Two Forces Working Through Nature
Two forces seem to be working throughout nature. One of these is
constantly differentiating, and the other is as constantly unifying; the one
making more and more for separate individuals, the other, as it were, bringing the
individuals into a mass, bringing out sameness in the midst of all this
differentiation. It seems that the action of these two forces enters into every
department of nature and of human life. On the physical plane, we always find
the two forces most distinctly at work, separating the individuals, making them
more and more distinct from other individuals, and again making them into
species and classes, and bringing out similarities of expressions, and form.
The same holds good as regards the social life of man. Since the time when
society began, these two forces have been at work, differentiating and
unifying. Their action appears in various forms, and is called by various
names, in different places, and at different times. But the essence is present
in all, one making for differentiation, and the other for sameness; the one
making for caste, and the other breaking it down; one making for classes and
privileges, and the other destroying them. The whole universe seems to be the
battle-ground of these two forces.
Sameness Is to Be Avoided
Absolute sameness of thought and feeling would produce mental
decay and degeneration. Sameness, therefore, is to be avoided. This has been
the argument on the one side, and it has been urged in every country and in
various times, with only a change of language. Practically it is the same
argument which is urged by the Brahmins of India, when they want to uphold the
divisions and castes, when they want to uphold the privileges of a certain
portion of the community, against everybody else. The destruction of caste,
they declare, would lead to destruction of society, and boldly they produce the
historical fact that theirs has been the longest-lived society.
On the other hand, the idea of oneness has had its advocates
throughout all times. From the days of the Upanishads, the Buddhas, and
Christs, and all other great preachers of religion, down to our present day, in
the new political aspirations, and in the claims of the oppressed and the
downtrodden, and of all those who find themselves bereft of privileges--comes
out the one assertion of this unity and sameness. But human nature asserts
itself. Those who have an advantage want to keep it, and if they find an
argument, however one sided and crude, they must cling to it. This applies to
both sides.
Unity Is the Only Thing that Exists
Applied to metaphysics, this question also assumes another form. The Buddhist
declares that we need not look for anything which brings unity in the midst of
these phenomena, we ought to be satisfied with this phenomenal world. This
variety is the essence of life, however miserable and weak it may seem to be;
we can have nothing more. The Vedantist declares that unity is the only thing
that exists; variety is but phenomenal, ephemeral and apparent. "Look not
to variety," says the Vedantist, "go back to unity." "Avoid
unity; it is a delusion," says the Buddhist, "go to variety."
The same differences of opinion in religion and metaphysics have come down to
our own day, for, in fact, the sum-total of the principles of knowledge is very
small. Metaphysics and metaphysical knowledge, religion and religious
knowledge, reached their culmination five thousand years ago, and we are merely
reiterating the same truths in different languages, only enriching them
sometimes by the accession of fresh illustrations.
Coming to ethics, we find a tremendous departure. It is, perhaps,
the only science which makes a bold departure from this fight. For ethics is
unity; its basis is love. It will not look at this variation. The one aim of
ethics is this unity, this sameness. The highest ethical codes that mankind has
discovered up to the present time know no variation; they have no time to stop
to look into it; their one end is to make for that sameness. The Indian mind, being
more analytical--I mean the Vedantic mind--found this unity as the result of
all its analyses, and wanted to base everything upon this one idea of unity.
But as we have seen, in the same country, there were other minds (the
Buddhistic) who could not find that unity anywhere. To them all truth was a
mass of variation, there was no connection between one thing and another.
Therefore, coming to our more particular purpose, which is
religion rather than ethics, a state of things, where all variation has died
down, giving place to a uniform, dead homogeneity, is impossible so long as
life lasts. Nor is it desirable. At the same time, there is the other side of
the fact, viz that this unity already exists. That is the peculiar claim--not
that this unity has to be made, but that it already exists, and that you could
not perceive the variety at all, without it. God is not to be made, but He
already exists. This has been the claim of all religions. Whenever one has
perceived the finite, he has also perceived the Infinite. Some laid stress on
the finite side, and declared that they perceived the finite without; others
laid stress on the Infinite side, and declared they perceived the Infinite
only. But we know that it is a logical necessity that we cannot perceive the
one without the other. So the claim is that this sameness, this unity, this
perfection--as we may call it--is not to be made, it is our interpretation of
Brahman or the Absolute, seen through the veil of maya or appearances. The
world is not zero; it has a certain reality; it only appears because Brahman
is.
We have only to recognize to understand it. Whether we know it or
not, whether we can express it in clear language or not, whether this
perception assumes the force and clearness of a sense perception or not, it is
there. For we are bound by the logical necessity of our minds to confess that
it is there, else, the perception of the finite would not be. I am not speaking
of the old theory of substance and qualities, but of oneness; that in the midst
of all this mass of phenomena, the very fact of the consciousness that you and
I are different brings to us, at the same moment, the consciousness that you
and I are not different. Knowledge would be impossible without that unity.
Without the idea of sameness there would be neither perception nor knowledge.
So both run side by side.
Therefore the absolute sameness of conditions, if that be the aim
of ethics, appears to be impossible. That all men should be the same, could
never be, however we might try. Men will be born differentiated; some will have
more power than others; some will have natural capacities, others not; some
will have perfect bodies, others not. We can never stop that. At the same time
ring in our ears the wonderful words of morality proclaimed by various
teachers: "Thus, seeing the same God equally present in all, the sage does
not injure Self by the Self, and thus reaches the highest goal. Even in this
life they have conquered relative existence whose minds are firmly fixed on
this sameness; for God is pure, and God is the same to all. Therefore such are
said to be living in God."
The Elimination of Privilege
But what can be attained is elimination of privilege. That is really the work
before the whole world. In all social lives, there has been that one fight in
every race and in every country. The difficulty is not that one body of men are
naturally more intelligent than another, but whether this body of men, because
they have the advantage of intelligence, should take away even physical enjoyment
from those who do not possess that advantage. The fight is to destroy that
privilege. That some will be stronger physically than others, and will thus
naturally be able to subdue or defeat the weak, is a self-evident fact, but
that because of this strength they should gather unto themselves all the
attainable happiness of this life, is not according to law, and the fight has
been against it. That some people, through natural aptitude, should be able to
accumulate more wealth than others, is natural: but that on account of this
power to acquire wealth they should tyrannise and ride roughshod over those who
cannot acquire so much wealth, is not a part of the law, and the fight has been
against that. The enjoyment of advantage over another is privilege, and
throughout ages, the aim of morality has been its destruction. This is the work
which tends towards sameness, towards unity, without destroying variety.
Let all these variations remain eternally; it is the very essence
of life. We shall all play in this way, eternally. You will be wealthy, and I
shall be poor; you will be strong, and I shall be weak; you will be learned and
I ignorant; you will be very spiritual, and I, less so. But what of that? Let
us remain so, but because you are physically or intellectually stronger, you
must not have more privilege than I, and that you have more wealth is no reason
why you should be considered greater than I, for that sameness is here, in
spite of the different conditions.
The work of ethics has been, and will be in the future, not the
destruction of variation and the establishment of sameness in the external
world--which is impossible for it would bring death and annihilation--but to
recognise the unity in spite of all these variations, to recognise the God
within, in spite of everything that frightens us, to recognise that infinite
strength as the property of everyone in spite of all apparent weakness, and to
recognise the eternal, infinite, essential purity of the soul in spite of
everything to the contrary that appears on the surface. This we have to
recognise. Taking one side alone, one half only of the position, is dangerous
and liable to lead to quarrels. We must take the whole thing as it is, stand on
it as our basis and work it out in every part of our lives, as individuals and
as unit members of society.