Study Notes
PARAGRAPH 9
In the second poise of the Supermind the Divine Consciousness stands back in the idea from the movement which it contains, realising it by a sort of apprehending consciousness, following it, occupying and inhabiting its works, seeming to distribute itself in its forms. In each name and form it would realise itself as the stable Conscious-Self, the same in all; but also it would realise itself as a concentration of Conscious- Self following and supporting the individual play of movement and upholding its differentiation from other play of movement, —the same everywhere in soul-essence, but varying in soul form.
EXPLANATION
In this paragraph Sri Aurobindo explains the second poise of the Supermind.
In the first poise we have seen that there is no difference between the consciousness and force or Conscious-Soul and Force-Soul. There is no difference between the consciousness and the action of consciousness.
In the second poise the Divine Consciousness stands back in the idea from the movement. It realises the idea by apprehending consciousness. The consciousness follows its force, occupy and dwell in its works. The consciousness distributes itself in its forms.
It is the conscious force that creates the names and forms. In each name and form it would realise itself as stable Conscious-Self. It is the same in all.
But at the same time, it would realise itself as a concentration of Conscious-Self in the individual play. This concentration follows and supports the individual play of movement. It upholds the differentiation of one play of movement from the other.
The Conscious-Self, in its distribution of itself in forms, is the same everywhere in soul essence. But it varies in soul form.
(We have seen in Chapter XV that Purusha, as a conscious Soul concentrated in knowledge, accompanies his Force into its works and reproduces there the act of self-division. From the act of self-division this apprehending consciousness is born. In each form the same Soul dwells with his Nature. The multiplication of centres is only intended to introduce a play of difference; mutuality in all respects, Divine Leela)
(Again, we can take the analogy of the sculptor. He decides upon one image. Having chosen a beautiful image out of the many possibilities, he selects one. Once he selects one possibility, he looks at it in his own mind. In his own mind he distances himself as he puts forth that image before the eye of the mind. He can see the details and he knows the dimensions. Out of many choices he sees, finally he brings out one. This is the second stage where there is a distancing of the knower with the object. We can take another analogy. In a pomegranate fruit, when we open a pomegranate fruit, we see little seeds inside all in clusters and separated by a very soft transparent membrane. All these grains are stuck together; each is an individual grain, but not yet separated. There is only a differentiation – Ananda Reddy – Deliberations on The Life divine- Vol III – p. 99).
This concentration supporting the soul-form would be the individual Divine or Jivatman as distinguished from the universal Divine or one all-constituting self. There would be no essential difference, but only a practical differentiation for the play which would not abrogate the real unity. The universal Divine would know all soul-forms as itself and yet establish a different relation with each separately and in each with all the others. The individual Divine would envisage its existence as a soul-form and soul-movement of the One and, while by the comprehending action of consciousness it would enjoy its unity with the One and with all soul-forms, it would also by a forward or frontal apprehending action support and enjoy its individual movement and its relations of a free difference in unity both with the One and with all its forms.
EXPLANATION
This concentration supporting the soul form is the individual Divine or Jivatman. It is distinguished from universal Divine or one all-constituting Cosmic-Self. There would be no essential difference among the individual soul-forms. There is only practical differentiation (here differentiation means highlighting of a quality in an individual. It is not the same as difference) for the individual play. At the same time the real unity is not forsaken. Real unity is the underlying truth.
The universal Divine knows all soul-forms as itself. Yet it establishes different relation with each separately. Also, it establishes relation in each of the soul-form with all the others.
The individual Divine, the Jivatman sees its existence as a soul-form and soul-movement of the One. By its comprehending action of consciousness, it enjoys its unity with the One and with the other soul forms. At the same time by its forward or frontal apprehending action, it supports and enjoys its individual movement and its relations of a free difference in unity both with the One and with all its forms.
(Please note: Jivatmans are transcendental in their essential consciousness. It is these Jivatmans which send their delegates into time and begin evolution as a soul and evolve into the psychic being. So, the soul is the representative of the Jivatman in the evolution. Primarily the difference between Jivatman and the soul is this: one is beyond evolution and the other is in evolution – Ananda Reddy, Deliberations on The Life Divine, Vol III, p. 101).
If our purified mind were to reflect this secondary poise of Supermind, our soul could support and occupy its individual existence and yet even there realise itself as the One that has become all, inhabits all, contains all, enjoying even in its particular modification its unity with God and its fellows. In no other circumstance of the supramental existence would there be any characteristic change; the only change would be this play of the One that has manifested its multiplicity and of the Many that are still one, with all that is necessary to maintain and conduct the play.
EXPLANATION
Supposing our purified mind could reflect this secondary poise of Supermind and our soul could support and occupy its individual existence and yet the individual soul would see itself as the One that has become all. It is the same that dwells in all, contains all. Even in its particular individual modification it still enjoys its unity with the God and with the fellow souls.
What Sri Aurobindo explains here is that, there would not be any change in the character of the supramental existence – its unity with the Divine, under any circumstance (whether in its primary poise or secondary poise). The only change is the play of the One in its manifestation in multiplicity and the play of the Many that are still one with all that is required for the conduct of the play.
(Purified mind means, the mind is not dependent on senses and does not form its perceptions in accordance with their evidence; it acts in itself and is aware of things directly by a sort of identity with them – refer Chapter VIII, The Methods of Vedantic Knowledge. Also please note: here Sri Aurobindo stresses the fact that even our purified mind can only reflect the higher knowledge and not be its source)
(The second status is when it brings out of this unity a number of things, the Many. The Many are put out but the Many are always governed by the sense of One. The One always sees itself in the Many. In the first status the Many have not yet come into being, they are held in potency, but in the second, the One puts out the Many. The One always covers like an umbrella, always there is the consciousness of the One wherever there are the Many. And when this second status supporting the manifestation of the One in the Many and the Many in the One is reflected in the human mind, it renders itself as the multiplicity coming out of the unity, the multiplicity dependent upon the unity. The mind says the Many are there, the One is there, but the Many can never become One. This is qualified Monism, Visishtadvaita, where they say there is God and there are souls; the souls are derived and dependent upon God, but the souls can never become one with God. So, this is another illegitimate inference of the mind. The central experience is true, the One puts out the Many, the Many always relate themselves to the One, but in the Supermind the Many always return to the One; the human mind in its limitations says the Many are true but they are a dependent truth and they can never become the One. This is the second status – Shri M.P.Pandit – Talks on The Life Divine – p. 105)
PARAGRAPH 10
A third poise of the Supermind would be attained if the supporting concentration were no longer to stand at the back, as it were, of the movement, inhabiting it with a certain superiority to it and so following and enjoying, but were to project itself into the movement and to be in a way involved in it. Here, the character of the play would be altered, but only in so far as the individual Divine would so predominantly make the play of relations with the universal and with its other forms the practical field of its conscious experience that the realisation of utter unity with them would be only a supreme accompaniment and constant culmination of all experience; but in the higher poise unity would be the dominant and fundamental experience and variation would be only a play of the unity. This tertiary poise would be therefore that of a sort of fundamental blissful dualism in unity—no longer unity qualified by a subordinate dualism— between the individual Divine and its universal source, with all the consequences that would accrue from the maintenance and operation of such a dualism.
EXPLANATION
In the second poise of Supermind we have seen that the Divine Consciousness stands back from the movement. In this para, Sri Aurobindo explains the third poise of the Supermind. Here the supporting concentration would no longer stand at the back of the movement. But it would project itself into the movement. In this way it is involved in the movement.
Here, there is a change in the character of the universal play. Even in the change in the character of the play, the individual Divine makes the play of relations with the universal and with its other forms the practical field of its conscious experience. Ultimately the individual Divine ensures through this experience that the unity with the universal and other forms is realised as the supreme accompaniment. This unity becomes the constant culmination of all experience.
In the primary poise of Supermind (comprehending consciousness) this unity is the dominant and fundamental experience; variation is only a play of the unity. In this third poise of Supermind there is a fundamental blissful dualism in unity between the individual Divine and its universal source. Here the unity with the One and with the multiplicity exist, each on its own right, not as a qualified one.
(The third status is that further movement when each of the Many is given an individuality, each feels itself separate. In the Supermind, the One feels itself ensouling each form, each individuality and enjoys the relation of each to the One. It enjoys the relation from one form with itself in another form. The One enjoys itself from the Many position, many standpoints. Each is felt to be real and each at the moment has the oneness in the background. Each feels as if it functions on its own, but it is aware that it the One that figures in it. When this status is reflected in the mind, it renders itself as dualism, dvaita, that each is there, the One is there, but they are eternally separate. It is again an illegitimate inference because in the Supermind the each feels itself at the outset as if separate, but the consummation of the movement of delight is a return to the One. So there are two that are needed to have the completeness of the delight; and it enjoys difference in unity in the supramental level. These are the three great statuses which have given rise at the human level to warring philosophies – Shri M.P.Pandit – Talks on The Life Divine – p. 105)
PARAGRAPH 11
It may be said that the first consequence would be a lapse into the ignorance of Avidya which takes the Many for the real fact of existence and views the One only as a cosmic sum of the Many. But there would not necessarily be any such lapse. For the individual Divine would still be conscious of itself as the result of the One and of its power of conscious self-creation, that is to say, of its multiple self-concentration conceived so as to govern and enjoy manifoldly its manifold existence in the extension of Time and Space; this true spiritual Individual would not arrogate to itself an independent or separate existence. It would only affirm the truth of the differentiating movement along with the truth of the stable unity, regarding them as the upper and lower poles of the same truth, the foundation and culmination of the same divine play; and it would insist on the joy of the differentiation as necessary to the fullness of the joy of the unity.
EXPLANATION
We may think that the first consequence of the third poise of Supermind would be lapse into ignorance of Avidya, the multiplicity. Living in Multiplicity, as all of us are in this world, we take this Many for the real fact of existence. We see the One as the cosmic sum of the Many.
Sri Aurobindo says such a lapse is not necessary. Because the individual Divine, the Jivatman, would be conscious that it has come from One (Sachchidananda). It would be conscious of its power of self-creation. This individual Divine would be conscious of the fact that the Many are its multiple self-concentration. It is only to govern and enjoy many times its manifold existence in the extension of Time and Space. (Here we can recall our earlier analogy. We delight at seeing the reflections of full moon in several bowls filled with water. Yet the moon is one).
The individual Divine is the true spiritual Individual in each and every existence. It would not make the unjustified claim that it is an independent or separate existence. It always enjoys its unity with the One. Our real-self always enjoys the bliss of unity with the Divine.
The individual Divine affirms the truth of differentiating movement in the status of multiplicity. At the same time, it maintains at the backdrop, the truth of stable unity. It considers Oneness and Multiplicity, the upper and lower ends of the same pole of truth. Unity and Multiplicity are the foundation and culmination of the same divine play. The individual Divine enjoys the joy of its unity with the One. It would insist on the joy of differentiation (in multiplicity) as a necessary condition to the fullness of the joy of the unity.