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