Subba Row was a very learned Brahmin and in this article
he makes a dissertation, based on Hindu esoteric teachings, to explain the
reasons why there is no God professed by Western religions.
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 (Ego) 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 [see Tyndall’s Belfast Address] 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. 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 is 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 Bahirpragna
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 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 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, [The power or the capacity that gives rise to
perception] – 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.
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 stand- point of
the said theory. It is generally stated
that sensations arise in us from the action of 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
the 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.
1)
Considered as something objective it is the eternal Asath – Mulaprakriti or Undifferentiated Cosmic matter.
2)
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 there from 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 Upadhi 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 stand-point 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 stand-point is
objective, and the Adwaitee stand-point is subjective. The Arhat Cosmogony accounts
for 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
Cosmic 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.
(Five years of Theosophy, p.198-209; first published in
Theosophist, February 1883, p,104-5 and March 1883, p.138-9)
No comments:
Post a Comment