Philosophy and Religion / Arthur Avalon: Mahamaya

Sir John Woodroffe and Pramatha Natha Mukhyopadhyaya

Mahamaya. The World As Power: Power As Consciousness (Chit-Shakti)

Chapter VI. Consciousness and Reality

The fact which in Vedanta is absolutely beyond doubt is not exactly, as Descartes thought, “I think” but the indefinable universe of experience of which ‘I think’ is a logical—and by no means an inseparable, adequate and complete—treatment and description, that is, limitation. It is a logical representation of what is presented as alogical. Remembering the definition of Fact given before, we may say therefore, that Fact or Experience is, Reality. This Reality is defined as absolutely doubtless¹ Being-Experience. By “Being-Experience” is meant an experience which does not discriminate between Thought’ and Thing,’ and which feels those two aspects or ‘poles’ as identical. It is the alogical Whole² which may, and often does, involve these and many other aspects or poles, but is not partitioned into, and expressible in terms of, aspects or poles. Intuition of the total universe of experience which we have “at any moment” (without our commonly recognising, however, that we have it, because we are pragmatic and partial) will it is said readily prove that such experience is both being and experience, and absolutely doubtless and undeniable being and experience. This indefinable³ Whole of experience is and it is Consciousness—that is it is Being⁴ and Consciousness⁵ undistinguishably given.⁶ This Whole of experience is neither metaphysical nor physical, neither transcendental nor empirical,⁷and yet it is all. It is the Given which may or may not, at any given moment, involve these and other correlate aspects; and which, under logical operation, yields these and such other aspects.

To be absolute or perfect Reality, Experience must be perfect in the sense of the Whole.⁸ That is to say, it must be taken as Supreme Aspect⁹ which involves and yet transcends all particular varied aspects¹⁰ and pure or undifferentiated.¹¹ To narrow Experience down to either of the subordinate aspects is to cut down the perfectness of Reality—is to make Reality relatively real. This is the root of the matter.

Thus, suppose, we define with Mayavada Vedanta Reality¹² as Consciousness¹³ in its pure aspect,¹⁴ because this aspect persists in and through all states of experience, and is never effaced or cancelled,¹⁵ and because the other aspect is one of incessant change or flux. We have seen that Pure Consciousness¹⁶ or “Ether of Consciousness”¹⁷ is an inalienable feature of experience in all its states and forms. If therefore Reality is unchanging persistence or ineffaceable being, then Pure Consciousness¹⁸ is Reality. But, then, how can we be sure that this alone is Reality in the sense of ineffaceable being? It is true that Consciousness in the other aspect is stressing and changing; that the consciousness of this moment is not that of the next; and that possibly in ecstasy¹⁹ or in the “fourth”²⁰ state the stressing and changing aspect may altogether vanish and the pure and quiescent aspect alone may remain. The world of name and form has by some been likened to an hypnotic suggestion,²¹ a dream, an illusion, so that with the passing of this suggestion or dream, pure, changeless and aspectless Chit alone abides. Let it be granted for the sake of argument that this may be so. But if Chit thus always abides, so also does Chit as Power—that is, Power to be and appear in and as different aspects.²² If Chit changelessly persists in all the states by its own Power (and we have seen that to be or to persist is of the essence of Power), it also changes or stresses by its own Power; and in fact, to change and persist while changing (it may be as Mayavada says, apparently), and in ecstasy²³ and liberation²⁴ to cease to change at all, are all equally undeniable manifestations of Chit as Power. Hence this Power—i.e., to be and appear as different aspects and forms—is an inalienable feature of Consciousness,²⁵ is in fact Consciousness²⁶ itself; and if the latter is real in the sense of being ineffaceably given, the former is also so. Consciousness²⁷ as Power projects the world-order remaining itself pure Consciousness²⁸ all the while; Consciousness²⁹ also as Power withdraws the world into itself which thus it bursts upon itself as it were a bubble on the surface of water, as Maya-vada often puts it. It follows- therefore that Power as such—that is as distinguished from different forms or directions of it—is, even from the Mayavadin’s standpoint, real.

But what, it may be asked, do we gain by discriminating Consciousness³⁰ from its Power? Do we know anything beyond the fact that Consciousness is and changes; that it changelessly persists while changing and that it may cease to change? Why do we then interpose a Power between Chit and this fact? The reply is—we do not interpose anything between them. Our Power is simply the expression of the whole fact. We simply say that Consciousness³¹ by itself persists, changes and persists again; that there is nothing else than Consciousness³² which so persists and changes. Maya of Maya-vada, on the other hand, has a residual element of unconsciousness³³ and unthinkable alienness³⁴ left in it, after the attempt has been made to dissolve in non-duality the Samkhyan Prakriti which is absolutely unconscious and alien to Chit.

Again, though an individual Centre may realize Pure Chit and the world of distinction and change³⁵ may cease to exist for him, yet, generally, it is admitted that the world-order as a flow is beginningless and endless, though it has a rhythmic life of evolution³⁶ and involution.³⁷ During the latter³⁸ the world is withdrawn into Brahman and remains there as potency; during creation it is projected into manifestation again. Now, if by Power we mean nothing else than the fact that cosmic being-experience of itself rhythmically passes into the conditions of seed and fruit, slumber and waking, than we cannot be mistaken in saying that the Power of Consciousness³⁹ to thus rhythmically change eternally persists, and is, therefore, as much real as Consciousness itself.

Or else, shall we say that the Immense by its own Power veils and finitizes itself and thus becomes the world of varied name or form,⁴⁰ of correlated Centres; that the Immense and Immeasurable by its own Power is also gradually unveiling and realizing itself; that the complete unveiling and realizing of itself by itself will mean liberation; and that, therefore, the cosmos can attain to liberation only as a whole, there being no actual liberation for individual selves?⁴¹ This is to make Brahman the only real self,⁴² binding itself and then liberating itself by its own Power. The multiplicity of selves⁴³ means only so many reflexes or “virtual images” of the one real individual self⁴⁴; so that there is no question of individual antecedence and subsequence in the matter of bondage and liberation. There has been bondage for “all” since Brahman has limited itself and there will be liberation for “all” when Brahman fully reasserts or reaffirms itself. Shuka, Narada, Vamadeva, Vyasa, Vashishtha and others are all reflexes with mutual variations, of the one Brahman, masking itself by Its own “play”⁴⁵ as an individual self,⁴⁶ and though possibly, in point of spiritual purification, the persons named have advanced farther than other reflexes, they have not yet attained to perfect liberation, because that of which they are reflexes,⁴⁷ is still there as Brahman masking itself, as the individual self.⁴⁸ The principle is this—there is no liberation for individual selves while the individual⁴⁹ type is there; there is no vanishing of the reflexions⁵⁰ while the original⁵¹ is there and veiling (which like variously shaped and curved mirrors variously reflects) is there.

Continuing the metaphor we may say that what we have called “reflexes” are double -reflections: we have the first or original reflexion when Brahman on the mirror of its own Maya,⁵² reflects itself and sees itself as “I am this all”.⁵³ This is the Supreme “Personality,”⁵⁴ the first Reflex, the individual Self.⁵⁵ Then by variously constituted veiling, the Type is elaborated into infinite variations which are the “double” or secondary reflexes.⁵⁶ However this may be, the question which is now pertinent is this: The Immense undoubtedly changelessly persists⁵⁷ as Pure⁵⁸ Chit, even while It thus binds itself and then tends to liberate itself. By veiling and reflection,⁵⁹ its essential nature as Consciousness⁶⁰ is never for one moment abrogated or effaced. But what about the Power by which it thus binds (i.e., limits) and liberates itself? By ‘Power’ is meant the fact that it does of itself thus limit and reaffirm itself.

Now, having put the question, let us ask: Is this self-denying (or limiting) and self-affirming operation in Time? Is it that Brahman limited itself actually in the past and is tending to reaffirm itself in the future? Or shall we say that the temporal determination or scheme is itself a product of the limiting and defining operation,⁶¹ is immanently applicable to all processes and phenomena incidentally and subordinate to the fundamental limiting operation; but is not applicable either to the fundamental limiting operation as a whole, or to Brahman which appears to subject itself to this operation? In other words, the Immense and Immeasurable may not as such have a “life history” of bondage, striving and liberation; and the denying and affirming may not belong to past and future tenses of real Time. Time may be a scheme for the “Reflexes”—the First Reflex as well as the “double reflexions”: a Reflex (in the sense of limited Chit, not of unconsciousness⁶² appearing as⁶³ consciousness,⁶⁴) may thus have and think its experience in accordance with the temporal scheme. From its standpoint, therefore, that scheme is real. But the Immense and its fundamental operation of self-limiting may both be alogical, and beyond the temporal scheme.⁶⁵ Argument has been offered to shew that it is so; and if it be so, the Power which thus alogically and extra-temporally denies and affirms itself is a Power that is. And once we lay aside the temporal notation (i.e., the tenses) “changeless persistence in the three tenses of Time,” which is commonly the Maya-vada definition of Reality, can only mean being as such. Since the Power of the Immense to limit itself is as such (we are no longer thinking and speaking in the tenses), and undeniably is, it is Reality. In fact, this is only to say that the Immense is as Pure Consciousness,⁶⁶ and is as Power to limit itself as Consciousness. There is warrant for this in pragmatic experience.

But suppose we think as a Reflex must think—that is, logically, and, in accordance with the temporal notation. Brahman has made an individual Self⁶⁷ of himself and is tending to liberate himself. When will liberation come? In finite time or infinite? If the latter, then the limiting Power infinitely continues; and since no absolute beginning either can be thought of in relation to the operation of this Power, it eternally continues; and as Power (i.e., apart from modes and directions) it ever is what it is. The definition of Reality is, therefore, satisfied by this Self-limiting Power of Brahman. But, on the other hand, to remove this prospect⁶⁸ of perpetual “bondage,” if we say that self-limiting, though perhaps beginningless, has an end, so that the limit may go one day, then also, it should be clearly observed, the eternality of Power as Power is not affected; because, if to limit itself connotes Power, to do away with the limit and to rest in, and as, Perfect Experience also connotes Power. In fact, binding and then unbinding constitute one single fact, though our thought may split it up into two; and if it is agreed to describe the first half of the fact as “Power,” there is no reason why we should refuse to describe the second half as “Power” also. And if the whole fact is or presupposes Power, Power as such eternally is. It is therefore Real.

But what if we interpret the term “changelessly” rigidly in the sense of the Maya-vada definition of Reality? Change, like difference⁶⁹ may be of three kinds:⁷⁰ One thing while remaining essentially the same may change so as to present differences of detail. Thus Power, remaining essentially the same Power, may change from a condition of latency to one of potency. Or else, while Power as a whole remains unaltered, its components may severally vary.⁷¹ Or, Power may change from one form and direction into another form and direction; but it remains the same kind of Power. Lastly, Power may change into one of a different kind.⁷² Now, in all the cases we have mentioned, Power of Chit may be supposed to continue eternally as Power; but since in all the cases change from latency to potency, and change of form and direction are involved, we are justified in saying that what eternally persists is Power of the same kind (if we do not hold change of form and direction as constituting difference of kind); but we can hardly say that the self-same Power in the same condition persists for all time. If it were so, there would be no creation at all; or there being creation, there would be no dissolution; briefly, no change, apparent or real, in the Given. Power, therefore, while remaining as such, changes its condition. And if it does, it is not changelessly persistent, and not, therefore, real.

The objection can be met in two ways. First, we must consider Power as a whole and not in cross-sections. What remains the same Power unchanged is the whole. That is to say, what remains the same Power unchanged in creation, maintenance and dissolution is simply, and nothing less than, Power as creating and maintaining and dissolving. Suppose we split up this Power into three components or aspects corresponding to these three aspects of the world-process. Then of course we cannot say that Power as creative activity is the same as Power as sustaining activity, and this again the same as dissolving activity. The Devis Brahmani, Vaishnavi and Raudri are thus different, because they do different kinds of work. But as Primordial Power⁷³ which now creates, now sustains and now dissolves, it is, and must be, one. Difference is in the sections: non-duality⁷⁴ is in the whole.⁷⁵ But still we may be told that it involves intrinsic or immanent⁷⁶ difference. The aspects or components of Power change. And if they do, absolutely changeless persistence (excluding even immanent variations of form or condition) cannot be predicated of Power considered even as whole;⁷⁷ and if not, Power is not real.

Hence, secondly, let us consider this: Is Pure Chit absolutely changeless in the sense that its condition remains the same for ever, though it may be now veiled and now unveiled? Chit is manifestation itself;⁷⁸ and yet in ordinary experience—in the three states of waking, dreaming and slumbering—its perfect illumination veils itself in a way, without ceasing to be or being effaced, as intuition, it is said, will directly shew. The object of religious striving and its practical method⁷⁹ is to raise the undeniable veil. Now, surely, between veiled or ignored “Ether of Consciousness”⁸⁰ and unveiled and recognized “Ether,”⁸¹ we must admit a difference of condition. It is undoubtedly a difference that does not affect the Ether as it is in itself.⁸² Unveiling here merely means acceptance and recognition of what has been given in consciousness, but practically ignored. Still from veiling to unveiling or vice versa is a change of condition. To say that veiling and unveiling are both immaterial, unsubstantial,⁸³ is not to deny the change. For, in experience, even a fancied change is an actual change of condition. A rope does not indeed become a snake when illusion makes it appear so; but experience of a rope and experience of an illusory snake are not the same experience. Hence though Pure Chit remains Pure Chit even while it is veiling or unveiling itself, we must admit a difference (whether superimposed or immanent) between the veiled condition and the unveiled. And if we must, what becomes of “absolutely changeless persistence” as assuring the reality of Pure Chit alone? We have seen that as regards the Power-aspect of Consciousness, we must admit immanent differences of condition to explain the different conditions of the world-process; we now see that as regards the illuminating-aspect⁸⁴ of Consciousness also, we must admit difference of condition to explain the differences in the four states of waking, dreaming, slumbering and ecstasy⁸⁵ and also that between bondage⁸⁶ owing to ignorance⁸⁷ and liberation⁸⁸ on account of “knowledge”.⁸⁹ “Absolutely changeless” in the definition of Reality is, therefore, in the absolute sense, applicable neither to Power-aspect nor to Illumination aspect.⁹⁰ Or else, if we be satisfied with only an approximation, then the definition applies to both. Both are real, and both are one.

We have to be satisfied with an approximation because we have proposed a logical definition (and also pragmatic, for the matter of that) for that which is essentially alogical.⁹¹ The Real is the Whole, the Complete and Perfect Given. This Given as given cannot be doubted, questioned, challenged and contradicted. We may indeed pragmatically enquire as to whether a particular section of the “Fact” is, or is not a fact; is or is not evidence.⁹² But as Whole⁹³ the Fact is above the distinction of fact or fancy; beyond the antithesis of true or false. The wildest fancy as part of the Given Universe of Experience is experience and has therefore as such absolutely assured being. That it is experience and as such is there, can never be questioned. The ‘illusory snake’ of Vedanta undoubtedly exists as a mode of consciousness. The illusoriness arises when we pragmatically enquire about the correspondence of this particular mode of consciousness to certain other modes, viz., a group of sensations which Analytic Psychology takes as the representative of a snake. Hence as intuition will readily establish, we touch the absolute ground only in the alogical Given; in any circumscribed portion or aspect of it, we have only the realm of approximation. And a realm of approximation is a realm of doubt, of contradiction.⁹⁴

The so-called transcendental⁹⁵ definition of Maya-vada is really therefore a pragmatic, definition⁹⁶—a definition of approximation seeking Reality still in the realm of limitation and doubt. The definition suffers from two defects.⁹⁷ We have seen how the fact of Pure Chit being ever absolutely changeless is, rationally speaking, open to doubt. If it were so, there could be no veiling and unveiling of it, no ascription⁹⁸ of the “magic” of a world upon it as Maya-vada requires. It is of course undeniable that the Ether of Illumination continues uneffaced even while it is being veiled or unveiled, even when the ‘magic’ is on or off. This is unchanged persistence of an unmistakable nature. But still, as already pointed out, the circumstance of veiling and unveiling, the incidence of the ‘magic’ and its removal, does constitute a kind of difference. On the other hand, the definition as an approximation is applicable not to the illuminating aspect⁹⁹ of Consciousness only, but also to the Power-aspect. It is true that the persistence of the former¹⁰⁰ is more patent than that of Power; that is because the former is manifestation and being itself, and the latter, to man at least, is manifested by the work it does, so that no power is suspected by him when no work is being apparently done. Thus, while to him Illumination¹⁰¹ is revelation itself, Power seems to require a revealer.¹⁰² That is why unchanging persistence has been affirmed of the Chit-aspect, but denied to the Power-aspect. But this is, absolutely speaking, an unwarranted denial.

Vedanta recognises various orders of Reality. We have referred to the transcendental¹⁰³ order already, and explained why the definition must be regarded as a definition of approximation and the order as not the supreme and absolute one which is the alogical Given or Fact called the Whole.¹⁰⁴ The transcendental¹⁰⁵ reality limits us to a “partial” or aspect only of the whole, viz., the Illuminating¹⁰⁶ or Pure aspect. Maya-vada does so with purpose; realization of the Transcendental¹⁰⁷ aspect of Experience is its objective. The definition is therefore pragmatic.¹⁰⁸ The absolute, supreme Reality can neither be an aspect of the Fact, nor a pragmatic one. It must be above not only thought and speech but use.¹⁰⁹ And this is satisfied by the Complete Fact alone. Reflection will shew that the Fact as an unlimited, entire Whole is alogical, and cannot be put to uses.¹¹⁰ Thoughts can relate to, and motives can be formulated upon, sections only. Only sections can be judged as true or false, valuable and desirable or otherwise. The Supreme Absolute Reality should therefore be called not Transcendental Being¹¹¹ but Being which is the Whole,¹¹² as it is the Supreme¹¹³ That of which Illumination and illumined¹¹⁴ are both aspects.

Below this Supreme order we have the so-called transcendental¹¹⁵ order of which the definition (approximately) is—“changeless persistence”. We have shown that under this order we must according to the view here dealt with place not only Pure Consciousness,¹¹⁶ but also its Power aspect,¹¹⁷ though from man’s practical standpoint, the former as Being and Illumination¹¹⁸ is more patent than Power which is commonly associated with Becoming and manifested by the work it does. But the association of Power with Becoming only is a mistake: Power is Being-Power as well as Becoming-Power. And Power finding its revealer in work is also due to man’s pragmatic veiling which makes him hide his power in latent capacity and then discover and recognise it in actual work and achievement. Consciousness¹¹⁹ or Chit as Power to be and to become is therefore transcendental Being.¹²⁰ Whatever becomes,¹²¹ does not belong to this order. Whilst Consciousness¹²² as “Ether”¹²³ and as Power to Be and Become “changelessly persists,” the world of name and form changes, and it is its nature to change.

Next comes in Mayavada Pragmatic,¹²⁴ relative, limited Reality. It is pragmatic because such reality is constituted by, and essential to, the uses of the practical living of Centres; it is relative because, as compared with Consciousness¹²⁵ and its Power, it changes and may be dissolved in the latter which, therefore, persists even after it (i.e., the changing order) is no longer there; it is limited because, in the first place, it is necessarily limited to sections only of the Fact, and because, in the second place, its persistence is limited in time. Thus the world of ordinary experience and its things and processes belong to the pragmatic, relative, limited order of Reality.

This is not to say that the world is an “illusion”. Compare the alogical universe of “Fact”—even in the veiled and centralized form in which man has it at any moment—with what he takes as the world of his practical thinking, feeling and acting. It will be found that the latter is a limited realm accepted out of the much larger and indefinable Given which is, except in the part accepted, ignored; that while in the actual Given all is real as being-experience, in the accepted realm the distinctions of real-unreal, subjective-objective, inner-outer, desirable-undesirable, etc., are set up according as certain sections or features in the realm do or do not satisfy certain practical tests, or do or do not serve certain practical ends. Thus certain features or elements being “thoughts” only and not “things”; certain elements being fancies only and not facts, and so on;—arise out of the special disposition of Consciousness¹²⁶ Power in the accepted realm; but those distinctions either do not arise in the entire Given itself, or arising, do not affect either the alogicality of the whole Fact, or the reality, in the sense of undeniable being-experience, of the elements thereof. A “fancy” as an element of the Given is as much real as any “fact” in it; it is regarded as a fancy because, compared with a fact, it does not satisfy certain practical tests, or what commonly amounts to the same thing, does not possess certain characteristics (vividness, permanence, requisite tone of belief, etc.) which indicate that it will satisfy certain practical tests. The accepted realm is thus an “intentional world,” in the defining and constituting of which potential stresses¹²⁷ play, however, a greater part than actual stresses which, broadly speaking, are man’s “intentions”.

The world of experience is not "illusion,”¹²⁸ though it is based upon and leads to use.¹²⁹ We have said that it is limited Reality in the sense of being limited in time. But here we must draw a distinction. Conventional experience¹³⁰ may be eternal or non-eternal.¹³¹ All Scriptures¹³² starting from the Vedas assert that the world-flow is beginningless and endless; and that the general cosmic scheme or plan (the Types, for example) persists from one cycle of creation or Kalpa to another through the intervening “Night” of cosmic slumber.¹³³ They pass from a state of evolution to one of involution, and this is an unending rhythm. Through this rhythm of evolution and involution they persist; and though such persistence is in a sense changing persistence (i.e., the persistence of alternate appearance and disappearance), and though possibly, the appearance in one cycle may vary somewhat in detail from that in another, still, in a general sense the cosmic plan or scheme is persistent, and as such, is real.¹³⁴ The Generals¹³⁵ of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika Philosophy are eternal¹³⁶ (as also some other entities); and, from one standpoint, their being¹³⁷ is real.¹³⁸ Particular things such as a jar have non-eternal reality,¹³⁹ unless we subscribe to the theory that the world-order as it is in one cycle repeats itself exactly in another. Nyaya-vaisheshika believes in the antecedent non-existence¹⁴⁰ of a particular thing, and this¹⁴¹ is beginningless,¹⁴² though it may be it has an end,¹⁴³ as when that thing actually ceases to exist. That thing, again, when destroyed has an unending destruction.¹⁴⁴ About the non-persistence¹⁴⁵ of particular things, the First Standard raises no difficulties.

The difficulty arises when we come to the Second and Third Standards which agree in equating Cause and Effect, and conceive destruction¹⁴⁶ as only dissolution of the effect in the Cause. Consistently and rigidly applied, this principle will not admit the absolute beginning or the absolute ending of anything, general or particular: nothing comes to actually exist which did not already potentially exist in its cause; and nothing ceases actually to exist but has again a potential existence in its cause.¹⁴⁷ Not only the twenty-four “Principles”¹⁴⁸ of Sangkhya but all their particular modes ought, therefore, according to this principle, to be eternally persistent either patently as effects or latently as causes. We shall not pause here to discuss this question which does not admit of an easy solution.¹⁴⁹

Cause may be common¹⁵⁰ and uncommon.¹⁵¹ The Will of God, “Space” and Time¹⁵² and so forth are, according to Nyaya-Vaisheshika, the common cause of every phenomenon that takes place. Each phenomenon has also its own special assemblage of conditions which, according to this system, are threefold.¹⁵³ Vedanta reduces them to two kinds.¹⁵⁴ Prepared clay is the first in the case of an earthen jar; the putting together of the parts, the wheel and the stick¹⁵⁵ as well as the agent belong to the other group or kind. Now, when an effect is produced, we can consider it in its three elements: (1) its matter or stuff (which may be in some cases mind)¹⁵⁶; (2) its energy, kinetic and potential; and (3) the particular collocation¹⁵⁷ of that matter and energy which constitutes the special form¹⁵⁸ of that effect. In equating Effect to Cause we have, therefore, to equate all these three elements.¹⁵⁹ Of course in seeking to equate we have to consider both Cause and Effect completely and not partially. For instance, it may be necessary to consider the entire antecedent condition of the universe as the cause of the entire subsequent condition of the universe. But even doing so, will it be possible to prove in every case of causation not only that the matter and the energy of the effect were already in the cause, so that there has really been neither addition to them nor subtraction from them (a possibility to which the Physical Theory of Conservation of Matter and Momentum lends countenance), but also that the special collocation of matter and energy which makes the special form¹⁶⁰ of the effect was there in the cause, may be latently, and is not, therefore, anything new and previously non-existent?¹⁶¹ Was, for instance, the particular form of the cloth woven existent in the fibers of the cotton, in the spinning and weaving machinery and in the volitions of the spinner and the weaver—distributively or collectively? When a sculptor is chiselling a figure from out of a block of marble, the figure may be supposed to exist as an idea in the mind of the sculptor, and it may be supposed to be “given” latently even in the block of marble. Again it may be thought that, what the chisel of the sculptor does is to knock off the portions which conceal, suppress or fold up the figure given in the block of marble. But this seems to be an apparently strained supposition leading to interminable intricacies. For instance, we must suppose that not only the particular figure in question but every possible figure is latent in the marble, like all meanings¹⁶² in a letter as postulated in the Vyasa-Bhashya on Patanjali’s Yoga-Sutra. The typal case of evolutionary causation is the seed becoming a plant, though even here variations have to be accounted for. And it is certainly not easy to conform all kinds of effects (e.g., that of production of water by the mixing of Hydrogen and Oxygen; the weaving of cloth from fibres of cotton, etc.) to the seed-model. We do not, however, further discuss this.

Causation is an unsolved riddle; and it must remain so. The world being a manifestation of the Play or Lila¹⁶³ of Primordial Consciousness-Power, and the nature of Lila or “Play” being freedom, we can never, except to bring the world-order to any logical account, except approximately and pragmatically. The Shastra says that “Even Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra have not understood the Lila of the Mother-Power”. Time in our pragmatic analysis of causation, is a form necessary to the concepts of Cause (which is antecedent), and Effect (which is consequent). But, in reality, they co-exist, and are aspects (arranged by man in the perspective of “ before and after ”) of one single fact. The whole past + the whole present + the whole future = a “Point” or Bindu.

But is it a statical, unalterable, Bindu? In other words, Is the whole cosmic order (including the Not-yet or Future) absolutely given and determined or fixed? If so, it may be said that it cannot be the manifestation of spontaneity or Lila but of Blind Necessity or “Fate”; and the individual Centres also have no freedom, i.e., no Karma properly so called. It is here that there is a riddle. The Ancients believed, and many “psychic researchers” have now come to believe on fresh evidence, that foreknowledge (even as regards details) of the future is possible, which implies the pre-existence of the future in the present; the past also is not in any way lost in the present; which together lead to the conclusion that the Cosmic Order is eternally and unalterably fixed and condensed in a “point” (since the whole can be deciphered from the minutest detail, as for example, when a “medium” is alleged to be able to “read” the past and the future of persons unknown to her and of other persons connected with him, by “looking at” a flower or piece of paper touched by him). Now, if the Order be so unalterably fixed, what becomes of Lila and Karma, both of which imply possible change, and an undetermined future? We can essay to answer this only by supposing that the Cosmic Order is susceptible to change by Karma, but that the change in itself, need not be in Time; that is, not a fixed but a changing universe is given in the timeless Bindu we have postulated. So that a “medium” en rapport with the Bindu can “read” an event freely wrought by a Centre, which man’s pragmatic, “temporal” thinking must, however, place in the realm of Not-Yet or Future. Imagination doubtless fails to conceive how this may be, as for instance, it fails to conceive Dimensions higher than the third. Analogous is the idea of the Vaishnava who believes in an eternal Heaven¹⁶⁴ wherein there is eternal Play.¹⁶⁵

Pragmatically speaking, the collocation of matter and energy in the effect is either previously existent in the cause (or assemblage of conditions) or non-existent. If the latter, then every moment thousands of phenomena are happening around us which, though persistent in their types and also in the quantities of matter and energy involved, are as special collocations new, previously non-existent and ephemeral. These phenomena belong to the transient conventional class.¹⁶⁶ If, on the other hand, the collocation be previously existent as latent in the cause, then, waiving all dificulties to the view, we may again distinguish between two classes of phenomena. There may be certain particulars (not genera or types) which as particulars may substantially and actually endure till the end of a Kalpa or age of a given cycle of cosmic life or till final liberation is attained; but there are countless others which do not thus actually endure, but are speedily dissolved in their causes, and in the Root Cause¹⁶⁷ during dissolution,¹⁶⁸ to be projected into actuality again during the succeeding Kalpa. Thus Brahma and others as particular forms of Chit-Shakti have their fixed age to live through; and at the termination of this age a particular Brahma or other ceases to exist, though the type remains. The particular objects of experience have, however, no such prolonged actual life-duration.

Let us pass on to Apparent Reality in Mayavada.¹⁶⁹ It is the reality of an illusory perception while the illusion is not suspected as such. It is contradicted and corrected y pragmatic reality,¹⁷⁰ e.g., the rope-snake of an illusion. The rope-snake possesses some marks of reality, but is soon discovered not to possess others which practically settle for us the question of reality of the snake. The tactuo-muscular sense is commonly set up as the judge of reality because practically in the matter of living and self-preserving it happens to be the most important. In dealing with this order of Reality we are introduced to the pragmatic distinction between Right Knowledge or Evidence¹⁷¹ and false knowledge.¹⁷² In the “Fact” knowledge is simply knowledge and as such undeniably is. The basis of all evidence (even of Perception¹⁷³) and the ground of absolute certainty is Experience as Experience.

With the two other forms of Reality¹⁷⁴—we shall not deal elaborately. The first is Being-Experience as intuited by each individual Centre for himself.¹⁷⁵ It is the universe of Fact as defined with reference to a given Centre—“You” or “I”. It is what you or I totally feel or experience—apart from all pragmatic interests. At this moment I am, for example, pragmatically experiencing the sound of a distant whistle, but actually I have or am an universe of experience comprising many sounds, smells, touches, sights, ideas, etc., of which the particular sound happens to be the prominent element. This universe, though in itself indefinable, is pragmatically defined by myself; and the defining line is a flexible one—now closing, now receding. We may, however, represent it by a circle or a sphere. Then the universe of another Centre is another circle; that of another is a third circle; and so on. In one sense, these spheres all lie outside of one another. What one feels cannot, exactly and in the same relations, be felt by another. What you feel is somewhat like what I have felt. But in another sense these spheres cut one another, and two spheres, A and B for example, have a common element, C. Thus while A’s headache is not in B, or B’s idea is not in A, both hear the sound of the distant whistle, see the greenness of the lawn, smell the odour of fresh blossoms and flowers, and so on. In fact, it is the common element that is objectified, and it is there that the different Centres bargain with one another—it is their province of Convention.¹⁷⁶

It is with reference to this province again that an approximately common standard of Reality is fixed upon by the interacting Centres; it is commonly that which proves the fittest in practice, what is most safely workable in such mutual Experience.¹⁷⁷ Thus: In A there is a wild fancy which is not in B and others. Now, as experience the fancy unquestionably is: its reality in that supreme sense is undoubted. But commonly A does not accept it as reality because it cannot be found in the common province of Conventional¹⁷⁸ being, because it is not “marketable”. There can be ordinarily no practical transaction between A and B on the basis of that fancy. A, therefore, defines his practical Reality not as whatever he experiences (which is Reality in the supreme sense), but what he feels in common with others and what, accordingly, can be made a basis of transaction with others. Thus, ordinarily, experiences have “value” for him which have a “currency”. Sometimes possible “currency” is enough. A sees the Manasa-sarovara lake in Tibet, and though many others may not yet have actually seen it, he believes his to be a real experience because of its possessing marks of possible currency. The pain of an headache, though subjective and which remains so, yet possesses certain marks which, while not placing it in the first class of experience, makes it a real experience in another way. A actually feels the pain and he cannot wish it away: the feeling appears to have him in possession. A fancy, on the other hand, is also there in him as experience, but it seems to be dependent on his pleasure as regards whether it should be there or not there. We have, therefore, three orders: (1) experience as such which absolutely is, and it requires no marks to establish its title to reality; (2) “subjective” experiences which possess certain marks such as vividness or “clear tone,” relative permanence and independence of the Subject’s wish; and (3) “objective” experiences which are approximately common to a group of Centres and also possess certain marks of actual or possible currency.

Marks in the second and third orders are pragmatic marks: they are demanded because certain practical ends have to be served by us. The demand postulates a condition, raises a question and is formulated as an “if”. If x possesses such and such marks, it is real, otherwise not: this is how we judge in the second and third classes. Pragmatic reality is therefore conditional, hypothetical reality. The first order is unconditional, categorical. Experience as Experience is unconditionally, unquestionably real. We have called it therefore Fact.¹⁷⁹ It will be seen also that howsoever obstinately man may pin his faith to the pragmatic order of reality (and to a certain extent he cannot help doing it), the first order, that is. Experience as Experience, is still tacitly reserved by him as the ultimate criterion of judgment on questions of reality. A “common” experience is also my experience, or can possibly be my experience.¹⁸⁰ I may commonly waive my right in favour of the experiences of an expert some of which I do not now actually have; but the right is reserved nevertheless. I could possibly experience that which the expert says he is now experiencing: the reality of his experience is admitted subject to this condition. On the other hand, where I have an experience but others not, I certainly expect that, conditions being satisfied, others will also have it; but if the conditions be not satisfied and others do not share it, still I feel that I have a right to hold to my own experience as a reality. All this points to where the native soil of Reality is to be found. The Veda in the primary sense means Perfect Experience; in the secondary, partial sense—A body of classical experiences obtained by the Rishis, and always obtainable by those who are fit to share in them.¹⁸¹ In matters supersensible,¹⁸² the classics are evidence as direct evidence;¹⁸³ but still, so long as it has not been or cannot be verified by my own experience,¹⁸⁴ it remains or belongs to a conditional order—subject to an “if”. The relation between experience¹⁸⁵ intuited by each individual centre and complete experience¹⁸⁶ will be further considered when we come to discuss Chit and Its Forms.

Inscrutable Being¹⁸⁷ in Maya-vada Vedanta is the name commonly given to Maya which is the Principle of apparent or unreal change¹⁸⁸ such as that of a rope into snake in illusion. The snake of illusion has two parts: the apprehension of mere “thatness” or “thisness,”¹⁸⁹ and the suggestion of the characteristics of a snake projected and superimposed upon the basis¹⁹⁰ of the apprehension of this.¹⁹¹ The basis “this”¹⁹² is real;¹⁹³ that is, in the illusion of rope-snake, the part which is real is the apprehension of this.¹⁹⁴ The superstructure laid upon it is an inscrutable transformation of ignorance¹⁹⁵ the function of which can be analysed into two components: veiling,¹⁹⁶ and movement and imposition.¹⁹⁷ Thus of the real rope before us, the mere “this”¹⁹⁸ part is rightly apprehended, but the special form (and qualities¹⁹⁹) of the rope is veiled and that of the snake is imposed. This imposed structure of form²⁰⁰ is the product of the ignorance-tendency²⁰¹ (operating, as Western Psychology would say, through association by similarity) and prompted to operate in a particular way by the subjective and objective conditions—dimness of light, defective vision, mental predisposition and so forth—then prevailing. Now, this imposed structure or Rupa which cannot be said either to be existent or to be non-existent or to be partly existent and partly non-existent, possesses inscrutable Being.²⁰²

A right perception, e.g., that of a real rope is regarded as a transformation²⁰³ of mind;²⁰⁴ while a false perception as that of the “rope-snake” is regarded as a transformation of ignorance;²⁰⁵ and the difference between Mind²⁰⁶ and Ignorance²⁰⁷ is not one of kind, but of degree—the former being a purer²⁰⁸ and the latter a cruder²⁰⁹ form of Maya. In man this “double” framework of Antahkarana and Avidya exists, and from them proceeds a double line of transformations—one line giving him “real” perceptions, the other illusions and so forth. We see that the projections of ignorance²¹⁰ on the plane of perceptional experience—which look like perceptions but are not really so—are supposed to possess inscrutable being.²¹¹ Now, Maya-vada seeks to establish a ratio proportion; the world of ordinary experience²¹² is to the ultimate experience as Pure Chit what an illusion is to ordinary “real“ experience. Conventional or pragmatic being²¹³ is therefore really inscrutable being²¹⁴ which is the being²¹⁵ of apparent, seeming change.²¹⁶ Between the real rope and the “rope-snake ” the difference is not one of kind, but mainly of duration. Both are liable to be contradicted and cancelled²¹⁷ one only a moment later, the other perhaps ages after when Pure Chit is realized. Illusory being²¹⁸ is also inscrutable Being.²¹⁹

But this Maya-vada conception of the apparently real will not be found to be free from difficulties. Either all is Brahman or all is not Brahman. If the latter, then we have a second, independent Principle²²⁰ and the reality of that Principle and its products is not inscrutable²²¹ in the sense above explained. If the former, then all is Chit, all is Being,²²² all is Joy,²²³ since Brahman is so. It may be that Brahman by its own Power appears as other than Chit (i.e., unconscious²²⁴), other than Being²²⁵ (i.e., non-being²²⁶) and other than Joy²²⁷ (i.e., pain²²⁸). But it may be asked: Is that Power other than Brahman or the same? It must on the monistic hypothesis be the same as Brahman. Is the appearance other than Brahman or the same? It must be the same again. It follows, therefore, that at base the so-called unconscious²²⁹ is Chit, the so-called unreal²³⁰ is real,²³¹ the so-called pain²³² is joy.²³³ To the limited, pragmatic review of finite Centres,²³⁴ the antithesis of conscious-unconscious, real-unreal, pleasurable-painful appears and for it counts. But if we start with Being-Consciousness-Bliss,²³⁵ and have never anything else to reckon with, then we cannot really make it end in becoming anything other than itself. A finite, interacting Centre cannot but think in antitheses, poles, dualities. From its standpoint, therefore, a definition of Reality making a distinction between Reality as uncontradicted²³⁶ experience and Reality as contradicted²³⁷ experience—that is, between transcendental being²³⁸ and inscrutable being holds.²³⁹ But this standpoint is essentially a dualistic standpoint. Whatever definition of Reality we may fashion from this standpoint will involve dualism, open or veiled; and, we may point out by way of illustration, that the definition of Maya as inscrutable being²⁴⁰ does involve veiled dualism. All attempts to define the indefinable will bring us to such a pass. If we must stand by the Absolute One²⁴¹ itself, and not tolerate any dualism, open or veiled, then, we must take, that is be, Experience as the Whole.²⁴² We must not limit ourselves to any aspects or partials; must not set up definitions which partition the non-dual²⁴³ into opposites such as Conscious²⁴⁴ and Unconscious.²⁴⁵ And doing this we find that the Whole²⁴⁶ is inscrutable²⁴⁷ in the sense of being alogical, indefinable; and also is transcendental being²⁴⁸ in the sense of being indubitably given, of unquestionable “being”. Thus in the Whole,²⁴⁹ the senses of the two kinds of being,²⁵⁰ which hold good only in the realm of limitation and convention,²⁵¹ are modified; and necessarily so. And since the whole²⁵² is the basis and synthesis of all “kinds” of being,²⁵³ and yet as the whole²⁵⁴ transcends all kinds, we have called it before (following Agama Shastra), Supreme, Absolute Reality.²⁵⁵

We must be warned therefore against extending the definitions or their senses which are pragmatically valid to that which is above all limitation and all pragmatic use.²⁵⁶ Thus the transcendental²⁵⁷ definition approximately applies to one aspect of Brahman (lit. the Immense or Whole²⁵⁸) as against another aspect. It is a definition that serves, while we are the thinker and analyser of Brahman. It does not serve when the Centre is (in being as well as intuition) Brahman. When the Whole has to be consciously lived, and not aspects only have to be thought and talked: about, we must either leave aside all definitions, or else applying them, must not employ them in the senses which suggest, and are valid in the realm of, the limited, thinkable and “usable” order of experience only. Here, we must not, for example, define Reality as “changeless, uncontradicted persistence” only; for that at once sets up a correlate Pole, viz., that which changes and is contradicted. Here, Reality is Experience as Experience, and since here Experience is all, all is real.²⁵⁹ So, here, all is at base Consciousness as Chit (nothing in itself being unconscious²⁶⁰); and all is in essence Joy²⁶¹ (since, Pain is impeded, obstructed, limited being); and in the whole²⁶² there is no impediment, obstruction or limitation. As the Chhandogya Upanishad profoundly observes²⁶³—Immensity²⁶⁴ is Bliss²⁶⁵ and littleness or restriction²⁶⁶ is the negation of Bliss.²⁶⁷ Experience as Brahman or immensity²⁶⁸ (which the Chhandogya goes on to define as Experience above the relation of knower—knowing—known²⁶⁹ or pragmatic experience²⁷⁰) sees the universe, therefore, not as something in any degree alien to the Brahman but as being the Divine Mother Herself who is Being-Consciousness-Bliss.²⁷¹ It is She who is called Mahamaya and by many another name.²⁷²

Not only the above pragmatic definition of Reality but other similar variations of it suffer under the same essential disadvantage: they cannot be, in their senses, extended to the Whole.²⁷³ Shall we say, for instance, that the Real is that which is universal,²⁷⁴ and the unreal is particular?²⁷⁵ The first is defined as what is not limited in space and time:²⁷⁶ what is everywhere and always. This is also called without exception.²⁷⁷ The second is limited in space and time—is here but not there, is now but not then. It is with exceptions or limitations.²⁷⁸

Now, as before, in having to apply this test to Experience or Chit, we must first analyse Chit into aspects, reduce the alogical Fact to a logical order amenable to the categories of Time, Space, and so forth. Supreme Being²⁷⁹ must in this way, be adjusted to our thought or standpoint. After that adjustment, we find that the universe of experience is analysable into five aspects.²⁸⁰

Any object. Self or Not-Self, is, is known, is pleasant (in some relations or others), has a name, has a defining set of qualities.²⁸¹ These are the five “predicables”. Of these the first three are common to all object-experiences.²⁸² The fourth and the fifth differ from object to object— the name of one and the form²⁸³ of one are not those of another. The first three, which are Being²⁸⁴ Consciousness²⁸⁵ and Bliss²⁸⁶ respectively, give us the “own form”²⁸⁷ or nature of Brahman, and are, according to the definition, real; the rest stand for the world-order,²⁸⁸ and are said to be “unreal”.

That a dividing line can thus be drawn after the first three need not be questioned. Let us assume that a “thing” or object is, and must be, a form of Chit or Consciousness. We shall see as we proceed what basis there is for this. All objective or subjective objects, and the Self amongst them, are then experiences. Now, comparing all modes of forms of experiences we undoubtedly discover some common elements. For example, a tree is, an idea or desire is, an illusion is, void is, nothing is. The names and forms vary, but being or “is-ness” is everywhere and always given, and there is no escape from it even in the case of the void.²⁸⁹ The void is known or felt as is. It is, in this pure sense, real²⁹⁰ and not unreal.²⁹¹ Void is the negation of all determinations²⁹² but is not the negation of “is-ness” as such. That is the fundamental omission of the MadhyamiKa Bauddha. In fact between is²⁹³ and is not,²⁹⁴ the common element is—is.²⁹⁵ Often this invariable is²⁹⁶ is there as “this”.²⁹⁷ Thus we feel this tree, this desire, this illusion, this void. Very often again our judgments of facts of experience are not given or stated explicitly as judgments. “Tree is” is an explicit judgment; “this tree,” suppressing the predicate, is an implicit judgment. Sometimes this²⁹⁸ also is not explicit there: thus we feel and say—“tree,” “desire,” “illusion,” and so on, simply. But whether this²⁹⁹ or “is”³⁰⁰ be explicitly stated or not, the experience of tree and so forth is undoubtedly felt as this³⁰¹ or is.³⁰² It is an inalienable element or rather basis³⁰³ of experience. In some fully explicit judgments both this³⁰⁴ and is³⁰⁵ occur.³⁰⁶

Next consider Bhati or revelation. Experience means illumination³⁰⁷ or manifestation.³⁰⁸ It is manifestation as Consciousness or Chit. Thus in the above examples, we have: a tree is felt or known; a desire is felt or known; void is felt or known. The feeling, cognition or consciousness has of course different forms³⁰⁹ and names³¹⁰ in the different examples, but everywhere and always it is feeling or consciousness. Even the Void is feeling or consciousness of, or as, the Void. There is no escape from Chit as such, as there is no escape from Being³¹¹ as such. The Madhyamika Bauddha has again omitted to recognise this. In slumber or swoon in which nothing seems to be known (possibly because nothing but the sense of blissful sleeping is remembered afterwards) what is, or can be, meant by “nothing” is form³¹² and name³¹³ (that is, particular determinations); it does not, and cannot, mean feeling or consciousness, pure and bare.³¹⁴ The common view which looks upon particularized consciousness as alone consciousness, and undetermined consciousness as no consciousness, is a pragmatic view which sees only what it has interest and need to see. The Yogachara Bauddha whose object, inner or outer, is a mode of experience only, that is, who recognizes no “thing” apart from the feeling or thought; and whose experiences³¹⁵ are transitory³¹⁶ leaving a real gap between one experience³¹⁷ and another, as they succeed one another in time, is also suffering from the Pragmatic Illusion. The so-called experiences³¹⁸ are really like the waves moving on on the surface of a continuous fluid; are like clouds passing in the sky. And this continuous “fluid” or “sky” is, as intuition will show at once, not void³¹⁹ in an absolutely nihilistic sense, but Chit as Chit or Chidakasha or Akashatma. This Perfect Ether fills all “gaps,” sustains and pervades all modes. The “gap” in every case is born of the non-recognition of Pure Consciousness as Consciousness. The “Light” of Chit in, and by, which all modes of experience are revealed³²⁰ cannot be extinguished, nor can it be imagined as ever being extinguished.

We have regarded Chit as being the essence of “Thing”; so that though there may be extra-mental objects or objects lying outside the pale, or independent of, the individual’s ordinary consciousness (thus Matter being as real as Mind), yet we have thought that “things” cannot be outside or independent of (1) Chit as Chit, and (2) Chit as “Fact ” or the Perfect Universe or Experience. This view disposes of the difficulty that, though illumination³²¹ is the common element of all objects experienced, it has nothing to do with countless others which are not experienced. For example, a jar experienced is known, is a mode of consciousness; but what about the jar not experienced, or even about the “real” jar which, though experienced, exists in its own right independently of experience? The real jar or the unknown jar is non-illumination³²²—the opposite of illumination.³²³ If it be asked is it not so? From the pragmatic and centralized point of view of experience, Yes. From the real and whole³²⁴ point of view, No. From the latter point of view a “thing”—Matter, Mind whichever it may be—is in, and of Chit, and as such is both “Is” and Illumination;³²⁵ though its beingness,³²⁶ and more particularly, its illumination³²⁷ may be, and often is, doubly veiled or ignored by individual Centres, firstly because they are Centres of specialized function and reference, and secondly, or rather secondarily, because Centres are, owing to their pragmatic interests, apt to limit and narrow down their “Facts” or universes of experience to special aspects or sections only.³²⁸

Lastly, let us consider Priyam, that which is pleasant and gives happiness and which seems to present greater difficulties. The Self present no difficulty. In fact, the Self is the model of objects as regards the three characteristics—Asti, Bhati, Priyam. The Self is, it is conscious of itself and other objects. The Self is supremely pleasant³²⁹ to itself. Even in wishing to die and be no more, the Self loves itself, and never ceases to be supremely pleasant to itself; it is only dissatisfied with a certain kind of existence, and chooses death because, rightly or wrongly, it thinks that it will be good, that is pleasant, for the Self to be rid of that kind of existence. A philosophic nihilist may desire to put an end to existence as such, to stop all experience.³³⁰ This is because he thinks that it is on the whole better, that is more pleasant, for the Self not to continue than to continue, since continuance, in any form of existence, is sure to give it a surplus of pain over pleasure. Longer existence is greater pain on the whole; to be extinguished and be merged in nothingness is therefore thought to be the best thing. Best thing for whom?—The Self. All acts of self-sacrifice, self-abnegation, all altruistic impulses, again, have their root of inspiration and their basis of support or sanction and their test or standard of value in a sense of self-satisfaction. Bliss³³¹ is the substance and expression of the Will-to-be-and-become which, not only the living but all existence is.

The Self conserves itself, or expands and then retires or withdraws into itself; and this Will-to-be-and-become is really Joy,³³² and the activity which expresses it is “Play”,³³³ Not only the Supreme Self, but every centre down to the “material” particle, has its Joy³³⁴ and its Play.³³⁵ “All things are sustained by a measure of this Joy”³³⁶ which³³⁷ as the Whole³³⁸ is immeasurable. Between the Self and, say, a material centre, the difference is not in essence or in kind, but in the form and degree of veiling. Each is Consciousness³³⁹ and each is Joy,³⁴⁰ but in the latter, these are veiled to such an extent (with reference to man at any rate), that they have the appearance of not being either. Even the human Self is more or less veiled. Hence, though we can be made to perceive that the Self is essentially pleasant,³⁴¹ still the great amount of pain and suffering which we have to bear in life, the “unconsciousness” of swoon and slumber, the dull, vapid, indifferent tone of many experiences, the making of sacrifice and the occasional courting of death among other things, would seem to indicate not indeed that existence is pain as out-and-out pessimists, ancient and modern, have contended, but that it is of a mixed nature, and often of an indifferent nature. But, in the case of the Self, it is comparatively easy to see through the appearance of pain and indifference. The difficulty, in some respects, is with other objects. But be it easy or difficult, the Scripture says that: The mother is wholly Joy³⁴² and Play³⁴³ and all Her creatures, whatever their grade in evolution, must have a share in and be made of Joy³⁴⁴ and Play.³⁴⁵

It is the law of veiling first to conceal, then to invert (i.e., change the sense and direction) of a thing. It is the Principle of Polarity³⁴⁶ in creation. And all pragmatic experience³⁴⁷ and action³⁴⁸ is based upon duality.³⁴⁹ If Being,³⁵⁰ Consciousness,³⁵¹ Bliss,³⁵² while remaining so, do not also appear as other than so, then there will be no pragmatic experience,³⁵³ no karma. Action or movement is to realize the possible, know the unknown, and attain the unattained joy³⁵⁴ or get rid of dissatisfaction.³⁵⁵ That which not yet exists, is not yet known, is not yet satisfaction, is therefore presupposed. If all be displayed and realized, then there can be no play for the Centres, for the play is essentially one of hide and seek. Hence Being,³⁵⁶ Consciousness,³⁵⁷ and Bliss³⁵⁸ are variously veiled and unveiled in the universe of experience. As the Whole³⁵⁹ and the Immense,³⁶⁰ Joy³⁶¹ is pure and perfect. As soon as a limit is drawn, Joy³⁶² becomes circumscribed; and it is this bar, this impediment, this restraint which is the seed of all pain.³⁶³ Joy³⁶⁴ is thus the essence and index of perfect freedom of being and functioning.³⁶⁵ Since centralized life and existence is necessarily limited, impeded being and functioning, we have pain as an incidence of life. The “throes” or “travail” of birth, and the first cries which the new-born babe utters, are symbolic of this. But though limitation imposes pain, it cannot efface the sustaining background of Joy.³⁶⁶ If that were effaced, the Self, the organ and cells of the organism could not live, for vitality³⁶⁷ itself is Joy.³⁶⁸ As at the back of all finite modes of experience the “Ether of Consciousness”³⁶⁹ remains, so behind all the pain and joy and “indifference” of life, the basis of Joy³⁷⁰ is given. As the little³⁷¹ life is pain, as the great³⁷² life is Joy³⁷³ (a term which, like Chit, is untranslatable). Pain, therefore, may be defined as the feeling of restriction of Bliss.³⁷⁴ What man calls pleasure and even happiness belong to Pain, with this difference, that while feeling them he attends rather to that which is restricted than to the restriction itself, to what is affirmed rather than to what is denied; he looks to what is within the circle of limitation and not to what is outside. In feeling pain as pain he feels the restriction, the denial, the negation rather than what is circumscribed; given and affirmed. In his bitterest and deepest sufferings, the positive but circumscribed background of joy³⁷⁵ can be recognized, but then he may be interested in not what is given, but in what has been denied him. By changing the direction of his interest and regard, he can, and sometimes does, touch this ground of Joy³⁷⁶ while he feels himself as being drowned in “a sea of troubles”. Feeling of pain, involving as it does, feeling of restriction, can be made to change its quality as well as intensity. Greater regard on the restriction or drawing closer the restricting line, will serve to intensify the feeling; regard on the positive side may change its quality and make it one of pleasure; and finally, merging all restrictions in the Whole³⁷⁷ itself, will make it Infinite Bliss.³⁷⁸ Pain is the negation or restriction of something positive. The First and Second Standards defining Liberation³⁷⁹ as the complete cessation of Pain³⁸⁰ would seem to imply that Pain is something positive and Ananda merely the negation of this. But Vedanta conceiving Liberation³⁸¹ as realization of Supreme Bliss³⁸² makes Bliss³⁸³ positive; Pain is merely the negation of it due to restriction.³⁸⁴

As in cognition it is only the point of pragmatic interest in the total Given which is regarded as the fact cognised and the rest, though given in consciousness, is ignored, so in the matter of “affection” (pleasure and pain). The ignored parts of the given universe have all the gradations from “self-consciousness” to “sub-consciousness” or “evanescent consciousness”. Thus while I am fully conscious of the star Sirius now, I am hardly conscious of the neighbouring stars, of the sounds I may be hearing, of the touches, smells and so forth, I may be feeling, of the ideas and memories I may be entertaining in the mind. All this wealth of actual experience is silently buried in ignorance, because not then useful. It fades into semi-consciousness and subconsciousness. In fact, the dividing line between conscious and sub-conscious or unconscious is due to the habit of selective attention and regard³⁸⁵ having been so consolidated as to practically operate as an opaque partition or wall between what is attended to and what is not. It is owing to this practical tendency³⁸⁶ that mental life becomes like a floating iceberg the greater part of which lies in sub-consciousness. It is thus that experience like an ascending and descending curve, now rises above the “normal line,” now goes below it. The “normal” is settled by the tacit consensus of intercentral practice. This practical tendency³⁸⁷ often acts therefore as a wall to shut out the “not-wanted” in experience, or, from the point of view of the “not-wanted,” as a sort of crust more or less completely concealing the fact that it is being experienced. By wanting the not-wanted we can to a degree remove this crust; and by yoga this partition between conscious and sub-conscious may be brought as near as desired to the vanishing point.³⁸⁸

The same with Bliss.³⁸⁹ We are practically used to regard as pleasurable or painful such experiences only as lie between certain limits. As our eye commonly sees only between certain limits, our ear hears only between certain, limits, so experiences affect us as pleasures or pains only between certain limits. Beyond those limits the “affective element or tone” is supposed not to exist. Experience is said to be tuneless or indifferent outside those limits. Inherited tendency³⁹⁰ has erected a wall and built a crust here as it has in cognition. Many experiences or objects experienced are thus thought of as being without “value”. Consider, as a typical case, a block of stone lying at the foot of a hill. What has it, we may ask, to do with Joy?³⁹¹ To answer this we must raise and decide three issues, (a) Is it in itself joy?³⁹² (b) Does it know or feel itself as being so? (c) Is it an object of joy³⁹³ (i.e., priya or dear) to others?—that is, is it pleasing or pleasant?

Taking the last issue first we put two queries: (1) Is it pleasing to ourselves? and (2) Is it pleasing to some other than ourselves? We separate these two because we are commonly so much occupied with ourselves and our own likes and dislikes that we do not care to consider whether a thing, not being useful and pleasing to us, may or may not be useful and pleasing to others. Let us turn up the stone and we shall find that, possibly, many worms and insects live under its shelter, so that that stone is as useful and dear³⁹⁴ to them as our own sheltering roof is useful and dear³⁹⁵ to us. And, for anything we know, that stone may be dear³⁹⁶ not merely to the worms that our eyes may discover there, but to myriads of other unnoticed creatures living on, about, and in the pores of the stone. And we can generalize and say that what is true of a block of stone is true of everything: there is not a thing but is dear³⁹⁷ to some in some relation or other.³⁹⁸ In this sense, to be “dear” is a common mark of things. Now, coming next to ourselves, the stone may be dear³⁹⁹ to us if we have the interest of a geologist or of one who loves the landscape of which it is a part. But let us suppose that apart from such special interests and associations (and not, moreover, stumbling and getting ourselves hurt by it), we are looking at that block of stone at the foot of the yonder hill. Is it dear? This is an important question which, being answered, will lead to a decision as regards the first and second issues raised above.

Let it be considered merely as an object of perception. Now as an object of perception apart from all practical interests, it is a measure⁴⁰⁰ of Joy.⁴⁰¹ The play of practical interests will make it either pleasurable or painful; but its nature as Joy⁴⁰² is given in perception as such. Since man is not commonly interested in this basis of Joy⁴⁰³ but rather in the superstructure of pleasure or pain raised on this basis by the “organic” reverberation or “resonance” evoked by that perception, we veil and ignore it, and think as though it were in itself a “toneless” and indifferent perception. But this is a mistake. Suspending for a time all practical interests, and looking up to the blue vault of the sky, or looking at the wide stretch of a field or a mass of water or a forest, we can certainly experience a kind of serene, quiet satisfaction, which is the basis of Joy, normally given in every perception, but which is perhaps less veiled in the cases just cited than in others. We can touch and realize this basis more and more closely in proportion as we can rid ourselves of our ordinary practical interests in modes of perception tending to produce organic resonance, as pleasures and pains. Strikingly analogous is the case of sound. We hear a variety of sounds and are interested in them. This prevents our attending to a kind of continuous sound (a continuous Om) which is the basis of all sounds, and which some may hear by disengaging their attention from the varieties, and listening in a quiet place and in their calmer moments. In a crowded place, a moment is never quite quiet, for there are then at least “dispersed” sound vibrations in the atmosphere (like dispersed light-waves during twilight). But in the country-side and in a secluded place, one can listen and perhaps hear the uninterrupted Om. A similar experiment may be necessary for verifying the normal basis of Joy⁴⁰⁴ given in every perception. “Civilization” however which removes us from life in Nature and according to Nature, removes us from this basis of Joy⁴⁰⁵ which is Life, though it may create for us varieties of pleasures and pains. In the Vedas, as also in other ancient Revelations, such everyday natural occurrences as the rising and setting of the sun, the coming of darkness, rain, thunder-storm and flashes of lightning, and so on, are experiences of intense Joy, and we now almost wonder how it could ever have been so. We have learnt to ignore the normal joy of natural perceptions. In however the Rigveda and in the Upanishads, the very wind, earth, water, sun, plants, etc., are perceived to shed drops of “honey”;⁴⁰⁶ are seen to live, move and have their being in a measureless Joy;⁴⁰⁷ are loved as beautiful.⁴⁰⁸ In such a view the philosophy of, and outlook on, life and existence is such that death is not death to him who sees; old age⁴⁰⁹ is not such to him; pain is not pain to him, because he recognises that the Self or Atma is Sat-Cit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), and as such cannot die, age, and be touched by pain and sorrow.⁴¹⁰

Evil and pain there are in the world, and what man ordinarily calls pleasure may be hardly better than pain. But evil and pain exist by veiling and limiting essential joy which life and existence is; so that even when pain is there, there is also the veiled background of joy pervading it and enveloping it on all sides. Evil and pain is not, and cannot be in Vedanta, the true word and the last word for man. Consistently with this outlook on life, the Shastra forbids for example, the writing and enacting of tragic dramas: union and joy must be the last word even in a play instead of death and sorrow. From witnessing a tragedy we come, on the other hand, laden with sorrow, possessed by evil and sorrow as if these were the realities in existence compared with which our pleasures and joys are felt to be “irridescent air bubbles now gay in the sunshine and then broken by the passing wind”. A real tragedy thus tends to invert the true order, relation and proportion of joy and sorrow in life and existence: it seems to fill all existence with an unfathomable abyss of pathos on which the so-called joys of life burst like empty bubbles. The Hindu has not countenanced this tendency in his ancient drama, which, though it admits evil and pain as a subsidiary element, has refused to admit it as the fundamental, essential, primary and final theme.

That every object is a measure of Joy is implied in the Vedanta view of Perception. Perception is an act of owning—cognition is recognition—a recognition of the essential identity between the Self which knows and the object that is known. The Self has its own veils of limitation—successive layers, so to say, of the Veil of increasing grossness, from the sheath of Joy⁴¹¹ to the gross physical body.⁴¹² The “object” has its own “layers” of crust too, according to its past action or Karma determining its present condition.⁴¹³ Both have Karma and enjoyment of pleasure and pain,⁴¹⁴ and both have sheaths⁴¹⁵ appropriate to the needs of their special kinds of Karma and enjoyment.⁴¹⁶ The latter has its “Self” and Play⁴¹⁷ too, as later explained. Now, when the first perceives the second, there is recognition of the essential identity between the two by the first. The crusts of both are so to say pierced in the act of perceiving, the essence of the one coming directly in touch with that of the other, and both being recognised as “the same”. This is owning. And what is the Self⁴¹⁸ beneath the sheaths?⁴¹⁹ What is the innermost being of the Atman but Joy? Hence, there could be no act of owning, and therefore of perceiving, if the Self, in perceiving a block of stone, did not recognise it as essentially Joy also. Perceiving is thus Joy leaping up to Joy; one battery of Power as Chitshakti sparking out to another. The ancient Vedic practice of producing fire by the friction of two pieces of wood⁴²⁰ may be treated as symbolic of this.⁴²¹ Fire, latent in both, is evoked by friction. So Chit and Ananda or Joy, latent in both the self and the stone—maybe, more latent in the one than in the other—is evoked by that action which we call sensing and attending. The Vedic parable of two clouds, charged with “celestial fire,” between which lightning passes, is again suggestive of this. A really unconscious thing⁴²² could not be known—because it is on that hypothesis, not what the knower and knowledge⁴²³ are, i.e., Chit. The third “Pole” of the “Polar Triangle,”⁴²⁴ i.e., the Known, must be of the essence of the other two.

In many Vedic “parables” Indra is described as killing Vritra by Vajra (commonly translated as lightning). Clouds have gathered but it is not yet raining. Why? Because the minute raindrops forming the clouds are by some hidden influence prevented from gravitating together and forming drops big enough to fall. That hidden influence is Vritra. But behold, flashes of lightning begin to pass from cloud to cloud, whereby the resisting power of Vritra is overcome; and it now begins to rain. By Vajra Vritra has been killed. From rain comes food, from food "beings”.⁴²⁵ This is the meaning on “the physical plane”. But it may be made to yield a deeper meaning also. It symbolizes the commonest of facts. In the act of knowing, there is the knower and there is the object to be known. The knower does not yet know it. Why? Because each is encrusted in “ignorance”. Because each has constituted itself an alien with respect to the other—because the latter has been disowned and flung away as unconscious.⁴²⁶ This Power⁴²⁷ we may symbolise by Vritra; Indra is then Chit-Shakti functioning as Self and using the mind and the senses. Vajra is the attentive direction of the mind and senses by which the coverings of Self and the object are pierced, and one is brought into rapport with the other. Both Mind and Matter are Joy from which creation proceeds.

In so-called “idol” worship, for example again, the worshipper first purifies himself by the preliminary rite called Bhutashuddhi⁴²⁸ He calls to mind that all Principles⁴²⁹ and Divinities⁴³⁰ are in him, have evolved from the Supreme Self,⁴³¹ and return again to It. All the Principles and their Devatas⁴³² evolve from and are resolved into the Supreme-Self.⁴³³ These two afferent and efferent activities are represented in the Mantra-Shastra by Hangsah and So’ham.⁴³⁴ After Bhutashuddhi comes mental worship,⁴³⁵ and then finally external worship or worship on the plane of matter.⁴³⁶ These are the three stages of assimilation of the worshipper to the Devata or Divinity of his worship. In the first, the former calls to mind that he and all else are in ultimate essence—Sat-Chit-Ananda.—The Yogic expression of this is So’ham (I am He), Sa’ham (“She I am”). In yoga all veils are lifted.⁴³⁷ In Sadhana (as worship) the Subject and the Object of worship are both invested with the veil of the refined “stuff,” that is, “Mind.”⁴³⁸ The worshipper, though he has previously assured himself of the essential identity between himself and the Form worshipped, yet places his Mind⁴³⁹ in a worshipful attitude with a view to as nearly as possible assimilate it to that of the Divinity or Devata which is, ex hypothesi, purer and more potent than his. Lastly, comes worship on the vital and physical planes.⁴⁴⁰ In this, what has been realized by the worshipper within himself, that is on the higher planes, namely, essential identity as Sat-Chit-Ananda, and assimilation of Mind as nearly as can be to that of the Devata, is projected on to the vital and physical planes.⁴⁴¹ By such projection, lines of mentative energy (or substance-energy) are made to impinge upon the “matter” of the “Image” worshipped. These lines or streams of mentative and vital substance-energy⁴⁴² envelop the matter of the Image, create round about it an aura of “radiant”⁴⁴³ energy which so acts upon the “material” crust of the idol that, whilst remaining apparently as matter to the senses, it becomes dematerialized for the worshipper in this sense that Consciousness, Mind and Vital Force⁴⁴⁴ ordinarily latent or folded up in it (from the pragmatic standpoint), becomes evoked, awakened and patent. This is what Pranapratishtha or “Life giving” rite means, or is supposed to effect. After this, the Image⁴⁴⁵ is no longer to the worshipper “matter” only. It becomes in perception as it already was in reality Consciousness, Mind and Life.⁴⁴⁶ And these are not a mere reflex, as the image of the sun in the mirror is a reflex of the sun. The worshipper’s Consciousness is not simply reflected in, and, imaged by, something which is unconscious and remains so. In other words, it is not unconsciousness⁴⁴⁷ looking like Consciousness.⁴⁴⁸ What the projective action of the worshipper does is to cast the “radiant” energy of his own inner being (vastly potentized by and mental worship)⁴⁴⁹ over the matter of the Image thereby evoking, unfolding, “waking up,” adjusting the “radiant” stuff and energy folded up in it. This is, so to say, piercing the crust of Matter, evoking Consciousness,⁴⁵⁰ Life⁴⁵¹ and Mind⁴⁵² in it, and bringing the whole into rapport with the Consciousness and Mind of the worshipper. The “awakened”⁴⁵³ Devata is thus no mere “creature” of the worshipper, and thus “smaller” than him. The degree to which this can be effected is determined by the extent to which the worshipper has been able to evoke and dynamize himself, spiritually and vitally. The worshipper then sees, after the life-invoking ceremony,⁴⁵⁴ not something alien and unconscious⁴⁵⁵ in relation to himself, but an embodiment of Power as Chit, Power as Mind⁴⁵⁶ and Power as Life.⁴⁵⁷ The preliminary Bhutashuddhi rite has enabled him to recognize this essential identity (So’ham). To the Divinity he has in part assimilated himself in mental worship.⁴⁵⁸ It now stands before his senses as an Embodiment of fuller Power of knowledge, will and action⁴⁵⁹ (similar to but fuller than himself which he now worships for the four desirable forms of Good).⁴⁶⁰

This, briefly, is the theory of the practice, as properly understood: whether this theory, and this claim can be substantiated is not so much a matter for speculative argument, as one for experimental proof. But in any case, worship or Puja is at base a recognition of essential identity and an experimental assimilation, as near as can be, of the form of the worshipper to that of the Devata on the planes of Mind⁴⁶¹ and Life⁴⁶² at least, since Matter, being the principle of inertia and “solidity,” does not easily (though it does, however, upon the necessary conditions being fulfilled) change its form since it is guru—that is heavy or ponderous. And what is more important to our present enquiry—the theory of worship⁴⁶³ is also substantially the theory of Perception. Perception, as Vedanta holds, is an act of assimilation between the Subject and the Object, effected by the Mind⁴⁶⁴—energy of the former going out through the senses to Where the object is, enveloping it and assuming its form, and revealing its essential nature as Chit and as Bliss.⁴⁶⁵ And this is what is supposed to be effective in the Life-giving rite or Pranapratisishtha. Thus Pranapratishtha is perception and perception is Pranapratishtha. In both it is seen that what is “here” (i.e., in the worshipper) is also “there,”⁴⁶⁶ (i.e., in the image). In the course of worship with a lamp, a fivefold flame of light is waved.⁴⁶⁷ This symbolizes the play and offering of the five vital forces⁴⁶⁸ as well as of the five senses of perception (as also, the five elements of matter, envelopes and so forth).

The Self is, in its substratum, recognized as Bliss.⁴⁶⁹ Perception is really the perception of essential identity between the Self and the object, whether in the review and statement of the perception, which are commonly swayed by practical interests, expression be given to such identity or not. In the review of the perception the object may possibly figure as a stranger, as a rival or even as an enemy. But the superimposition of these characters does not destroy the basis of essential identity felt implicitly in perception. It follows therefore that the object of experience, in its substratum, is, like the Self, implicitly felt as Joy or Ananda. This conclusion follows deductively from the premises about the nature of the Self and that of Perception. And it has been shown before that, apart from practical interests and tendencies which variously limit experiences and oppose them to one another, experience of objects, as of Self, is actually and intuitively an experience of bliss,⁴⁷⁰ upon the basis of which pleasures and pains may variously intermix and inter-play. Thus the first question we raised before, whether a block of stone is in itself joy⁴⁷¹ is answered. By “thing” we mean of course “thing as experienced ”.

The second issue raised before, viz., whether a block of stone knows itself as Bliss⁴⁷² as the Self knows itself, is one which cannot be directly decided, because here the question is not what the thing may be to us, but what it is to itself. We are driven therefore to infer from signs or marks. We are to proceed either a priori or deductively or a posteriori or inductively.

In the former case, we begin with a general view of existence (being and becoming) such as is given in these premises: Being is Chit or Consciousness. It becomes or evolves as Power. In becoming It finitizes and centralizes Itself as the selves. Whereby different Centres with finite “fields” of being appear. These are the Centres of Power as Matter, Power as Life, Power as Mind. But since Chit alone is working as Substance-Energy, these Centres of Matter, Life and Mind are essentially Centres of Chit-Shakti. And since the Atman manifesting as the Self is not anything other than a Centre of Chit-Shakti, the Atman is everywhere—in man, in the amoeba, and in a particle of dust. The forms or “sheaths” of Chit-Shakti differ of course in the different cases. But in principle, Atman is everywhere—in an atom of Hydrogen, for example. It is as Power, the Centre-making Principle, and it must be there, where there is a centre of being and operation. A material particle, an amoeba, a plant, an animal, a man—all are Atman which is Consciousness, though in the last named that Consciousness has become evolved to such an extent as to appear as what is called “Self-Consciousness”.

Self may be experienced in three forms: sub-consciously as in the amoeba and other low organisms, intuitively as perhaps in some of the higher animals including man; and rationally or logically as perhaps in man alone (excluding for the moment higher Spiritual Beings) who thus formulates his self-consciousness in definite judgments such as “I know this jar,” “I will do this action”, and so forth. The operation of practical interests and tendencies in man commonly determines him to note and accept life and existence only within certain limits; and sometimes the limits have been imposed upon his organism and his instruments of cognition. Thus the eye, the ear, and so forth can know only within certain approximate limits. Attention also has its limits. These practical limits, so useful in ordinary experience,⁴⁷³ are responsible for the experience of the “ developing ” man being graded into three or four orders. Thus, according to one scheme, there are experiences—gross,⁴⁷⁴ subtle,⁴⁷⁵ and supreme.⁴⁷⁶ According to another we have—gross, subtle,⁴⁷⁷ causal,⁴⁷⁸ and supreme or transcendent.⁴⁷⁹ The experience of the developing man develops into these orders or forms. That of the ordinary man is commonly restricted to the gross order or form. Thus it is gross experience to feel that there is “no” life in a block of stone; "no” consciousness and bliss in it or even in the plant which is taken as “living”; “no” self anywhere except in man. Some of the Cartesians went so far as to deny consciousness or feeling even to the higher animals. Thus man is made to stand quite apart from the rest of creation. The denial of consciousness and life to other world-forms is due to man’s ignorance and to the fact that he has learnt to commonly recognise and accept the Self only within certain limits. We have given to Self pragmatic definitions which reduce it commonly to the plane of gross and ordinary experience.

Even in ourselves we do not commonly know the Self as a whole but only in a part. Man’s Self is really the Presiding Self of a number of selves that are in him. Every cell, every organ, every sense of the body has its own Self⁴⁸⁰ which, as such, is the manifestation of a Devata which is the cosmic mode of a particular form of Consciousness as Power or Chit-Shakti. The microcosm⁴⁸¹ repeats and involves what Chit-Shaktis are at play in the macrocosm: Aditya (“the Sun”), for example, is the Devata of the eye.⁴⁸² Each Devata in the body has his own sphere⁴⁸³ of domestic control and economy. The Self of man’s common Self-consciousness,⁴⁸⁴ is only the president of a particular collectivity⁴⁸⁵—the “united states,” each domestically controlled by its own Chit-Shakti.⁴⁸⁶ In fact, there is no creation where the polarity of Chit as Efficiency Power (i.e., Chit-Shakti, technically so called) and Chit as Material Power (i.e., Maya-Shakti) is not involved and repeated. Everywhere there is “material” to be controlled and fashioned, and a “Controlling Principle”.⁴⁸⁷ In every cell, for instance, there is “Matter” undergoing incessant metabolism, and the “Agency” whereby this is done and supervised—which Biology vaguely describes as Vital Power—is a Form of Chit-Shakti, a Devata. Now, according to this conception, man’s “Self”⁴⁸⁸ is only the Chief of the Devatas, their Indra.

But even the government of this Self is not ordinarily complete. There are many “States” in our organism which, apparently and directly, lie outside its jurisdiction. The activities or affairs of those States, though affecting the general tone and character of experience, are commonly both sub-conscious and involuntary. Several systems of ganglia in the spinal column, for example, are of this type. They may be seats and organs of many race-instincts, individual habits, reflex and automatic actions, and so on. They have their own Devatas⁴⁸⁹ or Selves. These Selves, though generally co-operating with the “Self,” are commonly outside its cognisance and control. If “selective or purposive action” be accepted as the test of Chit-Shakti, then, it may be shown by experiment that all nerve-centres are centres of Chit-Shakti: all select their action. Those who have experimented with animals in which the cerebral matter has been removed, affirm that such an animal can be made to go through almost the whole round of reflex and instinctively selective actions which constitute the normal life of the animals. The noticeable difference, as William James points out, seems to be increased inertia or loss of spontaneity in its actions. This can be explained by the hypothesis that the lower ganglia have their own Controlling Principle or Self, and though this Self may keep itself somewhat in the background and hide its activity in sub-consciousness while the “cerebral Self” is there, it may rise into prominence and do office for the cerebral Self where or when the latter is inactive or its control ineffectual. In the experiments cited, the “lower” self becomes a substitute for the “higher”.

In certain hypnotic subjects, again, there is effected what may be called exchange or substitution of functions between one sense and another, eg., the sense of sight and that of touch. And since, according to the Shastra, the human birth is preceded by countless other forms of birth, and tendencies of different births are as tendencies stored up, there is in man not only the “cerebral self” and the selves of other ganglia, organs and senses, but the countless selves of the previous births (a few, perhaps, are human or superhuman, whilst most are sub-human) brought over and folded up with their characteristic impressions and tendencies.⁴⁹⁰ Of the innumerable “groups” of tendencies⁴⁹¹ those only fructify which are pertinent or relevant to the human birth, by the Law of Similars, the rest, though given, do not unfold and make themselves kinetic.⁴⁹² In man therefore there is a Plurality of Selves or Personalities. Sometimes two or more “Personalities” may dissociate from each other and each becomes, or tends to become, an independent conscious Personality. Cases are on record in which in hypnotic patients or in mediums or in somnambulists, or else in yogins, Personalities with widely contrasted characters appear and hold their sway.⁴⁹³ In many forms of practical method⁴⁹⁴ again, particularly in Initiation,⁴⁹⁵ there is effected superimposition of a higher Self upon a less developed one whereby the latter’s development is extraordinarily accelerated.⁴⁹⁶ We need not adduce further examples. The point sought to be established is this that of the manifested self⁴⁹⁷ as a whole in us we commonly know but little. Our interest is so little and so partial, and our ignorance so deep and so great.

But let us consider the familiar marks of the existence of Personality. A stone or even a dog is commonly to us not a “person”: it is only an “individual”. But is this an absolute distinction? Let us try the marks. There are several marks by which we recognise Self in another human person. All these are at the root expressions of one fundamental mark: action springing out of Bliss,⁴⁹⁸ that is, free or spontaneous action. Action arising out of bliss⁴⁹⁹ is play.⁵⁰⁰ Hence the Self is what is capable of, and in fact does, play.⁵⁰¹ The Supreme Self or Lord is full of play,⁵⁰² the world being His play.⁵⁰³ The finite Self is a finite reproduction, is made “in the image,”⁵⁰⁴ of the Lord. Play⁵⁰⁵ is threefold: in creation, in sustenance, in dissolution. Wherever there is Self, we must have evidence there of “Play” in these three aspects. That is, Self must, out of essential bliss⁵⁰⁶ create, maintain and destroy. But there is a difference between the Supreme Self and the finite Self created by the Veiling Principle which veils and finitizes and conditions Consciousness,⁵⁰⁷ Bliss⁵⁰⁸ and Play.⁵⁰⁹ The Supreme Self is the Lord of Maya (the veiling and conditioning Principle) but the finite Self is subject to it. Hence in every finite Self both Bliss⁵¹⁰ and Play⁵¹¹ are relatively and variously veiled and conditioned. The essence of the Self, which is Bliss and Play, can nowhere be completely suppressed and effaced, however. It may be more veiled and conditioned in A than in B, more in B than in C, and so on. We have accordingly a descending series of Bliss and Play manifestation, starting from the Supreme Self down to the densest or grossest matter.⁵¹² As we descend, we have play⁵¹³ more and more veiled, more and more conditioned, till coming to Matter we are presented with the appearance of “insensate” being where behaviour, as physicists believe, is “absolutely” determined. Matter, thus, appears to us as the vanishing point of Bliss⁵¹⁴ and Play.⁵¹⁵

But it is not really that. In matter an inexhausted residue of Bliss⁵¹⁶ and Play⁵¹⁷ is still left, though ordinarily man has no suspicion of it. Ordinarily he is not interested in looking for Play⁵¹⁸ beyond certain familiar terms of the series referred to. It is said in the Shastra that after gross, solid matter has been created, Shakti or Cosmic Power becomes “coiled”⁵¹⁹ or rests. As such, She is given at the Basic⁵²⁰ Centre which is the centre of solid matter.⁵²¹ Kundalini Shakti is Consciousness, Bliss and Play.⁵²² Hence in matter too there is an infinite reservoir of Bliss⁵²³ and Play.⁵²⁴ And part of this fund is patent, kinetic also, though matter may commonly present to us an appearance of absolute lack of spontaneity or freedom. Ascending the series, we come to plants and animals and, then, to man. The lowest type of life, say the amoeba, is noticeably characterized by play.⁵²⁵ Its behaviour as a whole is unforeseeable, incalculable; though it may be only approximately so. Its behaviour generally conforms to that of the type; but every individual speck of protoplasm has a life of its own too; its idiosyncrasy; its play, and therefore, its Self. It has its own slightly, and often unnoticeably, peculiar “curve” of life which generally or abstractedly conforms to the general equation of the curve representing the life of the species. It has its “personal equation”. A crystal, which grows according to a definite geometrical pattern, has an idiosyncrasy of its own; its own eccentricities; its own play. Deterministic physical explanations are always ultimately faced with a residuum or margin of eccentricities, which, as it is pursued, recedes and recedes like the chased horizon, but never completely vanishes.

In man, Maya, in the form of subtle tendencies⁵²⁶ and gross embodiment of tendencies (i.e., the physical body, senses, etc.), imposes limitations or conditions on his essential being and activity which are Joy⁵²⁷ and Play.⁵²⁸ But through all limitations his essential freedom vents itself. In all his actions, however much determined, he is a free agent,⁵²⁹ whether his freedom may be vented through spontaneity or through volition. His essential freedom is never altogether suppressed; his “empirical determinism” is never absolutely complete. In man we may, however, have grades of freedom. Accordingly, we have three orders of Man: Pashu, Vira and Divya.⁵³⁰ The first is in Pasha or bonds⁵³¹ (never absolutely so, however), that is subject to the veil;⁵³² the second is a “hero”⁵³³ who is active to free himself from them that is to lift the veil;⁵³⁴ the third is a man in whom the pasha has become so light or slender⁵³⁵ that he is practically a master of himself.⁵³⁶ The object of ritual and yoga practice⁵³⁷ is to gain complete mastery over the limiting and conditioning Principle or Maya⁵³⁸ The object attained is Self-Rule.⁵³⁹ It is the consummation of what Kant and other Western thinkers have conceived as the Autonomy of the Self or “Practical Reason”.

We have briefly reviewed the ladder by ascending and descending. Now, let us return to our block of stone. A priori argument has been given to show that the essential mark of the Self (i.e., play)⁵⁴⁰ should be recognisable in it also. Ahalya, the wife of the Rishi Gotama, was according to the Shastra transformed into a stone for a sin she had unwittingly committed. The contact of Shri Ramachandra’s lotus feet retransformed her into her human shape. This, either way, could not be stated to be possible if stone and man were considered to be essentially unlike each other; if, for example, Self which is in the latter were not really, though in a less developed form, given in the former. Similarly, when in worship it is sought to “dematerialize” a piece of stone, and evoke in it Chit, Life⁵⁴¹ and Mind,⁵⁴² success can be had only because, in reality, it is so. By practice⁵⁴³ man only breaks the bonds of his own ignorance and non-realization, and dematerializes that which, chiefly with reference to his veiling tendencies,⁵⁴⁴ has appeared as dead, senseless, Selfless “matter”. By veiling tendency we mean a specific form of limiting tendency which is both caused and presupposed by a particular type of practical living⁵⁴⁵ in the world. This ignorance⁵⁴⁶ is often spoken of in the Shastra as a cave,⁵⁴⁷ sometimes as night,⁵⁴⁸ and occasionally as sleep.⁵⁴⁹ When the Lord of the Veil veils Himself, the veiling, in that aspect, is called yoga sleep. In relation to finite Selves, who are not complete masters of their ignorance⁵⁵⁰ or “sleep,”⁵⁵¹ the veil is an Obstructing Power.⁵⁵²

As in the vedic parable Indra or Aditya, led by Usha (Dawn), first hears the lowing of the cows in the cave, and then proceeds to liberate them; so the Self of the aspirant⁵⁵³ directed by the dawning perception of Truth,⁵⁵⁴ first hears, so to say, the call of the Self shut up in the cave of “Matter,” and then recognises that Matter is only another form⁵⁵⁵ of Sachchidananda, as it were solid masses afloat in the unbounded sea of Being-Consciousness and Joy⁵⁵⁶ as Shri Ramakrishna Paramahangsa used to say. In fact, the cosmic Cause evolves matter through and after Mind⁵⁵⁷ which must as an effect involve its cause though in a subtle⁵⁵⁸ form. The same operation of “spiritualizing” matter is more systematically tried in Kundalini yoga. Kundalini Shakti or latent causal Power at rest which is at the Radical Centre⁵⁵⁹—the centre of solidity⁵⁶⁰—is the embodiment of all the 36 modes of Reality-Power,⁵⁶¹ the synthesis of all forms of Power,⁵⁶² knowing, willing, acting,⁵⁶³ and the Synthesis of all units of “Sounds”.⁵⁶⁴ The Svayambhu-Linga in the Radical Centre round which Shakti or Power has coiled herself up in “three coils and a half,” is the Self or Atman in the Principle of solid matter which is sheathed by the coils of the “Serpent Power” here immanent in Matter in its grossest form.⁵⁶⁵ All this signifies that Matter really involves Self or Atman and the Power whereby this Self is sheathed is really Perfect Power, though “asleep”. It is not, therefore, merely what the physicist would recognise as Physical Force or Energy. Mind as Buddhi and other forms are all there in it. As the Basal Centre has its Linga or Self, so have the other Centres⁵⁶⁶ in which other forms of Matter and Mind⁵⁶⁷ are represented. The Self of the Yogi so acts on these Centres that what is coiled up in them becomes uncoiled, what is latent patent. Thus the Material Tattvas are successively “spiritualized,” and are ultimately cast as offerings into the “Fire of Supreme Consciousness and Bliss” in highest realization.

An atom of matter, according to this conception, is not dead, inert, insensate and selfless. In it the Effulgent Person of whom the Chhandogya says that He is possessed of golden hair and a golden beard and so forth (who can be seen in the “Sun,”⁵⁶⁸ also, on a smaller scale, in the pupil of one’s eyes,) is in disguise, a disguise due partly at least to the necessity of having to deal with it in specific pragmatic relations of enjoyment and suffering,⁵⁶⁹ and, therefore, would not exist in, and as, this particular disguise if man’s unseen result of Karma,⁵⁷⁰ were, or could be made, different. The disguise is relative to the conditions of present practice⁵⁷¹ which set down certain limitations to the functioning of the instruments of apprehension and thinking in man. If one could apprehend the fourth dimension, for instance, a stone would not be to him what it is to us. So again, if one could exercise subtle vision,⁵⁷² one might see or hear the actual dance of the particles in a stone—a dance which though it may conform generally to a measure and law⁵⁷³ might be seen as not wholly determined or bound by it, but as the expression⁵⁷⁴ of Joy,⁵⁷⁵ even as man’s own voluntary actions are so admittedly. This stone, too, has its unseen Karma⁵⁷⁶ by which its position and state in the cosmic system are determined relatively to those of other objects. Irrespectively of other objects, therefore, it is not what it appears to be: a block of stone. It is the Whole.⁵⁷⁷ This is its Kaivalya—that is, its being apart from specific relations to other beings in a stressing cosmic system. Even in actual relations, it is not relatively to one class of objects what it may be relatively to another class.⁵⁷⁸ So long as a thing is a member of the cosmic stress-system, it is a certain thing relatively to man who “is his own measure”. Man thus thinks that, relatively to the stone, he is the knower or enjoyer,⁵⁷⁹ whilst the stone is known and enjoyed⁵⁸⁰ only. But this is veiled thinking. The stone is, according to its unseen Karma⁵⁸¹ a knower and enjoyer also. In the case of the sculptor and the stone we have “enjoying” in both, though, in accordance with his unseen Karma, the fact may be patent and pronounced in the former, and, in accordance with its Karma,⁵⁸² it may be latent and hidden in the latter. All that we have a right to say is this however that it is latent and hidden in the latter relatively to our Karma⁵⁸³ or to that of others who are, or are conceived by us to be, constituted, and “cosmically situated” similarly to us. It need not necessarily be so, relatively to other constitutions and cosmic situations.

Explanation by an Universal “Over-soul” and Reservoir of Power will not materially affect the position stated above. Chit-shakti in evolving as the World of Forms, divides itself, so to say, into a double line of manifestation—cosmic and micro-cosmic, Thus there are, on one hand, Universal Life,⁵⁸⁴ and individual, finite lives, on the other.⁵⁸⁵ The Universal is the causal ground of the individual or particular. The individual thus arises out of the Universal, and in dissolution⁵⁸⁶ is dissolved in it again. The Universal is therefore not simply the aggregate of the particulars. Thus Hiranyagarbha⁵⁸⁷ is not merely the sum of individual lives⁵⁸⁸ and minds.⁵⁸⁹ It is their beginning and end. And co-existing with them, it controls them and lies at the back of them as an inexhaustible fund of vital and mentative power. It is also their connecting and pervading “medium” like ether of material bodies. Its control, however, is not determination. And an individual Centre by “closing the circuit” between itself and the Universal Self, can draw upon that general fund of power. In that case, cosmic power flows on into the individual and fills it, just as, on the physical plane, electricity may, through conductors, flow from one body into another and saturate it. As in matter, flow presupposes difference of level, pressure or potential, so in life and mind, flow implies that one object is relatively greater or fuller in power than another. But the lesser thing, though actually or apparently lesser, must have potential capacity, so that it may contain currents of life more than what it ordinarily does contain. That is, even in the case of actual conduction of cosmic power into a finite Centre, we must presuppose that the latter has potential capacity greater than its actual or seeming capacity; which means that though, practically and seemingly, it is finite and small, yet really and potentially, it is great. And since there can be set no limit to what a “finite” Centre can contain of the Power of the Cosmic Self flowing on into it, we must presuppose that its capacity is potentially indefinitely great or infinite.

Hence in order that Cosmic Power in a large measure may flow into it, its potential capacity must to that extent be kinetized. Otherwise, a well remaining a well will never contain the sea. To contain it it must be sea itself. And it can be become the sea because really, though not “in ordinary use,” it is the sea. Hence the position that a finite thing, even though material, is merely an empirical⁵⁹⁰ form in which the Measureless⁵⁹¹ and Whole⁵⁹² appears as Little⁵⁹³ and Imperfect,⁵⁹⁴ and sectional, is not affected by the view that a finite thing’s accession to power (physical, vital or mental) is due to the conduction into it of Power from a Cosmic Reservoir. We have seen that such conduction and expansion and filling of the Little is possible, because under the action of the Cosmic Power it can be, more or less nearly, assimilated to the state of the latter; and that it can be so assimilated because potentially it is identical with or similar to the Cosmic Power. In fact, while turning a “finite” face to other centres and in world-experience⁵⁹⁵, it must be conceived as turning an infinite face also to the Infinite Self.

Or the position may be stated thus: It is the Universal Self⁵⁹⁶ who, whilst remaining as such, finitizes itself by veiling into a plurality of finite selves; the Universal thus appears in two forms—as Universal and as Particulars which are really the Universal but variously self-veiling. The finite centre’s drawing the current of Universal Life really therefore means the Patent and Manifest Universal removing the veil It has put on in, and as, the finite particular. It is really Infinity discovering Infinity in the midst of pragmatic limitations created by Itself. The conduction or “flow” view, therefore, instead of shewing that the little is little, shows that the little is great, the finite infinite. Greatness is not merely “thrust upon” it by an extraneous Agency; it is “born” great, and therefore naturally “achieves,” or is made to achieve, greatness. That Mind and Life⁵⁹⁷ are given in a block of stone is a position which from this view of things remains unshaken.

But, as on the material plane, we have induction of vital and mental power also, which directly suggests that a “small” thing has a great capacity. In conduction power actually flows from a source to a receiver, and the amount added to the latter is subtracted from the former. In induction, a charged body by its “influence” evokes a corresponding charge in another body. There is no actual give and take. In induction Power in the two bodies is of the same sign; in conduction Power disposes itself in opposite poles in the two bodies. Suppose we take two bodies X and Y of which the former is charged with positive electricity. Now, what happens if Y be brought close to it (but not in contact)? Suppose the faces which X and Y turn to each be A and C respectively, and their respective “backs” B and D. ‘hen, the charge of X will so act upon the neutral condition of Y as to polarize it into a positive charge and a negative charge, and of these, the negative one, which is opposite to the positive charge on A, will settle on C. That is, the two bodies will have their confronting faces, A and C, charged with electricity with opposite signs. Induction, therefore, may be said to reverse the “sign” of power in the influenced body relatively to the influencing body.

Now, consider a stone again. Relatively to the results of previous Karma⁵⁹⁸ and the common experience⁵⁹⁹ of Self-conscious Man, the direction of Power in a stone is downward:⁶⁰⁰ from the evolution of mind, to that of gross matter (in which the former as causal is involved), the curve of Power is a descending one. Man-principle represents an ascending current of power as compared with the Matter-principle. This difference of direction can be symbolized by a difference of sign. Now, in ordinary relation, when a man faces a stone, we have this upwardly-directed Power and this downwardly-directed Power facing each other. The former means evolving, unfolding Power; the latter means involved, folded-up Power. The former gives unfolded, manifest, patent being; the latter folded-up, unmanifest, latent being. Hence, commonly, a man facing a stone means a self-conscious being facing a thing in which Self and so forth are folded up, latent. Thus the stone appears as neutral, inert. But suppose the man is able to “influence” the stone in the manner before described. This influencing will mean the reversing of the direction or sign of the Power in the stone, that is, making it an ascending instead of a descending current, unfolded instead of folded, evolved instead of involved. That is to say, Self, Mind⁶⁰¹ and Life⁶⁰² so long involved in it relatively to the man, will be evolved relatively to him. This change implies, as before explained, a change of Karma⁶⁰³ of the one relatively to that of the other.

This is Induction in the higher planes which descends, with a special form and name, on the plane of matter. Man’s spiritual effort may be through conduction or through induction (“vicarious action”) or through both. Some forms of it lay stress on the one, and other forms on the other. The method of Prayer is mainly one of conduction (in which Divine Power flows on into the devotes); the method of Bhuta-Buddhi or Kundalini yoga is mainly one of induction.⁶⁰⁴ But we must not actually separate the one from the other. Every act of perception requires both induction and conduction of Power. And whether it be conduction or it be induction, it has been shown that according to Vedanta a block of stone or a lump of earth, however it may pose itself relatively to the “potential worths”⁶⁰⁵ of other things, is really and potentially the Universal Self, Life and Mind in a certain form of self-limitation; being so, it is always really Bliss⁶⁰⁶ and Play⁶⁰⁷ as the Self is (for it is none other than the Universal Self); it can be made to appear as a blissful and playful⁶⁰⁸ Self only if we can make our “attitude”⁶⁰⁹ different and appropriate in relation to it.

The gross view of Matter was the ignorance or nescience of nineteenth-century science, but the present dynamical conception of matter (with which the Indian Doctrine of Power agrees) has gone a considerable way in paving the path for the acceptance of the Vedantic view above explained. The atom is said to be no longer a “hard billiard-ball” but a sort of miniature universe, with a practically incalculable fund of energy;⁶¹⁰ it ordinarily conserves itself but is, in radio-activity, transforming and evolving; the aspect of Power as evolving matter, and that as dissolving matter are also perhaps already recognisable in it. Motions and masses in it are calculable only abstractly (that is, after some limitation of the data), but not concretely. Determinism or the “rule of formula” can never be completely established in its domestic or “foreign” life. The Principle of Relativity has also been an upsetter of the old bases of calculation. Hence Physics may be supposed to have indicated already that it is a magazine of Power which creates, evolves, conserves and destroys (thus indicating play⁶¹¹ in all its phases); that it has a system of domestic economy; that it has its own idiosyncrasy; its own “memory,” and so on. These indications are, if anything, suggestive of a Self in the atom doing play⁶¹² out of Joy⁶¹³ appearing as subject to conditions. What Physics covers or tries to cover by its mathematical formulae and equations, is an abstract atom representing some only of the conditions; the real concrete atom exceeds these formulae and equations, and must ever exceed them, because its essence, its driving force is Power which is Joy⁶¹⁴ which expresses itself in spontaneity, freedom and play. Clear-sighted Physicists have long recognized that the nineteenth-century atom is conceptual, abstract, but they must now also recognise that the twentieth century atom, corpuscle and so forth are no less conceptual in so far as they are supposed to be exactly coverable by differential equations. But the real atom is also slowly disentangling itself from those physico-mathematical bonds.⁶¹⁵ The Self in it has now spoken; evidence of play⁶¹⁶ in it can no longer be mistaken. All this is not to say that the Self in the atom is actually a thinker, a logician, or a judge. A block of stone does not think and judge (by means of categories) its states as we think and judge ours. But this does not affect the position that it has its Self, its experience (however veiled relatively to us) of Joy,⁶¹⁷ and its Play⁶¹⁸ (however determined its behaviour may appear to our abstract calculation).

Thus all the three issues raised with regard to it have been decided according to Shastric principles. A block of stone is Sachchidananda or Being Consciousness Bliss veiling itself in a particular manner, but never so veiling as to make its essential nature completely suppressed. Its Self, its Joy⁶¹⁹ may be ordinarily hidden from our practical cognisance which is cognisance within certain narrow, pragmatic limits only.

We began with the Maya-vada definition of Real as that which is common,⁶²⁰ not limited by Time and Space, or without exception.⁶²¹ Enquiry has shown that of all the infinitely varied objects of experience the common, the invariable element is Being Consciousness Bliss or Sat-Chit-Ananda. This, therefore, is the lasting Real; the forms and names not being invariable are “unreal” in the sense of being transient. The fundamental importance of the conception of Experience as being essentially sachchidananda (especially the last)⁶²² has justified a detailed examination of the matter.

But, as in the other case, Maya-vada, in thus defining the essence of Reality and Experience, has drawn the veil over, and therefore hidden, something. That essence of experience alone is not Perfect Experience—the Whole.⁶²³ Unless we add to it Power to change or evolve as varied Name and Form,⁶²⁴ we have “Fact-section” only, not the “Fact”. The Real is not the Essence only which is massive Consciousness as Chit,⁶²⁵ and Bliss,⁶²⁶ but the Power also by which Joy appears as full activity or play. The Whole⁶²⁷ is Bliss⁶²⁸ in itself, as well as Power to manifest as play.⁶²⁹ One aspect apart from the other is but a fraction.⁶³⁰

In conceiving the Whole⁶³¹ as Reality (or “Fact”), we must beware of two possible abstractions. To restrict the Fact to the changeless and universal element of experience alone is one abstraction. The other is to restrict it to a sort of statical, unmoving “perfectness”. All the Shastras (Vedas as well as Shakta and Advaita Shaiva⁶³² Tantras) agree in maintaining that there is a transcendental state (immanent in ordinary experience also) of Chit which is pure,⁶³³ unveiled,⁶³⁴ stainless,⁶³⁵ undivided,⁶³⁶ quiescent⁶³⁷ and without a second;⁶³⁸ that this is changeless and abiding while all forms change, appear and disappear; that this is the Substance, Ground and Root of all world manifestation; and that liberation⁶³⁹ can be had by realizing this Sachchidananda. Maya-vada may be justified not only in emphasizing this transcendental aspect of Chit, but also (as one method and to some extent,) in concentrating the sadhaka’s thought on this aspect, since without realizing this aspect there is no liberation,⁶⁴⁰ and, since according to this method, this aspect should be realized transcendentally first, and then immanently in the varied experiences of the world. That is, Chit must first be recognised as differentiated from name and form,⁶⁴¹ and then, as identical with the Power evolving them.⁶⁴² With this supreme object⁶⁴³ in view, Maya-vada defines the transcendental and unchanging aspect as Reality, and the reverse as neither real nor unreal. Let us let alone the unreal, and concentrate our thought on the Real, because that is unchanging, pure, massive Sachchidananda, the realization of which is liberation,⁶⁴⁴—this is what Maya-vada in fact says. Now, assuming the truth of non-dualism no objection can be taken to this as one method of realizing the supreme goal by those suited to this Path. Our interest is naturally in name and form⁶⁴⁵; to transfer it to Pure Sachchidananda, we must provisionally discard, and belittle name and form.⁶⁴⁶ We have to be persuaded that our interest should lie in Pure Chit and not in the forms. And this persuasion is attempted while the Vedantist declares the former as real and the latter neither real nor unreal. From its standpoint Maya-vada may be right.⁶⁴⁷ But still it should be observed that in this we have attempted to define the undefinable, offered as Real that which is an aspect (however fundamental) of the Concrete Whole. Such defining and offering are necessary for the realization of the object in view; but still when it comes to be a question of living the full and undivided⁶⁴⁸ Reality, we must be careful to recognise that Chit as Reality is unchanging, but it is also Power to change as the world of name and form⁶⁴⁹; that Chit is not Ether-consciousness⁶⁵⁰ only, but is also Power in Play⁶⁵¹ manifesting as the world; that Chit as Ether⁶⁵² only is not Joy⁶⁵³ but Chit in play⁶⁵⁴ also is Joy.⁶⁵⁵ We have no right to draw a line and say that the Real is here and not there. The Whole and Full is the Fact. Hence the Upanishat or real name of the Brahman is The Reality of Reality.⁶⁵⁶

Nor must we look upon the Fact as a statical, unmoving, “eternally realized” perfectness. That is another abstraction. There may be an aspect of experience in which everything stands manifested in the fullness of its relations to all other things. There is nothing unmanifest, unrealized in regard to such Experience. Here knowing⁶⁵⁷ and so forth are eternal.⁶⁵⁸ Nothing being here unknown and unrealized, this experience does not evolve. Many western as also Indian thinkers,⁶⁵⁹ have conceived such a level of eternally and perfectly realized experience. It also represents the 26th Tattva (Principle), viz., Ishvara, of the Yoga System.⁶⁶⁰ He is the knower of all generals⁶⁶¹ and of all particulars.⁶⁶² His sound-predicate⁶⁶³ is the Mahamantra Om.⁶⁶⁴ Man’s experience has generally been conceived as “a gradual and partial reproduction” of that Spiritual Principle. We do not know, and cannot relate ourselves to, a thing in the completeness of its relations. Hence we know more and more; will and act to place that thing in other and yet other relations to ourselves.

That Consciousness as Chit, in evolving by its Power as the world of names and forms, shows a perfect and realized Form (the Supreme Form)⁶⁶⁵ and an unending series of less and less perfect and less realized forms, yet remaining as it is in itself always and everywhere, whilst veiling and limiting itself variously as it descends from the Supreme Form and Name⁶⁶⁶ to the lower levels, is a position which is assured by the very nature of evolution itself. Evolution means this. A Supreme Form or Ideal, as actual Reality, involves or folds itself up progressively by its veiling and finitizing Power; but the Supreme Form possesses supreme elasticity⁶⁶⁷ (as the imperfect forms, material or otherwise, possess their own elasticities by which when strained they stress to regain their own forms; whereby in and through all strained, that is veiled and finitized, forms, it again tends to regain its Supreme Form). This is Cosmic Elasticity and it is at the root of Evolution. It is analysable into two factors—a downward or forward sweep and an upward or backward sweep; an outgoing current and a return current;⁶⁶⁸ an ejection and an absorption. One of the Shastric symbols is the Divine Tortoise⁶⁶⁹ who projects and withdraws His limbs, and Who is described as having borne on His back the Vedas (i.e., the highest form of Experience together with all sounds⁶⁷⁰) in the “Causal Waters” during Dissolution. The movement of the Divine Tortoise is the symbol of Cosmic Elasticity by which finite forms, etc., are projected from the Supreme Form (representing the “strains”), and are again withdrawn into it. The factors of the Cosmic Elasticity are concurrent, but one factor may have a cyclic or rhythmic ascendency over the other factor. That is, in the cyclic life of the world the two factors appear alternately as the dominant and the recessive respectively. This being the meaning of evolution, we must hold that the Supreme Form as actual Reality is at the root of the process; and that it is a partial and incorrect view to say, with many of the western evolutionists, that the very lowest and simplest forms only are at the start, and that the higher and more complex forms are progressively evolved, with occasional reversions to lower forms, the tendency being on the whole towards the realization of perfect forms which perhaps cannot be realized under existing circumstances in finite time. This gives us a side view and a distorted view of the matter. The Supreme Form⁶⁷¹ and the higher Forms⁶⁷² are in the beginning as actual realities, who supervise, as Chit-Shaktis or Controlling Principles, the downward sweep which gradually involves the higher forms as well as the upward sweep which gradually evolves them. The Supreme Form or Ishvara⁶⁷³ is thus given in the process not merely as an unrealized, infinitely distant Cosmic Ideal, but as a Reality present in, and controlling, the whole cosmic process.⁶⁷⁴

But the Supreme Form must not be offered as being alone the Reality. It is an aspect or Form of Reality, as Pure Chidakasha is an aspect. The Full Reality⁶⁷⁵ or “Fact” is Chit which, while remaining by its Power the Pure Ether which is Sachchidananda or Shiva, yet evolves by its Power, the World-Mother, as the world of forms. The Supreme Form,⁶⁷⁶ involves Itself into lower and lower forms and also evolves these again into higher and higher forms until in dissolution they are withdrawn into Itself to be projected again during creation. Being-Consciousness-Bliss as both Power to Be and to Become or evolve is therefore the Reality-Whole.⁶⁷⁷ Time, Space and Causality are born in its womb;⁶⁷⁸ that is, in itself It is Mahakali, which means not only that Mahakala or Infinite Time is the Power, but that She “stands upon” Mahakala who, as the symbol depicts, is “at Her feet”. She is the Mother as also the Consort of Mahakala—a truth which is now understood, She produces Time, and having produced, plays with, and as, Time. Such play is Her play,⁶⁷⁹ Her love-joying.⁶⁸⁰ She is the Supreme Principle⁶⁸¹ evolving as, and transcending, the 36 Tattvas or Stages of involution and evolution. The Pure⁶⁸² Chit of Maya-vada and also the eternal Whole with attributes⁶⁸³ are both Her aspects: She is both above the factors⁶⁸⁴ of the radical psycho-physical potential⁶⁸⁵ and their support,⁶⁸⁶ and is both without and with attributes constituted of such Factors.⁶⁸⁷ She is the Supreme without aspects, as well as with aspects.⁶⁸⁸ We cannot define Her by anyone of Her aspects. In Herself She is the Whole which manifests as the Universe of Parts existent within It.

Footnnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE