The Structure of the Universe
What Is Reality?
There are two aspects of
experience – the real and the unreal; and everything can be divided into two
camps – that which really is, and that which is an appearance. That which does
not partake of the characteristics of reality is called appearance. Reality is
that which persists in the three periods of time, that which existed in the
past, that which exists in the present, and that which shall exist in the
future also, without any change. But, with our eyes, we have not seen any such
thing. There is nothing in the world which will stand this kind of a test of
indestructibility, unchangeability, and permanence. The inherent instinctive
feeling of man that there exists such a reality, along with the urge to find a
solution to the human predicament, motivates the search for reality, which starts
with the analysis of the immediately available human experience, which is the
world.
The World Is Mechanistic in Nature
The material world is the
reality before man - the physical world of the five elements: earth, water,
fire, air and ether. The world, or the universe, under the definition of being
constituted of basic physical molecules, was defined as mechanistic in its
nature. We can precisely say how the machine works by a study of its parts. The
whole can be studied by a study of the parts. This led to materialist science,
and behaviorist psychology.
The mechanistic notion of the
universe was confirmed scientifically and mathematically by such thinkers as
Newton and his follower Laplace, who thought that the whole astronomical
universe is capable of interpretation, almost like the working of a clock – and
everyone knows how a clock works. It has no life, yet it works. So, the whole
universal action is a lifeless action, and bodily action is similar to that. If
it appears that human beings have life, it is only an epiphenomenon, a
projection, a sort of appearance including even the intelligence and the mind;
so they believed.
The Presence of Consciousness Needs Explanation
The relationship between two
things matter and consciousness has to be explained. Matter is the cause of
intelligence: that is the thesis. But matter is everywhere. Therefore, the
effect, which is intelligence, also, has to be everywhere, wherever matter is. This
implies matter and consciousness are everywhere simultaneously. How can this be
possible? Even if this position is accepted, another difficulty arises, which
is not easily solved: viz., the relationship between effect and cause.
There can be an identity or a
difference between two things. A can be the same as B, or A is not the same as
B. There cannot be a third relationship between two things. If A is the same as
B, it is useless to call it A; unnecessarily another name is given to it. But
if A is not B, it has no connection with B. Hence, it bears no relation to it.
Therefore, it cannot be an effect of the cause.
Consciousness cannot be an
effect of matter if it does not bear any relationship to matter. Thus, the
relationship, if it obtains at all, has to be one of identity or difference. If
it is identical, materialism falls in one second. The whole matter which is the
universe would be aglow with consciousness. But if it is different, it does not
follow that consciousness is exuded by matter. It stands as a separate
identity. Then, its relationship to matter remains unexplained.
Samkhya, or Dualistic Philosophy
People felt a difficulty of
their own in identifying consciousness with matter. So they created a
philosophy of their own called Samkhya – "I cannot be the same as the
body, and the body cannot be the same as me; consciousness is not matter,
matter is not consciousness; yet both exist; I can see the body, and I can see
that I have intelligence, also. So, intelligence is different from matter;
Purusha is different from Prakriti."
A new genie was created, a
kind of a goblin, as it were, viz., the individual Jiva, the mixture of Purusha
and Prakriti, a little of consciousness and a little of matter, by an imaginary
relationship brought about between the two principles.
The Doctrine of Samkhya Is basically not Different From Materialism
Samkhya is only a restatement
of the same problem of the materialists. The problem in the concept of
materiality is the relationship between matter and consciousness. Previously
what is called matter, is now called Prakriti; and what is earlier called
consciousness is now called Purusha. The doctrine of Samkhya is nothing but a
materialistic doctrine itself, which has been reshaped by a camouflage of a
so-called spirituality of Purusha.
What is then, the relationship
between Purusha and Prakriti? There is no relationship absolutely. There cannot
be any relationship, because they are two utterly different elements. If they
are utterly different, how does one know that they are different? Who is making
this statement that Purusha is different from Prakriti? It cannot be said that
Prakriti is making this statement, because it is unconscious; nor can it be
said that Purusha is making this statement, because it has no connection with
Prakriti. It cannot even know that Prakriti exists. But, if it knows that
Prakriti exists, it has established a relationship already; its independence
has failed. And, if the establishment of relationship has taken place, the
nature of this relationship between the two has to be explained, a difficulty
which was initially envisaged in understanding or studying the materialistic
philosophy.
Patanjali's Proposition
The Yoga of Patanjali is based
on the metaphysics of Samkhya, but it differs from Samkhya in one important point.
How could anyone think of these two different principles Purusha and Prakriti,
unless there is a thinker of the two things? The person, the element, or the
principle, that is aware of the existence of Prakriti on this side, and Purusha
on the other, remains as a third thing altogether. Such a witnessing principle
cannot belong to either Purusha, or to Prakriti. But the Samkhya says that
there cannot be a third thing. For it, there are only two things. The Samkhya
defeats itself by positing two utterly different principles.
Who willed originally, who
laid down this law that one body of matter should pull another body of matter
in a particular manner? Why should there be this law of gravitation at all?
Everything can be independent of, or different from, everything else. But, that
does not seem to be the case. There is mutual action and reaction seen among
bodies. One part sets up action, another part sets up reaction. There must be a
connection between the two. Otherwise, there is no reaction of action. So, the
third principle is called Isvara, in the language of the Yoga of Patanjali.
Instead of solving the
difficulty of explaining the relation between two things, Patanjali seems to
create another problem of a need to find a relation between three things,
Prakriti, Purusha and Isvara. How are they related to each other? Are they
identical, or different? Now, again, the problem of identity and difference
arises.
Philosophy seems to have
failed. The analysis of the world leads us nowhere. The problems remain as
problems, unanswered, after a little bit of preliminary thought
philosophically.
Excerpts from:
The Structure of The Universe: Chapter 3 The
Philosophy of Religion by Swami Krishnananda
If you would like to purchase the print edition, visit:
http://www.dlshq.org/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?
http://www.dlshq.org/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?
If you would
like to contribute to the dissemination of spiritual knowledge please contact
the General Secretary at:
