whom nature will go on working."

But did Vivekananda employ the phrase "nature has no more attraction for
him," to describe the sensation of unappreciativeness of the wonders of the
natural world? We think not. Rather the gentle-hearted sage meant to report
the fact that the soul is no longer _held in bondage_ to the external
world, when it has once attained supra-consciousness.

If this expression referred to the pleasure the true lover of nature feels
in the out-of-doors, he might well say "I trust that I shall never attain
to that state of consciousness. Or if attainment be compulsory, then shall
I prolong the time of accomplishment as long as possible."

And who would blame him? Why should we strive for the attainment of a state
of being described so unattractively as to give us the impression of entire
_loss_ of so enjoyable and unselfish a sensation as love of nature?

The Vedantic idea, according to interpreted translations is that out of The
Absolute, the All (Om), we _come_, and therefore back to it we go, being
now in our present state of consciousness, en route, as it were to return.

But returning to _what_? That is the unanswerable problem of all religions;
all philosophies; all science. If we _return_ to a void, such as some
interpreters of the Vedas declare, then surely this urge within mankind
toward this annihilatory state would hardly be expected. It would be
inconsistent with that instinct of self-preservation which we are told is
the first law of nature.

Compared to this Vedantic concept of the Absolute, the Christian's simple,
and very empirical ideal of eternal happiness is preferable.