7rcTIX1xP

A Series of Lessons on the Inner Teachings of the Philosophies and Religions of India1158
from which all material forms and energies evolve; and (2) Purusha, or the
Spirit Principle, which “ensouls” or seeks embodiment in Prakriti, and thus
gives rise to all the various forms of differentiation, from atoms to man; and
which is not conceived of by the Sankhyas as forming one Universal Soul (as
do the Yoga scholars), but which is held to be composed of countless “spirit
atoms,” monads, or individual spirits—which Units as a whole compose a
Unity of Units, which may be considered in the light of a Principle.
There are many points of difference between the various conceptions of
the real nature of Purusha and Prakriti, particularly on the part of Western
writers on the subject, some of which are totally at variance with the beliefs
and conceptions of the advanced Hindu adherents of this philosophy. We
shall consider each of the three leading conceptions in turn, pointing out
the errors where they exist.
i. The first conception of the nature of Purusha and Prakriti, and the one
which is favoured by the majority of Western writers on the subject, is that
which holds that Kapila’s theories are atheistic and practically materialistic,
inasmuch as he ignores the existence of a Supreme Power, Brahman, or that,
and postulates a dual Eternal Thing, one-half of the duad being Matter. This
view interprets the teachings of Kapila to mean that there are Two Eternal
Things, the first of which is Matter, and the second of which is Spirit, divided
into countless atoms—both Purusha and Prakriti being held as eternal, infinite
and immortal, and both of which are self-existent and sustaining, requiring
no Supreme Power as a basis or background. This conception is decidedly
in error, and the spirit of the philosophy has been lost to those who so
hold. The error regarding the discarding of the belief in that or Brahman,
however, is easily explained. In the first place there is nothing in the teachings
of Kapila or of his early followers, in which the existence of that is denied
or condemned—there is simply a silence regarding it, just as is the case in
Buddhism, and the cause is the same in both cases. Both Kapila and Buddha
accepted the centuries old doctrine of that, which no Hindu philosophy
had questioned, and both then proceeded to account for the phenomenal