| Dr. Jai Maharaj 2006-05-10, 11:26 am |
| 3/5 'AN INTRODUCTION TO YOG' BY ANNIE BESANT
The difference comes with limitation, with the narrowing
of the universal qualities into the specific qualities of
the limited Self; both are the same in essence, though
seeming different in manifestation. We have the power to
know, the power to will, and the power to act. These are
the three great powers of the Self that show themselves
in the separated Self in every diversity of forms, from
the minutes" organism to the loftiest Logos.
Then just as in the Sankhya, if the Purusha, the
particular Self, should identify himself with the matter
in which he is reflected, then there is delusion and
bondage, so in the Vedanta, if the Self, eternally free,
imagines himself to be bound by matter, identifying
himself with his limitations, he is deluded, he is under
the domain of Maya; for Maya is the self-identification
of the Self with his limitations. The eternally free can
never be bound by matter; the eternally pure can never be
tainted by matter; the eternally knowing can never be
deluded by matter; the eternally Self-determined can
never be ruled by matter, save by his own ignorance. His
own foolish fancy limits his inherent powers; he is
bound, because he imagines himself bound; he is impure,
because he imagines himself impure; he is ignorant,
because he imagines himself ignorant. With the vanishing
of delusion he finds that he is eternally pure, eternally
wise.
Here is the great difference between the Sankhya and the
Vedanta. According to the Sankhya, Purusha is the
spectator and never the actor. According to Vedanta the
Self is the only actor, all else is maya: there is no one
else who acts but the Self, according to the Vedanta
teaching. As says the Upanishad: the Self willed to see,
and there were eyes; the Self willed to hear, and there
were ears; the Self willed to think, and there was mind.
The eyes, the ears, the mind exist, because the Self has
willed them into existence. The Self appropriates matter,
in order that He may manifest His powers through it.
There is the distinction between the Sankhya and the
Vedanta: in the Sankhya the propinquity of the Purusha
brings out in matter or Prakriti all these
characteristics, the Prakriti acts and not the Purusha;
in the Vedanta, Self alone exists and Self alone acts; He
imagines limitation and matter appears; He appropriates
that matter in order that He may manifest His own
capacity.
The Sankhya is the view of the universe of the scientist:
the Vedanta is the view of the universe of the
metaphysician. Haeckel unconsciously expounded the
Sankhyan philosophy almost perfectly. So close to the
Sankhyan is his exposition, that another idea would make
it purely Sankhyan; he has not yet supplied that
propinquity of consciousness which the Sankhya postulates
in its ultimate duality. He has Force and Matter, he has
Mind in Matter, but he has no Purusha. His last book,
criticised by Sir Oliver Lodge, is thoroughly
intelligible from the Hindu standpoint as an almost
accurate representation of Sankhyan philosophy. It is the
view of the scientist, indifferent to the "why" of the
facts which he records. The Vedanta, as I said, is the
view of the metaphysician he seeks the unity in which all
diversities are rooted and into which they are resolved.
Now, what light does Theosophy throw on both these
systems? Theosophy enables every thinker to reconcile the
partial statements which are apparently so contradictory.
Theosophy, with the Vedanta, proclaims the universal
Self. All that the Vedanta says of the universal Self and
the Self- limitation, Theosophy repeats. We call these
Self-limited selves Monads, and we say, as the Vedantin
says, that these Monads reproduce the nature of the
universal Self whose portions they are. And hence you
find in them the three qualities which you find in the
Supreme. They are units' and these represent the Purushas
of the Sankhya; but with a very great difference, for
they are not passive watchers, but active agents in the
drama of the universe, although, being above the fivefold
universe, they are as spectators who pull the strings of
the players of the stage. The Monad takes to himself from
the universe of matter atoms which show out the qualities
corresponding to his three qualities, and in these he
thinks, and wills and acts. He takes to himself rhythmic
combinations, and shows his quality of cognition. He
takes to himself combinations that are mobile; through
those he shows out his activity. He takes the
combinations that are inert, and shows out his quality of
bliss, as the will to be happy. Now notice the difference
of phrase and thought. In the Sankhya, Matter changed to
reflect the Spirit; in fact, the Spirit appropriates
portions of Matter, and through those expresses his own
characteristics -- an enormous difference. He creates an
actor for Self-expression, and this actor is the
"spiritual man" of the Theosophical teaching, the
spiritual Triad, the Atma-buddhi-manas, to whom we shall
return in a moment.
The Monad remains ever beyond the fivefold universe, and
in that sense is a spectator. He dwells beyond the five
planes of matter. Beyond the Atmic, or Akasic; beyond the
Buddhic plane, the plane of Vayu; beyond the mental
plane, the plane of Agni; beyond the astral plane, the
plane of Varuna; beyond the physical plane, the plane of
Kubera. Beyond all these planes the Monad, the Self,
stands Self-conscious and Self-determined. He reigns in
changeless peace and lives in eternity. But as said
above, he appropriates matter. He takes to himself an
atom of the Atmic plane, and in that he, as it were,
incorporates his will, and that becomes Atma. He
appropriates an atom of the Buddhic plane, and reflects
in that his aspect of cognition, and that becomes buddhi.
He appropriates an atom of the manasic plane and
embodies, as it were, his activity in it, and it becomes
Manas. Thus we get Atma, plus Buddhi, plus Manas. That
triad is the reflection in the fivefold universe of the
Monad beyond the fivefold universe. The terms of
Theosophy can be easily identified with those of other
schools. The Monad of Theosophy is the Jivatma of Indian
philosophy, the Purusha of the Sankhya, the
particularised Self of the Vedanta. The threefold
manifestation, Atma-buddhi-manas, is the result of the
Purusha's propinquity to Prakriti, the subject of the
Sankhyan philosophy, the Self embodied in the highest
sheaths, according to the Vedantic teaching. In the one
you have this Self and His sheaths, and in the other the
Subject, a reflection in matter of Purusha. Thus you can
readily see that you are dealing with the same concepts
but they are looked at from different standpoints. We are
nearer to the Vedanta than to the Sankhya, but if you
know the principles you can put the statements of the two
philosophies in their own niches and will not be
confused. Learn the principles and you can explain all
the theories. That is the value of the Theosophical
teaching; it gives you the principles and leaves you to
study the philosophies, and you study them with a torch
in your hand instead of in the dark.
Now when we understand the nature of the spiritual man,
or Triad, what do we find with regard to all the
manifestations of consciousness? That they are duads,
Spirit-Matter everywhere, on every plane of our fivefold
universe. If you are a scientist, you will call it
spiritualised Matter; if you are a metaphysician you will
call it materialised Spirit. Either phrase is equally
true, so long as you remember that both are always
present in every manifestation, that what you see is not
the play of matter alone, but the play of Spirit-Matter,
inseparable through the period of manifestation. Then,
when you come, in reading an ancient book, to the
statement "mind is material," you will not be confused;
you will know that the writer is only speaking on the
Sankhyan line, which speaks of Matter everywhere but
always implies that the Spirit is looking on, and that
this presence makes the work of Matter possible. You will
not, when reading the constant statement in Indian
philosophies that "mind is material," confuse this with
the opposite view of the materialist which says that
"mind is the product of matter" -- a very different
thing. Although the Sankhyan may use materialistic terms,
he always posits the vivifying influence of Spirit, while
the materialist makes Spirit the product of Matter.
Really a gulf divides them, although the language they
use may often be the same.
Mind
"Yog is the inhibition of the functions of the mind,"
says Patanjali. The functions of the mind must be
suppressed, and in order that we may be able to follow
out really what this means, we must go more closely into
what the Indian philosopher means by the word "mind".
Mind, in the wide sense of the term, has three great
properties or qualities: cognition, desire or will,
activity. Now Yog is not immediately concerned with all
these three, but only with one, cognition, the Sankhyan
subject. But you cannot separate cognition, as we have
seen, completely from the others, because consciousness
is a unit, and although we are only concerned with that
part of consciousness which we specifically call
cognition, we cannot get cognition all by itself. Hence
the Indian psychologist investigating this property,
cognition, divides it up into three or, as the Vedanta
says, into four (with all submission, the Vedantin here
makes a mistake). If you take up any Vedantic book and
read about mind, you will find a particular word used for
it which. translated, means "internal organ". This antah-
karana is the word always used where in English we use
"mind"; but it is only used in relation to cognition, not
in relation to activity and desire. It is said to be
fourfold, being made up of Manas, Buddhi, Ahamkara, and
Chitta; but this fourfold division is a very curious
division. We know what Manas is, what Buddhi is, what
Ahamkara is, but what is this Chitta? What is Chitta,
outside Manas, Buddhi and Ahamkara? Ask anyone you like.
and record his answer; you will find that it is of the
vaguest kind. Let us try to analyse it for ourselves, and
see whether light will come upon it by using the
Theosophic idea of a triplet summed up in a fourth, that
is not really a fourth, but the summation of the three.
Manas, Buddhi and Ahamkara are the three different sides
of a triangle,' which triangle is called Chitta. The
Chitta is not a fourth, but the sum of the three: Manas,
Buddhi and Ahamkara. This is the old idea of a trinity in
unity. Over and over again H. P. Blavatsky uses this
summation as a fourth to her triplets, for she follows
the old methods. The fourth, which sums up the three but
is not other than they, makes a unity out of their
apparent diversity. Let us apply that to Antahkarana.
Take cognition. Though in cognition that aspect of the
Self is predominant, yet it cannot exist absolutely
alone, The whole Self is there in every act of cognition.
Similarly with the other two. One cannot exist separate
from the others. Where there is cognition the other two
are present, though subordinate to it. The activity is
there, the will is there. Let us think of cognition as
pure as it can be, turned on itself, reflected in itself,
and we have Buddhi, the pure reason, the very essence of
cognition; this in the universe is represented by Vishnu,
the sustaining wisdom of the universe. Now let us think
of cognition looking outwards, and as reflecting itself
in activity, its brother quality, and we have a mixture
of cognition and activity which is called Manas, the
active mind; cognition reflected in activity is Manas in
man or Brahma, the creative mind, in the universe. When
cognition similarly reflects itself in will, then it
becomes Ahamkara, the "I am I" in man, represented by
Mahadeva in the universe. Thus wee have found within the
limits of this cognition a triple division, making up the
internal organ or Antahkarana -- Manas, plus Buddhi, plus
Ahamkara -- and we can find no fourth. What is then
Chitta? It is the summation of the three, the three taken
together, the totality of the three. Because of the old
way of counting these things, you get this division of
Antahkarana into four.
The Mental Body
We must now deal with the mental body, which is taken as
equivalent to mind for practical purposes. The first
thing for a man to do in practical Yog is to separate
himself from the mental body, to draw away from that into
the sheath next above it. And here remember what I said
previously, that in Yog the Self is always the
consciousness plus the vehicle from which the
consciousness is unable to separate itself. All that is
above the body you cannot leave is the Self for practical
purposes, and your first attempt must be to draw away
from your mental body. Under these conditions, Manas must
be identified with the Self, and the spiritual Triad, the
Atma-buddhi-manas, is to be realised as separate from the
mental body. That is the first step. You must be able to
take up and lay down your mind as you do a tool, before
it is of any use to consider the further progress of the
Self in getting rid of its envelopes. Hence the mental
body is taken as the starting point. Suppress thought.
Quiet it. Still it. Now what is the ordinary condition of
the mental body? As you look upon that body from a higher
plane, you see constant changes of colours playing in it.
You find that they are sometimes initiated from within,
sometimes from without. Sometimes a vibration from
without has caused a change in consciousness, and a
corresponding change in the colours in the mental body.
If there is a change of consciousness, that causes
vibration in the matter in which that consciousness is
functioning. The mental body is a body of ever-changing
hues and colours, never still, changing colour with swift
rapidity throughout the whole of it. Yog is the stopping
of all these, the inhibition of vibrations and changes
alike. Inhibition of the change of consciousness stops
the vibration of the mental body; the checking of the
vibration of the mental body checks the change in
consciousness. In the mental body of a Master there is no
change of colour save as initiated from within; no
outward stimulus can produce any answer, any
vibration,?hat perfectly controlled mental body. The
colour of the mental body of a Master is as moonlight on
the rippling ocean. Within that whiteness of moon-like
refulgence lie all possibilities of colour, but nothing
in the outer world can make the faintest change of hue
sweep over its steady radiance. If a change of
consciousness occurs within, then the change will send a
wave of delicate hues over the mental body which responds
only in colour to changes initiated from within and never
to changes stimulated from without. His mental body is
never His Self, but only His tool or instrument, which He
can take up or lay down at His will. It is only an outer
sheath that He uses when He needs to communicate with the
lower world.
By that idea of the stopping of all changes of colour in
the mental body you can realise what is meant by
inhibition. The functions of mind are stopped in Yog. You
have to begin with your mental body. You have to learn
how to stop the whole of those vibrations, how to make
the mental body colourless, still and quiet, responsive
only to the impulses that you choose to put upon it. How
will you be able to tell when the mind is really coming
under control, when it is no longer a part of your Self?
You will begin to realise this when you find that, by the
action of your will, you can check the current of thought
and hold the mind in perfect stillness. Sheath after
sheath has to be transcended, and the proof of
transcending is that it can no longer affect you. You can
affect it, but it cannot affect you. The moment that
nothing outside you can harass you, can stir the mind,
the moment that the mind does not respond to the outer,
save under your own impulse, then can you say of it:
"This is not my Self." It has become part of the outer,
it can no longer be identified with the Self.
From this you pass on to the conquest of the causal body
in a similar way. When the conquering of the causal body
is complete then you go to the conquering of the Buddhic
body. When mastery over the Buddhic body is complete, you
pass on to the~conquest of the Atmic body.
Mind and Self
You cannot be surprised that under these conditions of
continued disappearance of functions, the unfortunate
student asks: " What becomes of the mind itself? If you
suppress all the functions, what is left?" In the Indian
way of teaching, when you come to a difficulty, someone
jumps up and asks a question. And in the commentaries,
the question which raises the difficulty is always put.
The answer of Patanjali is: "Then the spectator remains
in his own form." Theosophy answers: "The Monad remains."
It is the end of the human pilgrimage. That is the
highest point to which humanity may climb: to suppress
all the reflections in the fivefold universe through
which the Monad has manifested his powers, and then for
the Monad to realise himself, enriched by the experiences
through which his manifested aspects have passed. But to
the Sankhyan the difficulty is very great, for when he
has only his spectator left, when spectacle ceases, the
spectator himself almost vanishes. His only function was
to look on at the play of mind. When the play of mind is
gone, what is left? He can no longer be a spectator,
since there is nothing to see. The only answer is: " He
remains in his own form." He is now out of manifestation,
the duality is transcended, and so the Spirit sinks back
into latency, no longer capable of manifestation. There
you come to a very serious difference with the
Theosophical view of the universe, for according to that
view of the universe, when all these functions have been
suppressed, then the Monad is ruler over matter and is
prepared for a new cycle of activity, no longer slave but
master.
All analogy shows us that as the Self withdraws from
sheath after sheath, he does not lose but gains in Self-
realisation. Self-realisation becomes more and more vivid
with each successive withdrawal; so that as the Self puts
aside one veil of matter after another, recognises in
regular succession that each body in turn is not himself,
by that process of withdrawal his sense of Self-reality
becomes keener, not less keen. It is important to
remember that, because often Western readers, dealing
with Eastern ideas, in consequence of misunderstanding
the meaning of the state of liberation, or the condition
of Nirvana, identify it with nothingness or
unconsciousness -- an entirely mistaken idea which is apt
to colour the whole of their thought when dealing with
Yogic processes. Imagine the condition of a man who
identifies himself completely with the body, so that he
cannot, even in thought, separate himself from it -- the
state of the early undeveloped man -- and compare that
with the strength, vigour and lucidity of your own mental
consciousness.
The consciousness of the early man limited to the
physical body, with occasional touches of dream
consciousness, is very restricted in its range. He has no
idea of the sweep of your consciousness, of your abstract
thinking. But is that consciousness of the early man more
vivid, or less vivid, than yours? Certainly you will say,
it is less vivid. You have largely transcended his powers
of consciousness. Your consciousness is astral rather
than physical, but has thereby increased its vividness.
AS the Self withdraws himself from sheath after sheath,
he realises himself more and more, not less and less;
Self-realisation becomes more intense, as sheath after
sheath is cast aside. The centre grows more powerful as
the circumference becomes more permeable, and at last a
stage is reached when the centre knows itself at every
point of the circumference. When that is accomplished the
circumference vanishes, but not so the centre. The centre
still remains. Just as you are more vividly conscious
than the early man, just as your consciousness is more
alive, not less, than that of an undeveloped man, so it
is as we climb up the stairway of life and cast away
garment after garment. We become more conscious of
existence, more conscious of knowledge, more conscious of
Self-determined power. The faculties of the Self shine
out more strongly, as veil after veil falls away. By
analogy, then, when we touch the Monad, our consciousness
should be mightier, more vivid, and more perfect. As you
learn to truly live, your powers and feelings grow in
strength.
And remember that all control is exercised over sheaths,
over portions of the Not-Self. You do not control your
Self; that is a misconception; you control your Not-Self.
The Self is never controlled; He is the Inner Ruler
Immortal. He is the controller, not the controlled. As
sheath after sheath becomes subject to your Self, and
body after body becomes the tool of your Self, then shall
you realise the truth of the saying of the Upanishad,
that you are the Self, the Inner Ruler, the immortal.
Lecture III
YOG AS SCIENCE
I propose now to deal first with the two great methods of
Yog, one related to the Self and the other to the Not-
Self. Let me remind you, before I begin, that we are
dealing only with the science of Yog and not with other
means of attaining union with the Divine. The scientific
method, following the old Indian conception, is the one
to which I am asking your attention. I would remind you,
however, that, though I am only dealing with this, there
remain also the other two great ways of Bhakti and Karm.
The Yog we are studying specially concerns the Marga of
Jnanam or knowledge, and within that way, within that
Marga or path of knowledge, we find that three
subdivisions occur, as everywhere in nature.
Methods of Yog
With regard to what I have just called the two great
methods in Yog, we find that by one of these a man treads
the path of knowledge by Buddhi -- the pure reason; and
the other the same path by Manas -- the concrete mind.
You may remember that in speaking yesterday of the sub-
divisions of Antah-karana, I pointed out to you that
there we had a process of reflection of one quality in
another; and within the limits of the cognitional aspect
of the Self, you find Buddhi, cognition reflected in
cognition; and Ahamkara, cognition reflected in will; and
Manas, cognition reflected in activity. Bearing those
three sub-divisions in mind, you will very readily be
able to see that these two methods of Yog fall naturally
under two of these heads. But what of the third? What of
the will, of which Ahamkara is the representative in
cognition? That certainly has its road, but it can
scarcely be said to be a "method". Will breaks its way
upwards by sheer unflinching determination, keeping its
eyes fixed on the end, and using either buddhi or manes
indifferently as a means to that end. Metaphysics is used
to realise the Self; science is used to understand the
Not-Self; but either is grasped, either is thrown aside,
as it serves, or fails to serve, the needs of the moment.
Often the man, in whom will is predominant, does not know
how he gains the object he is aiming at; it comes to his
hands, but the "how" is obscure to him; he willed to have
it, and nature gives it to him. This is also seen in Yog
in the man of Ahamkara, the sub-type of will in
cognition. Just as in the man of Ahamkara, Buddhi and
Manas are subordinate, so in the man of Buddhi, Ahamkara
and Manas are not absent, but are subordinate; and in the
man of Manas, Ahamkara and Buddhi are present, but play a
subsidiary part. Both the metaphysician and the scientist
must be supported by Ahamkara. That Self-determining
faculty, that deliberate setting of oneself to a chosen
end, that is necessary in all forms of Yog. Whether a
Yogi is going to follow the purely cognitional way of
Buddhi, or whether he is going to follow the more active
path of Manas, in both cases he needs the self-
determining will in order to sustain him in his arduous
task. You remember it is written in the Upanishad that
the weak man cannot reach the Self. Strength is wanted.
Determination is wanted. Perseverance is wanted. And you
must have, in every successful Yogi, that intense
determination which is the very essence of individuality.
Now what are these two great methods? One of them may be
described as seeking the Self by the Self; the other may
be described as seeking the Self by the Not-Self; and if
you will think of them in that fashion, I think you will
find the idea illuminative. Those who seek the Self by
the Self, seek him through the faculty of Buddhi; they
turn ever inwards, and turn away from the outer world.
Those who seek the Self by the Not-Self, seek him through
the active working Manas; they are outward-turned, and by
study of the Not-Self, they learn to realise the Self.
The one is the path of the metaphysician; the other is
the path of the scientist.
To the Self by the Self
Let us look at this a little more closely, with its
appropriate methods. The path on which the faculty of
Buddhi is used predominantly is, as just said, the path
of the metaphysician. It is the path of the philosopher.
He turns inwards, ever seeking to find the Self by diving
into the recesses of his own nature. Knowing that the
Self is within him, he tries to strip away vesture after
vesture, envelope after envelope, and by a process of
rejecting them he reaches the glory of the unveiled Self.
To begin this, he must give up concrete thinking and
dwell amidst abstractions. His method, then, must be
strenuous, long-sustained, patient meditation. Nothing
else will serve his end; strenuous, hard thinking, by
which he rises away from the concrete into the abstract
regions of the mind; strenuous, hard thinking, further
continued, by which he reaches from the abstract region
of the mind up to the region of Buddhi, where unity is
sensed; still by strenuous thinking, climbing yet
further, until Buddhi as it were opens out into Atma,
until the Self is seen in his splendour, with only a film
of atmic matter, the envelope of Atma in the manifested
fivefold world. It is along that difficult and strenuous
path that the Self must be found by way of the Self.
Such a man must utterly disregard the Not-Self. He must
shut his senses against the outside world. The world must
no longer be able to touch him. The senses must be closed
against all the vibrations that come from without, and he
must turn a deaf ear, a blind eye, to all the allurements
of matter, to all the diversity of objects, which make up
the universe of the Not-Self. Seclusion will help him,
until he is strong enough to close himself against the
outer stimuli or allurements. The contemplative orders in
the Roman Catholic Church offer a good environment for
this path. They put the outer world away, as far away as
possible. It is a snare, a temptation, a hindrance.
Always turning away from the world, the Yogi must fix his
thought, his attention, upon the Self. Hence for those
who walk along this road, what are called the Siddhis are
direct obstacles, and not helps. But that statement that
you find so often, that the Siddhis are things to be
avoided, is far more sweeping than some of our modern
Theosophists are apt to imagine. They declare that the
Siddhis are to be avoided, but forget that the Indian who
says this also avoids the use of the physical senses. He
closes physical eyes and ears as hindrances. But some
Theosophists urge avoidance of all use of the astral
senses and mental senses, but they do not object to the
free use of the physical senses, or dream that they are
hindrances. Why not? If the senses are obstacles in their
finer forms, they are also obstacles in their grosser
manifestations. To the man who would find the Self by the
Self, every sense is a hindrance and an obstacle, and
there is no logic, no reason, in denouncing the subtler
senses only, while forgetting the temptations of the
physical senses, impediments as much as the other. No
such division exists for the man who tries to understand
the universe in which he is. In the search for the Self
by the Self, all that is not Self is an obstacle. Your
eyes, your ears, everything that puts you into contact
with the outer world, is just as much an obstacle as the
subtler forms of the same senses which put you into touch
with the subtler worlds of matter, which you call astral
and mental. This exaggerated fear of the Siddhis is only
a passing reaction, not based on understanding but on
lack of understanding; and those who denounce the Siddhis
should rise to the logical position of the Hindu Yogi, or
of the Roman Catholic recluse, who denounces all the
senses, and all the objects of the senses, as obstacles
in the way. Many Theosophists here, and more in the West,
think that much is gained by acuteness of the physical
senses, and of the other faculties in the physical brain;
but the moment the senses are acute enough to be astral,
or the faculties begin to work in astral matter, they
treat them as objects of denunciation. That is not
rational. It is not logical. Obstacles, then, are all the
senses, whether you call them Siddhis or not, in the
search for the Self by turning away from the Not-Self.
It is necessary for the man who seeks the Self by the
Self to have the quality which is called "faith," in the
sense in which I defined it before -- the profound,
intense conviction, that nothing can shake, of the
reality of the Self within you. That is the one thing
that is worthy to be dignified by the name of faith.
Truly it is beyond reason, for not by reason may the Self
be known as real. Truly it is not based on argument, for
not by reasoning may the Self be discovered. It is the
witness of the Self within you to his own supreme
reality, and that unshakable conviction, which is
shraddha, is necessary for the treading of this path. It
is necessary, because without it the human mind would
fail, the human courage would be daunted, the human
perseverance would break, with the difficulties of the
seeking for the Self. Only that imperious conviction that
the Self is, only that can cheer the pilgrim in the
darkness that comes down upon him, in the void that he
must cross before -- the life of the lower being thrown
away -- the life of the higher is realised. This
imperious faith is to the Yogi on this path what
experience and knowledge are to the Yogi on the other.
To the Self Through the Not-self
Turn from him to the seeker for the Self through the Not-
Self. This is the way of the scientist, of the man who
uses the concrete, active Manas, in order scientifically
to understand the universe; he has to find the real among
the unreal, the eternal among the changing, the Self amid
the diversity of forms. How is he to do it? By a close
and rigorous study of every changing form in which the
Self has veiled himself. By studying the Not-Self around
him and in him, by understanding his own nature, by
analysing in order to understand, by studying nature in
others as well as in himself, by learning to know himself
and to gain knowledge of others; slowly, gradually, step
by step, plane after plane, he has to climb upwards,
rejecting one form of matter after another, finding not
in these the Self he seeks. As he learns to conquer the
physical plane, he uses the keenest senses in order to
understand, and finally to reject. He says: "This is not
my Self. This changing panorama, these obscurities, these
continual transformations, these are obviously the
antithesis of the eternity, the lucidity, the stability
of the Self. These cannot be my Self." And thus he
constantly rejects them. He climbs on to the astral plane
and, using there the finer astral senses, he studies the
astral world, only to find that that also is changing and
manifests not the changelessness of the Self. After the
astral world is conquered and rejected, he climbs on into
the mental plane, and there still studies the ever-
changing forms of that Manasic world, only once more to
reject them: "These are not the Self." Climbing still
higher, ever following the track of forms, he goes from
the mental to the Buddhic plane, where the Self begins to
show his radiance and beauty in manifested union. Thus by
studying diversity he reaches the conception of unity,
and is led into the understanding of the One. To him the
realisation of the Self comes through the study of the
Not-Self, by the separation of the Not-Self from the
Self. Thus he does by knowledge and experience what the
other does by pure thinking and by faith. In this path of
finding the Self through the Not-Self, the so-called
Siddhis are necessary. Just as you cannot study the
physical world without the physical senses, so you cannot
study the astral world without the astral senses, nor the
mental world without the mental senses. Therefore, calmly
choose your ends, and then think out your means, and you
will not 'be in any difficulty about the method you
should employ, the path you should tread.
Thus we see that there are two methods, and these must be
kept separate in your thought. Along the line of pure
thinking -- the metaphysical line -- you may reach the
Self. So also along the line of scientific observation
and experiment -- the physical line, in the widest sense
of the term physical -- you may reach the Self. Both are
ways of Yog. Both are included in the directions that you
may read in the Yog Sootras of Patanjali. Those
directions will cease to be self-contradictory, if you
will only separate in your thought the two methods.
Patanjali has given, in the later part of his Sootras,
some hints as to the way in which the Siddhis may be
developed. Thus you may find your way to the Supreme.
Yog and Morality
The next point that I would pause upon, and ask you to
realise, is the fact that Yog is a science of psychology.
I want further to point out to you that it is not a
science of ethic, though ethic is certainly the
foundation of it. Psychology and ethic are not the same.
The science of psychology is the result of the study of
mind. The science of ethic is the result of the study of
conduct, so as to bring about the harmonious relation of
one to another. Ethic is a science of life, and not an
investigation into the nature of mind and the methods by
which the powers of the mind may be developed and
evolved. I pause on this because of the confusion that
exists in many people as regards this point. If you
understand the scope of Yog aright, such a confusion
ought not to arise. The confused idea makes people think
that in Yog they ought to find necessarily what are
called precepts of morality, ethic. Though Patanjali
gives the universal precepts of morality and right
conduct in the first two angas of Yog, called yama and
niyama, yet they are subsidiary to the main topic, are
the foundation of it, as just said. No practice of Yog is
possible unless you possess the ordinary moral attributes
summed up in yama and niyama; that goes without saying.
But you should not expect to find moral precepts in a
scientific text book of psychology, like Yog. A man
studying the science of electricity is not shocked if he
does not find in it moral precepts; why then should one
studying Yog, as a science of psychology, expect to find
moral precepts in it? I do not say that morality is
unimportant for the Yogi. On the contrary, it is all-
important. It is absolutely necessary in the first stages
of Yog for everyone. But to a Yogi who has mastered
these, it is not necessary, if he wants to follow the
left-hand path. For you must remember that there is a Yog
of the left-hand path, as well as a Yog of the right-hand
path. Yog is there also followed, and though asceticism
is always found in the early stages, and sometimes in the
later, true morality is absent. The black magician is
often as rigid in his morality as any Brother of the
White Lodge.[FN#8: Terms while and black as used here
have no relation to race or colour.] Of the disciples of
the black and white magicians, the disciple of the black
magician is often the more ascetic. His object is not the
purification of life for the sake of humanity, but the
purification of the vehicle, that he may be better able
to acquire power. The difference between the white and
the black magician lies in the motive. You might have a
white magician, a follower of the right-hand path,
rejecting meat because the way of obtaining it is against
the law of compassion. The follower of the left-hand path
may also reject meat, but for the reason that be would
not be able to work so well with his vehicle if it were
full of the rajasic elements of meat. The difference is
in the motive. The outer action is the same. Both men may
be called moral, if judged by the outer action alone. The
motive marks the path, while the outer actions are often
identical.
It is a moral thing to abstain from meat, because thereby
you are lessening the infliction of suffering; it is not
a moral act to abstain from meat from the yogic
standpoint, but only a means to an end. Some of the
greatest yogis in Hindu literature were, and are, men
whom you would rightly call black magicians. But still
they are yogis. One of the greatest yogis of all was
Ravana, the anti-Christ, the Avatara of evil, who summed
up all the evil of the world in his own person in order
to oppose the Avatara of good. He was a great, a
marvellous yogi, and by Yog he gained his power. Ravana
was a typical yogi of the left-hand path, a great
destroyer, and he practiced Yog to obtain the power of
destruction, in order to force from the hands of the
Planetary Logos the boon that no man should be able to
kill him. You may say: "What a strange thing that a man
can force from God such a power." The laws of Nature are
the expression of Divinity, and if a man follows a law of
Nature, he reaps the result which that law inevitably
brings; the question whether he is good or bad to his
fellow men does not touch this matter at all. Whether
some other law is or is not obeyed, is entirely outside
the question. It is a matter of dry fact that the
scientific man may be moral or immoral, provided that his
immorality does not upset his eyesight or nervous system.
It is the same with Yog. Morality matters profoundly, but
it does not affect these particular things, and if you
think it does, you are always getting into bogs and
changing your moral standpoint, either lowering or making
it absurd. Try to understand; that is what the
Theosophist should do; and when you understand, you will
not fall into the blunders nor suffer the bewilderment
many do, when you expect laws belonging to one region of
the universe to bring about results in another. The
scientific man understands that. He knows that a
discovery in chemistry does not depend upon his morality,
and he would not think of doing an act of charity with a
view to finding out a new element. He will not fail in a
well-wrought experiment, however vicious his private life
may be. The things are in different regions, and he does
not confuse the laws of the two. As Ishvara is absolutely
just, the man who obeys a law reaps the fruit of that
law, whether his actions, in any other fields, are
beneficial to man or not. If you sow rice, you will reap
rice; if you sow weeds, you will reap weeds; rice for
rice, and weed for weed. The harvest is according to the
sowing. For this is a universe of law. By law we conquer,
by law we succeed. Where does morality come in, then?
When you are dealing with a magician of the right-hand
path, the servant of the White Lodge, there morality is
an all-important factor. Inasmuch as he is learning to be
a servant of humanity, he must observe the highest
morality, not merely the morality of the world, for the
white magician has to deal with helping on harmonious
relations between man and man. The white magician must be
patient. The black magician may quite well be harsh. The
white magician must be compassionate; compassion widens
out his nature, and he is trying to make his
consciousness include the whole of humanity. But not so
the black magician. He can afford to ignore compassion.
Continued in Part 4
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
|