In the case of man, too, the mechanism does not express the entire powers of its inner mover, which of itself quite disproves the materialistic theory, however much we might otherwise be inclined to accept it. There is positively no physical equivalent possible for any of the higher faculties. What particular motion among the molecules of the brain can be postulated as the physical equivalent and causal antecedent of our conceptions of justice, of truth, of moral obligation? The feeblest mind revolts against such a crass conception of its native powers. Perception and sensation may be conceived of as arising out of physical correlates, but no such correlate can be conceived of the being who moves about, as it were, among these, selecting this one and rejecting that. The physical brain is limited to motion only; it can not choose its own mode of motion, even.

Of these powers, which even the wildest materialism can not connect with any physical process, the unity of consciousness is perhaps the most convincing proof of the existence of a soul. Unity is unique in consciousness; it is undefinable, unapproachable; yet none the less it IS; and every act, thought, emotion, willing, or feeling is, consciously or unconsciously, built upon and referred to this underlying unit - the "I am I." All the myriad states of consciousness are recognized by this "I" as its own. The states, indeed, may result from external causes in nature, or internal, within the organism; but the "I," the Unit of consciousness, the synthesizer of them all, has no such relation. It is, in truth, a reflection of that incomprehensible Unity which is One and yet All, at the dawn of a manvantara.* No number of successive states of consciousness can constitute the unity which synthesizes and connects them all. The string of pearls must have a real string, or they are but individual gems, not a sequence of them. Nor can any conceivable number of molecules constitute unity; for upon their own plane each is a unit, and no mere combination of them can produce self-conscious unity upon a higher.

They can be synthesized by unity from above into a complex system upon their own plane, but even in this relation they are units grouped, not unity.

* Manvantara - the manifestation of a phenomenal universe. As all existence proceeds in cycles, even universes appear and disappear under this law, a period represented in Brahmanical writings by fifteen places of figures.

Again, the mind is a unit, or it could not perceive itself at all. If it were composed of a complexity of varying states it would exist only as such variety, and no one state would have any real hold upon or memory of those past, or anticipation of those to come. We cannot conceive, much less perceive, any quality in nature which we do not possess. It would be so foreign, so utterly unrelated to our consciousness, that we might owe our very being to it without being aware of its existence. Unity can alone recognize unity - can alone construct unit things out of the objects in nature. We recognize such unit beings or "things" in nature; we could not bestow this quality upon them did we not possess it, nor could we recognize it at the base of our "I am I" if it were not really there. As has been so forcibly pointed out by Lotze:

"No twisting of imagination, or subtlety of argument, can show how a mind not really one could appear to itself at all; or break the strength of the conviction inwrought into the very structure of self-consciousness, that the real and spiritual being, which we call mind, is not a fortunate confluence or phenomenal center of changing modes, but a unit-being, and a reason of all unity in whatever becomes the object of its thought." *

Nor does this recognition of a real unit - an "I am myself"- ever vary, from the cradle to the grave. Through pain and grief, in joy or gladness, in youth or age, though means after means of communication with externals be cut off by disease or old age, through every conceivable mental change of opinion or belief, the "I am I" is equally undisturbed. The connection between soul and body must be absolutely severed by insanity (disease) or death for this center of consciousness to cease to recognize itself as a real, abiding unity. Every state of consciousness is constantly referred to this "I" as its base, as the subject which experiences the state. A mental self - conscious state not involving an "I" at its base is absolutely unthinkable.

* Loc. Cit., p. 687.

In this "I," thus shown to be necessary to self-conscious existence, there are many other attributes, besides those we have been studying, incapable of arising out of any combination of sense- perceptions, and which must therefore be inherent to or potential within itself. One such is memory. This is a reproduction in consciousness not only of things not there, but of things which never were there. For the things we perceive through our senses are not stored up in the brain even as infinitesimally small pictures or representations, for they never reach our brain as such. It is only the effects of these, recorded in molecular changes, which are thus stored; and the mind in remembering has to take these old effects, connect them with their old causes, and from this construct the old representation. Truly, this is a creative process, requiring a creative center of consciousness, and a center which can only exercise this power through its being one in essence with creative consciousness in nature. It requires an abiding, permanent "I," or the picture could not be recognized as belonging to a past experience.

As has been pointed out by Prof. Ladd:

"It is a fact of consciousness, on which all possibility of connected experience and of recorded and cumulative human knowledge is dependent, that certain phases or products of consciousness appear with a claim to stand for [to represent] past experiences to which they are regarded as in some respect similar. It is this peculiar claim in consciousness which constitutes the essence of an act of memory; it is this which makes memory wholly inexplicable as a mere persistence or recurrence of similar impressions. It is this which makes conscious memory a spiritual phenomenon, the explanation of which, as arising out of nervous processes and conditions, is not simply undiscover - able in fact, but utterly incapable of approach by imagination. When, then, we speak of a physical basis of memory, recognition must be made of the complete inability of science to suggest any physical process which can be conceived of as correlated with that peculiar and mysterious actus of the mind, connecting its present and its past, which constitutes the essence of memory." *