Complete works of Swami Vivekananda.
Volume 2.
Practical Vedanta and other lectures.
COSMOLOGY.
There are two worlds, the microcosm, and the
macrocosm, the internal and the external.
We get truth from both of these by means of
experience. The truth gathered from internal
experience is psychology, metaphysics, and
religion; from external experience, the physical
sciences. Now a perfect truth should be in
harmony with experiences in both these worlds.
The microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm,
and the macrocosm to the microcosm; physical
truth must have its counterpart in the internal
world, and the internal world must have its
verification outside. Yet, as a rule, we find
that many of these truths are in conflict.
At one period of the world's history, the
internals become supreme, and they begin to
fight the externals. At the present time the
externals, the physicists, have become supreme,
and they have put down many claims of psychologists
and metaphysicians. So far as my knowledge
goes, I find that the real, essential parts
of psychology are in perfect accord with the
essential parts of modern physical knowledge.
It is not given to one individual to be great
in every respect; it is not given to one race
or nation to be equally strong in the research
of all fields of knowledge. The modern European
nations are very strong in their research
of external physical knowledge, but they are
not so strong in their study of the inner
nature of man. On the other hand, the Orientals
have not been very strong in their researches
of the external physical world, but very strong
in their researches of the internal. Therefore
we find that Oriental physics and other sciences
are not in accordance with Occidental Sciences;
nor is Occidental psychology in harmony with
Oriental psychology. The Oriental physicists
have been routed by Occidental scientists.
At the same time, each claims to rest on truth;
and as we stated before, real truth in any
field of knowledge will not contradict itself;
the truths internal are in harmony with the
truths external.
We all know the theories of the cosmos according
to the modern astronomers and physicists;
and at the same time we all know how woefully
they undermine the theology of Europe, how
these scientific discoveries that are made
act as a bomb thrown at its stronghold; and
we know how theologians have in all times
attempted to put down these researches.
I want here to go over the psychological ideas
of the Orientals about cosmology and all that
pertains to it, and you will find how wonderfully
they are in accordance with the latest discoveries
of modern science; and where there is disharmony,
you will find that it is modern science which
lacks and not they. We all use the word nature.
The old Sânkhya philosophers called it by
two different names, Prakriti, which is very
much the same as the word nature, and the
more scientific name, Avyakta, undifferentiated,
from which everything proceeds, such as atoms,
molecules, and forces, mind, thought, and
intelligence. It is startling to find that
the philosophers and metaphysicians of India
stated ages ago that mind is material. What
are our present materialists trying to do,
but to show that mind is as much a product
of nature as the body? And so is thought,
and, we shall find by and by, intelligence
also: all issue from that nature which is
called Avyakta, the undifferentiated. The
Sankhyas define it as the equilibrium of three
forces, one of which is called Sattva, another
Rajas, and the third Tamas. Tamas, the lowest
force, is that of attraction; a little higher
is Rajas, that of repulsion; and the highest
is the balance of these two, Sattva; so that
when these two forces, attraction and repulsion,
are held in perfect control by the Sattva
there is no creation, no movement in the world.
As soon as this equilibrium is lost, the balance
is disturbed, and one of these forces gets
stronger than the other, motion sets in, and
creation begins. This state of things goes
on cyclically, periodically. That is to say,
there is a period of disturbance of the balance,
when forces begin to combine and recombine,
and things project outwards. At the same time,
everything has a tendency to go back to the
primal state of equilibrium, and the time
comes when that total annihilation of all
manifestation is reached. Again, after a period,
the whole thing is disturbed, projected outwards,
and again it slowly goes down — like waves.
All motion, everything in this universe, can
be likened to waves undergoing successive
rise and fall. Some of these philosophers
hold that the whole universe quiets down for
a period. Others hold that this quieting down
applies only to systems; that is to say, that
while our system here, this solar system,
will quiet down and go back into the undifferentiated
state, millions of other systems will go the
other way, and will project outwards. I should
rather favour the second opinion, that this
quieting down is not simultaneous over the
whole of the universe, and that in different
parts different things go on. But the principle
remains the same, that all we see — that
is, nature herself — is progressing in successive
rises and falls. The one stage, falling down,
going back to balance, the perfect equilibrium,
is called Pralaya, the end of a cycle. The
projection and the Pralaya of the universe
have been compared by, theistical writers
in India to the outbreathing and inbreathing
of God; God, as it were, breathes out the
universe, and it comes into Him again. When
it quiets down, what becomes of the universe?
It exists, only in finer forms, in the form
of cause, as it is called in the Sankhya philosophy.
It does not get rid of causation, time, and
space; they are there, only it comes to very
fine and minute forms. Supposing that this
whole universe begins to shrink, till every
one of us becomes just a little molecule,
we should not feel the change at all, because
everything relating to us would be shrinking
at the same time. The whole thing goes down,
and again projects out, the cause brings out
the effect, and so it goes on.
What we call matter in modern times was called
by; the ancient psychologists Bhutas, the
external elements. There is one element which,
according to them, is eternal ; every other
element is produced out of this one. It is
called Âkâsha. It is somewhat similar to
the idea of ether of the moderns, though not
exactly similar. Along with this element,
there is the primal energy called Prâna.
Prana and Akasha combine and recombine and
form the elements out of them. Then at the
end of the Kalpa; everything subsides, and
goes back to Akasha and Prana. There is in
the Rig-Veda, the oldest human writing in
existence, a beautiful passage describing
creation, and it is most poetical — "When
there was neither aught nor naught, when darkness
was rolling over darkness, what existed?"
and the answer is given, "It then existed
without vibration". This Prana existed then,
but there was no motion in it; Ânidavâtam
means "existed without vibration". Vibration
had stopped. Then when the Kalpa begins, after
an immense interval, the Anidavatam (unvibrating
atom) commences to vibrate, and blow after
blow is given by Prana to Akasha. The atoms
become condensed, and as they are condensed
different elements are formed. We generally
find these things very curiously translated;
people do not go to the philosophers or the
commentators for their translation, and have
not the brains to understand them themselves.
A silly man reads three letters of Sanskrit
and translates a whole book. They translate
the, elements as air, fire, and so on; if
they would go to the commentators, they would
find they do not mean air or anything of the
sort.
The Akasha, acted upon by the repeated blows
of Prana, produces Vâyu or vibrations. This
Vayu vibrates, and the vibrations growing
more and more rapid result in friction giving
rise to heat, Tejas. Then this heat ends in
liquefaction, Âpah. Then that liquid becomes
solid. We had ether, and motion, then came
heat, then it became liquefied, and then it
condensed into gross matter; and it goes back
in exactly the reverse way. The solid will
be liquefied and will then be converted into
a mass of heat, and that will slowly get back
into motion; that motion will stop, and this
Kalpa will be destroyed. Then, again it will
come back and again dissolve into ether. Prana
cannot work alone without the help of Akasha.
All that we know in the form of motion, vibration,
or thought is a modification of the Prana,
and everything that we know in the shape of
matter, either as form or as resistance, is
a modification of the Akasha. The Prana cannot
live alone, or act without a medium; when
it is pure Prana, it has the Akasha itself
to live in, and when it changes into forces
of nature, say gravitation, or centrifugal
force, it must have matter. You have never
seen force without matter or matter without
force; what we call force and matter are simply
the gross manifestations of these same things,
which, when superfine, are called Prana and
Akasha. Prana you can call in English life,
the vital force; but you must not restrict
it to the life of man; at the same time you
must not identify it with Spirit, Atman. So
this goes on. Creation cannot have either
a beginning or an end; it is an eternal on-going.
We shall state another position of these old
psychologists, which is that all gross things
are the results of fine ones. Everything that
is gross is composed of fine things, which
they call the Tanmâtras, the fine particles.
I smell a flower. To smell, something must
come in contact with my nose; the flower is
there, but I do not see it move towards me.
That which comes from the flower and in contact
with my nose is called the Tanmatra, fine
molecules of that flower. So with heat, light
and everything. These Tanmatras can again
be subdivided into atoms. Different philosophers
have different theories, and we know these
are only theories. It is sufficient for our
purpose to know that everything gross is composed
of things that are very, very fine. We first
get the gross elements which we feel externally,
and then come the fine elements with which
the nose, eyes, and ears come in contact.
Ether waves touch my eyes; I cannot see them,
yet I know they must come in contact with
my eyes before I can see light.
Here are the eyes, but the eyes do not see.
Take away the brain centre; the eyes will
still be there, as also the picture of the
outside world complete on the retinae; yet
the eyes will not see. So the eyes are only
a secondary instrument, not the organ of vision.
The organ of vision is the nerve-centre in
the brain. Likewise the nose is an instrument,
and there is an organ behind it. The senses
are simply the external instruments. It may
be said that these different organs, Indriyas,
as they are called in Sanskrit, are the real
seats of perception.
It is necessary for the mind to be joined
to an organ to perceive. It is a common experience,
that we do not hear the clock strike when
we happen to be buried in study. Why? The
ear was there, the sound was carried through
it to the brain; yet it was not heard, because
the mind did not attach itself to the organ
of hearing.
There is a different organ for each different
instrument. For, if one served for all, we
should find that when the mind joined itself
to it, all the senses would be equally active.
But it is not so, as we have seen from the
instance of the clock. If there was only one
organ for all the instruments, the mind would
see and hear at the same time, would see and
hear and smell at the same time, and it would
be impossible for it not to do all these at
one and the same time. Therefore it is necessary
that there should be a separate organ for
each sense. This has been borne out by modern
physiology. It is certainly possible for us
to hear and see at the same time, but that
is because the mind attaches itself partially
to the two centres.
What are the organs made of? We see that the
instruments — eyes, nose, and ears — are
made of gross materials. The organs are also
made of matter. Just as the body is composed
of gross materials, and manufactures Prana
into different gross forces, so the organs
are composed of the fine elements, Akasha,
Vayu, Tejas, etc., and manufacture Prana into
the finer forces of perception. The organs,
the Prana functions, the mind and the Buddhi
combined, are called the finer body of man
— the Linga or Sukshma Sharira. The Linga
Sharira has a real form because everything
material must have a form.
The mind is called the Manas, the Chitta in
Vritti or vibrating, the unsettled state.
If you throw a stone in a lake, first there
will be vibration, and then resistance. For
a moment the water will vibrate and then it
will react on the stone. So when any impression
comes on the Chitta, it first vibrates a little.
That is called the Manas. The mind carries
the impression farther in, and presents it
to the determinative faculty, Buddhi, which
reacts. Behind Buddhi is Ahamkâra, egoism,
the self-consciousness which says, "I am".
Behind Ahamkara is Mahat, intelligence, the
highest form of nature's existence. Each one
is the effect of the succeeding one. In the
case of the lake, every blow that comes to
it is from the external world, while in the
case of the mind, the blow may come either
from the external or the internal world. Behind
the intelligence is the Self of man, the Purusha,
the Atman, the pure, the perfect, who alone
is the seer, and for whom is all this change.
Man looks on all these changes; he himself
is never impure; but through what the Vedantists
call Adhyâsa, by reflection, by implication,
he seems to be impure. It is like the appearance
of a crystal when a red or a blue flower is
brought before it: the colour is reflected
on it, but the crystal itself is pure. We
shall take it for granted that there are many
selves, and each self is pure and perfect;
various kinds of gross and fine matter superimpose
themselves on the self and make it multicoloured.
Why does nature do all this? Nature is undergoing
all these changes for the development of the
soul; all this creation is for the benefit
of the soul, so that it may be free. This
immense book which we call the universe is
stretched out before man so that he may read;
and he discovers eventually that he is an
omniscient and omnipotent being. I must here
tell you that some of our best psychologists
do not believe in God in the sense in which
you believe in Him. The father of our psychology,
Kapila, denies the existence of God. His idea
is that a Personal God is quite unnecessary;
nature itself is sufficient to work out the
whole of creation. What is called the Design
Theory, he knocked on the head, and said that
a more childish theory was never advanced.
But he admits a peculiar kind of God. He says
we are all struggling to get free; and when
we become free, we can, as it were, melt away
into nature, only to come out at the beginning
of the next cycle and be its ruler. We come
out omniscient and omnipotent beings. In that
sense we can be called Gods; you and I and
the humblest beings can be Gods in different
cycles. He says such a God will be temporal;
but an eternal God, eternally omnipotent and
ruler of the universe cannot be. If there
was such a God, there would be this difficulty:
He must be either a bound spirit or a free
one. A God who is perfectly free would not
create: there is no necessity for it. If He
were bound, He would not create, because He
could not: He would be powerless. In either
case, there cannot be any omniscient or omnipotent
eternal ruler. In our scriptures, wherever
the word God is mentioned, he says, it means
those human beings who have become free.
Kapila does not believe in the unity of all
souls. His analysis, so far as it goes, is
simply marvellous. He is the father of Indian
thinkers; Buddhism and other systems are the
outcome of his thought.
According to his psychology, all souls can
regain their freedom and their natural rights,
which are omnipotence and omniscience. But
the question arises: Where is this bondage?
Kapila says it is without beginning. But if
it is without beginning, it must be without
end, and we shall never be free. He says that
though bondage is without beginning, it is
not of that constant uniform character as
the soul is. In other words, nature (the cause
of bondage) is without beginning and end,
but not in the same sense as soul, because
nature has no individuality; it is like a
river which gets a fresh body of water every
moment; the sum total of these bodies of water
is the river, but the river is not a constant
quantity. Everything in nature is constantly
changing, but the soul never changes; so,
as nature is always changing, it is possible
for the soul to come out of its bondage.
The whole of the universe is built upon the
same plan as a part of it. So, just as I have
a mind, there is a cosmic mind. As in the
individual, so in the universal. There is
the universal gross body; behind that, a universal
fine body; behind that, a universal mind;
behind that, a universal egoism, or consciousness;
and behind that, a universal intelligence.
And all this is in nature, the manifestation
of nature, not outside of it.
We have the gross bodies from our parents,
as also our consciousness. Strict heredity
says my body is a part of my parents' bodies,
the material of my consciousness and egoism
is a part of my parents'. We can add to the
little portion inherited from our parents
by drawing upon the universal consciousness.
There is an infinite storehouse of intelligence
out of which we draw what we require; there
is an infinite storehouse of mental force
in the universe out of which we are drawing
eternally; but the seed must come from the
parents. Our theory is heredity coupled with
reincarnation. By the law of heredity, the
reincarnating soul receives from parents the
material out of which to manufacture a man.
Some of the European philosophers have asserted
that this world exists because I exist; and
if I do not exist, the world will not exist.
Sometimes it is stated thus: If all the people
in the world were to die, and there were no
more human beings, and no animals with powers
of perception and intelligence, all these
manifestations would disappear. But these
European philosophers do not know the psychology
of it, although they know the principle; modern
philosophy has got only a glimpse of it. This
becomes easy of understanding when looked
at from the Sankhya point of view. According
to Sankhya, it is impossible for anything
to be, which has not as its material, some
portion of my mind. I do not know this table
as it is. An impression from it comes to the
eyes, then to, the Indriya, and then to the
mind; and the mind reacts, and that reaction
is what I call the table. It is just the same
as throwing a stone in a lake; the lake throws
a wave towards the stone; this wave is what
we know. What is external nobody knows; when
I try to know it, it has to become that material
which I furnish. I, with my own mind, have
furnished the material for my eyes. There
is something which is outside, which is only,
the occasion, the suggestion, and upon that
suggestion I project my mind; and it takes
the form that I see. How do we all see the
same things? Because we all have; similar
parts of the cosmic mind. Those who have like
minds will see like things, and those who
have not will not see alike.
