special Ishvara of his own particular worldsystem is the higher individuality-of which his own individuality is, in one respect, an integral part-the father of his material sheaths, and the high ideal of renunciation and selfsacrifice whom he is lovingly and devotedly to serve and closely to imitate, as far as may be within his own infinitesimal sphere.

Students who cannot yet quite clearly grasp the nature of the relation between the Self and the Not-Self in its purity and nakedness, cannot yet clearly distinguish the Pratyag-âtmâ from its veil of Mûla-prakṛiti, and yet more or less vaguely realise the universality of the Self, who are in short at the stage of the Vishishtâdvaita - such students worship the particular Ishvara of their world-system in a vaguely universalised aspect. Still other Jivas, at the stage of the Dvaita and of the theory of creation, worship only and wholly the individual ruler of their world-system, or a subordinate deity, regarding him as the final explanation of the universe.

The absolute Brahman includes all worship.

transcends and

CHAPTER X.

THE DVANDVAM-THE RELATIVE (continued).

(B) MULA-PRAKRITI OR MATTER THE 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 many names,

each significant of a special aspect, are: अनात्मा Anâtmâ, the Not-Self; f, achit, the nonconscious;, jaḍa, the non-intelligent or the inert ; नाना, náná, the many; ज्ञेय, jñeya, or विषय, vishaya, the object; 7, anṛita, the false; भेदमूल, bhedamûla, root of separateness; मूलप्रकृति, mûla-prakriti, root-nature; a, pradhâna, the chief, the root-base, of all the elements; mâtrâ, the measurer, the mother, matter; and , avyakta, the unmanifest. 1

This Not-Self is by the necessity of the

The word has, regrettably, dropped out of current use somehow; it deserves restoration, being the same as the wellknown English word matter. It is used in this sense in the Bhagavad-Gita: मात्रास्पशास्तु कौतेय शीतोष्णसुखदुःखदाः

ii. 14.

Negation of it by the Self, which is the very nature of the Absolute-the opposite of the 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 the Self. Because of this fact, as the essential characteristic of the Self is unity, the very essence of the NotSelf is manyness, separateness; and as the marks of the Self are universality and unlimitedness, so the marks of the Not-Self are limitedness, particularity, ever-specifiedness. As Fichte has said1: "All reality is in consciousness, and of this reality that part is to be ascribed to the NonEgo 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, as reported by Schwegler: "Whatever belongs to the Ego, the counterpart of that must, by virtue of simple contraposition, belong to the Non-Ego."

This characteristic opposition of the Self and the Not-Self should be carefully considered, together with other aspects of the nature of the Absolute. The solution of the various difficulties, alluded to before, from time to time hinges upon it.

1 The Science of Knowledge. P. 83 (Kroeger's English translation). 2 P. 246.

Because nothing particular can be said of the Ego, therefore everything particular, all possible particulars, must be assigned to the 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, of 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.

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 'bahishkaraṇa,' the 'outer,' or physical, senses, organs, instruments and means in repairs, &c., while on the mental plane it employs the 'antaḥ-karana,' the 'inner instrument.' As in the case of the individual and his house on the small scale, so, on the large scale, when Brahmâ 'falls asleep' and withdraws his

K