Its Relation to Indian Philosophies 
Let me ask you to think for a while on the place of Yoga in its
relation to two of the great Hindu schools of philosophical thought, for
neither the Westerner nor the non-Sanskrit-knowing Indian can ever
really understand the translations of the chief Indian books, now
current here and in the West, and the force of all the allusions they
make, unless they acquaint themselves in some degree with the outlines
of these great schools of philosophy, they being the very foundation on
which these books are built up. Take the Bhagavad-Gita. Probably there
are many who know that book fairly well, who use it as the book to help
in the spiritual life, who are not familiar with most of its precepts.
But you must always be more or less in a fog in reading it, unless you
realise the fact that it is founded on a particular Indian philosophy
and that the meaning of nearly all the technical words in it is
practically limited by their meaning in philosophy known as the Samkhya.
There are certain phrases belonging rather to the Vedanta, but the great
majority are Samkhyan, and it is taken for granted that the people
reading or using the book are familiar with the outline of the Samkhyan
philosophy. I do not want to take you into details, but I must give you
the leading ideas of the philosophy. For if you grasp these, you will
not only read your Bhagavad-Gita with much more intelligence than
before, but you will be able to use it practically for yogic purposes in
a way that, without this knowledge, is almost impossible.
Alike in the Bhagavad-Gita and in the Yoga-sutras of Patanjali the
terms are Samkhyan, and historically Yoga is based on the Samkhya, so
far as its philosophy is concerned. Samkhya does not concern itself
with, the existence of Deity, but only with the becoming of a universe,
the order of evolution. Hence it is often called Nir-isvara Samkhya, the
Samkhya without God. But so closely is it bound up with the Yoga system,
that the latter is called Sesvara Samkhya, with God. For its
understanding, therefore, I must outline part of the Samkhya philosophy,
that part which deals with the relation of Spirit and matter; note the
difference from this of the Vedantic conception of Self and Not-Self,
and then find the reconciliation in the Theosophic statement of the
facts in nature. The directions which fall from the lips of the Lord of
Yoga in the Gita may sometimes seem to you opposed to each other and
contradictory, because they sometimes are phrased in the Samkhyan and
sometimes in the Vedantic terms, starting from different standpoints,
one looking at the world from the standpoint of matter, the other from
the standpoint of Spirit. If you are a student of Theosophy, then the
knowledge of the facts will enable you to translate the different
phrases. That reconciliation and understanding of these apparently
contradictory phrases is the object to which I would ask your attention
now.
The Samkhyan School starts with the statement that the universe
consists of two factors, the first pair of opposites, Spirit and Matter,
or more accurately Spirits and Matter. The Spirit is called Purusha--the
Man; and each Spirit is an individual. Purusha is a unit, a unit of
consciousness; they are all of the same nature, but distinct
everlastingly the one from the other. Of these units there are many;
countless Purushas are to be found in the world of men. But while they
are countless in number they are identical in nature, they are
homogeneous. Every Purusha has three characteristics, and these three
are alike in all. One characteristic is awareness; it will become
cognition. The second of the characteristics is life or prana; it will
become activity. The third characteristic is immutability, the essence
of eternity; it will become will. Eternity is not, as some mistakenly
think, everlasting time. Everlasting time has nothing to do with
eternity. Time and eternity are two altogether different things.
Eternity is changeless, immutable, simultaneous. No succession in time,
albeit everlasting--if such could be--could give eternity. The fact that
Purusha has this attribute of immutability tells us that He is eternal;
for changelessness is a mark of the eternal.
Such are the three attributes of Purusha, according to the Samkhya.
Though these are not the same in nomenclature as the Vedantic Sat, Chit,
Ananda, yet they are practically identical. Awareness or cognition is
Chit; life or force is Sat; and immutability, the essence of eternity,
is Ananda.
Over against these Purushas, homogeneous units, countless in number,
stands Prakriti, Matter, the second in the Samkhyan duality. Prakriti is
one; Purushas are many. Prakriti is a continuum; Purushas are
discontinuous, being innumerable, homogeneous units. Continuity is the
mark of Prakriti. Pause for a moment on the name Prakriti. Let us
investigate its root meaning. The name indicates its essence. Pra means
"forth," and kri is the root "make". Prakriti thus
means "forth-making ". Matter is that which enables the
essence of Being to become. That which is Being--is-tence, becomes
ex-is-tence--outbeing, by Matter, and to describe Matter as
"forth-making" is to give its essence in a single word. Only
by Prakriti can Spirit, or Purusha, "forth-make" or
"manifest" himself. Without the presence of Prakriti, Purusha
is helpless, a mere abstraction. Only by the presence of, and in
Prakriti, can Purusha make manifest his powers. Prakriti has also three
characteristics, the well-known gunas--attributes or qualities. These
are rhythm, mobility and inertia. Rhythm enables awareness to become
cognition. Mobility enables life to become activity. Inertia enables
immutability to become will.
Now the conception as to the relation of Spirit to Matter is a very
peculiar one, and confused ideas about it give rise to many
misconceptions. If you grasp it, the Bhagavad-Gita becomes illuminated,
and all the phrases about action and actor, and the mistake of saying
"I act," become easy to understand, as implying technical
Samkhyan ideas.
The three qualities of Prakriti, when Prakriti is thought of as away
from Purusha, are in equilibrium, motionless, poised the one against the
other, counter-balancing and neutralizing each other, so that Matter is
called jada, unconscious, "dead". But in the presence of
Purusha all is changed. When Purusha is in propinquity to Matter, then
there is a change in Matter--not outside, but in it.
Purusha acts on Prakriti by propinquity, says Vyasa. It comes near
Prakriti, and Prakriti begins to live. The "coming near" is a
figure of speech, an
adaptation to our ideas of time and space, for we
cannot posit "nearness" of that which is timeless and
spaceless--Spirit. By the word propinquity is indicated an influence
exerted by Purusha on Prakriti, and this, where material objects are
concerned, would be brought about by their propinquity. If a magnet be
brought near to a piece of soft iron or an electrified body be brought
near to a neutral one, certain changes are wrought in the soft iron or
in the neutral body by that bringing near. The propinquity of the magnet
makes the soft iron a magnet; the qualities of the magnet are produced
in it, it manifests poles, it attracts steel, it attracts or repels the
end of an electric needle. In the presence of a postively electrified
body the electricity in a neutral body is re-arranged, and the positive
retreats while the negative gathers near the electrified body. An
internal change has occurred in both cases from the propinquity of
another object. So with Purusha and Prakriti. Purusha does nothing, but
from Purusha there comes out an influence, as in the case of the
magnetic influence. The three gunas, under this influence of Purusha,
undergo a marvellous change. I do not know what words to use, in order
not to make a mistake in putting it. You cannot say that Prakriti
absorbs the influence. You can hardly say that it reflects the Purusha.
But the presence of Purusha brings about certain internal changes,
causes a difference in the equilibrium of the three gunas in Prakriti.
The three gunas were in a state of equilibrium. No guna was manifest.
One guna was balanced against another. What happens when Purusha
influences Prakriti? The quality of awareness in Purusha is taken up by,
or reflected in, the guna called Sattva-- rhythm, and it becomes
cognition in Prakriti. The quality that we call life in Purusha is taken
up by, or reflected, in the guna called Rajas--mobility, and it becomes
force, energy, activity, in Prakriti. The quality that we call
immutability in Purusha is taken up by, or reflected, in the guna called
Tamas--inertia, and shows itself out as will or desire in Prakriti. So
that, in that balanced equilibrium of Prakriti, a change has taken place
by the mere propinquity of, or presence of, the Purusha. The Purusha has
lost nothing, but at the same time a change has taken place in matter.
Cognition has appeared in it. Activity, force, has appeared in it. Will
or desire has appeared in it. With this change in Prakriti another
change occurs. The three attributes of Purusha cannot be separated from
each other, nor can the three attributes of Prakriti be separated each
from each. Hence rhythm, while appropriating awareness, is under the
influence of the whole three-in-one Purusha and cannot but also take up
subordinately life and immutability as activity and will. And so with
mobility and inertia. In combinations one quality or another may
predominate, and we may have combinations which show preponderantly
awareness-rhythm, or life- mobility, or immutability-inertia. The
combinations in which awareness-rhythm or cognition predominates become
"mind in nature," the subject or subjective half of nature.
Combinations in which either of the other two predominates become the
object or objective half of nature, the " force and matter "
of the western scientist.[FN#7: A friend notes that the first is the
Suddha Sattva of the Ramanuja School, and the second and third the
Prakriti, or spirit-matter, in the lower sense of the same.]
|
|