This collectively called matter or the non-ego or the object, possess certain characteristics and properties which are not found in mind at all, such as breadth and length (order in place), extension, hard-neso and softness (inertia), weight (gravity), colour, heat, light, electricity, organised properties, chemical properties etc, etc, and the most important of this is extension. Matter is extended. Mind is anextended. Says Dr. Bain,

"We are in this fix; mental states and bodily states are utterly contrasted; they cannot be compared, they have nothing in common except the most general of all attributes - degree, order in time; when engaged with one we must be oblivious of all that distinguishes the other. When I am studying a brain and nerve communications, I am engrossed with properties exclusively belonging to the object or material world, I am unable at that moment (except by very rapid transitions or alterations) to conceive a truly mental consciousness. Our mental experience, our feelings and thought have no extension, no place, no form or outline, no machanical division of parts ; and we are incapable of attending to anything mental, until we shut off the view of all that. Walking in the country in spring, our mind is occupied with the foliage, the bloom, and the grassy meads - all purely objective things. We are suddenly and strongly arrested by the odour of the May-blossom ; we give way for a moment to the sensation of sweetness; for that moment the objective regards cease ; we think of nothing extended, we are in a state, where extension has no footing; there is to us place no longer.

Such states are of short duration, mere fits, glimpses; they are constantly shifted and alternated with object states, and while they last and have their full power, we are in a different world; the material world is blotted out, eclipsed, for the instant unthinkable. These subject-movements are studied to advantage in bursts of intense pleasure or intense pain, in fit of engrossed reflection, especially reflection on mental facts; but they are seldom sustained in purity, beyond a very short interval; we are constantly returning to the object side of things - to the world whose basis is extension and place."

However widely these may differ, there is this remarkable fact about them that they are found united together in a sentient being - man or animal. And the exact correlation, correspondence or concomitance in these two sets of phenomena is what Dr. Bain takes very great trouble to show in several chapters. This we need not deny, as Dr. Bain fully admits that this conjunction and correspondence do not warrant us in stating that mind causes body o r bod cm n; but his position is that mind-body causes mind-body. There is a duality in the very final resort and ultimate analysis, but a disembodied mind cannot be thought of, and he uses various expressions such as, an 'undivided twin' a 'double faced unity,' 'one substance with two sets of properties.' etc. And we don't see why Dr. Bain should ally himself with materialists if he is not going to call this one substance, not as matter altogether, but as only matter-mind or mind-matter; unless it be that he is unable to prove himself the existence of mind except in conjunction with an organized body.

This latter circumstance again causes no difficulty to the Siddhanti who postulates

' even in Mukti, none of the three padarthas are destroyed,' and who no more believes in a disembodied mind than Dr. Bain, unless a body or an organism be taken to be the body composed of all the 25 lower tattvas. From the table given in No. 10 of the first volume of the Siddhanta Dlpika, it will be seen, that even the most spiritual beings have a body composed of Asudda or Sudda Maya, and we have also remarked, cautioning against the common mistake of calling matter dead, that these higher aspects of matter are so potent and active as to be often mistaken for God Himself. Passing from this point however, we now come to the question as to the nature of the union between this mind and body. When we talk of union, the suggestion that it is union in place that is most predominant. And Dr. Bain lays great stress on the fact that such a local conjunction is not to be thought of, is impossible. There can be no union in place between an un-extended thing (as Chit), and an extended thing (as Achit); and all such expressions external and internal, container and contained are also misleading aud mischievous. The connection is not a causal connection.

It is wrong to call such conjunction as one acting on the other, or as one using the other as an instrument. (The theory of occasional causes and of pre-established harmony are also antiquated now). The phenomenon is a most unique one in nature; there is no single similar conjunction in nature, so that we may compare it by analogy, and there is no fitting language to express such conjunction either. The only adequate expression to denote a transition from an object cognition to a subject one is a change of state. Language fails, analogy fails, to explain this union, though in itself a fact; and it remains a mystery in a sense, though to seek an explanation for an ultimate fact, can, in no sense, be logical; and all that we can do has been done when we have tried to generalize the various sets of phenomena into the fewest possible number, and if we cannot pass to a higher generalization than two, we can only rest and be thankful.

We are sure that this is a perfectly safe position to hold, and our object in penning this article is in no way to differ from this view; only we fancy, we have an analogy in Tamil, which will exactly answear the point and make the union more intelligible, besides bringing out the nature of mind and matter, in a much more favourable light, than from the standpoint of a mere materialist, qualified or otherwise; and we fancy we have been almost every day using language to describe this union, though the name in itself is a puzzle, and embodies both a paradox and a contradiction. Before we state them, however, we will state one or two facts, so far as they bear upon the relation of mind and matter, and which Dr. Bain states more fully in his Mental Science. It is that, all objectivity implies the subject-mind at the same time. "All objective states are in a sense also mental." Unless the mind is present, though unconscious, you cannot have object knowledge at all. We cannot have a pure objective condition at all, without the subject supporting it, as it were, though for the time being, it is nonapparent, is entirely blotted out. (Sunyam). Or rather shall we say, though dissimilar, the mind has become thoroughly identified with matter.