Freedom of the soul

[Guest guest]

Of the two sides, then, which will you take? If you say that the soul

was by its own nature pure and free, it naturally follows that there

was nothing in this universe which could make it bound or limited.

But if there was anything in nature which could bind the soul, it

naturally follows that it was not free, and your statement that it

was free is a delusion. So if it is possible for us to attain to

freedom, the conclusion is inevitable that the soul is by its nature

free. It cannot be otherwise. Freedom means independence of anything

outside, and that means that nothing outside itself could work upon

it as a cause. The soul is causeless, and from this follow all the

great ideas that we have. You cannot establish the immortality of the

soul, unless you grant that it is by its nature free, or in other

words, that it cannot be acted upon by anything outside. For death is

an effect produced by some outside cause. I drink poison and I die,

thus showing that my body can be acted upon by something outside that

is called poison. But if it be true that the soul is free, it

naturally follows that nothing can affect it, and it can never die.

Freedom, immortality, blessedness, all depend upon the soul being

beyond the law of causation, beyond this Maya. Of these two which

will you take? Either make the first a delusion, or make the second a

delusion. Certainly I will make the second a delusion. It is more

consonant with all my feelings and aspirations. I am perfectly aware

that I am free by nature, and I will not admit that this bondage is

true and my freedom a delusion.

 

This discussion goes on in all philosophies, in some form or other.

Even in the most modern philosophies you find the same discussion

arising. There are two parties. One says that there is no soul, that

the idea of soul is a delusion produced by the repeated transit of

particles of matter, bringing about the combination which you call

the body or the brain; that the impression of freedom is the result

of the vibrations and motions and continuous transit of these

particles. There were Buddhistic sects who held the same view and

illustrated it by this example: If you take a torch and whirl it

round rapidly, there will be a circle of light. That circle does not

really exist, because the torch is changing place every moment. We

are but bundles of little particles, which in their rapid whirling

produce the delusion of a permanent soul. The other party states that

in the rapid succession of thought, matter occurs as a delusion, and

does not really exist. So we see one side claiming that spirit is a

delusion and the other, that matter is a delusion. Which side will

you take? Of course, we will take the spirit and deny matter. The

arguments are similar for both, only on the spirit side the argument

is little stronger. For nobody has ever seen what matter is. We can

only feel ourselves. I never knew a man who could feel matter outside

of himself. Nobody was ever able to jump outside of himself.

Therefore the argument is a little stronger on the side of the

spirit. Secondly, the spirit theory explains the universe, while

materialism does not. Hence the materialistic explanation is

illogical. If you boil down all the philosophies and analyse them,

you will find that they are reduced to one or the other of these two

positions. So here, too, in a more intricate form, in a more

philosophical form, we find the same question about natural purity

and freedom. One side says that the first is a delusion, and the

other, that the second is a delusion. And, of course, we side with

the second, in believing that our bondage is a delusion.

 

- Swami Vivekananda

 

.... to be continued