{"id":679,"date":"2013-07-13T01:29:40","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:29:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=679"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:29:40","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:29:40","slug":"34-the-ishavasyopanishad-vol-12-the-upanishad-volume-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/12-the-upanishad-volume-12\/34-the-ishavasyopanishad-vol-12-the-upanishad-volume-12","title":{"rendered":"-34_The Ishavasyopanishad.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n

\nSUPPLEMENT<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/span>The
\nIshavasyopanishad<\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\n       WITH A COMMENTARY
\nIN ENGLSIH<\/span><\/p>\n

 \n<\/p>\n

\n
\nWith God all this must be invested, even all that is world in this moving
\nuniverse; abandon therefore desire and enjoy and covet no man’s possession.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe Upanishad sets forth by pronouncing as the
\nindispensable basis of its revelations the universal nature of God. This
\nuniver\u00adsal nature of Brahman the Eternal is the beginning and end of the Vedanta
\nand if it is not accepted, nothing the Vedanta says can have any value, as all
\nits propositions either proceed from it or at least presuppose it; deprived of
\nthis central and highest truth, the Upanishads become what mleccha<\/i>
\nscholars and philosophers think them to be, \u2014 a mass of incoherent though often
\nsublime speculations; with this truth in your hand as a lamp to shed light on
\nall the obscurest sayings of the Scriptures, you soon come to realise that the
\nUpanishads are a grand harmonious and perfectly luminous whole, expressing in
\nits various aspects the single and universal Truth; for under the myriad
\ncontradictions of phenomena (prapa\u00f1ca)<\/i> there is one Truth and one only.
\nAll the Smritis, the Puranas, the Darshanas, the Dharmashastras, the writings of
\nShaktas, Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Sauras, as well as the whole of Buddhism and its
\nScriptures are merely so many explanations, comments and interpretations from
\ndifferent sides, of these various aspects of the one and only Truth. This Truth
\nis the sole foundation on which all religions can rest as on a sure and
\nimpregnable rock; \u2014 and more than a rock, for a rock may perish but this endures
\nfor ever. Therefore is the religion of the Aryas called the Sanatana Dharma, the
\nLaw Sempiternal. Nor are the Hindus in error when they declare the Sruti to be
\neternal and without beginning and the Rishis who composed the hymns to be only
\nthe witnesses who saw the Truth and put it in human language; for this seeing
\nwas not mental sight, but spiritual. Therefore the Vedas are justly called the
\nSruti or revelation. <\/b>Of<\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 447<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\nthese the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharvan are the fertilising
\nrain which gave the plant of the Truth nourishment and made it grow, the
\nBrahmanas are the forest in which the plant is found, the Aranyakas are the soil
\nin which it grows, the Upanishads are the plant itself, roots, stalks, leaves,
\ncalix and petals, and the flower which manifests itself once and for ever is the
\ngreat saying so’ham \u2014 I am He<\/i> which is the culmination of the Upanishads.
\nSalutation to the so’ham.<\/i> Salutation to the Eternal who is without place,
\ntime, cause or limit. Salutation to my Self who am the Eternal.<\/span><\/p>\n

 \n<\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span><\/b>tudent<\/b>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nI salute the Eternal and my Self who am the Eternal.
\nSvāhā!<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 \n<\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe Upanishad therefore begins by saying that
\nall this must be clothed or invested with the Lord. By this expression it is
\nmeant that the individual Jivatman or human soul in order to attain salvation
\nmust cover up all this universe with the Lord, as one might cover the body with
\na garment. By the Lord we mean obviously not the unknowable Parabrahman for of
\nthe unknowable we cannot speak in terms of place, time or difference but the
\nBrahman knowable by Yoga, the luminous shadow of the One put forth by the Shakti
\nof the One, which by dividing itself into the Male and Female, Purusha and
\nPrakriti, has created this world of innumerable forms and names. Brahman is
\nspoken of as the Lord; that is, we best think of Him as the Ruler and Sovereign
\nof the universe. But still He is the ocean of spiritual force, which by its mere
\npresence sets working the creative, preservative, and destructive Shakti or Will
\nof the Eternal Parabrahman in the form of Prakriti, a moving ocean of energy,<\/span> <\/i>
\nकारणजल:
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>Of these two, the ocean of spiritual force and the
\nocean of material form, the latter is contained in the other and could not be
\nwithout it. It may be said to be surrounded by it or clothed by it. The Lord
\nhimself is present on the ocean in various forms, Prajna, Hiranyagarbha and
\nVirat, or Vishnu, Brahma and Maheshwara. This is what the Puranas represent as
\nVishnu on the Serpent of Time and Space in the Ocean and Brahma coming<\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 448<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\nout of the lotus in his navel etc. This is the Lord, the King
\nand Ruler. We must therefore realise all things in this universe to be the
\ncreation of that ocean of Brahman or spiritual force which surrounds them as a
\nrobe surrounds its wearer.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nI do not understand. Surely all things are
\nBrahman himself; why then should he be said to surround all things as if he were
\ndifferent from them?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIt is meant by this expression that the
\nuniversal and undivided consciousness which we call Brahman, surrounds and
\nincludes all the limited individual consciousnesses which present themselves to
\nus in the shape of things.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nStill I do not understand. How can the one
\nindivisible consciousness be divided, or if it is divided, how can it at the
\nsame time remain one and surround its own parts ? A thing cannot be at the same
\ntime one and indivisible and yet divisible and multifold.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nOn the contrary this is precisely the nature of
\nconsciousness to be eternally one and indivisible, and yet always divisible at
\nwill; for man’s consciousness has often been split up into two states each with
\nits own history and memory, so that when he is in one state, he does not know
\nwhat he has been thinking and doing in the other. Persons ignorant of the Truth
\nimagine from this cir\u00adcumstance that a man’s consciousness must be not single
\nand homogeneous but a bundle of different personalities. The Sankhyas and others
\nimagine that there must be an infinite number of Purushas, souls and not One,
\nfor otherwise, they say, all would have the same knowledge, the same pleasure
\nand pain etc. But this is merely Avidya, Ignorance, and when the apparently
\nindividual Purusha puts himself into the complete state of Yoga with the Eternal
\nhe discovers that all the time there was only One Purusha who was cognisant of
\nand contained the others in the sense<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 449<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\nthat they were simply projections (sr<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>s<\/span>̣<\/span>t<\/span>̣<\/span>i)<\/span><\/i>
\nfrom him. These states of split consciousness are only different states of one
\npersonality and not separate personalities. This will at once be clear if a
\nskilful and careful hypnotiser put the man in the right state of sleep;
\nfor then a third state of personality will often evolve which has known all
\nalong what the other two were doing and saying. This is in itself sufficient
\nproof that all along the unity of consciousness was there, submerged indeed but
\nconstant and subliminally active. The division of this one consciousness into
\ntwo separate states results from a particular and unusual action of avidyā,<\/i>
\nthe same universal Nescience which in its general and normal action makes men
\nimagine that they are a different self from the Universal Consciousness and not
\nmerely states or conditions projected (sr<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>s<\/span>̣<\/span>t<\/span>̣<\/span>ā)<\/span><\/i>
\nof that consciousness. We see here then established an example of the one and
\nindivisible consciousness becoming divided and multifold, yet remaining one and
\nindivisible all the time. This single indivisible consciousness itself, the I of
\nthe waking man, is only a division or rather a state of a still wider
\nconsciousness more independent of gross matter which gets some play in the
\ncondition of dream and of which dream hypnosis is only a particular and
\ncapricious form, but which more permanently and coherently is finally liberated
\nfrom the gross body at or after death. This wider consciousness is called the
\nDream condition and the body or upādhi<\/i> in which it works is called the
\nsubtle body. The Dream Consciousness may be said to surround the waking
\nconsciousness and its body as a robe surrounds its wearer, for it is wider and
\nless trammelled in its nature and range; it is the selecting agency
\nfrom which and by which a part is selected for waking purposes in the material
\nlife by a still wider consciousness which we call the Sleep condition or the
\ncausal Body and from this and by this it is selected for life before birth and
\nafter death. This Sleep condition is again surrounded by Brahman from whom and
\nby whom it is selected for causal purposes, \u2014just as a robe surrounds its
\nwearer.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nThus you will realise that Brahman is a wide, eternally one
\nand indivisible Consciousness which yet limits itself at will and yet remains
\nillimitable surrounding like a robe all the various states or illusory
\nlimitations.<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 450<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span><\/b>tudent<\/b>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\nTrue but the robe is different from its wearer.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nLet us consider a nut with the kernel in it, we
\nsee that ether in the form or upādhi<\/i> of the nut surrounds ether in the
\nupādhi<\/i> of the kernel as a robe surrounds its wearer; but the two are the
\nsame; there is one ether not two.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nNow I understand.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nConsider next what the Upanishad goes on to
\nindicate more definitely as the thing to be clothed or invested \u2014 whatever is
\njagat<\/i> or jagatī,<\/i> or literally whatever is moving thing in her that
\nmoves. Now jagatī,<\/i> she who moves, is an old name for Earth, Prithivi, and
\nafterwards for the whole wide<\/i> universe, of which the Earth with which
\nalone we human beings are at present con\u00adcerned, is the type. Why then is the
\nuniverse called jagatī,<\/i> she that moveth? Because it is a form of Prakriti
\nwhose essential characteristic is motion; for by motion she creates this
\nmaterial world, and indeed all object-matter is only a form, that is to say a
\nvisible, audible or sensible result of motion; every material object is
\njagat,<\/i> full of infinite motion, \u2014 even the stone, even the clod. This
\nmaterial world, our senses tell us, is the only existing reality; but the
\nUpanishad warns us against the false evidence of our senses and bids us realise
\nin our hearts and minds Brahman the Ocean of spiritual force, drawing him in our
\nima\u00adginations like a robe round each sensible thing.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut the Upanishad does not say that the material
\nworld is itself Brahman.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIt will yet say that. It tells us next by
\nabandonment of this (all that is in the world) to enjoy and not covet any man’s
\nwealth.<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 451<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\nWe are to enjoy the whole world, but not to covet the
\npossessions of others. How is this possible ? If I, Devadatta, am told to enjoy
\nall that is in the world, but find that I have very little to enjoy while my
\nneighbour Harischandra has untold riches, how can I fail to envy him his wealth
\nand why should I not try to get it for my own enjoyment, if I safely can ? I
\nshall not try because I cannot, because I have realised that there is nothing in
\nthis world but Brahman manifesting the universe by his Shakti, and that there is
\nno Devadatta, no Harischandra, but only Brahman in various states of
\nconsciousness to which these names are given. If therefore Harischandra enjoys
\nhis riches, then it is I who am enjoying them, for Harischandra is myself, \u2014 not
\nmy body in which I am imprisoned or my desires by which my body is made
\nmiserable, but my true self, the Purusha within me who is the witness and
\nenjoyer of all this sweet, bitter, tender, grand, beautiful, terrible, pleasant,
\nhorrible and wholly wonderful and enjoyable drama of the world which Prakriti
\nenacts for his delectation. Now if as the Sankhyas and other philosophies and
\nthe Christian and other religions, declare, there are innumerable Purushas and
\nnot one, there would be no ground for the Christian injunction to love others as
\noneself or for the description by the Sruti and Smriti of the perfect sage as <\/span>
\nसर्वभूतहिते रत:
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>, busied with and delighting in the good of all creatures; for then Harischandra would be in no way connected with me and there would be no point of
\ncontact between us except the material, from which hatred and envy are far more
\nready to arise than love and sym\u00adpathy. How then could I prefer him to myself?
\nBut from the point of view of Vedanta, such preference is natural, right and in
\nthe end inevitable. It is inevitable because as I have risen from the beast to
\nthe man, so must I rise from the man to the God. This preference is the
\nperennial well and fountain, evolution meaning simply the wider and wider
\nrevelation of Brahman, the universal spirit, the progress from the falsehood of
\nmatter to the truth of spirit; and this progress, however slow, is inevitable.
\nHow is the preference of others to myself inevitable, natural, right ? It is
\nnatural because I am not really preferring another to myself, but my true self
\nto my false. God who is in all to my single body and mind, myself in Devadatta
\nand Harischandra, to myself<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 452<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\nin Devadatta alone. It is right and inevitable because it is
\nbetter for me to enjoy the enjoyment of Harischandra than to enjoy my own, since
\nin this way I shall make my knowledge of Brahman a reality and not a mere
\nintellectual conception or assent; I shall turn it into an experience \u2014
\nanubhava,<\/i> and anubhava,<\/i> the Smritis tell us, is the essence of true
\nj\u00f1āna.<\/i> For this reason perfect love, by which I do not mean the mere sensual
\nimpulse of man towards woman, is a great and ennobling thing, for by its means
\ntwo separated conditions of the universal Consciousness come together and become
\none. Still nobler and more ennobling is the love of the patriot who lives and
\ndies for his country, for in this way he becomes one with millions of divine
\nunits and still greater, nobler, more exalting the soul of the philanthropist,
\nwho without forgetting family or country lives and dies for mankind or for all
\ncreatures. He is the wisest Muni, the greatest Yogi, who not only reaches
\nBrahman by the way of Jnana, not only soars to Him on the wings of Bhakti, but
\nbecomes He through God-devoted Karma, who gives himself up utterly for his
\nfamily and friends, for his country, for all humanity, for the world, yes and
\nwhen he can the solar system and systems upon systems, \u2014 for the whole universe.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nTherefore the Upanishad tells us that we must enjoy by
\nabandonment, by tyāga<\/i> or renunciation. This is a curious expres\u00adsion, <\/span>
\nतेन त्यक्तेन भुञजीथा:
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>; it is a curious thing to tell a man that he must
\nabandon and what he has abandoned enjoy, by the very sacrifice. The natural man
\nshrinks from the statement as a dangerous paradox. Yet the seer of the Upanishad
\nis wiser than we, for his statement is literally true. Think what it means. It
\nmeans that we give up our own petty personal joy and pleasure, to bathe up to
\nthe eyes in the joys of others; and the joys of one man may be as great as you
\nplease, the united joys of a hundred must needs be greater. By renunciation you
\ncan increase your enjoyments a hundredfold; if you are a true patriot, you will
\nfeel the joys, not of one man, but of three hundred millions; if you are a true
\nphilanthropist, all the joys of the countless millions of the earth will flow
\nthrough your soul like an ocean of nectar. But, you say, their sorrows will flow
\nthere too ? That too is an agony of sweetness which exalts the soul to Paradise,
\nthat you can turn into<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 453<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\njoy, unparalleled joy of reliving and turning into bliss the
\nwoes of the nation for which you sacrifice yourself or of the humanity in whom
\nyou are trying to realise God. Even the mere continuous patient resolute effort
\nto do this is a joy unspeakable; even defeat in such a cause is a stern pleasure
\nwhen it strengthens the soul for new and ceaseless endeavour and the souls
\nworthy of the sacrifice, derive equal strength from defeat or victory. Remember
\nthat it is not the weak in spirit to whom the Eternal gives himself wholly;
\nit is the strong heroic soul that reaches God. Others can only touch His shadow
\nfrom afar. In this way the man who renounces the little he can call his own for
\nthe good of others, gets in return and can utterly enjoy all that is world in
\nthis moving universe.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nIf you cannot rise so high, still the words of the Upanishad
\nare true in other ways. You are not asked necessarily to give up the objects of
\nyour enjoyments physically; it is enough if you give them up in your heart, if
\nyou enjoy them in such spirit that you will neither be overjoyed by gain nor
\ncast down by loss. That enjoyment is clear, deep and calm; fate cannot break it,
\nrobbers cannot take it away, enemies cannot overwhelm it. Otherwise your
\nenjoyment is chequered and broken with fear, sorrow, trouble and passion, the
\npassion for its increase, the trouble for keeping it, the sorrow of diminution,
\nthe fear of its utter loss. It is far better by abandoning to enjoy. If you wish
\nto abandon physically, that too is well, so long as you take care that you are
\nnot cherishing the thought of the enjoyment in your mind. Nay, it will often be
\na quicker road to enjoyment. Wealth and fame and success naturally flee from the
\nman who pursues them; he breaks his heart or perishes without gaining them; or
\nif he gains them, it is often after a very hell of difficulty, a very mountain
\nof toil. But when a man turns his back on wealth and glory, then, unless his
\npast actions forbid, they come crowding to lay themselves at his feet. And if
\nthey come will he enjoy or reject them ? He may reject them \u2014 that is a great
\npath and the way of the innumerable saintly sages but you need not reject them,
\nyou may take and enjoy them. How will you enjoy them then? Not for your personal
\npleasure, certainly not for your false self; for you have already abandoned that
\nkind of enjoyment in your heart; but you may enjoy God in them and them for God.
\nAs a king merely<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 454<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\ntouches the nazarānā,<\/i> passes it on into the public
\ntreasury, so you may, merely touching the wealth that comes to you, pour it out
\nfor those around you, for the country, for humanity, seeing Brahman in these.
\nHis glory again he may conceal with humility but use the influence it gives him
\nin order to lead men upwards to the Divine. Such a man will quickly rise above
\njoy and sorrow, victory and defeat; for in sorrow as in joy he will feel himself
\nto be near God, with God, like God and finally God himself. Therefore the
\nUpanishads go on to say<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

 \n<\/p>\n

\nDo thy deeds in this world and wish to live thy hundred
\nyears.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 \n<\/p>\n

\nA hundred years is the full span of man’s natural life
\naccording to the Vedas. The Sruti therefore tells us that we must not turn our
\nbacks on life, must not fling it from us untimely or even long for early release
\nfrom our body but willingly fill out our term, even be most ready to prolong it
\nto the full period of man’s ordinary existence so that we may go on doing our
\ndeeds in this world. Mark the emphasis laid on the word <\/span>
\nकुर्वन्
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>, by adding to it
\neva. <\/i>Verily we must do<\/i> our deeds in the world and not avoid doing
\nthem; there is no need to fly to the mountains in order to find the Self, since
\nHe is here, in you and in all around you. And if you flee there, not to find Him
\nbut to escape from the misery and misfortune of the world which you are too weak
\nto face, then you lose the Self for this life and perhaps many to come. I repeat
\nto you that it is not the weak and the coward who can climb up to God, but the
\nstrong and brave alone. Every individual jivātman <\/i>must become the perfect
\nks<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>atriya<\/span><\/i>
\nbefore he can be the brāhman<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>a.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nAll this is opposed to what the wisest men have
\ntaught and those we most delight to revere, still teach and practise.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nAre you sure that it is? What do they teach?<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 455<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThat vairāgya,<\/i> disgust with the world is
\nthe best way and its entry into a man’s soul is his first call to the way of
\nmukti,<\/i> which is not by action but by knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nVairāgya<\/span><\/i> is a
\nbig word and it has come to mean many things, and it is because these are
\nconfused and jumbled together by the men of āryāvarta,<\/i> that Tamas and
\nAnaryan cowardice, weakness and selfishness have spread over this holy and
\nancient land, covering it with a thick pall of darkness. There is one
\nvairāgya,<\/i> the truest and noblest, of the strong man who having tasted the
\nsweets of this world finds that there is in them no permanent and abiding
\nsweetness, that they are not the true and immortal joy which his true and
\nimmortal self demands and turns to something in himself which is deeper, holier
\nand imperishable. Then there is the vairāgya<\/i> of the weakling who has
\nlusted and panted and thirsted for the world’s sweets but has been pushed and
\nhustled from the board by fate or by stronger men than himself; and would use
\nYoga and Vedanta as the drunkard uses his bottle and the opium-maniac his pill
\nor his laudanum. Not for such ignoble uses were these great things meant by the
\nRishis who disclosed them to the world. If such a man came to me for initiation,
\nI would send him back with the fiery rebuke of Sri Krishna to the son of Pritha<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\nTruly is such weakness unworthy of one who is no other than
\nBrahma the Eternal, the Creator and the Destroyer of the worlds. Yet I would not
\nbe understood to decry the true vairāgya <\/i>of sorrow and disappointment;
\nfor sometimes when men have tried in ignorance for ignoble things and failed,
\nnot from weakness but because these things were beneath their true greatness and
\nhigh destiny, then their eyes are opened and they seek meditation, solitude and
\nSamadhi not as a dram to drown their sorrows and still unsated longing, but to
\nrealise their divine strength and use<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 456<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

it for divine purposes; sometimes great spirits seek
\nthe way of . the Sannyasin, because in the solitude alone with God and the Guru,
\nthey can best develop Brahmatejah and once attained they pour it in a stream
\nover the world. Such was Shankaracharya, and sometimes it is the sorrows of
\nothers or the misery of the world that finds them in ease and felicity and
\ndrives them out, as Buddha was driven out, to seek help for sufferers in the
\ndepths of their own being. True Sannyasins are the greatest of all men because
\nthey are the strongest unto work, the most mighty in God to do the work of God.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

t<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

I repeat that all this is opposed to the teaching of the
\ngreat Advaitavadin Acharyas, Sri Shankara and the rest.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

t<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

It is not opposed to the teaching of
\nSri Krishna who is the greatest of all teachers and the best of jagat gurus.<\/i>
\nFor he tells Sanjay in the Mahabharata that between the creed of salvation by
\nworks and the creed of salvation by no works, that of salva\u00adtion by works is the
\ntrue creed and he condemns the other as the idle talk of a weakling; and again
\nand again in the Bhagavad Gita he lays stress on the superiority of works.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>S<\/span>TUDENT<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

This is true, but he also says Jnana is superior to all
\nthings and there is nothing equal to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>G<\/span>URU<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Nor is there; for Jnana is
\nindispensable; Jnana is first and greatest. Works without Jnana will not save a
\nman but only plunge him deeper and deeper into bondage. The works of which the
\nUpanishad speaks are to be done after you have invested all this universe with
\nGod; after, that is to say, you have realised that all is the one Brahman and
\nthat your actions are but the dramatic illusions unrolled by Prakriti for the
\ndelight of the Purusha. You will then do your works <\/span>
\nतेन त्यक्तेन<\/font><\/span>, or as Sri
\nKrishna tells you to do, after giving up the desire for the fruits of your works<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 457<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

and devoting all your actions to Him, \u2014 not to your
\nlower notself which feels pleasure and pain but to the Brahman in you which
\nworks only <\/span>लोकसंग्रेअहार्थम्
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>that instead of the uninstructed multitudes being bewildered
\nand led astray by your inactivity, the world may rather be helped, strengthened
\nand maintained by the godlike nature of your works. This is what the Upanishad
\ngoes on to say, "Thus to you there is no other way than this, action clingeth
\nnot to a man." This means that desireless action, actions performed after
\nrenunciation and devoted to God, \u2014 these and these only \u2014 do not cling to man,
\ndo not bind him in their invisible chains but fall from him as the water from
\nthe wings of the swan; and they cannot bind him, because he is freed from the
\nwoven net of causality. Causality springs from the idea of duality, the idea of
\nsorrow and happiness, love and hate, heat and cold which arises from Avidya and
\nhe, having renounced desire and realised Unity, is above Avidya and above
\nduality. Bondage has no meaning for him. (It is not in reality he that is doing
\nthe actions, but Prakriti inspired by the presence of the Purusha in him.)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>S<\/span>TUDENT<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Why then does Shankara say that it is
\nnecessary to give up works in order to attain absolute unity? Those who do
\nworks, in his opinion, only reach <\/span>सालोक्य
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>with Brahman, relative and not
\nabsolute unity.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>G<\/span>URU<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

There was a reason for what Shankara
\nsaid and it was necessary in his age that Jnana should be exalted at the expense
\nof works; for the great living force with which he had to struggle, was not the
\nheresies of later Buddhism, Buddhism decayed and senescent, but the triumphant
\ndoctrines of the karmakān<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>d<\/span>̣<\/span>a<\/span><\/i>
\nwhich made the faithful performance of Vedic rites and ceremonies the one path
\nand heaven the only goal. In his continual anxiety to show that works \u2014 of which
\nthese rites and ceremonies were a part, \u2014 could not be the one path to heaven,
\nhe bent the bow as far as he could the other way and argued that works were not
\nthe path to the last and greatest mukti<\/i> at all. Let us, however, consider<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 458<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

what the depreciation of the Karmamarga means in the
\nmouths of Shankara and other Jnanamargis. It may mean that Karma in the sense of
\nVedic rites and ceremonies are not the way to Mukti and if this is the meaning,
\nthen Shankara has done his work effectually; for I think no one of authority
\nwill now try to maintain the opposite thesis. We all agree that Swarga, the sole
\nfinal result of the Karmakanda, is not Mukti, is much below Mukti and ends as
\nsoon as its cause is exhausted. We all agree also that the only spiritual
\nusefulness of Vedic ceremonies is to purify the mind and fit it for starting on
\nthe true path of Mukti which lies through Jnana. But if you say that works in
\nthe sense of <\/span>कर्तव्यकर्म<\/span>
\nयि कि लोके अमुष्मिन् लोके<\/span><\/font>  are not a path to Mukti, then I demur; for I say that
\nKarma is not different from Jnana, but is Jnana, is the necessary fulfilment and
\ncompletion of Jnana; that bhakti, karma<\/i> and jnana<\/i> are not three
\nbut one and go inseparably together. Therefore Sri Krishna says that Sankhya (j\u00f1ānayoga)<\/i>
\nand Yoga (bhakti karma yoga)<\/i> are not two but one and only <\/span>
\nबाला:<\/font><\/span>,
\nundeveloped minds make a difference.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>S<\/span>TUDENT
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

But how can Shankaracharya be called an undeveloped
\nmind ?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>G<\/span>URU<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

He was not an undeveloped mind but he
\nwas dealing with undeveloped minds and had to speak their language. If he had
\ngiven his sanction to Karma, however qualified, the general run of people would
\nnot have understood and would have clung to their rites and ceremonies. It is
\nindeed to this difficulty of language, its natural imperfection and the
\nimperfection of the minds that employ language, to which all the confusion and
\nsense of difference in religion and philosophy is due, for religion and
\nphiloso\u00adphy are one and above difference. Nor was Shankara so entirely opposed
\nto Karma as is ordinarily imagined from the vehemence of his argument in some
\nplaces. For what do you mean when you say that Karma is no path to Mukti? Is it
\nthat Karma prompted by desire is inconsistent with Mukti, because it necessarily
\nleads to bondage and must therefore be abandoned? On this head there is no
\ndispute. <\/b>We all agree that works prompted<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 459<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

by desire lead to nothing but the fulfilment of desire
\nfollowed by fresh works in another life. Is it that Karma without desire is
\ninconsistent with Mukti, prevents Mukti by fresh bondage and must be abandoned ?
\nThis is not consistent with reason, for bondage is the result of desire and
\nignorance and disappears with desire and ignorance. Therefore in nis<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>kāma
\nkarma<\/span><\/i> there can be no bondage. It is inconsistent
\nwith Sruti <\/span>त्रिणाचिकेतस्त्रिभिरेत्य सन्धिं
\nत्रिकर्मकृतरति जन्ममृत्यू इत्यादि<\/font><\/span>. It is inconsistent with
\nfacts for Sri Krishna did works, Janaka and others did works, but none will say
\nthat they fell into the bondage of their works; for they were <\/span>
\nजीवन्मुक्त<\/font><\/span>. Is it
\nmeant that niṣkāma karma<\/i> may be done as a step towards <\/span>
\nब्रह्मप्राप्ति
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> by Jnana
\nbut must be abandoned as soon as Jnana is acquired ? This also will not stand
\nbecause Janaka and the others did works after they had acquired Jnana as well as
\nbefore. For the same reason Shankara’s argument that Karma must cease as a
\nmatter of sheer necessity as soon as one gains Brahma, because Brahma is <\/span>
\nअकर्ता<\/font><\/span>,
\nwill not stand; for Janaka gained Brahma, Sri Krishna was<\/i> Brahma, and yet
\nboth did works; nay, Sri Krishna in one place speaks of him as doing works; for
\nindeed Brahman is both <\/span>अकर्ता
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> as Purusha and <\/span>
\nकर्ता
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> as Prakriti; and if it be said
\nthat Parabrahman the turīya ātman<\/i> in whom all bheda<\/i> disappears is
\n<\/span>अकर्ता<\/font><\/span>, I answer that he is neither <\/span>
\nकर्ता
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> nor <\/span>अकर्ता
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> . He is <\/span>नेति
\nनेति<\/font><\/span>, the
\nUnknowable and the Jivatman does not merge finally in Him while it is in the
\nbody though it may do so at any time by Yoga. <\/span>
\nलय
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> takes place <\/span>
\nआदेहनिपातात्<\/font><\/span>, that is
\nto say by the muktātmā<\/i> after leaving its body, not willing to return to
\nanother. The jīvanmukta<\/i> is made one with the luminous shadow of
\nParabrahman which we call the Sachchidananda. If it be said that this is not
\nMukti, I answer that there can be no greater Mukti than becoming the
\nSachchidananda, and that laya<\/i> in the Parabrahman <\/span>
\nस्वेच्छाधीन
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>  is to the Jivatman when it has
\nceased to be Jivatman and become Sachchidananda; for Parabrahman can always and
\nat will draw Sachchidananda into Itself and Sachchidananda can always and at
\nwill draw into Parabrahman; since the two are in no sense two but one, in no
\nsense subject to Avidya but on the other side of Avidya. Then if it be said that
\n<\/span>निष्काम कर्म
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> can only lead to Brahmaloka and not Mukti, I still answer that in that
\ncase we must suppose that Sri Krishna,<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 460<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

after he left his body, remained separate from the
\nSupreme and therefore was not Bhagavan at all but only a great philosopher and
\ndevotee, not wise enough to attain Mukti, and that Janaka and other
\njīvanmuktas<\/i> were falsely called Muktas, or only in the sense of <\/span>
\nआपेक्षिक
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>Mukti.
\nThis however would contradict Scripture and the uniform teaching of Sruti and
\nSmriti, and cannot therefore be upheld by any Hindu, still less by any Vedantin;
\nfor if there is no authority in Sruti, then there is no truth in Vedanta, and
\nthe doctrine of the Charvakas has as much force as any. Moreover it would
\ncontradict reason, since it would make Mukti which is a spiritual change
\ndependent on a mere mechanical and material change like death, which is absurd.
\nShankara himself therefore admits that in these cases <\/span>
\nनिष्काम कर्म
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>was not
\ninconsistent with Mukti or with being the Brahman; and he would have admitted it
\nstill more unreservedly if he had not been embarrassed by his relations of
\nintellectual hostility to the Purvamimansa. It is proved therefore that <\/span>
\nकर्म
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>is not
\ninconsistent with <\/span>मुक्ति
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>but that on
\nthe contrary both the teaching and prac\u00adtice of the greatest Jivanmuktas and of
\nBhagavan himself have combined Jnana and Niskama Karma as one single path to
\n<\/span>मुक्ति<\/font><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

One argument,
\nhowever, remains; it may be said that Karma may be not inconsistent with
\nmukti,<\/i> may be one path to mukti,<\/i> but in the last stage it is not
\nnecessary to mukti.<\/i> I readily admit that particular works are not
\nnecessary to mukti;<\/i> it is not necessary to continue being a householder
\nin order to gain mukti.<\/i> But no one who possesses a body, can be free of
\nKarma. This is clearly and incontrovertibly stated by Sri Krishna in the
\nBhagavad Gita. And this statement in the Gita is perfectly consistent with
\nreason; for the man who leaves the world behind him and sits on a mountain top
\nor in an Ashram has not therefore, it is quite clear, got rid of Karma; if
\nnothing else, he has to maintain his body, to eat, to walk, to move his limbs or
\nto sit in āsana<\/i> and meditate; and all this is Karma. If he is not yet
\nMukta, this Karma will moreover bind him and bear its fruits in relation to
\nhimself as well as to others; even if he is Mukta, his body and mind are not
\nfree from Karma until his body is dropped off, but go on under the impulse of
\nprārabdha<\/i> until the prārabdha<\/i><\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 461<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

and its fruits are complete. Nay, even the greatest
\nYogi by his mere bodily presence in the phenomenal world, is pouring out a
\nstream of spiritual force on all sides, and this action though it does not bind
\nhim, has a stupendous influence on others. He is <\/span>
\nसर्वभूतहिते रत: 
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>though he wills it
\nnot; he too with regard to his body is <\/span>
\nअवश:<\/font><\/span> and must let the Gunas of Prakriti
\nwork. Since this is so, let every man who wishes to throw his <\/span>
\nकर्तव्यकर्म
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>behind him, see that he is not
\nmerely postponing the completion of his <\/span>
\nप्रारब्ध
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>to a future life and thereby condemning himself to
\nthe rebirth he wishes to avoid.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>S<\/span>TUDENT<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

But how can this be that the
\nJivanmukta is still bound by his past deeds? Does not mukti<\/i> burn up one’s
\npast deeds as in a fire? For how can one be at the same time free and yet bound
\n?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>G<\/span>URU<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Mukti<\/span><\/i>
\nprevents one’s future deeds from creating bondage; but what of the past deeds
\nwhich have already created bondage? The Jivanmukta is not indeed bound, for he
\nis one with God and God is the master of His prakrti,<\/i> not its slave; but
\nthe Prakriti attached to this Jivatman has created causes while in the illusion
\nof bondage and must be allowed to work out its effects, otherwise the chain of
\ncausation is snapped and the whole economy of nature is disturbed and thrown
\ninto chaos, <\/span>उत्सीदेयुरिमे लोका:
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\netc. In
\norder to maintain the worlds therefore, the Jivanmukta remains working like a
\nprisoner on parole, not bound indeed by others, but detained by himself until
\nthe period previously appointed for his captivity shall have elapsed.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>S<\/span>TUDENT
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThis is indeed a new light on the subject.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>G<\/span>URU<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

It is no new light but as old as the
\nsun; for it is clearly laid down in the Gita and of the teaching of the Gita,
\nSri Krishna says that it was told by him to Vivaswan, the Vishnu of the Solar
\nsystem<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 462<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

\nand by him to Manou the original Thinker in man, and by Manou handed down to the
\ngreat king-sages, his descendants. Nay, it plainly arises from the nature of
\nthings. The whole confusion on this matter proceeds from an imperfect
\nunderstanding of mukti;<\/i> for why do men fly from action and shun their
\nकर्तव्यकर्म
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>in the pursuit of mukti?<\/i> It is because they dread to be cast
\nagain into bondage, to lose their chance of mukti.<\/i> Yet what is
\nमुक्ति<\/font><\/span>? It
\nis release, \u2014 from what ? From Avidya, from the great Nescience, from the belief
\nthat you are limited and bound, who are illimitable Brahman and cannot be bound.
\nThe moment you have realised that Avidya is an illusion, that there is nothing
\nbut Brahman and never was nor will be anything but Brahman, and realised it, I
\nsay, had अनुभव<\/font><\/span>, of it, not merely intellectually grasped the idea, from that
\nmoment you are free and always have been free. Avidya consists precisely in this
\nthat the Jivatman thinks there is something beside himself, he himself other
\nthan Brahman, something which binds him; but in reality He, being Brahman, is
\nnot bound, never was bound nor could be bound and never will be bound. Once this
\nis realised, the Jivatman can have no farther fear of karma;<\/i> for he knows
\nthat there is no such thing as bondage. He will be quite ready to do his deeds
\nin this world; nay, he will even be ready to be reborn, as Sri Krishna himself
\nhas promised to be reborn again and again; for of rebirth also he has no farther
\nfear; since he knows he cannot again fall under the dominion of Avidya, unless
\nhe himself deliberately wills it; once free, always free. Even if he is reborn
\nhe will be reborn with full knowledge of what he really is, of his past lives
\nand of the whole future and will act as a Jivanmukta.  <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nTHE <\/span>STUDENT
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut if this statement once free, always free holds, what of the statements about
\ngreat Rishis and Yogis falling again under the dominion of Avidya ? <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nTHE <\/span>GURU
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

A
\nman may be a great Rishi or Yogi without being Jivanmukta. Yoga and spiritual
\nlearning are means to Mukti, not Mukti itself. For the Sruti says
\nनायमात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो न मेधया न
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 463<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

बहुना श्रुतेन।
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>S<\/span>TUDENT<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Will then the Jivanmukta actually wish to live a hundred
\nyears, as the Sruti says ? Can one who is Mukta have a desire ?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>G<\/span>URU<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

The Jivanmukta will be perfectly ready
\nto live a hundred years or more if needs be; but this recommendation is given
\nnot to the Jivanmukta or to any particular class of persons but generally. You
\nshould desire to live your allotted term of life, because you in the body are
\nthe Brahman who by the force of His own Shakti is playing for Himself by Himself
\nthis lilā<\/i> of creation, pre\u00adservation and destruction; in this view
\nBrahman is Isha, the Lord, Creator and Destroyer; and you also are Isha, Creator
\nand Destroyer ; only for your own amusement, to use a violent metaphor, you have
\nimagined yourself limited by a particular body for the purposes of the play,
\njust as an actor imagines himself to be Dushyanta or Rama or Ravana; and often
\nthe actor loses himself in the part and really feels himself to be what he is
\nplaying, forgetting that he is really not Dushyanta or Rama, but that Devadatta
\nwho plays a hundred parts besides. Still when he shakes off this illusion and
\nremembers that he is Devadatta, he does not therefore walk off from the stage
\nand by refusing to act, break up the play but goes on playing his best till the
\nproper time for the curtain to fall. And so we should all do, whether as
\nhouseholder or Sannyasin, as Jivanmukta or as mumuks<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>u,<\/span><\/i>
\nremembering always that the object of this Samsara is creation and that it is
\nour business so long as we are in this body to create. The only difference is
\nthis, that so long as we forget our Self, we create like servants under the
\ncompulsion of our Prakriti or Nature, and are, as it were, slaves and bound by
\nher actions which we imagine to be ours; but when we know the Self and
\nexperience our true Self, then we are masters of our Prakriti and not bound by
\nher creations; our soul becomes the sāks<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>i,<\/span><\/i>
\nthe silent spectator, of the action of our nature; thus are we both spectator
\nand actor, and yet because we know the whole to be merely the illusion of an
\naction and not action itself,<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 464<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

because we know that Rama is not really killing Ravana
\nnor Ravana being killed, for indeed Ravana lives as much after the supposed
\ndeath as before; so are we neither actor nor spectator but the Self only and all
\nwe see only visions of the Self \u2014 as indeed the Sruti frequently uses the word
\nऐक्षद्<\/font>, saw, in preference to any other for those conceptions with which the
\nBrahman peoples with Himself the universe of Himself. The mumukṣu <\/i>
\ntherefore will not try or wish to leave his life before the time, just as he
\nwill not try or wish to leave actions in this life, but only the desire for
\ntheir fruit. For if he breaks impatiently the thread of his life before it is
\nspun out, he will be no Jivanmukta but a mere suicide and attain the very
\nopposite result of what he desires. The Upanishad says<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Shankara takes
\nthis verse in a very peculiar way. He interprets <\/span>
\nआत्महनो
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>as slayers of the Self,
\nand since this is obviously an absurdity, for the Self is eternal and
\nunslayable, he says that it is a metaphor for casting the Self under the
\ndelusion of ignorance which leads to birth. Now this is a very startling and
\nviolent metaphor and quite uncalled-for, since the idea might easily have been
\nexpressed in any other natural way. Still the Sruti is full of metaphor and we
\nshall therefore not be justified in rejecting Shankara’s interpretation on that
\nground only. We must see whether the rest of the verse is in harmony with the
\ninterpretation. Now we find that in order to support his view Shankara is
\nobliged to strain astonishingly the plain meaning of other words in the sentence
\nalso; for he says that Paratman is above birth and above Devahood. Asurya can
\nonly mean Asuric as opposed to Devic. Devas cannot be Asuric births as opposed
\nto the Daiva birth of Paratman, as opposed to the Paratman; but this is a misuse
\nof words because… means the various kinds of birth, even the Devas being
\nconsidered Asuric births; and then he takes Loka as meaning various kinds of
\nbirth, so that <\/span>असुर्या लोका:<\/font><\/span> means the various births as man, animals etc., called
\n<\/span>आसुर<\/font><\/span>, because Rajas predominates in them and<\/span> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 465<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

they are accompanied with Asuric
\ndispositions. All this is a curious and unparalleled meaning for Asuric Worlds.
\nThe expres\u00adsion <\/span>लोका:
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>is never applied to the various kinds of forms the
\nJivatman assumes, but to the various surroundings of the different conditions
\nthrough which it passes of which life in the world is one; we say <\/span>
\nइहलोक
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>or <\/span>मर्त्यलोक<\/font><\/span>, <\/span>
\nपरलोक
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>or <\/span>स्वर्गलोक<\/span>,
\nब्रह्मलोक<\/span>, गोलोक
\n<\/span>
\n<\/font>etc. but we do not say <\/span>
\nपशुलोक<\/span>, पक्षिलोक<\/span>,
\nकीटलोक<\/span><\/font>.<\/i>
\nIf we say <\/span>आसुरलोक<\/font><\/span> we can mean nothing but the region of āsuric<\/i>
\ngloom as opposed to the divine <\/span>लोका:<\/font><\/span> as, brahmaloka, goloka, svarga. <\/i>
\nThis is the ordinary meaning when we speak of going to a world after death, and
\nwe must not take it in any other sense here just to suit our own argument.
\nMoreover the expression ये के <\/font>loses its peculiar force if we apply it to all living beings
\nexcept the few who obtain Mukti partial or complete; it obviously means some out
\nof many. We must therefore refuse to follow even Shankara, when his
\ninterpretation involves so many violences to the language of Sruti and so wide a
\ndeparture from the recognised meaning of words.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ordinary sense
\nof the words gives a perfectly clear and consistent meaning. The Sruti tells us
\nthat it is no use taking refuge in suicide or the shortening of your life,
\nbecause those who kill themselves instead of finding freedom, plunge by death
\ninto a worse prison of darkness \u2014 the Asuric worlds enveloped in blind gloom.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>S<\/span>TUDENT<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Are then worlds of Patala beneath the
\nearth a reality and do the souls go down there after death? But we know now that
\nthere is no beneath to the earth, which is round and encircled by nothing worse
\nthan air.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>HE
\n<\/span>G<\/span>URU<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Do not be misled by words. The Asuric
\nworlds are a reality, the worlds of gloom in the nether depths of your own
\nbeing. A world is not a place with hills and trees and stones, but a condition
\nof the Jivatman, all the rest being only circumstances and details of a dream;
\nthis is clear from the language of the Sruti when it speaks of the spirits’
\nलोके <\/font>or
\nthe next world अमुष्मिन् लोके<\/font><\/span> <\/span> \n<\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 466<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nas being good or otherwise. Obviously लोक <\/font>means state or
\ncondition. मर्त्यलोक <\/font>
\nis not essentially this earth we see, for there may and must
\nbe other abodes of mortal beings, but the condition of mortality in the gross
\nbody, svargaloka <\/i>is the condition of bliss in the subtle body, naraka
\n<\/i>the condition of misery in the subtle body, brahmaloka <\/i>the condition
\nof being near to Hiranyagarbha in the causal body. Just as the Jivatman like a
\ndreamer sees the Earth and all its features when it is in the condition of
\nmortality, and regards itself as in a particular place, so when it is in a
\ncondition of complete Tamas in the subtle body, it believes itself to be in a
\nplace surrounded by thick darkness, a place of misery unspeakable. This world of
\ndarkness is imagined as being beneath the earth, beneath the condition of
\nmortality, because the side of the earth turned away from the Sun is regarded as
\nthe nether side, while svarga <\/i>is above the earth, because the side of
\nearth turned to the Sun is considered the upper side, the place of light and
\npleasure. So the worlds of utter bliss begin from the Sun and rise above the Sun
\nto brahmaloka<\/i>. But these are all words and dreams, since Hell and Patala
\nand Earth and Paradise and Heaven are all in the Jivatma itself and not outside
\nit. Nevertheless while we are still dreamers, we must speak in the language and
\nterms of the dream.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nWhat then are these worlds of nether gloom ?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nWhen a man dies in great pain, or in great grief or in great
\nagitation of mind and his last thoughts are full of fear, rage, pain or horror,
\nthen the Jivatma in the sūukṣma śarīra <\/i>is unable to shake off these
\nimpressions from his mind for years, sometimes for centuries. The reason of this
\nis the law of death; death is a moment of great concentration when the departing
\nspirit gathers up the impression of its mortal life, as a host gathers provender
\nfor its journey, and whatever impressions are predominant at that moment, govern
\nits condition afterwards. Hence the importance, even apart from Mukti, of living
\na clean and noble life and dying a calm and strong death. For if the ideas and
\nimpressions  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 467<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nthen uppermost are such as associate the self with this gross
\nbody and the vital functions, that is to say, with the lower upādhi<\/i>, then
\nthe soul remains long in a tamasic<\/i> condition of darkness and suffering,
\nwhich we call Patala or in its worse form Hell. If the ideas and impressions
\nuppermost are such as associate the self with the mind and the higher desires
\nthen the soul passes quickly through a short period of blindness to a
\nrājaso-sāttvic<\/i> condition of light and pleasure and wider knowledge which we
\ncall Paradise, svarga or behesta<\/i>, from which it will return to birth in
\nthis world; if the ideas and impressions are such as to associate the self with
\nthe higher understanding and the bliss of the Self, the soul passes quickly to a
\nsāttvic<\/i> condition of highest bliss which we call Heaven or Brahmaloka and
\nthence it does not return. But if we have learned to identify for ever the self
\nwith the Self, then before death we become God and after death we shall not be
\nother. For there are three states of Maya, Tamasic illusion, Rajasic illusion,
\nand Sattwic illusion; and each in succession we must shake off to reach that
\nwhich is no illusion, but the one and only truth.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nThe Sruti says then that those who slay themselves go down
\ninto the nether world of gloom, for they have associated the self with the body
\nand fancied that by getting rid of this body, they will be free, but they have
\ndied full of impressions of grief, impatience, disgust and pain. In that state
\nof gloom they are continually repeating the last scene of their life, its
\nimpressions and its violent disquiet, and until they have worn off these, there
\nis no possibility of Shanti for their minds. Let no man in his folly or
\nimpatience court such a doom.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nI understand then that these three verses form a clear and
\nconnected exposition. But in the next verse the Upanishad goes on suddenly to
\nsomething quite disconnected.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nNo. It says<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 468<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\n

\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Sruti has said that you must invest all things with the
\nLord. But of course that really means, you must realise how all things are
\nalready invested with Him. It now proceeds to show how this is and to indicate
\nthat the Lord is Brahman, the One who regarded in his creative activity through
\nPurusha and Prakriti, is called the Lord. Therefore it now uses the neuter form
\nof the pronoun, speaking of Him as That and This; because Brahman is above sex
\nand distinction. He is One, yet he is at once unmoving and swifter than mind. He
\nis both Purusha and Prakriti, and yet at the same time He is neither, but One
\nand in\u00addivisible; Purusha and Prakriti being merely conceptions in His mind
\ndeliberately raised for the sake of creating multiplicity. As Prakriti, He is
\nswifter than the mind, for Prakriti is His creative force making matter and its
\nforms through motion. All creation is motion, all activity is motion. All this
\napparently stable universe is really in a state of multifold motion, everything
\nis whirling with inconceivable rapidity through motion, and even thought which
\nis the swiftest thing we know, cannot keep pace with the velocity of the cosmic
\nstir. And all this motion, all this ever-revolving Cosmos and Universe is
\nBrahman. The Gods in their swiftest movements, lords of the senses cannot reach
\nhim, for He rushes far in front. The eye, the ear, the mind, nothing material
\ncan reach or conceive the inconceivable creative activity of the Brahman. We try
\nto follow Him pouring as light through the solar system and lo! while we are
\nstriving He is whirling universes into being far beyond the reach of eye or
\ntelescope, far beyond the farthest lights of thought itself. Material senses
\nquail before the thought of the wondrous stir and stupendous unima\u00adginable
\nactivity that the existence of the Universe implies. And yet all the time He who
\noutstrips all others, is not running but standing. While we are toiling after
\nHim, He is all the time here, at our side, before, behind us, with us, in us.
\nReally He does not move at all; all this motion is the result of our own Avidya
\nwhich by persuading us to imagine ourselves as limited, subjects our thoughts to
\nthe conditions of Time and Space. Brahman in all his creative activity is really
\nin one place; He is at the same<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 469<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\ntime in the Sun and here; but we in order to realise Him have
\nto follow Him from the Sun to the Earth; and this motion of our thoughts, this
\nsensitory impression of a space covered and a time spent we attribute not to our
\nthought, but to Brahman, just as a man in a railway-train has a sensitory
\nimpression that everything is rushing past, but that the train is still. Vidya,
\nKnowledge, tells him that this is not so. So that the stir of the Cosmos is
\nreally the stir of our own minds \u2014 and yet even our own mind does not really
\nstir. What we call mind is simply the play of conception sporting with the idea
\nof multiplicity which is in form the idea of motion. The Purusha is really
\nunmoving; He is the motionless and silent spectator of a drama of which He
\nHimself is the stage, the theatre, the scenery, actors and the acting. He is the
\npoet Shakespeare watching Desdemona and Othello, Hamlet and the murderous uncle,
\nRosalind and Jacques and Viola and all the other hundred multiplicities of
\nHimself acting and talking and rejoicing and suffering, all Himself and yet not
\nhimself, who sits there a silent witness, their Creator who has no part in their
\nactions and yet without Him not one of them could exist. This is the mystery of
\nthe world and its paradox, yet its one plain, simple and easy truth.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nNow I see. But what is this suddenly thrown in about
\nmātariśvān<\/i> and the waters? Shankara interprets अप: <\/font>as actions. Will not this
\nbring it more into harmony with the rest of the verse ?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nPerhaps; ‘waters’ is the proper sense of
\nअप: <\/font>but let us see first whether
\nby taking it in its proper sense we cannot arrive at a clear meaning. The Sruti
\nsays that this infinitely motionless yet infinitely moving Brahman is that in
\nwhich Matariswan setteth the waters. Now we know the conception which the
\nScripture gives us of this Universe. Everything that we call creation, putting
\nforth, and Science calls evolution is in reality a limitation, a sr<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>s<\/span>̣<\/span>t<\/span>̣<\/span>i<\/span><\/i>,
\nas we say, that is a letting loose of a part from the whole, or a selection as
\nthe Scientists say (a natural selection they call it), or, as we should put it,
\nselection by the action of Prakriti of a small<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 470<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nportion, from a larger stock, of the particular from the
\ngeneral. Thus we have seen that the Sleep condition or Prajna is a letting loose
\nor let us say selection of one part of consciousness from the wider Universal
\nConsciousness; the Dream Consciousness or Hiranyagarbha is a selection from the
\nwider Sleep Consciousness, and the Waking Consciousness, Virat or Vaishwanara is
\na selection from the wider Dream Consciousness; similarly each individual
\nconsciousness is only a selection from the wider Universal Waking Consciousness;
\neach step involving a narrower and ever narrowing consciousness until we come to
\nthat extremely narrow bit of consciousness which is only conscious of a bit out
\nof the material and outward world of phenomena. It is the same with the process
\nof material creation. Out of the unformed Prakriti which the Sankhya calls
\nPrathamah or Primary idea, substance, plasm or what you will, of matter, one
\naspect or force is selected which is called Akasha and of which ether is the
\nvisible manifestation ; this Akasha or ether is the substratum of all form and
\nmaterial being. Out of ether a narrower force is selected or let loose which is
\ncalled Vaiou, or Matariswan, the Sleeper in the Mother because he sleeps or
\nrests directly in the mother-principle, Ether. This is the great God who in the
\nBrahman setteth the waters in their place.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nYou speak of it as a God, I think, metaphorically. Science
\nhas done away with the Gods of the old crude mythology.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe Gods are, \u2014 they are the Immortals and cannot be done
\naway with by Science however vehemently she denies them; only the knowledge of
\nthe One Brahman can do away with them. For behind every great and elemental
\nnatural phenomenon there is a vast living force which is a manifestation, an
\naspect of Brahman and can therefore be called nothing less than a God. Of these
\nMatariswan is one of the mightiest.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIs Air then a God or Wind a God? But it is only a
\nconglomeration <\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 471<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nof gases.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThat and nothing more in the terms of material analysis, but
\nlook beyond to the synthesis; matter is not everything and analysis is not
\neverything. By material analysis you can prove that man is nothing but a
\nconglomeration of animalcules, and so materialism with an obstinate and learned
\nsilliness persists in asseverating; but man will never consent to regard himself
\nas a conglomeration of animalcules, because he knows that he is more. He looks
\nbeyond the analysis to the synthesis, beyond the house to the dweller in the
\nhouse, beyond the parts to the force that holds the parts together. So with the
\nAir, which is only one of the manifestations of Matariswan proper to this earth,
\none of the houses in which he dwells; but Matariswan is in all the worlds and
\nbuilt all the worlds; he has numberless houses for his dwelling. The principle
\nof his being is motion materially manifested, and we know that it is by motion
\ncreation becomes possible. Matariswan therefore is the Principle of Life, the
\nuniversal and all-pervading ocean of Prana, of which the most important
\nmanifestation in man is the force which presides over that distribution of gases
\nin the body to which we give the name of Breath.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nStill, most people would call this a natural force, not a
\nGod.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nCall him what you like, only realise that Matariswan is a
\nforce of Brahman, nay. Brahman himself, who in himself setteth the waters to
\ntheir places. Now just as Matariswan was a selection from Akasha or ether, so is
\nAgni, Fire, a selection from Mata\u00adriswan and the Waters a selection from Fire.
\nNow notice that it is the plural word अप:  <\/font>which is used; just as often you find
\nthe Sruti, instead of the name Agni of the presiding principle, using the plural
\njyotīmsi<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span><\/i>,
\nlights, splendours, shining things, of the various manifestations of Agni, so it
\nuses आप:<\/font> all fluidities, of the various manifestations of Varouna, the presiding
\nforce behind them. You must not think that the waters of the ocean or of the <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 472<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nrain are the only manifestations of this principle, just as
\nyou must not suppose that the fire in yonder brazier or the sun in heaven is the
\nonly manifestation of the fiery principle. All the phenomena of light and
\neverything from which heat proceeds have their immediate basis or substratum in
\nAgni. So with the waters which are selected out of Agni by the operations of
\nheat etc. So again all earth<\/i>, all forms of solidity have their basis or
\nsubstratum in Prithivi, the earth-force, which is again a selection out of Jala
\nor Varouna, the fluid principle. Now life proceeds in this way; it arises on the
\nsubstratum of ether with Matariswan or the Air-Force as its principle and
\nessential condition, by the operation of the fiery or light principle through
\nheat, out of the fluid to solidity which is its body. The material world is
\ntherefore often said in the Sruti to be produced out of the waters, because so
\nlong as it does not emerge from the fluid state, there is as yet no cosmos. When
\nScience, instead of following the course of Nature upstream by analysis,
\nresolving the solid into fluid, the fluid into the fiery, and the fiery into the
\naerial, shall begin to follow it downstream, imitating the processes of
\nPrakriti, and especially studying and utilising critical stages of transition,
\nthen the secret of material creation will be solved, and Science will be able to
\ncreate material life <\/i>and not as now merely destroy it. We can now
\nunderstand what the Sruti means when it says that Matariswan in Brahman setteth
\nthe waters to their places. Brahman is the reality behind all material life, and
\nthe operations of creation are only a limited part of His universal
\nconsciousness and cannot go on without that consciousness as its basis. Shankara
\nis not perhaps wrong when he reads the meanings "actions" into अप: <\/font>; for the
\npurposes of mankind, actions are the most important of all the various vital
\noperations over which Matariswan presides. Remember therefore that all you do,
\ncreate, destroy, you are doing, creating and destroying in Brahman, that He is
\nthe condition of all your deeds; the more you realise and intensify in yourself
\nBrahman as an ocean of spiritual force, the mightier will be your creation and
\nyour destruction, you will approach nearer and nearer to Godhead. For the Spirit
\nis all and not the body, of which you should only be careful as a vehicle of the
\nSpirit, for without the presence of Spirit which gives Prakriti the force to <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 473<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nact, Prakriti would be inert, nay, could not exist. For what
\nis Prakriti itself but the creation of the mighty Shakti, who is without end and
\nwithout beginning, the Shakti of the Eternal ? Without some j\u00f1āna<\/i>, some
\nknowledge and feeling of the Spirit within you, your work cannot be great; and
\nthe deeper your j\u00f1āna <\/i>the greater your work. All the great creators have
\nbeen men who felt powerfully God within them, whether they were Daivic of the
\nOlympian type like Shankara, or Asuric, of the Titanic type like Napoleon; only
\nthe Asura, his j\u00f1āna <\/i>being limited and muddy, is always confusing the
\nEternal with the grosser and temporary manifestations of Prakriti such as his
\nown vital passions of lust and ambition; the Deva, being sattwic and a child of
\nlight, sees clearer. When Napoleon cried out, "What is the French Revolution? I
\nam the French Revolution", he gave utterance to that sense of his being more
\nthan a mere man, of his being the very force and power of God in action, which
\ngave him such a stupendous energy and personality; but his mind being muddied by
\nrajas, passion and desire, he could not see that the very fact of his being the
\nFrench Revolution should have pointed him to higher and grander ideals than the
\nmere satisfaction of his vital part in empire and splendour, that it should have
\nspurred him to be the leader of insurgent humanity, not the trampler down of the
\nimmortal spirit of nationality, which was a yet greater and more energetic
\nmanifestation of the Eternal Shakti than himself. Therefore he fell; therefore
\nthe Adya Shakti, the mighty Devi Chandi Ranarangini Nrimundamalini, withdrew
\nfrom him her varābhaya<\/i> and fought against him till she had crushed and
\ntorn him with the claws of her lion. Had he fallen as the leader of humanity, \u2014
\nhe could not have fallen then, but yet if he had fallen, \u2014 his spirit would have
\nconquered after his death and ruled and guided the nations for centuries to
\ncome. Get therefore Jnana, the pure knowledge of Brahman within you, and show it
\nforth in Nishkamakarma, in selfless work for your people, for your country, for
\nhumanity, for the world, then will you surely become Brahman even in this mortal
\nbody and by death take upon yourself eternity.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nThe Sruti then having set forth the nature of the Lord and
\nidentified Him with the Brahman, proceeds to sum up the apparent <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 474<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nparadoxes attending his twofold aspect as the Unknowable
\nParabrahman and the Master of the Universe, as the Self within the universe and
\nthe Self within your body. That moveth and That moveth not, \u2014 as has already
\nbeen explained; That is far and the same That is quite near. That is within all
\nthis and the same That is without all this.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThere is no difficulty in this statement.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nNo, there is no difficulty, once you have the key. But try to
\nrealise what it means. Lift your eyes towards the Sun; He is there in that
\nwonderful heart of life and light and splendour. Watch at night the innumerable
\nconstellations glittering like so many solemn watchfires of the Eternal in the
\nlimitless silence which is no void but throbs with the presence of a single calm
\nand tremendous existence; see there Orion with his sword and belt shining as he
\nshone to the Aryan fathers ten thousand years ago at the beginning of the Aryan
\nera; Sirius in his splendour, Lyra sailing billions of miles away in the ocean
\nof space. Remember that these innumerable worlds, most of them mightier than our
\nown, are whirling with indescribable speed at the beck of that Ancient of Days
\nwhither none but He knoweth, and yet that they are a million times more ancient
\nthan your Himalaya, more steady than the roots of your hills and shall so remain
\nuntil He at his will shakes them off like withered leaves from the eternal tree
\nof the Universe. Imagine the endlessness of Time, realise the boundlessness of
\nSpace; and then remember that when these worlds were not. He was, the Same as
\nnow, and when these are not, He shall be, still the Same; perceive that beyond
\nLyra He is and far away in Space where the stars of the Southern Cross cannot be
\nseen, still He is there. And then come back to the Earth and realise who this He
\nis. He is quite near to you. See yonder old man who passes near you crouching
\nand bent, with his stick. Do you realise that it is God who is passing? There a
\nchild runs laughing in the sunlight. Can you hear Him in that laughter ? Nay, He
\nis nearer still to you. He is in you. He <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 475<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nis you. It is yourself that burns yonder millions of miles
\naway in the infinite reaches of Space, that walks with confident steps on the
\ntumbling billows of the ethereal sea; it is you who have set the stars in their
\nplaces and woven the necklace of the suns not with hands but by that Yoga, that
\nsilent actionless impersonal Will which has set you here today listening to
\nyourself in me. Look up, 0 child of the ancient Yoga, and be no longer a
\ntrembler and a doubter; fear not, doubt not, grieve not; for in your apparent
\nbody is One who can create and destroy worlds with a breath.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nYes, He is within all this as a limitless ocean of spiritual
\nforce; for if He were not, neither the outer you nor this outer I nor this Sun
\nnor all these worlds could last for even a millionth part of the time that is
\ntaken by a falling eyelid. But He is outside it too. Even in His manifestation.
\nHe is outside it in the sense of exceeding it, अत्यतिष्ठद्दशाञगुलम् <\/font>in His unmanifestation. He is utterly apart from it. This truth is more difficult to
\ngrasp than the other, but it is necessary to grasp it. There is a kind of
\nPantheism which sees the Universe as God and not God as the Universe; but if the
\nUniverse is God, then is God material, divisible, changeable, the mere flux and
\nreflux of things; but all these are not God in Himself, but God in His shadows
\nand appearances ; they are to repeat our figure the shadows and figments of
\nShakespeare’s mind, Shakespeare is not only vaster than all his drama-world put
\ntogether, he is not only both in it and outside it, but apart from it and other
\nthan it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nDo you mean that these are emanations from His Mind?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nI do not. ‘Emanation’ is a silly word and a silly idea. God
\nis not a body emitting vapours. If you have emanated from Him, where, pray, have
\nthey emanated to ? Which is their locality and where is their habitation? You
\ncannot go anywhere where you will be outside God; you cannot go out of your
\nSelf. For though you flee to the uttermost parts of space. He is there. Are
\nHamlet<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 476<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nand the rest of them emanations from Shakespeare’s mind? Will
\nyou tell me then where they have emanated to ? Is it on to those pages, those
\ncorruptions of pulp which are made today and destroyed tomorrow ? Is it into
\nthose combinations of those letters of the English alphabet with which the pages
\nare covered ? Put them into combinations of any other alphabet, or relate them
\nin any language to a man who knows not what letters are, and still Hamlet will
\nlive for him. Is it in the sounds that the letters represent, sounds that are
\nheard this moment and forgotten the next ? But Hamlet is not forgotten \u2014 he
\nlives on in your mind for ever. Is it in the impressions made on the material
\nbrain by the forgotten sounds ? Nay, the Sleep self within you, even if you have
\nnever heard or read the play of Hamlet<\/i>, will, if it is liberated by any
\nadequate process of Yoga or powerful hypnosis tell you about Hamlet.
\nShakespeare’s drama-world never emanated from Shakespeare’s mind, because it was
\nin his mind and is in his mind; and you can know of Hamlet because your mind is
\npart of the same universal mind as Shakespeare’s \u2014 part, I say, in appearance,
\nbut in reality that mind is one and indivisible. All knowledge belongs to it by
\nits nature perpetually and from perpetuity, and the knowledge that we get in the
\nwaking condition through such vehicles as speech and writing are mere fragments
\ncreated (let loose) from it and yet within it, just as the worlds are mere
\nfragments created (let loose) from Brahman, in the sense of being consciousness
\nselected and set apart from the Universal Consciousness, but always within the
\nBrahman. ‘Emanation’ is a metaphor like the metaphor in the Sruti about the
\nspider and his web, convenient for certain purposes, but not the truth, very
\npoor ground therefore on which to build a philosophy.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nTo realise God in the Universe and in yourself, is true
\nPantheism and it is the necessary step for approaching the Unknow\u00adable, but to
\nmistake the Universe for God, is a mistaken and inverted Pantheism. This
\ninverted Pantheism is the outer aspect of the Rig-veda, and it is therefore that
\nthe Rig-veda unlike the Upanishad may lead either to the continuation of bondage
\nor to Brahmaloka, while the Upanishad can lead only to Brahmaloka or to the
\nBrahman Himself.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 477<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut the new scholarship tells us that the Rig-veda is either
\nhenotheistic or polytheistic, not real Pantheism.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nNay, if you seek the interpretation of your religion from
\nChristians, atheists and agnostics, you will hear more wonderful things than
\nthat. What do you think of Charvak’s interpretation of Vedic religion as neither
\npantheistic nor polytheistic but a pluto-theistic invention of the Brahmins? An
\nEuropean or his disciple in scholarship can no more enter into the spirit of the
\nVeda than the wind can blow freely in a closed room. And pedants especially can
\nnever go beyond manipulation of words. Men like Max Muller presume to lecture us
\non our Veda and Vedanta because they know something of Sanskrit grammar; but
\nwhen we come to them for light, we find them playing marbles on the doorsteps of
\nthe outer court of the temple. They had not the adhikāra<\/i> to enter,
\nbecause they came in a spirit of arrogance with preconceived ideas to teach and
\nnot to learn; and their learning was therefore not helpful towards truth, but
\nonly towards grammar. Others, ignorant of the very rudiments of Sanskrit, have
\nseen more deeply than they, \u2014 even if some have seen more than there was to see.
\nWhat for instance is this henotheism<\/i>, this new word, the ill-begotten of
\npedantry upon error ? If it is meant that various sections of the Aryas consider
\ndifferent gods as the <\/i>God above all, and the others false or
\ncomparatively false gods there would have been inevitably violent conflicts
\nbetween the various sects and perpetual wars of religion but such there were
\nnot. If on the other hand, it is meant that different worshippers prefer to
\nworship the Lord of the Universe in different particular forms, then are we
\nstill henotheists; for there is not one of us who has not his is<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>t<\/span>̣<\/span>adevatā<\/span><\/i>,
\nVishnu, Shiva, Ganapati, Maruti, Rama, Krishna or Shakti; yet we all recognise
\nbut one Lord of the Universe behind the form we worship. If on the other hand
\nthe same man worshipped different nature-forces, but each in its turn as the
\nLord of the Universe, then is this Pantheism, pure and simple. And this was
\nindeed the outer aspect of the Vedic religion; but when the seers of the Veda
\nleft their altars to sit in meditation, <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 478<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nthey perceived that Brahman was neither the Viswadevas nor
\nthe synthesis of the Viswadevas but something other than they; then was the
\nrevelation made that is given in the Upanishads, ते ध्यानयोगानुगता उपश्यन्
\nदेवात्मशक्तिं स्वगुणैर्निगूढाम् <\/font>. This is
\nwhat is meant by saying that Brahman is outside all this, he is neither the
\nsynthesis of Nature nor anything that the Universe contains, but himself
\ncontains the Universe which is only a shadow of His own Mind, in His own mind.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nI understand.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIf you really understand, then are you ready for the next
\nstep which the Sruti takes when it draws from the unity of the Brah\u00adman, the
\nsublimest moral principle to be found in any religion.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\nTo man finding himself in the midst of paradoxes created by
\nthe twofold nature of the Self of himself, the Shakti that knows and the Shakti
\nthat plays at not knowing, the Sruti gives an unfailing guide, a sure staff and
\na perfect ideal. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nSee all creatures in thy Self. If thy mind fails thee, if the
\nanguish of thy coverings still conceals the immortal Spirit within, dash away
\ntears, ay be they very tears of blood, wipe them from thy eye and look out on
\nthe Universe. There is thy Self, that is Brahman, and all these things thyself,
\nthy joy, thy sorrow, thy friends and enemies are in Him. तत्र क: मोह: क: शोक: एकत्वमनुपश्यत: <\/font> Yes, all, \u2014 wife, children, friends, enemies, joy, sorrow,
\nvictory, defeat, beauty and ugliness, animation and inanimation \u2014 all these are
\nbut moods of One Consciousness and that consciousness is our own. If you come to
\nthink of it, you have no friends or enemies, no joys or sorrows but of your own
\nmaking. Scientists tell you that it is by the will to adapt itself in a
\nparticular way to its surroundings, one species differentiates itself from
\nanother. That is but one application of an universal <\/span>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 479<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nprinciple. The Will is the root of all things; you will to
\nhave wife and children, friends and enemies, and they arise. You will to be sick
\nand sorry and sickness and sorrow seize you; you will to be strong and beautiful
\nand happy and the world becomes brighter with your radiance. This whole Universe
\nis but the result of One universal Will which having resolved to create
\nmultitude in itself has made itself into all the forms you see within it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe idea is difficult to grasp, too vast and yet too subtle.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBecause Avidya, the sense of difference is your natural
\ncondition in the body. Think a little. This body is built by the protoplasm
\nmultiplying itself; it does not divide <\/i>itself, for by division it could
\nnot grow. It produces another itself out of itself, the same in appearance, in
\nsize, in nature and so it builds up the body which is only itself multiplied in
\nitself. Take that as an imperfect ex\u00adample, which may yet help you to
\nunderstand.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut it multiplies not in itself, but out of itself, as a man
\nand woman create a son out of themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nSo it appears to you because it is working in Time and Space,
\n\u2014 for the same reason that there seem [to] you to be many Jivatmans outside each
\nother, while deeper knowledge shows you one only, or that you imagine two
\nseparate consciousnesses in one man, while more skilful hypnosis shows you that
\nthey are one consciousness working variously within itself. In one sense the One
\nseems to us to multiply himself, like the protoplasm because the One Jivatman is
\nthe same in all, hence the fundamental similarity of consciousness in all
\nbeings; in one sense He seems to divide Himself like the human consciousness
\nbecause He is the unit and all seem to be partial expressions of the
\ncomprehensive unit; again He seems to add pieces of Himself together, because
\nyou<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 480<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nthe consciousness who are He add yourself to your wife the
\nconsciousness who is again He and become one, and so the process goes on till of
\nthe vyas<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>t<\/span>̣<\/span>i<\/span><\/i>,
\nanalysis in parts, you get the samas<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span>t<\/span>̣<\/span>i<\/span><\/i>
\nor synthesis of all; finally He seems to subtract Himself from Himself, because
\nas I have told you, each step in creation is a letting loose or separating of
\nparts from a wider entity. All these are however figures and appearances and
\nwhatever He does, it must be in Himself, because He has nowhere else to do it
\nin, since He is all Space and all Time. Realise therefore that all these around
\nyou, wife, children, friends, enemies, men, animals, animate things and
\ninanimate are in you, the Universal Mind, like actors on a stage, and seem to be
\noutside you only for appearance’ sake, for the convenience of the play. If you
\nrealise this, you will be angry with none, therefore you will hate none, and
\ntherefore you will try to injure none. For how can you be angry with any; if
\nyour enemies injure you, it is yourself who are injuring yourself; whatever they
\nare, you have made them that; whatever they do, you are the root of their
\naction. Nor will you injure them because you will be injuring none but yourself.
\nWhy indeed should you hate them and try to injure them any more than Shakespeare
\nhated Iago for injuring Othello; do you think that Shakespeare shared the
\nfeelings of [Iago] when he condemned the successful villain to death and
\ntorture? If Shakespeare did hate Iago, you would at once say that it was
\nillusion, Avidya, on the part of Shakespeare \u2014 since it is Shakespeare himself
\nwho made Iago there to injure Othello, since indeed there is no Othello or Iago,
\nbut only Shakespeare creating himself in himself. Why then should you consider
\nyour hatred of yourself made enemy more reasonable than Shakespeare’s hatred of
\nhis own creation ? No, all things being in yourself, are your own creation, are
\nyourself, and you cannot hate your own creation, you cannot loathe yourself.
\nLoathing and hatred are the children of illusion, of ignorance. This is the
\nnegative side of morality; but there is a positive for which the Sruti next
\nproceeds to lay down the basis. You must for the purpose of withdrawing yourself
\nfrom unrealities see all creatures in the Self; but if you did that only, you
\nwould soon arrive at the Nirvana of all action and ring down the curtain on an <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 481<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nunfinished play. For the purpose of continuing the play till
\nthe proper time for your final exit, you must also see yourself in all
\ncreatures. The nature of the Self in a state of Vidya is bliss; now the State of
\nVidya is a state of self-realisation, the realisation of oneness and
\nuniversality. The nature of the Self in the state of Avidya, the false sense of
\ndiversity and limitation is a state not of pure bliss but of pleasure and pain,
\nfor pleasure is different from bliss, as it is limited and involves pain, while
\nthe nature of bliss is illimitable and above duality. It is when pain itself
\nbecomes pleasure, is swallowed up in pleasure, that bliss is born. Everything
\ntherefore which removes even partially the sense of difference and helps towards
\nthe final unity, brings with it a touch of bliss by a partial oblivion of pain.
\nBut that which brings you bliss, you cannot help but delight in ecstatically,
\nyou cannot but love<\/i>. If therefore you see yourself in another, you
\nspontaneously love that other for in yourself you must delight; if you see
\nyourself in all creatures, you cannot but love all creatures. Universal love is
\nthe inevitable consequence of the realisation of the One in Many, and with
\nUniversal Love how shall any shred of hate, disgust, dislike, loathing co-exist?
\nThey dissolve in it like the night mists in the blaze of the rising sun. Take it
\nin another way and we get a new facet of the one Truth. All hatred and repulsion
\narises from the one cause, Avidya, which begot Will, called Desire, which begot
\nAhankar, which begot desire called Hunger. From Desire-Hunger are born liking
\nand dislike, liking for whatever satisfies or helps us to our desire, dislike
\nfor whatever obstructs or diminishes the satisfaction of desire. This liking
\ncreated in this way is the liking of the protoplasmic sheath for whatever gives
\nit sensual gratification, the liking of the vital sheath for whatever gives it
\nemotional gratification, the liking of the mind sheath for whatever gives it
\naesthetic gratification, the liking of the knowledge sheath for whatever gives
\nit intellectual gratification. But beyond these there is something else not so
\nintelligible, beyond my liking for the beautiful body of a woman or for a fine
\npicture or a pleasant companion or an exciting play or a clever speaker or a
\ngood poem or an illuminative and well-reasoned argument there is my liking for
\nsomebody which has no justification or apparent reason. If sensual gratification <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 482<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nwere all, then it is obvious that I should have no reason to
\nprefer one woman over another and after the brute gratification liking would
\ncease; I have seen this brute impulse given the name of love; perhaps I myself
\nused to give it that name when the proto\u00adplasmic animal predominated in me. If
\nemotional gratification were all, then I might indeed cling for a time to the
\nwoman who had pleased my body, but only so long as she gave me emotional
\npleasure, by her obedience, her sympathy with my likes and dislikes, her
\npleasant speech, her admiration or her answering love. But the moment these
\ncease, my liking also will begin to fade away. This sort of liking too is
\npersistently given the great name and celebrated in poetry and romance. Then if
\naesthetic gratification were all, my liking for a woman of great beauty or great
\ncharm might well outlast the loss of all emotional gratifica\u00adtion, but when the
\nwrinkles began to trace the writing of age on her face or when accident marred
\nher beauty, my liking would fade or vanish since the effect would lose the
\nnutrition of a present cause. Intellectual gratification seldom enters into the
\nlove of a man for a woman; even if it did so, more frequently the intellectual
\ngratification to be derived from a single mind is soon ex\u00adhausted in daylong and
\nnightlong companionship. Whence then comes that love which is greater than life
\nand stronger than death, which survives the loss of beauty and the loss of
\ncharm, which defies the utmost pain and scorn the object of love can deal out to
\nit, which often pours out from a great and high intellect on one infinitely
\nbelow it? What again is that love of woman which nothing can surpass, which
\nlives on neglect and thrives on scorn and cruelty, whose flames rise higher than
\nthe red tongues of the funeral pyre, which follows you into heaven or draws you
\nout of hell ? Say not that this love does not exist and that all here is based
\non appetite, vanity, interest or selfish pleasure, that Rama and Sita, Ruru and
\nSavitri are but dreams and imaginations. Human nature conscious of its divinity
\nthrows back the libel in scorn, \u2014 and poetry blesses and history confirms its
\nverdict. That Love is nothing but the Self recognising the Self dimly or clearly
\nand therefore seeking to realise the oneness and the bliss of oneness. What
\nagain is a friend ? Certainly I do not seek from my friend the pleasure of the
\nbody or choose him for his good looks nor <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 483<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nfor that similarity of tastes and pursuits I would ask in a
\nmere comrade; nor do I love him because he loves me or admires me, as I would
\nperhaps love a disciple; nor do I necessarily demand of him a clever brain, as
\nif he were only an intellectual helper or teacher. All these feelings exist, but
\nthey are not the soul of friendship. No, I love my friend for the woman’s
\nreason, because I love him, because in the old imperishable phrase, he is my
\nother self<\/i>. There by intuition the old Roman hit on the utter secret of
\nLove. Love is the turning of the Self from its false self in the mind or body to
\nits true Self in another; I love him because I have discovered the very Self of
\nme in him, not my body or mind or tastes or feelings, but my very Self of love
\nand bliss, of the outer aspect of whom the Sruti has beautifully said "Love is
\nhis right side etc." So is it with the patriot; he has seen himself in his
\nnation and seeks to lose his lower self in that higher national Self; because he
\ncan do so, we have a Mazzini, a Garibaldi, a Joan of Arc, a Washington, a Pratap
\nSingh or a Shivaji; the lower material self could not have given us these; you
\ndo not manufacture such men in the workshop of utility, on the forge of Charvaka
\nor grow them in the garden of Epicurus. So is it with the lover of humanity, who
\nloses or seeks to lose his lower self in mankind; no enlightened selfishness
\ncould have given us Father Damien or Jesus or Florence Nightingale. So is it
\nfinally with the lover of the whole world, of whom the mighty type is Buddha,
\nthe one unapproachable ideal of Divine Love in man, he who turned from perfect
\ndivine bliss as he had turned from perfect human bliss that not he alone but all
\nnatures might be saved.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nTo see your Self in all creatures and all creatures in your
\nSelf \u2014 that is the unshakable foundation of all religion, love, patriotism,
\nphilanthropy, humanity, of everything which rises above selfishness and gross
\nutility. For what is selfishness? It is mistaking the body and the vital
\nimpulses for your true self and seeking their gratification, a gross narrow and
\ntransient pleasure, instead of the stainless bliss of your true self which is
\nthe whole Universe and more than the Universe. Selfishness arises from Avidya,
\nfrom the great fundamental ignorance which creates Ahankara, the sense of your
\nindividual existence, the preoccupation with your own individual <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 484<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nexistence, which at once leads to Desire, to Hunger which is
\nDeath, death to yourself and death to others. The sense that this is I and that
\nis you, and that I must have this or that, or else you will take it, that is the
\nbasis of all selfishness; the sense that this I must eat that you, in order to
\nlive and avoid being eaten, that is the principle of material existence from
\nwhich arises strife and hatred. And so long as the difference between I and you
\nexists, hatred cannot cease, covetousness cannot cease, war cannot cease, evil
\nand sin cannot cease, and because sin cannot cease, sorrow and misery cannot
\ncease. This is the eternal Maya that makes a mock of all materialistic schemes
\nfor a materialistic Paradise upon earth. Paradise cannot be made upon the basis
\nof food and drink, upon the equal division of goods or even upon the common
\npossession of goods, for always the mine <\/i>and thine<\/i>, the greed, the
\nhate, will return again if not between this man and that man, yet between this
\ncommunity and that community. Christianity hopes to make men live together like
\nbrothers \u2014 a happy family, loving and helping each other; perhaps it still
\nhopes, though there is little in the state of the modern world to flatter its
\ndreams. But that millennium too will not come, not though Christ should descend
\nwith all his angels and cut the knot, after banishing the vast majority of
\nmankind to the outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, by
\nsetting up this united family of mankind with the meagre remnants of the pure
\nand faithful. What a mad dream of diseased imaginations that men could be really
\nand everlastingly happy while mankind was everlastingly suffering! And how
\nstrangely was the slight, but the sweet and gracious shadow of Buddhism
\ndistorted in the sombre and cruel minds of those fierce Mediterranean races,
\nwhen they pictured the saints as drawing added bliss from the contemplation of
\nthe eternal tortures in which those they had lived with and perhaps loved were
\nagonising. Divine love, divine pity, the nature of the Buddha, that was the
\nmessage which India sent to Europe through the lips of Jesus, and this is how
\nthe European mind interpreted divine love, divine pity! The fires of Hell aptly
\nand piously anticipated on earth by the fires of Smithfield, the glowing
\nsplendours of the Auto-da-f\u00e9, the unspeakable reek of agony that steams up
\nthrough <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 485<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nhistory from the dungeons of the Holy Office, \u2014 nay, there
\nare wise men who find an apology for these pious torturers, \u2014 it was <\/i>
\ndivine love after all seeking to save the soul at the cost of the perishable
\nbody! But the Aryan spirit of the East, the spirit of Buddha struggles for ever
\nwith European barbarism and surely in the end it shall conquer. Already Europe
\ndoes homage to humanity with her lips and in the gateways of her mind; perhaps
\nsome day she will do so with her heart also. At any rate the millennium of
\nTertullian is out of date. But still it is the Christian ideal, the Syrian
\ninterpretation of the truth and not the truth itself, which dominates the best
\nEuropean thought and the Christian ideal is the ideal of the united family.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nSurely it is a noble ideal.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nVery noble and we have it among ourselves in a noble couplet
\nवसुधैव
\nकुटुम्बकम् <\/font>. but everything which implies difference is based upon Avidya and the
\ninevitable fruits of Avidya. Have you ever watched a big united family, a
\njoint-family in Bengal especially in days when the Aryan discipline is lost?
\nBehind its outward show of strength and unity, what jarring, what dissensions,
\nwhat petty malice and hatred, what envy and covetousness! And then finally one
\nday a crash, a war, a case in the law-courts, a separation for ever. What the
\njoint-family is on a small scale, that on a big scale is an united nation,
\nRussia or Austria or Germany or the United Kingdom. Mankind as an united family
\nwould mean in practice mankind as an united nation. How much would you gain by
\nit ? You would get rid of war, \u2014 for a time \u2014 of the mangling of men’s bodies by
\nmen, but the body though to be respected as the chosen vehicle or the favourite
\ndress of Brahman, is not of the first importance. You would not get rid of the
\nmuch more cruel mangling of the human Self by hatred, greed and strife. The
\nEuropeans attach too much importance to the body, shrink too much from physical
\nsin and are far too much at their ease with mental sin. It is enough for them if
\na woman abstain from carrying out her desire in action, if a man abstain from
\nphysical  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 486<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nviolence, then is the one chaste, the other self-controlled.
\nThis if not sheer unAryanism or Mlecchahood is at best the half-baked virtue of
\nthe semi-Aryanised to you who are born in the Aryan discipline, however maimed
\nby long bondage, an Aryan indeed, chaste in mind and spirit, and not merely
\ncareful in speech and body, gentle in heart and thought and not merely decent in
\nwords and actions. That is the true self-control and real morality. No Paradise
\ntherefore can exist, no Paradise even if it existed, can last until that which
\nmakes sin and hell is conquered. We may never have a Paradise on earth, but if
\nit is ever to come, it will come not when all mankind are as brothers, for
\nbrothers jar and hate as much and often more than mere friends or strangers, but
\nwhen all mankind has realised that it is one Self. Nor can that be until mankind
\nhas realised that all existence is one\u00adself, for if an united humanity tyrannise
\nover bird and beast and insect, the atmosphere of pain, hatred and fear
\nbreathing up from the lower creation will infect and soil the purity of the
\nupper. The law of Karma is inexorable, and whatever you deal out to others, even
\nsuch shall be the effect on yourself, in this life or in another. Do you think
\nthen that this strange thing will ever come about that mankind in general, will
\never come to see in the dog and the vulture, nay, in the snake that bites and
\nthe scorpion that stings, their own Self, that they will say unto Death my
\nbrother and to Destruction my sister, nay that they will know these things as
\nthemselves? सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानम्<\/font>, the Sruti will not spare you the meanest insect that
\ncrawls or the foulest worm that writhes.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIt does not seem possible.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIt does not; and yet the impossible repeatedly happens. At
\nany rate, if you must have an ideal, of the far-off event to which humanity
\nmoves, cherish this. Distrust all Utopias that seek to destroy sin or scrape
\naway part of the soil in which it grows while preserving intact the very roots
\nof sin, Ahankara born of Ignorance and Desire. For once Ahankara is there, likes
\nand dislikes are born, रागद्वेषौ<\/font>, the primal couple of dualities, liking for what <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 487<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nfurthers the satisfaction of desire, dislike for what hinders
\nit, the sense of possession, the sense of loss, attraction, repulsion, charm,
\nrepugnance, love, hatred, pity, cruelty, kindness, wrath, \u2014the infinite and
\neternal procession of the dualities. Admit but one pair, and all the others come
\ntumbling in its wake. But the man who sees himself in all creatures, cannot
\nhate; he shrinks from none, he has neither repulsion nor fear, ततो न विजुगुप्सते<\/font>.
\nYonder leper whom all men shun \u2014 but shall I shun him, I who know that from this
\nstrange disguise the Brahman looks out with smiling eyes? This foeman who comes
\nwith a sword to pierce me through the heart, \u2014 I look beyond the sharp
\nthreatening sword, beyond the scowling brow and the eyes of hate, and I
\nrecognise the mask of my Self; thereafter I shall neither fear the sword nor
\nhate the bearer. O myself who foolishly callest thyself, mine enemy, how canst
\nthou be my enemy unless I choose; friend and enemy are but creations of the Mind
\nthat myriad-working magician, that great dreamer and artist; and if I will not
\nto regard thee as my enemy, thou canst no more be such than a dream or shadow
\ncan, as indeed thy flashing sword is but a dream and thy scowling brow but a
\nshadow. But thou wilt divide me with thy sword, thou wilt slay me, pierce me
\nwith bullets, torture me with fire, blow me from the mouth of thy cannon? Me
\nthou canst not pierce, for I am unslayable, unpierceable, indivisible,
\nunburnable, immovable. Thou canst but tear this dress of me, this food-sheath or
\nmultiplied protoplasm which I wear \u2014 I<\/i> am what I was before. I will not
\nbe angry with thee even, for who would trouble himself to be angry with a child
\nbecause in its play or little childish wrath it has torn his dress? Perhaps I
\nvalued the dress and would not so soon have parted with it; I will try then to
\nsave it, if I may, and even punish thee without anger so that thou mayst not
\ntear more dresses; but if I cannot \u2014 well, it was but a cloth and another can
\nsoon be had from the merchant; nay, have I not already paid the purchase-money ?
\nO my judge, thou who sittest pronouncing that I be hanged by the neck till I be
\ndead, because I have broken thy laws perchance to give bread to starving
\nthousands, perchance to help the men of my country whom thou wouldst keep as
\nslaves for thy pleasure\u2014Me wilt thou hang? When thou canst shake the sun from
\nheaven or wrap up the skies <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 488<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nlike a garment, then shall power be given thee to hang me.
\nWho or what is this thou deemest will die by hanging? A bundle of animalculae,
\nno more. This outward thou and I are but stage masks, behind them is One who
\nneither slayeth nor is slain. Mask, called a judge, play thou thy part; I have
\nplayed mine. 0 son of the ancient Yoga, realise thy Self in all things; fear
\nnothing, loathe nothing; dread none, hate none. But do thy part with strength
\nand courage; so shalt thou be what thou truly art. God in thy victory. God in
\nthy defeat. God in thy very death and torture, \u2014 God who will not be defeated
\nand who cannot die. Shall God fear any? shall He despair? shall He tremble and
\nshake ? Nay, ’tis the insects that form thy body and brain which shake and
\ntremble; Thou within them sittest looking with calm eyes at their pain and
\nterror; for they are but shadows that dream of themselves as a reality. Realise
\nthe Self in all creatures, realise all creatures in the Self; then in the end
\nterror shall flee from thee in terror, pain shall not touch thee, lest itself be
\ntortured by thy touch; death shall not dare to come near to thee lest he be
\nslain.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\nHe who discerneth, in whom all creatures have become himself,
\nhow shall he be deluded, whence shall he have sorrow, in whose eyes all things
\nare One. That is the realisation of the mighty ideal, the moral and practical
\nresult of perfected Vedanta, that in us all things will become ourself. There,
\nsays the Sruti, in the man whose Self has become all creatures, what delusion
\ncan there be or what sorrow, for wherever he looks  अनुपश्यत: <\/font>, he sees nothing but
\nthe great Oneness, nothing but God, nothing but his own Self of love and bliss.
\nDelusion, मोह<\/font>, is the mistaking of the appearance for the reality, bewilderment
\nby the force of Maya. "This house that my fathers had was mine and alas, I have
\nlost it." "This was my wife whom I loved, and she is lost to me for ever."
\n"Alas, how has my son disappointed me from whom I hoped so much." "This office
\nfor which I hoped and schemed, my rival, the man I hated has got it." All these
\nare the <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 489<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nutterances of delusion and the result of delusion is
\nशोक<\/font>,
\nsorrow. But to one whose Self has become all creatures, there can be no delusion
\nand therefore no sorrow. He does not say "I, Devadatta, have lost this house.
\nWhat a calamity!" He says, "I, Devadatta, have lost this house, but it has gone
\nto me Harischandra. That is fortunate." I<\/i> can lose nothing except to
\nmyself. Nor shall I weep because my wife is dead and lost, who is not lost at
\nall, but as near to me as ever, since she is still my Self, in my Self, with my
\nSelf as much after death as when her body was underneath my hands. I<\/i>
\ncannot lose my Self. My son has dis\u00adappointed me ? He has taken his own way and
\nnot mine but he has not disappointed himself who is myself, he has only
\ndis\u00adappointed the sheath, the case, the mental cell in which I was imprisoned.
\nThe vision of the One Self dispels all differences; an infinite calm, an
\ninfinite love, an infinite charity, an infinite tolerance is the very nature of
\nthe strong soul that has seen God. The sin, the stain, the disease, the foulness
\nof the world cannot pollute his mind nor repel his sympathy; as he stoops to
\nlift the sinner from the dung heap in which he wallows, he does not shrink from
\nthe ordure that stains his own hands; his eyes are not bedimmed by tears, when
\nhe lifts up the shrieking sufferer out of his pit of pain; he lifts him as a
\nfather lifts his child who has stumbled in the mire and is crying; the child
\nchooses to think he is hurt and cries; the father knows he is not really hurt,
\ntherefore he does not grieve but neither does he chide him, rather he lifts him
\nup and soothes the wilful imaginary pain. Such a soul has become God, mighty and
\nloving to help and save, not weak to weep and increase the ocean of human tears
\nwith his own. Buddha did not weep when he saw the suffering of the world; he
\nwent forth to save. And surely such a soul will not grieve over the buffets the
\noutward world seems to give to his outward self; for how can He grieve who is
\nall this Universe? The pain of his petty personal self is no more to his
\nconscious\u00adness than the pain of a crushed ant to a king as he walks musing in
\nhis garden bearing on his shoulders the destiny of nations. He cannot feel
\nsorrow for himself even if he would, for he has the sorrow of a whole world to
\nrelieve; his own joy is nothing to him, for he has the joy of the whole Universe
\nat his command.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 490<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nThere are two ways of attaining to Jnana, to the Vision. One
\nis the way of Insight, the other the way of World-Sight. There are two ways of
\nBhakti, one by devotion to the Self as Lord of all concentrated within you, the
\nother by devotion to the Self as Lord of all extended in the Universe. There are
\ntwo ways of Karma, one by Yoga, quiescence of the sheaths, and the ineffable,
\nunacting, yet all enveloping omnipotence of the Self within; the other by
\nquiescence of desire and selfless activity of the sheaths for the wider self in
\nthe Universe. For the first you must turn your eyes within instead of without,
\nput from you the pleasures of contact and sense, hush the mind and its organs
\nand rising above the dualities become One in yourself. <\/span>
\nआत्मतुष्टिरात्माराम:<\/font><\/span>. Is this
\ntoo difficult for thee ? Does thy mind fail thee, the anguish of thy coverings
\nstill conceal the immortal Spirit within? Dash the tears from thine eyes; though
\nthey be tears of blood, still persist in wiping them away as they ooze out, and
\nlook out on the Universe. That is thy self, that is Brahman. Realise all this
\nCosmic stir, this rolling of the suns, this light, this life, this ceaseless
\nactivity. It is thou thyself that art stirring through all this Universe, thou
\nart this Sun and this Moon and these Constellations. The Ocean rolls in thee,
\nthe storm blows in thee, the hills stand firm in thee. If thou wert not, these
\nthings would not be. Canst thou grieve over the miseries of this little speck in
\nthe Brahman, this little insect-sheath, of whose miseries thou art the maker and
\nthou canst be the ender? Is the vision too great for thee? Look round thee then,
\nlimit the vision there. These men and women and living things that are round
\nthee, their numberless joys and sorrows, amongst which what are thine ? They are
\nall thy Self and they are all in Thee. Thou art their Creator, Disposer and
\nDestroyer. Thou canst break them if thou wilt and thou canst rescue them from
\ntheir griefs and miseries if thou wilt, for power infinite is within thee. Thou
\nwilt not be the Asura to injure thyself in others ? Be then the Deva to help thy
\nSelf in others.- Learn the sorrows of those who live near thee and remove them;
\nthou wilt soon feel what a joy has been so long lost to thee, a joy in which
\nthine own sorrows grow like an unsubstantial mist. Wrestle with mighty
\nwrong-doers, succour the oppressed, free the slave and the bound and thou shalt
\nsoon know something of the<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 491<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\njoy that is more than any pleasure, thou shalt soon be
\ninitiated into the bliss of the One who is in all. Even in death thou shalt know
\nthat ecstasy and rejoice in the blood as it flows from thee.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThese ideals are too high. Where is the strength to follow
\nthem and the way to find that strength?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe strength is in yourself and the way to find that strength
\nhas been laid down from the times of old. But accept that ideal first or you
\nwill have no spur to help you over the obstacles in the way.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut how many will accept the ideal, when there are so many
\neasier ideals to give them strength and comfort?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut are those ideals true ? Delusions may give you strength
\nand comfort for a while,, but after all they break down and leave you tumbling
\nthrough Chaos. Truth alone is a sure and everlasting rock of rest, an unfailing
\nspear of strength. The whole universe rests upon Truth, on the Is, not on the Is
\nNot. To be comfortable in delusion is the nature of man in his Tamasic covering
\nof gross matter-stuff; it is the business of philosophy and religion to dispel
\nhis delusion and force him to face the truth.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut many wise men are of the opinion that these smaller
\nideals are the truth, not religion and philosophy which are a delusion.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nTell me one of these new-born truths that profess to dispel
\nthe knowledge that is without end and without beginning; for you know more of
\nthe science of the West than I.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThere is the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest
\nnumber, which has something finite, certain and attainable about it <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 492<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\n\u2014 nothing metaphysical, nothing abstract.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nWe have heard something about it in this country, a system of
\nmorality by arithmetic called utilitarianism which would have man pass his life
\nwith a pair of scales in his hand weighing good and evil. It did good in its
\ntime, but it was not true, and could not last.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIn what is it not true?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIt is not true, because it is not in human nature; no human
\nbeing ever made or ever will make an arithmetical calculation of the pain and
\npleasure to result from an action and the numbers of the people diversely
\naffected by them, before doing the action. That sort of ethical algebra, this
\nsystem of moral accounts needs a different planet for its development; a
\nqualified accountant has yet to be born on the human plane. You cannot assess
\npleasure and pain, good and evil in so many ounces and pounds: human feelings,
\nabstract emotions are elusive and variable from moment to moment. Utilitarianism
\nwith all its appearance of extreme practicality and definiteness, is really
\nempty of any definite truth and impotent to give any sound and helpful guidance;
\nit is in itself as barren of light as of inspiration, a creed arid, dry and
\nlifeless, and what is worse, false. Whatever it has of value, it has copied or
\nrather caricatured from altruism. It gives us standards of weight and measure
\nwhich are utterly impossible to fix, and it fails to provide any philosophical
\njustification for self-sacrifice nor any ardent inspiration towards it.
\nUtilitarian hedonism \u2014 is not that the phrase \u2014 suggests, I think, that by doing
\ngood to others, we really provide a rarer and deeper pleasure for ourselves than
\nany purely self-limited gratification can give us. Most true \u2014 and a truth we
\nneeded not to learn from either hedonist or utilitarian. The Buddhists knew it
\n2,000 years ago and the Aryans of India practised it before that; the whole life
\nof Sri Krishna was a busy working for the good of others, of his friends, his <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 493<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\ncountry and the world, and Sri Krishna never knew grief or
\npain. But there are three kinds of pleasure to be had from charity and
\nbeneficence; there is the satisfaction of vanity, the vanity of hearing oneself
\npraised, the vanity of feeling "How very good I am." This, I think, is at the
\nbottom of much charity in India and more in Europe; and it is here that hedonism
\ncomes most into play, but it is a poor spring and will break down under any
\nstrain; it may lead to charity but never to self-sacrifice. Then there is the
\njoy of having done a good work and brought oneself nearer to heaven which used
\nto be and perhaps still is the most common incentive to beneficence in Aryaland.
\nThat is a more powerful spring, but it is narrow and does not reach the true
\nself; its best value is that it is helpful towards purification. Then there are
\nthe natures born for love and unselfishness, who in the mere joy of helping
\nothers, of suffering for others, of seeing the joy return to tear-worn faces and
\npain-dimmed eyes, feel the bliss that comes from the upsurging of God within. To
\nthese hedonism is a vanity and the babbling of children. The hedonistic element
\nin utilitarianism is an imperfect blundering effort to grope for a great truth
\nwhich it has neither been able to grasp itself nor set forth with scientific
\naccuracy. That Truth is found only in the clear and luminous teaching of the
\nVedanta; it is this, that the compound result we call man is a compound result
\nand not the single simple homogeneous being our senses would believe; he is
\ncomposed of several elements, corporeal, vital, mental, intellectual and
\nessential; and his true self is none of these heterogeneous factors of the
\nelement the Self lives in, but something beyond and transcendent. Pain and
\npleasure, good and evil are therefore not permanent and definite entities; the
\nformer are a heterogeneous conglomeration, sometimes a warring agglomeration of
\nthe feelings and impulses belonging to the various husks in which the true Self
\nis wrapped. Good and evil are relative and depend on the standpoint we take with
\nreference to the true locality of Self in this little cosmos of man; if we
\nlocate that Self low down our "good" will be a poor thing, of the earth, earthy,
\nlittle distinguishable from evil; if we locate it in its true place, our good
\nwill be as high, vast and pure as the heavens. All pain and pleasure, all good
\nand evil have their birth, their existence and their end in<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 494<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nthe Self. It follows therefore that even the highest love and
\naltruism are bounded by the Self. Altruism is not the sacrifice of self to
\nothers, but the sacrifice of our false self to our true Self, which unless we
\nare Yogins we can best see in others. True love is not the love of others but
\nthe love of our Self; for we cannot possibly love what is not ourself. If we
\nlove what is not ourself, it must be as a result of contact; but we cannot love
\nby sparśa<\/i>, by mere contact; because contact is temporary in its nature
\nand in its results, and cannot give rise to a permanent feeling such as love.
\nYajnavalkya well said, "We desire the wife not for the sake of the wife but for
\nthe sake of the Self." Only if we mistake things for the Self which are not the
\ntrue Self, we shall, as a result, mistake things for love which are not real
\nlove. If we mistake the food-husk for Self, we shall desire the wife for
\ncorporeal gratification; if we mistake the vital emotion husk for Self we shall
\ndesire the wife for emotional gratification; if we mistake the mind husk for the
\nSelf we shall desire the wife for aesthetic gratification and pleasurable sense
\nof her presence, her voice, looks etc. about the house; if we mistake the
\nintellect husk for the Self, we shall desire the wife for her qualities and
\nvirtues, her capacities and mental gifts, for the gratification of the
\nunderstanding. If we see the Self in the bliss sheath, where the element of
\nerror reaches the vanishing point, we shall then desire the wife for the
\ngratification of the true Self, the bliss of the sense of Union, of becoming
\nOne. And if we have seen and understood our true Self without husk or covering,
\nwe shall not desire her at all, because we shall possess her, we shall know that
\nshe is already our Self and therefore not to be desired in her sheaths, since
\nShe is already possessed. It follows that the more inward the sheath with which
\nwe confuse the Self, the purer the pleasure, the more exalted the conception of
\nGood, until in the real naked Self we rise beyond good and evil because we have
\nno longer any need of good or any temptation to evil. Emotional pleasure is
\nhigher than corporeal, aesthetic than emotional, intellectual than aesthetic,
\nethical than intellectual, spiritual than ethical. This is the whole truth and
\nthe whole philosophy of ethics; all else is practical arrangement and balancing
\nof forces, economising of energies for the purposes of social stability or some
\nother important but impermanent end. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 495<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nUtilitarianism gets a partial and confused view of the truth
\nand being unable properly to correlate it, groping about for some law, some
\nstandard and principle of order, thinks it has found it in utility. But what
\nutility ? I, this perfected animal, with desires, thoughts, sensations and a
\npressing need for their gratification can very well understand what is personal
\nutility; utility for this vital, sensational, conceptual me. My utility is to
\nget as much sensual, emotional, and intellectual gratification as I may out of
\nlife consistent with my own ease and safety; if utility is to be my standard of
\nethics, that is my ethics. But when you ask me in the name of utility and
\nrationalism to sacrifice these things for some higher or wider utility, for
\nothers, for the greater number, for society, I no longer follow you. So much as
\nis necessary to keep up government, law and order and a good police, I can
\nunderstand, for these things are necessary to my safety and comfort; society has
\ngiven me these and I must see to and pay for their maintenance by myself and
\nothers. That is businesslike, both utilitarian and rational. But beyond this
\nsociety has not any claim on me; society exists for me, not I for society. If
\nthen I have to sacrifice what I perhaps most deeply cherish for society, my
\nlife, my goods, my domestic peace, my use for society ceases; I regard society
\nthen as a fraudulent depositor who wishes to draw from my ethical bank more than
\nhe has deposited. So might argue the average man who is neither immoral nor
\ndeeply moral but only respectable; and utilitarianism can give him no
\nsatisfactory answer.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nMoreover, if I have other instincts than those of the
\nrespectable citizen, and ability to carry them out, why should I refrain? What
\nholds me? If I can earn a huge fortune rapidly by some safe form of swindling,
\nby gambling, by speculation or by the merciless methods of the American
\ncapitalist, why should 1 refrain ? The charge of anti-social conduct; but that
\nhas no terrors for an egotist of strong character; he knows well that he can
\nhush the disapproval of society under a shower of gold coin. Morality with the
\nvital sensational man becomes in an utilitarian age merely the fear <\/i>of
\nsocial or legal punishment, and strong men do not fear; nor unless their acts
\nshake the social framework will utilitarian society care to. condemn them, for
\nthey are breaking<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 496<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nno powerful sanctions, outraging no deep-rooted sentiments \u2014
\nutilitarianism deliberately parts company with sentiment and except force and
\nfear it has no sanctions to replace those of religion and ancient prejudice
\nwhich it has destroyed. It is useless to tell these people that they will find a
\ndeeper and truer bliss in good moral conduct and altruism than in their present
\nselfish and anti-social career. Where is the proof or even the philosophic
\njustification of what these philosophers allege? Their own experience? That is
\nnot valid for the average sensational man; his <\/i>deepest pleasure is
\nnecessarily vital and sensational; it is only valid for the men who make the
\nstatement, they being the intellectual self with an ethical training that has
\nsurvived from a dead Christianity. In order for it to be true of the sensational
\nman, he must cease to be sensational, he must undergo a process of spiritual
\nregeneration to which utilitarian philosophy cannot give him either the key or
\neven the motive-impulse. For in the mouth of the utilitarian, this statement of
\nthe deeper and truer bliss is a piece of second-hand knowledge; not his own
\nearning, but part of that store of ethical coin rifled by rationalism from the
\ncoffers of Christianity on which European civilisation is precariously living at
\nthe present day. One trembles to think of the day when that coin shall be
\nexhausted \u2014 already we see some signs of growing moral vulgarity, coarseness,
\nalmost savagery in the European mind, which, if it increases, if the open
\nworship of brutal force and unscrupulous strength which is rampant in politics
\nand in commerce taint, as it must eventually do, the deeper heart of society,
\nmay lead to an orgy of the vital and sensational impulses such as has not been
\nsince the worst days of the Roman Empire.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut Lecky has proved that the moral improvement of Europe was
\ndue entirely to the rise of rationalism.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nMy son, there is one great capacity of the learned and
\ncultured mind both in Europe and Asia which one should admire without imitating;
\nit is the capacity of dextrous juggling with words. If <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 497<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nyou choose to give an extension of meaning to a particular
\nword, a meaning it cannot and ought not to have, you can easily build on it a
\nvery glittering edifice of theory, which will charm the eye until someone comes
\nby with a more effective word more effectively extended in meaning and knocks
\ndown the old house to build a newer and more glittering mansion. Thus the old
\neternal truths are overlaid by trashy superstructures until some day some
\nsalutary earthquake swallows up the building and builders and reveals the old
\ntruth which no change or chance can injure. Amid the giddy round of ever
\nshifting theories Europe gives us, there are only two fundamental truths, often
\nmisapplied, but nevertheless true in the sphere of phenomena, \u2014 Evolution, which
\nis taught in different ways by our Sankhya and Vedanta, and the Law of
\nInvariable Causality, which is implied in our theories of Kala and Karma. These
\nreceive and hold fast to, \u2014 for it is by working them out not always well, but
\nalways suggestively that Europe has made her real contribution to the eternal
\nstore of knowledge. But in their isms and schisms trust not \u2014 they contain scant
\ngrain of truth hidden in a very bushelful of error.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent
\n<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nStill, it seems to me that Lecky is not altogether wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nOn the contrary he is entirely right, if we consent to lump
\ntogether all enlightenment without regard to its nature and source, as
\nrationalism; that the moral improvement of Europe was due to increasing
\nenlightenment is entirely true, for Knowledge, by which I mean not the
\nschoolmaster’s satchelful of information or even the learning of the
\nUniversities, but Jnana, the perception and realisation of truth, is the eternal
\nenemy and slayer of sin; for sin is descended of ignorance through her child,
\negoism. It is true that the so-called Christian ages in Europe were times of sin
\nand darkness; Europe had accepted Christ only to crucify him afresh; she had
\nentombed him alive with his pure and gracious teaching and over that living tomb
\nshe had built a thing called the Church.. What we know as Christendom was a
\nstrange mixture of Roman corruption, German barbarism and fragments of ancient
\nculture<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 498<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nall bathed in the pale light that flowed upwards from the
\nenhaloed brows of the entombed and crucified Christ. The great spiritual hoard
\nhe had opened to the West was kept locked up and unavailable except to
\nindividuals whose souls were too bright to be swallowed up in the general
\ndarkness. All knowledge was under taboo, not because there was any natural
\nconflict between Religion and Science, but because there was natural
\nirreconcilable antipathy between the obscurantism of political ecclesiastics and
\nresurgent knowledge. Again Asia came to the rescue of Europe and from the
\nliberal civilisation of the Arabs, Science was reborn into her mediaeval night,
\nand the light of Science, persecuted and tortured, struggled up until the
\ndarkness was overpowered and wounded to death. The intellectual history of,
\nEurope has outwardly been a struggle between Science and the Church, with which
\nhas been confounded the Christian religion which the Church professed with its
\nlips and attempted to strangle with its hands; inwardly it was the ancient
\nstruggle between Deva and Asura, Sattwa and Tamas. Now Religion is Sattwic with
\na natural impulse towards light, it cannot be Tamasic, it can have no dealings
\nwith the enemies of the Devas; and if something calling itself religion,
\nattempts to suppress light, you may be sure it is not religion but an impostor
\nmasquerading in her name. Consider what were the ideas under which as under a
\nbanner, the modern spirit overthrew the mediaeval Titan; the final uprush of
\nthose ideas we see in the French Revolution. The motto of the Revolution we
\nknow: liberty, equality and fraternity; the spirit it professed but could not
\nattain we know, humanity. In liberty, the union of the individual moral liberty
\nof Christianity with the civic liberty of Greece; in equality, the democratic
\nspiritual equality of Christianity applied to society; fraternity, the
\naspiration to universal brotherhood, which is the peculiar and distinguishing
\nidea of Christianity; humanity, the Buddhistic spirit of mercy, pity, love of
\nwhich Europe knew nothing till Christianity breathed it forth over the
\nMediterranean and with greater purity over Ireland, mingled with the sense of
\nthe divinity in man, borrowed from India through the old Gnostics and
\nPlatonists, these are the ideas which still profoundly influence Europe, many of
\nwhich scientific materialism has been<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 499<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nobliged to borrow or tolerate, none of which it has as yet
\navailed entirely to root out. Rationalism did not create these ideas, but found
\nand adopted them. Rationalism is the spirit which subjects all beliefs and
\nopinions to the test of logic from observed facts, it is indeed the intellectual
\nsheath, mostly the lower or merely logical half of the intellectual sheath,
\nattempting to establish itself as the Self. This is what we call Science and the
\nscientific spirit. Wherever it has been able to work in the light of pure dry
\nintellect, not distorted by irruptions of the lower selves in the shape of
\ninterest, vanity, passions, prejudices, it has produced invaluable results; in
\nthe sphere therefore of the passionless observation, classification and
\ncorrelation of facts we may follow science without distrust or fear of
\nstumbling; but whenever it tries to theorise from what it has observed about
\nhuman nature, human affairs and spiritual development Science is always tumbling
\ninto the pits of the lower selves; in attempting to range things above the
\nmaterial level under the law of the material self, it is trying to walk upon
\nwater, to float upon air; it is doing something essentially unscientific. Still
\nmore is this the case when it deals with the higher things of the spirit in the
\nsame terms; its theories then become so amazingly paradoxical, one stands
\nastonished at the wilful blindness to facts to which prejudice and prepossession
\ncan lead the trained observer of facts. Follow them not there, there are the
\nblind leading the blind who go round and round battering themselves like a blind
\nbird at night against the same eternal walls and never seeing the window open to
\nit for its escape.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nBut you have said that Evolution is an eternal truth. On the
\nbasis of Evolution the scientists have discovered a moral sanction which does
\nreplace the old religious sanction, the paramount claim of the race upon the
\nindividual.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nWhat race? The English or German or Russian or the great
\nAnglo-Saxon race, which it appears is to inherit the world. God’s Englishmen
\nand, we must now add. God’s Americans \u2014 or is it <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 500<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nthe whole white race ? To whom must the individual bow his
\nhead as the head and front of Evolution?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nI mean the whole human race. The individual is ephemeral, the
\nspecies endures, the genus lasts almost for ever. On this basis your duty to
\nyourself, your duty to society, your duty to your country, your duty to mankind,
\nall fall into a beautifully ranged, orderly and symmetrical arrangement. All
\nmorality is shown to be an historical, inevitable evolution, and you have only
\nto re\u00adcognise it and further that evolution by falling into its track instead of
\ngoing backward on the track.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nAnd getting called atavistic and degenerate and other
\nterrible names ? Still I should like to be better satisfied as to the basis of
\nthis symmetrical and inevitable arrangement; for if I were convinced that I am
\nan ephemeral animal, I should like to enjoy my\u00adself during my day like other
\nephemeral animals and cannot see why I should trouble myself about the eternal
\nfuture; and even though Science should hurl the most formidable polysyllables in
\nits vocabulary at me, I do not know that I should greatly care; and I think
\nMessrs Rockfeller and Jay Gould and millions more were or are in hearty
\nagreement with me. You say the genus is eternal? But I believe this is not the
\nteaching of Science. As I understand it, man is only an animal, a particular
\nsort of monkey which developed suddenly for some inexplicable reason and shot
\nforward 10,000 miles ahead of every animal yet born upon earth. If this is so,
\nthere is no reason why some other animal, say, some particular kind of ant,
\nshould not suddenly for some inexplicable reason develop and shoot forward
\n100,000 miles ahead and make as short work of man as man made of the mammoth. Or
\nin some other way the human race will certainly be replaced. Now what good is it
\nto the mammoth whose bones Science has recently disinterred, that a race has
\ndeveloped which can disinter him and dissertate in numerous polysyllables upon
\nhis remains? And if a scientific mammoth in his days had placed before him this
\nprospect and bid him give up in the interest of the mammoth race, his <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 501<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nunsocial and selfish ways, would that have seemed even to the
\nmost reasonable tusker a sufficient motive for his self-sacrifice? Where would
\nhis benefit <\/i>in the affair come in?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nIt is not precisely a question of personal benefit; it is a
\nquestion of inevitable law. You would be setting yourself against the inevitable
\nlaw.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nVerily? and what do I care, if my opposition to the
\ninevitable brings me no harm, but rather content and prosperity in my day. After
\nmy death nothing can injure me, if I am but clay.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe individual may be immoral, but morality progresses
\ninevitably.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nTruly? I do not think the present state of Europe favourable
\nto that conception. Why, we had thought that Science would make the cultured
\nnations dominate and people the earth. And we find them stationary or absolutely
\nretrograding in population, degenerating in nerve and hardiness, losing in the
\ntrue imperial qualities. We had thought that sacking of cities, massacre,
\ntorture and foul rape were blotted by civilisation from the methods of war. The
\nenlightened peoples of Europe march into China and there takes place an orgy of
\nfilth and blood and cold delight in agony which all but the most loathsome
\nsavages would shrink from in disgust. Is that the inevitable moral advance or
\nRed Indian savagery improved upon? We had thought that with increasing education
\nand intellectuality must come increasing chastity or at least refinement. In a
\ngreat American city the police sweeps the brothels and gathers in its net
\nhundreds of educated, cultured, gracious and stately women who had carried their
\neducation, beauty and culture there<\/i>. Is that the inevitable moral
\nadvance, or rather the days of Messalina returned? These are not isolated
\nphenomena but could be multiplied infinitely. Europe is following in <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 502<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nthe footsteps of ancient Rome.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n‘t<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThere are these periods of retrogression. Evolution advances
\nin a curve, not in a straight line.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nAnd mark that these retrogressions are most inevitable when
\nthe world, abandoning religion, plunges into philosophic material\u00adism. Not
\nimmediately do they come; while the spirit of the old religion still survives
\nthe death of its body, the nations seem per\u00adhaps to gain in strength and power;
\nbut very soon the posthumous force is exhausted. All the old nations perished
\nbecause in the pride of intellect they abandoned their dharma<\/i>, their
\nreligion. India, China still live. What was the force that enabled India beaten
\ndown and trampled by mailed fist and iron hoof ever to survive immortally, ever
\nto resist, ever to crush down the con\u00adqueror of the hour at last beneath her
\ngigantic foot, ever to raise her mighty head again to the stars. It is because
\nshe never lost hold of religion, never gave up her faith in the spirit.
\nTherefore the promise of Sri Krishna ever holds good; therefore the Adya-shakti,
\nthe mighty Chandi, ever descends when the people turn to her and tramples the
\nAsura to pieces. Times change and a new kind of outer power rules over India in
\nplace of the Asuras of the East. But woe to India if she cast from her her
\neternal Dharma. The fate of the old nations shall then overtake her. Her name
\nshall be cast out from the list of nations and her peoples become a memory and a
\nlegend upon the earth. Let her keep true to her Self and the Atmashakti, the
\neternal Force of the Self shall again strengthen and raise her. Modern Science
\nhas engaged itself deeply in two cardinal errors; it has built out of the Law of
\nCausation a new and more inexorable fate than Greek or Hindu or Arab ever
\nimagined; engrossed with that predestination, Science has come to believe that
\nthe human will is a mere servant, nay, a mere creation of eternal inanimate
\nforces. Science is mistaken, and unless it widen its view, may easily be
\nconvinced of its mistake in a very ugly fashion before long. The Will is
\nmightier than any law, fate or force. The Will is eternal, omnipotent, <\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 503<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nit has created the law of causation and governs it; it has
\nmade the laws of matter and it can override them; it is itself all the forces
\nwhich seem to govern and bind it. There is no compulsion on the human will to
\nevolve towards progression; if it chooses to regress back it will go and all the
\nworld reeling and shrieking with it into barbarism and chaos; if it chooses to
\ngo forward, no force can stop it. The other mistake Science has made, it borrows
\nfrom Christianity; it is that action and emotion can be directed towards beings
\ndistinct from oneself; all action and emotion are for the self, in the self. But
\nif Science teaches men to regard themselves as distinct and purely corporeal
\nbeings, with no connection with others except such as may be created by physical
\ncontact and the communication of the senses, it is obvious that the human Will
\nunder the obsession of this belief will inevitably shape its action and thought
\nin accordance, passing over the more shadowy moral generalities of evolutionary
\ntheorists; and that spells in the end a colossal selfishness, an increasing
\nsensuality, lust of power, riches, comfort and dominion, a monstrous and
\negoistic brutality like that of a hundred-armed Titan wielding all the arms of
\nthe Gods in those hundred hands. If man believes himself to be an animal he will
\nact like an animal and exalt the animal impulse into his guide. That Europe does
\nnot approach more swiftly to this condition is due to the obstinate refusal of
\nJnana, Religion, true enlightenment, maimed and wounded though it be, to perish
\nand make an end; it will not allow the human Will to believe that it is no more
\nthan nerve and flesh and body, animal and transitory. It persists and takes a
\nhundred forms to elude the pursuit of materialistic Science, calling upon the
\nEternal Mother to come down and save; and surely before long she shall come. All
\nbases of morality which do not go back to the original divine and sempiternal
\nnature of man, must be erroneous and fleeting. Not from the instincts and
\ncustoms of the ape and savage did the glories of religion and virtue arise; they
\nare the perennial light of the concealed godhead revealing themselves ever with
\nclearer lines, with floods of more beautiful rainbow lustre, to culminate at
\nlast in the pure white light of the supreme realisation; when all creatures have
\nbecome our Self and our Self realises its own Unity. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 504<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\n  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Upanishad having posited this Unity which is at once the
\njustification of all religion and morality and the culmination in which religion
\nand morality disappear into something higher than either, proceeds again to sum
\nup and describe the Eternal under this new light. In the fourth verse He has
\nbeen described only as the mighty Force which creates and surrounds all this
\nuniverse; He is now to be described as the mighty Unity which in its
\nunmanifestation is the source of all existence and in its manifestation governs
\nthese innumerable worlds.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\nThis is He that went round, the brightness, unbodied,
\nunscarred, without sinews, pure, untouched by sin; He is the Seer, the Thinker,
\nthe Self-born that pervadeth; He from years sempiternal hath ordered perfectly
\nall things.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nThe verse begins by repeating the position already taken, of
\nthe Lord surrounding all things as a robe surrounds its wearer, creating all
\nthings by the appearance of motion, which is however an appearance, a phenomenon
\nand not a reality of the Eternal. "This is He that went round." In other words,
\nthe whirl of motion which the manifested Eternal set at work created the worlds;
\nHe poured forth from himself as Prajna the Eternal Wisdom and entered and
\nencompassed each thing as He created it. But who is this He? In answering this
\nquestion the Sruti immediately reverts to the neuter gender, because it has to
\ngo back to the luminous Parabrahman who is beyond the idea of sex or
\ncharacteristic. He the Creator of the worlds is in reality That Brightness, the
\nluminous shadow of the Unknowable of which we can only speak in negatives. That
\nhas not a body or form, form being created by Him and therefore this side of
\nHim; He has no scars or imperfections, but is one faultless and perfect light;
\nHe has no sinews or muscles; He is that side of Matter and creation is produced
\nfrom Him not by physical means or<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 505<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nphysical strength and skill, but by the mere flowing forth of
\nhis Shakti or Will. Finally He is not only that side of Matter, but He is that
\nside of Mind also, for He is pure and untouched by evil. It is mind that creates
\nimpurity and evil, by desire which produces duality; but the Eternal is not
\nsubject to desire. What is evil or Sin? It is merely the preference of the more
\ngross to the more subtle, of Tamas to Rajas and of Rajas to Sattwa; it operates
\ntherefore in the sphere of the guṇas <\/i>and the Eternal being above the
\nGunas cannot be touched by Sin. Having established the identity of the Lord who
\ncreates and rules, with the pure luminous Parabrahman, who is neither lord nor
\nsubject, the Sruti describes the Lord in his capacity of the All-wise Governor;
\nHe is the Seer and Poet, who by His illumined inspirations creates as
\nHiranyagarbha the whole world in His own infinite Mind, He is the Thinker,
\nPrajna, the Wise One from whose essential mass of equipoised consciousness all
\nexistence and its laws draw their perennial strength and being and flow forth to
\ntheir works, and He is also that which flows forth. He is Virat, the pervading
\nspirit which enters into all things and encompasses. In all these capacities He
\nis self-born; for He is Prajna who came forth by His own strength from the
\nluminous Parabrahman and is Parabrahman, He is Hiranyagarbha who comes forth by
\nHis own strength from Prajna and is Prajna; He is Virat who comes forth by His
\nown strength from Hiranyagarbha and is Hiranyagarbha. He is the Self born out of
\nthe Self by the Self. In other words all these are merely names of the One
\nSpirit in different aspects or states of universal and infinite consciousness.
\nWhy then is the Lord spoken of, unlike Parabrahman, in the masculine gender?
\nBecause He is now considered in His capacity as the great ruler and ordainer,
\nnot in His capacity as the source from which all things flow. As the source,
\nsubstratum and container of things He is the Trinity,
\nPrajna-Hiranyagarbha-Virat, in whom the Male and Female, Spirit and Matter, the
\nSoul and its Shakti are still one and undivided. He is therefore best spoken of
\nin the neuter. But when we see Him as the Ruler and Ordainer, the Manifested
\nBrahman dealing with a world of phenomena already created, then division has
\ntaken place, the Shakti has gone forth to its works, and the great male Trinity,
\nBrahma-Vishnu-Maheshwara,  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 506<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nfilled with the force of that Shakti are creating, preserving
\nand destroying the countless worlds and the innumerable myriads of their
\ninhabiting forms. Both these Trinities are in reality one Trinity, it is only
\nthe point of view that makes the difference. From this standpoint the Sruti goes
\non then to describe the Lord. He is kavi<\/i>, the great seer and poet <\/i>
\nin the true sense of the word poet; the kavi <\/i>is he who divines things
\nluminously and distinctly by sheer intuition and whose divinations become, by
\ntheir own over-flow, creations. Paramatman as Sat-Brahma-Hiranyagarbha has this
\ndivine quality of poethood, \u2014 which men call the power of creation and it is
\ntherefore that his Shakti is described as Saraswati. Then the Lord is described
\nas manīsī<\/i><\/span>̣<\/span><\/i>, the
\nThinker. It is the thought of the Lord that is the basis or substratum of all
\nthis creation; it is therefore that the inanimate object forms faultlessly, that
\nthe tree grows unerringly, that the animal acts with infallible instinct towards
\nhis dominant needs, that the star moves in its course and the mountain holds to
\nits base. All the creations of the great Kavi would be inconstant in their
\nrelations and clash and collide till they destroyed each other if there were not
\nthis imperative Wisdom, with stability and equipoise as its characteristics,
\nunderlying all things and keeping them to their places, actions and nature. This
\nWisdom, be it noted, is the very nature of things; it is no deliberate
\ninvention, no thing of after\u00adthoughts, adjustments and alterations, but
\nunchangeable and the essential basis of existence from the beginning. Whatever
\nform it take, of gravitation, or of attraction and repulsion, or of evolution,
\nit is an eternal presence and the very nature of the world <\/span>
\n प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म<\/font><\/span>. This power of divine
\ninstinctive thought is one capacity of Paramatman as Chit-Mahadeva-Prajna
\n(Tamas, Sthanu). His other capacity is that of destruction for He is the spirit
\nof immobility to whom the deep sleep of perfect unconditioned thought is the
\nculmination (Chit) and if it were not for the activity of the Kavi in the
\nEternal, if the Thinker in Him were to blot out the Poet, all this pulsating
\nworld of phenomena would be stilled and resolve by inaction into the womb of
\nundetermined condensed existence. Then again He is paribhū<\/i>. He who exists
\nall round, the great pervading Bliss of existence (Ananda). For the works of the
\nPoet even though upheld by the Thinker, could not last, if it were<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 507<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nnot that the bliss of existence poured through all created
\nthings like a stream of heavenly nectar and made life, being, their first
\nimperative need. This is that Will to Live of the German philosopher, which
\nbecause like all Europeans, he could see Truth only in one of her limbs and not
\nas a divine whole, gave so pessimistic a note to his thought. All things are
\nsupported and eternalised by this Bliss, for it is the unchanging and eternal
\nParamatman. Manifesting as the will to live finitely, it must be broadened into
\nthe will to live infinitely in order to fulfil itself and recover its own
\ndeepest and essential nature. We will first to live as individuals, then to live
\nin the family, then to live in the tribe or clan, then to live in the race or
\nnation, then to live in mankind, then to live in the Universe, then to live in
\nGod, the one Eternal; this is the natural evolution of humanity and its course
\nis determined by the very nature of the Self. Science, the Apara Vidya, traces
\nfor us the course and bye-laws of evolution, but it is only the Para Vidya that
\nbases it for us, gives us its reason, source, law and culmination. This Bliss is
\nthe capacity of Vishnu-Virat who is Ananda. By his very existence in all beings
\nthe Lord preserves and saves. Remember that, though you cry out to the Heavens
\nfor help in your misery it is not the blue sky that hears, it is nothing outside
\nyou that comes to save, but He within you alone can protect. Art thou oppressed,
\n0 man, by ogre and giant, by fiend and foeman? Seek His mighty Shakti, Bhavani
\nMahishamardini, in yourself and She will externalise armed with sword and
\ntrident to crush the triumphing Asura. This is the law and the gospel. The Poet,
\nthe Thinker, the Pervading Presence, these three are the Swayambhu, the eternal
\nself-born, who is born by Himself out of HimSelf into HimSelf. The Gods are not
\ndifferent from each other, for they are all one God, and there is no other. This
\nis He who has ordered perfectly from eternal years all things. <\/span>
\nयाथातथ्यत: <\/font><\/span>
\n, each
\nduly as it should be and must be because of its own nature, for the nature of a
\nthing is its origin, its law, its destiny, its end; and harmony with its nature
\nis its perfection. All this mighty universe where various things acting
\naccording to their various natures harmonise and melt into a perfect unity, all
\nthis wonderful King\u00addom of a single Law in its manifold aspects He has ordered,
\n<\/span>
\nव्यदधात्<\/font><\/span>, he has arranged diversely; he has set each thing in its own place, <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 508<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nworking in its own orbit and according to its own
\novermastering and inexorable nature. All this He has done from years eternal,
\nnot in time, not at a particular date and season, but eternally, before Time
\nwas. The Law did not spring into being, but was, is and for ever shall be. The
\nforms of objects, it is true, vary in Time, but the law of their nature is of
\neternal origin. In the act you do today, you are obeying a Law which has existed
\nduring the whole of eternity. Try to realise it, and you will see Time and Space
\nvanishing into Infinity, you will hear the boom of the eternal waters and the
\ngreat voice crying for ever on the waters "Tapas, Tapas", and feel yourself in
\nthe presence of the One unchangeable and eternal God. Maya and her works have no
\nending, because they had no beginning, but the soul of Man can rise above Maya
\nand her works and stand over her and free from her watching her as her master
\nfor whose joy she labours unto all eternity. For verily Man is God and as by his
\nown Will he has cast himself into the illusory bonds of the Enchantress, so by
\nHis own will He can shake off the bonds and rule her. The play of the Soul with
\nthe Maya is the. play of the lover and his beloved, one feigning to be the slave
\nof the other, rejoicing in her favour or weeping at her feet in her anger and
\nnow resuming his rightful role of lord and master, yea, turning away from her at
\nwill to a fairer and more wonderful face; and now Krishna wears the blue dress
\nand shining jewels and now Radha the yellow cloth and fragrant garlands of the
\ngreen wood and the brilliant feather of the peacock; for He is She and She is
\nHe; they are only playing at difference, for in real truth they have been and
\nare one to all Eternity.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nHere then the first part of the Upanishad seems to be ended
\nand some very obscure and disconnected utterances follow.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe utterances of the Upanishad are never disconnected, but
\nthe connection is usually beneath the surface, not openly declared by explicit
\nstatement or grammatical construction. The Upanishad has said that the Eternal
\nhas arranged all objects of the Universe <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 509<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nperfectly from years eternal. Maya therefore is eternal,
\nAvidya is eternal. The question will at once be put, what then of Vidya and
\nAvidya? the Eternal and the Transient? the Is and the Seems to Be ? If Avidya is
\neternal, let us rejoice in her wonders and glories and never strive to escape
\nfrom her bonds. But if Vidya alone be eternal, then is Avidya a curse and a
\nbondage, what have we to do with it, but shake it off with disgust as soon as
\npossible ? These are the extremes of the Materialist and Nihilist, the Charvak
\nand the Sunyavadin; but the Vedanta gives its sanction to neither. The
\nUnconditioned Brahman is, but of the Conditioned also we cannot say that He is
\nnot and the Conditioned Brahman is what we call Maya. Brahman is eternal and
\nMaya therefore is eternal; but the Conditioned Brahman obviously rests on the
\nUnconditioned and cannot be except in Him. As are the reverse and obverse of a
\ncoin, so are the Conditioned and Unconditioned, and the aspirant to Knowledge
\nmust know both and not one only or he will know but little indeed of the true
\nnature of the Eternal.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>s<\/span>tudent<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nThe followers of Adwaita will call this rank heresy. Maya is
\nillusion, unreality and is slain by knowledge, it cannot therefore be eternal.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nt<\/span>he
\n<\/span>g<\/span>uru<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\nYou cannot slay Maya; you can only slay Moha, the illusion of
\nMaya; her you can only conquer and put her under your feet. You remember that
\nShankara after conquering Ubhayabharati, made her living body his āsana<\/i>
\nof meditation; that is the symbol of the Yogi and the wonderful twofold Maya of
\nthe Eternal. He has conquered her and put her beneath him, but it is still upon
\nher that his āsana<\/i> is based even when unconscious of Her and in union
\nwith the Eternal. If this were not so, then the whole of phenomena would cease
\nthe moment a man becomes a Buddha and enters into Nirvana; for he and the
\nEternal are One. If Parabrahman therefore were limited either to Vidya or
\nAvidya, obviously Avidya would cease the moment Vidya began and the salvation of
\none Jivatma would bring about the end of the world<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 510<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n

\nfor all; just as the Christians say that the crucifixion of
\nChrist saved the world. But this is not so. The power of Shakti of Brah\u00adman is
\ntwofold and simultaneous; He is able to exercise Vidya and Avidya at the same
\nmoment; he eternally realises His own transcendental nature, and at the very
\nsame time He realises this wonderful universe of His imagination. He is like a
\ngreat poet who shadows forth a world of His own creation made in Himself and of
\nhimself and yet knows that He is different from it and independent of it. It is
\nfor this reason only that the salvation of a particular Jivatman does not bring
\nthe world to an end. Nor does Shankara really say anything different; for he
\ndoes not assert that Maya is unreal; he says it is a mysterious something of
\nwhich you cannot say that it is and yet you cannot say that it is not. This
\nindeed is the only description that the finite mind can make of this mysterious
\nShakti of the Illimitable, Unconditioned, Unknowable Brahman. Maya in its forms
\nmay be unreal and transitory but Maya in its essence as a Shakti of the Eternal,
\nmust itself be eternal, from of old and for ever.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nNOTE: This text on
\ni<\/span><\/span>shavashyopanishad
\n<\/span>was found among Sri
\nAurobindo’s early manus\u00adcripts. In some places it has been difficult to decipher
\nthe correct word. Since the manus\u00adcript was not revised the sense in a few
\nplaces is not clear. However, the text is not edited and it is printed in its
\navailable form. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 511<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SUPPLEMENT    The Ishavasyopanishad         WITH A COMMENTARY IN ENGLSIH   With God all this must be invested, even all that is world in this…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-12-the-upanishad-volume-12","wpcat-14-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}