DUALISM OF BRAHMANICAL AND ZOROASTRIAN PHILOSOPHERS, 95 
and denoting one Essence, composed of three inherent facul- 
ties, “ Existence, Thought, Joy,” which are inseparable. 
Sometimes he pr efers the simple name Cid (C = our Ch) or 
Cit, that is, pure “Thought,” or Consciousness (but not Sel/- 
consciousness), which is a feminine noun; or the equivalent 
expression Caitanya, which is neuter. 
In real truth, however, he most commonly designates the 
one Being by a name which is incompatible with all idea of sex. 
He calls the one Being Brahma, a neuter word implying 
“ or owth, ”_* expansion,” “ evolution,” ‘universal pervasion.’ 
It is only when that Being becomes the Evolver of the 
Universe that he is called by a masculine name, Brihma.* 
This one eternal neuter Essence (in the [lusion by which it 
‘is overspread) is to the external world and to the human spirit 
what yarn is to cloth, what milk is to curds, what clay is to a 
jar. 
From this is everything born, in this it breathes, in this it 
is dissolved (according to the Sanskrit formula tajjalan). 
The Vedantist’s own personal identification with this one 
universal Spirit is expressed by the two monosyllables Yat 
tvam, “That art thou,” two words which, wheu combined in 
one, stand for all philosophical truth (tattvam). 
The number One, indeed, appears to have assumed the 
character of a kind of God in the minds of some Indian 
thinkers. Aham Brahmdasmi, “I am God,” says the Hindi 
pantheist. 
Hence we read in the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (iv, 5) :— 
“When there is anything like duality there one sees 
another, one smells another, one tastes another, one speaks 
to another, one hears another, one minds another, one regards 
another, one knows another.” 
Then this ancient philosophical work, which represents 
the views of Indian metaphysicians at least 500 years B.C., 
goes on to assert that the One Infinite Essence “ neither sees, 
nor smells, nor tastes, nor speaks, nor hears, nor minds, nor 
regards, nor knows.” 
The apparent sternness of ancient Indian Monism seems 
to be paralleled by almost identical phases of modern German 
philosophical thought. According to Dean Mansel :— 
* With German philosophers the root of all mischief is the 
number two—Self and Not-self, Ego and Non-ego. 
* The masculine deity Brihma is not eternal, but lapses back into the 
neuter Brahma. The crude base Brahmin (in grammar) stands for both. 
+ Compare Amos v, 21, 
