CHAPTER V.

THE MUTUAL RELATION OF THE SELF AND THE NOT-SELF.
Seeing the unvarying continuity of the universal Ego, the Pratyag-atma, through and amidst the endless flux of particulars, of not-selves, we have separated it out and identi- fied ourselves with it, and so derived a certain sense of absence of limitation, of immortality. But the separation now begins to seem to us to be merely ' mental ' and not ' real.' For while we see, without doubt, that the ' I ' continues unchanged through changing things, we also see that it continues to do so only in these things and never apart from them ; and if it must do so, is it not after all limited by some inherent want and defect, so that it is depen- dent for its manifestation, its existence in fact, upon these things, just as much as these things may depend upon it ? And so we come back to the old difficulties of two eternals and two infinites. We must reconcile these two infinites, 36
THE SELF AND THE NOT-SELF. 37
indeed we must derive the one from the other, maintaining all the while their, coevalness, their simultaneity, for it is not in our power to deny the beginninglessness and endlessness of either. How to perform this most impossible task, to combine all the statements of the first and the second answers, and also obviate all the possible objections to them ? How relate the Self and the Not-Self so that the Self — myself — shall no longer feel bound, feel small, feel dependent, feel helpless and at the mercy of the Not-Self?
We do not want to know how and why and whence the Self. When we come to a true eternal infinite One, further search for causes ceases. To ask for a cause of that which is unlimited and changeless is meaningless. None really and sincerely does or can do so. All enquiry starts with a certain standard ; when we have found such and such a one, we shall toil and seek no further and no longer ; and un- causedness, self-existence, is, on the very face of it, part of the standard of the enquiry after the unlimited. We do not want to engage in an endless pastime of asking ' why ' after every answer, without considering whether the answer is, or is not, complete and final. What we want is to derive all and every thing from one true unchanging and unlimited something, which something shall be ourself. But we must do
38 THE SCIENCE OF PEACE.
this and nothing less. We must prove con- clusively to ourselves that our Self is the true eternal and unlimited, that it is not based in any way on the Not-Self, but that from it is derived the Not-Self and a countless, boundless, endless series too of not-selves. We have to create everything, all things, out of the ' I,' and not only every thing and all things but an end- less series of such. We have to create in a rational and intelligible manner not only some- thing but an infinite something, viz., the second of two co-infinites, and create it out of nothing, or, which is the same thing, out of the first co-infinite without changing this first infinite in the very minutest, in the very least, degree, for otherwise its unlimitedness is lost and it is no longer infinite but subject to finiteness, to change, to beginning and end.1 Impossible, truly, to all appearance ! And yet until this so im- possible task is done there is no final peace, no final satisfaction. Amass worldly wealth and powers, amass endless particulars upon par- ticulars of science, amass occult knowledge and powers of high and low degree, for a thousand
1 The words infinite and eternal have been used, so far, from the standpoint of the enquirer who has not yet made the technical and profoundly significant distinction between the true eternal and infinite, on the one hand, and the merely endless, on the other, which will appear later on.
THE SELF AND THE NOT-SELF. 39
years, for a thousand thousand years, and do not this, set not at rest this doubt — and there will be no peace for you. Secure this and all else will follow in its proper time, serenely, certainly, and peacefully. The Gods have suffered from this doubt, as Yama said. Indra, the king of the Gods, found no pleasure in his heavenly kingdom and, forsaking it, studied the science of this peace, Adhyatma-vidya, the science of the Self, for a hundred years and one in all humility at the feet of Prajapati.1 Even Vishnu had to master it before he could become the ruler of a system.2 Let us then set our hearts on mastering it.
The first result of this last effort is a return to the first answer on a higher level. The universal Self, the One without a second, by its own inherent power of desire, creates the Not- Self, at the same dividing itself into many selves, assuming names and forms by com- bination with the Not-Self. " It willed : May I become many, may I be born forth." 3 " Having created (all this) it entered thereinto itself."4 Such are the first of the scripture-texts which seek to sum up the world-process in one single
1 Chh&ndogya-Upanishat. VIII.
2 Devt-Bh&gavata. I. XV.
3 Chh&ndogya-Upanishat, VI. ii.
4 l^aittirfya-Upanishat. II. vi.
40 THE SCIENCE OF PEACE.
act of consciousness, and bring it all within the Self.1
This first result, corresponding to the Dvaita or dualistic form of the Vedanta, is only the theory of creation on a higher level, with a new added and important significance. Instead of a personal, extra-cosmical, separate God, the universal Self immanent in the universe has been reached. Instead of craftsman and knick- knacks, potter and pots, builder and houses, we have ensouling life and organisms. The world is, though vaguely, included in the being of the One ; the sense of unity is greater and that of irreconcilable difference and opposition less. As to what is the exact relation between that universal Self and the individual selves and living material organisms and so-called dead inanimate matter 2 there is as yet no really
1 Cf. Karl Pearson, Grammar of Science (ist edn.) : " There is an insatiable desire in the human breast to resume in some short formula, some brief statement, the facts of human experi- ence." (P. 44). If he had added, " in such a manner as to derive these all from the Self," he would have explained the why of the insatiable desire at the same time.
8 The five kinds of separateness and relationship referred to in the Dvaita-Vedanta, are :
i.e., the difference between JIva and Jtva, between Jiva and Ishvara, between Jiva and the world (or inanimate matter), between the world and fshvara, and between inanimate matter and inanimate matter.
THE SELF AND THE NOT-SELF. 41
satisfactory idea. It appears in a general way, at this stage, that the three — God, individual spirits, and ' nature ' — are all eternal and ever distinct from each other, but yet that the latter two are entirely subordinate to the first, and that the relation between God and Jiva is that of an indivisible conjunction, the individual Jiva being unable to exist without the energising support of the universal Spirit, as the tree cannot live and subsist without its sap.
But this transmuted form of the theory of creation fails and falls short of final satisfaction for reasons the same as those that demolish that theory. It explains the beginning of the world- process as being dependent on, and the result of, the desire, the will, of the Self. It thus explains motion, change ; but it does this by means of a mysterious power which itself requires rational explanation. There is also no reason assigned for the exercise of such power, and, finally, it does not explain and contain changelessness. The Perfect, the Supreme, must be changeless. What changes, desires, feels want, is imperfect, is limited, is less than the Supreme. Our final search is for that which shall be changeless and yet shall explain and contain all the multiplicity of endless change within itself.
The next step, the second result of the last E
42 THE SCIENCE OF PEACE.
effort, is the Vishishtadvaita form of the Vedanta : One substance, eternal, restful, change- less, Ishvara, has two aspects, is animate and inanimate, chit and achit, conscious and uncon- scious, Self and Not-Self; and by its power, *TRT, Maya, ^rf?B, Shakti, causes an ' interplay of the two, for its own high pleasure which there is none other to question, without any compulsion from without. " It has two natures, the one formless, and the other form." l " It became husband and wife." 2 " It is being and nothing." 3 Such is the second series of scripture-texts that correspond to this stage.
This second result, it is clear, is again only the second answer, the theory of transformation, on a higher level. Two factors are recognised, but subordinated to, made parts and aspects of, a third, which is not a third however ; and the two are thus rather forcibly reduced to a pseudo- unity. Instead of the complete separateness of seer and seen, instead of the ordinary Sankhya doctrine of Purusha and Prakriti, Subject and Object, we have a complete pantheism of ensoul- ing life and organism. The two are not only seer and seen, subject and object, desiror and desired, actor and acted on, but also soul and
1 Brihad-Aranyaka- Upanishat. II. iii. i. 3 Ibid. I. iv. 3. * Prashna- Upanifhat. ii. 5.
THE SELF AND THE NOT-SELF. 43
body, cause and instrument, desire and means of desire, actor and means of action. But the objections to the original form of the transform- ation-theory hold good, with only the slightest modifications, against this subtler form of it also. Why the need for, the want of, amusement and manifestation and interplay? Why so much evil and misery instead of happiness in the course of the manifestation ? And what after all is the duality? Are there two, or are there not two? If two, and there must be two if there is interplay, as there self-evidently is, nothing has really been explained. Prove that one of the two is naught, is nothing, and then you will have said some- thing ! What is this mysterious m&ya, shakti, power, which brings about the interplay ? What is this unexplained power ? How am I, the individual enquirer, to feel the satisfaction of being the owner, the master, and not the slave, of that power ? How does this explanation assure me of my own freedom ? Where is the law, the regular method, the reliable process, in all this manifestation and interplay and unrestrained power, which may assure me of orderliness and sequence, assure me against caprice, and be in accord with what I see in the world around ? I, as an individual, do not feel my assonance with this explanation. It does not yet lead me
44 THE SCIENCE OF PEACE.
to the heart of the world-process. It does not explain my life, in reference to and in connection with the world around me, systematically, satisfactorily. The laws of karma and compensation, the law of re-birth, do not fit into it quite plainly. To say that I am (i.e., the ' I ' is) feeling happy in a million forms and also feeling miserable in another million does not assimilate readily with the constitution of my being. I feel the state- ment as something external to me. In order to be satisfied I must see the identity of the countless individual ' I's,' not only in essence but in every detail and particular.
Such are the doubts and difficulties that vitiate the second result and render it of no avail.