Book: Five Years Of Theosophy

V >> Various >> Five Years Of Theosophy




--H.P. Blavatsky




Personal and Impersonal God


At the outset I shall request my readers (such of them at least as are
not acquainted with the Cosmological theories of the Idealistic thinkers
of Europe) to examine John Stuart Mill's Cosmological speculations as
contained in his examination of Sir William Hamilton's philosophy,
before attempting to understand the Adwaita doctrine; and I beg to
inform them beforehand that in explaining the main principles of the
said doctrine, I am going to use, as far as it is convenient to do so,
the phraseology adopted by English psychologists of the Idealistic
school of thought. In dealing with the phenomena of our present plane
of existence John Stuart Mill ultimately came to the conclusion that
matter, or the so-called external phenomena, are but the creation of our
mind; they are the mere appearances of a particular phase of our
subjective self, and of our thoughts, volitions, sensations and emotions
which in their totality constitute the basis of that Ego. Matter then
is the permanent possibility of sensations, and the so-called Laws of
matter are, properly speaking, the Laws which govern the succession and
coexistence of our states of consciousness. Mill further holds that
properly speaking there is no noumenal Ego. The very idea of a mind
existing separately as an entity, distinct from the states of
consciousness which are supposed to inhere in it, is in his opinion
illusory, as the idea of an external object, which is supposed to be
perceived by our senses.

Thus the ideas of mind and matter, of subject and object, of the Ego and
external world, are really evolved from the aggregation of our mental
states which are the only realities so far as we are concerned.

The chain of our mental states or states of consciousness is "a
double-headed monster," according to Professor Bain, which has two
distinct aspects, one objective and the other subjective. Mr. Mill has
paused here, confessing that psychological analysis did not go any
further; the mysterious link which connects together the train of our
states of consciousness and gives rise to our Ahankaram in this
condition of existence, still remains an incomprehensible mystery to
Western psychologists, though its existence is but dimly perceived in
the subjective phenomena of memory and expectation.

On the other hand, the great physicists of Europe are gradually coming
to the conclusion* that mind is the product of matter, or that it is one
of the attributes of matter in some of its conditions. It would appear,
therefore, from the speculations of Western psychologists that matter is
evolved from mind and that mind is evolved from matter. These two
propositions are apparently irreconcilable.

--------
* See Tyndall's Belfast Address.--S.R.
--------

Mill and Tyndall have admitted that Western science is yet unable to go
deeper into the question. Nor is it likely to solve the mystery
hereafter, unless it calls Eastern occult science to its aid and takes a
more comprehensive view of the capabilities of the real subjective self
of man and the various aspects of the great objective universe. The
great Adwaitee philosophers of ancient Aryavarta have examined the
relationship between subject and object in every condition of existence
in this solar system in which this differentiation is presented. Just
as a human being is composed of seven principles, differentiated matter
in the solar system exists in seven different conditions. These
different states of matter do not all come within the range of our
present objective consciousness. But they can be objectively perceived
by the spiritual Ego in man. To the liberated spiritual monad of man,
or to the Dhyan Chohans, every thing that is material in every condition
of matter is an object of perception. Further, Pragna or the capacity
of perception exists in seven different aspects corresponding to the
seven conditions of matter. Strictly speaking, there are but six states
of matter, the so-called seventh state being the aspect of cosmic matter
in its original undifferentiated condition. Similarly there are six
states of differentiated Pragna, the seventh state being a condition of
perfect unconsciousness. By differentiated Pragna, I mean the condition
in which Pragna is split up into various states of consciousness. Thus
we have six states of consciousness, either objective or subjective for
the time being, as the case may be, and a perfect state of
unconsciousness, which is the beginning and the end of all conceivable
states of consciousness, corresponding to the states of differentiated
matter and its original undifferentiated basis which is the beginning
and the end of all cosmic evolutions. It will be easily seen that the
existence of consciousness is necessary for the differentiation between
subject and object. Hence these two phases are presented in six
different conditions, and in the last state there being no consciousness
as above stated, the differentiation in question ceases to exist. The
number of these various conditions is different in different systems of
philosophy. But whatever may be the number of divisions, they all lie
between perfect unconsciousness at one end of the line and our present
state of consciousness or Bahipragna at the other end. To understand
the real nature of these different states of consciousness, I shall
request my readers to compare the consciousness of the ordinary man with
the consciousness of the astral man, and again compare the latter with
the consciousness of the spiritual Ego in man. In these three
conditions the objective universe is not the same. But the difference
between the Ego and the non-Ego is common to all these conditions.
Consequently, admitting the correctness of Mill's reasoning as regards
the subject and object of our present plane of consciousness, the great
Adwaitee thinkers of India have extended the same reasoning to other
states of consciousness, and came to the conclusion that the various
conditions of the Ego and the non-Ego were but the appearances of one
and the same entity--the ultimate state of unconsciousness. This entity
is neither matter nor spirit; it is neither Ego nor non-Ego; and it is
neither object nor subject. In the language of Hindu philosophers it is
the original and eternal combination of Purusha and Prakriti. As the
Adwaitees hold that an external object is merely the product of our
mental states, Prakriti is nothing more than illusion, and Purush is the
only reality; it is the one existence which remains eternal in this
universe of Ideas. This entity then is the Parabrahmam of the
Adwaitees. Even if there were to be a personal God with anything like a
material Upadhi (physical basis of whatever form), from the standpoint
of an Adwaitee there will be as much reason to doubt his noumenal
existence as there would be in the case of any other object. In their
opinion, a conscious God cannot be the origin of the universe, as his
Ego would be the effect of a previous cause, if the word conscious
conveys but its ordinary meaning. They cannot admit that the grand
total of all the states of consciousness in the universe is their deity,
as these states are constantly changing and as cosmic idealism ceases
during Pralaya. There is only one permanent condition in the universe
which is the state of perfect unconsciousness, bare Chidakasam (field of
consciousness) in fact.

When my readers once realize the fact that this grand universe is in
reality but a huge aggregation of various states of consciousness, they
will not be surprised to find that the ultimate state of unconsciousness
is considered as Parabrahmam by the Adwaitees.

The idea of a God, Deity, Iswar, or an impersonal God (if consciousness
is one of his attributes) involves the idea of Ego or non-Ego in some
shape or other, and as every conceivable Ego or non-Ego is evolved from
this primitive element (I use this word for want of a better one) the
existence of an extra-cosmic god possessing such attributes prior to
this condition is absolutely inconceivable. Though I have been speaking
of this element as the condition of unconsciousness, it is, properly
speaking, the Chidakasam or Chinmatra of the Hindu philosophers which
contains within itself the potentiality of every condition of "Pragna,"
and which results as consciousness on the one hand and the objective
universe on the other, by the operation of its latent Chichakti (the
power which generates thought).

Before proceeding to discuss the nature of Parabrahmam. It is to be
stated that in the opinion of Adwaitees, the Upanishads and the
Brahmasutras fully support their views on the subject. It is distinctly
affirmed in the Upanishads that Parabrahmam, which is but the bare
potentiality of Pragna,* is not an aspect of Pragna or Ego in any shape,
and that it has neither life nor consciousness. The reader will be able
to ascertain that such is really the case on examining the Mundaka and
Mandukya Upanishads. The language used here and there in the Upanishads
is apt to mislead one into the belief that such language points to the
existence of a conscious Iswar. But the necessity for such language
will perhaps be rendered clear from the following considerations.

--------
* The power or the capacity that gives rise to perception.
--------

From a close examination of Mill's cosmological theory the difficulty
will be clearly seen referred to above, of satisfactorily accounting for
the generation of conscious states in any human being from the
standpoint of the said theory. It is generally stated that sensations
arise in us from the action of the external objects around us: they are
the effects of impressions made on our senses by the objective world in
which we exist. This is simple enough to an ordinary mind, however
difficult it may be to account for the transformation of a cerebral
nerve-current into a state of consciousness.

But from the standpoint of Mill's theory we have no proof of the
existence of any external object; even the objective existence of our
own senses is not a matter of certainty to us. How, then, are we to
account for and explain the origin of our mental states, if they are the
only entities existing in this world? No explanation is really given by
saying that one mental state gives rise to another mental state, to a
certain extent at all events, under the operation of the so-called
psychological "Laws of Association." Western psychology honestly admits
that its analysis has not gone any further. It may be inferred,
however, from the said theory that there would be no reason for saying
that a material Upadhi (basis) is necessary for the existence of mind or
states of consciousness.

As is already indicated, the Aryan psychologists have traced this
current of mental states to its source--the eternal Chinmatra existing
everywhere. When the time for evolution comes this germ of Pragna
unfolds itself and results ultimately as Cosmic ideation. Cosmic ideas
are the conceptions of all the conditions of existence in the Cosmos
existing in what may be called the universal mind (the demiurgic mind of
the Western Kabalists).

This Chinmatra exists as it were at every geometrical point of the
infinite Chidakasam. This principle then has two general aspects.
Considered as something objective it is the eternal Asath--Mulaprakriti
or Undifferentiated Cosmic matter. From a subjective point of view it
may be looked upon in two ways. It is Chidakasam when considered as the
field of Cosmic ideation; and it is Chinmatra when considered as the
germ of Cosmic ideation. These three aspects constitute the highest
Trinity of the Aryan Adwaitee philosophers. It will be readily seen
that the last-mentioned aspect of the principle in question is far more
important to us than the other two aspects; for, when looked upon in
this aspect the principle under consideration seems to embody within
itself the great Law of Cosmic Evolution. And therefore the Adwaitee
philosophers have chiefly considered it in this light, and explained
their cosmogony from a subjective point of view. In doing so, however,
they cannot avoid the necessity of speaking of a universal mind (and
this is Brahma, the Creator) and its ideation. But it ought not to be
inferred therefrom that this universal mind necessarily belongs to an
Omnipresent living conscious Creator, simply because in ordinary
parlance a mind is always spoken of in connection with a particular
living being. It cannot be contended that a material Uphadi is
indispensable for the existence of mind or mental states when the
objective universe itself is, so far as we are concerned, the result of
our states of consciousness. Expressions implying the existence of a
conscious Iswar which are to be found here and there in the Upanishads
should not therefore be literally construed.

It now remains to be seen how Adwaitees account for the origin of mental
states in a particular individual. Apparently the mind of a particular
human being is not the universal mind. Nevertheless Cosmic ideation is
the real source of the states of consciousness in every individual.
Cosmic ideation exists everywhere; but when placed under restrictions
by a material Upadhi it results as the consciousness of the individual
inhering in such Upadhi. Strictly speaking, an Adwaitee will not admit
the objective existence of this material Upadhi. From his standpoint it
is Maya or illusion which exists as a necessary condition of Pragna. But
to avoid confusion, I shall use the ordinary language; and to enable my
readers to grasp my meaning clearly the following simile may be adopted.
Suppose a bright light is placed in the centre with a curtain around it.
The nature of the light that penetrates through the curtain and becomes
visible to a person standing outside depends upon the nature of the
curtain. If several such curtains are thus successively placed around
the light, it will have to penetrate through all of them; and a person
standing outside will only perceive as much light as is not intercepted
by all the curtains. The central light becomes dimmer and dimmer as
curtain after curtain is placed before the observer; and as curtain
after curtain is removed the light becomes brighter and brighter until
it reaches its natural brilliancy. Similarly, universal mind or Cosmic
ideation becomes more and more limited and modified by the various
Upadhis of which a human being is composed; and when the action or
influence of these various Upadhis is successively controlled, the mind
of the individual human being is placed en rapport with the universal
mind and his ideation is lost in Cosmic ideation.

As I have already said, these Upadhis are strictly speaking the
conditions of the gradual development or evolution of Bahipragna--or
consciousness in the present plane of our existence--from the original
and eternal Chinmatra, which is the seventh principle in man, and the
Parabrahmam of the Adwaitees.

This then is the purport of the Adwaitee philosophy on the subject under
consideration, and it is, in my humble opinion, in harmony with the
Arhat doctrine relating to the same subject. The latter doctrine
postulates the existence of Cosmic matter in an undifferentiated
condition throughout the infinite expanse of space. Space and time are
but its aspects, and Purush, the seventh principle of the universe, has
its latent life in this ocean of Cosmic matter. The doctrine in
question explains Cosmogony from an objective point of view.

When the period of activity arrives, portions of the whole differentiate
according to the latent law. When this differentiation has commenced,
the concealed wisdom or latent Chichakti acts in the universal mind, and
Cosmic energy or Fohat forms the manifested universe in accordance with
the conceptions generated in the universal mind out of the
differentiated principles of Cosmic matter. This manifested universe
constitutes a solar system. When the period of Pralaya comes, the
process of differentiation stops and Cosmic ideation ceases to exist;
and at the time of Brahmapralaya or Mahapralaya the particles of matter
lose all differentiation, and the matter that exists in the solar system
returns to its original undifferentiated condition. The latent design
exists in the one unborn eternal atom, the centre which exists
everywhere and nowhere; and this is the one life that exists
everywhere. Now, it will be easily seen that the undifferentiated
Cosmic matter, Purush, and the ONE LIFE of the Arhat philosophers, are
the Mulaprakriti, Chidakasam, and Chinmatra of the Adwaitee
philosophers. As regards Cosmogony, the Arhat standpoint is objective,
and the Adwaitee standpoint is subjective. The Arhat Cosmogony accounts
for the evolution of the manifested solar system from undifferentiated
Cosmic matter, and Adwaitee Cosmogony accounts for the evolution of
Bahipragna from the original Chinmatra. As the different conditions of
differentiated C osmic matter are but the different aspects of the
various conditions of Pragna, the Adwaitee Cosmogony is but the
complement of the Arhat Cosmogony. The eternal principle is precisely
the same in both the systems, and they agree in denying the existence of
an extra-Cosmic God.

The Arhats call themselves Atheists, and they are justified in doing so
if theism inculcates the existence of a conscious God governing the
universe by his will-power. Under such circumstance the Adwaitee will
come under the same denomination. Atheism and theism are words of
doubtful import, and until their meaning is definitely ascertained it
would be better not to use them in connection with any system of
philosophy.

--T. Subba Row




Prakriti and Parusha


Prakriti may be looked upon either as Maya when considered as the Upadhi
of Parabrahmam or as Avidya when considered as the Upadhi of Jivatma
(7th principle in man).* Avidya is ignorance or illusion arising from
Maya. The term Maya, though sometimes used as a synonym for Avidya, is,
properly speaking, applicable to Prakriti only. There is no difference
between Prakriti, Maya and Sakti; and the ancient Hindu philosophers
made no distinction whatsoever between Matter and Force. In support of
these assertions I may refer the learned hermit to "Swetaswatara
Upanishad" and its commentary by Sankaracharya. In case we adopt the
fourfold division of the Adwaitee philosophers, it will be clearly seen
that Jagrata,* Swapna* and Sushupti Avasthas* are the results of Avidya,
and that Vyswanara,* Hiranyagarbha* and Sutratma* are the manifestations
of Parabrahmam in Maya or Prakriti. In drawing a distinction between
Avidya and Prakriti, I am merely following the authority of all the
great Adwaitee philosophers of Aryavarta. It will be sufficient for me
to refer to the first chapter of the celebrated Vidantic treatise, the
Panchadasi.

----------
* Upadhi--vehicle.

Jagrata--waking state, or a condition of external perception.

Swapna--dreamy state, or a condition of clairvoyance in the astral
plane.

Sushupti--a state of extasis; and Avastas--states or conditions of
Pragna.

Vyswanara--the magnetic fire that pervades the manifested solar system--
the root objective aspect of the ONE LIFE.

Hiranyagarbha--the one life as manifested in the plane of astral Light.

Sutratma--the Eternal germ of the manifested universe existing in the
field of Mulaprakriti.
---------

In truth, Prakriti and Purusha are but the two aspects of the same ONE
REALITY. As our great Sankaracharya truly observes at the close of his
commentary on the 23rd Sutra of the first chapter of the Brahma sutras,
"Parabrahmam is Karta (Purush), as there is no other Adhishtatha,* and
Parabrahmam is Prakriti, there being no other Upadanam." This sentence
clearly indicates the relation between "the One Life" and "the One
Element" of the Arha-philosophers. This will elucidate the meaning of
the statement so often quoted by Adwaitees--"Sarvam Khalvitham Brahma"
** and also of what is meant by saying that Brahmam is the Upadanakarnam
(material cause) of the Universe.

--T Subba Row

---------
* Adishtatha--that which inheres in another principle--the active agent
working in Prakriti.

** Everything in the universe is Brahma.
---------




Morality and Pantheism


Questions have been raised in several quarters as to the inefficiency of
Pantheism (which term is intended to include Esoteric Buddhism, Adwaitee
Vedantism, and other similar religious systems) to supply a sound basis
of morality.

The philosophical assimilation of meum and teum, it is urged, must of
necessity be followed by their practical confusion, resulting in the
sanction of cruelty, robbery, &c. This line of argument points,
however, most unmistakably to the co-existence of the objection with an
all but utter ignorance of the systems objected to, in the critic's
mind, as we shall show by-and-by. The ultimate sanction of morality, as
is well known, is derived from a desire for the attainment of happiness
and escape from misery. But schools differ in their estimate of
happiness. Exoteric religions base their morality on the hope of reward
and fear of punishment at the hands of an Omnipotent Ruler of the
Universe by following the rules he has at his pleasure laid down for the
obedience of his helpless subjects; in some cases, however, religions
of later growth have made morality to depend on the sentiment of
gratitude to that Ruler for benefits received. The worthlessness, not
to speak of the mischievousness, of such systems of morality is almost
self-evident. As a type of morality founded on hope and fear, we shall
take an instance from the Christian Bible: "He that giveth to the poor
lendeth to the Lord." The duty of supporting the poor is here made to
depend upon prudential motives of laying by for a time when the "giver
to the poor" will be incapable of taking care of himself. But the
Mahabharata says that "He that desireth a return for his good deeds
loseth all merit; he is like a merchant bartering his goods." The true
springs of morality lose their elasticity under the pressure of such
criminal selfishness; all pure and unselfish natures will fly away from
it in disgust.

To avoid such consequences attempts have been made by some recent
reformers of religion to establish morality upon the sentiment of
gratitude to the Lord. But it requires no deep consideration to find
that, in their endeavours to shift the basis of morality, these
reformers have rendered morality entirely baseless. A man has to do
what is represented to be a thing "dear unto the Lord" out of gratitude
for the many blessings He has heaped upon him. But as a matter of fact
he finds that the Lord has heaped upon him curses as well as blessings.
A helpless orphan is expected to be grateful to him for having removed
the props of his life, his parents, because he is told in consolation
that such a calamity is but apparently an evil, but in reality the
All-Merciful has underneath it hidden the greatest possible good. With
equal reason might a preacher of the Avenging Ahriman exhort men to
believe that under the apparent blessings of the "Merciful" Father there
lurks the serpent of evil.

The modern Utilitarians, though the range of their vision is so narrow,
have sterner logic in their teachings. That which tends to a man's
happiness is good, and must be followed, and the contrary shunned as
evil. So far so good. But the practical application of the doctrine is
fraught with mischief. Cribbed, cabined, and confined, by rank
Materialism, within the short space between birth and death, the
Utilitarians' scheme of happiness is merely a deformed torso, which
cannot certainly be considered as the fair goddess of our devotion.

The only scientific basis of morality is to be sought for in the
soul-consoling doctrines of Lord Buddha or Sri Sankaracharya. The
starting-point of the "pantheistic" (we use the word for want of a better
one) system of morality is a clear perception of the unity of the one
energy operating in the manifested Cosmos, the grand result which it is
incessantly striving to produce, and the affinity of the immortal human
spirit and its latent powers with that energy, and its capacity to
cooperate with the one life in achieving its mighty object.

Now knowledge or jnanam is divided into two classes by Adwaitee
philosophers--Paroksha and Aparoksha. The former kind of knowledge
consists in intellectual assent to a stated proposition, the latter in
the actual realization of it. The object which a Buddhist or Adwaitee
Yogi sets before himself is the realization of the oneness of existence,
and the practice of morality is the most powerful means to that end, as
we proceed to show. The principal obstacle to the realization of this
oneness is the inborn habit of man of always placing himself at the
centre of the Universe. Whatever a man might act, think, or feel, the
irrepressible personality is sure to be the central figure. This, as
will appear on reflection, is that which prevents every individual from
filling his proper sphere in existence, where he only is exactly in
place and no other individual is. The realization of this harmony is
the practical or objective aspect of the GRAND PROBLEM. And the
practice of morality is the effort to find out this sphere; morality,
indeed, is the Ariadne's clue in the Cretan labyrinth in which man is
placed. From the study of the sacred philosophy preached by Lord Buddha
or Sri Sankara, paroksha knowledge (or shall we say belief?), in the
unity of existence is derived, but without the practice of morality that
knowledge cannot be converted into the highest kind of knowledge, or
aproksha jnanam, and thus lead to the attainment of mukti. It availeth
naught to intellectually grasp the notion of your being everything and
Brahma, if it is not realized in practical acts of life. To confuse
meum and teum in the vulgar sense is but to destroy the harmony of
existence by a false assertion of "I," and is as foolish as the anxiety
to nourish the legs at the expense of the arms. You cannot be one with
all, unless all your acts, thoughts, and feelings synchronize with the
onward march of Nature. What is meant by the Brahmajnani being beyond
the reach of Karma, can be fully realized only by a man who has found
out his exact position in harmony with the One Life in Nature; that man
sees how a Brahmajnani can act only in unison with Nature, and never in
discord with it: to use the phraseology of ancient writers on
Occultism, a Brahmajnani is a real "co-worker with Nature." Not only
European Sanskritists, but also exoteric Yogis, fall into the grievous
mistake of supposing that, in the opinion of our sacred writers, a human
being can escape the operation of the law of Karma by adopting a
condition of masterly inactivity, entirely losing sight of the fact that
even a rigid abstinence from physical acts does not produce inactivity
on the higher astral and spiritual planes. Sri Sankara has very
conclusively proved, in his commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, that such
a supposition is nothing short of a delusion. The great teacher shows
there that forcibly repressing the physical body from working does not
free one from vasana or vritti--the inherent inclination of the mind to
work. There is a tendency, in every department of Nature, for an act to
repeat itself; the Karma acquired in the last preceding birth is always
trying to forge fresh links in the chain, and thereby lead to continued
material existence;--and this tendency can only be counteracted by
unselfishly performing all the duties appertaining to the sphere in
which a person is born; such a course alone can produce chitta suddhi,
(purification of the mind), without which the capacity of perceiving
spiritual truths can never be acquired.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.