mUla-prakRuti or Matter: Not-Self
WE have dealt with the first factor of the triune Absolute, namely the Self. The second factor is the Not-Self. Its many names, each significant of a special aspect, are:
• an-AtmA, Not-Self;
• a-chit, the non-conscious;
• an-Rta, the false;
• jaDa, the non-intelligent, non-sentient, inert;
• nAnA, the Many;
• jneya, the knowable;
• viShaya, the Object;
• bheda-mUla, root of separateness;
• mUla-prakRti, Root-Nature;
• pradhAna, the chief, the root-base, of all the elements, wherein they all 'subsist';
• mAtrA, the measurer, the measure-setter, the delimiter, the de-fin-ing or finitising principle, the mother, Matter; and
• a-vyakta, the Unmanifest.
Mula-prakrti and Pradhaana are specially prominent in Sankhya, and of frequent occurrence elsewhere too.
Not-Self All-ways Contrary to Selfअनात्मा, अचित्, अनृत्, जड, नाना, ज्ञेय, विषय, भेदमूल, मूल प्रकृति, प्रधान, मात्रा
Each name is significant of an important aspect.
The word mAtrA has, regrettably, dropped out of current use somehow; it deserves restoration, being etymologically the same as the well known English word 'matter'.
It is used in this sense in the Bhagavad-Gita:
मात्रा स्पर्शास्तु, कौन्तेय! शीतोष्ण सुखदुःखदाः ।
mAtrA sparshAstu, kaunteya! shItoShNa sukhaduHkhadaaH | (ii.14)
("Contacts with the objects of the senses, O Kaunteya, give rise to cold and hot, pleasure and pain.")
The word avyakta is not specific to the Not-Self, it should be noted; it is used for Pratyag-Atma, or abstract Self, also for Not-Self, and also for mahat-buddhi of Sankhya, the 'great' diffused Intelligence, universal or sub-supra-Conscious Mind, unindividualised by a sheath and un-particularised or unfocussed by an act of attention.
mahAn-AtmA also occurs, now and then, in the sense of Self plus this Universal Mind. Sometimes AkAsha is also called avyakta, as a substitute for root-matter or 'This', which is the indispensable second basis of universal mind, the first being Self.
The etymology of Pra-krti, is thus explained in Devi-Bhagavata, IX.i:
प्रकृष्टवाचकः प्रश्च, कृतिश्च सृष्टिवाचकः;
सृष्टौ प्रकृष्टा या देवी, प्रकृतिः सा प्रकीर्त्तिता ।
गुणो सत्वे प्रकृष्टे च प्रशब्दो वर्तते श्रुतः,
मध्यमे रजसि कृश्च, तिशब्द तमसि स्मृतः ।
prakRuShTavAchakaH prashcha, kRutishcha sRuShTivAchakaH;
sRuShTau prakRuShTA yA devI, prakRutiH sA prakIrttitA |
guNo satve prakRuShTe cha prashabdo vartate shrutaH,
madhyame rajasi kRushcha, tishabda tamasi smRutaH | (Ix.i)
"The first letter indicates greatness; the next two, activity, creation, emanation; also, the three letters respectively mean the three guNas, sattva. rajas, and tamas."
This Not-Self is by the Necessity of Negation of it by Self, which Necessity is the very Nature of the Absolute--the opposite of Self, in every possible respect and aspect; as is indicated in the fact that some of its most characteristic names are made up by prefixing a negative to the names of Self.
Because of this fact,
• as the essential characteristic of Self is Unity, the very essence of Not-Self is Manyness, separateness; and
• as the marks of Self are Universality and unlimitedness, so the marks of the Not-Self are limitedness, Particularity, ever-specifiedness.
As Fichte has said (The Science of Knowledge, p.83 -- Kroeger's English translation): "All reality is in consciousness, and of this reality that part is to be ascribed to the Non-Ego which is not to be ascribed to the Ego, and vice versa ... The Non-Ego is what the Ego is not, and vice versa."
Or, better, as reported by Schwegler (History of Philosophy, p.246): "Whatever belongs to the Ego, the counterpart of that must, by virtue of simple contraposition, belong to the Non-Ego."
This characteristic consequence of the opposition of Self and the Not-Self should be carefully considered, together with other aspects of the Nature of the Absolute. Solution of the various difficulties, alluded to before from time to time, hinges upon it.
• Because nothing particular can be said of Ego, therefore everything particular, all possible particulars, must be assigned to Non-Ego.
• But yet again, lest the totality of these particulars should become a fact different from the Non-Ego instead of identical with it, even as positive is different from negative, these particulars, are paired off into opposites.
• These opposites, again, because particular and definite, are more than presence and absence; both factors have the appearance of presence, positiveness, as debt and loan, as pleasure and pain. The pain of a debt is as much a positive burden on the consciousness of the debtor, as the pleasure of a loan is a weight on that of the creditor.
(See Yoga-bhaAhya, ii.5; "a-vidyA is not merely non-knowledge but 'opposite' or wrong knowledge, as a-mitra, non-friend, un-friendly, is not merely 'absence of friend' but a positive foe.")
Mind, the Only Maker-Unmaker
When we are dealing with the ultimate universal and pseudo-universal, viz., Self and Not-Self, Being and Nothing, then even presence and absence are adequately opposed; it is enough to prefix a negative particle to Self and Being.
But when we are in the region of particulars, this is not so:
• positive cold, in order to be neutralised, must be opposed by positive heat, and not merely by no-cold:
• a positive debt is not sufficiently set off and balanced by a no-debt, but only by an asset;
• plus is not nullified by zero, but by minus;
• a colour is not abolished by no-colour, but by another equally positive complementary colour.
It should also be borne in mind, in this connection, that the positiveness of particulars, the reality of concrete things, is, after all, not so very definite and indefeasible as it seems at first sight, but on the contrary, a very elusive and illusive fact.
In the ultimate analysis its whole essence is found to be nothing else than consciousness; the more consciousness we put into a thing, the more real it becomes, and vice versa.
That a house, a garden, an institution, falls out of repair, or order, and gradually disappears, loses its reality, its existence, if it is neglected by the proprietor or manager; that is to say, if the latter withdraws his consciousness from it; is only an illustration of this on the physical plane.
The essential fact is always the same, consciousness upholding itself as well as its object, though the details differ; thus, to maintain its objects on the physical plane, consciousness employs the bahish-karaNa, the 'outer', or physical, senses, organs, instruments and means, for repairs, etc.; while on the mental plane it employs the antah-karaNa,' the 'inner instrument'.
As in the case of the individual and his house, on the small scale, so, on the large scale, when Brahmaa 'falls asleep' and withdraws his consciousness from it, his brahm-ANda, world-egg or system, disappears.
We should remember here that the arrangement of materials which is the house, the garden, etc.,Like so many other facts and laws stated by Samskrt metaphysic, these 'world-eggs' or 'eggs of Brahman, the Immense, the Infinite', are literal facts, which need no abstruse science or elaborate thinking to perceive, but can be veritably seen by physical eyes. Earth Moon, Sun, all the 'orbs' and 'globes' of Heaven, i.e.. the Immense Firmament, Boundless Space, are quite obviously 'eggs' of the Infinite.
• is, for all purposes, the creation of the maker's individual consciousness,
• and that the other arrangements of material which he uses as senses, means and instruments, etc., are also evolved and created by his life or consciousness;
(that functions create organs, and not organs, functions, is becoming quite a commonplace of at least one school of advanced science now--Compare Chhandogya, VIII.xii.5, "The Self ideating or imagining itself as hearing, seeing, etc., became the ear, the eye, etc.");
• and finally that, that material, ultimately the Not-Self, over which he as an individual has no power, is the creation of, the result of positing or affirmation by, the Universal Consciousness, the Self.
If these facts are duly taken into account, then the presence of all possible kinds of mutually-destructive pairs of 'reals', 'concretes', 'particulars', within, and as making up the total of, Not-Self, equivalent to Nothing or Non-being in its totality, will not appear altogether incomprehensible.
All Creation is Pro-creation
All creation is a continuation of self. No creation is possible without identification of the producer with the product, (comparatively).
Every creation is, more or less, a pro-creation, forth-emanation, (as of a child). It is positing of the creat-ure, directly or indirectly, as 'I-(am)-this'. 'My' is the (comparatively) indirect form of positing; it is only a lesser degree of 'I'.
All dissolution is, similarly, denying that identity; 'I-not-this', or 'not-mine-this'.
However distant from me, and apparently indifferent to me, yet still the stars, the planets, the earth's poles, the earth's centre--are all 'I' or 'my', or 'not so', though very vaguely. Whatever is of 'interest' to 'me', is related to me in terms of love or hate; therefore, in terms of 'I' and 'mine', aham-ta and mama-ta, or of 'not I' and 'not mine', na-aham and na-mama.
The Veda hymns, known as cha-ma-ka and na-ma-ka, vividly express this idea: 'The Sun is Mine, the Moon is Mine, Indra is Mine, the Wind is Mine', etc., and again, 'Not Mine, Not Mine'.
To bring home the fact that 'mine' is only a continuation of 'I', consider this: a person 'creates' a house for him-self; he feels and wishes, 'aham grhI syAm', 'May I become a house-man', (hus-band, houseowner, house-dweller).
This feeling, this consciousness, converts Arambha into adhy-A-ropa or adhy-Asa; changes creation into self-transformation (which includes pari-NAma);
It transforms the 'potter' into the theatrical 'actor'. All authors, more or less, put themselves into their creations; authors of even science-books; much more of novels and dramas. Literal and visible proof, of owner and house being identical, are shell-fish, molluscs. In later, higher, forms of life, this house becomes more and more, and then quite, separate, physically only.
The cause, the force, which creates a book, a machine, a state, an empire, is the ideation-and-will, of some individual self, 'May I be an author, a machine-inventor, a statesman, an emperor'. Birds fly with wings, fishes swim with fins and tails, which are (part of) them-selves; men fly and swim with aeroplanes and ships and submarines which are theirs.
Yoga-siddhas may re-place the machines which are theirs, by organs which would be (parts of their bodies) them-selves; as telescopes and microscopes may be replaced by keener eyes and clairvoyance. The evolutionist (Lamarckian) view, that 'functions create organs'; the poet's conviction, that 'the Spirit's plastic stress' shapes all things; are only corollaries of the above.
Incidentally, for a very entertaining exposition and defence of Lamarckism or neo-Lamarckism as against Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, the reader may see Bernard Shaw's Preface to Back to Methuselah.
Bookmarks