Sunday, November 25, 2012

TAYUMANAVAR

GOD AND THE WORLD.

    This poem of the Saint Tayumanavar, remarkable alike for beauty of ideas and of setting, and to which no translation can do justice, describes (as far as words can) God, the only reality, and by contrast the World, with its "lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life," clinging to the pleasures of the senses as heaven and as real, only to find its mistake when in the throes of death and to learn too late that God is the only help and should have been the only goal. Not that the Saint altogether condemns sensuous enjoyments. He has elsewhere explained in what spirit they should be enjoyed.

    கொந்தவிழ்மலர்ச்சோலை
நன்னீழல்வைகினுங்

        குளிர்தீம்புனற்கையள்ளிக்

    கொள்ளுகினுமந்நீ ரிடைத்திளைத்தாடினுங்

        குளிர்சந்தவாடைமடவார்

    வந்துலவுகின்றதென முன்றிலிடையுலவவே

        வசதிபெறுபோதும்வெள்ளை

    வட்டமதிபட்டப் பகற்போலநிலவுதர

        மகிழ்போதும்வேலையமுதம்

    விந்தைபெறவறுசுவையில் வந்ததெனவமுதுண்ணும்

        வேளையிலுமாலைகந்தம்

    வெள்ளிலைய டைக்காய் விரும்பிவேண் டியவண்ணம்

        விளையாடி விழிதுயிலினுஞ்

    சந்ததமுநின்னருளை மறவாவரந்தந்து

        தமியேனை ரக்‌ஷைபுரிவாய்

    சர்வபரிபூர்ண வகண்டதத்துவமான

        சச்சிதானந்தசிவமே.                        


 

    "Whether in grateful shade I dwell of groves

    Rich in clustered blooms, or cool sweet draughts

    I quaff from limpid stream,

    Or in its waters bathe and sport,

    Or, fanned by fragrant breezes fresh that

    Like maidens in the court yard play,

    I revel in the full moon's day-like splendor,

    Or on dainties I feast wherein ocean's ambrosia

    Haply hath wondrous entered or in garlands,

    Perfumes, betel, I joy, or rest in sleep, -

    Thy Grace may I never forget! This boon

    Unto me grant and from the world guard me,

    O Sivam, all-pervading, infinite, true,

    That art the Only Reality, Pure Knowledge, Bliss!"


 

வண்ணம்


 

    அருவென் பனவுமன்றி உருவென் பனவு மன்றி

        அகமும் புறமுமன்றிமுறைபிறழாது

    குறியுங் குணமுமன்றி நிறைவுங் குறைவுமன்றி

        மறையொன் றெனவிளம்பவிமலமதாகி

    அகலம் பெறவுயர்ந்து விபுலம் பெறவளர்ந்து

        சபலஞ் சபலமென்றுளறிவினர்காண

            ஞானவேளியிடைமேவுமுயிராய்-            (1)


 

அனலொன் றிடவெரிந்த புகைமண் டிடுவதன்று

    புனலொன்றிடவமிழ்ந்துமடிவிலதூதை

சருவும் பொழுதுயர்ந்து சலனம் படுவதன்று

    சமர்கொண்டழிவதன்றோரியல்பினதாகும்

அவனென் பதவுமன்றி அவளென் பதுவுமன்றி

    அதுவென்பதுவுமன்றியெழில்கொடுலாவும்

        ஆருநிலையறியாதபடியே-                (2)


 

இருளென் பதுவுமன்றி யொளியென் பதுவுமன்றி

    எவையுந்தனுளடங்கவொருமுதலாகும்

உனதென் பதுவுமன்றி யிலதென் பதுவமன்றி

    உலகந் தொழவிருந்த வயன்முதலோர்கள்

எவருங் கவலைகொண்டு சமயங் களில்விழுந்து

    சுழலுட் டொழுதிரங்கி உருள்செயுமாறு

        கூறரிய சகமாயையறவே-                (3)


 

எனதென் பதையிகழ்ந்த வறிவின் றிரளினின்று

    மறிவொன் றெனவிளங்குமுபயமதாக

அறியுந் தரமுமன்று பிறியுந் தரமுமன்று

    அசரஞ் சரமிரண்டீ னொருபடியாகி

எதுசந் ததநிறைந்த தெதுசிந் தனையிறந்த

    தெதுமங் களசுபங்கொள்சுகவடிவாகும்

        யாதுபரமதைநாடியறிநீ.                (4)


 

பருவங் குலவுகின்ற மடங் கையர் தொடங்கு

    கபடந் தனில்விழுந்து கெடுநினைவாகி

வலையின் புடைமறிந்த மறியென் றவசமுண்டு

    வசனந் திரமுமின்றியவரிதமூறல்

பருகுந் தொழிலிணங்கி யிரவும் பகலுமின்சொல்

    பகரும் படிதுணிந்து குழலமகாக

        மாலைவகைபலசூடியுடனே-            (5)

    பதுமந் தனையிசைந்த முலையென் றதையுகந்து

        வரிவண் டெனவுழன்றுகலிலெனவாடுஞ்

    சிறுகிண் கிணிசிலம்பு புனைதண் டைகண்முழங்கும்

        ஒலிநன் றெனமகிழ்ந்து செவிகொளநாசி

    பசுமஞ் சளின் வியந்த மணமுந் திடமுகந்து

        பவமிஞ் சிடவிறைஞ்சி வரிசையினூடு

            காலின்மிசைமுடிசூடிமயலாய்-            (6)


 

    மருளுந் தெருளும்வந்து கதியென் பதைமறந்து

        மதனன் சலதிபொங்க விரணமதான

    அளிபுண் டனைவளைந்து விரல்கொண் டுறவளைந்து

        சுரதஞ் சுகமிதென்றுபரவசமாகி

    மருவந் தொழின் மிகுந்து தினமுந் தினமும்விஞ்சி

        வளரும் பிறைகுறைந்தபடிமதிசோர

            வானரம தெனமேனிகிரையாய்-            (7)


 

    வயதும் படலெழுந்து பிணியுந் திமீதிமென்று

        வரவுஞ் செயலழிந்துளிருமலுமாகி

    அனமுஞ் செலுதலின்றி விழியுஞ் சுடர்களின்று

        முகமுங் களைகளின்றுசரியெனநாடி

    மனையின் புறவிருந்த வினமுங் குலைகுலைந்து

        கலகஞ் செயலி நண்டயமன்வரும்வேளை

            ஏதுதுணைபழி காரமனமே.                (8)


 


 

    Not form or formless, not in, not out,

        swerving not from order,

    Not mark nor quality, fullness nor defect,

        declared by the Vedas to be One, pure,

    Rising aloft, spreading forth majestic,

        Seen inwardly by the wise

    To be gain, pure gain,

        Life pervading Spirit-Space


 

    Not to be burned by fire nor whelmed by smoke,

        Drowned in water nor raised

    Nor moved by force of wind, nor

        killed in battle; of nature ever one;

    Not he, not she, rot it,

        walking in beauty, understood by none;


 

    Not darkness nor light; all-embracing substance,

        not being nor not-being;

    Piercing in pity the Maya-universe,*

[* i.e., The Absolute becoming conditioned and manifest.]

        gracious to help what time

    Brahma and others the world adores

        are tossed in care;


 

    In intelligence rid of 'I' and 'Mine' standing,

        yet as One Intelligence shining.

    Not to be known as two, not to be sundered,

        the same in lifeless and living things;

    What is That which is ever full,

        which is dead to thought, which is pure Bliss and Peace?

    What is the Supreme?

        Seek thou THAT and know.


 

    In lovely woman's wiles fallen,

        on evil thoughts intent,

    Caught like deer in toils,

        of speech unsteady,

    Ever sipping her lips, drinking

        sweet prattle night and day,

    Decking her locks with varied wreaths,

        to lotus-buds her breasts likening, on them doting,

    In the tinkle of her anklets delighting,

        That like bees make music and dance around,

    

Her sweet perfume enjoying,

        worshipping her to thy ruin,

    Crowning thy head with her feet,

        with delusion and darkness seized,

    Forgetting thy goal,

        cupid's sea overflowing,

    Rubbing the ripe sore with the finger,

        saying "This is bliss, This is bliss,"

    Mad acts of passion growing, intellect

        daily waning like the waning moon,

    Body growing grey like an ape's,

        years advancing,

    

Diseases in hosts tramping,

        coughing, coughing,

    Limbs not moving, food not eating,

        eyes lacking light, face lacking lustre,

    Kinsfolk in hot haste arriving

        and making uproar "It is all up, all up,"

    Thus when dread Death comes,

        who will help thee, O Mind, you sinner?

P. A.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

SRADDHA AND BHAKTI.

    We quote the following texts from the Vedas and Upanishads from those collected by Dr. J. Muir in his valuable book "Metrical Translations from ancient writers."

    1.    "Whatever is done with Knowledge with faith with yoga, is more efficacious." II. 1-10 Chandog Up.

    2.    "They have no faith in that man's sacrifice who sacrifices without the exercise of faith" I. 6-8-1. Tait. Samhita.

    3.    "On what are largesse's based? On faith, for when a man has faith, he bestows largesse. On what is faith based? On the heart; for it is through his heart that a man has faith." XIV 6,9.22. Satapatha Brahmana III.9.21. Brihad Aranyaka.

    In the Rig Veda, piety, faith in the gods, and devotion to their service, are represented as the necessary conditions of enjoying their favors and obtaining the blessings which they are able to confer. I cite the following texts:-

    I.55.5. "Men have faith (sraddadhate) in the fiery Indra when he hurls again and again his destroying thunderbolt."

    I.102, 2. "Sun and moon move alternately, O Indra, for us to behold, that we may have faith (in thee?)"

    I.103, 5. "Behold therefore this his great force; have faith in Indra's prowess."

    I. 104, 6. "Do not, O Indra, destroy our valued enjoyment we have put faith in thy great power. 7. I verily believe that faith has been reposed in thee; do thou, who art vigorous, advance us to great wealth."

    I. 108, 6. "Since I said at first, when desiring you twain (Indra or Agni), this our soma is to be sought after by the deities, - come now, regarding with favor this our true faith, and drink the poured-out soma."

    VI. 26, 6. "Thou, O Indra, gladdened by acts of faith, and by soma draughts, didst, for the sake of Dabhiti, cast chumuri into a sleep."*

    [* The commentator explains this as meaning that Indra was gladdened by rites performed with faith, for as he says, "the rite which is accompanied by faith has real worth," and he quotes the Chhandogya Upanishad, I, I, 10, where it is said, "whatever is done with knowledge, with faith, and with esoteric science, is more efficacious."]

    VII. 32, 14. "Who, O Indra, can overcome the man whose wealth thou art? By faith in thee in the critical day (of conflict) the hero gains spoil."

    In the following texts the reality of Indra's existence and power is asserted in opposition to skeptical doubts:- ii.12, 5. "That dreadful deity, of whom they ask 'where is he,' of whom they say 'he is not,' – he carries off the riches of the foe, as (a gamester) the stakes;* put faith in him, O men, is Indra.

    [* The words of the Original are vijah iva aminati, Vijah occurs in two passages, i.92, 10, and ii. 12, 5, in each of which Sayana assigns to it a different sense, though it must have the same meaning in both. Both in his Lexicon, S.V. only says that it appears to be a gaming expression. Benfey in his translation of i.92, 10, gives it the significance of "dice," Orient and Occident, ii.p.257 and note]

    VI.18, 3. "Hast thou prowess, O Indra, or not? tell us truly. Thy strength, O thou strongest of beings, who art great by nature, is really existent."

    VIII. 89, 3. "Seeking after good, present a true hymn, to Indra, if he truly exists. 'Indra does not exist.' says someone; 'who has seen him? whom shall we praise?'

    4.    'Here am I, O worshipper' (exclaims Indra); "behold me here; I surpass all creatures in greatness.'

    See also R. V. VIII. I, 31; X.39, 5; X. 147, I. The following texts also express the pious emotions of the worshippers:-

    I.61, 2. "They polished their praises for Indra, their ancient lord, with heart, mind and understanding."

    VI. 28, 5, "These cows, O men, are Indra: I desire Indra with my heart and mind."

    I. 93, 8. "Do ye, O Agni and Soma regard the acts of the man who worships you with an oblation, with a mind directed to the gods, (devadricha manasa), and with butter." (The same phrase occurs in I, 162, 12).

    IV. 42, 9. "The self-dependent god provides with opulence that man who loves the gods, and does not with hold his wealth." The same phrase, "lover of the gods," devakama, Occurs also in ii. 3, 9, and iii, 4, 9, and also in the following verse:-

    X. 160, 3. "Indra does abandon the cattle of the man who loves the gods, and with a longing mind, and with his whole heart, pours out to him libations of soma.    IV. 24, 6. "He bestows deliverance of the man who, with mind directed to him and unreluctantly pours out soma to longing Indra: he makes him a companion in his fights." (for good), offers gifts to the wide-striding Vishnu, who worships him with devoted mind, and seeks to gain so great a hero."

    VIII. 2, 37. "Worship, O Priyamedhas with devoted mind Indra, who is really exhilarated with soma."

    IX. 77, 4. "This soma knowing (our affairs) and lauded by many with devoted minds, will overcome our assailants."

    V. 4, 10. "Give renown, O Jatavedas (Agni) to me, who, a mortal, constantly invoke thee, an immortal, with a laudatory heart (hrida kirind): may I with (or through) my offspring attain immortality."

    VIII. 50, 9. "The man, whether learned or unlearned, who, devoted to thee, dedicates to these a word, will delight thee."

    Prosperous men are said to disregard Indra until alarmed by display of his might:-

    VIII. 21, 14. "Thou never chooses a rich man to be thy friend Men intoxicated with wine are hostile to thee. When thou makest a sound, thou gatherest them together then thou art called upon as a father."

    In 5, 44 the following verses occur:- 14. "The Rik verses love him who is awake, the Saman verses proceed to him who is awake. This soma-libation says to him who is awake: "I am pleased with thy friendship." 15. Agni is awake; to him do the Saman verses proceed. Agni is awake; to him does this Soma say, 'I am pleased with thy friendship."

    The 151st hymn of the 10th book of the R.V. is addressed to Sraddha, faith. It is as follows:- I, "Through faith the fire is kindled; through faith the oblation is offered,* [* That is, according to Yaska Nirukta IX. 31, "is well kindled,: is well offered."] with our words we proclaim faith (to be) upon the head of good fortune.† [† i.e., according to the commentary on the Taitteriya Brahmana, ii.8, 8, ff., where the hymn is quoted, "Faith is the cause of good fortune to men." "Sayana in his explanation of this hymn, however, defines Sraddha to be "a particular desire which a man has."] 2. O faith, make this which I utter acceptable to him who gives, and to him who desires to give, and to liberal worshippers. 3. As the gods caused faith in (the minds of) the fierce Asuras, so make what we utter (be an object of faith) to liberal worshippers.

    4.    The gods Sacrificing, protected by Vayu, reverence faith. A man acquires faith through an impulse of the heart; through faith he gains wealth. 5. We invoke faith in the morning, at noon, and at the setting of the sun: O Faith, inspire us with faith." The Taittiriys Brahmana ii. 8, 8, 8, adds another verse: "Faith dwells in (or among) the gods; faith is the entire universe; with an oblation we exalt faith, the mother of what we desire." The same Brahmana has the following verses in ii. 12, 3, I ff:-

    "Through faith a god attains godhead; faith is divine, the support of the world; favoring us, she has come to our sacrifice, having enjoyment for her offspring, and yielding nectar (or immortality).* [* The commentator quotes here a Smriti verse to this effect: "sacrifice offered, gifts bestowed, or austerity practiced, without faith, are called bad (or null) , and have no existence either here or hereafter, O son of Pritha."] Faith, the divine, is the first born of the ceremonial, the sustainer of the universe, the supporter of the world. Her we worship with an oblation. May she assign to us an imperishable world, she the ruler, the divine sovereign mistress of all that exists."

    In several passages of the Atherva Veda also reference is made to faith. Thus, VI. 35, 7: "I cook this all-conquering Brahmaudana offering: may the gods hear me who have faith."

    VI. 122, 3, (and XII 3, 7). "Those who have faith attain to this world."

    IX. 5, 7, and 11, "The goat drives far away the darkness, being given (offered up) in this world by a man who has faith." XI. 2, 28, "Be merciful, O King Bhava, to the worshipper, for thou art the lord of cattle. Be gracious to the four-footed and two-footed beings of him who believes that the gods exist." XIX. 64, 1, "May he Jatavedas (Agni) give me faith and understanding."

    The Vajasaneyi Samhita has these verses about faith. XIX. 30: "By giving gifts faith is obtained, and by faith is gained truth." XIX. 77: "Beholding the forms of truth and falsehood, Prajapati distinguished them; to falsehood he attached disbelief, and to truth he attached belief (or faith)."

    The following is from the Taittiriya Samhita i.6, 8, 1, "He has no faith in what he offers who sacrifices without the exercise of faith. He brings water. Water is faith. He sacrifices exercising faith; and both gods and men have faith in his oblation." See also Aitareya Brahmana V. 2. 7, near the end of the section. The Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad iii. 9, 21 (=Satapatha Brahmana XIV. , 9. 22) thus refers to faith. "On what is sacrifice based; on largesse's, on what is large based? on faith for when a man has faith, he gives gifts; so it is on faith that largess is based; on what is faith based? on the heart; for it has assurance through the heart: it is on the heart that faith is based."

    There are many verses about Sraddha in M. Bh. XII. 2308, 2320. See also M. Bh. Iii. 12732, and 12734.

    
 

    
 

    

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

THE THEOLOGICAL SITUATION IN INDIA.

No religion stable unless broad-based on philosophy.

    We cannot do full justice in any review of it however full to that interesting and highly suggestive article which appeared from the pen of that talented Anglo-Indian statesman and Scholar who goes by the name of Vamadeo Shastri. It displays an amount of erudition and what is rare a deeper insight into the real feelings and thoughts of the people; and his observations are far truer than many we meet with in the writings of profound Oriental Scholars, and Indian Missionaries. The first observation which he makes is about the all-absorbing interest which is evinced by an Indian in regard to the consideration of religions and metaphysical problems, and he states his conclusions in these happy words, "I am sure that a religion without any philosophy at all is no more stable than a house built on the edge of a great Indian river, which cuts away its banks or changes its course periodically." And the common mistake which an ordinary foreigner commits is in supposing that no good can be found in the ordinary forms of religious beliefs prevailing in India except an endless series of superstitions rites and ceremonies, and when he has scoffed at these and answered to his own satisfaction what is supposed to be the philosophy of Hinduism, namely the Maya Theory of Sankara, he thinks he has under-mined Hinduism and he waits for the harvest, fondly hoping to see the old superstructure tumble and fall down into ruins. He is hardly aware that the two principal religions into which the whole Hindu population can be divided, Saivism and Vaishnavism, are each based on an old, very old philosophy, and variations in the forms of belief and rituals are not so real as the differences in the field of thought; and divisions and sub-divisions of these principal religions are also in the main due to ontological differences. The masses of the people have a religion which is all-sufficient unto them, which appeals to all their emotional, moral, and intellectual and historical susceptibilities and which as a learned theosophical lady observed combines both freedom of thought and rigidity of conduct. It must become more and more evident therefore as our learned 'Shastri' points out that if this ancient citadel of religion and philosophy should come to be shaken, should come to lost its all-absorbing hold on the Indian mind, the cause should be looked for not in any foreign religion or religions, not in any reforming faiths in India but is should surely be found in the materializing tendencies of western education and western forms of Government.

Indian Religion undermined by Western Education and Western Forms of Government.

    The education imparted by Government is wholly secular and non-religious; the standard of living furnished by western sojourners in this land, who live almost in gilded palaces and flower-festooned villas is simply fascinating; the administrative machinery is becoming more and more costly; and the improved ideas of sanitation forces on the people new wants, which all tend to increase the cost of living. And the excesses and vices of the west in regard to drink and food &c., are also obtaining a firmer and firmer grip on the land. And reformers preach too that unless you have a high standard of living you cannot rise on the scale of civilization. All these influences induce a spirit of utter indifferentism to religious topics, a greater quest wealth and luxury, and the formation of a new school of political and social reformers. And it was only the other day one of our respected countryman pointed out the great necessity that existed for counteracting such materializing tendencies by the starting of great educational institutions such as the central Hindu College of Benares.

History, an old Almanac.

    The writer next proceeds to show what various influences moral, physical and religious, are being brought to bear upon him and what his attitude generally is towards the Christian religion and after stating the old proverb that history is like an old almanac and the same events and modes of thought recur, though at different seasons and in a changed order, he proceeds to instance the case of the rise of Christianity itself on the Mediterranean coast and from thence to draw the parallels in the present case and the contrasts. He is good enough to point out that it was from Asia that Europe has drawn whatever was profound, philosophical and transcendental in the western creeds and that India was the fountain-head of all the higher and deeper religious ideas which had always flowed from the East to the West; and that the chief strength of Christianity consisted in its being a well-organized and perfected theological creed sanctioned and upheld by the union between church and state and enforcing its tenets and dogmas with both temporal and spiritual power; and he also points out elsewhere how this led to persecution, whereas in the case of the Hindu religion it was not possible.

Hinduism is Religion, Christianity a theology.

He also proves that Hinduism is a Religion and not a theology, and that we have cosmologies and theosophies but no dogmatic rulings upon such questions as are settled by the Christian creeds, the result of which is that whereas the Indian Religion and theosophy is elastic enough to change and adjust itself with the change of the advancing condition and stage of the individual, the Christian formulas and dogmas have become stereotyped and hardened, and the sacred history has become so immobile that nobody can lay his hand on it to explain it away as the Hindu does with his sacred History (Puranams) giving it a new allegorical meaning and significance to such facts; and in consequence, Christian theology is under the disadvantage of coming into open conflict and contradiction with Science and Rationalism. The vivifying principle of Christianity is the securing of moral good, by setting forth authoritatively some powerful motives for conduct; and on the mistaken impression, - the one of the very few mistakes we could discover in the whole article – that the Hindu system of Religious thought has its critical in transcendental idealism he says that the Hindu ethical sanctions are weak and ineffectual.


 


 

Hinduism not political.

    Another more serious mistake which he makes is when he wishes to mark the sympathetic connection between increasing devotion to God Shiva, and open commemoration of the Mahratta chief Sivaji. A writer like Vamdeo Shastri should have known better of India, with its vast extent and geographical differences, and political variations in the past and before the British advent, when India was divided into so many hundreds of petty states and kingdoms at open war with each other. And we have the written opinion of a great Scholar in the western presidency that Saivism as understood in the South of India is utterly unknown in his presidency. And we may further bear testimony to the fact that the greatest preachers and writers we have today in the south would scorn to look upon questions of policy or Government with any concern, and they live the life of retired recluses than of public men. What obtains in one part of such a vast country and in one town, should not at all be applied or extended to any other place or town. By the way in in p 692 he is good enough to notice our magazine, and pay a fitting complement to our earned contributor Rev. Father G. Bartoli. And in the following passage, he nicely discriminates between the pursuit after higher and nobler spiritualism and yogic vision by the Hindu and the kind of spiritualism aimed at by his European brothers and sisters.

Hindu and European Yoga.

    "Or, if the longing to see further through the outer husk of the phenomenal world overpowers and enthralls him, he may clarify the ordinary sense perceptions by ascetic exercises, which give the power of discerning subtle evolute of matter and spirit. I have heard that certain rudimentary indications of this latent faculty, which has course, been known to us for centuries, have latterly attracted notice in England, where some sort of group or sect of initiates has been formed for necromantic experiments. But it is said that, in accordance with the utilitarian complexion taken by all modern research, the chief object of this sect is to communicate with the ghosts of dead kinsfolk or national celebrities. In our country the cultivation of such abnormal faculties is the stock-in-trade of wizards and other wonder-workers, whom I by no means brand as impostors, though they take a very low degree in the occult science, and the true spiritualist rather disdains their acquaintance. It is at best a naturalistic art, directed towards the extension of our bodily faculties into a new region of experimental discovery; but we are no more disposed than are the Christian Churches to find any solace within the confines of sensational experience; for to accept such conclusions would be a confession of spiritual ignorance, the dishonoring servitude out of which we are perpetually striving to escape."

    

Friday, November 16, 2012

VOWELS AND CONSONANTS.

[MIND AND BODY]

    "Of letters, the letter A, I am." Gita.

    "There is an alliance with matter, with the object or extended world; but the thing allied, the mind proper, had itself no extension and cannot be joined in local union. Now, we have a difficulty in providing any form of language, any familiar analogy, suited to this unique conjunction; in comparison with all ordinary unions, it is a paradox or contradiction." – Bain.

    The quotation we give above is from Dr. Bain's remarkable book 'Mind and Body,' and the several chapters comprising the book are worth close study even though we are not bound to accept the learned Doctor's conclusions and share in his hope that the philosophy of the future will be a sort of qualified materialism. The important thing is to get at his facts, as far as they can be arrived at by close observation and experiment and such inference as are warranted by strict logic, which have been most thoroughly sifted and about which therefore there can be no doubt. We will enquire therefore what are the proved facts concerning the nature of mind and body and their characteristics and the nature of their connection so far as they can be ascertained. Now as regards mind, it is analyzed into Feelings (including emotions). Will and Intellect. "These are a trinity in unity; they are characteristic in their several manifestations, yet so dependent among themselves that no one could subsist alone; neither Will nor Intellect could be present in the absence of Feeling; and Feeling manifested in its completeness carries with it the germs of the two others." The ultimate analysis of a Feeling being either a pleasure or a pain, it is seen, however, that volition or thought could not in any sense be confounded with Feeling. What De. Bain however means in the above quotation is that without the acquisition of feelings, no volition or thought could arise first, that feelings are primarily all derived through the sensory organs and centers. And a pleasure is seen to be connected with an activity which tends to promote life (உயிர்க்கிதம் செய்தல்)
and a pain, to destroy life (உயிர்க்கதம் செய்தல்) which determine also in ethics, the nature of right (good) and wrong, Papam and Punyam. This principle is stated as the law of self-conservation. But there is a limit to all pleasures; and even a pleasure may become painful, if only carried to excess. Another law exhibited in feelings, which applies also to thought is what is called the law of relativity, namely that "change of impression is necessary to our bring conscious." Either a feeling or a thought only too long prolonged becomes feeble and feeble till it is blotted out altogether and we are no more conscious of such feeling or thought; and to become conscious again we soon change this train, and then revert. The Tamil philosophers state this principle in the axiom 'நினைப்புண்டேல், மறப்புண்டாம்.' 'If there is thought there is forgetfulness also.' Dr. Bain almost confesses that both on the mental and physical side, the reason for this exhibition of this law is not very explicable. But Hindu philosophers take this fact as showing that man's intelligence
(
அறிவு) is weak
(சிற்றறிவு) and it can become stronger and stronger and become all thought by practice (Sadana). In Yogic practice, what comes first is more darkness, oblivion than light but continuing in the same path, there dawns true light in the last resort, and (the nature of the light is so often mistaken in the interval so many shades of it breaking out.) And one volition (இச்சை – Ichcha) determines our actions as impelled by Feeling on Intellect. Intellect is analyzed into a sense of difference and sense of similarity and Retentiveness or Memory. What are called variously as memory, reason, judgment, imagination, conception and others are all resolvable into these three kinds. And difference lies at the very basis of our intellect. No knowledge and no intellectual operation is possible, if there is no difference in the constituent elements, if there is a mere sameness. If there was only one color, the art of painting will be an impossibility, if there was only one sound or tune, music we could never hear. As it is, the law of relativity governs our very being. Sameness could give knowledge, only if there was difference and hence the sense of similarity is also accounted an intellectual function; and a great function it performs in the field of invention. And no high degree of intellectual power is possible if we do not possess the power of remembering one past experience and impressions. And one peculiarity of the human mind, may we call it a defect, may be also noted here, as based on the law of relativity already stated. The mind is not conscious of all the impressions through all the sense organs all at once. A man does not become conscious of a sight, a touch, a sound, or a smell all at once. There must be a transition from one to the other however momentary it might be. And the case of an Ashtavadani is no exception to this. Assisted by a good memory, the more avadanams he performs the more time does he take. It will be noted that in this analysis of mind, no distinction is drawn between a feeling and a consciousness of a feeling, a volition and a consciousness of a volition, a reasoning and the consciousness of reasoning. Both are taken to be identical and therefore needing no distinction. In Hindu philosophy, they are distinguished, and a mere feeling or willing or thinking is separated from consciousness of such functions, and the pure consciousness is taken as the soul or Sat, and the rest classed with body and the world as non-soul or Asat (other than Sat). And we will speak of this distinction more further on. From these mental functions however are contrasted the body and its functions and the so-called external world. This collectively called matter or the non-ego or the object possess certain characteristics and properties which are not found in mind at all, such as breadth and length (order I place, extension hardness and softness (inertia), weight (gravity) color, heat, light, electricity, organized properties chemical properties &c., and the most important of this is extension Matter is extended, mind is unextended. Says Dr. Bain.

    "We are in this fix mental states and bodily states are utterly contracted; they cannot be compared, they have nothing in common except the most general of all attributes – degree, order in time; when engaged with one we must be oblivious of all that distinguishes the other. When I am studying a brain and nerve communications, I am engrossed with properties exclusively belonging to the object or material world, I am unable at that moment (except by very rapid transitions or alterations) to conceive a truly mental consciousness. Our mental experience, our feelings and thought have no extension. No place, no form or outline, no mechanical division of parts; and we are incapable of attending to anything mental until we shut off the view of all that Walking in the country in spring, our mind is occupied with the foliage, the bloom, and the grassy meads – all purely objective thing. We are suddenly and strongly arrested by the odor of the May-blossom; we give way for a moment to the sensation of sweetness; for that moment the objective regards cease; we think of nothing extended; we are in a state where extension has no footing; there is to us place no longer. Such states are of short duration, mere fits, glimpses; they are constantly shifted and alternated with object states, and while they last and have their full lower, we are in a different world; the material world is blotted out, eclipsed, for the instant unthinkable. These subject-movements are studied to advantage in bursts of intense pleasure or intense pain, in fit of engrossed reflection, especially reflection on mental facts; but they are seldom sustained in purity, beyond a very short interval; we are constantly returning to the object side of things – to the world whose basis is extension and place."

    However widely these may differ, there is this remarkable fact about them that they are round united together in a sentient being – man or animal. And the exact correlation, correspondence or concomitance in these two sets of phenomena is what Dr. Bain takes very great trouble to show in several chapters. This we need not deny as Dr. Bain fully admits that this conjunction and correspondence do not warrant us in stating that mind causes body or body causes mind; but his position is that mind-body causes mind-body. There is a duality in the very final resort and ultimate analysis but a disembodied mind cannot be thought of and he uses various expressions such as, an 'undivided twin' a 'double faced unity,' 'one substance with two sets of properties.' &c. And we don't see why Dr. Bain should ally himself with materialists if he is not going to call this one substance not as matter altogether but as only matter-mind or mind-matter; unless it be that he is unable to prove himself the existence of mind except in conjunction with an organized body. This latter circumstance again causes no difficulty to the Siddhanti who postulates 'முத்தியிலும் மும்முதலுண்டு,' 'Even in Mukti, none of the three padarthas are destroyed,' and who no more believes in a disembodied mind than Dr. Bain, unless a body or an organism be taken to be the body composed of all the 25 lower, tatwas. From the table given in No. 10, of the first volume of this magazine, it will be seen that even the most spiritual beings have a body composed of Asudda or Sudda Maya and we have also remarked, cautioning against the common mistake of calling matter dead, that these higher aspects of matter are so potent and active as to be often mistaken for God Himself. Passing from this point however, we now come to the question as to the nature of the union between this mind and body. And when we talk of union, the suggestion that it is union in place that is most predominant. And Dr. Bain lays great stress on the fact that such a local conjunction is not to be thought of, is impossible. There can be no union in place between an unextended thing (as Chit) and an extended thing (as Achit) and all such expressions external and internal, container and contained are also misleading and mischievous. The connection is not a causal connection. It is wrong to call such conjunction as one acting on the other, or as one using the other as an instrument. (The theory of occasional causes and of pre-established harmony are also antiquated now. The phenomenon is a most unique one in nature; there is no single similar conjunction in nature, so that we may compare it by analogy and there is no fitting language to express such conjunction either. The only adequate expression to a subject one is a change of state. Language fails, analogy fails, to explain this union though in itself a fact; and it remains a mystery in a sense, though to seek an explanation for an ultimate fact can in no sense be logical; and all that we can do has been done when we have tried to generalize the various sets of phenomena into the fewest possible number and if we cannot pass to a higher generalization than two, we can only rest and be thankful.

    We are sure that this is a perfectly safe position to hold and our object in penning this article is in no way to differ from this view; only we fancy, we have an analogy in Tamil, which will exactly answer the point and make the union more intelligible, besides bringing out the nature of mind and matter, in a much more favorable light, than from the stand point of mere materialist, qualified or otherwise; and we fancy we have been almost every day using language to describe this union, though the name in itself is a puzzle, and embodies both a paradox and a contradiction. Before we state them however we will state one or two facts so far as they bear upon the relation of mind and matter, and which Dr. Bain states more fully in his Mental Science. It is that all objectivity implies the subject-mind at the same time." Unless the mind is present, though unconscious, you cannot have object knowledge at all. We cannot have a pure objective it as it were, though for the time being, it is non-apparent, is entirely blotted out. (Sunyam) Or rather shall we say, though dissimilar the mind has become thoroughly identified with matter. But mind can ascend to pure subjectivity and it does not imply the presence of objects, as the object does the subject; and in such a pure subjective state, where is the object? It has become also non-apparent (Sunyam). Regarding the possibility however of matter being the primary element, there is the fact, matter is found both as organic and inorganic, and what a world of difference is there between these conditions of matter? Is the peculiar organization given to it by the presence for the time being of mind in it or is it derived solely by its inherent power. We have admitted that the so-called dead matter might possess potentialities without number. Still is there any sort of similarity between the inorganic properties exhibited by matter and the organic or vital properties. However this be, we will now proceed to state our analogy. It is the analogy of vowels and consonants. We have quoted the Gita verse, but we look in vain even in Sankara's commentary for the meaning we have tried to give it. Possibly Sankara would not give such an explanation as it would conflict with his preconceived theory. So if there was truth in it, it remained locked and the key altogether remained with the Siddhanta writers. The most familiar example of the analogy occurs in the sacred Kural, in the very first verse of it.

"அகரமுதலவெழுத்தெல்லா மாதி

பகவன் முதற்றேயுலகு."


 

"As 'A' is the first of all letters,

So the ancient Bagavan is the first in this world."


 

    We might fancy an alphabet, in which the letter "A" is not the first, and if the point of comparison is merely to denote God's order in place as the first so many other analogies might be thought of. And Parimelalagar accordingly notes that the order is not order in place but order in its origin. It is the most primary and first sound that the human voice can utter, and it is also the one sound which is present in every other sound vowel or consonant. All other vowels are formed by modifications of this sound. And what are vowels and consonants pray? A vowel is defined as a sound that can be pronounced of itself, without the aid of any other sound. And a consonant is one which cannot be sounded except with the aid of the vowel. Let us look more carefully into the nature of these sounds. We every day utter these sounds, and yet we fail to recognize the mystery in their connection, solely on account of their familiarity. We try to utter 'A'. It comes pure and simple, by the mere opening of the mouth, without any modification whatever, and requires no other aid. But let us pronounce say 'K'. It is 'Ke' in English, in Tamil it is 'Ka' or 'Ik.' There is a vowel sound present in it, 'e' 'o' 'a' 'i'.' Let us eliminate this vowel sound and try to pronounce the consonant. Well, the task is impossible, you don't get any consonant sound at all. In the consonant therefore there is always a vowel sound present, though we never consciously recognize its presence, though in Tamil, the symbolism is so highly philosophical that we invariably mark its presence even when we write purely consonants. We dot all our consonants as 'க்,' 'ச்,' & c. and the dot or circle represents in Hindu symbolism the letter '.' This dot or circle begins almost every one of the twelve vowels in the Tamil alphabet, and as to what the other curved and horizontal and perpendicular lines mean we will take another opportunity to explain. When we write 'I' therefore, the framers of the alphabet meant to represent how the vowel sound underlies the consonant and supports it and gives it its very being and existence. Such a mark is unnecessary when we write the vowel consonant 'ka' '' as we are fully aware of its presence. In the pure consonant therefore the vowel is implied and understood though for the time being its presence is not detected and it is completely identified with the consonant itself. We have been considering at learned length the nature of the union between mind and body but have we ever paused to consider the nature of the union of the vowel and consonant? Is there any such unique conjunction anywhere else in nature, where one subsists not, except in conjunction with the other. Except the inseparable conjunction, as above stated we see that the consonant (pure) is no more derived from the vowel than the vowel from the consonant. There is much wider contrast between these than between any two things in the world. The place of origin is distinct. 'A' is pronounced by the mere opening of the mouth. The tongue has to be brought in contact with the palate to pronounce 'k' and this same act cannot produce the vowel. So the vowel cannot be said to cause the consonant, nor the consonant the vowel. Nor can we call the consonant and the connection themselves as false and as a mere illusion or delusion. So neither the principle of Parinama nor Vivartana can apply to this connection. All that we can say of it is that they are so connected and inseparable and that no language can be possible, by vowels alone nor by consonants alone, and every consonant is at the same time a vowel-consonant, in which the vowel is apparent or non-apparent, and though we can conceive of the vowels standing alone, to think of consonants as existing by itself is an utter impossibility. Now apply all this to the case of mind and body. Mind is the vowel, and the body (matter) is the consonant. Mind and body are as widely contrasted as vowel and consonants are. One cannot be derived from the other by Parinama or Vivartana. Yet both are inseparably united and though the mind occupies an independent position, can be pure subject at times, the body cannot subsist unless it be in conjunction with mind. Mind is always implied in body; mind underlies it, supports it and sustains it, (if all this language derived from material cognition is permissible). When the mind is pure mind, the body is not, it is asat (Sunyam). When it is pure body, mind is present but non-apparent, it has become one with the body. The mind is there but it conceals its very self, its very identity and it is as good as absent. And except at rare intervals, our whole existence is passed in pure objectivity, without recognizing the presence of the true self, the mind. The whole truth of these two analogous, cases, the only two, are brought out in Tamil in the most beautiful manner by the same words being used to denote vowel and consonant as also mind and body. See what a light bursts when we name 'உயிர்,'
'மெய்'
(உடல்). The word 'உயிர்' mean both a vowel and mind (soul); and 'மெய்' both body and consonant. Dr. Bain observes that the sense of similarity is the sense of invention and true discovery. The greatest discoveries in science have been made by catching such resemblances at rare intervals. And when the very first Tamil man called his vowels and consonants 'உயிர்,'
'மெய்' was he not a born philosopher and had he not comprehended the true nature of the union between mind and body and vowels and consonants. The simile receives its best exposition for the first time in the hands of Saint Meikanda Deva, (vide Sivagnanabotham, II. 1.b. and notes pp. 12, 19 and 20), and his followers and his followers (vide Light of Grace pp. 7 and 8); and Saint Meikandan gives a name in the same verse for denoting this connection. This one word is Adwaitha. This word has been a real puzzle to many; and so many renderings of it has been given. The Tamil Philosopher, however, explains it as meaning
"ஒன்றாகாமல், இரண்டாகாமல், ஒன்றுமிரண்டு மின்றாகாமல்," (neither one nor two nor either), and which fully and beautifully brings out, therefore the meaning of Dr. Bain's words that the connection is both a paradox and a contradiction. Very few outside the circle of Siddhanta school could be made is to comprehend the truth of this paradox, more so when their mind is prepossessed with the truth of their own views. But we have always used the analogy of vowels and consonants with very great effect, and it has tended to make the subject much clearer than many a more learned argument. We have confined ourselves in this article to deal with the last two sets of phenomena in nature, mind and matter and we will reserve to a future article, the nature of the Higher powers, we postulate and their connection with the lower ones; and a further amplification of the subject, together with the history of the question in Indian systems of thought.

    
 

    

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

THE ANALOGIES IN GITA.

    Analogy is very largely used in the elucidation and explanation of various principles in Oriental philosophy, and with more or less effect. In most cases they serve a very important function, and may truths there are, which by reason of their dealing with the ultimate existences can alone be demonstrated by such analogies and not by any other kind of proof. In the use of such analogies there are great dangers also and the analogy may look so plausible that one is apt to be carried away by it, without noting the inherent flaw in it and which a little closer investigation will clearly bring out. Care should, however, be taken to distinguish between analogies which are merely similes or metaphors, based on a mere semblance, and intended merely to bring home to our minds, the subject matter in a more impressive and clearer light, and analogies strictly so-called intended as proof. In the latter case, mere semblance alone will not do, and there must be sameness in the various parts of the illustration and the thing illustrated. Neglect of this rule often leads to great confusion and error in thought. If for the particular inference desired, the antecedents conform to the antecedents in the analogy, the inference will be quite justified if it conforms to the consequence in the analogy; and it would be simply illogical to strain the illustration to other purposes and to extremes. Analogy at best is but an indifferent kind of proof and where we do not take the proper precautions in using it, its value in philosophic argument will be almost nothing. Another source of error in the use of analogies by Indian writers is the brevity of expressions which is characteristic of such analogies as we meet them in some of the most ancient books. Where the analogy is taken literally without supplying the necessary parts and ellipses, they cannot but lead one astray.

    There is one school of philosophers in India, who are inordinately fond of these similes and who at almost every step seek the aid of a simile to help them out of their position; and these similes have now only become too much hackneyed and they pass from mouth to mouth, and even educated persons repeat them parrot-like, who would easily find out the fallacy, if the matter is only put before them for a moment. We expected at least those learned in the lore of the West to explain their subject instead of building all their argument on the strength of these doubtful similes and in this respect, even European scholars are not without reproach. For what shall we say of a scholar like Dr. Paul Deussen, if he gives expression to the following false analogy? Says he, "And then for him, when death comes, no more Samsara. He enters into Brahman, like streams into the ocean; he leaves behind him nama and rupam, he leaves behind him individuality; but he does not leave behind him his Atman, his Self. It is not the falling of the drop into the infinite ocean, it is the whole ocean, becoming free from the fetters of ice, returning from its frozen state to that what it is really and has never ceased to be, to its own all pervading, eternal, almighty nature." In these few lines he crowds together as many fallacies as there are words in it, and we have neither the time nor patience to indicate all of them. We will however point out the most glaring of them. The Soul returning from its migrations to its resting place, its final goal was the stream returning to the bosom of the mighty ocean. When the stream joins the ocean, it loses its name and form? Does it really do so, and if it did what of that, how is it in any way changed? What we generally call a stream is a small body of water flowing between two banks. The water by itself without its local connection cannot be called the stream. The moment the water leaves its local connection, it ceases to be called stream. So it is not really the stream that flows into the ocean but that the water of the stream flowed into and mixed with the water of the ocean. What makes really the difference between the ocean and the stream is the difference in the largeness and smallness of the respective bodies and the largeness and smallness of the receptacle. The water in either receptacle is acted on by the sun and wind, is tempest-tossed and discolored and made muddy. The juggle by which the learned Doctor converts the stream water, nay a drop, into a mighty ocean is not manifest in the illustration. The drop or the stream water is the drop or the stream water in the bosom of the ocean though, for the time being, we are unable to distinguish its identity. When the identity is lost, its individuality is not seen, is lost in a sense also. The water remains as water and has not lost its nama and rupa, thought this water gets other names by other accidents. It is the accident that determines the more specific name and we will have to enquire how the thing acquired this accident or became parted from it. Then we come to the figure of the frozen ocean and the free ocean. Here is a jump from one figure to another. The bound soul was formerly the stream, and the freed soul the ocean. In either case, we observed above, the two bodies of water were subject to the same changeability and disabilities except that one was larger than the other. Now, the bound soul is the frozen ocean and the freed soul is the ocean after it had thawed. And the learned Doctor speaks of the fetters of ice. What does it matter to the ocean whether it was in a frozen condition or otherwise? How does it cease to be almighty, all-pervading and eternal when it is frozen than when it was not? One would think that if the ocean's wishes were to be consulted it would much better like to be frozen than not, as it would not be subjected to the mercy of the Wind, and the Sun and the Moon. Water is water whether it remains a liquid or a gas or a solid substance. And it would be mere rhetoric to ascribe fetters to it. And this fetter is real or fancied, either an evil or a good. If real and an evil, how did this fetter happen to be put on. If not, why try to get rid of the fetter. The fetter was put on by the ocean's own will or by another will more powerful still. If the ocean put it on by its own will, it may do so again, and there is no inducement for anybody to try to get rid of this fetter, and "the strongest support of pure morality, the greatest consolation in the sufferings of life and death," would surely be undermined. If by another's will, who is the greater than this Atman; no doubt the Paramatman, which ends in veritable dualism. In the case of the ocean itself, it did not become frozen by its own will or power. As water, its nature is unstable and changeable, and the change is brought about by other causes. If we apply heat to it, its liquid condition disappears and it becomes a gas. Withdraw the heat, and the more you do it, the water becomes more solid, and in the arctic regions, where the sun, thousands of times more powerful than the ocean water, is altogether absent for several months the water gets affected by cold and darkness, and gets fettered in ice. The learned Doctor failed to take stock of the antecedent agent, in the freezing or otherwise of the ocean, namely the sun, and hence his error. The Siddhantis take the water whether it be that of the ocean or that of the smallest rill as analogous to the Soul and the universal Akas present both in the water of the stream and that of the ocean as the Parameshvara and Paramatman, the universal Supporter, and all-Pervader; and the Glorious Sun is also God, whose Panchakritya is also felt on the ocean and stream water, in its making and increasing and dissolving, and under whose powerful Sakti the minor powers of Karma (wing and moon) also find play, and the whole cycle of evolution is set a going.

    And it is this learned Doctor who spoke of the misinterpreting variations of Sankara's advaita, known under the names of Visishtadvaita, Dvaita, &c, and it is the frequent boast of people of his ilk, that Sankara's Advaita is the most universal and ancient system, whereas all other forms of Indian philosophy are only partial and sectarian and modern; and in the present paper, we propose to deal with this claim, to a certain extent by taking up the Gita, their most beloved Upanishad, and by merely taking the various analogies used by Lord Krishna, we will show, whether we find among them or not any of the favorite and hackneyed similes of this school, and whether the similes actually have any bearing on the special tenets of this school.

    The first simile in the book occurs in chapter 2, 13.

    "Just as in this body, childhood, and youth and old age appertain to the embodied man, so also, does it acquire another body."

    This is a popular enough simile, and its meaning is plain but it cannot be construed as is done by Sankara, that the soul undergoes no change or is not affected by the change of avastas or change of bodies; for it cannot be contended that the intelligence of Sankara is in the same embryonic stage as that of a new born babe, and the denial of this would also militate against all our ideas of evolutionary progress and the necessity for undergoing many births. In the previous verse, Sri Krishna postulated the existence of many souls, by asserting, 'neither did I not exist, nor thou, nor these rulers of men, and no one of us will ever hereafter cease to exist, "and he reiterates the same fact, in chapter iv, 5, where he alludes to his own former births which fact is also mentioned by Sri Krishna himself again in the Anucasana Parva and stated by Vyasa in the Yuddha Parva. By, 'I' and 'thou', and 'these', he clearly does not refer to their bodies as Sankara interprets. The next figure occurs in verse 22 of the same chapter, "just as a man casts off worn-out clothes and puts on others which are new, so the soul casts off worn-out bodies and enters which are new." Similar instances are that of the serpent throwing off its skin, the mind passing from the conscious into the dream condition, and the Yogi into another body which are given by Saint Meikandan. The next one occurs in verse 58, where the Sage withdrawing his senses from the objects of sense is compared to the tortoise withdrawing its limbs, at the approach of anybody. The same simile occurs in Tiruvarutpayan.

    In chapter 3, only one illustration occurs and this in verse 38, which we have often quoted. "As fire is covered with smoke, as a mirror with dirt, as an embryo is enclosed in a womb, so this is covered with it." Sankara explains, "as a bright fire is covered with a dark smoke co-existent with it… so this is covered with desire."! The italics is ours. What 'this' and 'it' are, are seen to be, man and his wisdom-nature, Prakriti-guna Rajas and Desire constraining one to the commission of sins. 'Constrained,' Sankara explains as a servant by the King. Man is enslaved by his passion; his wisdom is such that it is deluded by unwisdom, ignorance (verse 40). Sankara leaves these passages quietly enough but when explaining the similar passage (xiv, 5) "Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, - these three Gunas, O mighty armed born of Prakriti, bind fast in the body , the embodied, the indestructible,: Sankara says, "now one may ask: It has been said that the embodied is not tainted (xiii, 31). How then, on the contrary, is it said here that the (Gunas) bind him? We have met this objection by adding 'as it were'; thus 'they bind him as it were.'" It would have been well for his reputation, if he had not raised the objection himself and tried to meet it in the way he has done. Why did not the Omniscient Lord Krishna himself add this 'as it were,' and leave these passages alone apparently contradicting each other. In his explanation, he has omitted the force of 'fast,' and he has forgotten 'Dragged and constrained' and of the co-existent darkness and delusion of the former passage and explanation. There is one other passage relating to the soul and its bound condition namely verse 21 in chapter xiii itself. "Purusha, as seated in Prakriti, experiences the qualities born of Prakriti; "attachment to qualities is the cause of his birth in good and evil wombs." Lo, the Supreme Self, attaching itself to qualities born of Prakriti, constrained to commit sin deluded by co-existent darkness, having to undergo births and deaths and getting fettered and seeking salvation, and all this 'as it were.'! What a precious excuse would it not prove, this 'as it were,' to the murderer, the liar, the thief &c.? Besides, Sankara identifies the embodied of verse 5, xiv, with the 'dweller in the body' in xiii, 31. Even so far as forms of expression go, they are not altogether the same thing. It may be noted that the expression 'embodied' is always used in describing the soul, Jiva, and never to denote God. Though God is seated in the hearts of all, he is the Soul of Souls, and Light of Lights, He can never be called the 'embodied.' The expression 'embodied' conveys itself the idea of attachment and bondage. Anybody reading verses 36 to 40 of chapter 3, and xiii, 21; xiv, 5, 20; and, verses iv, 14; ix, 9; xiii, 31 together, can fail to observe the utter contrast of the two entities; and we appeal to common sense if Sankara's 'as it were' will do away with this distinction and contrast. The distinction and contrast is brought out in different chapters, in the same chapter and it contiguous verses (xv, 16, 17, 18) nay in the same verse (v. 15). The word 'another' 'Anyatha' is itself a technical word as 'the inside of' 'Antas' &c., and occurs in the Gita in other places and in a number of Vedic texts to denote God Supreme as distinguished from the soul and the world, the entities admitted by Kapila Sankhyas Adhikaranas 4 to 9 of the Vedanta Sutra, and the texts quoted therein which appear in this very issue fully bear out our thesis. The apparent confusion caused by both the human spirit and the Supreme Spirit being spoken of as dwelling in the human body is altogether removed by the Mantras which speak of 'the two birds entering into the cave,' 'Rudra, destroyer of pain enters into me,' 'He who abides in the Vijnana,' 'He who abides in the Atman,' 'higher than the high, higher than the imperishable,' (c.f. xv, 18, Gita). Leaving this subject for the present we proceed. Chapter iv contains also only one simile, (37; "As kindled fire reduces fuel to ashes, O Arjuna; so does the wisdom fire reduce all Karma to ashes." The next illustration occurs in chapter v. 16, and is a very familiar one, that of Sun and darkness. "But in those in whom unwisdom is destroyed by the Wisdom of the Self, like the Sun the wisdom illuminates That Supreme." We have to read the previous passage together. "The Lord takes neither the evil nor the good deed of any; wisdom is enveloped by unwisdom; thereby mortals are deluded."

    Here 'wisdom' clearly means atma, atmagnan, Soul, Soul's intelligence. This intelligence is covered by Agnana, unwisdom. As contrasted with ignorance-covered soul, there stands the Paramaeshwara, untouched by evil, though dwelling in the body. How is the Soul's wisdom to get rid of the veil of unwisdom. If it was able to get rid of this wisdom by its own wisdom, it could have got rid of it the moment it wills so, and we will never her of a soul in bondage. So the illustration explains how this is done. Unwisdom is destroyed not by the soul's wisdom (spoken of merely as wisdom) but by Atmagnan, Brahmagnan, Sivagnana, leading to the perception and enjoyment of Sivananda, as the darkness covering the individual eye, flees before the Rising Glory of the Effulgent Sun, and the Sun while it dispels the darkness, at the same time enables the eye to exercise its own power of seeing (soul's wisdom) and makes it see the Sun itself. The reader is requested to read the simile as explained, with Sankara's own explanation and form his own conclusions.

    "As a lamp in a sheltered spot does not flicker" is the simile of the Yogi in Divine Union. ' திரையற்ற நீர்போல் சிந்தை தெளிவார்." "Like the wave less sea-water, the gnani attains clearness and calm" is another simile. The water and the lamp are by nature changeable, any little gust of wind (karmamala) can make the one flicker and the other form into ripples. But the Sun, or Akasha (God) can neither flicker nor change. And this is exactly the simile in ix. 6. The simile in vii. 7. Demands however our prior attention. There is naught higher than I, O Dhananjaya, in me, all this is woven as a row of gems on a string. Here the string is the Ishwara, and gems, other creatures and objects. Neither can the string become the gems, nor the gems the string; it only brings out the distinction of the lower and the higher Padarthas spoken of in verse 5, and how Ishwara supports and upholds the whole universe, as a string does support the various gems.

    The next simile already alluded to is n chapter ix, 6. "As the mighty wind moving everywhere rests in the Akasha, know thou that so do all beings rest in me." And Lord Krishna states the truth explained by this as the Kingly science, the Kingly secret, immediately comprehensible; and well may he say so, as this explains the true nature of advaita. The verses 4 and 5, have to be stated in full. "By me all this world is pervaded, my form unmanifested. All beings dwell in Me; and I do not dwell in them." "Nor do beings dwell in me, behold my Divine Yoga! Bearing the beings and not dwelling in them is my Self the cause of beings." With this we might read also the similes in xiii. 32, and 33 "As the all-pervading Akasha is by reason of its subtlety never soiled, so God seated in the body is not soiled." As the one Sun illumines all these worlds, so does the Kshetri (not Kshetrajna) illumine all Kshetra," and the simile in xv. 8. "When the Lord (the jiva the lord of the aggregate of the body and the rest – Sankara) acquires a body and when he leaves it, he takes these and goes as the wind takes scents from their seats." Here Parameshwara is compared to Akasha and the soul, jiva is compared to the wind; and the relation between God and Soul is the same relation as between Akasha and wind or things contained in Akasha. And what is this relation? Logicians and Siddhantis call this relation as Vyapaka Vyapti Sambandam, container and contained. We explained in our article on 'Mind and Body' that this was not a very apt relation as it has reference to quantity, yet it is the best synonym and illustration of the Advaita relation not Betha, (Madhwa) nor Abetha or nor Bethabetha (Ramanuja) nor Parinama (Vallabha), not Vivarta (Sankara), but Vyapaka Vyapti relation. Taking the five elements, and the order of their evolution and involution it is seen, how all the four evolve from and resolve into Akasha. But earth is not water, nor water earth, water is not fire, nor fire water, fire is not air, nor air fire, none of these is Akasha nor Akasha any of these. And yet all solids can be reduced to liquids, and liquids into gaseous condition in the one higher, and all in Akasha but Akasha cannot be said to be contained in any of these, though present in each. Each one is more subtle and more vast than the lower element, and Akasha is the most subtle and vastest and most pervasive and invisible ('my form unmanifested'). Akasha is not capable of any change, though the wind and water and fire and earth contained in it can be contaminated by that to which it becomes attached. Wind carries off scents, and is subjected to all the forces of sun and moon. Water of the ocean becomes saltish, becomes frozen, and becomes tempest-tossed. The lamp flickers and becomes smoky or bright, spreads a fragrant smell or otherwise by the nature of the oil or wood it is burning. The very illustration of sea (space) water and winds is used by Saint Meikandan in vii, 3-3 to illustrate ignorance not attaching itself to God but to the Soul. "Ignorance will not arise from God who is the True Intelligence, as it is Asat (like darkness before sun). The soul which is ever united to God is co-eternal with Him The connection of ignorance with the soul is like the connection of salt with the water of the sea." The word 'Akasha' by the way is a technical word, like 'another,' 'antas,' 'jyotis' &c. and is a synonym for God (vide Vedanta Sutras I, 1-22 and texts quoted there under and in the article 'House of God, 'Chit Ambara' in p. 153 last volume).

    The simile of streams and the sea occurs in xi, 28, to illustrate not the entering into moksha, but undergoing dissolution and death. The similes in xv, 1 &2, the Ashwattha rooted above and spreading below, and in xviii, 61, that "the Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings jivas, O Arjuna, whirling by Maya all beings (as if) mounted on a machine;" are the very last to be noted. These are nearly all the similes discovered in the Gita, and do we not miss here nearly all the favorite similes of the Mayavada school, and if so, how was it the omniscient Lord Krishna failed to use any one of them.

    

PROPHETS AND THEIR MISSION.

    "Let not Moses speak unto me, nor any of the prophets, but rather do Thou speak, O Lord God, the Inspirer and Enlightener of all the prophets."

THOMAS A KEMPIS.

    It has been the fortunate feature of every religion that counted among its adherents a large number of men, that brought spiritual solace to the minds of sin-cankered individuals, to undergo what might be called periodic ecdysis. One set of doctrines and observances please and stimulate its votaries at one phase of its existence, to be only succeeded at the next generation by another body of creed and a different liturgy, which may in fundamentals resemble their predecessor, and whose disagreement, minute thought it be, would be patent to a conscientious student of any religion. Such are the steps by which religion progresses, and such is the almost imperceptible course of its motion, that to none but a trained student, its rapid changes and stable fundamentals would be apparent. Even in that immobile miscellanea which are sometimes conglomerated together as Fetishism it is possible for a comparative religionist, to find within its inmost depths, an evolving life pulsating, and an innate tendency that aims at a distant perfection. What Prof. Max Muller's admirable lectures on "The Anthropological Religion" have done in unraveling even to the minds of determined skeptics like Spencer, and rabid Christians like Sayee who could not imagine anything like organic unity or orderly growth in any religion but their own, leaves us not in any necessity to touch on that subject much. He has shown us by lucid argumentation and by a study of their languages, how useless it is for us to believe even in the traveller's accounts of native tribes of remote countries, which record only eye-witnessing's, unless coupled with a competency in him to move socially with the aborigines, to induce in them a confidence with regard to his well-minded curiosity, to study their sacred writings and understand their genuine spirit, and to be able to speak freely with, and convey his ideas to them. He shows by unmistakable examples, how also the versions of well-minded globe-trotters, liberal-viewed missionaries, are in most cases untrustworthy and contradicting each other, in the light of the further labors of recent men who have studied the tribes and their creed for the sole sake of learning their religion. Totemism, Fetishism and many other allied forms of worship prevalent among the so-called semi-civilized races of America, the Andaman's, Africa and the rest, are shown by him to have an organic growth and to hide within them all the salient points of a soul-satisfying religion. With the evolving tendency and progressive growth of Hinduism, Prof. Max Muller has excellently dealt in his Hibbert lectures. And Rhys Davis has done the same for the religion of the Buddhists. Zoroastrianism and Confucianism are religious for a continued history of which we might direct the attention of the enthusiast to the clear manuals of Haug and Legge. Alongside of the natural tendency of the Human Mind to hanker after innovation, and to be the subject of steady though sometimes convulsive progressive, it is scarcely possible to shut our eyes to the inscrutable trait of every religion, that it should be invariably influenced from time to time by the thorough-going speculations of some religious leaders who variously called themselves as saints, apostles, prophets, saviors and the like. Every step in the onward progress of religion, each excellent point that tended to clarify its doctrines, has always been associated with the reform of one man of strong intellect, with the well-directed labors of a pious enthusiast. In bigger religions, by virtue of their sacred scriptures being handed down as written documents, from generation to generation, the teachings of these venerable men have been embalmed and preserved in writings, and along with their canonical books and their persisting influence, the remembrance of the names of these individuals in the months of their votaries had become a desideratum. While in smaller religions, the zealots of which had mere truth and faith in them than vain rhetoric and word-spinning metaphysics, the names of the epoch-making leaders and reformers could not be remembered beyond a certain number of generations, since in the absence of writing as a vehicle of religious thought, there was no means to preserve their teachings and to remind their names to the fervent minds of their untutored adherents. This would explain why the names of a Pythagoras and a Sankaracharya should be remembered, why the moral confessions of a St. Augustine or a St. Bernard should be recorded, why Laotze and Buddha should be idolized. For a keen student of religion, the subtle intricacies which Sankara has introduced in the region of Hindu Philosophy must be evident, and Hinduism should lose much of its all-embracing catholicity and depth of metaphysical reasoning for the absence of a such a glittering roll of names as those of Ramanuja and Madhava, Vidyaranya and Vijnanabhikshu and the like. In Christianity the rapid march of new ideas and the steady influence which the ever-progressing Science has exerted on the ethics and philosophy of that religion, have introduced more of orderly evolution and virile progress than in the annals of any other religion. Christianity has been, ever from its dawn, a literary religion, a religion that boasted of an ever-increasing number of adherents who had a cultured language of their own, and thus a history of its progress, minute to the very nature and temperament of its adherents, has been preserved to us in books. And here therefore our expectations receive more than a real gratification. These prophets have been looked upon in various lights by sundry men of each religion. Some have been thought to be superhuman in origin, to have been attended with extra-ordinary wonders in Nature at their birth, to have worked Miracles to attest to their Divine commission, and to have ended their lives in the most marvelous of ways. It is not our purpose to dwell on the peculiar tendencies of the Human Mind to look upon things of the past with a reverential awe, to enlarge on the irrepressible aim of Human Nature to invest everything antique in a superhuman halo and to lay it in a Divine setting. This fact receives its best example in the true and represented nature of Mohammad, and in the wonderment and notoriety that attend even the most modern of Indian religious reformers, such as Rajah Ram Mohan Roy and Keshab ChunderSen, Swami Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Kubir Doss. Such prophets have in every instance been intimately connected with the expurgation of some corruptions that cropped up in a religion at a particular age, and they have left the religion richer in religious lore than what they found it in. The same craze that led the votaries of a religion to look upon the religious leaders, with a superhuman awe and an almost Divine worship, the same fancy that leads an archeologist to regard old ruins in a blinding sense of soul lifting respect and unearthly regard the same reverence which a man of literature feels for an old copy of a forgotten poet, has led the people at large to set the prophets at a Diviner level and to transfer even to them, in a degree, the functions of that Limitless One, of which they were the earthly tongued exponents. We have therefore been taught to look upon a prophet as a savior of the world, another one blemishes, a third man as the Inexhaustible Deity itself in human form. In every scripture that has been written in the name of God, and in every votary that directs his eyes to Heaven with a yearning heart after the Infinite, the same infinite fountain of Grace is surging up, the same virile step towards the infinite Goal is made. Nobody need presume to take up into his hands the benevolence which is His alone, or the mercy of which He is an infinite ocean. His presence is shadowed forth in the towering hills, in the many –colored flower and in the awe-inspiring ocean. No man need be taught the truth of this so long as he has eyes to see and ears to hear. What the prophets themselves evidently meant to do was to shout about the Infinite when the people's ears were getting waxed, and to point to the Infinite Lustre and blaze their torches of preaching when the moral eyes of men were getting dim. To search for that Infinite, to be feeling after the Divine Vivifier we need go to no man for direction, for, in Him we live and move and have our being. When the perception of the Infinite becomes and accomplished fact for the mind, what could be done in the way of pure worship before that Limitless Splendor, so long as we are trammeled by the shackles of flesh and blood, so long as we could not but anthropomorphize the Infinite Attributes, becomes a realized vision. And herein lies the truth and essence of religious perfection of every Human Soul. It is the height of mental worship that leaves us on the lowest bolder of the Spiritual Mountain, and what one must be able to do, despite the orthodox fanaticism of rank religionists, and the pathological mental abnormalities which the modern yogins are able to induce in their own bodies, and which are usually mistaken for the signs and wonders of the Higher Path, is to approach as best as one might the Throne of Sanctity, to reach the highest pinnacle of godly meditation, and to surround one's notions with the best ethical exactitude which his heart dictates. And there the yearning Pilgrim should stand at the lowest step of the Golden Stairs and when the life-immuring bonds snap, the wheel of karma rotates, landing him for a time in a happier realm of blissful beatitude, than it was his lot to live, when striving on this world below.

V. V. RAMANAN.