English
But there is a certain sound about the statement, as if it materialised the Divine thought into a sort of clay, out of which the world might be fashioned; and I can quite understand how this apparently subtle conception of the Veddntists may in some hands have become a materialism almost as gross as that of the Chdrvdcas. Indeed it is certain that some texts of the Vedas do apparently speak of the Deity as being the clay no less than the potter ; but whether those are right who take such language more literally, or whether the A'chdrya here is right in spiritualising, it may be difficult to decide. Judging, however, from the text itself, I should say the materialistic interpretation was the more obviously literal, and the one which any plain reader would affix to the text. You know, for example, it is said, * This whole is Brahm, from Brahma to a clod of earth. Brahm is both the efficient and the material cause of the world. He is the potter by whom the fictile vase is formed ; he is the clay out of which it is made. Everything proceeds from him, with- out waste or diminution of the source, as light proceeds from the sun. Everything merges into him again, as bubbles bursting mingle with the air, as rivers fall into the ocean; everything proceeds from him, as the web of the spider is thrown out from, and drawn back into itself.' So far the Veda, which is still more explained by the Vishnu* Fur4na, * This world was pro- duced from Vishnu ; he is the cause of it ; it exists in him ; he is the world.' Such words appear, at first sight at least, clear * These passagea are quoted by Wilson in his Oxford Lectures on the Hindut. 218 WHETHER MATERIAL OR SPIRITUAL. enough." " Those words," here interposed the A'chdrya, " cer- tainlj occur, but why should you give the least favourable in- terpretation of them, rather than the one we assert to be correct ? I have told you that what seems the world is the thought of Qt)d, and so is Grod." " Well," answered Blancombe, " there are the words ; let any one judge of them ; but I was chiefly pointing out to you now, how this M&yk theory of yours, though apparently at the opposite pole from a pantheistic materialism, had nevertheless something akin in its language. It seems also worth noticing, that your theory of creation, on the most favour- able interpretation of it, is very difficult to understand. For we certainly do not think out our own bodies; we rather, if any- thing, think them to pieces. Nor, seriously, can we take a thought and make it palpable to the senses in the way that nature is palpable. There seems to be such a process as crea- tion, which is unique in its kind, and the attribute of God alone; nor do I quite see why you should deny it to have intervened between the creative thought of Brahmd, and the outshining of Mdyd; unless, perhaps, it be that the Vedic texts already mentioned compel you to have only one substance, and that a Divine one ; and then, starting from this premise, you see no other mode of avoiding materialism as applicable to the Deity for your conclusion, except by saying that the visible world exists only as the embodied thought of the Deity. I should like if you would shew me the M.ky& passage in the Vedas, for there I have never seen it." ** The account of V&ch there," said Vidydchdrya, "comes from the Veda." "Or rather," answered Blancombe, "is it not from the Chandogya Upa- nishad?" "Yes, that is a correct distinction," said the other. "Perhaps also it is a very important distinction," resumed Blancombe ; " for I confess myself quite unable to see, how the mere nature-worship* psalms of the Rig- Veda harmonise with all that metaphysical theogony which you enlarge upon, and which does appear in the Upanishads. But if the Upanishads * Compare North BrUiik Meview, No. XLIX. p. 3x8. WEAKENING OP INDIVIDUALITY. ^ 219 are a few centuries later than the Yedic songs, then I can understand how one arose after the other. Perhaps also those of your countrymen, my friend, who consider the Vedic Deity as making the world literally out of his own body, may be able to shew that their interpretation is the one agreeing best with the general tenor of the Vedic Worship. But, however that may be, I must confess that even the improved sketch, (or, if you prefer my saying so, the more primitive portrait) which you have given me of your religion, does not satisfy those anticipations or wants of the human mind which, on the side of natural reason, most crave a religion, or stand most opposed to either atheistic impiety or sensual indifference. For although your system appears more reasonable than the S&nkhya, in that it makes Divine Spirit precede nature, yet its mode of doing so is either embarrassingly mystical, if it means to assert a Creator, or else, if it does not, it seems liable to subside into a materialising notion of a flux; and then it would let us drop into all the dreary hopelessness of those who make life a seething cauldron, and mankind mere bubbles blown upon it for a moment. Then as regards the individuality of each man's soul, it is certainly harder to agree with you than with Saddnanda: for so £eu: as we can trust our own mental experience at all, we are conscious of a certain unity in ourselves ; and though all humanity may be called one kind, that sort of aggregate oneness is very different from the clear self-consciousness by which every man knows him- self to have a unity of being of his own. I grant you an aggregative unity for all life : and this too as an unity of type which be- tokens an unity of idea in the Divine foresight : but you must grant me in turn a multiplicity of individualities for all sorts of living things. This multiplicity seems proved both by what we are conscious of in ourselves, and also by our observation of the different experiences of men, such as life or joy to one, and death or suffering to another ; and again it is no less proved by the type in plants and animals. You may say anything you like of the same earth and air contributing to the growth of trees : yet 220 WEAKENING OF INDIVIDUALITY. indubitably there is a peculiar form, and so a oneness of life, according to which each tree shapes itself. Whatever that secret germ or type of life may be, which makes the fig-tree grow differently from the cedar, it sufficiently isolates each kind from other kinds, and again individualises each specimen. For if that mysterious germ dies, the whole tree dies. So in man, we are separated by the law of our kind from all other species ; and yet each man is driven into himself to find that mysterious dweller of our flesh*, which is bom alone, and dies alone, and which in most of the experiences of life has no partaker of its bitterness, or intermeddler in its secret joy. This mysterious power of self-consciousness, which we call each man's soul, is that for which you allow immortaUty, and for which we also claim an individual imity. Nor, indeed, will any docti-ine which denies that unity, satisfy the better hope of man ; for the strong desire of doing something worthy to be remembered, and the expectation of looking back with great gratitude on our own experience, and with adoration on the unfolding work of God, must all be lost when the individual man merges in a kind of spiritual ocean ; and though this Ocean of yours is better than the Bauddha one of physical life ; yet, in that it has no unity of consciousness on which we can rest as on that of a doer capable of caring for us, it is still vague and appalling in its unsatisfactoriness. For your spirit is not tnily a God, but a kind of stream of potentiality. Indeed, my friend, it is no wonder to me that nations among whom so dreamy a belief is dominant, should neither have the wholesome energy, nor the indomitable tenacity of purpose, which belongs to men conscious of their own identity, and holding fast a faith in the living God. For mankind, not having some one above them to obey and trust in, seem naturally to deteriorate, like a hound who has lost the master who encouraged him, or the plant which dwindles for want of wholesome light. Yet better still, I might say they are like children, who having lost kingly parents, go and gather • So Manu, Inttituies, iv. 140. (Sir W. Jones's Works.) veda'ntine correspondencies.