A POSITIVE CONCEPTION OF THE DIVINITY

EMANATING FROM A STUDY OF ALCHEMY

S. Mandihassan[1]

1. God, the ultimate source of existence. Perhaps no subject has been discussed explicitly and implicitly more than that of the existence of God. It will be realized that it is not His existence, but His nature, that requires proper elucidation. Now anything like a positive conception of the Divinity is conspicuous by its absence in the literature. On the contrary, the mystics, while compiling His attributes, consider it an achievement to be able to speak of Him best in negative terms. Thus they would say, as quoted by Adler (1) that, "loneliness is not-God, nor company is not-God." God then becomes the passive centre of innumerable opposite attributes, all of negative character. Such an attempt to describe God comes in the form of a riddle, as a piece of art, rather than as a clear exposition of a subtle conception. A little reflection would at once reveal our real approach to the problem. Human curiosity forces us to know our past, tracing it to its ultimate possible origin. What appears as a beginning, in turn depends upon another, and the final source seems ever receding. We finally end by arbitrarily assuming a terminus which becomes the fountain-head of all existence. The occupant of such a position becomes God, or rather, He identifies that position.

As children we have accepted a hypothetical pedigree which ends with Adam and Eve as two elements of the human race. They are elements since they cannot be pursused further; they remain two for neither can be eliminated. So far at least there is nothing irrational. But on questioning further into the past we are told that, Eve came from the rib of Adam, and Adam himself from a clod of earth. Such is an answer which the sages of old used to offer to inquisitive but simple folks incapable of appreciating anything abstract. The explanation, as it stands, is obviously not to be taken literally and requires due interpretation. The birth of Eve has been incorporated into that of Adam primarily to reduce two births to one. The fact was realized that man and woman are almost like mirror images of each other and could not have had independent origins. Above all there is a division of labour with the responsibility of reproducing their kind divided equally between the two. They become the parents, in fact the joint-creators of the human race, and, as such, between themselves, reciprocals. With the procreative power, as a whole, shared by man and woman equally, they become, complementary of each other, or in one word, opposites. The theory of the creation of Adam and Eve was thus formulated according to such implied specifications. An independent explanation confirms the justification of reducing the births of man and woman to a common origin. Brahadranyaka Upanishad (2), which is a very early Hindu scripture, maintains that, Brahma, the creator of the Universe, or of macrocosm, when about to create mankind, or microcosm, incarnated himself as Prajapati, and "became the form of a man and woman embracing each other and dividing his body into two. And (thus) husband and wife came into being." In the Biblical theory woman appears as the chip of a previous block, in the Hindu explanation a regular half of the same. In the former case the two follow each other, like progenitor and issue, in the latter their births synchronise making them twins, a brother and sister. Thus man and woman came from one ultimate source, let us say from a clod of dust. We are to see further how exactly man was created, including the origin of the dust itself, i.e. the origins of both, of micro-and of macrocosm.

2. Life as body and soul. Life is certainly a property of the body. The early man was much pressed to know what is life. Body was conceived as the container, with its content as the soul, which then became the more important of the two. Civilization started with man as a hunter. It was imperative for him to distinguish between the animals he killed as dead or alive. To realize this imortnce imagine the danger on approaching a wolf obviously wounded but not yet dead. Now most of his animals died from loss of blood which forced him to believe that, Life = body +blood, when Blood= soul. Thus blood gave the first conception of life-essence. Flesh as body, and blood as soul are notions also to be found in the Bible. The book of Genesis, 9:4, commands that, "flesh with life, or flesh with blood, you shall not eat," clearly implying that, Life=blood= soul. This is fully confirmed when the Bible further says, "the life of the flesh is in the blood" —Lev. 17: 11. It has been explained by Lady Drower (3; p. 9) that, "blood is a life-fluid ; in the Old Testament it is life (or soul) which belongs to God alone. This idea is not peculiar to Hebrew." Muslims observe Zabiah by which the animal is drained of all its blood, and the Hebrews do likewise. This rite is based on the assumption that the soul of an animal, on consuming its blood, would pass into man. On the same principle a cannibal never misses an opportunity of drinking the blood of a fallen hero for the soul of the brave would thereby be added to his own. Even "Israelites drank the blood of enemies, Num: XXIII-24", as quoted by Drower (3 ; p. 11). The conception of the soul kept on changing until observations appeared convincing that the last breath is the proper signal of life's exit, making Life=body+breath, with Breath =soul. Accordingly there exists a custom explained by Peggs (4), where relatives try to prevent death by actually putting mud into the mouth and nostrils of the dying, thereby hermetically sealing the body to retain its soul. Again there is also the custom according to which the dying, found in a hopeless condition, is made to breathe the last under an open sky. The departing soul would now have an easy access direct to heaven and would not linger any where under the roof of the house to disturb the surviving inmates. The soul, as breath, becomes a volatile and invisible constituent of the body like the essence of a flower. In fact such a conception of the soul is still current among some tribes of Africa. It also persists in the Persian term, Ruh-e-Gulab, meaning, spirit or soul-of-rose, for the essence-of-rose. Alchemy started by distilling such "souls" from herbs, which were looked upon as rich stores of life-essence. The distillates became soul-concentrates which could increase human life. This theory, as it will be presently seen, is Animism, and Yearly alchemy, with its distillates, became applied Animism.

3. The individual soul and the cosmic soul. In establishing the human constitution man constructed the equation : Life= body-}- soul. Turning to natural objects he also, wanted to know their make-up. With his limited powers of penetration he solved this problem by simply extending the human constitution to them all, making each a living thing, having a body and a soul. This theory, called Animism, looks even upon the universe as possessing life and soul which, in this case, is called the cosmic soul. Cosmic soul becomes the central treasury of souls from which spring the individual ones. However if we personify the cosmic soul it becomes God. God and the cosmic soul are not content and container, but identically the same, being only personified and non-personified conceptions of each other. The relationship between the cosmic soul and the universe, as two different entities, has long been a debated point. If the cosmic soul came first and the universe next the former becomes the creator of the other. It merely means that our designation, as the creator, is reserved for the one who was the first to exist. Such an ideal found in Islam could not escape the mind even of the early Indian thinkers. Thus Prof. Barua (5; p. 15) quotes, from a Hindu scripture that, "He must be the Brahma, Mahabrahma, the Lord of All and we must have been created by this Brahma. Why so? Because he was born first and we all came after Him." It must be admitted that our notion of the creator primarily serves to give us the remotest possible past, a stage beyond which nothing can transcend.

If existence be a chain its first link would represent pure existence, while the second and the rest, creation first and existence next. We can picture to ourselves an extinct volcano which has given rise to a certain landscape around it. Something similar would be the relationship between the creator and creation, if God is believed to have created the universe during six days and rested on the seventh and continues to remain so to this day. It can nevertheless imply that, as far as the material universe is concerned, His work was completed just as lead, once formed from radium, leaves the latter to continue to be active as before. By our very conception it becomes axiomatic, once a creator always a creator, when creation becomes an ever evolving activity. Thus Jung (6 ; p. 51, as a master of psychology, has correctly interpreted that, "continuous creation is to be thought of not only as a series of successive acts of creation, but also as the eternal presence of one creative act." The initial source is variously named, but automatically becomes the creator. Thus the cosmic scul is the first principle and as such the creative element, whereas the individual souls, coming next, represent creation proper.

4. Dualism, conceives soul as dual natured. Soul as something most volatile could ascend higher and higher resting somewhere in heaven, a vague term for its most distant seat. The collected souls would constitute the cosmic soul which would serve as the source from which individual souls can descend again. Thus a child would be born when such a soul enters a womb. There exists a tribe in Australia today which continues to believe in this archaic theory, denying sexual intercourse as having anything to do with human birth. However, in time, man did come to recognize the proper role of reproduction when birth depended upon two donors, a father and mother. The body then became a product of two principles, one representing masculinity, the other feminality. Human birth grants the simultaneous presence of two factors and neither can be omitted. We have seen before that, in studying the constitution of natural objects, man broad-casted his own and conceived everything endowed with a body and soul. When he now tried to establish the origin of everything around him, he again interpreted it in terms of his own birth : Everything comes into existence when two opposites, a male and female principle, unite. This theory, called Dualism, is merely an extention of Animism. An ideal illustration would be a magnet with its two poles ; when these come near enough magnetism is generated. Likewise everything is dual natured and as such a potential creator. The dual nature is specially recognized in entities known to have creative powers, soul above all. The male-soul is Ruh in Arabic, Spirit in English ; the female-soul, Nafs or Soul (Specific). The cosmic soul has its special designations; its male principle is Yang, in Chinese, meaning Light, and its female, Yin or Darkness. Ruh is the donor of life, longevity or life-span; it is the animating principle. Nafs imparts form, character and individuality; it is the glyptic or morphogenic principle. The zoologists recognize that each organ of the body, in its embryonic state, contains an "organizer", and an injury to such a centre produces a malformation in the adult with regard to that particular organ. Nafs would be such an "organizer" on which individuality depends. Given a poor Nafs the individual would be week or degenerate. In fact Nafs becomes the replica, first of the individual, and next of the body itself. As compared with Ruh, Nafs is distinctly a material principle. In Sanskrit the equivalent of Nafs is Atman, which means both, Soul and individual. The Arabic term for Soul is Nafs, also used for the individual. It is derived from the word Nafas, or Breath, which is something gaseous and material. Within limits Ruh and Nafs are sufficiently differentiated, as more subtle and more corporeal entities, serving as the opposites of each other, and capable of uniting to produce the soul as a whole. These two elements of life-essence are really abstractions from the two principles responsible for reproduction. In other words the two factors of microcosm were magnified to become those of macrocosm. One is strongly reminded here of what a French cynic has shrewdly remarked. Man first created God in human image, then God created man in Divine image. This is precisely what Dualism has done. It created Yang/ Yin in Heaven, as the counterpart of Man/Woman on earth, then Yang/Yin created everything, microcosm as also macrocosm. When faced with creation, as the unknown phenomenon, man interpreted it as sublimated reproduction. With reproduction as a realistic basis creation was easily appreciated and accounts for the popularity Dualism enjoyed all over the ancient world, from China to Egypt, India and Iran inclusive. Perhaps the earliest school of Indian philosophy is that of Samkhya, according to which creation depends upon Purusha and Prakriti, Spirit and Matter, just as the human pedigree does upon Adam and Eve.

5. Dualism interprets creation as sublimated reproduction. We must admit that the human mind cannot interpret something unknown, be it past or future, but in the light of what is known. Thus creation, as a problem, has been accepted as though it was a phenomenon in the past allied to reproduction of the present. As children we have been puzzled by the sudden addition of a brother or sister in the family. Such a birth really gave us our first problem of creation. The primitive man was no less impressed by human birth and we have seen, at least in Australia, he interpreted it as creation rather than as that reproduction. It has been explained in the previous paragraph that Dualism offered the first "rational" explanation by advancing the formula: Creation= Reproduction, interpreting something unknown in terms of known. That the human mind did accept it easily can be confirmed by anthropology.

All over the world the human organs of generation, both of the male and female, have been venerated as representing creative power. Likewise, incorporating reproductive power, male and female deities were looked upon as creators. There were cults where a pair of husband and wife become god and goddess to be worshipped jointly. In their abstract form, there further arose a "balance" form of worship, when a pair, as father-heaven and mother-earth, further simplified as Heaven-and-Earth were worshipped in lieu of the creator. This naturally occured in China where the doctrine of Yang-and-Yin is the philosophical substitute of male-and-female principles. With a different terminology, Yang/yin became Purusha/Prakriti, as Spirit/Matter, of the Samkhya system of Indian philosophy. Now the sex organs can be be by separates bodies for which the botanical term is dioceous. But both can persist in the same individual when their joint-carrier is called hermaphrodite in zoology. The hermaphrodite became an autonomous creative organism by virtue of incorporating the two opposites, or the joint-creators, within itself. To admit a constitution where the opposites are parts of one, rather than as separate two, is merely to disguise its dual -nature. Correspondingly Dualism, as a system of thought, has also been found        disguised, as brought to light by Dr. Anima, Gupta’s (7) masterly treaties on Samkhya philosophy. She writes (on p. 90) that, "both the (Holy) Gita and the classical Samkhya hold the union of Spirit and Matter (as opposites, to be) the cause of this life." Though Gita, "asserts the existence of one ultimate principle," nevertheless it speaks of two entities, "as parts of the Lord, (which) ma y reasonably be regarded as identical. As the father, He emits the seeds (or sperms), as the mother, He again receives them, (like a typical hermaphrodite), thereby bringing into existence various forms of beings. This metaphorical description of Prakriti, as the Yoni (or the female sex organ) of God may suggest the idea that Prakriti, as the female part co-exists with (the) Lord, its master (the hermaphrodite)." Now a word on metaphors. What is a symbol, or a mere picture today, was treated as reality in the past. Symbol-Worship was actual worship. Thus "the Yoni of God", indicates, true enough, a metaphor today, but in the past it was a sacred object in its own right. Every worship is born out of feeling of devotion or respect, and the generative organs were accepted as worthy of it for incorporating creative power, as the source of life. Now no language or text can be so helpful as a symbol in enabling us to visualize what was actually meant. We must therefore look to a source where symbols were designed on the basis that, creation is identical with reproduction.

6. Alchemy, based on Dualism, interprets creation as reproduction. Alchemy has been a practical science. Its experiments were designed with an objective which, in turn, was supported by some theory. The theory has been revealed in the form of allegorical pictures so that, to understand the alchemist's symbolism is to understand alchemy. Alchemy aimed at longevity, in fact at immortality. It required a continuous replacement of Ruh or the life-prolonging element. This was possible by taking herbs of immortality, such as Soma, Ambrosia and the, like. Next was to take herbs, not so rich in Ruh, but on distilling them would give distillates as Ruh-concentrates, Here again the distillates had to be consumed regularly. What was required was a single dose drug of immortality. Such a drug then must have a soul capable of growing by itself. Dualism now came to the help of the alchemist. Taking a herb it could donate a Ruh. Taking a metal, like copper, it could offer a Nafs. On calcining the two the resultant, herbo-metallic complex, would contain a Ruh and Nafs in perfect equality, and like a true hermaphrodite would become an autonomous living entity capable of growing for ever. Instead of a herb and a metal, sulphur and mercury could be taken, in fact any two substances where the elements of their souls could enter into proper union and become self-generative. Such a soul would continue to grow for ever. As its carrier the alchemical product could be taken internally as a drug. Its active principle would be a growing entity which would continue to do the same in every substance, including the human body. Thus the alchemical product, called Iksir or Elixir, was living substance in itself, and a conferrer of immortality on others. Much has been written on alchemy but it is never mentioned clearly that, Elixir was a living substance, a ferment, which, if seeded into mercury, would begin to grow until the substrate becomes an everlasting metal which is gold. If synthetic gold is now seeded into mercury the entire mass would also become gold. Synthetic gold was living gold and not the fossil-gold that we all know.

The doctrine supporting such a synthesis is union of two opposites, opposites representing joint-creators, like male-and-female. Such a phenomenon also occurs in nature in the form of spontaneous generation. It has been held as experimentally possible that on mixing cow-dung and curds scorpions are generated. The alchemist, by his art, tried to induce spontaneous generation, taking two "opposites" or substances as donors of male Ruh and female Nafs. In as much as spontaneous generation represents creation proper, the creation of life, above all, is what alchemy, properly speaking, tried to imitate. Alchemy is a fossil-science today, but it was very much alive in the age Dante lived. He could therefore discern that, the alchemist tried to imitate creation. Among modern interpreters of alchemy none has been more indefatigable than Jung (8; p. 308), who writes that, "for the alchemists the process of individuation (or synthesis) represented by the Opus (or the entire work) was an analogy of the creation of the world and the opus itself an analogy of God's work of creation." Jung was not able to appreciate the claim of imitating creation fully because he did not realize that alchemical gold was a living substance. The human mind could not imagine the origin of life further than the birth of man, and in as much as birth follows the law of "Union of opposites", to create meant to induce reproduction.

Now comes the question of how the alchemist tried to present his theory. Human life is traced to birth and birth to reproduction, and reproduction has been pin-pointed as coitus. Thus coitus is the earliest phase of reproduction and has been taken to symbolize the first stage of existencewhich means creation proper. All this is best visualized on equating : Reprodudtion=Coitus=Creation ; since life begins with a coitus, creation must have likewise started with two opposites in union with each other. In a classic on alchemy, Rosarium Philosopborum, Frankfurt, 1550, there is the picture of a nude couple in coitus, properly labelled as such, with a suitable text, to further remove all apologistic interpretations by the rationalists of today. The human pair could as well be conceived as Adam/Eve, for, by their "declaring open" reproduction proper, they have virtually become the creators of the human race, the point to be remembered thereby being that, neither of them were created in the way they themselves have created mankind. Copulation represents creation of microcosm. The same picture is supplemented by the incorporation of Sun/Moon, in lieu of Heaven/Earth, which are conceived as a pair of opposites, male/female, and by virtue of a transferred power of uniting with each other, have become the joint creators of macrocosm. It may again be emphasised that, Sun/Moon represent pure existence, and not creation, with the unknown origin of each, whereas the rest of macrocosm, real creation, having a recognized "parentage", ending with Heaven and Earth or Sun and Moon. Thus the four entities, man/woman, Heaven/Earth, as male/female pairs, have created micro and macrocosm, or the entire creation. The above symbol of coitus is reproduced by Jung (9 ; fig. 5 p. 248) and the interested reader can consult it. If the first important picture represents Union of opposites, conjunction, or coitus, the second important symbol represents the end product, the fused-opposites, the hermaphrodite. It is to be interpreted as Adam/Eve in one body. It is an autonomous entity, a creator who can generate a soul out of himself, or out of nothing (outside it). There is nothing more important in the alchemist's symbolism than a hermaphrodite, or a pair functioning as unity.

Moreover there are other psychological cases implying that man accepted reproduction for creation. Brahma is the creator proper of macrocosm but, as that of microcosm, he has incarnated himself as Prajapati, when he started creation by self-division, like an ovum reproducing itself into two cells. Creation of microcosm was initiated with a division, as two sexes, to be followed by actual reproduction. The creative force started as the reproductive force, which was revealed by the union of two opposites, a doctrine on which the entire art of alchemy is based. Equating Reproductive power =Creative Power, Prajapati, primarily incorporates the latter, and becomes creator proper, but secondarily, he has been identified as incorporating prolific breeding capacity. Now an organism commonly known to possess such a virtue is the butterfly, so that Prajapati, the creator of mankind, as the initiator of prolific reproductivity, was compared to a butterfly. According to a Bengali Dictionary the word for Butterfly is Prajapati, otherwise the creator of mankind. It may be further added that an invitation card to attend a marriage may be decorated at the top with the picture of Prajapati, either as Brahma, or as a butterfly, being his special emblem, both as perfect equivalents of each other. Either of them, representing reproductive-cum-creative force, serves as the augury of a long and fruitful marriage. In archaic times fish, with its countless eggs, and pomegranate with its numerous seeds, were objects presented to the dead as calculated to revive them. The theory behind such offerings was that a prolific breeder was also a donor of creative force, and the donation was nothing else than a quantum of soul which would resurrect the dead, resurrection, being renewed creation, was entirely dependent upon a life-giving principle. Briefly, to reproduce was to generate a soul and conversly, if life had to be created or to be revived, the required soul could be had via reproductivity.

7. Monism interprets creation as sublimated growth. According to Dualism, as Dr. Sen Gupta (7 ; p. 47) states, "two categories, Prakriti and Purusha, are (quite) sufficient for the purpose of giving full explanation of life and universe." It has been explained that, as far as microcosm is concerned, Adam and Eve are quite sufficient to account for human life. Nevertheless there is an urge on the part of man to give priority to one, and this forced him to assume that somehow Adam was born first. A little thought will convince us that if there be two, there can also be many, even to start with. Turning to births, although one birth is normal, even quintuplets have been recorded, which is the rule with some domestic animals. Moreover the earliest religion was Polytheism which made godhead composed of several deities, each in charge of a particular force in nature, and quite independent of the rest. Dualism replaced the many by two, but fell short of giving priority to one.

Now one way of understanding, what has been said, is to ask the supplementary question, who it was that said it? Applying this to our case the inquiry becomes, who founded Dualism? The philosopher of dualism belonged to that stage of civilization when life was pastoral. While breeding sheep and goats human observations were mainly directed to animal life, of which the reproductive phenomenon was by far the most prominent. Animals increased on account of their reproductive power and this power was realized as being dual-operated. Finally reproduction was sublimated to become creation as explained before. Later on pastoral life gave in to arboreal, and later still to agricultural life. The civilizations of China and India, clearly began as forest-cultures, which diverted human observation to plant life. The forester sees a leafless tree in winter and wonders if it is dead of alive. Only when it again bursts into foliage, with the advent of spring, that he can pronounce a judgment with retrospective effect. It was even more imperative for the farmer to know if his seeds were viable, for which again he had to grow them first and give a delayed verdict. Thus if pastoral life forced man to observe the reproductive phenomenon, arboreal and agricultural life directed his attention to growth. Then if previously, Reproduction=Creation, now Growth= Creation, by the identical process of sublimation, which means by abstraction and generalization. According to one theory reproduction was conceived as having been initiated by the creator himself, only in this case the creator is specially designated as Prajapati. Growth was likewise conceived as starting with the creator himself, who is now called Brahma. Reproductivity pushed back to its earliest stage became creation, and Growth dated as early as man could conceive existence also became creation. The Growth is growth when speaking of it today, but growth is creation in speaking of the same when existence took its start. This sums up the genesis of Monism, and explains how Monism arose as an idea. Whereas there is no reproduction without two, and then as opposites, growth is entirely dependent upon one entity. Thus growth sublimated remained a Unit principle and became the source of monism. With "one" priority no longer appeared as a problem.

8. Brahman as Growth-soul. Enough has been said to show that our current conception of soul makes it dual-natured. In the light of its origin it can be called the male-female-soul or a hermaphrodite-soul, when it becomes an autonomous reproductive-cum-creative force. This idea of soul started with reproductivity as the force supporting animal life. Observations on vegetable life made growth as the force behind it and gave rise to the conception of growth-soul. Reproduction depends upon two entities, but growth only on one. Thus from the first arose Dualism, and from the later Monism. But growth and reproductivity merge into each other so that they are not the properties of two separate individuals, as is the case with the two sexes. This forces us to see that the reproductive force is incorporated in the power of growth much as manhood becomes a stage of the same individual who was in his childhood before. Briefly growth-soul and reproduction-soul must be identical. And we can always fall back upon the reality that, growth and reproduction are inseparable and characterize every living individual and species.

Now the philosophers, who have thought most about souls, were the asetics both of China and India. Those of India have a regular list of souls, at least five, to account for maintaining human life. There is a soul residing in the heart, goading it to pump unintermittently ; a second to account for the peristaltic movement of the intestines, and so forth. Then there are two more, Brahman and Atman, the former as Ruh, the latter as Nafs. These are the creative souls, as opposed to maintenance souls, Brahman for the origin of Macrocosm, Atman for that of man or Microcosm. The point is to characterize Brahman as the Growth-soul, which must precede the other, or Atman, which would then have to be the soul-Reproductive to appear later on. Turning to Brahman first, as a word, analysed etymologically, it must serve as the container of its proper content. Moreover the most important word in this entire treatise is the Creator, which is rendered into Sanskrit, being the nominative singular of Brahman, which is the real word. Yamunacharya (10) believes that, "the term Brahman is derived from Brithbig, or great, and so means, that which possesses, greatness, of the essential nature as well as qualities of unlimited fulness : and as such is the Lord of all." The creator, then, was named when nature was already in full bloom. The observer, who coined the word Brahman, saw nature, somewhere up north, in full summer or at the beginning of autumn, but not in early spring, when plant life seems to burst forth as though forced by some dynamite. This growth is not only the earliest to reveal itself, but also by far the most dynamic phenomenon, and did contribute to coin the right name for the creator, as Brahman. No less an authority than Radhakrishnan (11 ; p. 39), after a brief discussion, derives the word, Brahman, "from the root Brh (Brih) to grow ; it is which grows." It is growth incorporate! The late Prof. Hiriyanna, of Mysore, has done the same. Bhide's Dictionary (12), is not an etymoligical one, but gives "Brih as meaning, to grow, to increases." Then as soul, Brahman becomes Growth-soul, the soul "which grows." If Prajapati, as creator, incorporates soul-reproductive and accounts for the creation of microcosm, Brahma, as the primary creator, incorporates growth-soul, and accounts for the creation of macrocosm. As pastoral life gave in to arboreal one, the dwellers of northern regions must have realized how forest-life depended upon sunshine. Thus arose, early in the history of religion, a change from moon-worship of the pastoral people to Sun-and-moon worship, and finally to a predominantly sun-worship during arboreal culture. Much has been written on this change and needs only a word of reminder. What is to be noted is that Heaven-and-Earth worship, or Sun-and-Moon worship, strikes as something well-balanced, and as such justifiable ; yet it had to give in to support sun-worship. With sun, as the chief object of worship, religion shifted from dualism to monism. In support of the etymology of Brahma, as growth-incorporate, we find Chesterton (13), the famous English writer, observing that, "the test of a sun is that it can make something grow." No better confirmation of the etymology of the word Brahman can be offered. Sun is to be accepted as the creator, because sun primarily makes something grow, which is a rational form of saying that, the sun as creator is growth-force. When Prajapati makes mankind and animal life grow through reproduction, Sun, as Brahma, makes everything increase through growth, and we accordingly find two creators in Hinduism, Prajapati and Brahma, because of the division man abritrarily made in creation, as microcosm and macrocosm. These creations are not two but one, and likewise their creators, Prajapati and Brahma, are not two but one. And this because reproduction and growth together represent life as one.

9. Atman and Nafs, each meaning both Soul and self. Our discussions have brought us to the conclusion that a correspondence exists among the three pairs of terms mentioned below, as also among the respective terms themselves ; they are:

Growth/Reproduction

Macro/Microcosm

Brahman/Atman.

Life is a continuous process showing two main phases, with one gradually evolving out of the other, being growth and reproduction. Naturally the former strikes the earlier of the two. Likewise Macrocosm must have been there to offer "dust" from which man formed. If Brahman is the cosmic soul, or the whole, it can give rise to Atman as its emanation or a part. Such a priority is easy to assign because the separation between the entities is purely arbitrary. For example Growth and Reproduction represent a continuous phenomenon, there being no separate growth and no separate reproduction. The most important of the three pairs is Brahman/Atman, the cosmic and the idividual soul. If Brahman is growth-soul, Atman must be soul-reproductive.

We must begin with the anaylsis of Atman for that of Brahman has already been undertaken. Atman comes from three roots : "An, to breathe +At, to move +Va, to blow". They were fused together and modified to yield Atman, as given by Monier-Williams (24). Then An suggests, to breathe is to live ; and we have seen that originally Breath was soul as a whole. At, implies, to feel the breath moving is to live. The dead does not move ; but the earliest sign of death is when breath ceases to move. "To move" refers to the invisible, but nevertheless the more important principle, breath or soul, and not to its visible carrier, the body. Va, is the most important component ; "to blow" a puff of breath, is to donate a quantum of creative energy. To breathe is to donate a quantum of creative energy. To breathe is to live, to blow is to enliven ; the latter is the cause, the former its effect ; soul as donated, and soul as accepted. Puff of breath is soul itself. The three roots are all verbs whereas their compound is a noun. For a better appreciation the roots may be converted into their respective substantives as follows : Breath (An)+Moving Breath (At)+Puff of Breath (Va). The order is as given in Monier-Williams. Rearranging them we get, At +Va+An. Now the syllable, Va, can mutate into Ba, and Ba into Ma, when we will get At+Ma+ An, and this can coalesce into Atman. According to its roots Atman means, agile (At), blown (Va), breath (An), which becomes Soul. Breath by its nature is something very mobile, but according to its origin it is something blown into the body. This requires an explanation.

The nearest approach to creation is resurrection as already explained. Even the Muslim tradition accepts Lord Jesus Christ having brought the dead to life, not to talk of his healing the sick. There are similar legends elsewhere claiming identical miracles. The question that interests us here is to know : how did Jesus revive the dead. It is popularly accepted that he would blow a puff of breath for the purpose. Thus the puff functioned as creative command, a regular substitute on earth for the word of God from Heaven. Nothing then can rival "Puff" in its importance. The Urdu word for Puff is Phoonk. Its proper use, with reference to Jesus himself, is found in a quotation reproduced in the standard Urdu Dictionary, Noorul-Logath (15). To blow a Puff of Breath is the regular accompaniment of a curative prayer as also of benign magic. The subject is well known throughout the East which looks upon such a Puff as the donor of creative force, a large quantum of it reviving dead and a lesser one restoring the sick to health. It is obvious that, "breath blow" is a life-donating principle. Soul, as "Phoonk", would then identifly itself with spirit, a problem to be discussed in the next paragraph. But before that we have to explain the secondary meaning of Atman as individual or self.

The Arabic word, Nafs, connotes Soul first and self next, thus being identical with Atman. Moreover Nafs comes from Nafas, also meaning Breath. Thus for some intrinsic reason Breath means both Soul and self. In English they can speak of some individuals as, "so many souls"; and of a pitiable individual as, a "poor soul". What is the psychology supporting the use of the word Soul for the individual? The first sign expected in a living body is the movement of his breath, which identifies breath with human life. Now when we came to distinguish the living from the dead, as on a battle field, we would count the survivors as so many living souls, all found breathing, and carry them individually, separating each from the dead left to constitute a heap of corpses. Then each "breathing-unit" becomes an individual, or more elaborately express, a living-individual. Likewise a man who feels that he is still breathing can count himself among the living, and when others look upon him as a living "individual" he looks upon himself as the living "self". Life, like light, separates one breathing-unit from another, while death, like darkness, turns all entities into an unrecognizable mass. The meaning would be apparent on realizing that Breath = Life = Self (as life bearer). Here Soul=self, because the content can represent the container. The more important is Soul, hence soul is used as the term to signify self, and not vice versa.

10. Soul versus spirit. The best way of understanding Soul is to contrast it with spirit. This has been done before but needs proper comparison. Ruh, Brahman, or Spirit, is the pure life-donating principle; it has been identified as growth-soul, supported by the etymology of Brahman. Brahman is growth-soul in its nascent form, or in its activated condition. The chemist recognizes, for example, active hydrogen existing in such a dynamic state that it is indissoluble into molecules. We can maintain that active hydrogen remains a unit entity because of its energized form, while ordinary hydrogen, with lesser energy content, can give rise to molecules. The change, energy into matter, can be illustrated most conveniently by considering hydrogen in its two states, "active" and, what may be called, "passive". Active hydrogen is indivisible into molecules which easily distinguishes it from ordinary hydrogen. Fortunately today we know that energy can change into matter and vice versa, and also that one form of energy can change into another. Taking the case of active, and of ordinary, hydrogen, spirit and Soul would be active and passive forms of each other, one the energized, and other the "materialized" form of the same. On the difference between matter and energy, Oswald, as a physicist, has pronounced that, what we know is matter and what we think is energy. Likewise what we know is Soul and what we think is spirit. Whereas Soul has been used, for self and for the individual, while the word, Atman, even for the body, spirit, according to its clasical conception, signifies only energy-incorporate. This can be confirmed, among others, by what Anatole France (16) speaks of some fabulous beings: "They showed the most inconceivable agility that made them seem more like spirit, than human beings." Then Brahman, as growth-soul, would be spirit or something bearing the highest voltage conceivable. With so much energy it would be all speed, in fact the fastest thing imaginable, when it would automatically be omnipresent. If a thing is moving fast enough it should challenge space and thus be everywhere. The fastest thing known to man is light and, creative energy or growth-soul, as the fastest conceivable entity, has thus been compared to light. On this basis the Sufis have tried to understand the creator as light-incorporate; moreover the popular mind identifies life again with the same. In fact to light a lamp on a graze is to resurrect the dead, light, being a source of growth soul.

It is interesting to see how man came to personify God with pure energy. He tried to compile different attributes and derive one factor from them all. It would not be the highest common factor, but the most forceful one, in short the creative element, the first starter of everything. By a sort of mental distillation most qualities were left behind as dregs, and a few selected for further rectification until the most volatile, thus the most energizing factor, was approved as the essence of them all. It became the spirit, a term the chemist still uses for something highly volatile. Being volatile it easily gets distributed all over and becomes universal, which is but a synonym for the attribute, omnipresent, already established. Then we can form the series of equivalents: Spirit = Ruh =Brahman =Elementof Universality-cum-Eternity. On the contrary the series with Soul would be : Soul=Nafs Atman Element of Individuality. Seeing from another angle, spirit makes life, while Soul makes species. One represents growth-force, integrating all resources into unity, the other force-reproductive, dis-intergrating one into many, evolving more and more forms. We can derive other parallel differences all traceable to one principle, energy and its gradations, to the activated and non-activated forms of one entity. From another standpoint what has been said above is to interpret creation, equating:

Creation=Reproduction (as in Dualism), and

Creation =Growth (as in Monism).

In the latter case growth-soul became a mono-elemental entity, all energy, and as such unity ; in the former, soul-reproductive, dual-natured, a fact that still presses for clarification.

11. Atman as dual-natured Soul-reproductive. Oscar Wilde has made a very pregnant statement : No question is silly but an answer can be. A question, apparently naive, would be, why should there be only two sexes, and not more, and that reproduction should mean union of two opposites, and creation the resultant of union between Yang and Yin, or Purusha and Prakriti. Going deeper into the phenomenon we want to explain the origin of polarity, which transcends the phenomenon of sexual reproduction. What biology has done is to treat the problem of sex-determination merely as one of inheritance, and not of sex origin. Just as biology begins starting with a living form, by-passing the origin of life itself, the phenomenon of reproduction is explained assuming, cellular forms of the two sexes as the starting point. The genesis of sex, or of the spontaneous origin of male or female primordial cells is not touched. The theory is cellular and not biochemical, a theory that explains continuation but not creation. Moreover there are cases of sex reversal. But they occur in organisms which are cases of potential hermaphrodites, and the so-called sex reversal is merely a change of emphasis in favour of the altered sex; there were two in disguise already to begin with. There are however dioceous plants like the male and femal date palms. We want to know not only that, each has a sex hormone of its own, but also their biogenesis, or when these two hormones first came into existence.

Plants do not continue to grow for ever. When metabolites accumulate they induce the organism to reproduce. Advent of summer, or artificially scorching the plants, can expedite reproduction. In such cases it will be seen that the life process most vitally disturbed is respiration. With a definite store of metabolities respiration induces the plant to produce flowers and then fruits. And now respiration means biological oxidation and there is no oxidation without reduction. This simply signifies that oxidation represents the initial causal agency. Now Respiration=Oxidation+Reduction. It is to be clearly understood that these terms refer to a single entity, for there is no oxidation without reduction, just as there is no reproduction without growth. Let us refer to a case which will help us to visualize what is meant above. The Japanese plant physiologist, Nagai, working on a lower form of plant life, found that a branch, after growing for some time, produced male reproductive organs on its upper portion, while females on the basal stem. Obviously there was a nutrition gradient, and likewise an oxidation-reduction gradient, finally inducing the biogenesis of sex-determining principles on a bipolar basis. There could not be imagined a third pole, hence the reaction becomes bipolar, one the opposite of the other, with its oxidation and reduction, leaving no third theoretical possibility. Thus the sexes had to be two, and the soul responsiblefor reproduction as dual-natured.

12.      Importance of identifying Brahman with Atman. When growth and reproduction are but two phases, it should be possible to interpret reproduction as an extension of growth, much like old age in terms of elements found in youth, but later changing for the worse. No such study has been properly undertaken. The physicists are far ahead in attacking the problem, how one form of energy mutates into another, and how matter can change into energy and vice versa. Such a pair of equivalents is Brahman and Atman, which have to be properly conceived as one. Let us first realize the importance already attached to such a problem. I can count at least three authorities who have done so, and surely there must be many more. Deussen (17) in 1908, writes that, "the thoughts of Upanishads move round two fundamental ideas. These are the Brahman and the Atman. As a rule these terms are employed synonmously, Brahman is the first principle (as Growth-soul) in the Universe, Atman is the inner self of man (the individual Soul). Brahman is the cosmic principle of the Universe (or the cosmic soul), Atman as the psychological (or individualizing)." What is to be actually contrasted is the cosmic principle with its opposite, the individualizing principle, and it has been explained that one represents Universality, the other Individuality, an atom so to say, of the other. Prof. Barua (5 ; p. 28) also expresses, the two as the same being an all important problem. But most eloquently worded, as short and sweet, is the observation of Hiriyanna (18) that, "these two terms, Brahman and Atman, have been described as the two pillars, on which rests nearly the whole edifice of Indian philosophy." Now an almost identical remark on Chinese philosophy originates from de Groot (19) stating that, "the union of Kwei (Atman) with Shen (Brahman) is the highest among all tenets, (as also) the whole fundamental theory about the human soul (in a nutshell)." Atman then is not a mere molecule of Brahman, because Brahman is out and out energy, and cannot part with any quantum which does not change qualitatively at the same time. Brahman remains creative energy and Atman a mere creation, a relatively materialized form with far less energy content. Thus Brahman and Atman are not merely whole and its part, but more like Growth-energy which has developed into Reproductive-force. Their difference and identity are both obvious by such an interpretation.

13.      Monism faces the problem of Nothing. When Dualism equated, Creation=Reproduction, the former as unkown, the latter as known, union of two principles, as opposites neceesary for reproduction, went to explain creation. But the origin of both, of Yang and Yin, remained unknown, like that of Adam and Eve. We have seen that even science has not explained the origin of sexes and how they happen to be only two. Now when Monism equated Creation =Growth, the creative principle became one, but its origin again remained unknown. But what is one is actually unknowable so the fault is intrinsic. To the precise question, how did the creator come to exist before he could order creation, there can be no answer, for what is reduced to one becomes unknowable. However, to the further question, from what did the creator create the universe, there has been the blunt reply, "out of nothing". This can be expanded to signify, "out of nothing other than the creator himself." Now both these answers have been offered in the past, as reproduced in Prof. Barua's (5 ; p. 16) illuminating article, where we read that, "Both the self and the world (micro and macrocosm) come into existence fortuitously and not as a result of any causal progress. The logical axiom of the doctrine is (that), "without having been, it comes to b; something out of nothing," when that something can be either creator or creation, preferably the creator, as personifying pure energy. He continues to say that, "the axiom, that something comes out of nothing, is repudiated in the Chanadogya Upanishad. On the other hand, the (same) axiom is upheld and explained in the Taittiriya Upanishad (vii, 8, 2). The axiom, as explained in the Taittiriay Upanishad (however) signifies that, all forms proceeded from the formless. (And that) Brahman at the beginning was non-existent, i.e. formless, but full of existence." The statement is better appreciated on assuming that the source of creation was pure energy, which, as energy, can not be conceived divided and remains as one entity. When energy changes into matter, forms arise, which become two and more, and these become knowable. To recall Oswald, what we know is matter but what we think is energy. Thus we have not only to imgine something as energy, then to accept the same as one ; but also recognize matter as intrinsically associated with forms, and these as many and easily know-able. The change from energy to matter means, from one to many, as also from unknownable to knowable ; and since matter can also change into energy, material forms reduced to one, again become unknowable. This is because any thing reduced to one becomes unknowable. Then to explain how creator and creation came into existence is to explain how energy did not persist as energy, but also gave rise to matter, naturally with its forms. The primitive thinker, however, solved the problem to his satisfaction. The creator, as one, can be easily granted and the fact that he remains unknowable also ignored. Man's attention was focussed on creation, a phenomenon which incorporated his own origin. The final answer was that God created the creation out of Nothing. If we return to energy and matter and realize that matter, with its many forms has been evolved out of energy, as one, this becomes the model for saying that, God, as one, created the universe as many out of Himself. But how did energy come to exist? What was there before energy ? The only reply would be, there was Nothing before.

14. The significance of Nothing. If a problem is potentially nothing it represents mere verbosity and demands no attention. To deserve an answer the inquirer must contribute his own share of information. Perhaps no one is prepared to entertain an inquiry with so little data as an astrologer. But even he has his specific, though minimum, requirements. There is a similar system of mysticism, called Ilm-e-Jafer, which maintains that, every question carries its own answer in disguise. The question has to be reset according to its system, when, on being processed properly, it becomes capable of delivering an answer. We are all aware that in logic, as also in mathematics, three terms or factors must be offered when the fourth emerges as the reply, to increase our knowledge by only 25 per cent. Thus if the question is really barren or contains insufficient potentialities no answer can be forthcoming. Turning now to the term, Nothing, it is not always a symbol of absolute nothing. On the contrary we usually employ it in some implied sense. For instance, when engaged in some work and being asked what we are about, the reply may be, "nothing", for nothing important, certainly nothing of interest to the inquirer. In this light we can confirm the interpretation of the statement, God created the universe out of nothing, as actually signifying, God created the universe only out' of Himself. These two statements would be the negative and positive forms of each other. One way of showing the importance of Nothing, as a concept, is to reveal it in some of its phases.

In painting, for example, a dark background reveals nothing. Yet the same, in a picture, if it particularly depicts a portrait, focusses our attention on the figure, because of its dark background. Likewise strong shadows, incorporating Nothing, impart relief to the objects bearing them. We can now take the case of zero in mathematics, being the ideal symbol of nothing. In higher mathematics it always carries some value. But we can also imagine the simple case, of a circular railway, 100 miles long, with two opposite stations, A and B, 50 miles apart. If B is to be marked as 50 miles, then A has to be indicated as zero. We can at once see that B and A, or rather their markings 50 and 0, have to be taken together ; 50 is something positive only if it can be contrasted with nothing, or 0. These indications refer to space. The corresponding figures in terms of time would be A, as 0 hour, and B as 1 hr., if the train runs at 50 miles an hour. What zero hour actually signifies is that the train was at rest, when zero refers to "nothing" of movement. The conception of zero, with another as a positive number, reveals two items partaking in the phenomenon of relativity.

A classical illustration has been that of two trains, moving at the same speed, giving the impression of both being at rest.

But should a passenger look out of the window, with the objects in the landscape actually at zero speed or at rest, the speed with which they would appear to be flying backwards would indicate the forward movement of the train itself. With two trains at the same speed the illusion was that of rest, but when one of them could be ascribed "zero" speed, the movement of the other train would be at once apparent.

Coming to physics, "nothing" can be easily equated with vacuum. Experiments in this direction have given us the definite idea of absolute zero temperature. As a consequence the value of the lowest temperature experimentally achieved depends upon its approach to this "nothing" of temperature. The zero temperature sets the standard of comparison among the actual findings recorded. Another explanation of vacuum ingeniously brings out the notion of nothing which characterizes it. Mr. Dunn (20), as a school teacher, asked a young pupil what he knew of vacuum. To this question the poignant reply maintained that, "a vacuum tube contains nothing. All its parts are outside itself." We may now imagine the contents of a vacuum tube inside out, when the resultant would have all the contents within and nothing outside. Such would be existence enveloped by nothing. And if existence be equated as one, it can only have nothing or zero, to cotrast. And without zero we cannot be sure of one, for one is that which occupies its position only next to zero, and correspondingly existence is that which is bounded everywhere by "nothing". The conception of zero, or of nothing, is an assumption for us to understand one or unity, for without some kind of relativity knowledge is impossible. Personifying Existence we have God who becomes all-in-all, leaving Nothing outside Him.

Perhaps the most graphic means of visualizing the interdependence of the ultimate concepts of Nothing and of Creation, is by means of geometry. No wonder that Plato (21 ; p. 212), found a training in geometry almost essential for understanding philosophy and had it inscribed on his academy, "let no one, who is unaquainted with geometry, enter here." We can represent existence as a straight line, with both ends open, symbolizing an unknown past, and an unknown future. We shall now proceed to mark, from left to right, at regular intervals, 0, 1, 2 and 3 ; and then from right to left, n, n-1, and n-2, as shown in Fig. 1.

.   .         .         .         .         .                           

Fig. 1

What we do observe in nature is infinity of forms which can be represented by "n", for infinity. Taking out one by one, and going through n-1, and n-2, our imagination helps us to reach when only 3 items are left, indicated on the left end of the line, fig. 1. From this 3, we can take away one, when we have only 2. With two entities we are at the boundary of what is knowable, and on further substraction we are left with one, which is out of bounds of the knowable. But since we are positive that there were two before, the resultant "one" must necessarily exist, only we cannot now recognize it. When we are sure that the next stage takes us to nothing, the one, just before this last, means existence. One and zero constitute two entities as a pair, closest to each other. Reverting to our main problem we can maintain identical to be the position with regard to Existence and Nothing. Existence is to be expressed as bounded by nothing, a sphere beyond which there is nothing. Correspondingly the creator, assumed to have been the only one from the remotest past, necessarily becomes unknowable, yet allowing no room for scepticism on the reality of his existence. We must realize that any absolute unity becomes unknowable in the absence of any other, here creator without creation. This is another way of stating that knowledge is relative and we know something only when there are at least two entities together.

The real explanation here requires our showing how Existence, as Unity, becomes conceivable on introducing the simultaneous notion of Nothing. Let us recall a ball being thrown with some force on the, ground. It would rebound reaching a level higher than that from where it was thrown. The floor really serves as the reflector of the force with which the ball was thrown. If the floor be indicated as zero the height to which the ball reached would be something impressive. But what we have really to appreciate is that the difference, between zero height and the positive height, is the indication of the force with which the ball was thrown, and apart from it the height to which the ball has attained is nothing. Likewise a voice directed towards a wall returns as an impressive echo, with the wall itself partaking as nothing. When we see our face in the mirror surely the mirror is like a zero in an equation which helps to represent the phenomenon of self-realization. In this light we can assert that Existence becomes a positive conception only when reflected back by the negative conception of Nothing. It struck me that, Maya, would be the right word to express Nothing and contrast it with Existence. It is popularly accepted that Maya =Nothing. Then if knowledge demands relativity, and if Existence is reduced to absolute unity, a second entity has to be introduced, when the two become Existence and Maya, or Existence and Nothing.

15. The conception of Nothing and its association with Relativity of knowledge. We have seen that two entities is the minimum requirement for knowledge and that unity is out of bounds of the knowable world. In such a case Nothing is a hypothetical entity merely to enable Relativity to remain in force. We find such a pair of contrast between Existence and Nothing, in the device of commercial artists who introduce patches of strong light and shade, or of white and black, to make compositions attractive and thus easily appreciable. Having realized Existence/Nothing to be a pair of concepts dependent upon relativity, curiosity pointed me to the philosophy of Shankaracharya which is admitted to be Ultra-Monism. He, more than any other thinker, any time and any where, has laid the greatest emphasis on the negative aspect of reality, or on the extreme source of existence which takes us to the conception of unreality, in fact to that of Nothing, which is being discussed here. To give this "Nothing" its proper name, Maya would be the right term. It is obvious that Maya was to contrast Existence as zero to one, in order to make Existence knowable, since it is one, and therefore unknowable. The introduction of the conception of Maya was thus the outcome of realizing the importance of relativity. It became essential to know if Shankara, practically the "inventor" of the term, Maya, also dealt with Relativity. In a small brochure devoted to his philosophy, Pandit S. Tattvabhushan (22) offers (on p. 112) a regular chapter entitled, "Relativity of the World to knowledge." There we read that, "the ordinary unreflective reader has no suspicion of this relativity. To him the world exists whether any one knows it or not ...(and further, on p. 14 that) in knowing the world we know two distinct entities, the self as the subject of knowledge, and nature as the object." And for that reason Sankara believed, as quoted on p. 110, that, "I know myself in knowing anything else." And likewise Descartes, trying to prove his own existence pronounced : "I think therefore I am." A proper commentary is also offered by Jung (29 ; p. 94) according to whom, "as far as we know, consciousness is always ego-consciousness. In order to be conscious of myself, I must be able to differentiate myself from others. Relationship (Relativity) can only take place where this differentiation exists," implying two entities. The point to realize here is that, there must be another entity besides self to know oneself and thus existence. Shankara accepted "anything" as the second entity, irrespective of its nature or origin, Descartes his thoughts, or his own creation.In the same line of thinking we can say that, God knows himself only through his own creation, or rather it is impossible for others to conceive of God minus His creation. In fact we define God as the creator and the definition persists in the statement, God knows Himself through his creation. Existence, traced to its origin, becomes Creation, and creation personified becomes creator, and Creator, all alone, or as Unity, creates existence out of Himself, which is maintaining the same as, His creating all out of Nothing. This is a pure theoretical statement. We can visualize it better on believing that, Energy existed as a formless entity and later developed into material units like molecutes with forms. To create matter is to create forms, while to return matter to energy is to dissolve forms and face unity. Thus existence started with energy which becomes one solitary entity, with Nothing beyond it. The notion of Nothing imparts a film-like boundary to our conception of Existence which can not be conceived in the absence of relativity. We would realize that there is no knowledge without relativity, or as two, e.g. Energy/Matter, Creator/Creation, Form/Function, Existence/Nothing, or Reality/Maya. In the series Maya or Nothing, presumably identical, signifies the pure negative of Existence as unity.

16. A symbol of the Source of Existence, incorporating Nothing. A statement read or heard still leaves many items out for the description to remain incomplete. When the details are given in a visual form, as in a symbol, the artist must unequivocally express what he wishes to convey. If creation has been believed as starting from nothing, both creation or Existence, and Nothing, as an item, have to be revealed in the symbol as a design. Now it has been explained that the only people who tried to imitate creation were the alchemists. They aimed at generating life de novo, in fact an ever growing quantum of soul. Altogether their symbolism depicts all the phases of life, its origin, its manifestation, and its renewed creation, as resurrection. Here we have to focuss our attention on the origin of Existence or its reaching the boundary up to Nothing. Such a symbol has been designed by the alchemist Jamsthaler (23 ; p. 507), offered here as Fig. 2. The main picture has an oval outline, clearly that of an egg. It is the Cosmic-egg, Brahma-Anda, the Creator's Egg, of Hindu mysticism. Its background is dark, where anything would be nothing, an ideal device for presenting Nothing. Moreover the background has been given the irreduceable minimum space, since "Nothing" can not claim more. From Nothing creation is to start, and become everything or Existence. This Existence would be within, and Nothing outside, as depicted in Fig. 2 ; the actual background being the inverse of the contents of a vacuum tube or Nothing outside the Creator's Egg. Now Existence= Creator+Creation. There is no creation without a creator, by virtue of their very conceptions. In Dualism the creative forces are two, in Monism one. The main object in offering Fig. 2 is to show two entities are essential and interdependent, being Nothing/Existence. These two are represented as Dark Back-ground/Cosmic-Egg respectively.

The alchemist being a Dualist has interpreted creation from his standpoint. Creator and Creation have now to be pointed out. Creator =Four Cosmic elements. Earth appears as the Globe, Air as a pair of Wings. Water is symbolized as the Dragon, and Fire, as the flames emitted by the Dragon. These four entities constitute the integrated Creator, who gives rise to creation. Further Creation= Micro+Macrocosm. Macrocosm, as Dualism would symbolize it, has been created by Sun/Moon, clearly shown as such, and their creation, the other five heavenly bodies, the planet mercury above all, on the head of the hermaphrodite. Microcosm is labelled Rebis, on which Jung (9 ; p. 258) remarks that, "the hermaphrodite turns out to be the long sought Rebis or Lapis (the Philosopher's stone)." It has been clearly revealed that, the Hermaphrodite=Creator ; the ever increasing soul was a "hermaphrodite". Creator here means Yang/Yin fused to become one autonomous, self-generating entity, capable of giving rise to issues, like itself, out of its own system, and from nothing outside it. This is to be understood as the creator creating creation out of Nothing. A word must be said to explain the birth of such a creator, or rather of the fusion of two principles into a regular hybrid as one. Jung (9 ; p.263) refers to this "new man (the hermaphrodite, as) the product of the union of king and queen (depicted in Fig. 2) though he is not born of the queen, but king and queen are themselves transformed (or rather fused as two into one) into a new birth (as the hermaphrodite)." A dual nature is imparted to the creator, through the union of opposites, for without the co-existence of two principles, there would be no creation, just as there is no reproduction, without a male and female being, as the joint-producers of their issue. The corresponding creation is generated out of nothing, by wielding a pair of Magic Wands, the Compass, by the right hand of the King, and the Carpenter's Square by the left hand of the Queen. This pair of weapons represents the dynamic insignia of the Creator, generating a force, the equivalent of a Puff of breath, or the word of the Creator. Now something to reveal the great importance of Compass/Mason's Square. This is best realized as the agents inducing resurrection which, as a scene, is depicted on a Chinese grave of about 300 .A.D, and reproduced by Cheng (24). Resurrection is renewed creation, dependent on soul or a creative force. This is being generated by a pair of male/female deities wielding Compass/Square in order to revive the dead.

17. Nothing as bordering Creation in Chinese cosmogony. A word may be said just to confirm how impossible it is to conceive creation without taking it as far back as Nothing. In fact creation, as distinct from existence, is that which starts from nothing, a phenomenon which a juggler or a magician claims to demonstrate, or a child imagines at the birth of a baby. Adler (1 ; p. 29) offers an excellent summary of Chinese cosmogony. There we read that, "Wu-chi, the Non-being, lies beyond the Tai-chi, the Primordial Being ; whereas Wu-chi is symbolized by the empty circle ; the Tai-chi, is represented by the symbol of polarities, Yang and Yin, united in themselves. In other words, once the Non-being, a completely transcendental concept, enters into actuality it is bound to split into opposites. This process would be symbolized by the 1 (one) and the 2 (two)." Adler, however, omits to refer to 0 (zero). Let us translate the theory of Chinese cosmognony into a symbol, which would be best as a straight line, bearing the indications, 0, 1, 2, and n, for infinity, as given, in Fig. 3 below :

 .  .        .         .

Fig. 3

0=Wu-chi, Non-being, Nothing, perhaps also Maya. This is purely hypothetical and should be expressed as 0, zero. This signifies

non-existence.

I=Tai-chi, Primordial-being, Unity, growth-soul, nascent growth, creative force as the indivisible one, like an active element without any molecules. It is one and, as such, immediately next to zero. One is unknowable, though existing.

2=Yang-Yin, Duality, Existence as its initial stage, resultant of union-of-opposites, a hermaphrodite, Soul-reproductive, capable of giving rise to many.

Alder (I ; p. 29) writes that, according to Pythagoras, "one is not really a number", for only two can rationally give rise to many. One multiplied by itself remains one, and as such it is a "sterile" number, hence "not really a number at all." Only 2 are knowable.

n=Reproduction leads to infinite forms, n representing infinity. These would be the molecules of an element.

It further remains to reveal that :

O=Zero, is non-existing, being hypothetical.

I=Existing, but unknowable.

2 Knowable, due to the phenomenon of relativity.

Thus zero, one, and two, symbolize, Nothing, Growth-soul, and Soul-reproductive, as also, Wu-chi, Tai-chi and Yang/Yin, respectively.

18. Knowledge demands its conditions. It has been explained that on sublimating the phenomena of growth and reproduction man derived his concepts of creation and existence. But to discover the source of existence is no less a problem than to pin point the spot from where a circle actually started. For this purpose if we try to convert a circle into a straight line, one end of it would have to be marked as zero, 0, which represents "nothing", and the other, as the next indication, automatically becomes "one", I, and, as one, the line becomes infinity and indefinite, for any thing one is unknowable. The attempt to translate a circle into a straight line gave one, as unknowable. Having had to deal several such questions to which the answers become unknowable, we can legitimately demand of the inquirer his credentials qualifying him as a candidate for acquiring such knowledge. In effect it means that the answers to be intelligible must undergo a quality control. To qualify a proper answer we must recognize three categories of concepts : What is obviously knowable, what is unknowable, and what is conceivable, though purely hypothetical ; likewise four conditions of knowledge, of which we have considered only one, relativity.

19. Beauty/Ugliness, the premier condition of knowledge. Beauty and Ugliness are the two poles of the same entity, like heat and cold of temperature. Facing the problem of knowledge we must fall back upon our principle of equating, knowledge =life. Existence is something spontaneous in origin, it emerges instantaneously out of nothing. Beauty, an impact on our mind, is also instantaneous, like love at first sight. Ugliness, its opposite, is again experienced as shocks or something sudden. A work of art appeals the more beautiful if it striken as spontaneous expression. A laboured effect, presented as a painting, lacks all its charms. Anything which passes as an accomplishment, due to creative power, of something more than the actual labour put into it, leaves the impression of beuaty. Beauty is something like energy which has to be imagined, while labour behind it as something which we can undoubtedly know. Now Nietzsche, modifying an axiom of Kant, observed that, Happiness is the feeling that power is growing. Beauty then is the impression that, power has actually grown to appear as a phenomenon. We can therefore equate, Beauty =Creative force. Thus Beauty is to knowledge what Brahma is to life, and Beauty inspires knowledge, just as Brahma has created existence. Beauty is the growth-force of knowledge, Brahma the growth-soul of life. Beauty then is growth-force, something capable of growing. Let us at once confirm this premier condition of knowledge.

Enfield (2I ; p. 24I) maintains that, according to Plato, "Goodness and Beauty (evidently as identical) consist in knowledge of the first good, and the first fair. That which is becoming is good." It must be expanded to fully convey the meaning, "that which is becoming whole is good." Interpreting it properly it means, " that which is growing to be universal is good", clearly equating, becoming =growing. And naturally the quality of growth is a power. Thus according to Plato, Beauty is power and power that is growing. This is in accord with Nietzsche's axiom that, Happiness is power growing. And we can easily identify Beauty=Happiness. Now growth is most easily expressed in terms of time. Greater force, will reveal longer growth, and lesser power would have a shorter life-span. Thus reality and myth, as representing beauty and ugliness, would be long lived and short lived entities respectively, as any one can confirm. A chubby child, as a picture of progressive growth, will be an object of beauty, while the realization of a fast growing tumour will be shocking because of the implied threat of terminating the life of the host and then of itself. A progressive growth, promising longevity is beautiful, a terminating one ugly. Now beauty has two opposites, one is ugliness, the other compassion. This may be called, feminine beauty, or beauty, in its passive form. In human society we have two kinds of opposites, one as brother/sister, genetically identical, in fact they can even be twins ; the other is brother/sister-in-law, as husband/wife. The latter are the real pair of opposites, as co-generrators of their kind. They have been conceived as fused to constitute a hermaphrodite. This becomes an autonomous self-generating entity, perfect as unity, for no half can exist as such. As one depending upon nothing and as the producer nevertheless of others it is a creator. The alchemist has designed the hermaphrodite as occupying the zenith of his art of imitating creation. Compassion then is not the real opposite of beauty but its substitute ; Compassion/Justice would be the pair as the exact equivalent of Beauty/Ugliness. I have given this as an example for the reader to be able to interpret for himself others all comforming to Beauty/Ugliness as a model condition of knowledge.

20. Utility/Harmfulness, a condition knowledge. The first thing a baby sees is naturally light, but it is not the first it remembers. Milk is the first entity it comes to recognize and this because of hunger or on account of its utility. But the first object it comes to remember, is its mother, the supplier of milk, identifying the active container, the mother, with the passive content, the milk. Mother is the more obvious of the two. Thus the mother remains in the human mind as the first entry. Likewise objects as sociated with the reverse quality, harmfulness, are remembered in order to be avoided. A serpent and tiger are examples of this category. Each entity that we remember seems to whisper to us, "I am, because I am useful." Very often a useful object also comes to appeal as possessing beauty. Every child finds its mother beautiful, and likeswise many a wife her husband good, when goodness would be the proper substitute here for beauty. On account of such emphasis on utility, in preference to beauty, the Hindus have no end of shrines of Vishnu, the useful preserver, but only three temples, in the whole of India, dedicated to Brahma, the beautiful creator. Just as Vishnu, the useful, is also creator as the sun-god, utility is a condition for the acquisition of knowledge. An object useless and harmless never enters our mind ; being devoid of potential it lacks force to transplant an impression.

21.Universality/Specificity as the fourth condition of knowledge. A least impressive object, like grass, found all over a landscape, is enough to make the area "grassland." An English maxim claims, "What I say thrice is right." Likewise "what I see thrice is what I remember." The art of propaganda depends upon the principle, "what one hears thrice is what one remembers." Obviously it is the number of records that is of vital importance. No one has realised this better than Pythagoras, whose theory of creation is accordingly based on the principle of numbers. But no entity can become universal until it undergoes multiplicity. An excellent illustration would be that of a bacterium reproducing itself unchecked until it fills every nook and corner of the earth, when it could boast of universality. This in effect would be a picture of reproductivity such as the alchemist, R. Lully (25), born in I235 A.D., has offered. Believing his Elixir to be a living ferment he could assert that, "if the sea were of mercury I would transform it into gold." This claim merely implies that, Reproductivity= Universality, just as cause =effect. Now if soul-reproductive is strong enough to become universal it is equally powerful to remain eternal. In fact eternity and universality are both reproductivity seen against time and space respectively ; what is omnipresent is also eternal, being virtues of the omnipotent. Thus synthetic gold, as pictured by Lully, can claim not only universality but also eternity.

Now one object of beauty is youth. Of all peoples the Greaks adored the figure of youth and shunned that of old age. In the light of previous interpretations youth appears beautiful because it represents longevity in disguise, and old age is ugly because of the obvious threat of termination of life in the near future. Then if youth is beautful, eternal youth would be ideal beauty. Most religions, realizing this, have promised eternal youth, be it in heaven. And alchemy has ever tried to supersede them by promising the same here on earth. In any case there is no immortality without the termination of mortality, just as there is no new cycle without the end of the one immediately preceding it. A classic on alchemy, Rosarium, already mentioned, records, as reported by Jnng (9 ; p. 256) that, "no new life can arise say the alchemists without the death of the old one." Accordingly Elixir of Life first acts like a poison, then as an antidote ; the consumer dies to discard his mortal constitution, and is resurrected to remain young and eternal. This promise has exercised such a charm that some actually risked their lives and the history of alchemy records that, amongst others, three Emperors of China, unwittingly committed suicide as candidates of immortality. Even the sufis, have, as their watchword, requiring a special commentary to do it justice, however, literally meaning, "die before your death", if you wish to be sure of your immortality. One seems to be prepared to pay with one's life to gain immortality-cum-rejuvenation. At this stage we can summarize equating, Universality=Eternity=Beauty= Youth. And what characterizes youth better than reproductive powerat its maximum. This also provided the test of Elixir of life. It was notto be judged by its effect as longevity, which required time, but by its immediate effect on the reproductive power, as its acclerator or as an actual rejuvenator. Elixir of life was the ideal aphrodisiac, a conception that persists in several countries even today. And this is because, we have seen in different ways that, reproductive power is creative force; and once there is creative power achievement of anything seems to be possible. Incidentially it must be pointed out that, Elixir of life begins as a poison, but man has conveniently forgotten its malign aspect to remember only what pleases him.

22. Elixir of life offers a key to the interpretation of Shiva. Shiva is admitted to be the destroyer and we have to accept it in order to interpret him properly. In the case of Elixir we have forgotten its dark side, in the case of Shiva this is precisely what is remembered. When growth has proceeded for some time it produces metabolites which become a liability upon the organism. Such a tree drops its leaves and even produces withered twigs. This may be looked upon as self-pruning. The gardener, anticipating such a state, resorts to actual pruning. Pruning is destructive in itself but in effect preservative. When growth lags behind pruning spurs it forward. Shiva in his many incarnations is seen pruning eccentric and atypical forms of life, killing demons and monsters, all a disgrace to life. Even Vishnu, the preserver, is known in some of his incarnations to be killing demons, a feature specially attributed to Shiva. Briefly Shiva is essentially a preserver, and only apparently a destroyer. Now when metabolites have accumulated to the extent that self-pruning cannot dispense them properly growth merges into reproduction. The former liabilities are now exploited as actual assets. The dead stock of metabolites goes to acclerate reproductivity. Growth remains stopped but reproduction starts vigorously. The reproductive activity also produces good, bad and indifferent issues, and selection comes into force to help the fittest to survive. Shiva then exercises his judgment and selects the proper forms of life. Thus if Brahma is the creator of life, Shiva is the creator of species, and as such, no less a creator than Brahma himself.

Before selection could be enforced the species must be prolific enough to bear anything like pruning. It means that reproductivity has to be enhanced for selection to exercise quality control over the forms of life. This task has also been taken over by Shiva who appears to be the God of Fertility, worthy of the title. Some of his best temples are decorated with errotic scenes, as though each picture was an Elixir in itself, the latter as an ideal aphrodisiac. His emblem in a Shivaite temple is either the symbol of the male generative organ, or of the bull, which is reproductivity-incorporate, often both. And in perfect harmony with the Shivaite conception of reproductive force, as creative power, the alchemist has for his first theorem that, union of opposites leads to creation. He thus depicts the several stages of his work, or of synthesis of gold, as though he was inducing two opposites to meet as husband and wife. These stages are allegorically depicted as love scenes, reaching the climax in coitus between a perfectly nude couple, presented in Rosarium, and reproduced by Jung (23; p. 450) as his Fig. I37. If the creative force is accepted as identical with reproductive power it is easily explainable how the Shivaite cult and alchemy both share errotic symbolism.

23. Multiplicity leads to specificity. Although there is no Universality without Specificity, on account of the importance of the latter it may be considered by itself. And what is ideal specificity other than being the only one of its kind. Then to qualify anything specifically the attributes should not be repeated in any other case. We have accordingly to construct a long spectrum with innumerable qualities making it possible to assign each and every object a definite place in such a spectrum. The simplest scale has been offered by Pythagoras, as the numerical series, and we know, how convenient it is to particularize a car, for example, by a given number. And this is possible because "number", as an entity, can easily become, the most prolific. Thus the more qualities a system commands the easier it is to shuffle the factors to ascribe a specific arrangement to a given entity. And the possibilities of creating a wide range of qualities depends upon the source which claims a robust power of reproductivity ; greater the production or multiplicity greater the qualities available. It is really impossible to create and yet duplicate. Forgery, as an art, is intrinsically defective, for it can not produce a signature indentical with a given model. A flock of sheep appears to contain animals all alike, yet a clever shepherd finds no difficulty in singling out one sheep from the rest. Most can recollect recognizing a familar face from the midst of a crowd as in a fair. Such instances go to prove that universality and specificity go together. In fact we can have no knowledge of an object unless some special feature strikes as being characteristic. The art of advertisement exploits the fact that an attribute singles out an object from the many, for what qualifies all is no quality at all.

And further consideratians will reveal that, specificity also tends towards beauty. A curio hunter, or a stamp collector, is proud of his collection when it contains the only specimen of its kind. And likewise the "One", in the whole universe, is the most beautiful entity man can conceive. Such indeed is the creator in the eyes of many. To trace all forms to one source, as also to select one from amogst all, in each case, is an appeal to beauty. A genealogical table that ends with one, as the founder of a large family, creates a feeling of sublime respect for the ancestor and this feeling is akin to that of beauty. Conversely to realize that an individual is the "last of the barons", is to feel compassion for him, and compassion, as previously remarked, is beauty in its passive garb. Likewise the feeling of utter solitude is the source of self-compassion to be interpreted again as beauty. By way of summary we can construct the series:

One =Universality =Sublimity = Beauty.

One= Specificity= Compassion = Beauty.

Then comparing the conditions of knowledge with the phases of life we have:

Beauty deified is Brahma the creator.

Utility deified is Vishnu the preserver.

Universality deified is Shiva the resurrector.

To know means to recognize an object as beautiful, useful and universal, or in terms of their negatives. This is because we can know only life or in terms of life. When energy exists in its nascent form it is at once one and all or omnipotent, eternal and omnipresent. But on losing some of it the transformed state appears as molecules which again would be in every place where the nascent form had existed before ; but the molecules, as entities, can now be separated from one another and are capable of being confined to a certain volume. The difference is due to nascent energy being formless and the molecular stage being endowed with form. Remove form, specificity turns into universality, and vice versa. The change is identical to energy mutating matter, and its reverse. We can now equate, Universality= Specificity, just as we can energy =matter .

24. A symbol of Immortality. Our quest for the knowledge of God has meanwhile taught us to recognize three cardinal attributes qualifying him. The last discussed has been universality-cum-eternity. But whatever we do we must not lose sight of the guiding principle that, knowledge is life, and life-force has two phases, growth-soul and soul-reproducttive. Life-force, in its nacens form, is universal, as also instantaneous. A symbol of life-force will be a symbol of universality cum-eternity. Growth traced to its past accounts for creation, and a future attributed to reproductivity, accounts for eternity, and if both are instantaneous, growth and reproductivity, as also past and future, become one. And if this has been expressed in a symbol we have the confirmation of our having interpreted its significance, as creative power, correctly. But then why should there be a symbol at all, offering a correct picture of its contents as creative power? According to ancient beliefs a symbol represents its original. It was as important in primitive psychology as a viceroy has been in colonial government. The viceroy is the King as far as the governed are concerned. Likewise symbol was the plenipotentiary of its original; and a symbol of creative power is a donor of immortality. Now it has been explained that the alchemist aimed at immortality, and although he tried to acquire it by means of drugs, his common interest tempted him to share a symbol of immortality, which other mystics had already adopted before him. Such a symbol is a circular form of a serpent, one biting its own tail, or Ouroboros in Greek. The earliest records of Alexandrian alchemy refer to it, but the actual illustration was discovered by Berthelot (23; p.40I), in an IIth century Manuscript on alchemy, now preserved in Venice ; reproduced here as fig. 4. The Ouroboros easily claims several versions to its credit, and has been found in Egypt as also in China, not to forget India. Berthelot correctly interprets it as symbolizing eternity, but further characterized it as revealing, unity of matter, for matter, being indestructible, is eternal and one. If the symbol was as good as an idol, the worshipper was not to look upon it as the structural formula of matter, but instead as a donor of immortality which he really longed for. There is a Greek text which offers the connotation of the symbol without danger of its misinterpretation. It means the Universal, or the External, is the One reality, and it is the All, and everything. But for man the proper word is not Eternity, but instead Immortality. The symbol therefore becomes more useful as expressing immortality, in fact as one actually promising to donate that virtue. The symbol was then a charm. The symbol has been interpreted as expressing, Unity of matter, but it transcends this conception, it illustrates the doctrine of, Unity of Existence, for which the Sufis have the Arabic equivalent, Wandatul Wujud. The Ouroboros connotes Unity of Existence, more than unity of matter. Briefly the Ouroboros is a symbol of creative energy or omnipotence and as such a donor of immortality.

Fig. 2. The oval shaped Cosmic Egg emerged out of Nothing. "Nothing" is represented by its colour, as black, where anything would be nothing, and space purposely limited, as next to nothing. The contents as Creator, are the four cosmic elements, Air (Wings), Earth (Globe), Water (Dragon) and Fire (Flames from Dragon's mouth). Creation is macrocosm, the heavenly bodies, and microcosm, man and woman. Creation is again Creator, Man/Woman as hermaphrodite, a self-generating entity, with the insignia of the creator, having a pair of Magic Wands, as Weapons of creation, the Compass in the male's hand, and the Mason's Square in that of the female. Sun/Moon, as Heaven/ Earth, are correspondingly joint-creator, of macrocosm.

Fig. 4. Ouroboros, with three Greek words meaning, "One the All". It is a hermaphrodite, or a creator The anterior white half is a male serpent, the posterior black half a female. Union of opposites as male/female makes it a hermaphrodite, likewise union of head/tail doubly qualifies the hermaphrodite, with the creative power as One, and this one is All. Ouroboros represents, Unity of Existence, or Creator/Creation as One.

Fig. 5. Symbols revealing genesis of Ouroboros. The right pair of dragons show male and female as separate, but being in whorl they reveal eternal motion, losing their identity. The halves of the two dragons reconstructed become the anterior half of the male, joined to the posterior half of the female. An illusion is created when a serpent is seen biting its own tail. Really the head of the male is biting the tail of the female ; in Fig. 4, the white male was biting the tail of the black female. In Fig. 5 we see male and female, as two entities, as also one half male and another half female, thus one as hermaphrodite.

25. The choice of a serpent in symbolizing immortality. Existence in fig. 1 has been represented as a line between zero, 0, and infinity, n. This line, as one, can be turned into a circle, which forces its ends to meet. Now any point on the circle serves to identify both the "zero" and "n" of the straight line. It means that the beginning of a circle is identical with its end or both are one. When past and future, in their remotest aspects, become identical, the symbol connotes eternity. Circle should have been the ideal symbol if eternity was to have been expressed. This is actually the case with the Chinese symbol of the Source of Existence. Its contents are Yang/Yin, the dual principles of creation ; the container, as eternity, is the circle. The contents as power represent the cause, the container or the circle the effect, which is eternity, with beginning and end everywhere and just for that reason unknowable. We are however forced to make a subtle difference, and for us of no little importance, between an ideal or geometrical circle, and a serpent having a circular form. The difference consists in the circle representing eternity, but the Ouroboros immortality. Fig. 4 is the symbol of the Source of Life rather than of Existence. The alchemist wanted to enjoy immortality and longevity, rather than to see eternity being possessed by the entire universe.

The ancients used to bury the dead as many do to-day. They imagined that the serpent being a denizen of the underground took charge, not only of the dead body, but also of its soul. As a treasurer of souls he could also return them which made the serpent nothing short of a resurrector. Now there is a symbol in alchemical literature, reproduced by Jung (23 ; p.54I), where a serpent is seen on the cross. Jesus on the cross depicts resurrection of one whose body, as such, is immortal. The serpent on the cross therefore depicts a resurrected body. And the alchemist wanted such a phase of immortality. The serpent was already a donor of immortality and to give a serpent a circular form was to duplicate or fortify the idea of immortality as distinct from eternity. In the case of the circle, as a symbol of eternity, the two ends are disguised. In the case of Ouroboros, the head and tail are quite visible, though close to each other. The head and tail are like the two poles of a magnet, with its polarity clearly exposed. When the poles are far apart magnetism is not generated, they at once reveal their power when brought near enough to enable "union of opposites". The head and tail of the Ouroboros are obvious as such, and close enough to reveal that the symbol of resurrection is generating a quantum of life ‑ essence to confer immortality. The Ouroboros becomes a miniature creator. We therefore identify creation with eternity, Brahma with Shiva, and Beauty with Universality respectively.

26. Kundalini interprets Ouroboros. Goethe has made a very pregnant but paradoxical remark that, no individual can claim to be in command of his language unless he knows at least another. The moment we try to translate one term into another language we realize what we should have known of the original, for on that depends our selection of its right equivalent. That Ouroboros symbolizes the creator would strike as too bold to be true. It has also taken me some years to convince myself of it. In the first instance we find that serpent worship has had a world wide distribution and all forms of worship really dissolve to the worship of the creator. This is still too general a remark to defend the particular case above.It is proposed to equate Ouroboros = Kundalini, and further maintain that the latter symbolizes the power of creation. We shall not be able to know Ouroboros unless we can translate it as Kundalini. In selecting Kundalini, fig. 6 here, I have merely followed Jung (8; p.368), whose commentary upon it runs as follows : "Shiva-bindu (Shiva's point), the unexpected point, showing divine power before creation : the opposites are united. The God rests in the point. The snake signifies extension, the power of becoming (=growth), the creation of the world forms. The point is Hirayanagarba, the golden egg, the golden germ." With growth-soul and soul-reproductive, we have life and forms of life, respectively. Brahma created life, Shiva forms of life ; and no little credit goes to Jung to interpret Shiva's activities aiming at creation of the world forms, rather than initiating existence itself. In para I6, fig. 2 there is an alchemist's symbol of the source of Existence. There Existence starts from nothing, from the dark background. Then Existence is enclosed in an egg shell, a mere film separating non-existence, from Existence. The egg has a wall with Non-existence outside and Existence inside, the eggshell is as such nothing in itself, even less assertive than the conception of absolute nothing. This egg of fig. 2 has a corresponding element in fig. 6; it is represented as Shiva's Point, the point from where Shiva starts his creation, but is rightly equated as Hirayanagarba, literally the Golden-foetus, correctly interpreted as the golden-egg. Shiva's Point = Cosmic-Egg, or Fig. 2 = Fig. 6 in parts. Shiva's point, or the source of creation, being unknowable, should be a mere point and no more. But the designer can well claim to enjoy an artist's license and, in as much as the point to be depicted is the source of existence, he has taken this point

Fig. 6. Kundalini, a symbol of Creative Power manifest. The central disc is plain Nothing, or a magnified point or an empty egg. From Nothing, or the egg shell, has emerged Creative Power. Power manifest is symbolized as serpent, an object to be dreaded on account of it. The source is the male Shiva, while power-manifest is the female Shakti. Just as Eve was born from her husband's rib, Shakti emerged from her husband's Lingam, which seen from above is disc-like. Adam/Eve are joint creators of microcosm, Shiva/Shakti of macrocosm. Just as Egg/Chicken are one, Shiva/Shakti, as Egg/Serpent are one

Fig. 7. Two fishes in whorl symbolizing Eternity. Another version of Fig. 6, sharing the central disc. The two fishes are like the male and female dragons, in Fig. 5, symbolizing eternal motion. Fish represents reproductivity-incorporate, a donor of immortality: As male/female in whorl they reveal a dynamic phase of Union of opposites. Altogether Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all identical, revealing nascent creative energy.

as far as the sun, which has been accepted before as the source of life's energy and the source of creation. The point was enlarged as the source of creation, to become the sun's disc, but it was to be a plain disc with the absence of all its contents. The point, had it been small, would have given the implied impression that some contents may have been there, but could not be revealed due to its extreme reduction in size. But a disc which is large, yet plain, positively declares to have contained nothing. I feel the artist deserves no little credit for equating, the source of creation, with the sun's disc, and at the same suggesting creation starts from nothing. I remember an Oxford friend editing a special publication during the "Eight's Week", with an article entitled, "What Oxford thinks". On turning to that page it was a plain sheet of paper, with both the pages left blank. It was to convey the idea that, Oxford thinks nothing. While that was a mere joke here the plain disc precisely expresses Nothing. So much for the unknowable source of creation. But the symbol of Kundalini belongs to Shiva and not to Brahma. It incidentally confirms Shiva as the creator which requires to be recognized, but some specific feature characterizing Shiva has also to be discovered. Shiva's one symbol is Phallus, and the Phallus seen from above is nothing else than a disc, a conclusion easy of confirmation. Thus the egg of Brahma, develops into the solar disc of Vishnu and finally becomes the Phallus of Shiva ; the egg and the Phallus are both disc-like, the former as seen from below and the latter from above. Thus Shiva's point=Solar disc — Cosmic egg, and these three belong to Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma respectively. From its mysterious source, as the egg, for example, creative power emerges. And if the unknown cause is Shiva, its effect, as the manifest form, must be its opposite, which is called Shakti, the female aspect of Shiva. Shakti is what is obvious, or easily seen, Shiva is its non-manifest form or the cause. Shakti is the actual power; Shiva the source of that power. Shakti, in fig. 6, is coiled round its source, as dependent upon it, as effect would be on its cause, and as such can not be separated. Shakti as power can be seen, Shiva as the cause of that power has nevertheless to be known, for he also exists, and very much so. Applying all this to our case, Shakti is knowledge and knowledge is power, while Shiva is inspiration, the source of knowledge, or something to one who knows how to exploit it. An ideal case would be that of Newton, who saw an apple fall and that insignificant incident served as the inspiration which gave the world his theory of gravitation.

Besides fig. 6, Jung (8;p.368) offers another symbol of Indian origin, coming from Banaras, a centre of Shiva worship. This picture is reproduced as Fig. 7 here. There are two fishes chasing each other in a whorl, suggesting no end to their activity, which can be safely interpreted as representing eternity. In an earlier article (26) I have interpreted the Ouroboros, as really a hermaphrodite, composed of two half serpents, the anterior of a male, with its head,biting the tail of the other, a female, with its posterior half. This explanation can be confirmed by a symbol showing two dragons, a male and female, in whorl, biting each other by their tails. Both these symbols are shown again in fig. 5. Fig. 7 here shows two fishes instead, but fish as reproductivity-incorporate is in itself a symbol of immortality as already explained, and the two fishes in whorl represent eternity in general and immortality in particular. What must not be overlooked is that fig. 7 does not represent dualism, but polarity of one entity. Magnetism is one Phenomenon yet it is generated by a bipolar magnet ; respiration is also one dependent upon Oxidation and Reduction. If Oxygen and Hydrogen were always to act simultaneously respiration would be dual-natured, but Wieland has shown that this is not necessarily the case, and oxidation-reduction is the effect of a single entity, behaving as the donor and acceptor of electrons. Going deeper into our case we must translate Shiva/Shakti as Inspiration/Knowledge. But a bold conclusion can be drawn to the effect that inspiration, being creative, claims Universality,and therefore knows no such thing as space. Telepathy is the necessary outcome allowing transference of knowledge-as-inspiration.

 27. Forms and conditions of knowledge and the phases of life. To know an object we must recognize the conditions of knowledge, a lack of an element of receptivity will give an incomplete picture of the object perceived. The ideal corporeal object is the cube. It has three dimensions which impart six surfaces, being all equal in the case of the cube. When three of them are visible the other half remain out of sight. Knowledge in its turn has its three positive conditions, Beauty, Utility and Universality, with three negatives, Ugliness, Harmfulness and Specificity. God, as a conception, can find a proper position with the help of these cardinal points of knowledge. However God is a two-headed Janus one face represents life, the other knowledge, to live is to know and to know is to live. The phases of life therefore correspond with the conditions of life as shown below.

Of life                                        Of knowledge

Creation                            ...     Beauty

Growth                                     Utility

Reproduction                            Universality

Dealing with life first, it arose spontaneously, its origin being unknowable. This can be expressed as "life having created itself", which are only blank words. Then it has been growing ever since ; and growth back dated is creation as its initial stage. Growth later merged into reproductivity and multiplicty resulted. The above statement is merely an expansion of the idea that life has two phases,Growth and Reproduction. In as much as we compare God with life, such an assumption requires confirmation.

Radhakrishnan (II ; p.59) writes that,' according to Brahadranyaka Upanishad God is that, (who) created itself by itself," which hardly means anything positive. But having "created the world then (he) enters it." This "entrance" is the real positive element, for God entered his creation like a Growth-soul, making everything grow. Thus began creation. We must pause to reflect that when God first created matter, or the inorganic world, it was lifeless, like a clod of dust. We can have no knowledge of it because there was no growth. But as soon as growth started we could accept that as the sign of existence. Creation at this stage was macrocosm and its creator was Brahma. Later Brahma reincarnated himself as Prajapati and became man and woman and produced mankind or microcosm. Using previous language we can state that, seeing his creation grow like a monster, without shape and form, the creator entered the Universe as Prajapati, and created microcosm with his soul-reproductive, to insure immortality and the maintenance of a standard form, of each species. This is a round about way of admitting that all we know of life is growth and reproduction, and on that basis Brahma and Prajapati have been conceived as two creators. Their respective activities are revealed by the following table :

Creator                   Principle               Creation

Brahma                  Growth-soul         Macrocosm

Prajapati                 Soul-reproductive  Microcosm

The Upanishad assumes that God entered his creation when God became the content with his creation as the container. Since the same God reincarnated himself as Prajapati, Prajapati as the content, had the germ of mankind for his container. Plainly expressed Brahma/Prajapati are high sounding symbols of Growth/Reproduction when God, as one, can be identified with life as one. Because of life's two phases, God has been symbolized as a two headed Janus.

We can now turn to the other head of Janus representing knowledge. Just as life has two phases; knowledge recognizes the subconscious and the conscious. Growth is a force, so is the subconscious. Growth develops into reproductivity, giving rise to many, each with a form of its own. Subconscious develops into the conscious yielding concrete conceptions of entities. Having identified life with God, we admit God to be the creator of Himself and thus of life. But in as much as we also identify life with knowledge, the creator of life must necessarily be the donor of knowledge as well. This is well recognized as God, the giver of all we know. The Greek term for "Word" is Logos which, in Alexandrian Greek philosophy, is the equivalent of creative force, making Life/Logos correspond to God/Teacher, or Life/Knowledge, all as equivalents. Most religions do admit God as the giver of both, of Life and of Knowledge, and this must be so because they represent equivalents of each other. In Hinduism the deities of knowledge clearly show their descent from Gods who have imparted life. The recognition of two phases of knowledge, as subconsious and conscious, have been in existence in the forms of religious rites and doctrines, but their importance has been properly shown by modern psychologists like Jung, Adler and others. Above all the subconscious is force, and like all forms of energy, one and universal. But the universal also has its own specificity, and the specificity of subconscious expresses itself as instincts. What was conscious in the past has merged into the stock of knowledge as the subconscious. Then to recall the earlier experience of life, nearer the source of life, is to tap the subconscious and tempt it somehow to transform itself into the conscious. There are regular schools of mysticism which claim to get out of the subconscious the truth otherwise hidden to us. However all that need to be emphasized here is that knowledge has two phases of its own, just as life has its two. A common experience of the subconscious is in the form of instincts. To know the birth of instinct would be to know life as also the subconscious. Instinct has long been a problem with biologists as also with philosophers ; their last word is still awaited.

Another contact with the subconscious appears as inspiration. A cheap word for it is brain-wave and many know it well enough to need any confirmation. An ideal example of this category is offered by the life of Newton, who saw an apple fall from a tree in his garden. That insignificant incident gave the world his theory of gravitation. The chemists find that a solution may be saturated yet it remains syrupy without any sign of crystallization. But a dust particle falling on its surface can induce the crystallization of the whole mass. Newton's mind was saturated with data which revealed no connection with one another, but the fall of an apple acted like the dust particle above and gave his findings the required crystalline form. What is most important for us is to reflect upon the source of this inspiration. It was like an electric contact between the subconscious and the conscious, to be explained preferably as the Grace of God, than as an accident, a word which is neither poetical nor connotative. However the coordination between the two is beyond our control and only the mystics have psychic exercises aiming at acquiring such power.

There is yet another form of contact with the subconscious world, in the form of telephathy. People have recognized this fact by humorously saying that, great minds think alike. But how many as sincere friends have experienced the same truth. Subconscious thought seems to be one universal entity, so that if we move here we are disturbing the atmosphere pole apart. A classical example illustrating telepathy is offered by Wallace and Darwin who conceived evolution at the same time. The former was living at the time in South East Asia and the latter in England. Both were writing on the origin of species as though they were answering the same question paper at two different centres of examination. Inspiration is transferable because the subconscious is one universal entity. But being energy we cannot study it properly, only when some energy is lost that the rest appears as knowledge, and this can be recognized by the essential three conditions that have been discussed. The descent from inspiration to knowledge is easier, just as from energy to matter is easier. But it is also possible to bombard matter and create energy. Correspondingly from what we recognize as knowledge we can build up the conception of an entity which would be beauty, utility and universality as one, but then it would automatically become unknowable ; and we must be prepared for it.

28. The procedure for acquiring a positive conception of the Divinity. We must realize not only what we have acquired but also, how we got to it. Any scientific paper reveals the approach or the technique adopted in obtaining the results claimed. It seems to me that chemistry, as the science of the structure of substances, has perfected its methods of study. There are four processes, isolation of a pure entity, its analysis, study of degradation products and finally synthesis. Once synthesis is achieved the intermediate stages are all confirmed. No pne can be sure if a substance, to start with, was pure unless synthesis ultimately confirms it with retrospective effect. Our past labour has taught us that God=life, and also God= Knowledge, which means that God is one who is eternal and omniscient. Hence any conception of the Divinity must possess these essential attributes, a result which we look upon as isolation. The analysis of life has shown us three phases, and that of knowledge three conditions, and our main work has been devoted to them. Both life and knowledge are forces, not substances, and their degradation products mean other forms of energy, with lesser energy content than their originals. Thus the subsconscious is the purest nascent form of knowledge while inspiration, and telepathy other intermediate forms with lesser energy ; ultimately we get to the conscious. Life is far better known to us revealing as degradation products hopes, enthusiasm, optimism and faith, to be looked upon as the positive factors capable of being qualified as beautiful, useful and universal. The point to note is that it is unavoidable to omit either of the two classes of degradations products in redefining God, even if we intentionally wish to do so. The bipolarity of life is the quality of life, like magnetism dependent upon its positive and negative poles. We can however try and disturb the balance only to see that the conceptions that result by such attempts are inferior to the one where all positive and negative attributes are well balanced. Incidentally it may be stated that the idea of balancing the elements to be synthesized is the one which the alchemists could not have emphasized more, and is a feature that has to be employed also in the synthesis of an ideal of God.

29. A positive conception of the Divinity. Once there is an entity it is logical to assume that it has a past. Such a source, according to its nature, may or may not be knowable, but in any case there can be no room for scepticism regarding its existence. But meanwhile we have seen that creative energy is spontaneous which transcends its having an origin. Such is the position of God as the source of existence. The problem is similar to a circle which disguises the point where it actually began. Nevertheless unless we start with an assumption that God represents the source of existence there is no possibility of further discussion, for the obvious reason that there is no philosophy without assumption, just as there is no axiom without definition. All that is being claimed here is that a positive conception of the Divinity can be derived only from factors furnished by life and knowledge, when God is qualified by two minimum attributes, as the eternal and the omnipresent, eliminating all, others as superfluous.

As Poincare, the mathematician,pointed out, axioms are definitions in disguise. Higher mathematics has shown that, a straight line need not be defined as the shortest line between two points, it can be the longest; but then we have to abide by our definition. We have already seen howv the mystics got on well with their description of God as a non-ending series of negative attributes,far too sophisticated for the ordinary human being.

The tragedy of something good is that there is something better, and if the reader has been troubled with enough prosaic discussions it is with the confidence that no positive conception of the divinity is possible which does not ultimately depend upon life/knowledge. God can be assigned thousand and one virtues but they can all be ignored retaining only two, making him eternal/omniscient, which are the sublimated qualities of life/knowledge.There are standards of measuring distance, a metre and a yard for example. But the best can only be in terms of light, simply because light is the fastest thing we know. God defined in terms of life/knowledge is consequently the most positive for there is nothing more vital than life and knowledge.

Amongst those who have thought over the evolution of the idea of God has been Dr. Rajendralala Mitra (27) who comments that, "the ideal of God was the concrete man." This is what anthropology establishes. It would be cutting a Gordian knot to define God by stating that, God is the ideal man in abstration. In simpler language it means that, God is Mankind, the good, the useful and the eternal, and more explicitly, Mankind that was, Mankind that is, and Mankind that shall be. It includes man distributed all over space, with the cannibals and savages ; it includes our anthropoid ancestors in the past, with the Neandertaler as well. And this for the obvious reason, so wisely pointed out by Radhakrishnan (II ; p.73) that, "we (can not but) carry with us the whole of our past," of which the uncultured oborigines are the living "fossils". When politicians throw dust against one another we incidentally realize that the brute is very much alive amongst us, and Mankind, which comprises also of tyrants of different kinds, has destroyed life more than the cannibals. And if some of these tyrants have been demigods in their life time and even enjoy apotheosis after death, our ideal of mankind persists in spite of these exceptions. It is our ideal that has to remain true, just as our definition has to remain consistent. Sad experience tends to make us cynics, misfortune pessimists ; to soar above them is to enjoy life sublime. There have regularly appeared people who could sublimate even the saddest experience that can befall man, and face death as martyrs, inspiring others to respect ideals for their own sake. These have contributed most to a progressive humanity. One of the Popes rightly remarked that, "the blood of the martyr is the seed of the Church", which holds true of the history of any idealism, Mankind in the making gives us a progressive conception of the Divinity. When we say, God is, we mean, humanity is ; but when we say, we worship God, we mean, we contribute to the progress of mankind as a whole. No religion has missed this crucial test of nobility. But to imagine mankind distributed over other planets is sheer heathenism. To fear the end of humanity by a comet colliding with the earth is obvious heresy. On the contrary to try to become a representative of humanity, to see the noble qualities of many concentrated in one self, is to acquire creative power. Its other name is miracle. To exploit the force that created us, and which is being carried as our inheritance all the time, is to perform a miracle. Many a hero has revealed powers which could not be repeated at will, nor explained at all. The modern school of Psychology deserves our respect for approaching the phenomenon of the subconscious scientifically. It explains the existence of creative power which each man inherits as his legacy of the past. The creator created the creation out of Himself, making each of us a drop of water of the ocean of creative power. And many a mystic has died as martyr believing himself to be such a unit power, representing One, the All, as the symbol of Western Alchemy proclaims.

30. The conception of Divinity in the light of alchemical doctrines. It is always interesting to know how an idea arises, in our case a positive conception of the Divinity out of a study of alchemical doctrines. If we wish to have the best view of a hill it is the top that has to be seen first, being the point above all others. And to see a hill properly we have to get to another as the nearest to it. We must therefore avoid the valley, be it of the same hill, and see the top from another top, since they are equals of each other. Likewise the creator would be approached best by one who has tried to imitate creation. I know only of Dante before as an authority interpreting alchemy as the art of imitating creation, which however sufficed to put me on the right track. Now a most recent communication by Prof. Eis (28) positively confirms that the alchemist "struggled to create life." In fact he wanted more, not only to create a life-essence, a quantum of soul, but an ever-growing oul, so that he who imbibes it remains an immortal in this world. The root conception is "growth without end." Only this idea of immortality is shared by the mystics as a class to which the alchemist properly belongs. Any creative force should go on for ever, not excluding sincerity, which implants an unquenchable thirst for work, making it grow as long as the worker lives and, in fact, by which the worker can live in name as an immortal, according to the work he has achieved. Not all are industrious nor idealists to long for immortality and amongst those who have displayed robust optimism none could beat the alchemist. Jung (29) pays full tribute to him when he writes of alchemy as follows: "Medieval alchemy (like the original Chinese) prepared the greatest attack on the divine order of the universe which mankind has ever dared (for which Dante placed the alchemist in hell). Alchemy is the dawn of the age of natural science, which drove nature into the service of mankind to a hitherto unheard of degree. Here are the real roots, the secular psychic processes of preparation of those factors which are at work in the world to day." The divine order had made man mortal; then to dream of becoming immortal, what all the alchemist must have undergone to realize that, immortality lies in work, in noble work, in the service of mankind. His contribution to the positive conception of immortality is definitely restricted to mankind and to this world.

31.     The conception of Divinity in the light of relativity. It has been admitted that there is no knowing without relativity. Neither two white pieces nor two black ones are easy to recognize but each by the side of the other producing contrast become impressive. Likewise when everything was reduced to one, a hypothetical zero had to be invented. This zero actually functioned as "something better than nothing", for it served as a measure of expediency to maintain relativity. We find such terms incorporating the notion of Nothing, in philosophy as Maya, in physics as Vacuum, and in mathematics as Zero. Now if all mankind is brought to one-reality-in-abstraction a corresponding vacuum has been created which has to be collected together to coalesce into an opposite of Divinity. We then have God and Satan, but no more than I : 0, as one to zero. The conception of an anti-benevolent agent at once enables us to form a consolidated idea of the goodness of mankind. In some religions the malevolent principle is consolidated to give the conception of Satan, in others the malevolent power is distributed over several heads, just as godhead is correspondingly divided among several deities.

32.    The role of the conceptions of ghost and the devil. To be sceptic is not to be sincere, and religion loses its function in the absence of sincerity. Human nature forces man to believe in immortality. He came to believe that life depends upon soul and soul is immortal. But is there a soul ? Only then he can come to believe soul is immortal. This desire has given rise to belief in ghosts. It is the replica of the man, for which soul is the right word. If man can survive as a gaseous double, be it for ever so short a time, it is enough to confirm that he has a soul. We have now to conceive of a mammoth-ghost, a malevolent immortal being, undoing the work God has implanted in this world. If all attributes of God can be summarized in one word as Love, something as its extreme, like black opposing white, has to be there, also. We must admit that the role of belief in ghost is to induce us to believe that we posses a soul. Likewise belief in the Devil makes us imagine a benefactor-general, a Father-in-Heaven, not as a working hypothesis, but as a genuine fact to be admitted by our faith. There are, what people call, tricks of trade. The trade of mass education resorts to trick of creating conceptions like the ghost and the mammoth-ghost, Satan. Mankind exists, but it is not ideal humanity, it is, to say the least, very much like a mortal being. But it can be at once idealized to godhead or to what it should be, if there be a blief in Satan, who is what no one should be. The Satan is to be dreaded to make God lovable. Our belief in Satan teaches us tolerate mankind as it is, an excellent device to enable us to live contented as practical idealists. Finally we realize that, just as modern research has confirmed the choice of food-stuffs selected by man ages ago to contain all that the human body needs, the items of faith handed by the principal religions have their due justification. And the conception of Divinity here evolved is specially one emanating from a study of alchemical doctrines which essentially belong to mysticism, above all the Sufism. Briefly immortality is to be found on earth and God among mankind.

Summary

The problem is to offer a positive conception of the Divinity. In the past the ideal of God has been evolved from the conception of the concrete man ; it is best derived from that of human life. Life depends upon a material factor, the body, and a non-corporeal element, the soul. Matter is indestructible, as we know, and soul is immortal, as we believe. Yet man is mortal. The life-essence is a definite quantum imparting a limited life-span. To make the soul self-generating can alone make man, as its carrier, immortal.

Based on Dualism the alchemist undertook to generate a self-reproductive soul. Like everything in nature soul also has two factors, Ruh and Nafs, or Spirit and Soul-specific. When such opposites are equal, they fuse as one into a hermaphrodite, of which no half can ever exist, and which is autonomous and self-reproductive. The active principle of man-made drugs, like Elixir and synthetic-gold, was such an ever-growing life-essence. To consume them was to become immortal. Alchemy thus inspired the possibitity of finding immortality on earth. Instead of deifying the concrete man we can sublimate human life as we enjoy on earth. Life has two phases, growth and reproduction, both positively known. However, there must be a source, hence Creation. Moreover, at least the body, as matter, persists to maintain a post-mortem existence. But neither creation, as the past, nor immortality, as the future, can be known. Now what is unknowable is best interpreted in terms of what is known. Then creation becomes growth with retrospective effect, making the creator, Growth-soul. Likewise immortality becomes post-dated reproduction, with the Resurrector as Soul-reproductive. In as much as Creation = Resurrection, the creator is identical with the resurrector. The primitive man, in his attempts to induce resurrection, invariably selected offerings promoting either growth or reproductivity. Then to create is to make something grow ; to immortalize is to induce reproduction. Growth/ Reproduction, as unity, is positive life to which correspond Creator/Resurrector as its sublimated counterpart. We have now to deal with the question, how to know the creator. The clue lies in following the axiom, to live is to know and to know is to live. If life sublimated is eternal, knowledge likewise becomes omniscient. Knowledge becomes the one container, with life as the sole content. The conditions of knowledge correspond to the phases of life, something outside indicating exactly what is inside. The phases of life are, Creation (that was), Life (that is) and Immortality (that shall be). The cardinal conditions of knowledge constitute the conceptions of Beauty, Utility and Universality-cumEternity, with Relativity as the fourth. Life, as a whole, with its past, present and future, would be one, as Mankind that was, Mankind that is and Mankind that shall be. One word for it would be Humanity, and one attribute Eternity. Likewise knowledge, with its past and future inclusive, as one, would be omniscience. Life/Knowledge with the virtues Immortality/Omniscience is nothing else than Humanity, in full sublimity, for which the proper word is Divinity. God is the one immortaland-omniscient, the source of life-and-knowledge. And mankind reduced to one, like anything reduced to unity, becomes unknowable. Without relativity there is no positive conception of the Divinity and to produce a contrast, an opposite, be it bogus, is required. Some religions have introduced the conception of Satan as anti-creator, trying to undo creation but never succeding in it. Others have decentralized such power, dividing it amongst several fabulous beings. Going deeper still we find the contrast between Divinity and the Devil within ourselves. The universe without is like the structure within an atom. Divinity and Devil are but magnifications of conscience and temptation of which every one has enough direct experience. We likewise find in life, devotion or love forcing concentration on one as leading to success, while temptation undertaking many, to failure ; One alone is lasting. The main discussion is summarized in the tabulated form below :

Mankind-------------- Divinity----------------- Humanity

Satan

  or

   I

  0

Eternity                                               Omniscience

Life                                                           Knowledge

                ----Resurrection--------- Universality  

                Or------------------------- and Eternity

  Reincarnation

(Future)

             Growth and--------------- Utility 

--Reproduction

(Present)

             --Creation                        Beauty-- —

(Past)

Nothing-     0                 ----Relativity

                    1

References

1. Adler, G. (1961) : The living symbol, p. 388.

2, Bradranyaka Upanishad. Ramakrishna Math, Madras, 1951, p. 50.

3.     Drower, Lady E.S. (1956) : Water to wine.

4.     Paggs, J. (1831) : India's cries to British Humanity. London. On p. 5 quotes extracts from Dr. John's, "Facts and Opinions relative to the burning, of widow, with a chapter on exposing the sick and the aged," from its p.p. 78-80.

5.   Barua, P.R. (1967) : Early Buddhism and the Brahmanical doctrines. J. As. Soc. Pak., Dacca, Vol. 12, no. 1.

6.   Jung, C.G. (1966) : The structure and dynamics of the Psyche. Collected works, Vol. 8.

7.   Sen-Gupta, Dr. Anima (1959) : The evolution of the Samkhya School of thought, Patna.

8.   Jung, C.G. (1959) : The archetype of collective unconscious. Collected works, Vol. 9, pt. 1.

9.   Jung, C.G. (1954) : Practice of Psychotherapy. Collected works, Vol. 16.

10.  Yamunacharya, M. (1963) : Ramanuja's teachings in his own words p. 72.

11.  Radhakrishnan, Sir S. (1924) : Philosophy of the Upanishads.

12.  Bhide, V.V. (1926) : A concise Sanskrit English Dictionary. Poona, p. 804.

13.  Chesterton, G.K. (1948) : George Bernard Shaw. p. 165.

14.  Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1899) : A Sanskrit English Dictionary, p. 135.

15.  Noorul Hassan, S. : Noorul-Logat, Lucknow, Vol. 2, p. 132.

16.  France, Anatole : The Honey Bee, p. 116.

17.  Deussen, B. (1908) : The Philosophy of Upanishads, p. 38.

18.  Hiriyanna, M. (1932) : Outlines of Indian philosophy, p. 54.

19.  de Groot, M.J.J. (1892) : Religious system of China. Vol. IV, pt. ii. p. 3.

20.  Dunn, H. (1967) : Classics from class room. Diamond, Vol. 30, No. 1. p. 23. A journal of Dow Chemical Co. America.

21.  Enfield, W. (1819) : History of Philosophy. Vol. 1.

22.  Tattvabhushan, S. (no date) : Philosophy of Sankaracharya. 3rd Edition, Natesen, Madras.

23.  Jung, C.G. (1952) : Psychologie and Alchemie. Its English translation is out of print.

24.  Cheng Te-K'un (1957) : Yin Yang Wu-Hsing and Han art. Harvard J. As. Stu., 20 : 162.

25.  von Meyer E, (1891) : History of Chem. Uistry. Tr. by Mac Gowan, quotes, Raymund Lully, p. 43.

26.  Mandihassan, S. (1966) : A triple approach to the problem of the origin of alchemy. Siientis, Oct. issue, p. 450.

27.  Mitra, Rajendralala, L.L.D., C.I.E. (1881) : Indo-Aryans. Calcutta. Vol. II, p. 49.

28.  Eis, Gerhard (1967) : The Homunculus in Folklore and Legend. Abbotempo, Book 4, p. 21. Ajournal published by Abbott Universal Ltd. USA.

29.  C.G. Jung. (1942) : Paracelsia, p. 72f. Through J. Jacobi's Psychological Reflections, being anthology of Jung's writings, p. 196.

Notes and References