Study Notes
PARAGRAPH 12 Contd…,
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).
That may well involve a contradiction or an unreconciled paradox; but I am willing to admit a contradiction in the Eternal which I am not compelled to think out, rather than a contradiction here of my primary conceptions which I am compelled to think out logically and to practical ends. I am on this supposition able either to take the world as practically real and think and act in it or to reject it as an unreality and cease to think and act; I am not compelled to reconcile contradictions, not called on to be conscious of and conscious in something beyond myself and world and yet deal from that basis, as God does, with a world of contradictions. The attempt to be as God while I am still an individual or to be three things at a time seems to me to involve a logical confusion and a practical impossibility.”
EXPLANATION
By adopting such a view the ordinary mind is ready to accept a contradiction or an unreconciled paradox. The mind is quite satisfied with the fact that the individual, the cosmos and the transcendent are three different entities without any possibility of reconciliation between them.
The mind is willing to admit a contradiction in the Eternal. Because the mind is not compelled to think out this contradiction in the Eternal. Whereas it is not willing to deal with the contradiction here (in this world) of its primary conceptions; it is not willing to think out logically and reconcile the contradictions to practical ends.
By taking such a stand, the mind is able to take the world as practically real and think and act in it as materialists do. Or it can reject it as an unreality and cease to think and act as Mayavadins do.
Therefore, the normal individual is not compelled to reconcile contradictions. He feels not obliged to be conscious of and conscious in something beyond himself and world. He is not willing to be above himself and the world and yet to deal from that status with a world full of contradictions as God does.
For an individual to be God while he is still an individual or to be the individual, the cosmos and the transcendent, all at the same time seems to involve a logical confusion and a practical impossibility.
Such might well be the attitude of the normal reason, and it is clear, lucid, positive in its distinctions; it involves no extraordinary gymnastics of the reason trying to exceed itself and losing itself in shadows and half-lights or any kind of mysticism, or at least there is only one original and comparatively simple mysticism free from all other difficult complexities.
EXPLANATION
Such is the attitude taken by the normal reason. It needs to be clear, lucid, positive in its distinctions. It does not need to strain itself to exceed itself. It does not need to lose itself in shadows and half-lights or any kind of mysticisms. Or it chooses the only one original and comparatively simple mysticism free from all other difficult complexities. In other words it either takes a materialistic attitude or an illusionistic attitude.
Therefore it is the reasoning which is the most satisfactory to the simply rational mind. Yet is there here a triple error, the error of making an unbridgeable gulf between the Absolute and the relative, the error of making too simple and rigid and extending too far the law of contradictions and the error of conceiving in terms of Time the genesis of things which have their origin and first habitat in the Eternal.
EXPLANATION
Therefore for the simply rational mind it is the reasoning which is the most satisfactory. Yet, Sri Aurobindo says, here the mind commits a triple error. First, it makes an unbridgeable gulf between the Absolute and the relative. Second, it makes too simple and rigid and extends too far the law of contradictions. Third, it conceives the origin of things in terms of Time sequence ( first the transcendent, then the cosmos, then the individual). In fact they have their origin and home in the Eternal.
PARAGRAPH 13
We mean by the Absolute something greater than ourselves, greater than the cosmos which we live in, the supreme reality of that transcendent Being which we call God, something without which all that we see or are conscious of as existing, could not have been, could not for a moment remain in existence. Indian thought calls it Brahman, European thought the Absolute because it is a self-existent which is absolved of all bondage to relativities.
EXPLANATION
We have seen that the human reason makes an unbridgeable gulf between the Absolute and the relative. This is because we mean by the term Absolute something greater than ourselves and the cosmos. Absolute means the supreme reality by which all that is in the universe exists. Indian thought calls it Brahman and European thought calls it the Absolute. It is absolute because it is self-existent which is free from all bondage to relatives. It does not depend on anything else. All depend on It for their existence. Nothing can exist in the universe for a moment without It.
For all relatives can only exist by something which is the truth of them all and the source and continent of their powers and properties and yet exceeds them all; it is something of which not only each relativity itself, but also any sum we can make of all relatives that we know, can only be—in all that we know of them—a partial, inferior or practical expression. We see by reason that such an Absolute must exist; we become by spiritual experience aware of its existence: but even when we are most aware of it, we cannot describe it because our language and thought can deal only with the relative. The Absolute is for us the Ineffable.
EXPLANATION
There is something in all the relatives which is the truth of them all; all relatives exist by that truth. This truth is the source in which their powers and properties are contained and yet It exceeds them all. Each relativity itself and any sum of all relatives can only be a partial, inferior or practical expression of that Truth.
Our reason tells us that such an Absolute must exist. We become aware of it by our spiritual experience. Though we are aware of it we cannot describe it. Because our language and thought can only deal with the relative. The Absolute is Ineffable for us.
PARAGRAPH 14
So far there need be no real difficulty nor confusion. But we readily go on, led by the mind’s habit of oppositions, of thinking by distinctions and pairs of contraries, to speak of it as not only not bound by the limitations of the relative, but as if it were bound by its freedom from limitations, inexorably empty of all power for relations and in its nature incapable of them, something hostile in its whole being to relativity and its eternal contrary.
EXPLANATION
There is no problem in our thinking that everything that is relative in the universe exists by the Absolute and that the Absolute has freedom from all relatives. But our mind has the habit of making stark oppositions; it can think only in terms of distinctions and pairs of contraries (light and darkness, real and unreal etc).
Because of this habit our mind speaks of the Absolute not bound by the limitations of the relative; not only that, it speaks of It as if It were bound by Its freedom from limitations. This implies that the Absolute is empty of all power of relations and is in its nature incapable of them. By this it is presumed that the Absolute is something which is hostile to relativity and remains forever its opposite.
By this false step of our logic we get into an impasse. Our own existence and the existence of the universe become not only a mystery, but logically inconceivable. For we get by that to an Absolute which is incapable of relativity and exclusive of all relatives and yet the cause or at least the support of relativity and the container, truth and substance of all relatives. We have then only one logical-illogical way of escape out of the impasse; we have to suppose the imposition of the world as a self-effective illusion or an unreal temporal reality, on the eternity of the formless relationless Absolute.
EXPLANATION
Sri Aurobindo terms this as the false step of our logic. Because it leads us to a situation from which we cannot make any progress. It makes our own existence and the existence of the universe not only a mystery but logically inconceivable.
Because we are led to conceive of an Absolute which is incapable of relativity and exclusive of all relatives; at the same time we are led to conceive of it as the cause and support of relativity, the truth and substance of all relatives.
Then we are left with one logical-illogical way of escape out of this predicament. That is, we have to treat this world as an illusion or temporal (not an eternal) reality imposed on the eternity of the formless relationless Absolute.
This imposition is made by our misleading individual consciousness which falsely sees Brahman in the figure of the cosmos—as a man mistakes a rope for a serpent; but since either our individual consciousness is itself a relative supported by the Brahman and only existent by it, not a real reality, or since in its reality it is itself the Brahman, it is the Brahman after all which imposes on itself in us this delusion and mistakes in some figure of its own consciousness an existent rope for a non-existent snake, imposes on its own indeterminable pure Reality the semblance of a universe, or if it does not impose it on its own consciousness, it is on a consciousness derived from it and dependent on it, a projection of itself into Maya.
EXPLANATION
Mayavadins say this world is an illusion. If this world is an imposition or Maya what makes this imposition? It is said that it is made by our misleading individual consciousness. It falsely sees Brahman in the figure of the cosmos. It is like a man mistaking a rope for a snake.
But it is our individual consciousness itself a relative supported by the Brahman; it is only existent by it and not a real reality. Or in its reality it is itself the Brahman.
If we go by this truth, it is the Brahman after all which imposes on itself in us (because Brahman exists in us) this false appearance. It mistakes in some figure of its own consciousness an existent rope for a non-existent snake.
It is the Brahman which imposes on its own indeterminable pure Reality the outward appearance of a universe. If we suppose that it does not impose this false appearance in its own consciousness, then it must be a consciousness derived from it and dependent on it. It is a projection of itself into Maya.
By this explanation nothing is explained; the original contradiction stands where it was, unreconciled, and we have only stated it over again in other terms. It looks as if, by attempting to arrive at an explanation by means of intellectual reasoning, we have only befogged ourselves by the delusion of our own uncompromising logic: we have imposed on the Absolute the imposition which our too presumptuous reasoning has practised on our own intelligence; we have transformed our mental difficulty in understanding the world-manifestation into an original impossibility for the Absolute to manifest itself in world at all.
EXPLANATION
Sri Aurobindo says this explanation serves no purpose. The original contradiction (between the Absolute and the world) remains unreconciled. It is only stated again in other words.
We are trying to arrive at an explanation by means of intellectual reasoning. By doing so we have only confused ourselves by the delusion (false appearance) of our own uncompromising logic.
Our reasoning by its excessive authority imposes its beliefs over our own intelligence. In the same way we have imposed the above false conception on the Absolute. Our mind has difficulty in understanding the world-manifestation. In turn we have transformed this difficulty into an original impossibility for the Absolute to manifest itself in world at all.