We know we were talking last time of the dialogue with the materialist and I suggested that there are two more dialogues apart from the dialogue that I had last time, so I shall first deal with these two dialogues. The first of these two dialogues does not put forward materialism openly as the basic argument. It simply says look at the world and look at what is happening in the world. Things happen pell-mell. A freak of will of somebody changes the course of history, if a certain king had not to go for a walk on a particular day history would have been quite different. Simple things like this create lots of events which are great and by taking examples of history it concludes that the world is a matter of chance. This is a theory of chance. Things are happening in the world by means of no design. In fact there is nothing like design at all in this world, but if you point out that there are so many things which are happening in the world which have an order—the sun rises in the morning in the east, the planets move in a particular direction, at a particular speed. So that you can predict the exact time when an eclipse for example can take place, in advance, many, many years in advance. Therefore to say that the world is merely a world of chance is not true, so the chances modify their position and he says of course basically it is chance but it is self-organizing chance. It’s a new word,− self- organizing chance. The whole world is nothing but a self organizing chance. He admits that there is a paradox. Chance and self-organisation do not go together because of the very fact of organizing. Organisation means order, regularity, predictability. He admits it is true but he says even that has happened by chance. Why does the sun rise in the east every day, by chance? It so happens. Chance is like that every day it happens by chance. Now this theory has behind it actually materialism because only if the ultimate reality is matter which is unconscious that it can produce a world of chance. Only if ultimate reality is unconscious can be a freak of will and unpredictable things, but there are two facts, which this theory cannot answer. If everything is by chance how is it that in the process of evolution at a certain stage the unconscious has given rise to consciousness. Human beings have come into existence much after the birth of matter and life. The birth of mind is much later. This is one fact which it is not able to answer. How could unconsciousness produce consciousness? Secondly, how easily the consciousness which is born in the form of the mind always tends to order its own ideas. Whenever the mind begins to work it immediately tries to organize its perceptions, its ideas and wants to organize things in a certain sense of unity. Why is it that chance being the parent, the child is opposed to chance. The child does not like to follow the method of chance in all its operation, it follows the methods of design. These two questions, the chance’s theory is not able to answer, but he still says all this is by chance. A very easy statement is that all this is by chance. Even that production of consciousness out of unconscious is by chance. Even the production of the mind which imposes its design in the world is by chance; therefore the last answer that we can give to the theory of chance is that even if it is right, even if this theory is right, it will be right only by chance. If everything is chance then its theory also can be right only by means of chance, not necessarily a right theory. This is the only answer that can really defeat this position that if it happens to be right it will not be right because it is really right but only because of chance it is right and that which is right by chance is not really right, so this is one special theory of materialism.
Now we come to the last theory of materialism. Now this theory also follows basically the theory of chance but in a more sophisticated manner. It says that the world consists of events and the only statement you can make which is indubitable is that there are events, only one statement. Nobody can refute this statement that there are events. Now events have no intrinsic relationship with each other according to the theory which regards consciousness as the root of the universe. The relationship between one event and the other is determined by underlying unity because there is a kind of a design and all design implies unity, therefore everything that happens to the world has an internal relationship with the other event. No event occurs without having an intrinsic relationship with any other event, but this theory maintains that every event has no relationship with any other event. Every event is independent of the other. Between one event and the other there is a gap, a vacuum.
Now this is the theory which was advanced basically to support materialism because according to materialism there is no conscious design and conscious design and conscious design implies unity. Unity means inter-relationship which is intrinsic, therefore to oppose this theory, this theory has been put forward that all events in the world happen without any relationship with the other. It may not use the word chance but actually it comes through the same theory that every event if it happens without any connection with another event, it is by chance. It may not use the word chance but it is another version of the same theory but with this sophistication of the idea of relationship that the relationship according to this theory is external not internal. The relationship between one event and the other is not intrinsic but external. It is simply superimposed upon it by our thinking. In itself one event has no connection with another event. Every event is atomistic. According to this theory time for example consists of moments and each moment is like a drop. Between one moment and the other there is no interval as such. There is no interval of time. Between one event and the other there is an interval but the interval is a vacuum. There is nothing between the two. This theory maintains that between one event and the other there is no duration. Every event occurs by itself. It’s like a drop suddenly, a drop and event takes place and nothing happens for sometime suddenly something happens another event takes place, so according to this theory time is not a succession of moments. It is simply a moment followed by vacuum, followed by another moment, so between one moment and the other there is no relationship. This is also called the atomic theories of events. Every event is atomic. It has no connection with the other.
Now Bertrand Russell is one of the proponents of this theory and he wanted to show that this theory is so powerfully valid and if it is established thoroughly then the hypothesis of consciousness can be removed altogether forever, but he had one big difficulty he was a very honest thinker he tried his best this theory and to prove this theory he tried to show that every event is atomic and every event being atomic he said every event can be described atomically. If every event is atomic, it can even be described atomically. That is to say you speak only one word, no other word at all and yet that event can be described. So he wanted to invent a new language appropriate to this kind of theory that every event is indifferent of the other so you should be able also in such a way that each event is complete by itself, another event is complete by itself, a third event is complete by itself having no interconnection between them or if relations are there they are only external. He used to give examples of uncle and nephew, uncle is an event, nephew is an event. Now, it is true that there is no uncle without a nephew and no nephew without an uncle, but uncle could have existed even without a nephew in himself and nephew could have existed even if uncle were not to exist. So he said that the nephew-uncle relationship is external. It is not that nephew must exist in order that uncle exist. Relationship of course must exist, for relationship this interdependence is necessary, but for the actual existence of the uncle presence of nephew is not necessary and vice versa, but the moment you use the words uncle and nephew, relationship is established so he wanted to find out a new language in which you don’t have to use a word nephew and uncle because the moment you use this term it gives an impression that nephew can’t exist without uncle, uncle can’t exist without a nephew. He went on searching, searching and ultimately he said, I will use language in which there will be only one word,—this, this, that’s all not a lot, only one word. You indicate this. It is atomic. This is atomic, that is atomic so each word has only one word namely this. If you want to indicate don’t use a long language in which this is so and so, that is so and so. Simply say this. He went to that length but then he admitted that the moment I say this I am obliged to imply that this is different from that otherwise how can I indicate this. If I do not at the same time indicate its different from the other I can’t indicate this at all, so he came to the conclusion ultimately that this still had not worked and he had a programme in his life that one day he will find out a language which will be purely atomic, which he could not until the end of his life. In any case it only shows that the theory of materialism even in his extreme effort failed, even in the extreme efforts you grant everything, so you will see that all the dialogue that we have so far, in each dialogue the materialist is not able to answer ultimately. Now let us take the other way round let us assume that consciousness is at the root of things, not matter but consciousness is at the root of the whole universe can we then explain the universe? Now just as the materialist has a difficulty in explaining consciousness coming out of the matter similarly, the theory of consciousness has a big difficulty because of the presence of matter. If everything is conscious how can there be matter which is unconscious. This is the big blockage for the theory of consciousness. How can there be matter which is unconscious if ultimate reality is consciousness?
*Question- But they argue they say that it is only in your consciousness that you perceive matter. If you didn’t have consciousness you won’t perceive matter.*
Yes, but that argument is not conclusive.
*Question -How do you go ahead with that?*
If he has argued on behalf of the materialist that it is true that as far as you are concerned. For you things exist only so long as you are in consciousness, but how do you prove that they don’t exist when your consciousness is not present. It is true that when you perceive a thing then it is in your perception that the thing exists, but does it prove therefore that when your consciousness is not at work that thing still continues or does not continue to exist. For example we have a theory of a philosopher who said that if an idealist is right, idealist is one who regards consciousness at the root of things as opposed to materialist, so he says that if idealist is right then the train as it enters into the platform it begins to have wheels when it goes out of the platform it ceases to have wheels. Why because when a train is moving in a place where nobody is around to see, you can of course see the wagons because you are seated and you are experiencing it but you are not seeing the wheels. So wheels must not be existing at that time, so the absurdity will be that wheels come into existence when a train enters into a platform because there human beings are all around on the platform so they can see the wheels. So do you mean to say that the wheels come into the existence when the train enters into the platform and they ceases to have to be there when the train goes out of the platform, but your argument remains as far as you are concerned wheels exists only because you see them if you were not there to see you are not even there to make a statement that the wheels exists, but this argument does not stand very powerfully because of another reason also that if things exist only because you see them then how is it that you cannot see things at your will. If things exist only because you see them then how is it that you cannot see things at your will? How is it that you are obliged to see this machine and you are not able to see here a river? Think of a river, if a river exists upon your thinking or upon your seeing then as soon as you think of a river, the river must come into existence. It doesn’t come into existence. Therefore, there must be a reality independent of your thinking and therefore this idealist theory fails in answering this question. But idealist theory as I told you has an upper hand when we discuss all the theories of materialism. Even if things exist independent of your perception you have many problems to answer and each question we have raised up till now. Six theories we have presented. In six different forms we have presented materialism and each theory ultimately fails to answer therefore the theory of idealism is stronger than the materialist as compared to materialist but now the idealist has this problem, how do you show that from consciousness matter can come into existence.
If everything is consciousness, how can there be unconsciousness at all? Now in answer to this question it is said that whatever is unconscious is itself a mode of consciousness that is unconsciousness is not opposed to consciousness. It is itself a mode of consciousness and the example is that of sleep. When you go to sleep what happens. Your consciousness as you normally understand it is suspended, but it is not destroyed when you wake up you can take up the thread with the past and how can you take up the thread with the past if there was a real loss of consciousness. We also know that when there is sleep whatever senses normally observe they don’t observe any more. My ears may be as wide open as now and yet in the sleep condition I don’t hear the noise. Even if the noise takes place around me I don’t hear the noise, therefore unconsciousness is simply a mode of consciousness. This theory therefore simply wants to argue that consciousness is not equal to mental consciousness. If you mean by consciousness, mental consciousness then of course you can’t explain sleep, you can’t explain unconsciousness, you can’t explain matter, but if consciousness have different kinds of grace of such a kind that even the suspension of consciousness is the state of consciousness then you can explain the emergence of matter out of consciousness and how do you explain—by means of what is called self limitation, there is the power of self limitation in the consciousness. It’s a special kind of power just as the power of self expression is a power, the power of self limitation is also a power. I know that certain things need not be spoken in the presence of a child therefore I limit my expression, but that limitation requires power. It’s a very special power. It is a result of consciousness, that power itself is exercised by a special power of consciousness therefore all self limitation is a deliberate action. Deliberate means conscious, so according to this theory consciousness can ….unconsciousness by pointing out that unconsciousness is the deliberate action of consciousness to limit its consciousness. If you therefore put a hypothesis that the whole world is originally a consciousness, having a power of self limitation then that power of self limitation can be of various degrees, greater limitation, lower limitation, higher limitation, intense limitation, acute limitation various kinds of limitations are possible. You can have even the intensest limitation which can become inconscience. Inconscience is consciousness limiting itself to such an acute point that it even does not remember that it is deliberately limiting itself. Its an acute self limitation.
Question—How is it different from ignorance?
Ignorance is intermediate between incontinent and supreme consciousness. Limitation of consciousness when it is middle point it is ignorance. When it is acute it is inconscience.
But it is said that it is a voluntary limitation …so how does that differ from ignorance?
Ignorance is also self limited ignorance. We are all ignorant and if you ask a question as to how this ignorance has come about if you go into the history of it you will find at a given time you decided that you want to be limited in your consciousness if you are not decided you will not have become ignorant.
Q- what I didn’t understand was: how was it different from just as you said that voluntary limit as to what we have to say in front of a child or not so that not ignorance that is because of knowledge.
That’s right. Ignorance also is an act of knowledge. In fact that is the specialty of ignorance. Ignorance itself is a form of knowledge that is why in the Isha Upanishad it is said that Vidya cha avidya if you follow only avidhya you will be in ignorance, but if you follow Vidhya alone you will be in a greater ignorance because you are omitting something that is also a form of knowledge. Avidya and Vidhya both combined together give you really true knowledge. The totality of knowledge is both to have Vidhya and avidya and also the creation of avidya is a result of a deliberate action on your part. Availing the knowledge. If you had not exercised that will you would not have become ignorant but you have forgotten it because you have decided that you will forget that. It becomes acute to that point. You have become so acutely ignorant that you have forgotten that you have taken a voluntary decision to become ignorant, but if you go back into the history of your ignorance you will find that you had taken a decision at a given time that you will deliberately limit yourself and play with ignorance that is the theory of Ila that all ignorance is a play. You have decided to play to hide yourself and then having hidden yourself you try to find yourself out and then ultimately when you decide that you want to …yourself then only you become conscious of yourself, so in both the cases it’s a question of decision. It’s a deliberate action, so In fact there is a chapter in the Life Divine where Sri Aurobindo has described ignorance as the process of knowledge and this is a knowledge which helps us in dealing with the world because wherever you see ignorance that there is working of knowledge somewhere. Mere ignorance is not really ignorance. Even a child when he is ignorant if you really observe perfectly you will find that there is spark of knowledge which is constantly illuminating itself in some of its most important activities just as the body which is diseased has an automatic tendency to become healthy. Healing is an automatic process of the body. Even if you are very ill everybody tries to become healthy. In fact all doctors assure you that they are only external instruments. They put the condition of the body in such a condition that it allows the body to work on its own. If the body were not to work on its own by its own inner light the body can never be healthy. How is it that when there is a wound in the body, the white cells of the blood they rush out to give you protection immediately. Who tells them that they have the function to prevent a bleeding, if they come into the picture they can prevent bleeding and therefore the body is protected. How tells the body, so there is a kind of knowledge which is present even in the movements which are unconscious and then if you look at the whole world you will find that the whole world is a big ocean of consciousness.
You will then find that the whole world is a great ocean of consciousness and even scientifically today there are three or more events which have occurred, which are very significant. One is that Jagdish Chandra Bose proved that in plants there is feeling, there is joy, there is sorrow. Actually scientifically by scientific machines he showed that plants have consciousness in them. He wanted to show further that even in metals there is consciousness he could not finish his task but this was also his further attempt to show that even in the metals there is consciousness. In any case it is now known that metals get fatigued. Our cars get fatigued, so there is something like a fatigue in matter, there is something like freshness of matter. When the car is new, brand new it moves very fast and without any trouble but much more than that there is a recent experiment about 10-12 years ago which was done which is as follows you take a small particle of matter this was an experiment which was conducted and this has been now proved. You take a smallest possible particle and split it and let one particle go in one direction and you direct the other split particle into another direction, thousands of miles away. They are separated from each other. Then you act upon this particle and change its direction and the moment you change the direction of this particle, the other particle without your doing anything to it also changes the direction. This is the kind of experiment which is called Bell's theorem. There was a scientist called Bell who proved that this surprising phenomenon takes place, who tells that particle that its twin had been affected and it has been changed in his direction. Without being communicated this particular particle also changes its direction without any manipulation from outside automatically, so in matter there is a consciousness at least there is communication. In life and plants there is consciousness. In the mind of course there is consciousness but not complete consciousness. In the mind there is a subconscious which is conscious. In the mind there is subliminal which is conscious and then when you develop the mind and silence the mind then the higher consciousness develops, so in other words at all of the plains of being right from matter to the height of consciousness is nothing but pure consciousness. The difference between one and the other is only question of self limitation. There is a limitation of consciousness and that too by self limitation comes into existence. Not only that but consciousness always implies the operation of intelligence and design. Can we say that the whole world has a design? Can we say that world is a purpose? Do events happen with a certain kind of design? This is the theory exactly opposite to Chance theory. According to chance theory events happen pell-mell but if consciousness is the end, is the ultimate reality then you must be able to see design everywhere. Now if you look at the world very minutely you will find that in everything in the world there is a relationship between consciousness however …it may and the design it makes like a bird anticipates the rainfall and prepares the nest which every one of us quite easily and the design of the nest is exactly suitable to be a resident of the bird. Who taught the bird to make the nest and if you really see the nest, some of the nests are so beautiful and so powerful you can’t even break them easily and actually they are made of some small branches, twigs and very feeble fibers but very well knit together they become very powerful and a good design. Actually when we study biology, when we study vegetation we find such a tremendous design in it. Take for example design of flowers what is the design of flowers. Every flower has a design and variety of designs. Now if nature was not a designer how could such designs come about. Around each tree the flowers have a special design belonging to that particular species and when you will see those designs even more minutely you will find that these designs correspond to something which is very psychological. I was recently seeing a very beautiful flower. Just recently I saw a very beautiful flower and the mother had called that flower fire (Agni) and when I was examining the flower, I found in it the following design. When I get the flower I will like to show you, very beautiful design. Each flower has four main petals. Over these flower petals there is one supervening petal, four on this side and supervening petal as if presiding over it and over that another petal which is still further supervening over it. Now when you examine this design you find it accurately translates the concept of jeevatman. Jeevatman is the supervening individual of which psychic being is the delegate and psychic being has four powers of knowledge, will, harmony and skill. It has four petals. so four petals presided over by a special petal or where there is a further special petal and fire is actually regarded as a jeevatman as a psychic entity, so if you examine this flower it is not only a design. It’s a design which accurately describes the relationship between souls and its powers.
One day I would like to show you this flower. It is a very beautiful flower. So, in flowers there is so much of design and this design corresponds to psychological aspects which are to be born later on. Human beings came to the world much later and these human beings manifest those levels of consciousness which are already pre-design in the form of these flowers. Also when we see if you go deeper you can find that every flower if you really keep company of flowers they constantly give you psychological help. They not only give you fragrance or beauty but by keeping those flowers with you, you get a certain kind of special capacity like tapasya. It is a flower you should keep constantly with you. The power of tapasya will increase in you. It’s a fact if you keep even the smell of it, it is the smell of tapasya. It induces tapa sya in your consciousness. I don’t know the names of these flowers, but if you see the flowers which are normally offered to Shiva, not champa. Champa is a flower to which Mother has called it psychological perfection. Champa flower has got these four petals. I don’t know the name , the biological name or whatever name, but those flowers if you really smell them. If you smell them you will find that the very smell is tapasya. It induces tapasya in you. It's quite different from a rose.
Question—But you can keep any flower for that purpose?
You can but I am saying that in India we have specially designed that for Shiva you will specially offer that flower. If you have this particular flower it certainly imparts to you a special power. Rose must be having some other power. It has the power of love. No, these flowers are very important actually in our spiritual life, so if you have a certain flower, a company of certain flowers. They always give a certain quality like purity flowers, for example—Juhi, the jasmine flowers. If you just keep them with you they will give a lot of purity in your being. The very company of this flower provides you a lot of purity, all these flowers are actually psychological conditions. Animals seem to be unintelligent but actually intelligence in animals sometimes is so great. Just now I gave the example of the nest making capacity of the birds but like that there are so many amazing capacities of animals and birds which human beings cannot possess although we pride ourselves with our consciousness and we believe that from consciousness point of view we are supreme it is really not true. what a dog can do you cannot do. A dog can detect a thief which even the best policeman cannot do. What is that capacity which the dog possesses? What is the state of consciousness it possesses? What an elephant can do a human being cannot do. What the lion can do man cannot do. What the monkey can do the man cannot do and not only physically but also psychologically. There are certain things which psychologically we cannot do like it is said dolphins for example they have a goodwill inherent in them which human beings don’t possess. Even though we have good will it is mixed up with even will. There is rivalry, competition, this, that etc, but dolphins are supposed to have a genuine good will. They automatically behave in such a way as to protect, to take care and they rush up to help somebody. This has been found in many experiments regarding dolphins, so many animals possess consciousness which we human beings don’t possess. The conclusion is that this force which is acting in the world is not unconscious. We examine all materialistic positions to prove that it is material and these theories failed. We take the opposite hypothesis and we can show that everything in the world is fundamentally conscious, therefore our conclusion is that the force that is working in the world and that the being that is behind the force is conscious. This is the end of chapter number ten fundamentally.
Question—but.…..that the force, that conscious force can be the w… of the unconscious.
Yes, it can be because it is said by limitations
But earlier we said that consciousness is the nature of the pure existence
Quite true, but it also can by limitation the force is capable of two movements either of remaining manifest or remaining un-manifest and when it manifests it can play many types of things of complete self limitation, partial self limitation or growing self limitation. A complete self limitation is incontinent, partial self limitation is ignorance and a growing self limitation is ignorance moving towards knowledge so it can have all kinds of conditions by power of self limitation.
Question—Is it wrong to say that the mind is the factor in the human being for the self limitation?
It is not wrong because mind itself is a power of consciousness.
Question- Then is this statement correct that in the human being the mind is the limiting factor?
You can say that mind first of all let me define mind in order to make your statement true you have to say what is mind. You can say mind is a special power of consciousness. Consciousness is originally two powers of comprehending consciousness and of simultaneously conscious of each and every element. Comprehending consciousness means universal consciousness and another capacity of being conscious of each and every element in that consciousness. It is universal consciousness and it is omniscience. Omniscience means knowledge of each and everything. These are the two original powers of consciousness. These two powers combined together are what is called supermind. Supermind can be defined as all comprehensive consciousness which is capable of being conscious of each and every element within itself. Now when this consciousness decides to limit itself then it produces what is called apprehending consciousness, not comprehending, but apprehending. Now what is apprehending consciousness. Apprehending consciousness is a consciousness that emphasizes one thing against the other. It concentrates upon one more than on the other therefore exclusive becomes afterwards but at present it only induces more importance to one rather than to the other. It is still conscious of everything but it gives more importance to one instead of the other.
Question—Is that the realm of duality?
This is not yet ….., not yet it comes about as a result of this. This is simply a kind of a play, the same comprehending consciousness which was equal, spread over everything giving equal consciousness to everything. Now begins to have play in such a way it gives a greater attention to one as against to the other. Take for example the greatest figure that we have got is of Ras leela of Sri Krishna. Sri Krishna with so many gopis, hundreds of them, but Sri Krishna is playing with each one of them. Now when this play of Sri Krishna is equal in with every Gopi it is you might say the supra mental activity, but Sri Krishna is capable of playing more with this than with that. It can make a distinction between Radha and others. More with this less with that. Now more with this one, now more with that one. It is not as if only less for others. That which was receiving less attention now can get more attention later on, so it can be various kinds of play in which the attention or concentration is given to one varies in various degrees. Now this capacity of giving more attention and less attention is what is called apprehending consciousness as opposed to comprehending consciousness. In comprehending consciousness the consciousness is spread equally on all that is the highest gain you might say of the supra mental in which everyone is exclusive with the divine, perfectly with the divine and no difference everywhere perfect equality, but this equality is not inconsistent with special kind of attention on one as against the other. We have seen this example when the mother has got three children or five children that all the children are equally loved is inwardly true in the consciousness of the mother and yet the mother can vary the concentration on one child or the other. Now on this child, now on that child, now on that child depending upon the circumstances and although there is partiality at that moment basically there is no partiality because each child gets the same kind of partiality at one time or the other and fundamentally, inwardly all the children are equally loved by the mother, so there is an equality of love, there is special partiality now, special partiality then with one or the other which also goes on changing from time to time therefore both the games are equally possible and whole world is nothing but a game of comprehending equality and apprehending equality at apprehending inequality, but both when they are together there is no ignorance. Now when the apprehending consciousness shuts out or veils the comprehending consciousness, not abolishes but only veils it. Then this apprehending consciousness which is a play of partiality becomes prominent. That prominent activity of apprehending consciousness is what we call mind. The definition of mind is apprehending consciousness acting in the state of inequality from where the sense of equality of comprehensive consciousness is ….
Question—That is why silence of mind is important?
That’s right now that is the real root of yoga. Why yoga is necessary? Why meditation is necessary because our inequalities of consciousness, our apprehending consciousness can come to a stillness then when you open up inward then you see equality of consciousness, comprehending consciousness and when you combine both together you can have exactly, you can be like Sri Krishna yourself and have the play of both the kinds equal to all the Gopis, unequal to everyone of them. Unequal now to one, unequal to another then all kinds of possibilities, permutation and combination are possible and the whole world is nothing but ras leela of Sri Krishna
Question—The play of Sri Krishna as in the ras leela as realization of the play of jeevatma.
That’s right. Precise. When you are liberated from the ignorance that is when your apprehending consciousness is opened up not abolished but opened up that is why Vidhya and Avidhya both are together. Avidhya is apprehending consciousness and Vidhya is of comprehensive consciousness. When both are together then you get the complete knowledge, so this whole world is nothing but a sea of consciousness, but differently constituted by the special power of limitation of consciousness, therefore your statement that ignorance is due to the mind is quite true provided by mind we mean what I just now defined that mind is an apprehending consciousness. When it begins to concentrate unequally upon different points of consciousness waving the comprehending equal consciousness which is behind then what we call ignorance arises. Now I think I will stop here today because I have to go early, but I will now request you to read chapter number ten. I have told you everything that is in chapter number ten. We shall read also some portion next time when I come, some passages just to emphasize those passages and then we shall go to the next two chapters—the Delight of Existence, Problem and Delight of existence of solution.