Collected Works (Vol. II)

TIME 277 Sceft. Quit not the scientific ground we walk on! Myst. 1 regret; but my astonishment an- nulled me. On the main point, however, there is no doubt. These Westerns did, more or less, pursue our methods. Why doubt that they attained our results ? Scept. I never did doubt it. our philosophers have even imagined that ‘self-consciousness,”’ as they style it, is the very purpose of the Universe. Myst. They were so enamoured of the Ananda—the bliss Scept. Presumably. Far be it from me to set myself up against them; but I may more modestly take the position that ‘‘self- consciousness” is a mere phenomenon; a bye-product, and no more, in the laboratory of life. Afyst. Alas: I can think no better of you for your modesty : whoso would make bricks without straw may as well plan pyramids as hovels. Sevpt. Your stricture is but too just. Teleo- logy * isa science which will make no progress until the most wicked and stupid of men are philosophers, since like is comprehended by like: unless, indeed, we excuse the Creator by saying that, the Universe being a mere mechanism, that it should suffer pain (an emo- tion He does not feel) is as unintelligible to Him as that a machine should do so is to the engineer. Strain and fatigue are ob- served by the latter, but not associated by him with the idea of pain: much more so, then, God, Myst, You are bold enough now! Our philosophers think it not fitting that man should discuss the ways of the inscrutable, the eternal God. Scept. I have you tripping fairly at last! What do you mean by “ eternal”? You who have uprooted my ideas of time, answer me that? Myst. A woodcock to mine own springe, indeed. I am justly caught with mine own metaphysic. 1 The science of the Purpose of Things. Certain of : Scept. Throw metaphysic to the dogs! I'll none of it. I will resolve it to you, then, on your own principles. The term, so con- stantly in use, or rather abuse, by your de- votees as by ours, is meaningless. All they can mean is a state of consciousness which is never changed—that is, one unit of time, since time is no more than a succession of states of consciousness, and we have no means of measuring the length of one against another: indeed, a ‘‘ state of consciousness ”’ is atomic, and to measure is really to furnish the means for dissolution of a molecule, and no more, Thus in the New Jerusalem the song must be either a single note, or a pheno- menon in time. Length without change is equivalent to an increase in the vividness, as we said before. And after all the Ego can never be happy, for happiness is impersonal, is distinct from the contemplation of hap- piness. This quite unchanging, this single vivid state, is as near ‘‘ Eternity” as we can ever get—it is a foolish word. Afyst. That state isthen impersonal ? Scept. Ah!—Yes, I have described Dhyana. Myst. The heaven of the Christian is then identical with the daily relaxation of the Hindu? Sept. If we analyse their phrase, yes. But Christians mean ‘“‘eternal time,” a re- curring cycle of pleasant states, as when a child wishes that the pantomime ‘‘could go on for ever.” : Atyst. Why, do they ever mean anything? . . » But how does this eternal time differ from ordinary time? Our guarantee against cessation is the fact that the tendency to change is inherent in all component things. Scept. Our guarantee indeed! Rather the seal upon the tomb of our hopes! But to sing, even out of tune, as the Christian does. that ‘‘time shall be no more,” is, indeed, to cease to mean anything. The dogma of the Trinity itself is not less inane, the only thing that saves it from being blasphemous. Myst. To be intelligible is to be misunder- stood. Scept. To beunintelligible is to be found out. $2