Book Title: Samayasara OR Nature of Self Author(s): A Chakravarti Publisher: Bharatiya GyanpithPage 25
________________ The Spinozistic pantheism though extremely fascinating did not last long. It reduced human personality to an entirely inadequate and unimportant position and whenever there is such a deterioration of human personality there is always the inevitable reaction. The Spinozistic pantheism which absorbed all thinking things and reduced them to non-entities was followed by Leibniz' monadism. Leibniz wanted to restore the reality of individual personality. He did not relish the theory of an all devouring ultimate substance. Hence according to Leibniz the whole system of reality consisted of monads or individual units, some of which are thinking monads and others with a dormant thought. Thus though thought is the necessary characteristic of all monads it was explicitly present in some monads and in others it existed in a latent form. These latter monads whose thought was latent practically appeared to be unthinking substance and thus constituted the physical realm. The unity emphasised by Spinoza between the external world and the thinking souls was thus retained by Leibniz though he threw overboaid the utlimate God substance which Spinoza introduced to bring about the unity. According to Leibniz the unity is the identical nature of the monads throughout the realm of reality, though some of these constituted the apparently unthinking physical objects as contrasted with the thinking monads of souls. Thus at one stroke, the ultimate God substance of Spinoza was split up into an infinite number of monads, all identical in kind though they appeared with different degrees of developments. This theory which reduced the world to an infinite number of monads has introduced a problem in itself. Leibniz’ monad was considered to be completely selfsufficeint. Development of thought was purely an internal affair. Even in the matter of sense presentation Leibniz does not believe that the monad has an access to the external world. The monad is windowless and completely shut up within itself. There is no external world or internal world in the case of monads. The monads being completely windowless and shut up, how could they have a common object of perception? Several individuals may perceive the same tree or stone in the external world. MonadsPage Navigation
1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 ... 406