being derived from the other. Then what relation does X
bear to Y? We cannot fully comprehend X without know-
ing its relation to Y. Part of the character and being of X is
constituted by its relation to Y. Part of X’s character has
to be explained by Y. But that is not to be self-explained.
It is to be explained by something not itself. Therefore, the
ultimate explanation of things must be one.
The Eleatics, then, were perfectly correct in saying that
all is one, and that the ultimate principle of the universe,
Being, is one. But if we examine the way in which they
carried out their monism, we shall see that it broke down
in a hopeless dualism. How did they {68} explain the ex-
istence of the world? They propounded the principle of
Being, as the ultimate reality. How then did they derive
the actual world from that principle? The answer is that
they neither derived it nor made any attempt to derive
it. Instead of deducing the world from their first princi-
ple, they simply denied the reality of the world altogether.
They attempted to solve the problem by denying the ex-
istence of the problem. The world, they said, is simply
not-being. It is an illusion. Now certainly it is a great
thing to know which is the true world, and which the false,
but after all this is not an explanation. To call the world
an illusion is not to explain it. If the world is reality, then
the problem of philosophy is, how does that reality arise?
If the world is illusion, then the problem is, how does that
illusion arise? Call it illusion, if you like. But this is not ex-
plaining it. It is simply calling it names. This is the defect,
too, of Indian philosophy in which the world is said to be
Maya—delusion. Hence in the Eleatic philosophy there are
two worlds brought face to face, lying side by side of each
other, unreconciled—the world of Being, which is the true
world, and the world of facts, which is illusion. Although
the Eleatics deny the sense-world, and call it illusion, yet
of this illusion they cannot rid themselves. In some sense
or other, this world is here, is present. It comes back upon
our senses, and demands explanation. Call it illusion, but
it still stands beside the true world, and demands that it be
deduced from that. So that the Eleatics have two princi-
ples, the false world and the true world, simply lying side by
side, without any connecting link between them, without
anything to {69} show how the one arises from the other.
It is an utterly irreconcilable dualism.It is easy to see why the Eleatic philosophy broke down
in this dualism. It is due to the barrenness of their first
principle itself. Being, they say, has in it no becoming. All
principle of motion is expressly excluded from it. Likewise
they deny to it any multiplicity. It is simply one, without
any many in it. If you expressly exclude multiplicity and
becoming from your first principle, then you can never get
multiplicity and becoming out of it. You cannot get out
of it anything that is not in it. If you say absolutely there
is no multiplicity in the Absolute, then it is impossible to
explain how multiplicity comes into this world. It is ex-
actly the same in regard to the question of quality. Pure
Being is without quality. It is mere “isness.” It is an ut-
terly featureless, characterless Being, perfectly empty and
abstract. How then can the quality of things issue from
it? How can all the riches and variety of the world come
out of this emptiness? The Eleatics are like jugglers who