Study Notes
PARAGRAPH 9
But we see farther that it is not solely and ultimately the cosmic being into which our individual being enters but something in which both are unified. As our individualisation in the world is a becoming of that Self, so is the world too a becoming of that Self. The world-being includes always the individual being; therefore these two becomings, the cosmic and the individual, are always related to each other and in their practical relation mutually dependent.
EXPLANATION
We have seen that the Purusha, in the end, comes to embrace the whole world and all other beings in a conscious extension of itself and becomes one with the world-being. But if we see beyond, we realise that it is not solely and ultimately the cosmic being into which our individual being enters; but there is something in which both are unified. It is the transcendent Self which is beyond the individual and the cosmos.
It is the Self that becomes the individual and it is the Self that becomes the universe. The world-being includes always the individual. Therefore the cosmic and the individual are always related and mutually dependent in their practical relation.
But we find that the individual being also comes in the end to include the world in its consciousness, and since this is not by an abolition of the spiritual individual, but by his coming to his full, large and perfect self-consciousness, we must suppose that the individual always included the cosmos, and it is only the surface consciousness which by ignorance failed to possess that inclusion because of its self-limitation in ego.
EXPLANATION
As the world being includes the individual, the individual being also comes in the end to include the world in its consciousness. This happens not by abolition of the spiritual individual but by the coming of the individual to his full, large and perfect self-consciousness.
Therefore we must suppose that the individual always included the cosmos. But the surface consciousness failed to possess that inclusion because of its ignorance caused by its self-limitation in ego.
But when we speak of the mutual inclusion of the cosmic and the individual, the world in me, I in the world, all in me, I in all, —for that is the liberated self-experience,—we are evidently travelling beyond the language of the normal reason. That is because the words we have to use were minted by mind and given their values by an intellect bound to the conceptions of physical Space and circumstance and using for the language of a higher psychological experience figures drawn from the physical life and the experience of the senses.
EXPLANATION
We saw that the cosmos is included in the individual and the individual in the cosmos. There is mutual inclusion of the two. We say ‘the world in me, I in the world, all in me, I in all’. When we say so, we are evidently travelling beyond the language of the normal reason. Rather, such language is beyond the comprehension of our normal reason. An ordinary person cannot relate himself to the truth such statements try to convey.
Why is it so? Because the words were created by mind; they were given values by our intellect; again our intellect is limited by the conceptions of physical space and circumstance; it uses figures drawn from the physical life and the experience of the senses for the language of a higher psychological experience. When we hear the word cosmos immediately our intellect imagines the figure of the material universe.
But the plane of consciousness to which the liberated human being arises is not dependent upon the physical world, and the cosmos which we thus include and are included in is not the physical cosmos, but the harmonically manifest being of God in certain great rhythms of His conscious force and self-delight. Therefore this mutual inclusion is spiritual and psychological; it is a translation of the two forms of the Many, all and individual, into a unifying spiritual experience, —a translation of the eternal unity of the One and the Many; for the One is the eternal unity of the Many differentiating and undifferentiating itself in the cosmos.
EXPLANATION
The individual on liberation from his egoistic consciousness rises to a higher plane of consciousness. This higher plane is not dependent upon the physical world. We have seen that the individual includes the cosmos and inturn he is also included in the cosmos (mutual).
Here cosmos does not mean the physical cosmos. It means the ‘harmonically manifest being of God in certain great rhythms of His consciousness and self-delight.’ Here Sri Aurobindo conveys that the cosmos is the manifestation of the conscious force and the self-delight of the Divine. One perceives this manifestation in his spiritual experience, as in a musical harmony, in great rhythms of consciousness-force and self-delight and not in terms of physical space and matter.
Therefore, this mutual inclusion is spiritual and psychological and not physical. The individual and the cosmos are the two forms of the many. This mutual inclusion is the translation (changing of something into a new form) of these two forms into a unifying spiritual experience. It is a translation of the eternal unity of the One and the Many.
Because One is the eternal unity of the Many. This eternal unity differentiates and undifferentiates (unites) itself in the cosmos. The eternal unity differentiates into individuals and the individuals develop and unite (undifferentiate) in a truth of unity.
This means that cosmos and individual are manifestations of a transcendent Self who is indivisible being although he seems to be divided or distributed; but he is not really divided or distributed but indivisibly present everywhere. Therefore all is in each and each is in all and all is in God and God in all; and when the liberated soul comes into union with this Transcendent, it has this self-experience of itself and cosmos which is translated psychologically into a mutual inclusion and a persistent existence of both in a divine union which is at once a oneness and a fusion and an embrace.
EXPLANATION
The cosmos and the individual are manifestations of something which is beyond both i.e. transcendent Self. This transcendent Self is indivisible being although he seems to be divided or distributed. But he is not really divided. He is indivisibly present everywhere. All is included in each and each is in all and all is in God and God in all.
We have seen that the liberated individual self in its spiritual journey enters not ultimately and only into the cosmic being but it enters into something which is beyond both. That is, the liberated soul comes into union with this Transcendent Self. In that union, it has the self-experience of itself and cosmos. It is translated psychologically into a mutual inclusion and a persistence existence of both in a divine union. It is at once a oneness and a fusion and an embrace.
PARAGRAPH 10
The normal experience of the reason therefore is not applicable to these higher truths. In the first place the ego is the individual only in the ignorance; there is a true individual who is not the ego and still has an eternal relation with all other individuals which is not egoistic or self-separative, but of which the essential character is practical mutuality founded in essential unity. This mutuality founded in unity is the whole secret of the divine existence in its perfect manifestation; it must be the basis of anything to which we can give the name of a divine life.
EXPLANATION
We cannot approach the higher truths with our normal experience arrived at by our reason. That part of the individual which we call ourselves is our ego-self which lives in ignorance. The true individual is that which is not our ego-self. This true individual has an eternal relation with all other individuals. This relation is not an egoistic or a self-separative one.
The essential character of this eternal relation is practical mutuality founded in essential unity. The whole secret of the divine existence in its perfect manifestation is this mutuality founded in unity. This forms the basis of a divine life.
But, secondly, we see that the whole difficulty and confusion into which the normal reason falls is that we are speaking of a higher and illimitable self-experience founded on divine infinities and yet are applying to it a language formed by this lower and limited experience which founds itself on finite appearances and the separative definitions by which we try to distinguish and classify the phenomena of the material universe. Thus we have to use the word individual and speak of the ego and the true individual, just as we speak sometimes of the apparent and the real Man.
EXPLANATION
Why are we not able to understand the higher truths by our normal reason?
We speak of a higher and illimitable self-experience founded on divine infinites. But we describe it in a language formed by this lower and limited experience. This limited experience is based on finite appearances and the separative definitions; we try to distinguish and classify the phenomena of the material universe by these separative definitions. We employ the language used for a limited experience to an experience belonging to divine infinity. Therefore, our normal reason always finds it difficult to understand the higher truths.
For instance, we use the words individual and his ego and the true individual. Likewise we use the words the apparent and the real Man.
Evidently, all these words, man, apparent, real, individual, true, have to be taken in a very relative sense and with a full awareness of their imperfection and inability to express the things that we mean. By individual we mean normally something that separates itself from everything else and stands apart, though in reality there is no such thing anywhere in existence; it is a figment of our mental conceptions useful and necessary to express a partial and practical truth.
EXPLANATION
We use words like man, apparent, real, individual, true etc. We should take them only in a relative sense. These words themselves cannot convey the complete truth behind them. We should be aware of their imperfection and inability to express the things that we mean.
What do we mean normally by the word individual? We mean something that separates itself from everything else and stands apart. But in reality there is no such thing anywhere in existence. It is an unreal conception formed by our mind. Yet, it is useful and necessary to express a partial and practical truth.
But the difficulty is that the mind gets dominated by its words and forgets that the partial and practical truth becomes true truth only by its relation to others which seem to the reason to contradict it, and that taken by itself it contains a constant element of falsity. Thus when we speak of an individual we mean ordinarily an individualisation of mental, vital, physical being separate from all other beings, incapable of unity with them by its very individuality.
EXPLANATION
The difficulty with our mind is that it gets dominated by its words. The words used by mind convey the partial and practical truth. But our mind forgets the fact that the partial and practical truth becomes true truth only by its relation to other truths.
For example, a blind man touching the leg of an elephant and calling that part alone the elephant, is a partial and practical truth. But it becomes a true truth only by seeing all the other parts of the elephant as a whole. The leg of an elephant alone has no meaning unless it is related to all the other parts though the other parts may be contradictory in appearance to the figure of the leg. The partial truth, taken alone by itself (like describing the leg of an elephant alone as elephant) contains a constant element of falsity.
The same mistake we commit when we speak of an individual. By individual we mean an individualisation of mental, vital, physical being separate from all other beings. By doing so, we conceive of an individualisation which is incapable of unity with other beings by its very individuality.