ISHA UPANISHAD

Isha Upanishad

ALL THAT IS WORLD IN THE UNIVERSE

                             THE Sanscrit word जगत् is in origin a reduplicated and therefore frequentative participle from the root, गम् to go. It signifies "that which is in perpetual motion", and implies in its neuter form the world, universe, and in its feminine form the earth. World therefore is that which eternally vibrates, and the Hindu idea of the cosmos reduces itself to a harmony of eternal vibrations; form as we see it is simply the varying combination of different vibrations as they affect us through our perceptions and establish themselves (to) in the concept. So far then Hinduism has reached by analysis to the last and simplest material expression of this complex universe. The question then arises, "Does anything lie beyond? If matter is all, then this is the last and there is no beyond. But is matter all?"

        Our first verse is the answer of the Upanishad to this question. "All that is world in the Universe by the Lord must be pervaded." The very object of our existence is to pierce beyond this last and thinnest veil of matter to Spirit, the Lord who is behind every manifestation of matter, even the simplest, he is the Self of all things, matter being merely the body, and therefore is he the Lord. When we have realised that all this universe of vibration is full of the Spirit, we have set our feet on the right road that will lead us to the goal of existence. This is what we "must" do, in other words to realise God in the universe is the object of our existence. But why does the Upanishad say, "must be pervaded", why does it not say simply "is pervaded". Is this pervasion then not a fact, but a possibility which each individual soul has to turn into a fact for itself? In what sense is it said that the object of the individual soul is to pervade the Universe with the Lord? We must remember that according to the Upanishad there are only two entities in existence which are not phenomena or manifestations, but eternal facts, and these two are in reality not two

 Page-291  

but one, the illimitable and infinite Self behind phenomena, and the finite self which perceives phenomena. The Adwaita or Monistic Vedanta affirms the entire unity of these two and ex- plains their apparent separation by Maya, Illusion or Ignorance, in other words by the theory that the Indivisible Eternal has deliberately imagined himself as divisible (I speak in metaphors, the only way of approaching such subtle inquiries) and hence, created an illusion of' multiplicity where the only real fact is Unity. We may take the metaphor of a sea and its waves; if each wave were to imagine itself separate from all other waves and from the sea of which it is a part, that would be an illusion similar to that of the finite self when it imagines itself as different from other finite selves and from the Infinite. The wave is not really different from the sea, but is sea (not the sea) and the next moment will be indistinguishable from sea; in fact the word "wave" merely expresses a momentary perception, an idea of change or modification which the next moment we perceive not to exist, and not a real object; the only real object is the sea.

            The Vishishta Adwaita or modified-Monistic Vedanta on the other hand recognises that the infinite Self and the finite Self are eventually One, but still there is a distinction, a certain limitation of the Oneness. The finite Self is of and in the infinite Self and therefore one with it. But it does not coincide with it or disappear into it, the goal of its existence is the delight of feeling its oneness with the Eternal, but still the very feeling of delight implies a limitation, a difference, and this limitation is not temporary but eternal. An image may be taken from the phenomenon of Light and its vibrations; it is all light, there is no real difference, and yet each of the vibrations is in a sense separate and continues its own existence on its own line for ever through infinity. Lastly the Dwaita or Dualistic Vedanta affirms, on the contrary, that the finite selves and the Infinite are for ever different and the whole riddle of the world lies in their difference and in their attraction to each other. To become one with the Eternal is here also the goal of the finite but the oneness is emotional and not essential; it is Union and not fusion. It is difficult to find a close image here, but for want of a better we may take

Page-292  

that of a river and the sea to which it is hasting. It is water hasting to water and the whole aim of the river is to fling itself into the sea and towards that it strives with all its might and with all its soul, and finally it reaches the sea and mixes with it. And yet there it is still a river and not the sea. So the two live in a perpetual embrace, ever united and yet ever different and feeling their separate existence. - Now these three philosophies really image three different states of soul and three different roads to the realisation of God. There is the intellectual state of soul which reaches God through knowledge; this naturally attaches itself to Monism, for it seeks only the knowledge of its identity with God and its tendency is to discourage all action and emotion which interfere with this aim. Then there is the actional state of soul which reaches God through action leading to knowledge and inspired by emotion; this aims at the knowledge of its identity with God, but its actional state requires a certain sense of difference from God without which action. becomes meaningless; its tendency therefore, if the knowledge-impulse predominates over the emotional, is to rest for a time in modified Monism, though it recognises pure Monism as a far goal beyond; but if the emotional Impulse predominates over the intellectual, its tendency is - to adopt modified Monism as a final solution. Lastly there is the emotional state of soul which reaches God through divine love; this naturally attaches itself to Dualism; for the only desire of love is to attain the loved one and go on loving for ever; an impossibility unless the feeling of difference in Union goes on forever. The three philosophies are therefore simply three different standpoints from which we envisage one single truth, that nothing eventually matters in the world except God and the goal of existence is to attain Him. And I may add my own conviction that all three are necessary soul-stages. By pausing too long in Dualism or even in modified Monism, we debar ourselves too long from our final emancipation, but by leaping too quickly to Monism we fall into a dangerous tendency towards the premature dissolution of phenomena which if largely followed upsets the fine balance of the world. The right progress of the soul is first to realise its difference from God, so that we may feel attracted towards Him, then to realise that that diffe-

Page-293

rence is a temporary or at least not an entire difference, that there is unity beyond, so that we may advance towards Him by the right road and under the laws of that phenomenal existence through which He reveals Himself to us, and finally to perceive that we and God are One and all phenomena temporary and illusory, so that escaping from name and form we may lose ourselves in Him and attain our soul's salvation. Well then, here are three standpoints; which is the standpoint of the Upanishads? They do not, in fact, confine themselves to any, but regarding them as three necessary stages, speak now from one, now from another, now from a third. Here it is speaking in a spirit of very slightly modified Monism. There are two non- phenomenal existences, the Infinite Self and the Finite Self; from the point of view of the Infinite Eternal Self, the universe is already pervaded with God; but we must also consider the point of view of the Finite Self; which is really Infinite but considers itself to be Finite. To this Finite Self the Universe is only the mass of its own perceptions. If it perceives the Universe as mere Matter, then for its purposes the Universe is Matter and not pervaded by the Lord; if I consider yonder tree as so much wood and pith and sap and leaves, such it is and no more so far as I am concerned; if I look within and perceive God there, then it is I who have put Him there; for the moment before He was not there for me and now He is. In more Monistic language, the Self at first imagines itself to be confined within its own body, but as it grows in thought it looks into object after object and perceives itself there and so it goes on putting itself into everything until it has pervaded all that is in the world with itself; it then realises that there is no self or non-self but all is God. We see that it is merely a difference of language, of outlook, of perception; but these are the things through which human thought proceeds and they must be given their due place. To recognise the differences they involve and yet to perceive the unity into which they merge, is the law and goal of all Hindu thought.

            But whatever the standpoint we take, dualist, monist or semimonist, the Vedanta lays this down as the great essential step to realise that when we have resolved this universe of forms and names into a great harmony of vibrations, we must still go

Page-294

beyond and perceive that the whole is but the material expression of one pervading Spirit. And when we have realized this, what is the practical result? For it must be remembered that the Vedanta is always profoundly practical…

(Incomplete)

Page-295