First we will take another proposition of these old psycholo

JNÂNA YOGA

PART II

[Illustration: SWÂMI VIVEKÂNANDA]

VEDÂNTA PHILOSOPHY

JNÂNA YOGA

PART II

_SEVEN LECTURES_

BY

SWÂMI VIVEKÂNANDA

PUBLISHED BY

THE VEDÂNTA SOCIETY

135 West 80th Street

NEW YORK

COPYRIGHT, 1907

BY

SWÂMI ABHEDÂNANDA

NEW YORK

THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,

33 EAST 17TH ST.

EDITOR’S PREFACE

The lectures given in this volume were originally delivered by Swâmi

Vivekânanda in New York in the beginning of 1896, and were received

with the greatest enthusiasm. Their purely philosophical character,

however, made it doubtful as to whether they would appeal to the

general public, and for that reason they were not brought out in

book form at once. The great success of the London lectures on Jnâna

Yoga, which were published several years ago and which have already

gone through two editions, now encourages the belief that this series

will meet with an equally favorable reception. The conception of

Jnâna according to Vedânta is a bold and daring one, and reaches the

highest possible ideal, for it teaches the absolute unity of all

existence. As will be easily understood by the students of the former

volume, Jnâna Yoga is purely monistic on the highest spiritual plane.

Speaking about this phase of Vedânta, Prof. Max Müller writes: “None

of our philosophers, not excepting Heraclitus, Plato, Kant, or Hegel

has ventured to erect such a spire, never frightened by storms or

lightnings. Stone follows on stone in regular succession after once the

first step has been made, after once it has been clearly seen that in

the beginning there can have been but One, as there will be but One in

the end, whether we call It Âtman or Brahman.” This may be a difficult

thought for many to grasp at the outset, but it is worth careful

study, and once understood will be a never-failing light to guide the

enquiring soul to the crowning truth of all philosophy.

CONTENTS.

JNÂNA YOGA--PART II.

INTRODUCTION 9

I.

THE SÂNKHYA COSMOLOGY 21

II.

PRAKRITI AND PURUSHA 44

III.

SÂNKHYA AND ADVAITA 69

IV.

THE FREE SOUL 94

V.

ONE EXISTENCE APPEARING AS MANY 121

VI.

UNITY OF THE SELF 141

VII.

THE HIGHEST IDEAL OF JNÂNA YOGA 157

INTRODUCTION

This universe of ours, the universe of the senses, the rational,

the intellectual, is bounded on both sides by the illimitable, the

unknowable, the ever unknown. Herein is the search, herein are the

inquiries, here are the facts, from this comes the light which is known

to the world as religion. Essentially, however, religion belongs to the

supersensuous and not to the sense plane. It is beyond all reasoning

and is not on the plane of intellect. It is a vision, an inspiration, a

plunge into the unknown and unknowable, making the unknowable more than

known, for it can never be “known.” This search has been in the human

mind, as I believe, from the very beginning of humanity. There cannot

have been human reasoning and intellect in any period of the world’s

history without this struggle, this search beyond. In our little

universe, this human mind, we see a thought arise. Whence it arises we

do not know, and when it disappears, where it goes we know not either.

The macrocosm and the microcosm are, as it were, in the same groove,

passing through the same stages, vibrating in the same key.

In these lectures I shall try to bring before you the Hindu theory that

religions do not come from without, but from within. It is my belief

that religious thought is in man’s very constitution, so much so that

it is impossible for him to give up religion until he can give up his

mind and body, until he can give up thought and life. As long as a

man thinks, this struggle must go on, and so long man must have some

form of religion. Thus we see various forms of religion in the world.

It is a bewildering study, but it is not, as many of us think, a vain

speculation. Amidst this chaos there is harmony, throughout these

discordant sounds there is a note of concord, and he who is prepared

to listen to it will catch the tone.

The great question of all questions at the present time is this: Taking

for granted that the known and the knowable are bounded on both sides

by the unknowable and the infinitely unknown, why struggle for that

infinite unknown? Why shall we not be content with the known? Why shall

we not rest satisfied with eating, drinking, and doing a little good to

society? This idea is in the air. From the most learned professor to

the prattling baby, we are told to do good to the world, that is all of

religion, and that it is useless to trouble ourselves about questions

of the beyond. So much is this the case that it has become a truism.

But fortunately we _must_ question the beyond. This present, this

expressed, is only one part of that unexpressed. The sense universe

is, as it were, only one portion, one bit of that infinite spiritual

universe projected into the plane of sense consciousness. How can

this little bit of projection be explained, be understood, without

knowing that which is beyond? It is said of Socrates that one day while

lecturing at Athens, he met a Brahmin who had travelled into Greece,

and Socrates told the Brahmin that the greatest study for mankind is

man. The Brahmin sharply retorted: “How can you know man until you know

God?” This God, this eternally unknowable, or absolute, or infinite,

or without name,--you may call Him by what name you like,--is the

rational, the only explanation, the _raison d’être_ of that which

is known and knowable, this present life. Take anything before you,

the most material thing; take one of the most material sciences, as

chemistry or physics, astronomy or biology, study it, push the study

forward and forward, and the gross forms will begin to melt and become

finer and finer, until they come to a point where you are bound to make

a tremendous leap from these material things into the immaterial.

The gross melts into the fine, physics into metaphysics, in every

department of knowledge.

Thus man finds himself driven to a study of the beyond. Life will be

a desert, human life will be vain if we cannot know the beyond. It is

very well to say: Be contented with the things of the present; the cows

and the dogs are, and all animals, and that is what makes them animals.

So if man rests content with the present and gives up all search into

the beyond, mankind will have to go back to the animal plane again. It

is religion, the inquiry into the beyond, that makes the difference

between man and an animal. Well has it been said that man is the only

animal that naturally looks upwards; every other animal naturally looks

prone. That looking upward and going upward and seeking perfection are

what is called salvation, and the sooner a man begins to go higher, the

sooner he raises himself towards this idea of truth as salvation. It

does not consist in the amount of money in your pocket, or the dress

you wear, or the house you live in, but in the wealth of spiritual

thought in your brain. That is what makes for human progress, that is

the source of all material and intellectual progress, the motive power

behind, the enthusiasm that pushes mankind forward.

Religion does not live in bread, does not dwell in a house. Again and

again you hear this objection advanced, “What good can religion do? Can

it take away the poverty of the poor”? Supposing it cannot, would that

prove the untruth of religion? Suppose a baby stands up among you when

you are trying to demonstrate an astronomical theorem, and says: “Does

it bring gingerbread?” “No, it does not,” you answer. “Then,” says the

baby, “it is useless.” Babies judge the whole universe from their own

standpoint, that of producing gingerbread, and so are the babies of

the world. We must not judge of higher things from a low standpoint.

Everything must be judged by its own standard and the infinite must be

judged by an infinite standard. Religion permeates the whole of man’s

life, not only the present, but the past, present, and future. It is

therefore the eternal relation between the eternal soul and the eternal

God. Is it logical to measure its value by its action upon five minutes

of human life? Certainly not. These are all negative arguments.

Now comes the question, can religion really accomplish anything? It

can. It brings to man eternal life. It has made man what he is and

will make of this human animal a god. That is what religion can do.

Take religion from human society and what will remain? Nothing but a

forest of brutes. Sense-happiness is not the goal of humanity; wisdom

(Jnânam) is the goal of all life. We find that man enjoys his intellect

more than an animal enjoys its senses, and we see that man enjoys his

spiritual nature even more than his rational nature. So the highest

wisdom must be this spiritual knowledge. With this knowledge will

come bliss. All these things of this world are but the shadows, the

manifestations in the third or fourth degree of the real Knowledge and

Bliss.

One question more: What is the goal? Nowadays it is asserted that

man is infinitely progressing, forward and forward, and there is no

goal of perfection to attain to. Ever approaching, never attaining,

whatever that may mean and however wonderful it may be, it is absurd

on the face of it. Is there any motion in a straight line? A straight

line infinitely projected becomes a circle, it returns to the starting

point. You must end where you begin, and as you began in God, you must

go back to God. What remains? Detail work. Through eternity you have to

do the detail work.

Yet another question. Are we to discover new truths of religion as we

go on? Yea and nay. In the first place we cannot know anything more

of religion, it has all been known. In all the religions of the world

you will find it claimed that there is a unity within us. Being one

with divinity, there cannot be any further progress in that sense.

Knowledge means finding this unity. I see you as men and women, and

this is variety. It becomes scientific knowledge when I group you

together and call you human beings. Take the science of chemistry, for

instance. Chemists are seeking to resolve all known substances into

their original elements and if possible to find the one element from

which all these were derived. The time may come when they will find one

element that is the source of all other elements. Reaching that, they

can go no farther; the science of chemistry will have become perfect.

So it is with the science of religion. If we can discover this perfect

unity, there cannot be any farther progress.

The next question is can such a unity be found? In India the attempt

has been made from the earliest times to reach a science of religion

and philosophy, for the Hindus do not separate these as is customary in

Western countries. We regard religion and philosophy as but two aspects

of one thing which must equally be grounded in reason and scientific

truth. In the lectures that are to follow I shall try to explain to

you first the system of the _Sânkhya_ philosophy, one of the most

ancient in India, or in fact in the world. Its great exponent Kapila

is the father of all Hindu psychology and the ancient system that he

taught is still the foundation of all accepted systems of philosophy in

India to-day,--which are known as the _Dârsanas_. They all adopt his

psychology, however widely they differ in other respects.

Next I shall endeavor to show you how Vedânta, as the logical outcome

of the _Sânkhya_, pushes its conclusions yet farther. While its

cosmology agrees with that taught by Kapila, the Vedânta is not

satisfied to end in dualism, but continues its search for the final

unity which is alike the goal of science and religion. To make clear

the manner in which the task is accomplished will be the effort of the

later lectures in this course.

I

THE SÂNKHYA COSMOLOGY

Here are two words, the microcosm and the macrocosm, the internal and

the external. We get truths from both of these by means of experience;

there is internal experience and external experience. The truths

gathered from internal experience are psychology, metaphysics and

religion; from external experience the physical sciences. Now a perfect

truth should be in harmony with experience in both these worlds. The

microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm, and the macrocosm

to the microcosm; physical truth must have its counterpart in the

internal world, and the internal world must have its verification in

the outside. Yet as a rule we find that many of these truths are

constantly conflicting. At one period of the world’s history the

“internals” became supreme, and they began to fight the “externals;”

at the present time the “externals,” the physicists, have become

supreme, and they have put down many claims of the psychologists and

metaphysicians. So far as my little knowledge goes, I find that the

really essential parts of psychology are in perfect accordance with the

essential parts of modern physical knowledge.

It is not given to every individual to be great in every respect; it

is not given to the same race, or nation, to be equally strong in the

research of all the fields of knowledge. The modern European nations

are very strong in their researches into external physical knowledge,

but the ancient Europeans were weak in their researches into the

internal part of man. On the other hand, the Orientals have not been

very strong in their researches in the external physical world, but

have excelled in their researches into the internal, and therefore

we find that some of the Oriental theories are not in accordance with

Occidental physics, neither is Occidental psychology in harmony with

Oriental teachings on this subject. The Oriental physicists have been

criticised by Occidental scientists. At the same time each rests on

truth, and, as we stated before, real truth in any field of knowledge

will not contradict itself, the truths internal are in harmony with the

truths external.

We know the present theories of the Cosmos according to the modern

astronomers and physicists, and at the same time we know how wofully

they hurt the old school of theologians, and how every new scientific

discovery that is made is as a bomb thrown into their house, and how

they have attempted in every age to put down all these researches.

In the first place, let us go over the psychological and scientific

ideas of the Orientals as to cosmology and all that pertains to it,

and you will find how wonderfully it is in accordance with all the

latest discoveries of modern science, and when there is anything

lacking you will find that it is on the side of modern science. We

all use the word Nature, and the old Hindu philosophers called it

by two different names, _Prakriti_, which is almost the same as the

English word “nature,” and by the more scientific name, _Avyaktam_

(“undifferentiated”), from which everything proceeds, out of which come

atoms and molecules, matter and force, and mind and intellect. It is

startling to find that the philosophers and metaphysicians of India

ages ago stated that mind is but matter in a finer form, for what are

our present materialists striving to do but to show that mind is as

much a product of nature as the body? And so is thought; and we shall

find by and by that the intellect also comes from the same nature which

is called _avyaktam_, the undifferentiated.

The ancient teachers define _avyaktam_ as the “equilibrium of the

three forces,” one of which is called _Sattva_, the second _Rajas_ and

the third _Tamas_. _Tamas_, the lowest force, is that of attraction,

a little higher is _Rajas_, that of repulsion, and the highest is

the control of these two, _Sattva_, so that when the two forces,

attraction and repulsion, are held in perfect control, or balance, by

the _Sattva_, there is no creation, no movement; but as soon as this

equilibrium is lost, the balance is disturbed and one of these forces

gets stronger than the other. Then change and motion begin and all

this evolution goes on. This state of things is going on cyclically,

periodically; that is to say, there is a period of disturbance of the

balance, when all these forces begin to combine and recombine, and this

universe is projected; and there is also a period when everything has

a tendency to revert to the primal state of equilibrium, and the time

comes when a total absence of all manifestation is reached. Again,

after a period, the whole thing is disturbed, projected outward,

again it slowly comes out in the form of waves; for all motion in this

universe is in the form of waves, successive rise and fall.

Some of these old philosophers taught that the whole universe quiets

down for a period; others maintained that this quieting down applies

only to systems. That is to say, that while our system here, this

solar system, will quiet down and go back into that undifferentiated

state, there are millions of other systems going the other way. I

should rather follow the second opinion, that this quieting down is

not simultaneous over the whole universe, but that in different parts

different things are going on. But the principle remains the same,

that all that we see, that Nature herself is progressing in successive

rises and falls. The one stage, going back to the balance, to the

perfect equilibrium, is called the end of a cycle. The whole _Kalpa_,

the evolution and the involution, has been compared by theistic writers

in India to the inbreathing and outbreathing of God; God, as it were,

breathes out the universe, and it returns into Him again. When it

quiets down, what becomes of the universe? It still exists, only in

finer form, as it is called in Sanskrit, in the “causal state” (_Kârana

Sarira_). Causation, time and space are still there, only they are

potential. This return to an undifferentiated condition constitutes

involution. Involution and evolution are eternally going on, so that

when we speak of a beginning, we refer only to the beginning of a cycle.

The most extraneous part of the universe is what in modern times

we call gross matter. The ancient Hindus called it the _Bhutas_,

the external elements. There is one element which according to them

is eternal; every other element is produced out of this one, and

this eternal element is called _Âkâsa_. It is somewhat similar to

the modern idea of ether, though not exactly the same. This is the

primal element out of which everything proceeds, and along with this

element there was something called _Prâna_: we shall see what it is

as we go on. This _prâna_ and this _âkâsa_ eternally exist, and they

combine and recombine and form all manifestation. Then at the end

of the cycle everything subsides and goes back to the unmanifested

form of _âkâsa_ and _prâna_. There is in the Rig Veda, the oldest

scriptures in existence, a beautiful passage describing creation, and

it is most poetical--“When there was neither ought nor nought, when

darkness was rolling over darkness, what existed?” and the answer is

given, “It (the Eternal One) then existed without motion.” _Prâna_ and

_âkâsa_ were latent in that Eternal One, but there was no phenomenal

manifestation. This state is called _Avyaktam_, which literally means

“without vibration,” or unmanifested. At the beginning of a new cycle

of evolution, this _avyaktam_ begins to vibrate and blow after blow

is given by _prâna_ to the _âkâsa_. This causes condensation and

gradually, through the forces of attraction and repulsion, atoms are

formed. These in turn condense into molecules and finally into the

different elements of Nature.

We generally find these things very curiously translated; people do

not go to the ancient philosophers or to their commentators for their

translation and have not learning enough to understand for themselves.

They translate the elements as “air,” “fire,” and so on. If they would

go to the commentators they would find that they do not mean anything

of the sort. The _âkâsa_, made to vibrate by the repeated blows of

_prâna_, produces _vâyu_ or the vibratory state of the _âkâsa_, which

in turn produces gaseous matter. The vibrations growing more and more

rapid generate heat, which in Sanskrit is called _tejas_. Gradually it

is cooled off and the gaseous substance becomes solid, _prithivi_. We

had first _âkâsa_, then came heat, then it became liquified, and when

still more condensed appeared as solid matter. It goes back to the

unmanifested condition in exactly the reverse way. The solids will be

converted into liquid and the liquid into a mass of heat, that will

slowly go back into the gaseous state, disintegration of atoms will

begin, finally equilibrium of all forces will be reached, vibration

will stop and the cycle of evolution which in Sanskrit is called

_Kalpa_ is at an end. We know from modern astronomy that this earth and

sun of ours are undergoing the same transitions, this solid earth will

melt down and become liquid once more, and will eventually go back to

the gaseous state.

_Prâna_ cannot work alone without the help of _âkâsa_. All that we

know is that motion or vibration and every movement that we see is a

modification of this _prâna_, and everything that we know in the form

of matter, either as form or as resistance, is a modification of this

_âkâsa_. This _prâna_ cannot exist alone, or act without a medium, but

in every state of it, whether as pure _prâna_, or when it changes into

other forces of nature, say gravitation or centrifugal attraction, it

can never be separate from _âkâsa_. You have never seen force without

matter or matter without force; what we call force and matter being

simply the gross manifestations of these same things, which, when

superfine, we call _prâna_ and _âkâsa_. _Prâna_ you can call in English

the life, or vital energy, but you must not restrict it to the life

of man, nor should you identify it with the spirit, _Âtman_. Creation

is without beginning and without end; it cannot have either, it is an

eternal on-going.

The next question that comes is rather a fine one. Some European

philosophers have asserted that this world exists because “I” exist,

and if “I” do not exist, the world will not exist. Sometimes it is

expressed in this way; they say, if all the people in the world were to

die, and there were no more human beings, and no animals with powers of

perception and intelligence, all manifestations would disappear. It

seems paradoxical, but gradually we shall see clearly that this can be

proved. But these European philosophers do not know the psychology of

it, although they know the principle; modern philosophy has got only a

glimpse of it.

First we will take another proposition of these old psychologists which

is rather startling, that the grossest elements are the _bhutas_, but

that all gross things are the results of fine ones. Everything that is

gross is composed of a combination of minute things, so the _bhutas_

must be composed of certain fine particles, called in Sanskrit the

_tanmâtras_. I smell a flower; to smell that, something must come in

contact with my nose; the flower is there and I do not see it move

towards me; but without something coming in contact with my nose I

cannot smell the flower. That which comes from the flower and into

contact with my nose are the _tanmâtras_, fine molecules of that

flower, so fine that no diminution can be perceived in the flower.

So with heat, light, sight, and everything. These _tanmâtras_ can

again be subdivided into atoms. Different philosophers have different

theories, and we know these are only theories, so we leave them out

of discussion. Sufficient for us that everything gross is composed of

things that are very, very minute. We first get the gross elements,

which we feel externally, and composing them are the fine elements,

which our organs touch, which come in contact with the nerves of the

nose, eyes and ears. That ethereal wave which touches my eyes, I cannot

see, yet I know it must come in contact with my optic nerve before I

can see the light. So with hearing, we can never see the particles that

come in contact with our ears, but we know that they must be there.

What is the cause of these _tanmâtras_? A very startling and curious

answer is given by our psychologists,--self-consciousness. That is the

cause of these fine materials, and the cause of the organs. What are

these organs? Here is first the eye, but the eye does not see. If the

eyes did see, when a man is dead, and his eyes are still perfect, they

would still be able to see. There is some change somewhere; something

has gone out of the man, and that something, which really sees, of

which the eye is the instrument, is called the organ. So this nose

is an instrument, and there is an organ corresponding to it. Modern

physiology can tell you what that is, a nerve centre in the brain. The

eyes, ears, etc., are simply the external instruments. It may be said

that the organs, _Indriyas_, as they are called in Sanskrit, are the

real seats of perception.

What is the use of having one organ for the nose, and one for the eyes,

and so on? Why will not one serve the purpose? To make it clear to

you,--I am talking, and you are listening, and you do not see what is

going on around you because the mind has attached itself to the organ

of hearing, and has detached itself from the sight organ. If there were

only one organ the mind would hear and see at the same time, it would

see and hear and smell at the same time, and it would be impossible

for it not to do all three at the same time. Therefore it is necessary

that there should be separate organs for all these centres. This has

been borne out by modern physiology. It is certainly possible for us to

see and hear at the same time, but that is because the mind attaches

itself partially to both centres, which are the organs. What are the

instruments? We see that these are really made of the gross materials.

Here they are,--eyes, nose, and ears, etc. What are the organs? They

are also made of materials, because they are centres. Just as this body

is composed of gross material for transforming _prâna_ into different

gross forces, so these finer organs behind, are composed of the fine

elements, for the manufacture of _prâna_ into the finer forces of

perception and all kindred things. All these organs or _indriyas_

combined, plus the internal instrument or _antahkarana_, are called

the finer body of man,--the _linga_ (or _sûkshma_) _sarira_.

It has a real form, because everything material must have a form.

Behind the _indriyas_ is what is called the _manas_, the _chitta_ in

_vritti_, what might be called the vibratory state of the mind, the

unsettled state. If you throw a stone into a calm lake, first there

will be vibration, and then resistance. For a moment the water will

vibrate and then it will react on the stone. So, when any impression

comes on the _chitta_, or “mind stuff,” it vibrates a little. This

state of the mind is called the _manas_. Then comes the reaction, the

will. There is another thing behind this will which accompanies all

the acts of the mind, which is called egoism, the _ahamkâra_, the

self-consciousness, which says “I am,” and behind that is what is

called _Buddhi_, the intellect, the highest form of nature’s existence.

Behind the intellect is the true Self of man, the _Purusha_, the pure,

the perfect, who is alone the seer, and for whom is all this change.

The Purusha is looking on at all these changes; he himself is never

impure; but by implication, what the Vedantists call _adhyâsam_, by

reflection, he appears to be impure. It is like a red flower held

before a piece of crystal; the crystal will look red; or a blue

flower and the crystal will look blue; and yet the crystal itself

is colorless. We will take for granted that there are many selves;

each self is pure and perfect, but it is all these various divisions

of gross matter and fine matter that are imposing on the self, and

making it variously colored. Why is nature doing all this? Nature is

undergoing all these changes for the improvement of the soul; all this

creation is for the benefit of the soul, so that it may be free. This

immense book which we call the universe is stretched before man so that

he may read, and come out, as an omniscient and omnipotent being. I

must here tell you that some of our best psychologists do not believe

in a personal God in the sense in which you believe in Him. The real

father of our psychologists, Kapila, denies the existence of God as a

Creator. His idea is that a personal God is quite unnecessary; Nature

itself is sufficient to work out all that is good. What is called the

“Design” theory he repudiated, and said a more childish theory was

never advanced. But he admits a peculiar kind of God; he says we are

all struggling to get free, and when man becomes free he can, as it

were, melt away into Nature for the time being, only to come out at the

beginning of the next cycle and be its ruler; come out an omniscient

and omnipotent being. In that sense he can be called God; you and I and

the humblest beings will be gods in different cycles. Kapila says such

a God will be temporal, but an eternal God, eternally omnipotent and

eternally ruler of the universe, cannot be. If there were such a God,

there would be this difficulty: he must either be bound or free. A God

who is perfectly free would not create; there would be no necessity.

If he were bound, he would not create because he could not, he would

be weak himself. So, in either case, there cannot be an omnipotent or

omniscient eternal ruler. So wherever the word God is mentioned in our

Scriptures, Kapila says it means those perfected souls who have become

free. The _Sânkhya_ system does not believe in the unity of all souls.

Vedânta believes that all individual souls are united in one cosmic

Being called _Brahman_, but Kapila, the founder of the _Sânkhya_, was

dualistic. His analysis of the universe so far as it goes is really

marvellous. He was the father of Hindu evolutionists, and all the later

philosophical systems are simply outcomes of his thought.

According to this system all souls will regain their freedom and

their natural rights, which are omnipotence and omniscience. Here

the question may be asked, whence is this bondage of the souls? The

_Sânkhya_ says it is without beginning, but if it be without beginning

it must also be without end, and we shall never be free. Kapila

explains that this “without beginning” means not in a constant line.

Nature is without beginning and without end, but not in the same sense

as is the soul, because Nature has no individuality, just as a river

flowing by us is every moment getting a fresh body of water, and the

sum total of all these bodies of water is the river, so the river is

not a constant quantity. Similarly everything in Nature is constantly

changing, but the soul never changes. Therefore as Nature is always

changing, it is possible for the soul to come out of its bondage. One

theory of the _Sânkhya_ is peculiar to this psychology. The whole

of the universe is built upon the same plan as one single man, or

one little being; so, just as I have a mind, there is also a cosmic

mind. When this macrocosm evolves there must be first intelligence,

then egoism, then the _tanmâtras_ and the organs, and then the gross

elements. The whole universe according to Kapila is one body, all that

we see are the grosser bodies, and behind these are the finer bodies,

and behind them, a universal egoism, and behind that a universal

Intelligence, but all this is _in_ Nature, all this is manifestation

of Nature, not outside of Nature. Each one of us is a part of that

cosmic consciousness. There is a sum-total of intelligence out of

which we draw what we require, so there is a sum-total of mental force

in the universe out of which we are drawing eternally, but the seed

for the body must come from the parents. The theory includes heredity

and reincarnation too. The material is given to the soul out of which

to manufacture a body, but that material is given by hereditary

transmission from the parents.

We come now to that proposition that in this process there is an

involution and an evolution. All is evolved out of that indiscreet

Nature; and then is involved again and becomes _Avyaktam_. It is

impossible, according to the _Sânkhyas_, for any material thing to

exist, which has not as its material some portion of consciousness.

Consciousness is the material out of which all manifestation is made.

The elucidation of this comes in our next lecture, but I will show how

it can be proved. I do not know this table as it is, but it makes an

impression; it comes to the eyes, then to the _indriyas_, and then to

the mind; the mind then reacts, and that reaction is what I call the

table. It is just the same as throwing a stone into a lake; the lake

throws a wave against the stone; this wave is what we know. The waves

coming out are all we know. In the same way the fashion of this wall

is in my mind; what is external nobody knows; when I want to know it,

it has to become that material which I furnish; I, with my own mind,

have furnished the material for my eyes, and the something which is

outside is only the occasion, the suggestion, and upon that suggestion

I project my mind, and it takes the form of what I see. The question

is, how do we all see the same things? Because we all have a part of

this cosmic mind. Those who have mind will see the thing, and those who

have not will not see it. This goes to show that since this universe

has existed there has never been a want of mind, of that one cosmic

mind. Every human being, every animal, is also furnished out of that

cosmic mind, because it is always present and furnishing material for

their formation.

II

PRAKRITI AND PURUSHA

We will take up the categories we have been discussing and come to the

particulars. If we remember we started with _Prakriti_, or Nature.

This Nature is called by the _Sânkhya_ philosophers indiscrete or

inseparate, which is defined as perfect balance of the materials in it;

and it naturally follows that in perfect balance there cannot be any

motion. All that we see, feel, and hear is simply a compound of motion

and matter. In the primal state, before this manifestation, where there

was no motion, perfect balance, this _Prakriti_ was indestructible,

because decomposition comes only with limitation. Again, according to

the _Sânkhya_, atoms are not the primal state. This universe does not

come out of atoms, they may be the secondary, or tertiary state. The

original matter may compound into atoms, which in turn compound into

greater and greater things, and as far as modern investigations go,

they rather point towards that. For instance, in the modern theory

of ether, if you say ether is also atomic, that will not solve the

proposition at all. To make it clearer, say that air is composed

of atoms, and we know that ether is everywhere, interpenetrating,

omnipresent, and these atoms are floating, as it were, in ether. If

ether again be composed of atoms, there will still be some space

between two atoms of ether. What fills up that? And again there will

be another space between the atoms of that which fills up this space.

If you propose that there is another ether still finer you must still

have something to fill that space, and so it will be _regressus in

infinitum_, what the _Sânkhya_ philosophers call _anavasthâ_,--never

reaching a final conclusion. So the atomic theory cannot be final.

According to the _Sânkhyas_ this Nature is omnipresent, one omnipresent

mass of Nature in which are the causes of everything that exists. What

is meant by cause? Cause is the more subtle state of the manifested

state, the unmanifested state of that which becomes manifested.

What do you mean by destruction? It is reverting to the cause,--the

materials out of which a body is composed go back into their original

state. Beyond this idea of destruction, any idea such as annihilation,

is on the face of it absurd. According to modern physical sciences,

it can be demonstrated that all destruction means that which Kapila

called ages ago “reverting to the causal state.” Going back to the

finer form is all that is meant by destruction. You know how it can

be demonstrated in a laboratory that matter is indestructible. Those

of you who have studied chemistry will know that if you burn a candle

and put a caustic pencil inside a glass tube beneath the candle,

when the candle has burned away, if you take the caustic pencil out

of the tube and weigh it, you will find that the pencil will weigh

exactly its previous weight, plus the weight of the candle,--the candle

became finer and finer, and went on to the caustic. So that in this

present stage of our knowledge, if any man claims that anything becomes

annihilated, he is only making himself absurd. It is only uneducated

people who would advance such a proposition, and it is curious that

modern knowledge coincides with what those old philosophers taught. The

ancients proceeded in their inquiry by taking up mind as the basis;

they analyzed the mental part of this universe and came to certain

conclusions, while modern science is analyzing the physical part, and

it also comes to the same conclusions. Both analyses must lead to the

same truth.

You must remember that the first manifestation of this _Prakriti_ in

the cosmos is what the _Sânkhyas_ called _Mahat_. We may call it

universal intelligence, the great principle; that is the literal

meaning. The first manifestation of _Prakriti_ is this intelligence;

I would not translate it by self-consciousness, because that would

be wrong. Consciousness is only a part of this intelligence,

which is universal. It covers all the grounds of consciousness,

sub-consciousness and super-consciousness. In Nature, for instance,

certain changes are going on before your eyes which you see and

understand, but there are other changes so much finer that no human

perception can catch them. They are from the same cause, the same

_Mahat_ is making these changes. There are other changes, beyond

the reach of our mind or reasoning, all this series of changes is

in this _Mahat_. You will understand it better when I come to the

individual. Out of this _Mahat_ comes the universal egoism, and these

are both material. There is no difference between matter and mind

save in degree. It is the same substance in finer or grosser form;

one changes into the other, and this will exactly coincide with the

modern physiological research, and it will save you from a great deal

of fighting and struggling to believe that you have a mind separate

from the brain, and all such impossible things. This substance called

_Mahat_ changes into the material egoism, the fine state of matter,

and that egoism changes into two varieties. In one variety it changes

into the organs. Organs are of two kinds--organs of sensation and

organs of reaction. They are not the eyes or nose, but something finer,

what you call brain centres, and nerve centres. This egoism becomes

changed, and out of this material are manufactured these centres and

these nerves. Out of the same substance, the egoism, is manufactured a

yet finer form, the _tanmâtras_, fine particles of matter, those for

instance which strike your nose and cause you to smell. You cannot

perceive these fine particles, you can only know that they are there.

These _tanmâtras_ are manufactured out of that egoism, and out of

these _tanmâtras_, or subtle matter, is manufactured the gross matter,

air, water, earth, and all the things that we see and feel. I want

to impress this on your mind. It is very hard to grasp it, because,

in Western countries, the ideas are so queer about mind and matter.

It is hard to take these impressions out of our brains. I myself had

a tremendous difficulty, being educated in Western philosophy in

my childhood. These are all cosmic things. Think of this universal

extension of matter, unbroken, one substance, undifferentiated, which

is the first state of everything, and which begins to change just as

milk becomes curd, and it is changed into another substance called

_Mahat_, which in one state manifests as intelligence and in another

state as egoism. It is the same substance, and it changes into the

grosser matter called egoism; thus is the whole universe itself

built, as it were, layer after layer; first undifferentiated Nature

(_Avyaktam_), and that changes into universal intelligence (_Mahat_),

and that again is changed into universal egoism (_Ahamkâra_), and

that changes into universal sensible matter. That matter changes into

universal sense-organs, again changes into universal fine particles,

and these in turn combine and become this gross universe. This is the

cosmic plan, according to the _Sânkhyas_, and what is in the cosmos or

macrocosm, must be in the individual or microcosm.

Take an individual man. He has first a part of undifferentiated

nature in him, and that material nature in him becomes changed into

_mahat_, a small particle of the universal intelligence, and that

small particle of the universal intelligence in him becomes changed

into egoism--a particle of the universal egoism. This egoism in turn

becomes changed into the sense-organs, and out of these sense-organs

come the _tanmâtras_, and out of them he combines and manufactures his

world, as a body. I want this to be clear, because it is the first

stepping stone to Vedânta, and it is absolutely necessary for you to

know, because this is the philosophy of the whole world. There is no

philosophy in the world that is not indebted to Kapila, the founder

of this _Sânkhya_ system. Pythagoras came to India and studied his

philosophy and carried some of these ideas to the Greeks. Later it

formed the Alexandrian school, and still later formed the basis of

Gnostic philosophy. It became divided into two parts; one went to

Europe and Alexandria, and the other remained in India, and became the

basis of all Hindu philosophy, for out of it the system of Vyâsa was

developed. This was the first rational system that the world saw, this

system of Kapila. Every metaphysician in the world must pay homage

to him. I want to impress on your mind that as the great father of

philosophy, we are bound to listen to him, and respect what he said.

This wonderful man, most ancient of philosophers, is mentioned even

in the Vedas. How wonderful his perceptions were! If there is any

proof required of the power of the Yogis to perceive things beyond the

range of the ordinary senses, such men are the proofs. How could they

perceive them? They had no microscopes, or telescopes. How fine their

perception was, how perfect their analysis and how wonderful!

To revert again to the microcosm, man. As we have seen, he is

built on exactly the same plan. First the nature is “indiscrete”

or perfectly balanced, then it becomes disturbed, and action sets

in and the first change produced by that action is what is called

_mahat_,--intelligence. Now you see this intelligence in man is just

a particle of the cosmic intelligence,--the _Mahat_. Out of it comes

self-consciousness, and from this the sensory and the motor nerves,

and the finer particles out of which the gross body is manufactured.

I will here remark that there is one difference between Schopenhauer

and Vedânta. Schopenhauer says the desire, or will, is the cause of

everything. It is the will to exist that makes us manifest, but the

Advaitists deny this. They say it is the intelligence. There cannot be

a single particle of will which is not a reaction. So many things are

beyond will. It is only a manufactured something out of the ego, and

the ego is a product of something still higher, the intelligence, and

that is a modification of “indiscrete” Nature, or _Prakriti_.

It is very important to understand this _mahat_ in man,--the

intelligence. This intelligence itself is modified into what we call

egoism, and this intelligence is the cause of all these motions in the

body. This covers all the grounds of sub-consciousness, consciousness

and super-consciousness. What are these three states? The sub-conscious

state we find in animals, what we call instinct. This is nearly

infallible, but very limited. Instinct almost never fails. An animal

instinctively knows a poisonous herb from an edible one, but its

instinct is limited to one or two things; it works like a machine. Then

comes the higher state of knowledge, which is fallible, makes mistakes

often, but has a larger scope, although it is slow, and this you call

reason. It is much larger than instinct, but there are more dangers of

mistake in reasoning than in instinct. There is a still higher state

of the mind, the super-conscious, which belongs only to the Yogis,

men who have cultivated it. This is as infallible as instinct, and

still more unlimited than reason. It is the highest state. We must

remember that in man this _mahat_ is the real cause of all that is

here, that which is manifesting itself in various ways, covers the

whole ground of sub-conscious, conscious and super-conscious states,

the three states in which knowledge exists. So in the Cosmos, this

universal Intelligence, _Mahat_, exists as instinct, as reason, and as

super-reason.

Now comes a delicate question, which is always being asked. If a

perfect God created the universe, why is there imperfection in it?

What we call the universe is what we see, and that is only this little

plane of consciousness or reason, and beyond that we do not see at all.

Now the very question is an impossible one. If I take up only a bit

out of a mass and look at it, it seems to be imperfect. Naturally. The

universe seems imperfect because we make it so. How? What is reason?

What is knowledge? Knowledge is finding associations. You go into the

street and see a man, and know it is a man. You have seen many men, and

each one has made an impression on your mind, and when you now see this

man, you calmly refer to your store of impressions, see many pictures

of men there, and you put this new one with the rest, pigeon-hole it

and are satisfied. When a new impression comes and it has associations

in your mind, you are satisfied, and this state of association is

called knowledge. Knowledge is, therefore, pigeon-holing one experience

with the already existing fund of experience, and this is one of the

great proofs that you cannot have any knowledge until you have already

a fund in existence. If you are without experience, or if, as some

European philosophers think, the mind is a _tabula rasa_, it cannot get

any knowledge, because the very fact of knowledge is the recognition

of the new by comparison with already existing impressions. There must

be a store ready to which to refer a new impression. Suppose a child

is born into this world without such a fund, it would be impossible

for him to get any knowledge. Therefore the child must have been in a

state in which he had a fund, and so knowledge is eternally going on.

Show me any way of getting out of this. It is mathematical experience.

This is very much like the Spencerian and other philosophies. They

have seen so far that there cannot be any knowledge without a fund of

past knowledge. They have drawn out the idea that the child is born

with knowledge. They say that the cause has entered the effect. It

comes in a subtle form in order to be developed. These philosophers say

that these impressions with which the child comes, are not from the

child’s own past, but were in his forefathers’; that it is hereditary

transmission. Very soon they are going to find this theory untenable,

and some of them are now giving hard blows to these ideas of heredity.

Heredity is very good, but incomplete. It only explains the physical

side. How do you explain the influence of environment? Many causes

produce one effect. Environment is one of the modifying causes. On the

other hand we in turn make our own environment, because as our past

was, so we find our present. In other words, we are what we are here

and now, because of what we have been in the past.