THIRD LECTURE
IN this lecture I shall consider the premises I have laid down with special reference to the various passages in which they seem to be indicated in this book.
It will be remembered that I started with the very first cause, which I called Parabrahmam. Any positive definition of this principle is of course impossible, and a negative definition is all that can be attempted from the very nature of the case. It is generally believed, at any rate by a certain class of philosophers, that Krshna himself is Parabrahmam— that he is the personal God who is Parabrahmam— but the words used by Krshna in speaking of Parabrahmam, and the way in which he deals with the subject, clearly show that he draws a distinction between himself and Parabrahmam.
No doubt he is a manifestation of Parabrahmam, as every Logos is. And Pratyagatma is Parabrahmam in the sense in which that proposition is laid down by the Adwaitis. This statement is at the bottom of all Adwaiti philosophy, but is very often misunderstood. When Adwaitis say "Ahameva Parabrahmam ", they do not mean to say that this ahankaram (egotism) is Parabrahmam, but that the only true self in the cosmos, which is the Logos or Praṭyagāṭma, is a manifestation of Parabrahmam.
It will be noticed that when Kṛṣhṇa is speaking of himself he never uses the word Parabrahmam, but places himself in the position of Praṭyagāṭma', and it is from this standpoint that we constantly find him speaking. Whenever he speaks of Praṭyagāṭma, he speaks of himself, and whenever he speaks of Parabrahmam, he speaks of it as being something different from himself.
I will now go through all the passages in which reference is made to Parabrahmam in this book. The first passage to which I shall call your attention is chapter viii, verse 3:
The eternal spirit is the Supreme Brahma. Its condition as Praṭyagāṭma is called Aḍhyȧṭma. Action which leads to incarnated existence is denoted by Karma.
Here the only words used to denote Parabrahmam are Akṣharam and Brahma. These are the words he generally uses. You will notice that he does not in any place call it Īshvara or Maheshvara; he does not even allude to it often as Āṭmā. Even the term Paramāṭmā he applies to himself, and not to Parabrahmam. I believe that the reason for this is that the word Āṭmā, strictly speaking, means the same thing as self, that idea of self being in no way connected with Parabrahmam. This idea of self first comes into existence with the Logos, and not before; hence Parabrahmam ought not to be called Paramāțmā or any kind of Āțmā. In one place only, Krșhna, speaking of Parabrahmam, says that it is his Āțmā. Except in that case he nowhere uses the word Āțmā or Paramāțmā in speaking of Parabrahmam. Strictly speaking Parabrahmam is the very foundation of the highest self. Paramāțmā is, however, a term also applied to Parabrahmam as distinguished from Prațyagāțmā. When thus applied it is used in a strictly technical sense. Whenever the term Prațyagāțmā is used, you will find Paramāțmā used as expressing something distinct from it.
It must not be supposed that either the ego, or any idea of self, can be associated with, or be considered as inherent in Parabrahmam. Perhaps it may be said that the idea of self is latent in Parabrahmam, as everything is latent in it; and, if on that account you connect the idea of self with Parabrahmam you will be quite justified in applying the term Paramāṭmā to Parabrahmam. But to avoid confusion it is much better to use our words in a clear sense, and to give to each a distinct connotation about which there can be no dispute. Turn now to chapter viii, verse 11:
I will briefly explain to thee that place (paḍam) which those who know the Vedas describe as indestructible (akṣharam), which the ascetics, who are free from desire, enter, and which is the desired destination of those who observe Brahmacharyam.
Here we find another word used by Kṛṣhṇa when speaking of Parabrahmam. He calls it his paḍam—the adobe of bliss or Nirvāna. When he calls Parabrahmam his paḍam or abode, he does not mean vaikuntha loka or any other kind of loka; he speaks of it as his abode, because it is in the bosom of Parabrahmam that the Logos resides. He refers to Parabrahmam as the abode of bliss, wherein resides eternally the Logos, manifested or unmanifested. Again turn to chapter viii, verse 21:
That which is stated to be unmanifested and immutable is spoken of as the highest condition to be reached. That place from which there is no return for those who reach it is my supreme abode.
Here the same kind of language is used, and the reference is to Parabrahmam. When any soul is absorbed into the Logos, or reaches the Logos, it may be said to have reached Parabrahmam, which is the centre of the Logos; and, as the Logos resides in the bosom of Parabrahmam, when the soul reaches the Logos it reaches Parabrahmam also.
Here you will notice that he again speaks of Parabrahmam as his abode.
Turn now to chapter ix, verses 4, 5 and 6:
The whole of this Universe is pervaded by me in my unmanifested form (Avyakṭamūrṭi). I am thus the support of all the manifested existence, but I am not supported by them. Look at my condition when manifested as Īshvara (Logos): these phenomenal manifestations are not within me. My Āṭmā (however) is the foundation and the origin of manifested beings, though it does not exist in combination with them. Conceive that all the manifested beings are within me, just as the atmosphere spreading everywhere is always in space.
In my last lecture I tried to explain the mysterious connection between Parabrahmam and Mūlaprakṛṭi. Parabrahmam is never differentiated. What is differentiated is Mūlaprakṛṭi, which is sometimes called Avyakṭam, and in other places, Kūtasṭham, which means simply the undifferentiated Element. Nevertheless Parabrahmam seems to be the one foundation for all physical phenomena, or for all phenomena that are generally referred to Mūlaprakṛṭi. After all, any material object is nothing more than a bundle of attributes to us. Either on account of an innate propensity within us, or as a matter of inference, we always suppose that there is a non-ego, which has this bundle of attributes superimposed upon it, and which is the basis of all these attributes. Were it not for this essence, there could be no physical body. But these attributes do not spring from Parabrahmam itself, but from Mūlaprakṛṭi which is its veil; Mūlaprakṛṭi is the veil of Parabrahmam. It is not Parabrahmam itself, but merely its appearance. It is purely phenomenal. It is no doubt far more persistent than any other kind of objective existence. Being the first mode or manifestation of the only absolute and unconditioned reality, it seems to be the basis of all subsequent manifestations. Speaking of this aspect of Parabrahmam, Kṛṣhṇa says that the whole cosmos is pervaded by it, which is his Avyakta form.
Thus he speaks of Parabrahmam as his Avyaktamurti, because Parabrahmam is unknowable, and only becomes knowable when manifesting itself as the Logos or Ishvara. Here he is trying to indicate that Parabrahmam is the Avyaktamurti of the Logos as it is the Atma of the Logos, which is everywhere present, since it is the Atma of the universe, and which appears differentiated--when manifested in the shape of the various Logoi working in the cosmos, though in itself it is undifferentiated-- and which, though the basis of all phenomenal manifestations, does not partake of the vikarams of those phenomenal manifestations.
Refer now to chap. xii, verses 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.[1]
Here again, in speaking of Parabrahmam in verses 15, 16 and 17, Krshna is laying down a proposition which I have already explained at length. I need not now go minutely into the meaning of these verses, for you can very easily ascertain them from the commentaries.
Turn to chapter xiv, verse 27:
I am the image or the seat of the immortal and indestructible Brahma of eternal law and of undisturbed happiness.
Here Krshna is referring to himself as a manifestation or image of Parabrahmam. He says he is the Praṭiṣhtha of Parabrahmam; he does not call himself Parabrahmam, but only its image or manifestation.
The only other passage in which Kṛṣhṇa refers to the same subject is chapter xv, verse 6:
That is my supreme abode (ḍhamā), which neither sun, nor moon, nor fire illumines. Those who enter it do not return.
There again he speaks of paḍam and refers to Parabrahmam as his abode. I believe that these are all the statements that refer to Parabrahmam in this book, and they are sufficient to indicate its position pretty clearly, and to show the nature of its connection with the Logos. I shall now proceed to point out the passages in which reference is made to the Logos itself.
Strictly speaking, the whole of this book may be called the book of the philosophy of the Logos. There is hardly a page which does not, directly or indirectly, refer to it. There however, a few important and significant passages to which it is desirable that I should refer you, so that you may see whether what I have said about the nature and functions of the Logos, and its connection with humanity and the human soul, is supported by the teachings of this book. Let us turn to chapter iv, and examine the meaning of verses 5 to 11:
O Arjuna, I and thou have passed through many births. I know all of them, but thon dost not know, O harasser of foes.
Even I, who am unborn, imperishable, the Lord of all beings, controlling my own nature. take birth through the instrumentality of my māyā.
O Bharaṭ, whenever there is a decline of ḍharma or righteousness and spread of aḍharma or unrighteousness, I create myself.
I take birth in every yuga, to protect the good, to destroy evil-doers and to re-estahlish ḍharma.
O Arjuna, he who understands truly my divine birth and action, abandoning his body, reaches me, and does not come to birth again.
Many, who are free from passion, fear and anger, devoted to me and full of me, purified by spiritual wisdom, have attained my condition.
This passage refers, of course, not only to the Logos in the abstract, but also to Krshna’s own incarnations. It will be noticed that he speaks here as if his Logos had already associated itself with several personalities, or human individualities, in former yugas; and he says that he remembers all that took place in connection with those incarnations. Of course, since there could be no karmabanḍham as far as he was concerned, his Logos, when it associated itself with a human soul, would not lose its own independence of action, as a soul confined by the bonds of matter. And because his intellect and wisdom were in no way clouded by this association with a human soul, he says he can recollect all his previous incarnations, while Arjuna, not yet having fully received the light of the Logos, is not in a position to understand all that took place in connection with his former births. He says that it is his object to look after the welfare of humanity, and that whenever a special incarnation is necessary, he unites himself with the soul of a particular individual; and that he appears in various forms for the purpose of establishing ḍharma, and of rectifying matters on the plane of human life, if aḍharma gets the ascendancy. From the words he uses, there is reason to suppose that the number of his man incarnations has been very great, more so than our books are willing to admit. He apparently refers to human incarnations; if the janmas or incarnations referred to are simply the recognised human incarnations of Viṣṇnu, there would perhaps be only two incarnations before Kṛṣhṇa, Rāma and Parasurāma, for the Maṭsya, Kūrma, Varāha and Narasimha Avaṭārs were not, strictly speaking, human incarnations. Even Vāmana was not born of human father or mother.
The mysteries of these incarnations lie deep in the inner sanctuaries of the ancient arcane science, and can only he understood by unveiling certain hidden truths. The human incarnations can, however, be understood by the remarks I have already made. It may be that this Logos, which has taken upon itself the care of humanity, has incarnated not merely in connection with two individuals whose history we see narrated in the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhāraṭa, but also perhaps in connection with various individuals who have appeared in different parts of the world and at different times as great reformers and saviours of mankind.
Again, these janmams might not only include all the special incarnations which this Logos has undergone, but might also perhaps include all the incarnations of‘ that individual, who in the course of his spiritual progress finally joined himself, or united his soul with the Logos, which has been figuring as the guardian angel, so to speak, of the beat and the highest interests of humanity on this planet.
In this connection there is a great truth that I ought to bring to your notice. Whenever any particular individual reaches the highest state of spiritual culture, develops in himself all the virtues that alone entitle him to a union with the Logos, and finally, unites his soul with the Logos, there is, an it were, a sort of reaction emanating from that Logos for the good of humanity. If I am permitted to use a simile, I may compare it to what may happen in the case of the sun when a comet falls upon it. If a comet falls upon the sun, there is necessarily an accession of heat and light. So in the case of a human being who has developed an unselfish love for humanity in himself. He unites his highest qualities with the Logos, and, when the time of the final union comes, generates in it an impulse to incarnate for the good of humanity. Even when it does not actually incarnate, it sends down its influence for the good of mankind. This influence may be conceived of as invisible spiritual grace that descends from heaven, and it is showered down upon humanity, as it were, whenever any great Mahāṭma unites his soul with the Logos. Every Mahāṭma who joins his soul with the Logos is thus a source of immense power for the good of humanity in after generations. It is said that the Mahāṭmas, living as they do apart from the world, are utterly useless so far as humanity is concerned when they are still living, and are still more so when they have reached Nirvāṇa. This is an absurd proposition that has been put forward by certain writers who did not comprehend the true nature of Nirvāṇa. The truth is, as I have said, every purified soul joined with the Logos is capable of stimulating the energy of the Logos in a particular direction. I do not mean to say that in the case of every Mahāṭma there is necessarily any tendency to incarnate for the purpose of teaching ḍharma to mankind—in special cases this may happen; but in all cases there is an influence of the highest spiritual efficacy coming down from the Logos for the good of humanity, whether as an invisible essence, or in the shape of another human incarnation, as in the case of Kṛṣhṇa, or rather the Logos with reference to which we have been speaking of Kṛṣhṇa. It might be that this Logos that seems to have incarnated already on this planet among various nations for the good of humanity, was that into which the soul of a great Mahāṭma of a former kalpa was finally absorbed; that the impulse which was thus communicated to it has been acting, as it were, to make it incarnate and re-incarnate during the present kalpa for the good of mankind.
In this connection I must frankly tell you, that beyond the mystery I have indicated there is yet another mystery in connection with Krshna and all the incarnations mentioned in this book, and that mystery goes to the very root of all occult science. Rather than attempt to give an imperfect explanation, I think it much better to lose sight of this part of the subject, and proceed to explain the teachings of this book, as if Krshna is not speaking from the standpoint of any particular Logos, but from that of the Logos in the abstract. So far as the general tenor of this book is concerned, it would suit any other Logos as well as that of Krshna, but there are a few scattered passages, that when explained will be found to possess a special significance with reference to this mystery which they do not possess now. An attempt will be made in The Secret Doctrine to indicate the nature of this mystery as far as possible, but it must not be imagined that the veil will be completely drawn, and that the whole mystery will be revealed. Only hints will be given by the help of which you will have to examine and understand the subject. This matter is, however, foreign to my subject; yet I have thought it better to bring the fact to your notice lest you should be misled. The whole philosophy of this book is the philosophy of the Logos. In general, Christ or Buḍḍha might have used the same words as those of Kṛṣhṇa; and what I have said about this mystery only refers to some particular passages that seem to touch upon the nature of Kṛṣhṇa's divine individuality. He himself seems to think there is a mystery, as you may see from the ninth verse.
In the tenth verse Maḍbhāva means the condition of the Logos. Kṛṣhṇa says there have been several Mahāṭmas who have become Īṣhvaras, or have united their souls completely with the Logos.
Turn now to chapter v, verses 14 and 15:
The Lord of the world does not bring about or create karma or the condition by which people attribute karma to themselves; nor does he make people feel the effects of their karma. It is the law of natural causation that works. He does not take upon himself the sin or the merit of anyone. Real knowledge is smothered by delusion, and hence created beings are misled.
Here he says that Īṣhvara does not create karma, nor does he create in individuals any desire to do karma. All karma, or impulse to do karma, emanates from Mūlaprakṛṭi and its vikārams, and not from the Logos or the light that emanates from the Logos. You must look upon this light or Fohat, as a kind of energy eternally beneficent in its nature, as stated in The Idyll of the White Lotus. In itself it is not capable of generating any tendencies that lead to banḍham; but ahaṅkāra, and the desire to do karma, and all karma with its various consequences come into existence by reason of the upādhis which are but the manifestations of that one Mülaprakrti.
Strictly and logically speaking, you will have to attribute these results to both of these forces. Mulaprakrti will not act, and is incapable of producing any result, unless energised by the light of the Logos. Nevertheless, most of the results that pertain to karma and the continued existence of man as the responsible producer of karma are traceable to Mulaprakrti, and pot to the light that vitalises it. We may therefore suppose th this Mulaprakrti is the real or principal bandhakāraṇam, and this light is the one instrument by which we may attain to union with the Logus, which is the source of salvation. This light is the foundation of the better side of human nature, and of all those tendencies of action, which generally lead to liberation from the bonds of avidyā.
Turn to chapter vii, verses 4 and 5:
My Prakrti (Mulaprakrti) is divided into eight parts--earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intuition and egotism. This prakrti is called Aparaprakrti. Understand my Paraprakrti (Daivīprakrti), as something distinct from this. This Daiviprakrti is the one life by which the whole Universe is supported.
Krşhņa in verse 5 distinguishes between this Daiviprakrti and prakrti. This Daiviprakrti is, strictly speaking, the Mahachaitanyam of the whole cosmos, the one energy, or the only force from which spring all force manifestations. He says you must look upon it as something different from the prakṛṭi of the Sāṅkhyas.
Turn now to chapter vii, verse 7:
O Ḍhanañjaya, there is nothing superior to me, and all this hangs on me as a row of gems on the string running through them.
Please notice that in verses 4 and 5 Kṛṣhṇa is referring to two kinds of Prakṛṭi. Of course that Prakṛṭi, which is differentiated into the eight elements enumerated in Sāṅkhya philosophy is the avyakṭan of the Sāṅkhyas—it is the Mūlāprakṛṭi which must not be confounded with the Ḍaivīprakṛṭi, which is the light of the Logos. Conceive Mūlāprakṛṭi as aviḍyā, and Ḍaivīprakṛṭi, the light of the Logos, as viḍyā. These words have other meanings also. In the Sveṭāshraṭara Upaniṣhaṭ, Īṣhvara is described as the deity who controls both viḍyā and aviḍyā.
Here Kṛṣhṇa seems to refer to all the qualities, or all the excellent qualities, manifested in every region of phenomenal existence, as springing from himself.
No doubt the other qualities also, or rather their ideal forms, originally spring from him, but they ought to be traced mainly to Mūlāprakṛṭi, and not himself.
I will now refer you to verse 24 and the following verses of the same chapter:
The ignorant, who do not know my supreme and indestructible and best nature regard me as a manifestation of avyakṭam.
Veiled by my yoga-māyā I am not visible to all. The deluded world does not comprehend me who an unborn and imperishable.
I know, O Arjuna, all beings, past, present and future, but none knows me.
In these verses Kṛṣhṇa is controverting a doctrine that has unfortunately created a good deal of confusion. I have already told you that the Sāṅkhyas have taken their Avyakṭam, or rather Parabrahmam veiled by Mūlaprakṛṭi, as Āṭmā or the real self. Their opinion was that this avyakṭam took on a kind of phenomenal differentiation on account of association with its upāḍhi, and when this phenomenal differentiation took place, the avyakṭam became the Aṭmā of the individual. They have thus altogether lost sight of the Logos. Startling consequences followed from this doctrine. They thought that there being but one avyakṭam, one soul, or one spirit, that existed, in every upāḍhi, appearing differentiated, though not differentiated in reality, if somehow we could control the action of the upāḍhi, and destroy the māyā it had created, the result would be the complete extinction of man's self and a final layam in this avyakṭam, Parabrahmam. It is this doctrine that has spoilt the Aḍwaita philosophy of this country, that has brought the Buḍḍhism of Ceylon, Burma and China to its present deplorable condition, and led so many Veḍānṭic writers to say that Nirvāṇa was in reality a condition of perfect layam or annihilation.
If those who say that Nirvāṇa is annihilation are right, then, so far as the individuality of the soul is concerned, it is completely annihilated, and what exists ultimately is not the soul, nor the individual, however purified or exalted, but the one Parabrahmam, which has all along been existing, and that Parabrahmam itself is a sort of unknowable essence which has no idea of self, nor even an individual existence, but which is the one power, the one mysterious basis of the whole cosmos, In interpreting the Pranava, the Sankyas made the ardhamatra really mean this avyaktam and nothing more, In some Upanishats this ardhamatra is described as that which, appearing differentiated, is the soul of man. When this differentiation, which is mainly due to the upadhi, is destroyed, there is a layam of Atma in Parabrahmam. This is also the view of a considerable number of persons in India, who called themselves Adwaitis. It is also the view put forward as the correct Vedantic view. It was certainly the view of the. ancient Sankhyan philosophers, and is the view of all those Buddhists who consider Nirvana to be the layam of the soul in Parabrahmam.
After reaching karana sharira there are two paths, both of which lead to Parabrahmam. Karana sharira, you must know, is an upadhi; it is material, that is to say, it is derived from Mulaprakrti, but there is also acting in it, as its light and energy, the light from the Logos, or Daiviprakrti or Fohat. Now, as I have said, there are two paths. When you reach karana sharira you can either confine your Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/95 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/96 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/97 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/98 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/99 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/100 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/101 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/102 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/103 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/104 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/105 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/106 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/107 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/108 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/109 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/110 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/111 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/112 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/113 Page:Philosophy of bhagawad-gita.pdf/114 What is seen by him is not the Logos Itself but the Vishvarüpa form of the Logos as manifested in its light—Daivīprakrti. It is only when thus manifested that the Logos can become visible even to the highest spiritual intelligence of man.
There is yet another inference to be drawn from this chapter. Truly the form shown to Arjuna was fearful to look at, and all the terrible things about to happen in the war appeared to him depicted in it. The Logos being the universe in idea, coming events (or those about to manifest themselves on the objective plane) are generally manifested long, it may be, before they actually happen, in the plane of the Logos from which all impulses spring originally. Bhishma, Drona and Karna were still living at the time Krşhna showed this forin. But yet their deaths and the destruction of almost their whole army seemed to be foreshadowed in this appearance of the Logos. Its terrible form was but an indication of the terrible things that were going to happen. In itself the Logos has no form; clothed in its light It assumes a form which is, as it were, a symbol of the impulses operating, or about to operate, in the cosmos at the time of the manifestation.
- ↑ This and some of the other quotations have been omitted on account of their length.--Ep.