The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Practical Vedanta and other lectures/Practical Vedanta: Part III
PRACTICAL VEDANTA
PART III
(Delivered in London, 17th November 1896)
In the Chhâdogya Upanishad we read that a sage called Nârada came to another
called Sanatkumâra, and asked him various questions, of which one was, if
religion was the cause of things as they are. And Sanatkumara leads him, as
it were, step by step, telling him that there is something higher than this
earth, and something higher than that, and so on, till he comes to Âkâsha,
ether. Ether is higher than light, because in the ether are the sun and the
moon, lightning and the stars; in ether we live, and in ether we die. Then
the question arises, if there is anything higher than that, and Sanatkumara
tells him of Prâna. This Prana, according to the Vedanta, is the principle
of life. It is like ether, an omnipresent principle; and all motion, either
in the body or anywhere else, is the work of this Prana. It is greater than
Akasha, and through it everything lives. Prana is in the mother, in the
father, in the sister, in the teacher, Prana is the knower.
I will read another passage, where Shvetaketu asks his father about the
Truth, and the father teaches him different things, and concludes by saying,
"That which is the fine cause in all these things, of It are all these
things made. That is the All, that is Truth, thou art That, O Shvetaketu."
And then he gives various examples. "As a bee, O Shvetaketu, gathers honey
from different flowers, and as the different honeys do not know that they
are from various trees, and from various flowers, so all of us, having come
to that Existence, know not that we have done so. Now, that which is that
subtle essence, in It all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is
the Self and thou, O Shvetaketu, are That." He gives another example of the
rivers running down to the ocean. "As the rivers, when they are in the
ocean, do not know that they have been various rivers, even so when we come
out of that Existence, we do not know that we are That. O Shvetaketu, thou
art That." So on he goes with his teachings.
Now there are two principles of knowledge. The one principle is that we know
by referring the particular to the general, and the general to the
universal; and the second is that anything of which the explanation is
sought is to be explained so far as possible from its own nature. Taking up
the first principle, we see that all our knowledge really consists of
classifications, going higher and higher. When something happens singly, we
are, as it were, dissatisfied. When it can be shown that the same thing
happens again and again, we are satisfied and call it law. When we find that
one apple falls, we are dissatisfied; but when we find that all apples fall,
we call it the law of gravitation and are satisfied. The fact is that from
the particular we deduce the general.
When we want to study religion, we should apply this scientific process. The
same principle also holds good here, and as a fact we find that that has
been the method all through. In reading these books from which I have been
translating to you, the earliest idea that I can trace is this principle of
going from the particular to the general. We see how the "bright ones"
became merged into one principle; and likewise in the ideas of the cosmos we
find the ancient thinkers going higher and higher — from the fine elements
they go to finer and more embracing elements, and from these particulars
they come to one omnipresent ether, and from that even they go to an all
embracing force, or Prana; and through all this runs the principle, that one
is not separate from the others. It is the very ether that exists in the
higher form of Prana, or the higher form of Prana concretes, so to say, and
becomes ether; and that ether becomes still grosser, and so on.
The generalization of the Personal God is another case in point. We have
seen how this generalization was reached, and was called the sum total of
all consciousness. But a difficulty arises — it is an incomplete
generalization. We take up only one side of the facts of nature, the fact of
consciousness, and upon that we generalise, but the other side is left out.
So, in the first place it is a defective generalization. There is another
insufficiency, and that relates to the second principle. Everything should
be explained from its own nature. There may have been people who thought
that every apple that fell to the ground was dragged down by a ghost, but
the explanation is the law of gravitation; and although we know it is not a
perfect explanation, yet it is much better than the other, because it is
derived from the nature of the thing itself, while the other posits an
extraneous cause. So throughout the whole range of our knowledge; the
explanation which is based upon the nature of the thing itself is a
scientific explanation, and an explanation which brings in an outside agent
is unscientific.
So the explanation of a Personal God as the creator of the universe has to
stand that test. If that God is outside of nature, having nothing to do with
nature, and this nature is the outcome of the command of that God and
produced from nothing, it is a very unscientific theory, and this has been
the weak point of every Theistic religion throughout the ages. These two
defects we find in what is generally called the theory of monotheism, the
theory of a Personal God, with all the qualities of a human being multiplied
very much, who, by His will, created this universe out of nothing and yet is
separate from it. This leads us into two difficulties.
As we have seen, it is not a sufficient generalization, and secondly, it is
not an explanation of nature from nature. It holds that the effect is not
the cause, that the cause is entirely separate from the effect. Yet all
human knowledge shows that the effect is but the cause in another form. To
this idea the discoveries of modern science are tending every day, and the
latest theory that has been accepted on all sides is the theory of
evolution, the principle of which is that the effect is but the cause in
another form, a readjustment of the cause, and the cause takes the form of
the effect. The theory of creation out of nothing would be laughed at by
modern scientists.
Now, can religion stand these tests? If there be any religious theories
which can stand these two tests, they will be acceptable to the modern mind,
to the thinking mind. Any other theory which we ask the modern man to
believe, on the authority of priests, or churches, or books, he is unable to
accept, and the result is a hideous mass of unbelief. Even in those in whom
there is an external display of belief, in their hearts there is a
tremendous amount of unbelief. The rest shrink away from religion, as it
were, give it up, regarding it as priestcraft only.
Religion has been reduced to a sort of national form. It is one of our very
best social remnants; let it remain. But the real necessity which the
grandfather of the modern man felt for it is gone; he no longer finds it
satisfactory to his reason. The idea of such a Personal God, and such a
creation, the idea which is generally known as monotheism in every religion,
cannot hold its own any longer. In India it could not hold its own because
of the Buddhists, and that was the very point where they gained their
victory in ancient times. They showed that if we allow that nature is
possessed of infinite power, and that nature can work out all its wants, it
is simply unnecessary to insist that there is something besides nature. Even
the soul is unnecessary.
The discussion about substance and qualities is very old, and you will
sometimes find that the old superstition lives even at the present day. Most
of you have read how, during the Middle Ages, and, I am sorry to say, even
much later, this was one of the subjects of discussion, whether qualities
adhered to substance, whether length, breadth, and thickness adhered to the
substance which we call dead matter, whether, the substance remaining, the
qualities are there or not. To this our Buddhist says, "You have no ground
for maintaining the existence of such a substance; the qualities are all
that exist; you do not see beyond them." This is just the position of most
of our modern agnostics. For it is this fight of the substance and qualities
that, on a higher plane, takes the form of the fight between noumenon and
phenomenon. There is the phenomenal world, the universe of continuous
change, and there is something behind which does not change; and this
duality of existence, noumenon and phenomenon, some hold, is true, and
others with better reason claim that you have no right to admit the two, for
what we see, feel, and think is only the phenomenon. You have no right to
assert there is anything beyond phenomenon; and there is no answer to this.
The only answer we get is from the monistic theory of the Vedanta. It is
true that only one exists, and that one is either phenomenon or noumenon. It
is not true that there are two — something changing, and, in and through
that, something which does not change; but it is the one and the same thing
which appears as changing, and which is in reality unchangeable. We have
come to think of the body, and mind, and soul as many, but really there is
only one; and that one is appearing in all these various forms. Take the
well-known illustration of the monists, the rope appearing as the snake.
Some people, in the dark or through some other cause, mistake the rope for
the snake, but when knowledge comes, the snake vanishes and it is found to
be a rope. By this illustration we see that when the snake exists in the
mind, the rope has vanished, and when the rope exists, the snake has gone.
When we see phenomenon, and phenomenon only, around us, the noumenon has
vanished, but when we see the noumenon, the unchangeable, it naturally
follows that the phenomenon has vanished. Now, we understand better the
position of both the realist and the idealist. The realist sees the
phenomenon only, and the idealist looks to the noumenon. For the idealist,
the really genuine idealist, who has truly arrived at the power of
perception, whereby he can get away from all ideas of change, for him the
changeful universe has vanished, and he has the right to say it is all
delusion, there is no change. The realist at the same time looks at the
changeful. For him the unchangeable has vanished, and he has a right to say
this is all real.
What is the outcome of this philosophy? It is that the idea of Personal God
is not sufficient. We have to get to something higher, to the Impersonal
idea. It is the only logical step that we can take. Not that the personal
idea would be destroyed by that, not that we supply proof that the Personal
God does not exist, but we must go to the Impersonal for the explanation of
the personal, for the Impersonal is a much higher generalization than the
personal. The Impersonal only can be Infinite, the personal is limited. Thus
we preserve the personal and do not destroy it. Often the doubt comes to us
that if we arrive at the idea of the Impersonal God, the personal will be
destroyed, if we arrive at the idea of the Impersonal man, the personal will
be lost. But the Vedantic idea is not the destruction of the individual, but
its real preservation. We cannot prove the individual by any other means but
by referring to the universal, by proving that this individual is really the
universal. If we think of the individual as separate from everything else in
the universe, it cannot stand a minute. Such a thing never existed.
Secondly, by the application of the second principle, that the explanation
of everything must come out of the nature of the thing, we are led to a
still bolder idea, and one more difficult to understand. It is nothing less
than this, that the Impersonal Being, our highest generalization, is in
ourselves, and we are That. "O Shvetaketu, thou art That." You are that
Impersonal Being; that God for whom you have been searching all over the
universe is all the time yourself — yourself not in the personal sense but
in the Impersonal. The man we know now, the manifested, is personalised, but
the reality of this is the Impersonal. To understand the personal we have to
refer it to the Impersonal, the particular must be referred to the general,
and that Impersonal is the Truth, the Self of man.
There will be various questions in connection with this, and I shall try to
answer them as we go on. Many difficulties will arise, but first let us
clearly understand the position of monism. As manifested beings we appear to
be separate, but our reality is one, and the less we think of ourselves as
separate from that One, the better for us. The more we think of ourselves as
separate from the Whole, the more miserable we become. From this monistic
principle we get at the basis of ethics, and I venture to say that we cannot
get any ethics from anywhere else. We know that the oldest idea of ethics
was the will of some particular being or beings, but few are ready to accept
that now, because it would be only a partial generalization. The Hindus say
we must not do this or that because the Vedas say so, but the Christian is
not going to obey the authority of the Vedas. The Christian says you must do
this and not do that because the Bible says so. That will not be binding on
those who do not believe in the Bible. But we must have a theory which is
large enough to take in all these various grounds. Just as there are
millions of people who are ready to believe in a Personal Creator, there
have also been thousands of the brightest minds in this world who felt that
such ideas were not sufficient for them, and wanted something higher, and
wherever religion was not broad enough to include all these minds, the
result was that the brightest minds in society were always outside of
religion; and never was this so marked as at the present time, especially in
Europe.
To include these minds, therefore, religion must become broad enough.
Everything it claims must be judged from the standpoint of reason. Why
religions should claim that they are not bound to abide by the standpoint of
reason, no one knows. If one does not take the standard of reason, there
cannot be any true judgment, even in the case of religions. One religion may
ordain something very hideous. For instance, the Mohammedan religion allows
Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated
in the Koran, "Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans." They
must be put to fire and sword. Now if we tell a Mohammedan that this is
wrong, he will naturally ask, "How do you know that? How do you know it is
not good? My book says it is." If you say your book is older, there will
come the Buddhist, and say, my book is much older still. Then will come the
Hindu, and say, my books are the oldest of all. Therefore referring to books
will not do. Where is the standard by which you can compare? You will say,
look at the Sermon on the Mount, and the Mohammedan will reply, look at the
Ethics of the Koran. The Mohammedan will say, who is the arbiter as to which
is the better of the two? Neither the New Testament nor the Koran can be the
arbiter in a quarrel between them. There must be some independent authority,
and that cannot be any book, but something which is universal; and what is
more universal than reason? It has been said that reason is not strong
enough; it does not always help us to get at the Truth; many times it makes
mistakes, and, therefore, the conclusion is that we must believe in the
authority of a church! That was said to me by a Roman Catholic, but I could
not see the logic of it. On the other hand I should say, if reason be so
weak, a body of priests would be weaker, and I am not going to accept their
verdict, but I will abide by my reason, because with all its weakness there
is some chance of my getting at truth through it; while, by the other means,
there is no such hope at all.
We should, therefore, follow reason and also sympathise with those who do
not come to any sort of belief, following reason. For it is better that
mankind should become atheist by following reason than blindly believe in
two hundred millions of gods on the authority of anybody. What we want is
progress, development, realisation. No theories ever made men higher. No
amount of books can help us to become purer. The only power is in
realisation, and that lies in ourselves and comes from thinking. Let men
think. A clod of earth never thinks; but it remains only a lump of earth.
The glory of man is that he is a thinking being. It is the nature of man to
think and therein he differs from animals. I believe in reason and follow
reason having seen enough of the evils of authority, for I was born in a
country where they have gone to the extreme of authority.
The Hindus believe that creation has come out of the Vedas. How do you know
there is a cow? Because the word cow is in the Vedas. How do you know there
is a man outside? Because the word man is there. If it had not been, there
would have been no man outside. That is what they say. Authority with a
vengeance! And it is not studied as I have studied it, but some of the most
powerful minds have taken it up and spun out wonderful logical theories
round it. They have reasoned it out, and there it stands — a whole system of
philosophy; and thousands of the brightest intellects hare been dedicated
through thousands of years to the working out of this theory. Such has been
the power of authority, and great are the dangers thereof. It stunts the
growth of humanity, and we must not forget that we want growth. Even in all
relative truth, more than the truth itself, we want the exercise. That is
our life.
The monistic theory has this merit that it is the most rational of all the
religious theories that we can conceive of. Every other theory, every
conception of God which is partial and little and personal is not rational.
And yet monism has this grandeur that it embraces all these partial
conceptions of God as being necessary for many. Some people say that this
personal explanation is irrational. But it is consoling; they want a
consoling religion and we understand that it is necessary for them. The
clear light of truth very few in this life can bear, much less live up to.
It is necessary, therefore, that this comfortable religion should exist; it
helps many souls to a better one. Small minds whose circumference is very
limited and which require little things to build them up, never venture to
soar high in thought. Their conceptions are very good and helpful to them,
even if only of little gods and symbols. But you have to understand the
Impersonal, for it is in and through that alone that these others can be
explained. Take, for instance, the idea of a Personal God. A man who
understands and believes in the Impersonal — John Stuart Mill, for example
— may say that a Personal God is impossible, and cannot be proved. I admit
with him that a Personal God cannot be demonstrated. But He is the highest
reading of the Impersonal that can be reached by the human intellect, and
what else is the universe but various readings of the Absolute? It is like a
book before us, and each one has brought his intellect to read it, and each
one has to read it for himself. There is something which is common in the
intellect of all men; therefore certain things appear to be the same to the
intellect of mankind. That you and I see a chair proves that there is
something common to both our minds. Suppose a being comes with another
sense, he will not see the chair at all; but all beings similarly
constituted will see the same things. Thus this universe itself is the
Absolute, the unchangeable, the noumenon; and the phenomenon constitutes the
reading thereof. For you will first find that all phenomena are finite.
Every phenomenon that we can see, feel, or think of, is finite, limited by
our knowledge, and the Personal God as we conceive of Him is in fact a
phenomenon. The very idea of causation exists only in the phenomenal world,
and God as the cause of this universe must naturally be thought of as
limited, and yet He is the same Impersonal God. This very universe, as we
have seen, is the same Impersonal Being read by our intellect. Whatever is
reality in the universe is that Impersonal Being, and the forms and
conceptions are given to it by our intellects. Whatever is real in this
table is that Being, and the table form and all other forms are given by our
intellects.
Now, motion, for instance, which is a necessary adjunct of the phenomenal,
cannot be predicated of the Universal. Every little bit, every atom inside
the universe, is in a constant state of change and motion, but the universe
as a whole is unchangeable, because motion or change is a relative thing; we
can only think of something in motion in comparison with something which is
not moving. There must be two things in order to understand motion. The
whole mass of the universe, taken as a unit, cannot move. In regard to what
will it move? It cannot be said to change. With regard to what will it
change? So the whole is the Absolute; but within it every particle is in a
constant state of flux and change. It is unchangeable and changeable at the
same time, Impersonal and Personal in one. This is our conception of the
universe, of motion and of God, and that is what is meant by "Thou art
That". Thus we see that the Impersonal instead of doing away with the
personal, the Absolute instead of pulling down the relative, only explains
it to the full satisfaction of our reason and heart. The Personal God and
all that exists in the universe are the same Impersonal Being seen through
our minds. When we shall be rid of our minds, our little personalities, we
shall become one with It. This is what is meant by "Thou art That". For we
must know our true nature, the Absolute.
The finite, manifested man forgets his source and thinks himself to be
entirely separate. We, as personalised, differentiated beings, forget our
reality, and the teaching of monism is not that we shall give up these
differentiations, but we must learn to understand what they are. We are in
reality that Infinite Being, and our personalities represent so many
channels through which this Infinite Reality is manifesting Itself; and the
whole mass of changes which we call evolution is brought about by the soul
trying to manifest more and more of its infinite energy. We cannot stop
anywhere on this side of the Infinite; our power, and blessedness, and
wisdom, cannot but grow into the Infinite. Infinite power and existence and
blessedness are ours, and we have not to acquire them; they are our own, and
we have only to manifest them.
This is the central idea of monism, and one that is so hard to understand.
From my childhood everyone around me taught weakness; I have been told ever
since I was born that I was a weak thing. It is very difficult for me now to
realise my own strength, but by analysis and reasoning I gain knowledge of
my own strength, I realise it. All the knowledge that we have in this world,
where did it come from? It was within us. What knowledge is outside? None.
Knowledge was not in matter; it was in man all the time. Nobody ever created
knowledge; man brings it from within. It is lying there. The whole of that
big banyan tree which covers acres of ground, was in the little seed which
was, perhaps, no bigger than one eighth of a mustard seed; all that mass of
energy was there confined. The gigantic intellect, we know, lies coiled up
in the protoplasmic cell, and why should not the infinite energy? We know
that it is so. It may seem like a paradox, but is true. Each one of us has
come out of one protoplasmic cell, and all the powers we possess were coiled
up there. You cannot say they came from food; for if you heap up food
mountains high, what power comes out of it? The energy was there,
potentially no doubt, but still there. So is infinite power in the soul of
man, whether he knows it or not. Its manifestation is only a question of
being conscious of it. Slowly this infinite giant is, as it were, waking up,
becoming conscious of his power, and arousing himself; and with his growing
consciousness, more and more of his bonds are breaking, chains are bursting
asunder, and the day is sure to come when, with the full consciousness of
his infinite power and wisdom, the giant will rise to his feet and stand
erect. Let us all help to hasten that glorious consummation.