neither time, space, nor causation. The idea of time cannot be there, seeing that there is no mind, no thought. The idea of space cannot be there, seeing that there is no external change. What you call mo- tion and causation cannot exist where there is only one. We have to understand this and impress it on our minds, that what we call causation begins after, if we may be permitted to say so, the degeneration of the Absolute into the phenomenal, and not before; that our will, our desire, and all these things always come after that. I think Schopenhauer's philosophy makes a mistake in its interpretation of Vedanta, for it seeks to make the will everything. Schopenhauer makes the will stand in the place of the Absolute. But the Abso- lute cannot be presented as will, for will is something changeable and phenomenal, and over the line drawn above time, space and causation, there is no change, no motion. It is only below the line that external motion and internal motion, called thought, begin. There can be no will on the other side, and will, there- fore, cannot be the cause of this universe. Coming nearer, we see in our own bodies that will is not the cause of every movement. I move this chair; will was the cause of that movement, and that will became manifested as muscular motion at the other end. But the same power that moves the chair is moving the heart, the lungs, and so on, but not through will. Given that the power is the same, it only becomes will when it rises to the plane of consciousness, and to call it will before it has risen to this plane is a misnomer. This makes a good deal of confusion in Schopenhauer's philosophy.
I08 J NANA YOGA A Stone falls and we ask why. This question is possible only on the supposition that nothing happens independently, that every motion must have been pre- ceded by a cause of some kind. I request you to make this very clear in your minds, for whenever we ask why anything happens, we are taking for granted that everything that happens must have a zvhy, that is to say, it must have been preceded by something else which acted as cause. This precedence and succed- ence are what we call the law of causation. It means that everything in the Universe is by turn a cause and an effect. It is the cause of certain things which come after it and is itself the effect of something else which has preceded it. This is called the law of causation, and is a necessary condition of all our think- ing. We believe that every particle in the universe, whatever it be, is in relation to every other particle. There has been great discussion as to how this idea arose. In Europe there have been so-called intuitive philosophers who believed that it was constitutional in humanity, others have believed that it comes from experience, but the question has never been settled. We shall see later on what Vedanta has to say about it. But first we have to understand this, that the very asking of the question "why" presupposes that every- thing round us has been preceded by certain things, and will be succeeded by certain other things. The other belief involved in this question is that nothing in the universe is independent, everything can be acted upon by something outside itself. Inter-dependence is the law of the whole universe. In saying, "What caused the Absolute?'' what error are we making!
THE ABSOLUTE AND MANIFESTATION IO9 We are applying the same supposition in this case. To ask this question we have to suppose that the Abso- lute also is bound by something else, and that the Abso- lute also is dependent on something else. That is to say, in so using the word Absolute, we drag the Absolute down to the level of the universe. For above that line there is neither time, space, nor causation, because it is all one. That which exists by itself alone cannot have any cause. That which is free, cannot have any cause, else it would not be free, but bound. That which has relativity cannot be free. Thus, we see that the very question, why the infinite became the finite, is an impossible one, it is self-contradictory. Coming from subtleties to the logic of our common plane, to common sense, we can see this from another side, when we seek to know how the Absolute has become the relative. Supposing we knew the answer, would the Absolute remain the Absolute? It would have become the relative. What is meant by knowl- edge in our common sense idea? It is only something that has become limited by our mind, that we know, and when it is beyond our mind, it is not knowledge. Now if the Absolute becomes limited by the mind, it is no more Absolute; it has become finite. Everything limited by the mind becomes finite. Therefore, to know the Absolute is again a contradiction in terms. That is why this question has never been answered, because if it were answered there would no more be an Absolute. A God known is no more God; He has become finite like one of us. He cannot be known. He is always the Unknowable One. But what Advai- ta says is that God is more than knowable. This is no JNANA YOGA a great fact to learn. You must not go home with the idea that God is unknowable in the sense in which Agnostics put it. For instance, here is a chair, it is known to me. On the contrary what is beyond ether, or whether people exist there or not is possibly un- knowable. But God is neither known nor unknowable in this sense. He is something still higher than known; that is what is meant by God being unknown and unknowable; the expression is not used in the sense in which it may be said that some questions are unknown and unknowable. God is more than known. This chair is known; but God is intensely more than that, because in and through Him we have to know this chair itself. He is the witness, the Eternal Witness of all knowledge. Whatever we know, we have to know in and through Him. He is the essence of our own Self. He, the *'I," is the essence of this ego; we can- not know anything excepting in and through that "I." You have to know everything in and through the Brahman. To know the chair, therefore, you have to know it in and through God. Thus God is infinitely nearer to us than the chair, yet He is infinitely higher. Neither known, nor unknown, but something infinitely higher than either. He is your Self. "Who would live a second, who would breathe a second in this universe, if that Blessed One were not filling it, because in and through Him we breathe, in and through Him we exist?" Not that he is standing somewhere and making my blood circulate. What is meant is that He is the essence of all this, the Soul of my soul. You cannot by any possibility say you know Him; it would be too much of a degradation. You THE ABSOLUTE AND MANIFESTATION III cannot jump out of yourself, so you cannot know Him. Knowledge is objectification. For instance, in memory you are objectifying many things, projecting them out of yourself. All memory, all the things which I have seen and which I know are in my mind. The pictures, the impressions of all these things are in my mind, as it were, and when I would try to think of them, to know them, the first act of knowledge would be to project them outside. This cannot be done with God, because He is the essence of our souls; we cannot throw Him out. This is said to be the holiest word in Vedanta: "He that is the essence of your soul. He is the Truth, He is the Self, Thou that art, O Svetaketu." This is what is meant by "Thou art Brahman." You cannot describe Him by any other language. All attempts of language, calling Him father, or brother, or our dearest friend, are attempts to objectify God, which cannot be. He is the Eternal Subject of everything. I am the subject of this chair; I see the chair, so God is the Eternal Subject of my soul. How can you objectify Him, the Essence of your souls, the Reality of everything? Thus, I would repeat to you once more, God is neither knowable nor unknowable, but something infinitely higher than these. He is one with us, and that which is One is neither knowable, nor unknowable, just as my own self, or your own self. You cannot know your own self, you cannot move it out, and make it an object to look at, because you are that, and cannot separate yourself from it. Neither is it unknowable, for what is more known than yourself? It is really the centre of our knowledge in exactly the same sense 112 J NANA YOGA that God is neither unknowable nor known, but infin- itely higher than that, your real Self.
Thus we see, that, first, the question: "What caused the Absolute" is a contradiction in terms, and secondly, we find that the idea of God in the Advaita is His Oneness, and therefore we cannot objectify Him, for we are always living and moving in Him; whether we know it or not does not matter. Whatever we do is always through Him. Now the question is what are time, space, and causation? Advaita means non- duality; there are no two, but One. We see that here is a proposition that the Absolute, the One is manifesting Itself as many through the veil of time, space, and causation. Therefore it seems that here are two, the Absolute, and Maya (the sum- total of time, space, and causation). It seems apparently very convincing that there are two. To which the Advait- ist replies that it cannot be called two. To have two, we must have two independent existences, just as that of the Absolute, which cannot be caused. In the first place, this time, space, and causation cannot be said to be an independent existence. Time is entire- ly a dependent existence; it changes with every change of our mind. Sometimes in a dream one imagines that he has lived several years; at other times several months were passed as one second. So that time has entire dependence on our state of mind. Secondly, the idea of time vanishes altogether sometimes. So with space, we cannot know what space is. Yet it is there, indefinable, and cannot live separate from any- thing else. So with causation.
The one peculiar attribute we find in all this time.
THE ABSOLUTE AND MANIFESTATION II3 space, and causation, is that they cannot live separate from other things. Try to think of space which has neither color, nor limits, nor any connection with the things around, just abstract space. You cannot think of it thus; you have to think of it as the space between two limits, or between objects. It has to cling on to some object to have its existence. So with time; you cannot have any idea of abstract time, but you have to take two events, one preceding and the other succeed- ing, and join the two events by the idea of succes- sion. Time depends on two events, just as space has to relate itself to outside objects. And the idea of causation is inseparable from time and space. This is the peculiar thing about them, that they have no inde- pendent existence. They have not even the existence which the chair or the wall has. They are as a shadow around everything, but you cannot catch it. It has no real existence; we see that it has not. Yet a shadow is not non-existence, seeing that through this shadow all things are manifesting as this universe. Thus we see first that this combination of time, space, and causa- tion, has neither existence nor non-existence. It is like a shadow which comes around things. Secondly, it sometimes vanishes. To give an illustration, there is a wave on the sea. The wave is the same as the ocean, certainly, and yet we know it is a wave, and as such different from the ocean. What makes this difference? The form and the name, the idea in the mind and the form. Now can we think of a wave form as anything separate from the ocean? Certainly not. It always clings on to the ocean idea. If the wave subsides, the form vanishes in a moment, and 114 JNANA YOGA yet the form was not a delusion. So long as the wave existed the form was there, and you were bound to see the form. This is Maya.
The whole of this universe, therefore, is as it were, a peculiar form; the Absolute is that ocean, while you and I, the suns, and stars, and all things are various waves of the ocean. And what makes the waves dif- ferent? Only form, and that form is just time, space, and causation, all entirely dependent on the wave. As soon as you take away the wave, they vanish. As soon as the individual gives up this Maya, it vanishes for him, and he becomes free. The whole struggle is to get rid of this clinging on to time, space, and causation. It is always throwing obstacles in our way, and we are trying to get free. What do they call the theory of evolution? What are the two fac- tors? There is a tremendous potential power which is trying to express itself, and circumstances are hold- ing it down, the environments will not allow it to ex- press itself. So, in order to fight with these environ- ments, the power is getting newer and newer bodies. A little amoeba, in the struggle, gets another body and conquers some obstacles, then gets other bodies, until it becomes man. Now if we carry that logic to its conclusion, there must come a time when that power that was in the amoeba and which came out as man will have conquered all the obstructions that nature can bring before it, and will have escaped from all its environments. This idea brought into metaphysics would be expressed thus: there are two components of every action, the one the subject, the other the object. For instance, I feel unhappy because a man scolds me.
THE ABSOLUTE AND MANIFESTATION II 5 These are the two parts; and what is my struggle all my life? To make myself strong enough to conquer that environment, so that he may scold and I shall not feel. That is how we are trying to conquer. What is meant by morality? Making the subject strong, inur- ing ourselves to the hardships of temptation until it ceases to have power over us and it is a logical con- clusion of our philosophy, that there must come a time when we shall have conquered all environments, be- cause Nature is finite.
That is another thing to learn. How do you know that Nature is finite? You can only know this through metaphysics. Nature is that infinite under limitations. Therefore it is finite. So there must come a time when we have conquered all environments. And how are we to conquer them? We cannot possibly conquer all the objective environments. No. The little fish wants to fly from its enemies which are in the water. How does it conquer? By flying up into the air, becoming a bird. The fish did not change the water, or the air; the change was in itself. Change is always subjec- tive. So on, all through evolution you find that the conquest of nature comes by change in the subjective. Apply this to religion, and morality, and you will find that the conquest of evil comes by the change in the subjective also. That is how the Advaita system gets its whole force, on the subjective side of man. To talk of evil and misery is nonsense, because they do not exist outside. If I am inured against all anger, I never feel angry. If I am proof against all hatred, I never feel hatred, because it cannot touch me.
This is therefore the process by which to achieve Il6 J NANA YOGA that conquest — ^through the subjective, by perfecting the subjective. Therefore, you find one more thing, that the only rehgion, I may make bold to say, which agrees with and even goes a little further than modern researches, both on physical and moral lines, is the Advaita, and that is why it appeals to modern scien- tists so much. They find that the old dualistic theories are not enough for them, do not satisfy their necessi- ties. A man must not only have faith, but intellectual faith too. Now, in this latter part of the nineteenth century, such ideas as that a religion coming from any other source than one's own forefather's religion must be false, show that there is still weakness left, and such ideas must be given up. I do not mean that it is in this country alone, but in every country, and no- where more than in my own. This Advaita was never allowed to come to the people. At first some monks got hold of it, and took it to the forests, and so it came to be called the Forest Philosophy. By the mercy of the Lord, the Buddha came and preached it to the masses, and the whole nation arose to Buddh- ism. Long after that, when atheists and agnostics had destroyed the nation again, the old preachers found out that Advaita was the only thing to save India from materialism.
Twice has Advaita saved India from materialism. Just before the Buddha came, when materialism had spread to a fearful extent, and it was of a most hideous kind, not like that of the present day but of a far worse nature. I am a materialist of a certain kind, because I believe that there is only One. That is what the materialist wants to tell you, only he calls it matter THE ABSOLUTE AND MANIFESTATION II7 and I call it God. The materialists admit that out of this one matter, all hope, and religion, and everything have come. I say that all these have come out of Brahman. I allude to the old crude sort of material- ism— eat, drink and be merry; there is neither God, nor soul, nor heaven; religion is a concoction of wicked priests; the materialism which said to man: "As long as you live, try to live happily; eat, though you may have to borrow money for it, and never mind about repaying." That was the old materialism, and that kind of philosophy spread so much that even to-day it has got the name of "popular philosophy." Buddha brought the Vedanta out, gave it to the people and saved India. Then a thousand years after his death a similar state of things prevailed; the mobs, the masses, and the various races, had been converted to Buddhism, and naturally the teachings of the Buddha became in time degenerated because most of these people were very ignorant. Buddhism taught no God, no Ruler of the universe, so gradually the masses brought their gods, and devils, and hobgoblins, out again, and a tremendous hotch-potch was made of Buddhism in India. Then again Materialism came to the fore, taking the form of license with the higher classes, and superstition with the lower, when San- karacharya arose, and once more revivified the Vedan- ta philosophy. He made it a rationalistic philosophy. In the Upanishads the arguments are often very obscure. By Buddha the moral side of the philosophy was emphasized, and by Sankaracharya, the intellec- tual side. He collected all the obscure and apparently contradictory texts of the Upanishads and showed the