Sachchidananda 'The Life Divine' Book I,Ch.9, 10, 11, 12 - Track 803

It is somewhat like a modern physicist who was asked the question – what is the ultimate of matter? When you go on examining matter, you ultimately arrive at an atom and then you ask a question what is atom and you break it, and you find in that small atom a full solar system – a nucleus, around which electrons are constantly rotating. One atom containing a whole solar system and as they now go on exploring they find hundreds of such things inside the little thing.

 Sat Chit Anand VIII, Side B

Not only that but now when they came to the ultimate this is where they are grappling with the problem. They found that what they called matter which seemed to be of the nature of particle, something solid, something that has magnitude. They found that that magnitude can be broken and when that is broken, it becomes energy. And energy is not of the nature of particle and they find it is energy that becomes particle and particle that has broken becomes energy, so its nature is of that of  a particle which is wave. Particle normally would imply incapacity of a wave. It would cease to be a particle the moment it becomes wave and the wave would be something opposed to the particle, so if you ask this question what is this ultimate atom. If you describe it as a particle it is not true, if you describe it as a wave, it is not true. It is a particle-wave you might say. It is like self existent which has a force of energy. Such is the nature of the world that is the adhbhuta.

Infact everything in this world has this kind of wonder in it; therefore the whole world is regarded as adhbhuta in the Vedanta. In the Veda there was a concept of divine maya, it’s like a magic you might say. The reality is magical, not therefore illogical or irrational. Why is it that the electricity has a positive charge and negative charge and without these two opposites electricity won’t function and where does the negative end, and where the positive start? How the two co-exist, such is the nature of reality. Reality is of paradoxical nature. Now this is a very major standpoint which has been described in this chapter. The relationship between pure existent and force, force is the one with pure existent, force is inherent in the pure existent. Now having stated that this is the nature of reality, having first reduced all the multiplicity of objects into one force; having reduced that force into a pure existent, we now have a more comprehensive statement that the pure existent is that with which force is identical and in which force is inherent. This is the clear statement of the wonder that is Reality. Having stated this there are two questions which can be raised – How does the force act? And why does the force act? Now how is an easier question to answer, how does the force act? The answer is the force acts in a twofold manner. It acts by assuming a poise of rest or it takes the poise of movement. It’s a twofold nature of force. How it acts. It either takes the poise of rest or it takes the poise of movement. Rest and motion are the two fundamental modes of action of the force and the whole nature is nothing but an illustration of this twofold movement. Force at rest, force in movement. The second question is why does it go into rest? Why does it put forward itself in movement? This is a more difficult question to answer. If we were to say that there is no question why, the nature of force is such that sometimes it can take rest and sometimes it can move forward − such is the nature of force. So, the question why it rest and why it goes into motion does not arise, this is the one possible answer to this question, but if it is one with pure existent, if the force is one with the pure existent as we already said it is one. If it is inherent in the pure existent then the question may arise. We may ask the question – has pure existent anything to do with its double movement of force and if so, what role has it and in that role does the question why, arise? Is force independent, although inherent in the pure existent, is it still independent of the pure existent as far as  the action is concern. If it is independent we are negating the sole-ness of the pure existent. The pure existent is the only reality then the movement of the force cannot be independent of the pure Existent. There is of course one theory in the tradition of India, which wants to show that although this is inherent in the pure existent, movement or not to be in movement is a sole decision of the force. Logically it’s inconsistent, but there is a theory, this is theory of certain line of Tantric thought in India which says that force Kali does the whole world, manifests the whole world. When she wants she withdraws from the world and Shiva is only an observer of all that Kali does, but evidently this is an irrational theory. Having granted there is only one pure existent, one without the second, that all that is there must be incapable of independence, therefore we come to the conclusion that the force for its movement or for its rest must be under the control of the pure existent. Now if it is under the control of the pure existent, if Kali is subordinate to Shiva, although inherent in Shiva, although one with Shiva then the question can be raised why is it that Shiva permits the force to move or not to move. If Shiva is capable of controlling then you can ask the question why, it controls in this fashion, is there a purpose? This question can be raised only if Kali and Shiva are conscious, because all idea of purpose is connected with consciousness. If there is a tap which is unconscious, if there is water in it which is unconscious then when the tap opens, water pours itself down, when it is closed then the water does not move out.