I. Spirit and Matter.
II. Knowledge of the Self.
III. Prana and the Self.
IV. Search After the Self.
V. Realization of the Self
VI. Immortality and the Self.
I. Spirit and Matter.
“Matter or object is related to spirit or subject; and the subject or spirit is equally related to the object or matter. If there were no object,
there would be no subject; and if there were no subject, there would
be no object. For on either side alone nothing could be achieved.”
Kaushitaki Upanishad, III, 8.
Spirit and matter have always been subjects for discussion
in science, philosophy and religion. The great thinkers of
all countries have tried their best to understand the true
meanings of these two terms and to establish their mutual
relation. The two words have various synonyms, such as ego
and non‑ego, subject and object, mind and matter. Scientists
and philosophers have advanced many theories from time to
time to explain their ideas and conceptions about them and
have arrived at different conclusions. Some say that spirit or
mind or ego is the cause of matter, while others reverse the
relation and believe that matter is the cause of spirit or mind
or ego. These conclusions have given foundation to the various
explanations of the universe, which can be classified under three
heads,—the spiritualistic or idealistic, the materialistic, and the
monistic theories. The spiritualistic or idealistic theory claims that spirit or mind is the creator of matter and energy, hence
of all material objects; and it denies the existence of matter as
distinct and separate from the mode or condition of spirit or
mind. The materialistic theory, on the contrary, maintains that
matter produces spirit, mind, ego or subject.
There have been many idealistic or spiritualistic philosophers
in different countries at different times. In India, Greece,
Germany, and England have arisen a number of idealists like
Bishop Berkeley, who have denied the existence of the external
world and also of matter as an entity separate from mental
ideas. Modern Christian Science, which teaches that there is
no such thing as matter but that everything is mind, has been
built upon this idealistic doctrine of Bishop Berkeley and other
philosophers of the same school. In America it is new, because
the nation is new. America has not yet produced any great
idealistic philosopher.
The materialistic theory of the universe, on the other hand,
is maintained by a large majority of the scientists, physicists,
chemists, medical practitioners and the evolutionists of the
present time. They try to deduce everything from matter, and
claim that it is the cause of mind, ego or spirit. Although there
are thousands and millions of people all over the world who
advocate this theory and call themselves materialists, still very
few can define the term matter and give a clear idea of what
they understand by it.
“What is matter? Has anybody ever seen matter? This question
can be asked of the materialists. Do we see matter? No. We see
color. Is color the same as matter? No. It is a quality. Where
does it exist? An uneducated man may think that the color of
a flower, as perceived, exists in the flower. But the physiologists
explain that the color which is perceived does not exist as
such in the flower, but that it is a sensation caused by a certain
order of vibrations coming in contact with our consciousness
through the medium of the optic nerves. This may seem
strange, but it is true. The perception of color is a compound effect produced by vibrations of ether, which, entering through
the eyes, create another set of vibrations in the brain cells; and
these vibrations, when translated by the conscious entity, are
called sensations. Color, therefore, is the result of the blending
of the objective and subjective elements. It is the product of
the combination of that which comes from the outside world
and that which is given by the subjective or mental activities.
Thus we can understand that color does not rest in the flower;
but it depends upon the retina, optic nerves and brain cells as
well, so it cannot be the same as matter.
Similarly we may ask: Is sound which we hear the same as
matter? No. It is the result of a certain kind of vibration plus the
conscious activity of the mind. If you go to sleep, the vibration
of sound will enter through your ears and be carried through
the auditory nerves into the brain cells, but you will not hear
it, because the percipient mind is not there to translate the
vibration into the sensation of sound. Sound, therefore, is not
the same as matter. In the same manner it can be shown that the
other senses do not give us any information about that which
we call matter. Then we ask: What is matter? John Stewart Mill
defines matter as the “permanent possibility of sensation,” and
mind as the “permanent possibility of feeling.” Are we better
off after hearing this definition? On the contrary, it is more
confusing. The whole difficulty lies in the word “possibility.”
It means, matter is that which permanently makes sensation
possible, and mind or spirit is that which permanently makes
feeling possible; or, in other words matter is that which can
be permanently felt or perceived, that which is the object of
feeling; and spirit is that which can permanently feel or perceive,
that which is the subject of feeling.
That which permanently makes sensation possible can never
be revealed by the senses, for the senses are no more than open
doors for our sensations. All that we can predicate of matter
is that it causes sensations. When we try to know its nature
per se, or any particulars concerning it, our senses do not help us. The eyes are only instrumental in perceiving the sensation
of color, the ears of sound, nostrils of odor. Our perception
of the external world is limited by these sense powers, and
all sensations are either direct or indirect results of our sense
activities. Although we know that matter is something which
exists in space and time and causes various sensations, still we
cannot see or touch it. That which corresponds to the name
“matter” will always remain intangible. We may touch a chair,
a piece of wood or gold, but we cannot touch matter by itself.
This is very curious. Gold or stone is not matter, but it is that
which is produced by matter. Matter appears as wood or stone.
It may be interesting to know the history of the term matter.
This word is derived from the Latin materies, meaning “stuff,”
and it was originally used in the sense of the solid wood of a
tree or a timber for building. Gradually a generalized concept
was formed which meant anything substantial out of which
some other thing was fashioned. When a wooden statue was
made, the form was distinguished from the substance wood or
materies. Here it was still wood. But when a statue was made
of stone or metal it was still called materies. Thus the name
materies signified the substance out of which something was
shaped or fashioned. Gradually when the question arose, “What
was the substance out of which this world was made?” the
answer was materies or matter. So the word matter does not
mean any definite thing. It is used for that unknown substance
out of which the known objects of perception are formed. Here
ends the literal and real meaning of the term. Matter can be
used in the sense of any unknown substance which lies at the
bottom or foundation of some form or object. For instance, in
our ordinary conversation we use this word in such expressions
as “What is the matter?” “It does not matter,” “Important
matter,” “Decaying matter.”
In science and philosophy, however, matter is that unknown
substance out of which all phenomenal forms are fashioned. It
is beyond sense perception, yet it underlies all the objects of the universe. It is not the same as space or time, but it fills space,
manifests itself in time, and cannot be limited by the category
of causality. All these ideas are included in the meaning of the
term matter. When we think of that substance of which the
universe is the appearance, we imagine that it is vast, immense,
marvellous and possessed of wonderful powers, which are
constantly changing. But what is matter? Is it one or many? It is
one. We cannot say that it is many. Herbert Spencer says: “Our
conception of matter, reduced to its simplest shape, is that of
coëxistent positions that offer resistance, as contrasted with
our conception of space in which the coëxistent positions offer
no resistance.” (First Principles, p. 140.) Let us understand the
difference between space and matter. Space is extension offering
no resistance, but that which offers resistance and lies in space
is matter. He also states: “Of these two inseparable elements,
the resistance is primary and the extension is secondary.” As,
for example, when we touch something it resists, then we
have an idea of resistance; but when we spread our hand that
feeling of resistance extends also in space. Herbert Spencer says
again: “Our experience of force is that out of which the idea of
matter is built up.…That which opposes our muscular energy
is immediately present to consciousness in the terms of force.
Hence forces, standing in a certain correlation in space, form
the whole content of matter.” Furthermore, he adds: “Matter
and motion, as we know them, are differently conditioned
manifestations of force. They are the concretes built up from
the contents of various mental relations.” In order to feel
resistance there must be present one who feels; and then the
force that is felt is the primary cause which gives rise to the
conception of matter.
Again, matter has not been created by anybody. No one
has ever seen, nor can anyone imagine the creation of matter
out of nothing or its total annihilation. According to modern
science, matter in its true nature is a substance uncreatable and
indestructible, that is, it was neither created out of nothing nor can it go back into nothing. There are various other definitions
of matter. Some physicists say that matter is “whatever
possesses the property of gravitative attraction.” But still this
does not tell us its true nature. We can only say that there is
some substance which responds to attractions. Ernst Haeckel,
again, defines matter as “infinitely extended substance, and
spirit as all‑embracing energy of thought.”
After studying these various definitions, we learn that
matter is that substance of the universe which makes up the
objective world, or that which can be perceived by the senses
and cognized by the mind. It is always objective, and spirit or
mind is always subjective, always the perceiver or cognizer of
matter, the knower of the object. Now we can understand the
difference,—spirit is the perceiver and knower, while matter
is that which is perceived, sensed and known. The one is the
subject and the other is the object. These two exist in relation to
each other. The objective world or matter forms only one‑half,
while the other half is the subjective world or spirit. Therefore,
the materialistic theory, which admits the existence of the
object and denies the existence of spirit or mind or the subject,
is onesided and imperfect. It ignores the fact that matter or
object can only exist as related to the subject.
The materialistic theory is a logical blunder, because it is
based upon a confusion between object and subject. It asserts
that matter is objective, but at the same time it tries to show
that it is also the cause of the subject, which can never be. “A”
can never become “non‑A.” Materialism begins with the idea
that matter is objective, and ends in attempting to prove that
this objective something has become the subjective mind,
spirit or ego. It first takes for granted that matter is that which
is perceived, or the cause of sensations, then it gradually claims
to show that it produces that which feels the sensations, which
is self‑contradictory and absurd.
As materialism is onesided and imperfect, so is the
spiritualistic or idealistic theory of the world, which denies the existence of matter or object, and says that everything is mind.
The theory of modern Christian Science,—that all is mind and
that there is no matter, is as erroneous as the materialistic
theory Spirit or mind or ego, which is always the subject, can
exist as perceiver or knower so long as there is an object of
perception and of knowledge. If we admit the existence of one,
that of the other is implied. Therefore, Goethe was correct in
saying: “Matter cannot exist and be operative without spirit or
spirit without matter.”
The universal substance appears as possessing these two
attributes of subject and object, of spirit, mind or ego and
matter or non‑ego. They are like the two modes of the one
eternal substance, which is unknown and unknowable
existence. It was called “Substantia” by Spinoza. Herbert
Spencer calls it the “Unknowable.” It is the same as “Ding an
sich,” or the transcendental thing‑in‑itself of Kant; Plato named
it the “Good.” It is the “Over‑Soul” of Emerson; while in Vedanta
it is called “Brahman,” the absolute substance of the universe,
the infinite and eternal source of matter and mind, of object
and subject. This substance is not many but one. All varieties
of phenomena have come out of this one source, Brahman,
and into it they will be reduced at the time of dissolution. It is
the universal energy, the mother or producer of all forces. We
know that all forces are related to one another and that they
are, as modern science explains, the manifestations of the same
eternal energy or the infinite substance. From this one source
all mental and physical phenomena and material forces have
come into existence, and have evolved into various forms and
shapes.
This is monism. The monistic thinkers of the present age, like
Ernst Haeckel and others, admit this one eternal substance
as the source of mind, matter and all forces. They also accept
the great truth which has always been taught by Vedanta that
“From that infinite substance or Brahman, the Absolute Being,
have evolved life‑force or Prâna, mind, all the mental activities, and the sense powers, which are included in the meaning of
the term “spirit” or subject on the one hand, and, on the other,
space or ether, and all gaseous, liquid and solid objects which
are understood by matter!” Matter in its simplest state can be
reduced to the same infinite substance Brahman, which forms
the background of mind or spirit. Therefore, Vedanta teaches
that the eternal substance is both the material and the efficient
cause of the universe. Although it is one, still it appears as many
by its inscrutable power known in Vedanta as “Mâyâ.”
This world is not made up of dead matter alone. It is not the
product of the combination of those minute particles called
atoms. Until lately the western physicists, chemists and other
materialists believed that these atoms were indivisible units
floating in the infinite space, attracting and repelling one another,
mechanically producing the elements of nature and creating
the phenomenal world. But now, through the application of
electricity, J. J. Thomson, the great English scientist, has proved
that the so‑called indivisible atoms can be subdivided into still
finer electrons, which are nothing but the force‑centers of the
ancient Hindu scientist. If atoms are made up of electrons, and
electrons are but force‑centers, where do they exist? They exist
in that primordial ocean of infinite substance or Brahman, the
receptacle of the eternal energy, which is in turn the mother of
all forces. Thus, we can understand how matter and force are
related to the one substance or Brahman. The objective side
of that substance appears as matter, and the subjective side as
spirit.
I have already said that it is a scientific truth that matter is
indestructible and uncreatable; so is force. Matter and force can
be transformed into various manifestations, but can never be
destroyed. Now the question rises: If the one half of the world
or objective matter and force be uncreatable and indestructible,
then what is the nature of spirit? Is it creatable and destructible?
If the objective half of the universe be uncreatable and
indestructible, how can the other half, the subjective mind or spirit, be creatable and destructible? That is impossible.
Spirit or mind in its simplest form is equally uncreated and
indestructible. If matter or object be eternal, then the spirit or
subject must also be eternal to make it possible for the object
to be eternal. Who will know that matter and force are eternal, if
the spirit or subject be not equally eternal? This point has been
overlooked by most of the eminent thinkers and scientists of
different countries. The eternality of matter and force or energy
presupposes the eternality of spirit or mind. If the one falls,
both will disappear. Therefore the ultimate analysis of spirit and
matter shows that both are uncreatable, indestructible and
eternal. If the one pole of a magnet be eternal, the other pole
must necessarily be eternal. Furthermore, the neutral point
where both meet must also be eternal. This universe is like a
gigantic magnet, one pole of which is matter, and the other is
spirit, while the neutral point is the absolute substance. For this
reason these three, matter, spirit, and Brahman are eternal.
In Vedanta, spirit is called the Atman, the cognizer, the
perceiver and the subject. It is our true Self. It existed in the
eternal past and will continue to exist in the eternal future.
Nothing can destroy it. The phenomenal world, which is
the object of sense perception, may change from one form
into another, but the Atman or Self will never change. It is
absolutely unchangeable. “Weapons cannot pierce it, water
cannot moisten it, fire cannot burn it, nor can the air dry
it.” It is indissoluble, immutable and immortal substance. It
is not destroyed at the time of death. Death is the property
of everything within the realm of time and space. All objects
that have form are subject to death. Birth is followed by death.
That which is born must die. Our body will die, because it had
its birth and exists in space and time. But the Atman or spirit
cannot die, because it was never born and is beyond space
and time. If you try to think of the birth of your spirit, you will
never be able to find an absolute beginning; therefore, Atman is
beginningless and endless. Everything which can be perceived by our senses will change and pass away, while the Atman or
spirit will remain forever.
Here it may be asked whether spirit is one or many? The same
question may be asked of matter. Is matter one or many? We
have seen that matter as objective substance is one, although
it appears as many on account of its manifestations within
space and time. Similarly, says Vedanta, there is one eternal
Spirit or Subject of the universe, of which the individual spirits
or egos are but so many manifestations. They are but parts of
one stupendous whole or universal spirit or God. God is the
eternal Subject or Knower of the world. He is the cosmic Ego,
the sum‑total of all individual spirits or egos and more. He is
the one Infinite Being, the eternal ocean, which contains so
many eddies or souls. The cosmic Ego or God is the first‑born
Lord of the universe. He is the first and highest manifestation
of the Absolute Substance or Brahman. He is the material and
the efficient cause of all phenomena. He is the projector of
evolution. He differentiates subject from object, spirit or ego
from matter or non‑ego. In Him everything exists, through Him
all beings live, and into Him they return in the end. He is more
powerful than all the individual spirits together. We possess
small powers; as our knowledge is limited so are our powers;
but God is the one substance whose power is unlimited. He
dwells everywhere. He forms the background of our individual
spirit and possesses eternal knowledge. He is the Soul of our
souls. We should meditate on Him and worship Him; then we
shall understand the relation between spirit and matter.
“He is the one Eternal Being in the midst of all non‑eternal forms and
names. He is the one Source of intelligence in the midst of insentient
matter. He makes that one substance appear as many and fulfills all
desires dwelling within the hearts of all creatures. Whosoever realizes
Him in his soul attains to eternal bliss even in this life.”