Study Notes
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.
PARAGRAPH 12
Obviously, these three poises would be only different ways of dealing with the same Truth; the Truth of existence enjoyed would be the same, the way of enjoying it or rather the poise of the soul in enjoying it would be different. The delight, the Ananda would vary, but would abide always within the status of the Truth-consciousness and involve no lapse into the Falsehood and the Ignorance. For the secondary and tertiary Supermind would only develop and apply in the terms of the divine multiplicity what the primary Supermind had held in the terms of the divine unity. We cannot stamp any of these three poises with the stigma of falsehood and illusion. The language of the Upanishads, the supreme ancient authority for these truths of a higher experience, when they speak of the Divine existence which is manifesting itself, implies the validity of all these experiences.
EXPLANATION
The three poises of Supermind are only the different ways of dealing with the same Truth. The Truth of existence enjoyed remains the same. The ways of enjoying it or the poise of the soul in enjoying it is different. The Ananda would vary with each poise. Yet it would remain fixed within the status of Truth-consciousness. There would not be any lapse into the Falsehood and Ignorance.
What is held by the first poise (primary) of Supermind in terms of oneness is only developed and applied in terms of the divine multiplicity in the second and third poises of Supermind. None of these three poises can be disgraced by branding it as falsehood and illusion. None other than the Upanishads, the supreme ancient authority on the truths of higher experience validates all these three experiences when they speak of the Divine existence which manifests in the universe.
We can only assert the priority of the oneness to the multiplicity, a priority not in time but in relation of consciousness, and no statement of supreme spiritual experience, no Vedantic philosophy denies this priority or the eternal dependence of the Many on the One. It is because in Time the Many seem not to be eternal but to manifest out of the One and return into it as their essence that their reality is denied; but it might equally be reasoned that the eternal persistence or, if you will, the eternal recurrence of the manifestation in Time is a proof that the divine multiplicity is an eternal fact of the Supreme beyond Time no less than the divine unity; otherwise it could not have this characteristic of inevitable eternal recurrence in Time.
EXPLANATION
But what is true is that the Oneness of consciousness is prior to everything. While speaking of Oneness and the Many we can assert the priority of oneness to multiplicity. This priority is not in terms of time but in relation of consciousness. The Vedantic philosophies and statements of supreme spiritual experience confirm this eternal dependency of the Many on the One.
Why do we deny the essential reality of the Many? Because the Many operate within Time. They manifest out of the One. Again, they return into their essence, that is One. Since they appear and disappear within the boundaries of Time, we deny the reality of their existence. Their existence does not seem to be eternal.
But Sri Aurobindo says, their eternal recurrence of the manifestation in Time is a proof that the divine multiplicity is an eternal fact. It is an eternal fact of the Supreme beyond Time. It is no in no way inferior to the divine unity. This only ensures their characteristic of inevitable eternal recurrence in Time. For example, an individual man lives within the boundaries of his lifespan of Time. Whereas, mankind is an eternal recurrence on earth. Nothing in the world stops when an individual dies.
PARAGRAPH 13
It is indeed only when our human mentality lays an exclusive emphasis on one side of spiritual experience, affirms that to be the sole eternal truth and states it in the terms of our all-dividing mental logic that the necessity for mutually destructive schools of philosophy arises. Thus, emphasising the sole truth of the unitarian consciousness, we observe the play of the divine unity, erroneously rendered by our mentality into the terms of real difference, but, not satisfied with correcting this error of the mind by the truth of a higher principle, we assert that the play itself is an illusion. Or, emphasising the play of the One in the Many, we declare a qualified unity and regard the individual soul as a soul-form of the Supreme, but would assert the eternity of this qualified existence and deny altogether the experience of a pure consciousness in an unqualified oneness. Or, again, emphasising the play of difference, we assert that the Supreme and the human soul are eternally different and reject the validity of an experience which exceeds and seems to abolish that difference.
EXPLANATION
What is the reason for the appearance of mutually destructive philosophical schools (Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Dvaita) in Indian spirituality? Sri Aurobindo says it is because our human mind lays an exclusive emphasis on one side of spiritual experience. We affirm it to be the sole eternal truth. We interpret the truth in terms of our all-dividing mental logic.
We emphasise the sole truth of unitarian consciousness (Advaitic Monism). What is the play of the divine unity, we wrongly interpret it by our mind and observe it as real difference. Brahman alone is true. All else is Maya. Instead of correcting this error of the mind by a higher principle we call this world as an illusion.
We emphasise the play of the One in the Many. We declare a qualified unity (Visishtadvaita). That is, the Many exist because of the One. Many can never become One. We regard the individual soul as a soul-form of the Supreme. We assert the eternity of this qualified existence. That is, the individual soul can never become one with the Supreme. Forever they will remain separate. Here we deny the experience of a pure consciousness in an unqualified oneness.
We emphasise the play of the difference. We assert that the Supreme and the human soul are eternally different (Dvaita). We reject the truth of the experience that goes beyond the difference and abolish it.
But the position that we have now firmly taken absolves us from the necessity of these negations and exclusions: we see that there is a truth behind all these affirmations, but at the same time an excess which leads to an ill-founded negation. Affirming, as we have done, the absolute absoluteness of That, not limited by our ideas of unity, not limited by our ideas of multiplicity, affirming the unity as a basis for the manifestation of the multiplicity and the multiplicity as the basis for the return to oneness and the enjoyment of unity in the divine manifestation, we need not burden our present statement with these discussions or undertake the vain labour of enslaving to our mental distinctions and definitions the absolute freedom of the Divine Infinite.
EXPLANATION
We have taken a position that the three poises of Supermind are only the different ways of dealing with the same Truth. The Truth of existence enjoyed remains the same. Though the Ananda would vary with each poise yet it would remain fixed within the status of Truth-consciousness. There would not be any lapse into the Falsehood and Ignorance in any of these three poises.
The position we have thus taken, frees us from the necessity of the negations and exclusions that characterised the three philosophical schools. We see that there is truth behind all the affirmations put forth by these philosophies. But what has happened is, excessive stress on one particular truth resulted in wrongly conceived rejections and exclusions.
We affirm the absolute absoluteness of That (Brahman). It is not limited by our ideas of unity. Nor is it limited by our ideas of multiplicity. We affirm that the unity is the basis for the manifestation of multiplicity; multiplicity is the basis for the return to oneness and enjoyment of unity in the divine manifestation.
With these affirmations taken by us, we need not burden ourselves with the discussions stated in the above three philosophies. We need not enslave (keep under bondage) the absolute freedom of the Divine Infinite to our mental distinctions and definitions.
(In Sri Aurobindo’s consciousness these three great masters of philosophy – Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa – are united and perhaps fulfilled! What Sri Aurobindo has opened up is a new chapter in human evolution and in his vision, he has taken up not only the spiritual philosophies, but also the metaphysical philosophies and synthesised them.
Sri Aurobindo has gathered within his own experience of the supramental consciousness a tremendous synthetic vision of philosophy, yoga and world unity. All the different strands of human thought have converged in him. That is the greatness of the master; he is not simply a philosopher, he is not simply a psychologist, it is as if the whole stream of human consciousness has converged into the single body of Sri Aurobindo. Sri Aurobindo seems to have launched himself into the future carrying the whole of human consciousness with him. That is the Life Divine, I suppose.
So if you want to understand, if you want to fulfil your life, I would say you should not leave the world without first reading The Life Divine and Savitri. It is not just a reading; the whole human consciousness with its apex consciousness has been represented to us. It has been gifted to us – Ananda Reddy, Deliberations on The Life Divine, Vol III, p. 111-112).