English
23 ing away, then, affection dr force • from the so called external world, we see that only space remains, which is only a form of oiir intellect and does not belong to the external world. So beyond the form, in which the external world appears, we cannot hnow anything of the externaj world in itself. Thus matter is only the ob- jective reflux of our understanding, and has only a phenomenal or formal existence with us. In other words, owing to the peculiar constitution of our intellect we cannot know the external world in itself. 'It is for this reason that the Vedanta says; that Avidya or Nescience prevents us. from knowing the external world in itself. Now with the internal world the case is otherwise. Here I cannot, doubt my ex- istence. Coyitp ergo^ sum. In a certain- movement of the limbs, -if I can eliminate- the two parts, (1) the gesture, which, re-^ garded from without, is but a part, of the external world, appearing in s 2 Dace and time, governed by causality, and (2), the volition, which is without space, but is with time sometimes governed by causali- ty, we will then come to see the third part, viz : the Will itself. This lies neither in time, nor in space,. nor in. causality. This A LECTURE ON we can know. This is the vital force, or Soul. This force, or Will is present in the volun- tary and involuntary actions of our body equally. It is in itself unconscious. This is the only thing which we can know in itself. This Willis present eveiy where throughout the universe. Let us now revert to our position in science, L e., to the conclusion which scien- tific men have arrived at. They say that the whole universe is reducible to one prim- ordial matter with forces &c., not con- sidered as separate. We learn from the foregoing philosophical statements, that matter is nothing but a representation of the individual intellect. It is formal or phenomenal. Hence, subtracting this phenomenal, (in Vedantic language, illu- sory}, from the primordial matter, we get only forces &c., in all of which, our learned philosopher says, there is the great central principle of existence, namely the Will. In the same manner the modern philo- sophy of Europe, as taught by the learned Germans, reduces the whole world into- Will. According to the Vedanta this Will is Brahman. The world, being formal only, is the product of Nescience or Avidya, THE VEDANTA PUILOSOPHT. 25 N’ow let us try to understand the prin* eipal Vedanta doctrines more clearly and minutely. i . we take up the doctrine of Avidya, or Maya,- or Nescience. In the opening of this part of our Lecture, let me speak a few words about the use of the two terms (sat'j and (cuscu^), as used in the Y edic literature. "It is well-known that the Sanskrit language is extremely elastic, and that this elasticity Ls further increased by the different stand-points from which we look upon an object. This very circums- tance has been a puzzle to many, and-wa^ the fruitful cause of sectarianisms even in India itself. The same word could be in- terpreted in different ways and, herein lay the danger. To avoid this error, very great caution was necessary. The consistency of the doctrine, and the reasonableness of the interpretation are generally held to be the safest guides in such difficulties. Now let us- see whatsa^ literally means. It is derived' from the root (as), to be. Thus what exists can only literally be called sat, Asat is formed by adding a negative ^ to saU This antonym of sat literally means non-, existing. According to the Vedanta, I may remind you, there are three states, 26 A LEOTTrRE OBT namely or the absolute existence, such as Brahman only; or the practical existence, such as the world; and the syTf?T?7Tf%ZsT, or th6 apparent existence, such as the mistaken notion of a serpent in a rope. Thus Brahman is absolutely (sat), but practically and apparently it is (asaif). Hence we have in the Vedas, while^peak- ing of Brahman e„ it was sat in the beginning and again I e., it was a" non- entity, as it were, at jSrst. Thus we can call anything (sat) and (asat) at the same time, fooking upon it in per- fectly different lights. In the same way we can deny both the two terms (sat), and asat, of a thing when we think of it from different stand-points by the two terms. Thus we can say Brahman as neither (sa#) nor ^^€r(asat), because practically or apparently it' is not ^<7 (sat) and absolutely it is not (asatf i, e. (sat ) ; so in Bhagavatgita (I shall tell you what is worth know- ing and knowing which a man becomes immortal, The absolute Brahman is with-- THE VEDANTA PHII/OSOPHY. -27 out beginning. It' is called neither sat nor asat.) In this way Maya or Nescience can •be called neither sat nor asat, z. e., Maya is neither absolutely sat (true or real) nor is it practically or apparently €[sat, L non-existent, I may add here, that this mode of writ- ing or arguing is not allowed in modern logic. The summum genus j Being and not- Being cannot be predicated of the same thing at the same time, since it divides the whole world into two possible grand divisions. But, gentlemen, this is a mere ' convention meant only to bring about consistency in writers and thinkers. This, to our great disadvantage, was not prac- tised in the old days. But we are not to be disappointed for all that. The consistency of the idea and the soundness of the argu- ment can always lead us to the right path. The doctrine of Maya or N escience plays the most important part in the yedanta. But unfortunately it has been the least understood, and the most misrepresented. Sir G. Haughton says that ''such a system (meaning the Vedanta system) cannot be represented by language, but must be in- ferred by the mind from the principles.” Thus, gentlemen, a little patience and 26 A LECTITRB OK attention are necessary to comprehend this system of the Vedanta. Sankara says that subject and object, i e., the knower and the known, the ego and the non-ego, fall under the names we and yow. These two, i, e,f the subject and the object, are not only different but are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. We can never think that we are you or you are we. The you, i. e., the non-ego may be heard and seen and touched, but the we or I, that is, the knower, can never be seen, heard, or touched. What we know of us or of others is our or their body with its. various environments, and not our or their soul, the nature of v/hich is its know- ing and not its being known. Therefore the subject can never be the object, neither the object the subject. So it is altogether ^rong to transfer the .one to the other. Nevertheless, in our every day life, We combine the true and the false together, and say that I am this and this is mne. Thus we say that 1 ^ am weah and this hook is mine* This habit is caused by a false apprehension of subjects and objects which are absolutely different, and by not discriminating between the two from each oth^r. In so doing we only THE VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY. 29 transfer the essence and the qualities -of the subject to the object, and those of the object to the subject The subject can only be ourself, and the object is the whole external world, including our body with its organs. Just as in mistak- ing mother-of-pearl for silver, a man transfers the essence and qualities of silver to mother-of-pearl, so we imagine that the living individual being is the self. This is technically called or i. e., taking a thing for what it is not. It is in this way that a man says that he is 'miserable because of the suffering of his child or wife. All this is therefore the result of our wrongly transferring the es- sence and qualities of the subject to the object, i, e , of the ego to the non-ego. This wrong or* mistaken transferring, or assumption, i, e,, this incorrect imputation is the out-come of Nescience or Avidya. The aim of the Vedanta philosophy is, as has been said, to drive off this mistaken transferrence by right knowledge, i. g., by knowing that the self can only . be the knower and not the known. We can know the self by being the knower only. That is to say we can know nothing beyond the fact that it is. As the ^un is said to shine by its 30 A LECTTJRB ON own ligbfc, so the self knows by' its being the knower only. In other words the self is only a self-luminous being, and it is not the body with its environments. Thus, we can describe the effects of Nescience, or Avidya, which consist of false or wrong .transferring, &c., as described above. But this way to grasp the idea of Nescience is somewhat too learned. Let me therefore proceed in an easier way. Let us see now the doctrine originated in this sys- tem of philosophy. Suppose (1) that God omnipresent, omniscient and omni- potent, exists, and (2) that He alone exists •and nothing else. Being omnipotent He can create a world ; and this He does. But ■when wo are guided by the axiomatic principle that something cannot come out of nothing, we must understand by God's creation, that He creates out of something which previously existed, and this some- thing must have existed in God • himself, because nothing else at the time of crea- tion existed. Now the world is an aggre- gate of souls and of other objects, which are the causes of different modes of in- telligence with regard to the souls. God being omniscient and omnipresent, His om- niscience is present every where. But the THE VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY. 31 individual souls are limited intelligences.. ISTow the question arises, whence does our limited intelligence come, for which there can be no room?