[Sidenote:  Illustration from the Upanishads.]

[Sidenote:  Monism.]

Thus, one section of the Khandogya Upanishad[4] consists entirely of instructions given by a father, Uddalaka, to his son, Svetaketu, who had gone through the ordinary courses of study in the Vedas, but who, in the father’s view, had failed to reach the true significance of life.  Accordingly, Uddalaka inquires:  “Have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?"[5] The youth, more accustomed than we are to teaching by paradox, expresses no surprise at this mode of putting things, but simply asks:  “What is that instruction, sir?” The father then proceeds to give an explanation of what in these days is called “Monism,” that is, the absolute singleness of ultimate Being, and traces all that is, or seems to be, up to one ultimate Essence.  Now, whether in the form given by Uddalaka to his exposition, his theory can properly be called Pantheism, according to the definition of it assumed above, is perhaps questionable.  But that it was intended to be Pantheism there can be no doubt.  “In the beginning,” says Uddalaka, “there was that only which is ([Greek:  to hon]); one only, without a second.  Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is not ([Greek:  to mae hon]); one only, without a second; and from that which is not, that which is was born.”  But Uddalaka rejects this latter doctrine as unthinkable—­which, indeed, many explorers of Hegel have found with pain and anguish of mind.  And then the father traces all the multiformity of the Universe to the desire or will of the original One, “that which is.”

[Sidenote:  Evolution from the One through Desire.]

“It thought, ‘may I be many; may I grow forth.’  It sent forth fire.”  My limits do not allow me to quote further the fantastic account given of the farther process by which water and earth, plants, animals, and men sprang out of that desire of the One:  “May I become many; may I grow forth.”  For our purpose it is more important to show that in the view of Uddalaka—­however inconsistently he may express himself—­the original One was never really divided, but remains the true Self of every finite being, however apparently separate.  Thus, consider the following dialogue, the first words being a direction of the father, Uddalaka:—­

“Fetch me from thence a fruit of the Nyagrodha tree.”  “Here is one, sir.”  “Break it.”  “It is broken, sir.”  “What do you see there?” “These seeds, almost infinitesimal.”  “Break one of them.”  “It is broken, sir.”  “What do you see there?” “Not anything, sir.”  The father said:  “My son, that subtile essence which you do not perceive there, of that very essence this great Nyagrodha tree exists.  Believe it, my son.  That which is the subtile essence, in it all that exists has itself.  It is the True.  It is the Self; and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.”