Study Notes
PARAGRAPH 6
Our unity with the world-being is the consciousness of a Self which at one and the same time cosmicises in the world and individualises through the individual Purusha, and both in that world-being and in this individual being and in all individual beings it is aware of the same Self manifesting and experiencing its various manifestations. That then is a Self which must be one in its being,—otherwise we could not have this experience of unity,—and yet must be capable in its very unity of cosmic differentiation and multiple individuality.
EXPLANATION
We have seen that in the course of spiritual journey, the individual Purusha, in the end comes to embrace the whole world and all other beings and in a conscious extension of itself it perceives itself as one with the world-being.
This unity with the world-being is the consciousness of a Self which extends itself universally and at the same time is present individually through individual Purusha. It is aware of the same Self manifesting and experiencing its various manifestations in the world being, in the individual being and in all individual beings.
That Self must be one in its being. That is why it has this experience of unity. Yet in its unity it is capable of cosmic differentiation and multiple individuality. This unity does not forego multiple individuality.
The unity is its being, —yes, but the cosmic differentiation and the multiple individuality are the power of its being which it is constantly displaying and which it is its delight and the nature of its consciousness to display. If then we arrive at unity with that, if we even become entirely and in every way that being, why should the power of its being be excised and why at all should we desire or labour to excise it?
EXPLANATION
There are two aspects of the Self. One is its aspect of being (Sat) which is represented by the unity. Unity is its status. The other is the power of its being (Chit-shakti). How is this power of the Divine being displayed? It is constantly displayed by the cosmic differentiation and the multiple individuality. Also, the multiplicity displays its delight and its nature of consciousness.
Sri Aurobindo asks the question, while seeking unity of the Self, completely identifying with it, why should we desire to cut off the power of the Self exhibited by multiple individuality? While seeking unity can we reject individuality? Sri Aurobindo says, as unity represents one poise of the Divine, the individuality represents another poise of the Divine.
We should then only diminish the scope of our unity with it by an exclusive concentration accepting the divine being but not accepting our part in the power and consciousness and infinite delight of the Divine. It would in fact be the individual seeking peace and rest of union in a motionless identity, but rejecting delight and various joy of union in the nature and act and power of the divine Existence. That is possible, but there is no necessity to uphold it as the ultimate aim of our being or as our ultimate perfection.
EXPLANATION
We can concentrate exclusively on the unity (with the Divine) aspect. By doing so, we are only diminishing the scope of the unity. Here we accept the Divine being but deny our role in the power and delight and infinite consciousness of the Divine being.
An exclusive concentration on the unity with the Divine implies that the individual seeks peace and rest of union in motionless identity; thereby he rejects delight and various joy union in the nature and act and power of the Divine Existence.
Such an attitude is possible for an ascetic. But we cannot uphold it as our highest ideal or as our ultimate perfection.
PARAGRAPH 7
Or the one possible reason would be that in the power, the act of consciousness there is not real union and that only in the status of consciousness is there perfect undifferentiated unity. Now in what we may call the waking union of the individual with the Divine, as opposed to a falling asleep or a concentration of the individual consciousness in an absorbed identity, there is certainly and must be a differentiation of experience.
EXPLANATION
There can be one possible reason why the unity is considered the superior state by the ascetic. Because he feels that only in the status of consciousness (chit) is there perfect undifferentiated unity; while in the power, the act of consciousness (chit-shakti) there is no real union.
We can have the waking union of the individual with the Divine. Also our individual consciousness can remain absorbed in a complete identity with the Divine by a deep concentration. Yet there is a differentiation of experience though there is union with the Divine in both the states.
Likewise there is differentiation of experience in the unity and in the individual action.
For in this active unity the individual Purusha enlarges its active experience also as well as its static consciousness into a way of union with this Self of his being and of the world-being, and yet individualisation remains and therefore differentiation. The Purusha is aware of all other individuals as selves of himself; he may by a dynamic union become aware of their mental and practical action as occurring in his universal consciousness, just as he is aware of his own mental and practical action; he may help to determine their action by subjective union with them: but still there is a practical difference.
EXPLANATION
What happens in the active unity as against the passive unity? In the active unity the individual Purusha enlarges its active experience. Also it enlarges its static consciousness to unite with the Self of his being and of the world-being. Yet individualisation remains and therefore there is also differentiation.
The Purusha is aware of all other individuals as selves of himself. As he is aware of his own mental and practical action so is he aware of the mental and practical action of all other selves in his universal consciousness by a dynamic union.
There exists a subjective (by unity of consciousness) union with other individual selves. By this union he may help to determine their action. Yet there is a practical difference.
The action of the Divine in himself is that with which he is particularly and directly concerned; the action of the Divine in his other selves is that with which he is universally concerned, not directly, but through and by his union with them and with the Divine. The individual therefore exists though he exceeds the little separative ego; the universal exists and is embraced by him but it does not absorb and abolish all individual differentiation, even though by his universalising himself the limitation which we call the ego is overcome.
EXPLANATION
The individual is particularly and directly concerned with the action of the Divine in himself. The action of the Divine in his other selves is that with which he is universally concerned; it is not directly, but through and by his union with them and with the Divine.
The individual therefore exists even after the unity with the Divine. Yet he exceeds the little separative ego. The universal also exists and is embraced by the individual but it does not absorb and abolish all individual differentiation. Yet, by the individual universalising himself the limitation of ego is overcome.