest form in which it has been least
overshadowed. Behind everything the same divinity is existing,
and out of this comes the basis of morality. Do not injure
another. Love everyone as your own self, because the whole
universe is one. In injuring another, I am injuring myself; in
loving another, I am loving myself. From this also springs that
principle of Advaita morality which has been summed up in one
word - self-abnegation. The Advaitist says, this little
personalised self is the cause of all my misery. This
individualised self, which makes me different from all other
beings, brings hatred and jealousy and misery, struggle and all
other evils. And when this idea has been got rid of, all
struggle will cease, all misery vanish. So this is to be given
up. We must always hold ourselves ready, even to give up our
lives for the lowest beings. When a man has become ready even to
give up his life for a little insect, he has reached the
perfection which the Advaitist wants to attain; and at that
moment when he has become thus ready, the veil of ignorance
falls away from him, and he will feel his own nature. Even in
this life, he will feel that he is one with the universe. For a
time, as it were, the whole of this phenomenal world will
disappear for him, and he will realise what he is. But so long
as the Karma of this body remains, he will have to live. This
state, when the veil has vanished and yet the body remains for
some time, is what the Vedantists call the Jivanmukti, the
living freedom. If a man is deluded by a mirage for some time,
and one day the mirage disappears - if it comes back again the
next day, or at some future time, he will not be deluded. Before
the mirage first broke, the man could not distinguish between
the reality and the deception. But when it has once broken, as
long as he has organs and eyes to work with, he will see the
image, but will no more be deluded. That fine distinction
between the actual world and the mirage he has caught, and the
latter cannot delude him any more. So when the Vedantist has
realised his own nature, the whole world has vanished for him.
It will come back again, but no more the same world of misery.
The prison of misery has become changed into Sat, Chit, Ânanda -
Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute, Bliss Absolute - and the
attainment of this is the goal of the Advaita Philosophy.
(The above address was delivered before the Graduate
Philosophical Society of Harvard University, on March 25, 1896.)
(A discussion following this is available at Vol. V.)
REASON AND RELIGION
(Delivered in England)
A sage called Nârada went to another sage named Sanatkumâra to
learn about truth, and Sanatkumara inquired what he had studied
already. Narada answered that he had studied the Vedas,
Astronomy, and various other things, yet he had got no
satisfaction. Then there was a conversation between the two, in
the course of which Sanatkumara remarked that all this knowledge
of the Vedas, of Astronomy, and of Philosophy, was but
secondary; sciences were but secondary. That which made us
realise the Brahman was the supreme, the highest knowledge. This
idea we find in every religion, and that is why religion always
claimed to be supreme knowledge. Knowledge of the sciences
covers, as it were, only part of our lives, but the knowledge
which religion brings to us is eternal, as infinite as the truth
it preaches. Claiming this superiority, religions have many
times looked down, unfortunately, on all secular knowledge, and
not only so, but many times have refused to be justified by the
aid of secular knowledge. In consequence, all the world over
there have been fights between secular knowledge and religious
knowledge, the one claiming infallible authority as its guide,
refusing to listen to anything that secular knowledge has to say
on the point, the other, with its shining instrument of reason,
wanting to cut to pieces everything religion could bring
forward. This fight has been and is still waged in every
country. Religions have been again and again defeated, and
almost exterminated. The worship of the goddess of Reason during
the French Revolution was not the first manifestation of that
phenomenon in the history of humanity, it was a re-enactment of
what had happened in ancient times, but in modern times it has
assumed greater proportions. The physical sciences are better
equipped now than formerly, and religions have become less and
less equipped. The foundations have been all undermined, and the
modern man, whatever he may say in public, knows in the privacy
of his heart that he can no more "believe". Believing certain
things because an organised body of priests tells him to
believe, believing because it is written in certain books,
believing because his people like him to believe, the modern man
knows to be impossible for him. There are, of course, a number
of people who seem to acquiesce in the so-called popular faith,
but we also know for certain that they do not think. Their idea
of belief may be better translated as
"not-thinking-carelessness". This fight cannot last much longer
without breaking to pieces all the buildings of religion.
The question is: Is there a way out? To put it in a more
concrete form: Is religion to justify itself by the discoveries
of reason, through which every other science justifies itself?
Are the same methods of investigation, which we apply to
sciences and knowledge outside, to be applied to the science of
Religion? In my opinion this must be so, and I am also of
opinion that the sooner it is done the better. If a religion is
destroyed by such investigations, it was then all the time
useless, unworthy superstition; and the sooner it goes the
better. I am thoroughly convinced that its destruction would be
the best thing that could happen. All that is dross will be
taken off, no doubt, but the essential parts of religion will
emerge triumphant out of this investigation. Not only will it be
made scientific - as scientific, at least, as any of the
conclusions of physics or chemistry - but will have greater
strength, because physics or chemistry has no internal mandate
to vouch for its truth, which religion has.
People who deny the efficacy of any rationalistic investigation
into religion seem to me somewhat to be contradicting
themselves. For instance, the Christian claims that his religion
is the only true one, because it was revealed to so-and-so. The
Mohammedan makes the same claim for his religion; his is the
only true one, because it was revealed to so-and-so. But the
Christian says to the Mohammedan, "Certain parts of your ethics
do not seem to be right. For instance, your books say, my
Mohammedan friend, that an infidel may be converted to the
religion of Mohammed by force, and if he will not accept the
Mohammedan religion he may be killed; and any Mohammedan who
kills such an infidel will get a sure entry into heaven,
whatever may have been his sins or misdeeds." The Mohammedan
will retort by saying, "It is right for me to do so, because my
book enjoins it. It will be wrong on my part not to do so." The
Christian says, "But my book does not say so." The Mohammedan
replies, "I do not know; I am not bound by the authority of your
book; my book says, 'Kill all the infidels'. How do you know
which is right and which is wrong? Surely what is written in my
book is right and what your book says, 'Do not kill,' is wrong.
You also say the same thing, my Christian friend; you say that
what Jehovah declared to the Jews is right to do, and what he
forbade them to do is wrong. So say I, Allah declared in my book
that certain things should be done, and that certain things
should not be done, and that is all the test of right and
wrong." In spite of that the Christian is not satisfied; he
insists on a comparison of the morality of the Sermon on the
Mount with the morality of the Koran. How is this to be decided?
Certainly not by the books, because the books, fighting between
themselves, cannot be the judges. Decidedly then we have to
admit that there is something more universal than these books,
something higher than all the ethical codes that are in the
world, something which can judge between the strength of
inspirations of different nations. Whether we declare it boldly,
clearly, or not - it is evident that here we appeal to reason.
Now, the question arises if this light of reason is able to
judge between inspiration and inspiration, and if this light can
uphold its standard when the quarrel is between prophet and
prophet, if it has the power of understanding anything
whatsoever of religion. If it has not, nothing can determine the
hopeless fight of books and prophets which has been going on
through ages; for it means that all religions are mere lies,
hopelessly contradictory, without any constant idea of ethics.
The proof of religion depends on the truth of the constitution
of man, and not on any books. These books are the outgoings, the
effects of man's constitution; man made these books. We are yet
to see the books that made man. Reason is equally an effect of
that common cause, the constitution of man, where our appeal
must be. And yet, as reason alone is directly connected with
this constitution, it should be resorted to, as long as it
follows faithfully the same. What do I mean by reason? I mean
what every educated man or woman is wanting to do at the present
time, to apply the discoveries of secular knowledge to religion.
The first principle of reasoning is that the particular is
explained by the general, the general by the more general, until
we come to the universal. For instance, we have the idea of law.
If something happens and we believe that it is the effect of
such and such a law, we are satisfied; that is an explanation
for us. What we mean by that explanation is that it is proved
that this one effect, which had dissatisfied us, is only one
particular of a general mass of occurrences which we designate
by the word "law". When one apple fell, Newton was disturbed;
but when he found that all apples fell, it was gravitation, and
he was satisfied. This is one principle of human knowledge. I
see a particular being, a human being, in the street. I refer
him to the bigger conception of man, and I am satisfied; I know
he is a man by referring him to the more general. So the
particulars are to be referred to the general, the general to
the more general, and everything at last to the universal, the
last concept that we have, the most universal - that of
existence. Existence is the most universal concept.
We are all human beings; that is to say, each one of us, as it
were, a particular part of the general concept, humanity. A man,
and a cat, and a dog, are all animals. These particular
examples, as man, or dog, or cat, are parts of a bigger and more
general concept, animal. The man, and the cat, and the dog, and
the plant, and the tree, all come under the still more general
concept, life. Again, all these, all beings and all materials,
come under the one concept of existence, for we all are in it.
This explanation merely means referring the particular to a
higher concept, finding more of its kind. The mind, as it were,
has stored up numerous classes of such generalisations. It is,
as it were, full of pigeon-holes where all these ideas are
grouped together, and whenever we find a new thing the mind
immediately tries to find out its type in one of these
pigeon-holes. If we find it, we put the new thing in there and
are satisfied, and we are said to have known the thing. This is
what is meant by knowledge, and no more. And if we do not find
that there is something like it, we are dissatisfied, and have
to wait until we find a further classification for it, already
existing in the mind. Therefore, as I have already pointed out,
knowledge is more or less classification. There is something
more. A second explanation of knowledge is that the explanation
of a thing must come from inside and not from outside. There had
been the belief that, when a man threw up a stone and it fell,
some demon dragged it down. Many occurrences which are really
natural phenomena are attributed by people to unnatural beings.
That a ghost dragged down the stone was an explanation that was
not in the thing itself, it was an explanation from outside; but
the second explanation of gravitation is something in the nature
of the stone; the explanation is coming from inside. This
tendency you will find throughout modern thought; in one word,
what is meant by science is that the explanations of things are
in their own nature, and that no external beings or existences
are required to explain what is going on in the universe. The
chemist never requires demons, or ghosts, or anything of that
sort, to explain his phenomena. The physicist never requires any
one of these to explain the things he knows, nor does any other
scientist. And this is one of the features of science which I
mean to apply to religion. In this religions are found wanting
and that is why they are crumbling into pieces. Every science
wants its explanations from inside, from the very nature of
things; and the religions are not able to supply this. There is
an ancient theory of a personal deity entirely separate from the
universe, which has been held from the very earliest time. The
arguments in favour of this have been repeated again and again,
how it is necessary to have a God entirely separate from the
universe, an extra-cosmic deity, who has created the universe
out of his will, and is conceived by religion to be its ruler.
We find, apart from all these arguments, the Almighty God
painted as the All-merciful, and at the same time, inequalities
remain in the world. These things do not concern the philosopher
at all, but he says the heart of the thing was wrong; it was an
explanation from outside, and not inside. What is the cause of
the universe? Something outside of it, some being who is moving
this universe! And just as it was found insufficient to explain
the phenomenon of the falling stone, so this was found
insufficient to explain religion. And religions are falling to
pieces, because they cannot give a better explanation than that.
Another idea connected with this, the manifestation of the same
principle, that the explanation of everything comes from inside
it, is the modern law of evolution. The whole meaning of
evolution is simply that the nature of a thing is reproduced,
that the effect is nothing but the cause in another form, that
all the potentialities of the effect were present in the cause,
that the whole of creation is but an evolution and not a
creation. That is to say, every effect is a reproduction of a
preceding cause, changed only by the circumstances, and thus it
is going on throughout the universe, and we need not go outside
the universe to seek the causes of these changes; they are
within. It is unnecessary to seek for any cause outside. This
also is breaking down religion. What I mean by breaking down
religion is that religions that have held on to the idea of an
extra-cosmic deity, that he is a very big man and nothing else,
can no more stand on their feet; they have been pulled down, as
it were.
Can there be a religion satisfying these two principles? I think
there can be. In the first place we have seen that we have to
satisfy the principle of generalisation. The generalisation
principle ought to be satisfied along with the principle of
evolution. We have to come to an ultimate generalisation, which
not only will be the most universal of all generalisations, but
out of which everything else must come. It will be of the same
nature as the lowest effect; the cause, the highest, the
ultimate, the primal cause, must be the same as the lowest and
most distant of its effects, a series of evolutions. The Brahman
of the Vedanta fulfils that condition, because Brahman is the
last generalisation to which we can come. It has no attributes
but is Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss - Absolute. Existence, we
have seen, is the very ultimate generalisation which the human
mind can come to. Knowledge does not mean the knowledge we have,
but the essence of that, that which is expressing itself in the
course of evolution in human beings or in other animals as
knowledge. The essence of that knowledge is meant, the ultimate
fact beyond, if I may be allowed to say so, even consciousness.
That is what is meant by knowledge and what we see in the
universe as the essential unity of things. To my mind, if modern
science is proving anything again and again, it is this, that we
are one - mentally, spiritually, and physically. It is wrong to
say we are even physically different. Supposing we are
materialists, for argument's sake, we shall have to come to
this, that the whole universe is simply an ocean of matter, of
which you and I are like little whirlpools. Masses of matter are
coming into each whirlpool, taking the whirlpool form, and
coming out as matter again. The matter that is in my body may
have been in yours a few years ago, or in the sun, or may have
been the matter in a plant, and so on, in a continuous state of
flux. What is meant by your body and my body? It is the oneness
of the body. So with thought. It is an ocean of thought, one
infinite mass, in which your mind and my mind are like
whirlpools. Are you not seeing the effect now, how my thoughts
are entering into yours, and yours into mine? The whole of our
lives is one; we are one, even in thought. Coming to a still
further generalisation, the essence of matter and thought is
their potentiality of spirit; this is the unity from which all
have come, and that must essentially be one. We are absolutely
one; we are physically one, we are mentally one, and as spirit,
it goes without saying, that we are one, if we believe in spirit
at all. This oneness is the one fact that is being proved every
day by modern science. To proud man it is told: You are the same
as that little worm there; think not that you are something
enormously different from it; you are the same. You have been
that in a previous incarnation, and the worm has crawled up to
this man state, of which you are so proud. This grand preaching,
the oneness of things, making us one with everything that
exists, is the great lesson to learn, for most of us are very
glad to be made one with higher beings, but nobody wants to be
made one with lower beings. Such is human ignorance, that if
anyone's ancestors were men whom society honoured, even if they
were brutish, if they were robbers, even robber barons, everyone
of us would try to trace our ancestry to them; but if among our
ancestors we had poor, honest gentlemen, none of us wants to
trace our ancestry to them. But the scales are falling from our
eyes, truth is beginning to manifest itself more and more, and
that is a great gain to religion. That is exactly the teaching
of the Advaita, about which I am lecturing to you. The Self is
the essence of this universe, the essence of all souls; He is
the essence of your own life, nay, "Thou art That". You are one
with this universe. He who says he is different from others,
even by a hair's breadth, immediately becomes miserable.
Happiness belongs to him who knows this oneness, who knows he is
one with this universe.
Thus we see that the religion of the Vedanta can satisfy the
demands of the scientific world, by referring it to the highest
generalisation and to the law of evolution. That the explanation
of a thing comes from within itself is still more completely
satisfied by Vedanta. The Brahman, the God of the Vedanta, has
nothing outside of Himself; nothing at all. All this indeed is
He: He is in the universe: He is the universe Himself. "Thou art
the man, Thou art the woman, Thou art the young man walking in
the pride of youth, Thou art the old man tottering in his step."
He is here. Him we see and feel: in Him we live, and move, and
have our being. You have that conception in the New Testament.
It is that idea, God immanent in the universe, the very essence,
the heart, the soul of things. He manifests Himself, as it were,
in this universe. You and I are little bits, little points,
little channels, little expressions, all living inside of that
infinite ocean of Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss. The
difference between man and man, between angels and man, between
man and animals, between animals and plants, between plants and
stones is not in kind, because everyone from the highest angel
to the lowest particle of matter is but an expression of that
one infinite ocean, and the difference is only in degree. I am a
low manifestation, you may be a higher, but in both the
materials are the same. You and I are both outlets of the same
channel, and that is God; as such, your nature is God, and so is
mine. You are of the nature of God by your birthright; so am I.
You may be an angel of purity, and I may be the blackest of
demons. Nevertheless, my birthright is that infinite ocean of
Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss. So is yours. You have
manifested yourself more today. Wait; I will manifest myself
more yet, for I have it all within me. No extraneous explanation
is sought; none is asked for. The sum total of this whole
universe is God Himself. Is God then matter? No, certainly not,
for matter is that God perceived by the five senses; that God as
perceived through the intellect is mind; and when the spirit
sees, He is seen as spirit. He is not matter, but whatever is
real in matter is He. Whatever is real in this chair is He, for
the chair requires two things to make it. Something was outside
which my senses brought to me, and to which my mind contributed
something else, and the combination of these two is the chair.
That which existed eternally, independent of the senses and of
the intellect, was the Lord Himself. Upon Him the senses are
painting chairs, and tables, and rooms, houses, and worlds, and
moons, and suns, and stars, and everything else. How is it,
then, that we all see this same chair, that we are all alike
painting these various things on the Lord, on this Existence,
Knowledge, and Bliss? It need not be that all paint the same
way, but those who paint the same way are on the same plane of
existence and therefore they see one another's paintings as well
as one another. There may be millions of beings between you and
me who do not paint the Lord in the same way, and them and their
paintings we do not see.
On the other hand, as you all know, the modern physical
researches are tending more and more to demonstrate that what is
real is but the finer; the gross is simply appearance. However
that may be, we have seen that if any theory of religion can
stand the test of modern reasoning, it is the Advaita, because
it fulfils its two requirements. It is the highest
generalisation, beyond even personality, generalisation which is
common to every being. A generalisation ending in the Personal
God can never be universal, for, first of all, to conceive of a
Personal God we must say, He is all-merciful, all-good. But this
world is a mixed thing, some good and some bad. We cut off what
we like, and generalise that into a Personal God! Just as you
say a Personal God is this and that, so you have also to say
that He is not this and not that. And you will always find that
the idea of a Personal God has to carry with it a personal
devil. That is how we clearly see that the idea of a Personal
God is not a true generalisation, we have to go beyond, to the
Impersonal. In that the universe exists, with all its joys and
miseries, for whatever exists in it has all come from the
Impersonal. What sort of a God can He be to whom we attribute
evil and other things? The idea is that both good and evil are
different aspects, or manifestations of the same thing. The idea
that they were two was a very wrong idea from the first, and it
has been the cause of a good deal of the misery in this world of
ours - the idea that right and wrong are two separate things,
cut and dried, independent of each other, that good and evil are
two eternally separable and separate things. I should be very
glad to see a man who could show me something which is good all
the time, and something which is bad all the time. As if one
could stand and gravely define some occurrences in this life of
ours as good and good alone, and some which are bad and bad
alone. That which is good today may be evil tomorrow. That which
is bad today may be good tomorrow. What is good for me may be
bad for you. The conclusion is, that like every other thing,
there is an evolution in good and evil too. There is something
which in its evolution, we call, in one degree, good, and in
another, evil. The storm that kills my friend I call evil, but
that may have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people
by killing the bacilli in the air. They call it good, but I call
it evil. So both good and evil belong to the relative world, to
phenomena. The Impersonal God we propose is not a relative God;
therefore it cannot be said that It is either good or bad, but
that It is something beyond, because It is neither good nor
evil. Good, however, is a nearer manifestation of It than evil.
What is the effect of accepting such an Impersonal Being, an
Impersonal Deity? What shall we gain? Will religion stand as a
factor in human life, our consoler, our helper? What becomes of
the desire of the human heart to pray for help to some being?
That will all remain. The Personal God will remain, but on a
better basis. He has been strengthened by the Impersonal. We
have seen that without the Impersonal, the Personal cannot
remain. If you mean to say there is a Being entirely separate
from this universe, who has created this universe just by His
will, out of nothing, that cannot be proved. Such a state of
things cannot be. But if we understand the idea of the
Impersonal, then the idea of the Personal can remain there also.
This universe, in its various forms, is but the various readings
of the same Impersonal. When we read it with the five senses, we
call it the material world. If there be a being with more senses
than five, he will read it as something else. If one of us gets
the electrical sense, he will see the universe as something else
again. There are various forms of that same Oneness, of which
all these various ideas of worlds are but various readings, and
the Personal God is the highest reading that can be attained to,
of that Impersonal, by the human intellect. So that the Personal
God is true as much as this chair is true, as much as this world
is true, but no more. It is not absolute truth. That is to say,
the Personal God is that very Impersonal God and, therefore, it
is true, just as I, as a human being, am true and not true at
the same time. It is not true that I am what you see I am; you
can satisfy yourself on that point. I am not the being that you
take me to be. You can satisfy your reason as to that, because
light, and various vibrations, or conditions of the atmosphere,
and all sorts of motions inside me have contributed to my being
looked upon as what I am, by you. If any one of these conditions
change, I am different again. You may satisfy yourself by taking
a photograph of the same man under different conditions of
light. So I am what I appear in relation to your senses, and
yet, in spite of all these facts, there is an unchangeable
something of which all these are different states of existence,
the impersonal me, of which thousands of me's are different
persons. I was a child, I was young, I am getting older. Every
day of my life, my body and thoughts are changing, but in spite
of all these changes, the sum-total of them constitutes a mass
which is a constant quantity. That is the impersonal me, of
which all these manifestations form, as it were, parts.
Similarly, the sum-total of this universe is immovable, we know,
but everything pertaining to this universe consists of motion,
everything is in a constant state of flux, everything changing
and moving. At the same time, we see that the universe as a
whole is immovable, because motion is a relative term. I move
with regard to the chair, which does not move. There must be at
least two to make motion. If this whole universe is taken as a
unit there is no motion; with regard to what should it move?
Thus the Absolute is unchangeable and immovable, and all the
movements and changes are only in the phenomenal world, the
limited. That whole is Impersonal, and within this Impersonal
are all these various persons beginning with the lowest atom, up
to God, the Personal God, the Creator, the Ruler of the
Universe, to whom we pray, before whom we kneel, and so on. Such
a Personal God can be established with a great deal of reason.
Such a Personal God is explicable as the highest manifestation
of the Impersonal. You and I are very low manifestations, and
the Personal God is the highest of which we can conceive. Nor
can you or I become that Personal God. When the Vedanta says you
and I are God, it does not mean the Personal God. To take an
example. Out of a mass of clay a huge elephant of clay is
manufactured, and out of the same clay, a little clay mouse is
made. Would the clay mouse ever be able to become the clay
elephant? But put them both in water and they are both clay; as
clay they are both one, but as mouse and elephant there will be
an eternal difference between them. The Infinite, the
Impersonal, is like the clay in the example. We and the Ruler of
the Universe are one, but as manifested beings, men, we are His
eternal slaves, His worshippers. Thus we see that the Personal
God remains. Everything else in this relative world remains, and
religion is made to stand on a better foundation. Therefore it
is necessary, that we first know the Impersonal in order to know
the Personal.
As we have seen, the law of reason says, the particular is only
known through the general. So all these particulars, from man to
God, are only known through the Impersonal, the highest
generalisation. Prayers will remain, only they will get a better
meaning. All those senseless ideas of prayer, the low stages of
prayer, which are simply giving words to all sorts of silly
desire in our minds, perhaps, will have to go. In all sensible
religions, they never allow prayers to God; they allow prayers
to gods. That is quite natural. The Roman Catholics pray to the
saints; that is quite good. But to pray to God is senseless. To
ask God to give you a breath of air, to send down a shower of
rain, to make fruits grow in your garden, and so on, is quite
unnatural. The saints, however, who were little beings like
ourselves, may help us. But to pray to the Ruler of the
Universe, prating every little need of ours, and from our
childhood saying, "O Lord, I have a headache; let it go," is
ridiculous. There have been millions of souls that have died in
this world, and they are all here; they have become gods and
angels; let them come to your help. But God! It cannot be. Unto
Him we must go for higher things. A fool indeed is he who,
resting on the banks of the Gangâ, digs a little well for water;
a fool indeed is he who, living near a mine of diamonds, digs
for bits of crystal.
And indeed we shall be fools if we go to the Father of all
mercy, Father of all love, for trivial earthly things. Unto Him,
therefore, we shall go for light, for strength, for love. But so
long as there is weakness and a craving for servile dependence
in us, there will be these little prayers and ideas of the
worship of the Personal God. But those who are highly advanced
do not care for such little helps, they have wellnigh forgotten
all about this seeking things for themselves, wanting things for
themselves. The predominant idea in them is - not I, but thou,
my brother. Those are the fit persons to worship the Impersonal
God. And what is the worship of the Impersonal God? No slavery
there - "O Lord, I am nothing, have mercy on me." You know the
old Persian poem, translated into English: "I came to see my
beloved. The doors were closed. I knocked and a voice came from
inside. 'Who art thou?' 'I am so-and-so' The door was not
opened. A second time I came and knocked; I was asked the same
question, and gave the same answer. The door opened not. I came
a third time, and the same question came. I answered, 'I am
thee, my love,' and the door opened." Worship of the Impersonal
God is through truth. And what is truth? That I am He. When I
say that I am not Thou, it is untrue. When I say I am separate
from you it is a lie, a terrible lie. I am one with this
universe, born one. It is self evident to my senses that I am
one with the universe. I am one with the air that surrounds me,
one with heat, one with light, eternally one with the whole
Universal Being, who is called this universe, who is mistaken
for the universe, for it is He and nothing else, the eternal
subject in the heart who says, "I am," in every heart - the
deathless one, the sleepless one, ever awake, the immortal,
whose glory never dies, whose powers never fail. I am one with
That.
This is all the worship of the Impersonal, and what is the
result? The whole life of man will be changed. Strength,
strength it is that we want so much in this life, for what we
call sin and sorrow have all one cause, and that is our
weakness. With weakness comes ignorance, and with ignorance
comes misery. It will make us strong. Then miseries will be
laughed at, then the violence of the vile will be smiled at, and
the ferocious tiger will reveal, behind its tiger's nature, my
own Self. That will be the result. That soul is strong that has
become one with the Lord; none else is strong. In your own
Bible, what do you think was the cause of that strength of Jesus
of Nazareth, that immense, infinite strength which laughed at
traitors, and blessed those that were willing to murder him? It
was that, "I and my Father are one"; it was that prayer,
"Father, just as I am one with you, so make them all one with
me." That is the worship of the Impersonal God. Be one with the
universe, be one with Him. And this Impersonal God requires no
demonstrations, no proofs. He is nearer to us than even our
senses, nearer to us than our own thoughts; it is in and through
Him that we see and think. To see anything, I must first see
Him. To see this wall I first see Him, and then the wall, for He
is the eternal subject. Who is seeing whom? He is here in the
heart of our hearts. Bodies and minds change; misery, happiness,
good and evil come and go; days and years roll on; life comes
and goes; but He dies not. The same voice, "I am, I am," is
eternal, unchangeable. In Him and through Him we know
everything. In Him and through Him we see everything. In Him and
through Him we sense, we think, we live, and we are. And that
"I," which we mistake to be a little "I," limited, is not only
my "I," but yours, the "I" of everyone, of the animals, of the
angels, of the lowest of the low. That "I am" is the same in the
murderer as in the saint, the same in the rich as in the poor,
the same in man as in woman, the same in man as in animals. From
the lowest amoeba to the highest angel, He resides in every
soul, and eternally declares, "I am He, I am He." When we have
understood that voice eternally present there, when we have
learnt this lesson, the whole universe will have expressed its
secret. Nature will have given up her secret to us. Nothing more
remains to be known. Thus we find the truth for which all
religions search, that all this knowledge of material sciences
is but secondary. That is the only true knowledge which makes us
one with this Universal God of the Universe.
VEDANTA AS A FACTOR IN CIVILISATION
(Extract from an address delivered at Airlie Lodge, Ridgeway
Gardens, England)
People who are capable of seeing only the gross external aspect
of things can perceive in the Indian nation only a conquered and
suffering people, a race of dreamers and philosophers. They seem
to be incapable of perceiving that in the spiritual realm India
conquers the world. No doubt it is true that just as the too
active Western mind would profit by an admixture of Eastern
introspect ion and the meditative habit, so the Eastern would
benefit by a somewhat greater activity and energy. Still we must
ask: What may be that force which causes this afflicted and
suffering people, the Hindu, and the Jewish too (the two races
from which have originated all the great religions of the world)
to survive, when other nations perish? The cause can only be
their spiritual force. The Hindus are still living though
silent, the Jews are more numerous today than when they lived in
Palestine. The philosophy of India percolates throughout the
whole civilised world, modifying and permeating as it goes. So
also in ancient times, her trade reached the shores of Africa
before Europe was known, and opened communication with the rest
of the world, thus disproving the belief that Indians never went
outside of their own country.
It is remarkable also that the possession of India by a foreign
power has always been a turning-point in the history of that
power, bringing to it wealth, prosperity, dominion, and
spiritual ideas. While the Western man tries to measure how much
it is possible for him to possess and to enjoy, the Eastern
seems to take the opposite course, and to measure how little of
material possessions he can do with. In the Vedas we trace the
endeavour of that ancient people to find God. In their search
for Him they came upon different strata; beginning with ancestor
worship, they passed on to the worship of Agni, the fire-god, of
Indra, the god of thunder, and of Varuna, the God of gods. We
find the growth of this idea of God, from many gods to one God,
in all religions; its real meaning is that He is the chief of
the tribal gods, who creates the world, rules it, and sees into
every heart; the stages of growth lead up from a multiplicity of
gods to monotheism. This anthropomorphic conception, however,
did not satisfy the Hindus, it was too human for them who were
seeking the Divine. Therefore they finally gave up searching for
God in the outer world of sense and matter, and turned their
attention to the inner world. Is there an inner world? And what
is it? It is Âtman. It is the Self, it is the only thing an
individual can be sure of. If he knows himself, he can know the
universe, and not otherwise. The same question was asked in the
beginning of time, even in the Rig-Veda, in another form: "Who
or what existed from the beginning?" That question was gradually
solved by the Vedanta philosophy. The Atman existed. That is to
say, what we call the Absolute, the Universal Soul, the Self, is
the force by which from the beginning all things have been and
are and will be manifested.
While the Vedanta philosophers solved that question, they at the
same time discovered the basis of ethics. Though all religions
have taught ethical precepts, such as, "Do not kill, do not
injure; love your neighbour as yourself," etc., yet none of
these has given the reason. Why should I not injure my
neighbour? To this question there was no satisfactory or
conclusive answer forthcoming, until it was evolved by the
metaphysical speculations of the Hindus who could not rest
satisfied with mere dogmas. So the Hindus say that this Atman is
absolute and all-pervading, therefore infinite. There cannot be
two infinites, for they would limit each other and would become
finite. Also each individual soul is a part and parcel of that
Universal Soul, which is infinite. Therefore in injuring his
neighbour, the individual actually injures himself. This is the
basic metaphysical truth underlying all ethical codes. It is too
often believed that a person in his progress towards perfection
passes from error to truth; that when he passes on from one
thought to another, he must necessarily reject the first. But no
error can lead to truth. The soul passing through its different
stages goes from truth to truth, and each stage is true; it goes
from lower truth to higher truth. This point may be illustrated
in the following way. A man is journeying towards the sun and
takes a photograph at each step. How different would be the
first photograph from the second and still more from the third
or the last, when he reaches the real sun! But all these, though
differing so widely from each other, are true, only they are
made to appear different by the changing conditions of time and
space. It is the recognition of this truth, which has enabled
the Hindus to perceive the universal truth of all religions,
from the lowest to the highest; it has made of them the only
people who never had religious persecutions. The shrine of a
Mohammedan saint which is at the present day neglected and
forgotten by Mohammedans, is worshipped by Hindus! Many
instances may be quoted, illustrating the same spirit of
tolerance.
The Eastern mind could not rest satisfied till it had found that
goal, which is the end sought by all humanity, namely, Unity.
The Western scientist seeks for unity in the atom or the
molecule. When he finds it, there is nothing further for him to
discover, and so when we find that Unity of Soul or Self, which
is called Atman, we can go no further. It becomes clear that
everything in the sense world is a manifestation of that One
Substance. Further, the scientist is brought to the necessity of
recognising metaphysics, when he supposes that atoms having
neither breadth nor length yet become, when combined, the cause
of extension, length, and breadth. When one atom acts upon
another, some medium is necessary. What is that medium? It will
be a third atom. If so, then the question still remains
unanswered, for how do these two act on the third? A manifest
reductio ad absurdum. This contradiction in terms is also found
in the hypothesis necessary to all physical science that a point
is that which has neither parts nor magnitude, and a line has
length without breadth. These cannot be either seen or
conceived. Why? Because they do not come within the range of the
senses. They are metaphysical conceptions. So we see, it is
finally the mind which gives the form to all perception. When I
see a chair, it is not the real chair external to my eye which I
perceive, but an external something plus the mental image
formed. Thus even the materialist is driven to metaphysics in
the last extremity.
THE SPIRIT AND INFLUENCE OF VEDANTA
(Delivered at the Twentieth Century Club, Boston)
Before going into the subject of this afternoon, will you allow
me to say a few words of thanks, now that I have the
opportunity? I have lived three years amongst you. I have
travelled over nearly the whole of America, and as I am going
back from here to my own country, it is meet that I should take
this opportunity of expressing my gratitude in this Athens of
America. When I first came to this country, after a few days I
thought I would be able to write a book on the nation. But after
three years' stay here, I find I am not able to write even a
page. On the other hand, I find in travelling in various
countries that beneath the surface differences that we find in
dress and food and little details of manners, man is man all the
world over; the same wonderful human nature is everywhere
represented. Yet there are certain characteristics, and in a few
words I would like to sum up all my experiences here. In this
land of America, no question is asked about a man's
peculiarities. If a man is a man, that is enough, and they take
him into their hearts, and that is one thing I have never seen
in any other country in the world.
I came here to represent a philosophy of India, which is called
the Vedanta philosophy. This philosophy is very, very ancient;
it is the outcome of that mass of ancient Aryan literature known
by the name of the Vedas. It is, as it were, the very flower of
all the speculations and experiences and analyses, embodied in
that mass of literature - collected and culled through
centuries. This Vedanta philosophy has certain peculiarities. In
the first place, it is perfectly impersonal; it does not owe its
origin to any person or prophet: it does not build itself around
one man as a centre. Yet it has nothing to say against
philosophies which do build themselves around certain persons.
In later days in India, other philosophies and systems arose,
built around certain persons - such as Buddhism, or many of our
present sects. They each have a certain leader to whom they owe
allegiance, just as the Christians and Mohammedans have. But the
Vedanta philosophy stands at the background of all these various
sects, and there is no fight and no antagonism between the
Vedanta and any other system in the world.
One principle it lays down - and that, the Vedanta claims, is to
be found in every religion in the world - that man is divine,
that all this which we see around us is the outcome of that
consciousness of the divine. Everything that is strong, and
good, and powerful in human nature is the outcome of that
divinity, and though potential in many, there is no difference
between man and man essentially, all being alike divine. There
is, as it were, an infinite ocean behind, and you and I are so
many waves, coming out of that infinite ocean; and each one of
us is trying his best to manifest that infinite outside. So,
potentially, each one of us has that infinite ocean of
Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss as our birthright, our real
nature; and the difference between us is caused by the greater
or lesser power to manifest that divine. Therefore the Vedanta
lays down that each man should be treated not as what he
manifests, but as what he stands for. Each human being stands
for the divine, and, therefore, every teacher should be helpful,
not by condemning man, but by helping him to call forth the
divinity that is within him.
It also teaches that all the vast mass of energy that we see
displayed in society and in every plane of action is really from
inside out; and, therefore, what is called inspiration by other
sects, the Vedantist begs the liberty to call the expiration of
man. At the same time it does not quarrel with other sects; the
Vedanta has no quarrel with those who do not understand this
divinity of man. Consciously or unconsciously, every man is
trying to unfold that divinity.
Man is like an infinite spring, coiled up in a small box, and
that spring is trying to unfold itself; and all the social
phenomena that we see the result of this trying to unfold. All
the competitions and struggles and evils that we see around us
are neither the causes of these unfoldments, nor the effects. As
one of our great philosophers says - in the case of the
irrigation of a field, the tank is somewhere upon a higher
level, and the water is trying to rush into the field, and is
barred by a gate. But as soon as the gate is opened, the water
rushes in by its own nature; and if there is dust and dirt in
the way, the water rolls over them. But dust and dirt are
neither the result nor the cause of this unfolding of the divine
nature of man. They are coexistent circumstances, and,
therefore, can be remedied.
Now, this idea, claims the Vedanta, is to be found in all
religions, whether in India or outside of it; only, in some of
them, the idea is expressed through mythology, and in others,
through symbology. The Vedanta claims that there has not been
one religious inspiration, one manifestation of the divine man,
however great, but it has been the expression of that infinite
oneness in human nature; and all that we call ethics and
morality and doing good to others is also but the manifestation
of this oneness. There are moments when every man feels that he
is one with the universe, and he rushes forth to express it,
whether he knows it or not. This expression of oneness is what
we call love and sympathy, and it is the basis of all our ethics
and morality. This is summed up in the Vedanta philosophy by the
celebrated aphorism, Tat Tvam Asi, "Thou art That".
To every man, this is taught: Thou art one with this Universal
Being, and, as such, every soul that exists is your soul; and
every body that exists is your body; and in hurting anyone, you
hurt yourself, in loving anyone, you love yourself. As soon as a
current of hatred is thrown outside, whomsoever else it hurts,
it also hurts yourself; and if love comes out from you, it is
bound to come back to you. For I am the universe; this universe
is my body. I am the Infinite, only I am not conscious of it
now; but I am struggling to get this consciousness of the
Infinite, and perfection will be reached when full consciousness
of this Infinite comes.
Another peculiar idea of the Vedanta is that we must allow this
infinite variation in religious thought, and not try to bring
everybody to the same opinion, because the goal is the same. As
the Vedantist says in his poetical language, "As so many rivers,
having their source in different mountains, roll down, crooked
or straight, and at last come into the ocean - so, all these
various creeds and religions, taking their start from different
standpoints and running through crooked or straight courses, at
last come unto THEE."
As a manifestation of that, we find that this most ancient
philosophy has, through its influence, directly inspired
Buddhism, the first missionary religion of the world, and
indirectly, it has also influenced Christianity, through the
Alexandrians, the Gnostics, and the European philosophers of the
middle ages. And later, influencing German thought, it has
produced almost a revolution in the regions of philosophy and
psychology. Yet all this mass of influence has been given to the
world almost unperceived. As the gentle falling of the dew at
night brings support to all vegetable life, so, slowly and
imperceptibly, this divine philosophy has been spread through
the world for the good of mankind. No march of armies has been
used to preach this religion. In Buddhism, one of the most
missionary religions of the world, we find inscriptions
remaining of the great Emperor Asoka - recording how
missionaries were sent to Alexandria, to Antioch, to Persia, to
China, and to various other countries of the then civilised
world. Three hundred years before Christ, instructions were
given them not to revile other religions: "The basis of all
religions is the same, wherever they are; try to help them all
you can, teach them all you can, but do not try to injure them."
Thus in India there never was any religious persecution by the
Hindus, but only that wonderful reverence, which they have for
all the religions of the world. They sheltered a portion of the
Hebrews, when they were driven out of their own country; and the
Malabar Jews remain as a result. They received at another time
the remnant of the Persians, when they were almost annihilated;
and they remain to this day, as a part of us and loved by us, as
the modern Parsees of Bombay. There were Christians who claimed
to have come with St. Thomas, the disciple of Jesus Christ; and
they were allowed to settle in India and hold their own
opinions; and a colony of them is even now in existence in
India. And this spirit of toleration has not died out. It will
not and cannot die there.
This is one of the great lessons that the Vedanta has to teach.
Knowing that, consciously or unconsciously, we are struggling to
reach the same goal, why should we be impatient? If one man is
slower than another, we need not be impatient, we need not curse
him, or revile him. When our eyes are opened and the heart is
purified, the work of the same divine influence, the unfolding
of the same divinity in every human heart, will become manifest;
and then alone we shall be in a position to claim the
brotherhood of man.
When a man has reached the highest, when he sees neither man nor
woman, neither sect nor creed, nor colour, nor birth, nor any of
these differentiations, but goes beyond and finds that divinity
which is the real man behind every human being - then alone he
has reached the universal brotherhood, and that man alone is a
Vedantist.
Such are some of the practical historical results of the
Vedanta.
STEPS OF HINDU PHILOSOPHIC THOUGHT
The first group of religious ideas that we see coming up - I
mean recognised religious ideas, and not the very low ideas,
which do not deserve the name of religion - all include the idea
of inspiration and revealed books and so forth. The first group
of religious ideas starts with the idea of God. Here is the
universe, and this universe is created by a certain Being.
Everything that is in this universe has been created by Him.
Along with that, at a later stage, comes the idea of soul - that
there is this body, and something inside this body which is not
the body. This is the most primitive idea of religion that we
know. We can find a few followers of that in India, but it was
given up very early. The Indian religions take a peculiar start.
It is only by strict analysis, and much calculation and
conjecture, that we can ever think that that stage existed in
Indian religions. The tangible state in which we find them is
the next step, not the first one. At the earliest step the idea
of creation is very peculiar, and it is that the whole universe
is created out of zero, at the will of God; that all this
universe did not exist, and out of this nothingness all this has
come. In the next stage we find this conclusion is questioned.
How can existence be produced out of nonexistence? At the first
step in the Vedanta this question is asked. If this universe is
existent it must have come out of something, because it was very
easy to see that nothing comes out of nothing, anywhere. All
work that is done by human hands requires materials. If a house
is built, the material was existing before; if a boat is made
the material existed before; if any implements are made, the
materials were existing before. So the effect is produced.
Naturally, therefore, the first idea that this world was created
out of nothing was rejected, and some material out of which this
world was created was wanted. The whole history of religion, in
fact, is this search after that material.
Out of what has all this been produced? Apart from the question
of the efficient cause, or God, apart from the question that God
created the universe, the great question of all questions is:
Out of what did He create it? All the philosophies are turning,
as it were, on this question. One solution is that nature, God,
and soul are eternal existences, as if three lines are running
parallel eternally, of which nature and soul comprise what they
call the dependent, and God the independent Reality. Every soul,
like every particle of matter, is perfectly dependent on the
will of God. Before going to the other steps we will take up the
idea of soul, and then find that with all the Vedantic
philosophers, there is one tremendous departure from all Western
philosophy. All of them have a common psychology. Whatever their
philosophy may have been, their psychology is the same in India,
the old Sânkhya psychology. According to this, perception occurs
by the transmission of the vibrations which first come to the
external sense-organs, from the external to the internal organs,
from the internal organs to the mind, from the mind to the
Buddhi, from the Buddhi or intellect, to something which is a
unit, which they call the Âtman. Coming to modern physiology, we
know that it has found centres for all the different sensations.
First it finds the lower centres, and then a higher grade of
centres, and these two centres exactly correspond with the
internal organs and the mind, but not one centre has been found
which controls all the other centres. So physiology cannot tell
what unifies all these centres. Where do the centres get united?
The centres in the brain are all different. and there is not one
centre which controls all the other centres; therefore, so far
as it goes, the Indian psychology stands unchallenged upon this
point. We must have this unification, some thing upon which the
sensations will be reflected, to form a complete whole. Until
there is that something, I cannot have any idea of you, or a
picture, or anything else. If we had not that unifying
something, we would only see, then after a while breathe, then
hear, and so on, and while I heard a man talking I would not see
him at all, because all the centres are different.
This body is made of particles which we call matter, and it is
dull and insentient. So is what the Vedantists call the fine
body. The fine body, according to them, is a material but
transparent body, made of very fine particles, so fine that no
microscope can see them. What is the use of that? It is the
receptacle of the fine forces. Just as this gross body is the
receptacle of the gross forces, so the fine body is the
receptacle of the fine forces, which we call thought, in its
various modifications. First is the body, which is gross matter,
with gross force. Force cannot exist without matter. It must
require some matter to exist, so the grosser forces work in the
body; and those very forces become finer; the very force which
is working in a gross form, works in a fine form, and becomes
thought. There is no distinction between them, simply one is the
gross and the other the fine manifestation of the same thing.
Neither is there any distinction between this fine body and the
gross body. The fine body is also material, only very fine
matter; and just as this gross body is the instrument that works
the gross forces, so the fine body is the instrument that works
the fine forces. From where do all these forces come? According
to Vedanta philosophy, there are two things in nature, one of
which they call Âkâsha, which is the substance, infinitely fine,
and the other they call Prâna, which is the force. Whatever you
see, or feel, or hear, as air, earth, or anything, is material -
the product of Akasha. It goes on and becomes finer and finer,
or grosser and grosser, changing under the action of Prana. Like
Akasha, Prana is omnipresent, and interpenetrating everything.
Akasha is like the water, and everything else in the universe is
like blocks of ice, made out of that water, and floating in the
water, and Prana is the power that changes this Akasha into all
these various forms. The gross body is the instrument made out
of Akasha, for the manifestation of Prana in gross forms, as
muscular motion, or walking, sitting, talking, and so forth.
That fine body is also made of Akasha, a very fine form of
Akasha, for the manifestation of the same Prana in the finer
form of thought. So, first there is this gross body. Beyond that
is this fine body, and beyond that is the Jiva, the real man.
Just as the nails can be pared off many times and yet are still
part of our bodies, not different, so is our gross body related
to the fine. It is not that a man has a fine and also a gross
body; it is the one body only, the part which endures longer is
the fine body, and that which dissolves sooner is the gross.
Just as I can cut this nail any number of times, so, millions of
times I can shed this gross body, but the fine body will remain.
According to the dualists, this Jiva or the real man is very
fine, minute.
So far we see that man is a being, who has first a gross body
which dissolves very quickly, then a fine body which remains
through aeons, and then a Jiva. This Jiva, according to the
Vedanta philosophy, is eternal, just as God is eternal. Nature
is also eternal, but changefully eternal. The material of nature
- Prana and Akasha - is eternal, but it is changing into
different forms eternally. But the Jiva is not manufactured
either of Akasha or Prana; it is immaterial and, therefore, will
remain for ever. It is not the result of any combination of
Prana and Akasha, and whatever is not the result of combination,
will never be destroyed, because destruction is going back to
causes. The gross body is a compound of Akasha and Prana and,
therefore, will be decomposed. The fine body will also be
decomposed, after a long time, but the Jiva is simple, and will
never be destroyed. It was never born for the same reason.
Nothing simple can be born. The same argument applies. That
which is a compound only can be born. The whole of nature
comprising millions and millions of souls is under the will of
God. God is all-pervading, omniscient, formless, and He is
working through nature day and night. The whole of it is under
His control. He is the eternal Ruler. So say the dualists. Then
the question comes: If God is the ruler of this universe, why
did He create such a wicked universe, why must we suffer so
much? They say, it is not God's fault. It is our fault that we
suffer. Whatever we sow we reap. He did not do anything to
punish us. Man is born poor, or blind, or some other way. What
is the reason? He had done something before, he was born that
way. The Jiva has been existing for all time, was never created.
It has been doing all sorts of things all the time. Whatever we
do reacts upon us. If we do good, we shall have happiness, and
if evil, unhappiness. So the Jiva goes on enjoying and
suffering, and doing all sorts of things.
What comes after death? All these Vedanta philosophers admit
that this Jiva is by its own nature pure. But ignorance covers
its real nature, they say. As by evil deeds it has covered
itself with ignorance, so by good deeds it becomes conscious of
its own nature again. Just as it is eternal, so its nature is
pure. The nature of every being is pure.
When through good deeds all its sins and misdeeds have been
washed away, then the Jiva becomes pure again, and when it
becomes pure, it goes to what is called Devayâna. Its organ of
speech enters the mind. You cannot think without words. Wherever
there is thought, there must be words. As words enter the mind,
so the mind is resolved into the Prana, and the Prana into the
Jiva. Then the Jiva gets quickly out of the body, and goes to
the solar regions. This universe has sphere after sphere. This
earth is the world sphere, in which are moons, suns, and stars.
Beyond that here is the solar sphere, and beyond that another
which they call the lunar sphere. Beyond that there is the
sphere which they call the sphere of lightning, the electric
sphere, and when the Jiva goes there, there comes another Jiva,
already perfect, to receive it, and takes it to another world,
the highest heaven, called the Brahmaloka, where the Jiva lives
eternally, no more to be born or to die. It enjoys through
eternity, and gets all sorts of powers, except the power of
creation. There is only one ruler of the universe, and that is
God. No one can become God; the dualists maintain that if you
say you are God, it is a blasphemy. All powers except the
creative come to the Jiva, and if it likes to have bodies, and
work in different parts of the world, it can do so. If it orders
all the gods to come before it, if it wants its forefathers to
come, they all appear at its command. Such are its powers that
it never feels any more pain, and if it wants, it can live in
the Brahmaloka through all eternity. This is the highest man,
who has attained the love of God, who has become perfectly
unselfish, perfectly purified, who has given up all desires, and
who does not want to do anything except worship and love God.
There are others that are not so high, who do good works, but
want some reward. They say they will give so much to the poor,
but want to go to heaven in return. When they die, what becomes
of them? The speech enters the mind, the mind enters the Prana,
the Prana enters the Jiva, and the Jiva gets out, and goes to
the lunar sphere, where it has a very good time for a long
period. There it enjoys happiness, so long as the effect of its
good deeds endures. When the same is exhausted, it descends, and
once again enters life on earth according to its desires. In the
lunar sphere the Jiva becomes what we call a god, or what the
Christians or Mohammedans call an angel. These gods are the
names of certain positions; for instance, Indra, the king of the
gods, is the name of a position; thousands of men get to that
position. When a virtuous man who has performed the highest of
Vedic rites dies, he becomes a king of the gods; by that time
the old king has gone down again, and become man. Just as kings
change here, so the gods, the Devas, also have to die. In heaven
they will all die. The only deathless place is Brahmaloka, where
alone there is no birth and death.
So the Jivas go to heaven, and have a very good time, except now
and then when the demons give them chase. In our mythology it is
said there are demons, who sometimes trouble the gods. In all
mythologies, you read how these demons and the gods fought, and
the demons sometimes conquered the gods, although many times, it
seems, the demons did not do so many wicked things as the gods.
In all mythologies, for instance, you find the Devas fond of
women. So after their reward is finished, they fall down again,
come through the clouds, through the rains, and thus get into
some grain or plant and find their way into the human body, when
the grain or plant is eaten by men. The father gives them the
material out of which to get a fitting body. When the material
suits them no longer, they have to manufacture other bodies. Now
there are the very wicked fellows, who do, all sorts of
diabolical things; they are born again as animals, and if they
are very bad, they are born as very low animals, or become
plants, or stones.
In the Deva form they make no Karma at all; only man makes
Karma. Karma means work which will produce effect. When a man
dies and becomes a Deva, he has only a period of pleasure, and
during that time makes no fresh Karma; it is simply a reward for
his past good Karma. When the good Karma is worked out, then the
remaining Karma begins to take effect, and he comes down to
earth. He becomes man again, and if he does very good works, and
purifies himself, he goes to Brahmaloka and comes back no more.
The animal is a state of sojourn for the Jiva evolving from
lower forms. In course of time the animal becomes man. It is a
significant fact that as the human population is increasing, the
animal population is decreasing. The animal souls are all
becoming men. So many species of animals have become men
already. Where else have they gone?
In the Vedas, there is no mention of hell. But our Purânas, the
later books of our scriptures, thought that no religion could be
complete, unless hells were attached to it, and so they invented
all sorts of hells. In some of these, men are sawed in half, and
continually tortured, but do not die. They are continually
feeling intense pain, but the books are merciful enough to say
it is only for a period. Bad Karma is worked out in that state
and then they come back on earth, and get another chance. So
this human form is the great chance. It is called the
Karma-body, in which we decide our fate. We are running in a
huge circle, and this is the point in the circle which
determines the future. So this is considered the most important
form that there is. Man is greater than the gods.
So far with dualism, pure and simple. Next comes the higher
Vedantic philosophy which says, that this cannot be. God is both
the material and the efficient cause of this universe. If you
say there is a God who is an infinite Being, and a soul which is
also infinite, and a nature which is also infinite, you can go
on multiplying infinites without limit which is simply absurd;
you smash all logic. So God is both the material and the
efficient cause of the universe; He projects this universe out
of Himself. Then how is it that God has become these walls and
this table, that God has become the pig, and the murderer, and
all the evil things in the world? We say that God is pure. How
can He become all these degenerate things? Our answer is: just
as I am a soul and have a body, and in a sense, this body is not
different from me, yet I, the real I, in fact, am not the body.
For instance, I say, I am a child, a young man, or an old man,
but my soul has not changed. It remains the same soul.
Similarly, the whole universe, comprising all nature and an
infinite number of souls, is, as it were, the infinite body of
God. He is interpenetrating the whole of it. He alone is
unchangeable, but nature changes, and soul changes. He is
unaffected by changes in nature and soul. In what way does
nature change? In its forms; it takes fresh forms. But the soul
cannot change that way. The soul contracts and expands in
knowledge. It contracts by evil deeds. Those deeds which
contract the real natural knowledge and purity of the soul are
called evil deeds. Those deeds, again, which bring out the
natural glory of the soul, are called good deeds. All these
souls were pure, but they have become contracted; through the
mercy of God, and by doing good deeds, they will expand and
recover their natural purity. Everyone has the same chance, and
in the long run, must get out. But this universe will not cease,
because it is eternal. This is the second theory. The first is
called dualism. The second holds that there are God, soul, and
nature, and soul and nature form the body of God, and,
therefore, these three form one unit. It represents a higher
stage of religious development and goes by the name of qualified
monism. In dualism, the universe is conceived as a large machine
set going by God while in qualified monism, it is conceived as
an organism, interpenetrated by the Divine Self.
The last are the non-dualists. They raise the question also,
that God must be both the material and the efficient cause of
this universe. As such, God has become the whole of this
universe and there is no going against it. And when these other
people say that God is the soul, and the universe is the body,
and the body is changing, but God is changeless, the
non-dualists say, all this is nonsense. In that case what is the
use of calling God the material cause of this universe? The
material cause is the cause become effect; the effect is nothing
but the cause in another form. Wherever you see an effect, it is
the cause reproduced. If the universe is the effect, and God the
cause, it must be the reproduction of God. If you say that the
universe is the body of God, and that the body becomes
contracted and fine and becomes the cause, and out of that the
universe is evolved, the non-dualists say that it is God Himself
who has become this universe. Now comes a very fine question. If
this God has become this universe, you and all these things are
God. Certainly. This book is God, everything is God. My body is
God, and my mind is God, and my soul is God. Then why are there
so many Jivas? Has God become divided into millions of Jivas?
Does that one God turn into millions of Jivas? Then how did it
become so? How can that infinite power and substance, the one
Being of the universe, become divided? It is impossible to
divide infinity. How can that pure Being become this universe?
If He has become the universe, He is changeful, and if He is
changeful, He is part of nature, and whatever is nature and
changeful is born and dies. If our God is changeful, He must die
some day. Take note of that. Again, how much of God has become
this universe? If you say X (the unknown algebraical quantity),
then God is God minus X now, and, therefore, not the same God as
before this creation, because so much has become this universe.
So the non-dualists say, "This universe does not exist at all;
it is all illusion. The whole of this universe, these Devas,
gods, angels, and all the other beings born and dying, all this
infinite number of souls coming up and going down, are all
dreams." There is no Jiva at all. How can there be many? It is
the one Infinity. As the one sun, reflected on various pieces of
water, appears to be many, and millions of globules of water
reflect so many millions of suns, and in each globule will be a
perfect image of the sun, yet there is only one sun, so are all
these Jivas but reflections in different minds. These different
minds are like so many different globules, reflecting this one
Being. God is being reflected in all these different Jivas. But
a dream cannot be without a reality, and that reality is that
one Infinite Existence. You, as body, mind, or soul, are a
dream, but what you really are, is Existence, Knowledge, Bliss.
You are the God of this universe. You are creating the whole
universe and drawing it in. Thus says the Advaitist. So all
these births and rebirths, coming and going are the figments of
Mâyâ. You are infinite. Where can you go? The sun, the moon, and
the whole universe are but drops in your transcendent nature.
How can you be born or die? I never was born, never will be
born. I never had father or mother, friends or foes, for I am
Existence, Knowledge, Bliss Absolute. I am He, I am He. So, what
is the goal, according to this philosophy? That those who
receive this knowledge are one with the universe. For them, all
heavens and even Brahmaloka are destroyed, the whole dream
vanishes, and they find themselves the eternal God of the
universe. They attain their real individuality, with its
infinite knowledge and bliss, and become free. Pleasures in
little things cease. We are finding pleasure in this little
body, in this little individuality. How much greater the
pleasure when this whole universe is my body! If there is
pleasure in one body, how much more when all bodies are mine!
Then is freedom attained. And this is called Advaita, the
non-dualistic Vedanta philosophy.
These are the three steps which Vedanta philosophy has taken,
and we cannot go any further, because we cannot go beyond unity.
When a science reaches a unity, it cannot by any manner of means
go any further. You cannot go beyond this idea of the Absolute.
All people cannot take up this Advaita philosophy; it is hard.
First of all, it is very hard to understand it intellectually.
It requires the sharpest of intellects, a bold understanding.
Secondly, it does not suit the vast majority of people. So there
are these three steps. Begin with the first one. Then by
thinking of that and understanding it, the second will open
itself. Just as a race advances, so individuals have to advance.
The steps which the human race has taken to reach to the highest
pinnacles of religious thought, every individual will have to
take. Only, while the human race took millions of years to reach
from one step to another, individuals may live the whole life of
the human race in a much shorter duration. But each one of us
will have to go through these steps. Those of you who are
non-dualists look back to the period of your lives when you were
strong dualists. As soon as you think you are a body and a mind,
you will have to take the whole of this dream. If you take one
portion, you must take the whole. The man who says, here is this
world, and there is no (Personal) God, is a fool; because if
there is a world, there will have to be a cause, and that is
what is called God. You cannot have an effect without knowing
that there is a cause. God will only vanish when this world
vanishes; then you will become God (Absolute), and this world
will be no longer for you. So long as the dream that you are a
body exists, you are bound to see yourself as being born and
dying; but as soon as that dream vanishes, so will the dream
vanish that you are being born and dying, and so will the other
dream that there is a universe vanish. That very thing which we
now see as the universe will appear to us as God (Absolute), and
that very God who has so long been external will appear to be
internal, as our own Self.