84 
beads change, so do the phenomenal appearances of individuals (if we think 
of unlimited time). These beads somewhat correspond to the genes of which I 
have spoken before; and they in the limited sense of phenomenal appearances 
correspond, at the same time, to what are called genes by the student of 
genetics. It must be granted, however, that though I have compared the 
beads to the genes, yet the former denote only fixed qualities of something 
generated, while the latter indicate generating qualities united with something 
generated. I may here add another simile* as an explanation of my 
conception of individuals and genes. The universe is like a boundless net 
with innumerable millions of crystalline beads, each on a mesh of a different 
colour, each reflecting the images of other beads, and each consequently 
presenting different hues, according to the position of the observer. The beads 
present different hues, according as they are observed from this point or that. 
It is, however, only in their phenomena that they are different; in their real 
entities, they are all and ever the same crystalline beads. Tach bead with 
innumerable millions of reflected’ images (say dots) of all varieties of colours 
(of which it must be understood some are visible, but some are invisible, 
according to the position of the observer) is something like an individual, and 
the images on each bead (the dots of different colours) correspond, so to speak, 
to the genes of which I have spoken above. 
The most important point in my theory is that, however much we may 
have spoken both of real entity and of the phenomenal appearance, of 
individuals and genes, indepsndently one from the other, yet the two should 
only be thinkable in their identity in oneness, and be inconceivable indepen- 
dently of one another. 
As can be seen from the explanation given above, the first theory that 
an individual is not to be considered as a character of a single quality, but 
as in reality a compound of different things generated by different genes, is 
called the theory of the mutual participation of the gene; the other theory 
that the relation of individuals to others in their particularity is the relation 
* In presenting this metaphor to my reader, I have been influenced by u suggestion from 
the Indra — nets, an allegory found in one of the Buddhist scriptures, which is called the Mahavai- 
pulyabuddhaganda vyitha-sttra (Kegonkyé’. For this allegory, I am indebted to Professor J. 
Marsumvza; I have not myself consulted the original scripture. 
