THE WISDOM OF THE UPANISHATS

Four lectures delivered at the Thirty-first Anniversary Meeting of the Theosophical Society, at Adyar, December 1906

Theosophical Publishing House Benares and London 1907

 FOREWORD

Little need be said in sending out this booklet to the world. It is an attempt, a very humble attempt, to draw a few drops from the ancient wells of Âryan wisdom, and to offer them to quench the thirst of weary souls, travelling through the desert, seeking for Truth. The Upanishats are unique in the sacred literature of the world. They stand alone as beacon-lights on mountain-peak, showing how high man may climb, how much of the Light of the Self may shine out through the vessel of clay, how truly God may speak through man. To speak on them, to write on them, seems presumption for such a one as myself, and yet it may be that help will come to some of my brethren even in this way.

The translations are my own, but will, I think, be found as accurate, though less wooden, than those known in the West. One word I have deliberately left un-translated — tapas. There is no one English word which expresses its meaning; the various translations given: austerity, penance, asceticism, devotion — all are in it, but it is more than all of these. It is from the root tap, burn. Heat [Page ii] is in it, burning force, all-consuming. The fire of thought is in it, the fire which creates. The fire of desire is in it, the fire which devours. It may be defined as “a sustained strenuous physical activity, sternly controlled and directed by the will to a given end, and dominated by concentrated thought ”. By tapas Brahmâ created worlds; by tapas Vishnu won his lofty rank; by tapa Mahã-deva became the Jagat-Guru. By tapas every Rshi won his superhuman powers, and forced boons from the hands of even unwilling Devas. So I have kept the word in its original form, and it will gradually become part of the theosophical vocabulary, as karma and dharma are already.

So let the little book go forth on its mission, and win some to the study of its source.

ANNIE BESANT

Benares, 1907

FIRST LECTURE

BRAHMAN IS ALL

Brothers:

Last year I spoke to you about the Bhagavad-Gîtã, the text-book of the Bhakta, the devotee, in the world. This year I am going to strive to speak to you about the essence of the Upanishats, the textbook of the Jñânî. These books, the most wondrous part of the wondrous Veda, these books, which contain the Vedânta,' the end, the purpose of the Veda, these are to be our study for some brief hours. They tell us of Brahman — “God” — of the Universe, of Man: the nature of God, the nature of the Universe, the nature of Man; and they treat of these great fundamental truths in the most abstract, philosophic, metaphysical sense. They only descend into the concrete in order to give some illustration, some simile, something to render more luminous the exposition of thoughts that escape, that may be lost, by their very subtlety, thoughts almost too lofty for the mind of man to grasp. Herein, in this small volume, so small in compass but so vast in content, in this is given everything that words can give of the very essence of the Brahma-Vidyã, the Divine Wisdom, Theosophy. I say, as much as words can give; for even through the Upanishats it is only possible to give the Brahma-Vidyã in the form of intellectual exposition. Nothing else may words do. The [Page 3] true Brahma-Vidyã, the knowledge of the Self, that is no matter for words, no matter for teaching. That cannot be given even by divinest Teacher to aptest pupil. It cannot be communicated by mouth to ear, from mind to mind, nay, even from Self to Self. Other initiations may be given upon wisdom's splendid way, initiations well-nigh incredible in their beauty; but this supremest initiation into the knowledge of the Self must be taken by each Self for itself, when it is ready to open out into the fulness of its own Divinity. None else may give it; none else may impart it; only Brahman within can know Brahman without. So that the last, the final, the most lofty initiation is Self-taken. None else may give it, nor may any withhold it.

And that Brahma-Vidyâ, what is it? It is the central truth of the Upanishats. It is the identity in nature of the Universal and the Particular Self; Tattvamasi, THAT thou art. Such is the final truth, such the goal of all wisdom, of all devotion, of all right activity: THAT thou art. Nothing less than that is the Wisdom of the Upanishats; nothing more than that — for more than that there is not. That is the last truth of all truths; that the final experience of all experiences,

Not long ago, reading in a great English review, [Hibbert Journal. Oct 1906. Loc cit. By William Tally Seeger] I came across an article called: “The Vital Value [Page 4] in the Hindu God-idea”, and in this it is remarked, and remarked quite truly: “ It is doubtful if in any other country than India so large a proportion of the reverently high-minded have agreed — and acted accordingly — that the greatest and eventually happiest use to which they could apply themselves was the assiduous seeking and the intrepid finding of God, all else in life being accounted as subordinate in importance”. Now the writer there does not exaggerate. That is the central thought of the Hindu mind, and the result of that is very remarkable. For because of this, because of the identity in nature of the Universal and the Particular Self as stated in that Mahâvâkya which I quoted: Tattvamasi, THAT thou art, the knowledge of Brahman, of God, is possible for man. If it were not so. you might have belief, you might have argument, you might have reasoning, you might have a reasonable probability; but you could not have knowledge.

“O Pûshan, O 'All-Sustainer, open thou the mouth of Truth, now hidden by a golden veil, that we, the votaries of Truth, may see. ” [Brhadâranyaka V. xv. 1]

What grows out of this? That beyond the manifested Universe, beyond the God concealed within it, there is pure Being, abstract Being, say rather Be-ness, as  H. P. B. called it. Listen to the wondrous words of the Chhândogyopanishat'. “At first, O beloved, was verily this pure existence, one in truth, secondless. They say: Before that verily was pure non-existence, one, in truth, secondless; from that non-existence was born existence.” [ Chhândogya VI ii I ] That is why H. P. B. used the word “Be-ness”, and not “Being”. Pure Be-ness is THAT in which all is, eternal, changeless, absolute, simultaneous, the mighty ocean whence existence is born. For the word existence comes from the Latin ex-sistere, [Page 21] out-being, the being that is manifested, the being that is born forth, so to say. From this All, this non-existence, existence, life, comes forth. IT IS, and when you have said that, all is said.

How then may we speak of It ? How may we express It? How may we define It? THAT which is everything, without parts, indivisible, non-existence giving forth existence? “Thither the eye goeth not, the voice goeth not, nor mind. We know not, nor distinguish, how THAT may be taught. Different indeed THAT from the known, beyond the unknown. Thus have we heard from the Elders, they who instructed us. That which existeth not by the voice, but THAT by which the voice existeth, THAT know thou as Brahman, not this which is worshipped as this. THAT which thinketh not with the mind, but by which the mind thinketh, THAT know thou as Brahman, not this which is worshipped as this. THAT which seeth not by the eye, but by which the eye seeth, THAT know thou as Brahman, not this which is worshipped as this. THAT which heareth not by the ear, but by which the ear heareth, THAT know thou as Brahman, not this which is worshipped as this. THAT which liveth not by the life, but by which the life liveth, THAT know thou as Brahman, not this which is worshipped as this.” [Kena i 3 — 8] [Page 22]

SECOND LECTURE

ÎSHVARA

We have today to deal with a subject which in some ways is more difficult than the subject of yesterday. By an effort and a strain of the mind it is possible to recognise intellectually at least the great truth that “Brahman is All”. But when you come to deal with the question of manifestation, when you come to endeavor to realise intellectually what is meant by the coming of existence out of non-existence, of being from non-being, then you have a problem so difficult that even the text-book of the Jñânî shrinks from explanation. For we find that when it is said: “How can this be? ” when the pupil asks the teacher: “How can being come forth from non-being?” the teacher does not try to explain, but only reiterates the truth, and adds: “It willed: ' May I become many, may I be [Page 23] born”, [Chhândogya VI ii 1-3] Now why is that? Why is there no effort at explanation, where surely explanation, if such there may be, is above all to be looked for? I think the reason is this: that none may hope to understand by the exertion of the intellect, by the use of the reason pure and simple, this final mystery. The spiritual intuition is necessary, and an insight that goes beyond the power of Manas, the mind, and calls into activity, Buddhi, as the vehicle of the Self; and the truth is, that you will never understand these high and final truths by any amount of teaching or study: you can only understand them by meditation, in which the glory of the Self is seen. And all that I can hope to do for you, my brothers and fellow-students, is to put before you that which I have gathered out of a study of these wondrous writings, and out of meditation, leaving you to find out for yourselves, in your own meditation, how far what I say in words is true to truth, and how far the limitation of the speaker makes untrue the truth which feeble lips endeavor — not to speak but — to stammer; for truly articulate speech in these regions is impossible for me to compass. So I can only do my best, leaving you to judge; and I pray you to remember here, as in everything that is taught from a theosophical platform, that the teacher has no authority to impose his own thought [Page 24] on the minds of other thinkers, but is only a fellow-student, to whom the gift of speech, perchance, has come; each has the right, nay, the duty, to think for himself; each has the responsibility of forming his own judgment.

So we take up our study from that phrase I quoted yesterday, and re-quote today: “From non-existence came forth existence”. Now the words in the Samskrt are: “From Asat Sat was born”, and that reminds us of a principle which it is well for us to remember: that of all these root words there are two fundamental meanings; one very very high, in the worlds where words are not needed to express the truth, and the other lower down; and the greatness and depth of the meaning above correspond to the limitation and shallowness of the meaning below. Asat is such a word, and Tamas is such another word. And perhaps it may be easier for you to recognise the truth of this view if put in connexion with Tamas. For it is said in a very well-known book — I will not say an authoritative work, though it has much of the authority of knowledge — it is said that all comes forth from Tamas, and all into Tamas returns. Tamas here is not the lower Tamas, one of the three Gunas, but is that moveless Inertia, that perfect Stillness, in which the three Gunas are balanced one against the other, in perfect equilibrium. When that equilibrium of the [Page 25] Gunas is disturbed, all comes forth. But you must not confuse with that equilibrium, the higher Tamas as, the meaning that we down here give to Tamas, to the inertia of physical matter, or the sloth which is man's greatest enemy, which he must overcome if he would find the Self. So subtle is the connotation of words, where words are inadequate to express great meanings, and we have to be on our guard lest, in using the words, we mislead the listeners into taking the lower for the higher.

And what is the difference ? An internal difference: That in which the opposites appear, and in appearing annihilate each other and vanish, that is the One; That in which they appear as opposites, and remain as such, that is the Three. The ultimate antitheses of ex-istence are Îshvara and Mâyâ. Let us pause a moment thereupon and see how far the Upanishats help us herein. “From non-existence was born existence.” The Taittirîyopanishat repeats the saying, and tells us of the Born, the Being, the Existence: “He, verily, is the embodied Self of THAT”. [Taittirîya II vi I] The embodied Self of the Nirguna Brahman is the Saguna Brahman. But in that very phrase, “embodied Self”, you get the first difference appearing, which is necessary for the out-being, the ex-istence. Hence the difference, because He is an embodiment of the essence of the all; and even then the “Body” is itself ever unmanifest, because concealed and hidden, although, in the highest metaphysical sense, it is manifest, because [Page 27] qualities are declared. So again the same Upanishat speaks of Brahman as “Truth, Wisdom, Infinity”. [Loc cit i]

And listen to the words in which the Brhadâranyaka tries to bring the mystery within the grip of words. “Infinite That, Infinite This; from the Infinite the Infinite arises; taking the Infinite from the Infinite, the Infinite verily remains. Aum is the ether, is Brahman.” [Loc cit II i I] This marvellous passage shows you how feeble are human words; and yet the words, meditated on, may help you to an appreciation of the truth. There is no difference, for two Infinites cannot be; and yet, the fact of manifestation with attributes makes an apparent difference where truly there is none, difference and sameness in the One. Another shloka helps us: “Two-bodied is Brahman” — the Saguna, the Apara Brahman — “formed and formless, mortal and immortal, stable and unstable, manifest and beyond”. [Brhadar II iii I] There is a well-known shloka in the Bhagavadgîtâ that may help us, and you may remember that I pointed out that shloka particularly, last year, where Shri Krshna is explaining this great mystery. He speaks of His lower nature that is, Prakrti; then He speaks of His higher nature, Daivi Prakrti, that is, divine substance and then he says that higher than that is “another”. [Page 28] He speaks of the manifest and unmanifest, and then: “Higher than that unmanifested another unmanifested, eternal, which, in the destroying of all beings is not destroyed”. [Loc cit viii 20] There you have the same idea. There is the hidden Self, the higher, unmanifested, formless, immortal, stable, beyond, the letter A of the Pranava. There is a manifest that we see around us, the second body of Saguna Brahman, the formed, the mortal, the unstable, the manifest — the letter U — and between those two, the link which joins them, the lower unmanifested, the loftier body, the Daivi Prakrti, the Relation between Spirit and Matter, between mortal and immortal, between changeless and changing, which makes possible this Universe; and that remains as constant as the Universe, for without it, the Universe cannot be. That is the third letter of the three-syllabled Aum, the M which creates and destroys. And so again it is written: “Perishable the world-stuff (Pradhâna) imperishable, immortal, is Hara. He, the one God, rules the perishable and the Self” [Shvetâshvatara i 10] — the first embodiment of the Self, the Relation established by His thought between Himself and Mâyâ. Let us pause a moment on that, and try to realise what we have found to be the meaning of the three-lettered Aum in the Upanishats, the meaning of the A, the U, and the M. [Page 29]

The A is the first of all letters, the letter without the pronouncal of which the uttering of any letter is impossible. Every consonant in the Samskrt implies the presence of it. You cannot sound another consonant without sounding that, however softly, however much below your breath Nothing can be spoken into which it does not enter. Therefore A is the Self, in the triple Aum, for without the Self there can be no manifestation, no existence. Nothing can exist in which the Self is not present, however latent, however concealed, “Nor is there aught, moving, or unmoving, that may exist bereft of me”. [Bhagavadgîtâ x 39]

Then comes the second letter U; what is that ? You have heard in the shlokas I have read; it is the Pradhânâ, Matter, the Not-Self, to give it its best name, since we only know it by thinking of the Self. As we realise what the Self is, we deny its qualities to its opposite, and that is Matter reached by denial, not by affirmation. The fundamental idea of matter is: “It is not the Self”. These are the two great antitheses, the northern and southern poles, between which the web of the Universe is woven. Father, Mother, H. P. Blavatsky calls them; and between the Father, the life-giver, and the Mother, the recipient, the form gathers which is the Son; the web of the Universe [Page 30] is woven — to use a graphic expression of an Upanishat [Brhadâr III vi] — backwards and forwards between them. The web begins by the Father uniting Himself to the Mother by the declaration: “I am This”; then the emanation that is the Son appears; and when He repudiates His Son and says: “I am not this”, disuniting Himself from the Mother, then the Son disappears; for he can only live where the Father affirms his existence, and when that affirmation becomes negation he vanishes. [Aham-etat-na: I-this-not] Then Îshvara and Mâyâ rebecome one, and there is nothing manifest, for Îshvara cannot appear without Mâyâ, nor Mâyâ without Îshvara. They are mutually interdependent, for though He always is, He is not manifest save where He thinks Mâyâ, and so makes the possibility of manifestation. Thus treading our way through this great difficulty, we find the meaning of our Word of Power; A is the Self; U is the Not-Self, and M, in which all affirmation and negation are summed up, is the changing declaration: “Let me be many”, and “There is naught but I”. The answer to the “Let me be many” is the appearance of the many, the world, the universe.

Now the affirmation of union, which emanates, is declared in the Shvetâshvataropanishat: there it is said: “United with Mâyâ He emanates this Universe [Loc cit iv 9] [Page 31] and in the Brhadâranyaka, where it is declared: “He said first: ' I am This”; [Loc cit I iv I] again: “He knew: I am verily this emanation' ” [Loc cit I iv 5] (I am translating the word “srshti” as emanation.) Sometimes the universe is called “This” simply, covering all which appears. “He knew: ' I am verily this emanation'”. It is that knowledge which gives all life, all possibility of existence to the emanation, for there is no source of life save the Self, and only as He makes Himself identical with His emanation is it possible for a Universe to exist. As He affirms, there the Universe is; as He denies, the Universe-vanishes into Him. This changing process, this thinking, “Let me be many”, and then “Let the many cease”, this is the continually recurring birth and death of Universes, and it is this triplicity, the Self, the Not-Self, and the Relation between them, which is summed up in the triple syllable, Aum.

The appearance of a Universe and its disappearance, the succession in space and time, is that by which alone the eternal simultaneity of the Be-ness of the One can be expressed. The words I quoted from the Chhândogyopanishat are repeated in the Taittirîyopanishat: “He wished: ' May I be many, may I be born'.” [ Taittirîya II vi ] He, the Supreme Îshvara, [Page 32] by the expression of His will became the many; He brought about first the duality between Himself and Mâyâ — He “wished a second ..... He divided” [Brhadâr I iv 3 ] — and continuing that same thought of multiplicity, He limited and limited and limited Himself, until the infinite multiplicity of the Universe was made visible. The limitations are imposed by His will. He, the One, wills to be many, and the many depend on the forthgoing of that will to multiply. This is the Supreme Îshvara, the Pratyâgâtmâ, the ”Îshvara of all Îshvaras”, [Sanatkumâra amhitâ xxx 30] the Universal Self.

What is Mâyâ ? “Know Mâyâ verily as Prakrti” says the Shvetâshvataropanishat, “the Owner of Mâyâ as Maheshvara”, [Loc cit iv 10] the great Îshvara, the Supreme, Brahman Himself, made manifest by qualities. Hence we have in Mâyâ. the essence of separateness, due to His will to be many, and His consequent limitations of Himself by His thought of multiplicity. That is the origin of all the beings who come forth from the One Being. Sometimes Mâyâ is called Prakrti, Matter, sometimes Mûla-Prakrti, the Root of Matter, sometimes Pradhâna, the primary germ of the Sânkhya philosophy, sometimes Âkâsha, ether. “The Âkâsha is the body of Brahman”, it is written in the Taittirîyopanishat. [Loc cit I vi] [Page 33] How many are His names! He is the Root of all names, and yet has none, for all these I call names are only descriptions; they do not define, they simply point to the One Being, who is the Universal Self. One Upanishat speaks of Him as: “The great imperishable One”, [Mundaka V i 2 ] another speaks of as Him as “Devâtmâ”, the divine Self; [Shretâshvatara i 3] another as the “Aham”, the “I”, [Brhadâr VI v 4] perchance the deepest, truest, name of all, because the “I” that is ourselves is His I-ness; the “I” in you and in me is only the spark of His nature that lives within us. There is no other Aham, “I”. He is sometimes called the Purusha, the Man, the One Man. And it is written that he is the Purusha beyond the unmanifested Monad, “the last limit, and the highest goal”. [Katha iii II] Beyond Him there is only that Nothingness which is Fulness, that Non-Being which contains Being, that Non-Existence which is the Root of Existence, and beyond all grasp, [For the full exposition of this teaching see Bhagavân Dâs Science of Peace (passim) especially Chap vii I know of no work in which the final doctrine continually hinted at in the ancient writers, is so luminously expounded. There we have the Aum as: A=Aham; U=Etat; M=na: thus the final logion is Aham-etat-na.]

The last limit, the highest goal, and yet although so wondrous and so mighty, He is “ hidden in all creatures”, [Shvetâshvatara iii 7] Not so far away after all; nay, He [Page 34] is not far from any one of us, For though He be all that is — and in a moment we shall see how emphatically the Upanishat declares that where “He is manifest everything is manifest after Him” — and though without Him there is naught, He is hidden in your heart and in mine. And so an English poet, by some strange intuition catching a glimpse of the deep Reality hidden within himself, calls upon his own Spirit to speak to Him, because he is Himself:

Closer is He than breathing; nearer than hands and feet.

So near is He, the innermost Self of each of us.

Is there any teaching so glorious, so inspiring, as this ? anything on which, in moments of uttermost loneliness, the human heart can rest, unflinching, as the fact that He who holds the Universe within Himself lives hidden in the heart of all? What matter all mistakes, what matter all blunders, what matter all errors ? they are mortal, perishable, transitory, and the Self is in our heart, we are the Self. It is the true Gospel; the “story of salvation” on which alone all hearts may rest; everything else may fail us, but the Self, which is our Self, can never fail.

And for fear we should think the news too good to be true, for fear we should think that this great thing cannot be, the Upanishats repeat it variously, in recurrent details. Let me give you [Page 35] some of the shlokas that tell us how absolutely true is this splendid truth. “By Him, than whom nothing is greater, than whom nothing is subtler nor older, who stands unshaken in the heavens like a tree, the One, the Spirit, all this is pervaded.” [Shvetâshvatara iii 9] If we turn to the discourse of Yama to Nachiketas, we find him explaining the many forms of the Self: It is the Self that, as Sun, dwells in the heaven, as wind in the atmosphere, as fire in the earth; He dwells in man, in ether, in water, is born in earth, in sacrifice, in the mountains; “It is truth, the great One.”[Katha v 2] “The one Self...is the inner Self of all beings”. [Ibid 9] “He the One, the Lord, who makes one nature manifold, is the inner Self of all beings.” [Ibid 12] And so again the Mândûkya represents the same wondrous story: “From this are born breath, mind, all the senses, ether, air, light, water, earth, the support of all.” From Him the fire whose fuel is the Sun, from Him the Moon, from Him Gods, men, quadrupeds, birds, the vital airs, the seven senses, the seven fires, the seven channels in which the vital airs move, that sleep in the cavity of the heart, from, Him all seas and mountains, all rivers and herbs.[Summarised from Mundaka II 1. 2 — 9] “Thou woman, Thou art man, Thou art virgin youth, and maiden. Thou the outworn, tottering [Page 36] with his staff. Thou art born, thy Face the Universe. [Compare Al Quran: “All things shall perish save His Face”] Thou the blue, and the red-eyed green winged creatures, the thunder-womb, the seasons and the oceans.” [Shrevtâshvatara iv 3 4 ] And then, after giving all this description of the reality of the identity of the universal and the particular Selves, it is declared that the “Supreme Self always dwelleth in the hearts of beings.” [Ibid 17] “Verily this mighty unborn Self is He who is intelligence in the living; the same who is ether within the heart, wherein He sleeps” [Brhadâr IV iv 22]

So we need not fear to claim our birthright; we need not fear to declare: “I am He, and there is none other”. If we live, we are part of Him. To say we are not He is to declare ourselves mortal, perishable, and where religion has lost this truth, there and there only can arise the question: “Has man a soul?” When we know ourselves the Self, there is no question of immortality; for He is unborn, undying, ancient, perpetual, eternal. [Bhagavadgîtâ ii 20] He exists not depending on any body; He is above and beyond all, the source of everything that is.

But how may we know it ? Here comes in once more the moral of every Upanishat. You can only know it by realising your Self. As I told you . [Page 37] yesterday, Moksha is not attained, it is yours. But there are obstacles which Mâyâ has built up, which Matter, which is Mâyâ, has made. Your body blinds you. Not transparent as the glass of the lamp, through which shines the light within, but befouled by many a lower thing, the Not-Self, which repudiates the Self. But that is all upside down. The Self may affirm and may repudiate Matter. But what is Matter, that it should venture to affirm or to repudiate the Self? Its existence is only drawn from the Self; on that alone it rests. .And it is this which deludes us, this which blinds us, this which makes us powerless. And, therefore, the purification of the vehicles is demanded ere a man may see the majesty of the Self. That is the way. It is not the Reality, but the way thereto, and to shew [show] the way is the work of all religions. Religions, which are born of the longing of the Self to know itself, give the many means, the many ways, by which the vehicles shall be made to cease to obstruct the manifestation of the Self. The Self changes not. It is ever there, within us, as the Sun in the heaven. It shines ever. But clouds may veil the Sun from the eyes that dwell below the clouds; clouds may hide it, though their higher sides are brilliant with the shining of the Sun. And the work of all religions, the work of every one of us, of you and of me, is so to purify the vehicles, so [Page 38] to melt away the clouds, that the shining of the Sun-Self may shine forth in our hearts. It is not He who changes, but the lower self that purifies itself. The separateness is Mâyâ. The manyness is Mâyâ. But we can only get rid of that by a slow process of purification, by realising that Matter must not master Self, but that Self must master Matter. Is He not called the owner of Mâyâ ? But the Self in you and me is owned by Mâyâ, and is not its owner. There lies the difficulty. Therefore it is written that the bonds of the heart must be broken. [Mundaka II ii 8] Therefore it is written that a man must cease from evil ways. [Katha ii 24] Therefore it is written that we must follow righteousness, and knowledge, and devotion. [Mundaka III i 5] Because, by all these ways, man makes himself master of Mâyâ, and when he masters Mâyâ he will know himself as Self. That is the way. And so it is written: “They who know Him as life of the life, as eye of the eye, as ear of the ear, they know Brahman, the Ancient, the First”. [Brhadâr IV iv 18] “When he sees the Self as God, the Ruler of past and future, then He wills not to conceal Himself from him. ” [ Ibid 15] He only wills to be hidden until we have so mastered Mâyâ that He may be seen by looking within ourselves. On this is built all yoga; on this is built all righteousness; [Page 39] on this is built all noble living. But of all the deceptions with which Mâyâ the mighty misleads the embodied Self, of all the obstacles and difficulties that Mâyâ puts in the way of Self-realisation, is that worst of all hypocrisies, of all delusions, which makes a man declare with lips impure, with life unpurified, being the slave, the tool, of Mâyâ, identifying himself with Mâyâ: “I, mâyâvic shell, am Brahman”. For life not lips must speak the words, and lips are worthless if life declares the contrary.

Now let us go on further to a point that puzzles very many. Hitherto I have spoken of Îshvara, the Supreme. But the word Îshvara is used of other Beings than the Saguna Brahman, and much difficulty has arisen sometimes on this question between unlearned Theosophists and unlearned Hindus. The Theosophists have learned to use the word Îshvara of many Rulers, the Logoi, and sometimes an unlearned Hindu does not know that Îshvara has also this meaning in many Shastras. The word Îshvara only means Lord, Ruler, and the Lord of any Universe, of any system, is also called Îshvara, as every well-read Hindu knows. It is a difficulty which may well arise out of the Upanishats, unless they are very carefully read. I remarked yesterday that they deal with universals rather than with particulars. Fundamental abstract ideas are treated, [Page 40] rather than concrete manifestations, and only here and there is there an indication that there are concrete facts that also we must grasp, concrete facts in the Universe, which we must strive to understand.

One of these hints is given in the shlokas to which I now ask your attention. We are told in the Kathopanishat: “The eldest-born from the tapas” of Îshvara is Hiranyagarbha, called also in other passages Prajâpayi, or Brahmâ. [Compare Katha iv 6 and Mundaka I i 9 and Prashna ii 7] “The eldest-born from the tapas.” That is the link we need. All Logoi of universes are born from the “tapas” of the Supreme Îshvara, who is Brahman, and are the varied expressions of His thought. These are the Lords of Universes, the Progenitors, as the word Prâjapati implies. “Countless are grandfathers (Brahmâs); Haris also are countless; the Supreme Îshvara is one.” [ Linga Purâna iv 54] The principle is that from the Supreme Lord, from the One Self, come forth the many, and among the many, the first-born are the Rulers of the worlds, the Creators of the worlds — Hiranyagarbha, the Golden Womb, is the collective name. Brahmâ is the Egg-born, the Lotus-born. Theosophists use the name Logoi, a name which we apply to many Rulers, whose kingdoms vary in size, though the idea is ever the same — the Ruler of a defined area. Îshvara, the [Page 41] Ruler of a system, must be distinguished from Îshvara, the One, the Saguna Brahman. This secondary Îshvara is the Ruler of one Universe, where there are many Universes, the Ruler of a Solar System, among countless systems; or again, the Ruler of a Planetary Chain, within a Solar System, is called a Planetary Logos. For Logos means Word, and they all exist by the word of the Supreme. These are They who are objects of worship everywhere to those who cannot rise to the conception of the one Supreme Îshvara, and They are all born of His tapas, His austerity, His thought, His sacrifice. From sacrifice everything proceeds, we are told. “The dawn (of creation) is the head of the sacrificial Horse”, [ Brhadâr I i I] where the Horse is the Universe; all is rooted in sacrifice. He has willed to become many; that is the primeval sacrifice — the limitation of Himself, His division of Himself, into Îshvara and Mâyâ, that He may be born as the Lord and Source of all separated lives. This is the point where difficulty has arisen. Many Îshvaras ? Yes, as many as there are Universes; but one supreme Îshvara, who is Brahman Himself. And when you realise that, you understand what H. P. B. taught, that an Îshvara is the result of an evolution within a Universe. The Supreme knows not evolution; He is beyond all Mâyâ. But all the other Îshvaras, [Page 42] the Logoi, They grow, They evolve. They, in Their turn, perform tapas; They, in Their turn, perform sacrifice and build worlds. Moreover, They reach the high office of an Îshvara by long struggle, by countless sacrifices; by these sacrifices the rank of an Îshvara is obtained.

For the concrete facts we must turn to works of less authority than the Upanishats, and add to the shlokas from them details from other writings. In the Vâyu Samhitâ we read: “Let us know Him, the supreme Îshvara of all Îshvaras, the supreme Deva of all Devas, the Lord of all Lords, the Îshvara of the Îshvaras of worlds”. [Loc cit I iv 122] This truth makes a reconciliation between the Theosophical and Hindu views, shewing [showing] Îshvara, the Supreme, as the One Brahman, manifested, not evolved, and the many Îshvaras of worlds, the fruits of evolution. In the Devî Bhâgavata it is written: “Even if the number of grains of sand could be counted, the universes never. In the same way, to the number of Brahmâs, and Vishnus, and Shivas, there is no limit”. [ Loc cit II ix 7] Speaking of the Mahâ-Virat, it is said: “In every pore of the hairs of His body are countless Universes”. [Ibid 6] This is the Self-limitation of the one Self, the sacrifice, the meditation, the austerity, by which manyness becomes. Thus the Hiranyagarbhas are born, and Brahmâs, the Creators. So also [Page 43] in each Brahmânda, sacrifice leads to Îshvarahood: “One hundred manvantaras did Brahmâ make japam of Shakti. One hundred manvantaras did Vishnu make tapas, to become the Preserver”. [Ibid VIII ix 106. For many other passages, see the Appendix. I am indebted for all these paurânic, and most usefully explanatory passages, to my friend, Prof Bireshvar Banerji, of the Central Hindu College, Benares, a well-read paurânic scholar. It is most interesting to see how completely they corroborate the theosophic teaching, independently obtained.] So the Theosophist is right when he says that the Îshvaras of worlds are the result of evolution, and the Hindu is right when he says that the Supreme Îshvara is not subject to evolution, He who is the Saguna Brahman, the one Life, the Self, of all. Thus the complete truth makes reconciliation where a partial view makes division; and we begin to understand that it is better that all should speak out the truth they see, however conflicting with other truths it may seem; when the whole truth is seen, all the parts blend into it and make one splendid whole. Hence we should never silence the heretic; we should never silence the minority; for they may have caught a glimpse of something that we do not possess. Rather let us encourage all to speak, that out of the manyness of vision a perfect reconciliation of all partial truths may be found; for, once more, “Truth alone conquers, not falsehood”. 'Let us speak out our truths, but not [Page 44] engage in the denunciation of the truths of others. In Hinduism there has been in the past absolute liberty of thought and speech, and it should not be false to this noble heritage. Where we are wrong, time will correct us; where we are mistaken, truth will gradually burn up our errors. But if one silences another, then one letter of the complete truth may slip out of sight, and be lost from the life of the world, a letter which should have had its place in the whole.

When we go back to the Law of Sacrifice, we realise that it is true as the Mundakopanishat says: “Spirit verily is this Universe, action tapas”. [Loc cit II i 10] Such is the beautiful thought that comes out of the study of the Supreme Îshvara and the many Îshvaras and Their work. Only by the sacrifice may life be given. Only by tapas, austerity, may life be realised. This is the law of our life, this is the law by which alone we live. Refuse to sacrifice, cling to matter, be Mâyâ's slave, let Mâyâ own you, and you remain isolated, powerless, helpless. You can help none other; you cannot help yourself. Then, Brothers, love, and lead the life of sacrifice; throw everything away — you cannot throw away the Self; all you can throw away is the Not-Self, and that is valuable only for the sake of sacrifice. Do not fear to throw away even life, for the Self within you [Page 45] never ceases to live. Give everything you have everything you know, everything you think of as “mine”, and in the denial of all that is not Self, the one Aham shall arise within you, and you shall know that “I am He”.[Page 46]

THIRD LECTURE

Brothers:

OUR special subject for today is Jîvâtmâs. It is naturally the next in our study. For we have tried, however feebly, to grasp that all-important truth that “Brahman is All”. Then we have sought to pierce that which is dark by intolerable excess of light, and to see, as it were, the coming forth of the One, the first Being, the Universal Self, the Saguna Brahman, Îshvara Himself. We have tried to follow, step by step, the manifestation which was manifested after Him, to use the words of the Upanishat: “When He manifesteth, all is manifested after Him”; [Shvetâshvatara vi 14, and Mundaka II ii 10] and we saw that among those manifestations were the great Îshvaras of lokas, world-systems, universes; and we have now come to the point in our study where, having [Page 47] seen all these early stages, we next naturally ask: “And what about the inhabitants of all these worlds ? How does the central life divide itself among the many? What is meant by the word Jivâtmâ, the living Self, the Self which is life ? and what is the distinction between the Jivâtmâ and Îshvara Himself?” Such are the problems that now we are to seek to solve, and when we have apprehended the nature of the Jivâtmâ, already alluded to by the declaration that Îshvara becomes many by His own will, naturally after that we shall pause for a moment on the nature of man as man. We must try to understand our own nature, and, understanding that, we may see the path, if so I may phrase it which leads to the realisation of the Self. These are the rough details of what we shall try to do today, and tomorrow we shall take up that path with rather more detail, in studying the wheel of births and deaths; we must see what birth and death can mean in connexion with that which is itself unborn and undying. What can birth and death have to do with that which in itself is eternal, sharing the eternity of God Himself? And so, if it may be, we shall go hence with some fresh inspiration, to tread the path of the pilgrimage with some fresh light on the difficulties of understanding, with some new courage to climb over the obstacles that impede. [Page 48]

Looking over any world-system, or world, that you live in, you see around you living creatures of every kind, and some creatures which are not regarded as living by large numbers of people. But to us there is no difference between the creatures called living and non-living save in the degree of life which is manifested; there is no fundamental difference, no separation. I might take up in my hand a grain of sand. To me there must be a Jîvatmâ hidden in a dense veil of matter. We may see appear amongst us the loftiest Deva who rules a world; he to us also must be but the same thing, a Jîvâtmâ; only in him the veil is thinner, the matter less gross. The light, which is alike in him and in the sand-grain, shines out in the one, is obscured in the other.

Now let us see whether that statement is in any sense an exaggeration and senseless. For this, of course, we turn to the same book, or books rather, which are guiding our study right through, and realising that everything has a Jîvatmâ at its heart, let us for a moment pause on certain great principles. For, if you grasp these clearly, their application is only a matter of thought, of trouble, of using them to explain particular cases, and that use and explanation you must not expect to find in the Upanishats. They give us the principles which may be applied to all, but not their [Page 49] applications in detail.

Now one of those principles is that all manifestation is by trinities, by triads, by threes. This is natural, is it not? Because at the very beginning of all primary manifestation shows out the triple nature of the manifesting, and He is spoken out in the three-lettered Aum. So, naturally, what comes from that will also be triple in its nature, inasmuch as it must be reflexion after reflexion, and the object which is reflected being triple, the image or reflection also must be triple in turn. That is one of the principles, and we find that it is given out very clearly in one of the Upanishats; in the Chhândogypanishat we read that in the earliest stages three great Elements — we may call them Devatas — were produced, and they were heat or fire, water, and food — food standing, of course, for earth, which is the giver of all food. Those three Beings were brought forth by Îshvara for all worlds, and He willed: “Having entered these three Devatas as Jîtvâtmâ, I shall become manifest in name and form”. [Loc cit VI iii 2] These are the words which for a moment demand our special attention: “I shall become manifest in name and form”. Having thus entered these, each of them became a trinity in turn. The fire became a trinity by His entry; the water became a trinity by [Page 50] His entry; the food became a trinity by His entry. Thus the three became nine, and so on and on; each new trinity reproduced its nature in another three trinities, and thus the whole universe became filled with these trinities, or triads, each of which is a reflexion of the life whence it came forth; as He says: “I shall become manifest as Jîvâtmâ in name and form”, we get a definition of a Jîvâtmâ. A Jîvâtmâ is Îshvara with name and form. That definition is drawn from the Upanishat itself. The Jîvâtmâ is nothing less then Îshvara with name, with form — as we should say, individualised, particularised — and a Jîvâtmâ is nothing more than that. It is the widest thing in its essence, and name and form are its limitations. Name and form imply the presence of matter, for matter is, as it is said in the Vishnu Purâna, “Extension”. Hence form implies matter, vehicle, upâdhi, body, call it what you like. Name means that particular note which is sounded out by every aggregation, or combination of matter, that which is the “real name” of every living thing. You are called by many names, but those are not your true names; they change from birth to birth. In one birth you may be a William; in another you may be a Kâlicharan; in one birth you may be a man, with a man's name; in another a woman, with a woman's name; for it is written of him, the Jîvâtmâ: [Page 51] “He is not woman, he is not man, nor hermaphrodite”. [Shvetâshvatara v 10] He is above all distinctions of sex. So none of these changing names can be “the name“ by which Îshvara becomes a Jîvâtmâ.

What is “the name” then ? Every aggregation of matter, of atoms, sends out by its vibrations a sound, and the sound which is the resultant of the totality of all those vibrations, according to the composition of the material nature, is “the name” of that object. The sound which is given but by the aggregation, with the light of the Jîvâtmâ within it, which is also sound, blending into one great note, which expresses perfectly the nature of the individual, that and that only is his true name. Such is the name of each of us, and each of us has such a name, sounding out in a very clumsy way at present, very discordant, because all kinds of non-harmonious sounds mix in, and the note is not clear. None the less it is there, and the realisation of the name is the realisation of the Self. So our Jîvâtmâs are Îshvara with name and form.

The next step that we will take, still following our guide, is the reiteration of that statement which you heard yesterday in other words from other Upanishats, but which comes in rightly here also, to explain to us the nature of the Jîvâtmâ. “This is Brahman, this Indra, this Prajâpati, this all Devas [Page 52] and the five great elements, earth, air, ether, water, light, the egg-born, the womb-born, the gemmation-born, horses, cows, men, elephants, whatsoever has breath, the walking, the flying, the immovable”. [Aitareya III v 3] Then we read in the Brhadâranyakopanishat: “That Immortal is hidden by existence”. A strange phrase ! We say that the Immortal is shown forth by existence; but the deeper vision says that the Immortal is hidden by existence. Existence is part of the Mâyâ. It limits that which, in itself, is illimitable. Hence the Immortal is verily hidden from you by the very fact of your separate existence. “Life is verily the Immortal; name and form existence; by these the life is concealed.” [Brhadâr I vi 3] That is the great truth of the Jîvâtmâ. And once again I may remind you of that which I quoted yesterday, for it is our starting-point now. I recall these words from the Chhândogyopanishat: “That same Brahman is verily that ether which is without man, and is verily that ether which is within man.” Such then is the Jîvâtmâ.

No doubt can remain as to the teaching of the Upanishats on this crucial point, and if I draw your attention to it in so many ways, and with so many shlokas, it is because it is the turning point of all, the pivot on which the whole conception of life must turn. If this be not realised, you remain ever slaves and blind. If this be realised, then all else must [Page 53] follow, for it is true in us as in the world: “When the Self manifests, all is manifested after Him”. No matter then if you blunder, if you are still blind, if your upâdhis fetter you; it matters not, if you recognise the one great truth of your own Divinity; for as the sun burns up the clouds that obscure him by the glory of his light, so shall the glory of the Self, shining within the heart, burn up everything which obstructs, until it shines forth undimmed.

What is the difference then between Îshvara and the Jîvâtmâ, which is implied by the terms “name and form”. What is it ? We read again in the Shvetâshvataropanishat: “Knowing and unknowing, both unborn, powerful powerless,......in bonds by the condition of an enjoyer.”[Loc cit i 9] Bound to objects; that is the difference, that and nothing else. Break the bonds which bind his bodies, and he is free. Within the bondage of the bodies, he is ever free, for freedom is the essence of his nature and he, in truth, is not bound by all those bonds around him; it is the vehicles that are bound and not the Self. The Jîvâtmâ is ever free.

A question arises here: What is all this for ? Why should this Jîvâtmâ of the nature of Îshvara, all-knowing, all-powerful, why, by what strange mystery, does he become ignorant, powerless? Why ? For what end ? Did we lose freedom ? [Page 54] Why did we lose it ? That we did lose it is clear, for we are here, and are bound. And unless that question is answered, you will always remain more or less puzzled. For at first sight, the whole proceeding seems absurd. If we were free, at any time, in any state, why should we have deliberately plunged into this ocean of Mâyâ, and lose therein the freedom which is our birthright, and the knowledge which is the very nature of the Self? Why did we do it? It is clear, we did it, since we are here, but why ? The answer is as clear as the fact; we did it because in that world of the highest Gods, that world in which knowledge is perfect and power omnipotent, in that world there is but the finest matter, subtlest limitations of form, so subtle that all the forms intermingle, and you cannot say which is one and which is the other; to use an old Greek description of that state, the sun and the stars are all each other and themselves. The knowledge, though wide, lacked in definite precision, which can only be gained by limitation. That is another great principle. As you limit, you define, As you define, more and more clear become the outlines, and while it is true that the Jîvâtrnâ in these lofty regions is all-knowing and omnipotent, in the denser matter which Îshvara makes for his universe, it becomes blind and helpless, the slave of Mâyâ; and he comes into manifestation, [Page 55] that he may do what Îshvara had done before him, may become the master of Mâyâ and not its slave; so that nowhere, in that all which is Brahman, there may be anything which can limit, anything which can blind. By our own will we come, that we may enjoy the exercise of our powers. But when we try to exercise our powers in this great ocean of denser matter, we find we cannot do it. Matter is too blinding, too opaque, too stiff; we cannot manage it; we cannot control it; and, by our own will, in order that we may become its master, we become for a time its slave; knowing it, willing it, and willing not to rest in that high region, where only we were free, but willing to be free everywhere, and not only in that loftiest region, willing to live and act, and know, in every possible condition of matter, and not only in that subtlest form which is the region of our birth-place and our real home. It is part of the very nature of life, to will to live, to exercise its powers. How can we help it? We are part of Îshvara, and we share the outgoing energy of His will. There is a joy in becoming many; there is a joy in the scattering abroad of power, of life; there is a joy in creation, in pouring our life into the forms we create; and we, as parts of Him, will as He wills, and with him enter into the ocean of matter that we may win our freedom there, and be as He is, ever free. [Page 56]

We are parts of Him, limited by name and form, and the part has not at first the possibilities, or rather the actualities, of the whole. The possibilities, yes, because we are parts. The expression of them, no, also because we are parts. In order that we who are parts may become the whole, we enter into a temporary limitation, that therein we may conquer, that therein we may be free. Hence this bondage. In your limited condition, you may wonder why you came hither. But none compelled you to come into this universe. You came of your own will, with Îshvara who willed to manifest. And because He willed to manifest you willed it also. For you are part of Him. As a part, you must win your freedom, until in the grossest world of matter you shall be as omnipotent, as wise, as you ever are in those supernal regions of your birth, where you know your own divinity and your non-separation from Îshvara.

In the Aitareyopanishat a very short but valuable Upanishat, there is a most interesting description of the way in which the stages of this manifestation of the Jîvâtmâs took place. “In the origins this was verily the one Self and nought else living; He willed: Let me emanate the worlds.” [Aitareya I i I, et seq] He then proceeded to emanate them. First came forth the Elements, then the Devas. Let us pause [Page 57] on that for a moment. What are these Devas ? The Devas of the Elements; those mighty beings from past universes, who have as their bodies what in the old scriptures are called Elements. As you have your physical body, so have they their bodies of matter, and the body of the Deva is the matter of one whole plane — as we call it. A plane is formed of one kind of matter, one Element.

Do not muddle these Elements up with chemical elements, or you will never find your way. An Element, in the old sense of the term, means matter which has a special form of atom; of these there are seven, five of which are manifested. These five kinds of atoms are the five Elements, and of each of these Elements, or elemental atoms, there are endless combinations, all the combinations of one kind of elemental atom making a plane. Thus one Element, say Fire, is in all the matter which is built up of the fire-atoms, everything, however complex, however many atoms may enter into any combination. These fire-atoms make the body of the Deva of the Fire Element, Agni; into that body made of fire-atoms he entered, and it then became his vehicle of manifestation. That is the next thought you must hold on to. Every Element is the body of a Deva and all the matter composed of that Element belongs to that body of the Deva. He is in it all; as truly as your Jîvâtmâ lives in [Page 58] your body, and moves it, and is conscious in it, so in all combinations of fire-atoms, Agni lives, moves, and is conscious. That is what is meant by the Deva of an Element. Agni is in everything in the three worlds into which fire enters.

In the stages of the building of a universe, then, at first there were the Elements, and then began the building of forms, and Îshvara built by His thought certain forms, and offered them to the Devas to live in, and the Devas rejected them. They said: “We will not live in these”. Then He made other forms, and they rejected them also, and said: “We will not live in those”. They were willing to give up their substance to them, but they would not identify themselves with them. Then He made the Purusha, the archetypal man, and the Devas cried out: “Well done ! into him we will enter, and in him we will dwell”. Therefore man is the highest of all things. In the later building of worlds, all animals are but his cast-off parts. That which he has thrown out is used for the building of the animal kingdom. And sometimes, if you complain of the kind of animals round you, if you look upon them as obstacles, as hindrances, as tormentors, remember that they exist only because men thought wrongly and acted wrongly. These animals that are around you are the results of your own past, tormenting you in your higher present. These [Page 59] Jîvâtmâs live in the bodies that you have made for them, your cast-off clothes; and remember that only by rising higher can you purify and lead the animal kingdom with you, for it is your own creation, as you are the creation of those who are higher than yourselves.

The Devas enter into man, they give him of their substance, and with that substance of theirs his senses were built. Fire became speech in his mouth, wind breath in his nostrils, and so on; they became the senses which have their organs in the body and the powers and capacities of the Devas reside in these. Then the Jîvâtmâ, for whom this temple was being built — for is not the human body the Brahmapura, the Vishnupura, the divine town of Brahman, [See Mundaka II ii 7: Chhândogya VII i, I; Katha v I; Shvetâshvatara iii 18 etc] the habitation of God — the Jîvâtmâ said: “Let me enter in”, and He entered at the head, where the hairs of the head separate, and thus became the dweller in the body, the embodied Self. “This body is a dwelling of the immortal un-embodied Self.” [Chhândogya VIII xii I] He entered in, and took up therein three dwelling-places. The Upanishat does not mention what these are. It only says: “A dwelling-place, a dwelling-place, a dwelling-place”. What are they ? If this Upanishat will not tell us, another will. We only know from this that there [Page 60] are three dwelling-places, but in the Mândukyopanishat it is shown what they are. We have the waking consciousness, and the brain in which it works is one dwelling-place. That brain is sometimes symbolised by the right eye, as the symbol of the brain, which knows through the senses. The second dwelling-place is that of the super-waking consciousness, of the Ego, or Taijasa; and that is the mental body, or the antahkarana, the inner mind. The third dwelling-place is that of the Monad himself, the Jîvâtmâ when he is like Îshvara, the Jñâna Deha in its subtlest form, and the highest of all; it is sometimes symbolised by the ether in the cavity of the heart, the lotus-like chamber, where is the antârakâsha, the inner ether, wherein dwells the Self. [Chhândogya VIII i I] Those are the three dwelling-places of the consciousness thus appearing as triple; the Prânâtma as I have called it, Vaishvânara; the next, Taijasa, the brilliant, the radiant, the all-pervading intelligence, the Aham, the “I”; lastly that highest state where knowledge, Prajñâ, is perfect and the man has become Prâjña, the Lord of all knowledge. Those are the three states; those the dwelling-places of Îshvara, as Jîvâtmâ, limited by name and form.

Let us pause on this triple nature of man, for in it comes out another important principle, the [Page 61]  principle of reflexion. Each manifestation throws a shadow, an imperfect reproduction of itself, and so the pair, shadow and sun-light, are continually spoken of. Yama uses that phrase when teaching Nachiketah about the lower and the supreme Self; “Brahma-knowers”, says he, “call them shadow and sun-light”. [ Katha III I] I want you to grasp the significance of this principle of reflexion, because then you will have a clue which will guide you through many labyrinths. The words shadow and sunlight may be used of different things, of various pairs. But if you understand the principle, you will easily distinguish the particularity of the use. Whenever there is a pair, a higher manifesting in a lower, there the principle of reflexion comes in, and you have sun-light and shadow. The simile is a graphic one. Suppose I have a brilliant light here, and suppose that all around me there is only the atmosphere through which the light can flow, there is no shadow. But suppose I bring some object of dense matter, and put that in the rays of light, a shadow is thrown, and the shadow has the outline of the object that throws it, but not a complete reproduction of its parts; where there is light and an interposition of denser matter, a shadow is thrown. The Monad is the highest separated form, and is so little separated, by such a subtle

From this we may get a definition of man. He is the form of being in whom the Self and the Not-Self are balanced. That is the only occult definition of “man”, not any specific form, nor organs, nor arrangement of head and arms and legs, and so on. Man is the being, in any shape, in whom the powers of the Jîvâtmâ are struggling for supremacy, in whom Matter and Spirit are striving against each other for the mastery. Man is the battlefield of the universe, in which Îshvara and Mâyâ are contending for lordship; below him, Mâyâ is Lord and Îshvara is hidden; above him, Îshvara is Lord, and Mâyâ is conquered; in him the two are battling for supremacy, so that, as I say, the battlefield, the Kurukshetra of the universe, is man. Every Jîvâtmâ in the universe must strive on this battlefield, must be, [Page 64] or must have been, man — as H. P. Blavatsky says.

There is another expression that is very useful and illuminative; we read of what is called the Jñânashakti, the knowledge-power. This is the Jîvâtmâ, whose nature is consciousness, or knowledge; its shadow is the Prânâtma, the personal self, the Kriyâshakti, the power of action. These are a pair, our sunlight and shadow, the higher and lower Aham, or “I”. “Two birds, united, one-named, dwell on the single tree: of the twain, one enjoys the delicious fig-tree, the other witnesses.” [Mundaka III i I] What are the birds ? Any pair, of which the lower is the shadow of the higher. What is the tree? Any upâdhi, vehicle, form, in which a higher dwells. The two birds in us are the Âtmâ. and the Prânâtmâ, and the bodies are the tree; the Prânâtmâ enjoys, the triple Âtmâ witnesses. In the Rshis the two birds are the Monad, the true Jîvâtmâ, and the triple Âtmâ; the triple Âtmâ enjoys, the Monad witnesses. In every case the higher is the witness, and the lower is the instrument, or tool, of the witness through which he acts in the world. Yet higher, the two birds are the Nirguna and the Saguna Brahman, the eternal Witness, the Enjoyer in space and time.

Remain the questions: what is Prâna, and what is its relation to the Elements, to the Devas, and to [Page 65] the Jîvâtmâ itself?

Indra said; “I am Prâna......life is Prâna, Prâna is life”. [Kaushîtakibrâhmana III 2] Indra is the King of the Gods, the highest of them, and he stands as the symbol of the Devas working in the universe, and also of the Jîvâtmâ and Îshvara. [See Aitareya I iii 4, where it is stated that Idandra (idampashyati, he who sees this, who sees the Not-self) is the name of the supreme Îshvara, and that this is changed to Indra] “I am Prâna”, and why Prâna? Because as Îshvara, He is the giver of life to all things, and the life, the breath on the physical plane, is hence called Prâna. Therefore, in Yoga, Prâna is often used to include all the life-energies of the universe, and prânâyâma is not really the control of the physical breath, but of all the life-energies, the subdual of them all to the Self.

But let us follow this further. In its relation to the Elements and the Devas it is said that Prâna is five-fold, dividing itself, and five Pranas are spoken of. True; on the physical plane it is fivefold, dividing itself into five branches, but it is still one life; it is like a single source, or spring, sending out its water into different channels, and each channel is different, though the water is the same. Prâna is called by many names, as you give different names to the waters that flow along different channels; you may call the rivers Gangâ, [Page 66] or Brahmaputra, or Indus, but they are all water from the Himâlayas; so Prâna, five-fold dividing itself, is called by different names, when seen as divided, although called by one name when understood: “When breathing it is called life; when speaking, speech; when seeing, sight; when hearing, ear; when minding, mind”. [Commentary on Brhadar I iv 6] For this reason in the Upanishats the senses are often called Devas, and thus ever remind us that it is life that produces forms, and not forms life. One thing is called by many names. It is one Prâna, in all of them. We are told that the senses are active only when Prâna is there. There is a very fine passage in the Chhândogyopanishat, which I will summarise very rapidly, in order to show the relation of Prâna to the senses. The organs quarrelled for supremacy, and each cried out: “I am the chief”; and they went to Prajâpati, and inquired: “Who is the chief ?” and his answer was; “The one who, if he disappears, makes the body helpless, he is the chief”. Then speech departed, and the body lived as the dumb live; then vision went, and it lived as the blind; and hearing, and it lived as the deaf; and mind, and it lived as the babe or the idiot; then Prâna uprose to go; and “as a splendid steed, if struck, plucks out the pegs to which its legs are fastened, so did Prâna dislodge all the organs [Page 67] of sense”, and they cried out: “O Lord, thou art the greatest; we pray thee, depart not, abide in thy place”. And, one by one, they came to Prâna, and acknowledged that their specific properties were due to Prâna only. [Loc cit V i 6-15] For they are all Prâna, and without Prâna, none of them can live.

What is the relation of Prâna to the Jîvâtmâ ? We shall see that it is verily himself. The Prâna which is in you is truly your Jîvâtmâ, is your true Self. Therefore I called the lower manifestation the Prânâtmâ. Each sense has been taken by Prâna from one faculty of intelligence, one faculty of the triple Âtmâ, a faculty which belongs to Jñânashakti, and Prâna, taking that faculty, turns it into a power, transforms it to Kriyâshakti. The object of the sense is placed outside as a rudimentary element, and induces activity in that special sense, and thus with all the possibilities of the triple Âtmâ. Then it is said that Prâjñâ, knowledge, having mounted on each sense, lives and works in the world, and knows all objects. [Summarised from Kaushîtikibrâhmana iii 5-7] All the knowledge resides in the triple Âtmâ, who is truly the Jñânashakti.

Those faculties having been taken by Prâna, and each of them turned into a shakti, a power, it is written that the true Prâna is identical with [Page 68] Âtmâ; [Kaushîtikibrâhmana iv 19] for Prâna is Âtmâ under the name of Prajñâ; “Prâna is Prajñâ, and Prajñâ is Prâna”. [Ibid. iii 3] There is no difference, save in the form of manifestation. When Prâna has done this, then the Jîvâtmâ. is said to dwell in the body: “O Maghavan, mortal verily is this body, pervaded by death; of that immortal and bodiless Self it is the dwelling-place”. [Chhândogya VI xii I] Through Prâna, the triple Âtmâ dwells within us. Through Prâna, the triple Âtmâ works within us. And so it is written that all the bodily sense organs were really made by the will of the Self to experience the contacts of the varied forms of matter: the Self desired to see, to hear, to speak, to smell, to think, and hence came the organs. [Ibid 4] That is the order of evolution; it is not the Self which is the production of the body, but, the body which is the building produced by the powers inherent in the Self; every manifestation in this mortal world, this world which is pervaded by death, is due to the will of the Self; that is the truth. There is nothing in you which is not from the triple Âtmâ; no power, no thought, no organ of sense, but comes out by his will, because he wills to manifest, and wills to enjoy. And so it is written, as said above: “From the Self is born this life”.

The inevitable result of this study is a matter [Page 69] for daily life, for the training of the student. Clearly it is not in these organs, Self-created, that the Self may find rest. These organs can never satisfy, when we realise that we made them only to serve our passing purpose. It is the Self who “sees, unseen; hears, unheard; minds, unminded; knows, unknown. There is none that sees, but he. There is none that hears, but he. There is none that minds, but he. There is none that knows, but he. He is thy Self, the inner Ruler, immortal”. [Brhadâr III vii 23] Hence the advice: “Let not a man wish to know speech, let him know the speaker. Let not a man wish to know smell, let him know the smeller. Let not a man wish to know form, let him know the seer. Let not a man wish to know sound, let him know the hearer...Let not a man wish to know the mind, let him know the thinker.” The Self “is the Owner of the world, the King of the world, the Lord of the world; this is my Self. Thus let a man know.” [Kaushîtikibrâhmana iii 8] For, is not this reasonable? What is the good of knowing the objects only, if that which knows them is within us? They become secondary, trivial, foolish. It is the Self who possesses all the powers, whom we should truly desire to know.

On this understanding of the nature of the Jîvâtmâ, the nature of man, is built up all Yoga, and the [Page 70] steps to Self-knowledge, as said before, is the real Prânayâma. All its stages are to be followed, one by one, understood one by one, and gradually mastered, until we reach the Self within us. It is that Self who is to be known, who is to be understood, who is to be realised; and all forms must die, for they are perishable, till only the immortal, the imperishable Self remains. That is the Prânayâma of which true Yogis speak. “He who rightly recognises this Self as God, Lord of the past and the future, he seeks not to hide himself.”[Brhadâr IV iv 15] Why should he hide? How should he hide? He is “Brahman, the deathless, the fearless.” [Chhândogya VIII vii 4] There is nothing which he can fear. He,is himself all, and when he understands that, nobody and nothing remains outside him, whom or which he can fear. Do you think you have enemies ? It is all a delusion; there is nothing but the Self, and there is nothing outside which can be the enemy of the Self-knower. Do you think that you have trials, troubles, that you suffer injustice and wrong? there is nothing outside you which can inflict a wrong on you. You are the Self; one part of you is striking at the other part, and both parts are ignorant that you are striking at yourself, striking with your own hands at your own head. By delusion Self is Self's enemy, and we know not that [Page 71] everywhere, in everyone, we, the Self, have hands and feet and eyes. They are all our own and there is no difference; that hand of ours that seeks to strike us is our own hand, working out our karma, and when it is worked out, we shall be free. It is striking off, this hand of ours, the fetters that clog us. Hence it is said that there are no friends, no enemies; it is one life, the Self, and that Self “the deathless fearless Brahman”. “Brahman the Immortal, verily, from behind, Brahman from before, Brahman from right and left, below, above, all-pervading, Brahman even this all, most excellent.” [Mundaka II ii II] [Page 72]

FOURTH LECTURE

Go to Top of this page
Back to our On Line Documents
Back to our Main Page

This document is a publication of the
Canadian Theosophical Association (a regional association of the Theosophical Society in Adyar)
89 Promenade Riverside,
St-Lambert, QC J4R 1A3
Canada

Telephone: 450-672-8577

our website is at : http://www.theosophical.ca

to get to our Contacts-Information list click on:

http://www.theosophical.ca/Contacts-Information.html