'Upanisihads,' however various their
subject, practically agree on one point--in the definition of the
"self." They agree in saying: that the self of each man is continuous
with and in a sense identical with the Self of the universe. Now that
seems an extraordinary conclusion, and one which almost staggers the
modern mind to conceive of. But that is the conclusion, that is the
thread which runs all through the 'Upanishads'--the identity of the self
of each individual with the self of every other individual throughout
mankind, and even with the selves of the animals and other creatures.

Those who have read the Khandogya Upanishad remember how in that
treatise the father instructs his son Svetakeitu on this very
subject--pointing him out in succession the objects of Nature and
on each occasion exhorting him to realize his identity with the
very essence of the object--"Tat twam asi, THAT thou art." He calls
Svetaketu's attention to a tree. What is the ESSENCE of the tree?
When they have rejected the external characteristics--the leaves, the
branches, etc.--and agreed that the SAP is the essence, then the father
says, "TAT TWAM ASI--THAT thou art." He gives his son a crystal of salt,
and asks him what is the essence of that. The son is puzzled. Clearly
neither the form nor the transparent quality are essential. The father
says, "Put the crystal in water." Then when it is melted he says, "Where
is the crystal?" The son replies, "I do not know." "Dip your finger in
the bowl," says the father, "and taste." Then Svetaketu dips here and
there, and everywhere there is a salt flavor. They agree that THAT is
the essence of salt; and the father says again, "TAt twam asi." I am of
course neither defending nor criticizing the scientific attitude here
adopted. I am only pointing out that this psychological identification
of the observer with the object observed runs through the Upanishads,
and is I think worthy of the deepest consideration.

In the 'Bhagavat Gita,' which is a later book, the author speaks of
"him whose soul is purified, whose self is the Self of all creatures." A
phrase like that challenges opposition. It is so bold, so sweeping, and
so immense, that we hesitate to give our adhesion to what it implies.
But what does it mean--"whose soul is purified"? I believe that it means
this, that with most of us our souls are anything but clean or
purified, they are by no means transparent, so that all the time we are
continuall