Study Notes
PARAGRAPH 10 Contd…,
If we go beyond these three terms of mind, life and body, and speak of the soul or individual self, we still think of an individualised being separate from all others, incapable of unity and inclusive mutuality, capable at most of a spiritual contact and soul-sympathy. It is therefore necessary to insist that by the true individual we mean nothing of the kind, but a conscious power of being of the Eternal, always existing by unity, always capable of mutuality. It is that being which by self-knowledge enjoys liberation and immortality.
EXPLANATION
As a next step we may go beyond the terms of mind, life and body. We may speak of the soul or individual self. Even then, we still think of an individualised being, separate from all others, incapable of unity and inclusive mutuality. At the most it can be a spiritual contact and soul-sympathy.
Sri Aurobindo explains that it is therefore necessary to insist that by the true individual we mean not a separate mental, vital and physical being and not even the soul or individual self. What we mean by true individual is a conscious power of being of the Eternal, always existing by unity, always capable of mutuality. It is that being which enjoys liberation and immortality by self-knowledge.
PARAGRAPH 11
But we have to carry still farther the conflict between the normal and the higher reason. When we speak of the true individual as a conscious power of being of the Eternal, we are still using intellectual terms,—we cannot help it, unless we plunge into a language of pure symbols and mystic values of speech,— but, what is worse, we are, in the attempt to get away from the idea of the ego, using a too abstract language.
EXPLANATION
We have seen that what we mean by true individual is a conscious power of being of the Eternal. Even in that perception also the conflict between the normal and the higher reason still exists. The description of the true individual as a conscious power of being is still based on intellectual terms. Unless we use a language of pure symbols and mystic values of speech (like Vedic language) we have to depend on the language of the intellect. What adds to the problem is the language which we use to describe an egoless state is too abstract.
Let us say, then, a conscious being who is for our valuations of existence a being of the Eternal in his power of individualising self-experience; for it must be a concrete being—and not an abstract power—who enjoys immortality. And then we get to this that not only am I in the world and the world in me, but God is in me and I am in God; by which yet it is not meant that God depends for His existence on man, but that He manifests Himself in that which He manifests within Himself; the individual exists in the Transcendent, but all the Transcendent is there concealed in the individual.
EXPLANATION
We may say, then, the individual is a conscious being; he exists as a being of the Eternal in his power of individualising self-experience. We must know that it is the power of the Divine that individualises the self-experience through the individual being. Therefore it must be a concrete being who enjoys immortality (because fundamentally it is a portion of the Eternal). It is not an abstract power.
This takes us to the truth that I am in the world and the world in me; not only that, we also realise the truth that God is in me and I am in God. This does not mean that God depends for His existence on man. Rather it means that God manifests Man within Himself; in that (Man) He manifests Himself.
The individual exists in the Transcendent Divine. At the same time all the Transcendent is there concealed in the individual.
Further I am one with God in my being and yet I can have relations with Him in my experience. I, the liberated individual, can enjoy the Divine in His transcendence, unified with Him, and enjoy at the same time the Divine in other individuals and in His cosmic being.
EXPLANATION
The individual is one with God in his being and yet he can have relations with Him in his experience. The liberated individual can enjoy the Divine in His transcendence and unity. At the same time he can enjoy the Divine in other individuals and in His cosmic being.
Evidently we have arrived at certain primary relations of the Absolute and they can only be intelligible to the mind if we see that the Transcendent, the individual, the cosmic being are the eternal powers of consciousness—we fall again, this time without remedy, into a wholly abstract language,—of an absolute existence, a unity yet more than a unity, which so expresses itself to its own consciousness in us, but which we cannot adequately speak of in human language and must not hope to describe either by negative or positive terms to our reason, but can only hope to indicate it to the utmost power of our language.
EXPLANATION
We are describing certain primary relations of the Absolute. Our mind can understand them only if we see that the Transcendent, the individual, the cosmic being are the eternal powers of consciousness of an absolute existence.
What we see as unity with the Transcendent is more than a unity. Yet we cannot express this unity adequately in human language. Nor can it be described either by negative or positive terms to our reason. We can only indicate it by the utmost power of the language possible to us.
PARAGRAPH 12
But the normal mind, which has no experience of these things that are so powerfully real to the liberated consciousness, may well revolt against what may seem to it nothing more than a mass of intellectual contradictions. It may say, “I know very well what the Absolute is; it is that in which there are no relations. The Absolute and the relative are irreconcilable opposites; in the relative there is nowhere anything absolute, in the Absolute there can be nothing relative.
EXPLANATION
How does the normal mind see these spiritual truths? These spiritual truths are so powerfully real to the liberated consciousness. But the normal mind which has no experience of these things may well revolt against them. Because for the normal mind these spiritual truths are nothing more than a mass of intellectual contradictions.
The normal mind conceives of the Absolute as that in which there are no relations. It sees the Absolute and the relative (rather the Divine and the manifested world) as irreconcilable opposites. It does not find the Absolute in the relative nor the relative in the Absolute.
Anything which contradicts these first data of my thought, is intellectually false and practically impossible. These other statements also contradict my law of contradictions which is that two opposing and conflicting affirmations cannot both be true. It is impossible that there should be oneness with God and yet a relation with Him such as this of the enjoyment of the Divine. In oneness there is no one to enjoy except the One and nothing to be enjoyed except the One.
EXPLANATION
The normal mind views anything that contradicts the first data of its thought as intellectually false and practically impossible. It bases itself on the law of contradictions which says that two opposing and conflicting affirmations cannot both be true.
For example it cannot accept the fact that there can be oneness with the Divine and yet there can be a relation with Him such as the enjoyment of the Divine. Because in oneness there is no one to enjoy except the One and nothing to be enjoyed except the One.
God, the individual and the cosmos must be three different actualities, otherwise there could be no relations between them. Either they are eternally different or they are different in present time, although they may have originally been one undifferentiated existence and may eventually re-become one undifferentiated existence.
EXPLANATION
Normal mind sees God, the individual and the cosmos as three different actualities. If it is otherwise, there could be no relations between them. Either they are eternally different or they are different now. Originally they may have been one undifferentiated existence; they may once again become one undifferentiated existence.
Unity was perhaps and will be perhaps, but it is not now and cannot be so long as cosmos and the individual endure. The cosmic being can only know and possess the transcendent unity by ceasing to be cosmic; the individual can only know and possess the cosmic or the transcendental unity by ceasing from all individuality and individualisation. Or if unity is the one eternal fact, then cosmos and individual are non-existent; they are illusions imposed on itself by the Eternal.
EXPLANATION
The normal mind cannot accept the unity between the individual, the cosmos and the transcendent. According to our mind, unity was perhaps there and will be perhaps there but it is not now. Unity cannot be there as long as cosmos and the individual exist.
The cosmic can become one with the transcendent by ceasing to be cosmic; the individual can become one with the cosmos and the transcendent by ceasing from all individuality and individualisation.
Supposing unity is the one eternal fact then the cosmos and the individual are non-existent. They are illusions imposed on itself by the Eternal (Mayavada).