Its
Relation to Indian Philosophies
Let us now turn to the
Vedantic idea. According to the Vedantic view the Self is one, omnipresent,
all-permeating, the one reality. Nothing exists except the Self--that
is the starting-point in Vedanta. All permeating, all-controlling,
all- inspiring, the Self is everywhere present. As the ether permeates
all matter, so does the One Self permeate, restrain, support, vivify
all. It is written in the Gita that as the air goes everywhere,
so is the Self everywhere in the infinite diversity of objects.
As we try to follow the outline of Vedantic thought, as we try to
grasp this idea of the one universal Self, who is existence, consciousness,
bliss, Sat-Chit-Ananda, we find that we are carried into a loftier
region of philosophy than that occupied by the Samkhya. The Self
is One. The Self is everywhere conscious, the Self is everywhere
existent, the Self is everywhere blissful.
There is no division
between these qualities of the Self. Everywhere, all-embracing,
these qualities are found at every point, in every place. There
is no spot on which you can put your finger and say "The Self
is not here." Where the Self is--and He is everywhere--there
is existence, there is consciousness, and there is bliss. The Self,
being consciousness, imagines limitation, division. From that imagination
of limitation arises form, diversity, manyness. From that thought
of the Self, from that thought of limitation, all diversity of the
many is born. Matter is the limitation imposed upon the Self by
His own will to limit Himself. "Eko'ham, bahu syam," "I
am one; I will to he many"; "let me be many," is
the thought of the One; and in that thought, the manifold universe
comes into existence. In that limitation, Self-created, He exists,
He is conscious, He is happy. In Him arises the thought that He
is Self-existence, and behold! all existence becomes possible. Because
in Him is the will to manifest, all manifestation at once comes
into existence.
Because in Him is all
bliss, therefore is the law of life the seeking for happiness, the
essential characteristic of every sentient creature. The universe
appears by the Self-limitation in thought of the Self. The moment
the Self ceases to think it, the universe is not, it vanishes as
a dream. That is the fundamental idea of the Vedanta. Then it accepts
the spirits of the Samkhya-- the Purushas; but it says that these
spirits are only reflections of the one Self, emanated by the activity
of the Self and that they all reproduce Him in miniature, with the
limitations which the universal Self has imposed upon them, which
are apparently portions of the universe, but are really identical
with Him. It is the play of the Supreme Self that makes the limitations,
and thus reproduces within limitations the qualities of the Self;
the consciousness of the Self, of the Supreme Self; becomes, in
the particularised Self, cognition, the power to know; and the existence
of the Self becomes activity, the power to manifest; and the bliss
of the Self becomes will, the deepest part of all, the longing for
happiness, for bliss; the resolve to obtain it is what we call will.
And so in the limited, the power to know, and the power to act,
and the power to will, these are the reflections in the particular
Self of the essential qualities of the universal Self. Otherwise
put: that which was universal awareness becomes now cognition in
the separated Self; that which in the universal Self was awareness
of itself becomes in the limited Self awareness of others; the awareness
of the whole becomes the cognition of the individual. So with the
existence of the Self: the Self-existence of the universal Self
becomes, in the limited Self, activity, preservation of existence.
So does the bliss of the universal Self, in the limited expression
of the individual Self, become the will that seeks for happiness,
the Self-determination of the Self, the seeking for Self-realisation,
that deepest essence of human life.
The difference comes with limitation, with
the narrowing of the universal qualities into the specific qualities
of the limited Self; both are the same in essence, though seeming
different in manifestation. We have the power to know, the power
to will, and the power to act. These are the three great powers
of the Self
that show themselves in the separated Self in every diversity of
forms, from the minutes" organism to the loftiest Logos.
Then just as in the Samkhya, if the Purusha,
the particular Self, should identify himself with the matter in
which he is reflected, then there is delusion and bondage, so in
the Vedanta, if the Self, eternally free, imagines himself to be
bound by matter, identifying himself with his limitations, he is
deluded, he is under the domain of Maya; for Maya is the self-identification
of the Self with his limitations. The eternally free can never be
bound by matter; the eternally pure can never be tainted by matter;
the eternally knowing can never be deluded by matter; the eternally
Self-determined can never be ruled by matter, save by his own ignorance.
His own foolish fancy limits his inherent powers; he is bound, because
he imagines himself bound; he is impure, because he imagines himself
impure; he is ignorant, because he imagines himself ignorant. With
the vanishing of delusion he finds that he is eternally pure, eternally
wise.
Here is the great difference between the
Samkhya and the Vedanta. According to the Samkhya, Purusha is the
spectator and never the actor. According to Vedanta the Self is
the only actor, all else is maya: there is no one else who acts
but the Self, according to the Vedanta teaching. As says the Upanishad:
the Self willed to see, and there were eyes; the Self willed to
hear, and there were ears; the Self willed to think, and there was
mind. The eyes, the ears, the mind exist, because the Self has willed
them into existence. The Self appropriates matter, in order that
He may manifest His powers through it. There is the distinction
between the Samkhya and the Vedanta: in the Samkhya the propinquity
of the Purusha brings out in matter or Prakriti all these
characteristics, the Prakriti acts and not the Purusha; in the Vedanta,
Self alone exists and Self alone acts; He imagines limitation and
matter appears; He appropriates that matter in order that He may
manifest His own capacity.
The Samkhya is the view of the universe of
the scientist: the Vedanta is the view of the universe of the metaphysician.
Haeckel unconsciously expounded the Samkhyan philosophy almost perfectly.
So close to the Samkhyan is his exposition, that another idea would
make it purely Samkhyan; he has not yet supplied that
propinquity of consciousness which the Samkhya postulates in its
ultimate duality. He has Force and Matter, he has Mind in Matter,
but he has no Purusha. His last book, criticised by Sir Oliver Lodge,
is thoroughly intelligible from the Hindu standpoint as an almost
accurate representation of Samkhyan philosophy. It is the
view of the scientist, indifferent to the "why" of the
facts which he records. The Vedanta, as I said, is the view of the
metaphysician he seeks the unity in which all diversities are rooted
and into which they are resolved.
Now, what light does Theosophy throw on both
these systems? Theosophy enables every thinker to reconcile the
partial statements which are apparently so contradictory. Theosophy,
with the Vedanta, proclaims the universal Self. All that the Vedanta
says of the universal Self and the Self- limitation, Theosophy repeats.
We call these Self-limited selves Monads, and we say, as the Vedantin
says, that these Monads reproduce the nature of the universal Self
whose portions they are. And hence you find in them the three qualities
which you find in the Supreme. They are units' and these represent
the Purushas of the Samkhya; but with a very great difference, for
they are not passive watchers, but active agents in the drama of
the universe, although, being above the fivefold universe, they
are as spectators who pull the strings of the players of the stage.
The Monad takes to himself from the universe of matter atoms which
show out the qualities corresponding to his three qualities, and
in these he thinks, and wills and acts. He takes to himself rhythmic
combinations, and shows his quality of cognition. He takes to himself
combinations that are mobile; through those he shows out his activity.
He takes the combinations that are inert, and shows out his quality
of bliss, as the will to be happy. Now notice the difference of
phrase and thought. In the Samkhya, Matter changed to reflect the
Spirit; in fact, the Spirit appropriates portions of Matter, and
through those expresses his own characteristics--an enormous
difference. He creates an actor for Self-expression, and this actor
is the "spiritual man" of the Theosophical teaching, the
spiritual Triad, the Atma-buddhi-manas, to whom we shall return
in a moment.
The Monad remains ever beyond the fivefold
universe, and in that sense is a spectator. He dwells beyond the
five planes of matter. Beyond the Atmic, or Akasic; beyond the Buddhic
plane, the plane of Vayu; beyond the mental plane, the plane of
Agni; beyond the astral plane, the plane of Varuna; beyond the physical
plane, the
plane of Kubera. Beyond all these planes the Monad, the Self, stands
Self-conscious and Self-determined. He reigns in changeless peace
and lives in eternity. But as said above, he appropriates matter.
He takes to himself an atom of the Atmic plane, and in that he,
as it were, incorporates his will, and that becomes Atma. He appropriates
an atom of the Buddhic plane, and reflects in that his aspect of
cognition, and that becomes
buddhi. He appropriates an atom of the manasic plane and embodies,
as it were, his activity in it, and it becomes Manas. Thus we get
Atma, plus Buddhi, plus Manas. That triad is the reflection in the
fivefold universe of the Monad beyond the fivefold universe. The
terms of Theosophy can be easily identified with those of other
schools. The Monad of Theosophy is the Jivatma of Indian philosophy,
the Purusha of the Samkhya, the particularised Self of the Vedanta.
The threefold manifestation, Atma-buddhi-manas, is the result of
the Purusha's propinquity to Prakriti, the subject of the Samkhyan
philosophy, the Self embodied in the highest sheaths, according
to the Vedantic teaching. In the one you have this Self and His
sheaths, and in the other the Subject, a reflection in matter of
Purusha. Thus you can readily see that you are dealing with the
same concepts but they are looked at from different standpoints.
We are nearer to the Vedanta than to the Samkhya, but if you know
the principles you can put the statements of the two philosophies
in their own niches and will not be confused. Learn the principles
and you can explain all the theories. That is the value of the
Theosophical teaching; it gives you the principles and leaves you
to study the philosophies, and you study them with a torch in your
hand instead of in the dark.
Now when we understand the nature of the
spiritual man, or Triad, what do we find with regard to all the
manifestations of consciousness? That they are duads, Spirit-Matter
everywhere, on every plane of our fivefold universe. If you are
a scientist, you will call it spiritualised Matter; if you are a
metaphysician you
will call it materialised Spirit. Either phrase is equally true,
so long as you remember that both are always present in every manifestation,
that what you see is not the play of matter alone, but the play
of Spirit-Matter, inseparable through the period of manifestation.
Then, when you come, in reading an ancient book, to the statement
"mind is material," you will not be confused; you will
know that the writer is only speaking on the Samkhyan line, which
speaks of Matter everywhere but always implies that the Spirit is
looking on, and that this presence makes the work of Matter possible.
You will not, when reading the constant statement in Indian philosophies
that "mind is material," confuse this with the opposite
view of the materialist which says that "mind is the product
of matter"--a very different thing. Although the Samkhyan may
use materialistic terms, he always posits the vivifying influence
of Spirit, while the materialist makes Spirit the product of Matter.
Really a gulf divides them, although the language they use may often
be the same.
