Philosophy and Religion / Arthur Avalon: Mahamaya

Sir John Woodroffe and Pramatha Natha Mukhyopadhyaya

Mahamaya. The World As Power: Power As Consciousness (Chit-Shakti)

Chapter II: Consciousness as the Whole

THE preceding chapters have introduced the distinction between Consciousness¹ as whole or entire² and as section or part.³ The former is Perfect Experience. Since all ordinary predicables or categories apply to only aspects or segments of experience, which are man’s pragmatic facts, the Perfect Experience is beyond the reach of the predicables or categories.⁴ That is to say, its nature cannot be adequately described by any of our concepts. Its description is therefore possible only by the mode of negation.⁵ Those concepts are—to employ the classification of Kant—the forms of Time and Space, and the Categories of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Modality. By means of these forms and Categories, experience becomes thinkable, that is, logical. If these Forms of Thought (including the Categories) be withheld, the “Matter” or stuff of experience becomes formless, and therefore cannot be thought ubout and spoken of. By being cast into these moulds, the “Matter” becomes impressed with forms and thereby becomes thinkable and speakable.⁶ That Experience becomes thinkable or logical by being circumscribed in review is a fact that can be readily verified by intuition. The entire universe of sensations, feelings, ideas, memories, and so forth, which constitute total⁷ Experience at any moment, can never be thought about as a whole; the whole must be limited and measured before it can be thought about and described. Even what is taken as “experience at any moment” is a cross section of the Experience as the whole or Fact.⁸ In itself the Fact is time-less. Similarly, it is neither cause nor effect. What is known as cause or effect is a portion measured out of the Fact. These and other categories are applicable not to the whole as a whole⁹ but to the whole delimited as part.¹⁰ Perfect Experience is thus alogical. But though unthinkable and indescribable,¹¹ it is not on that account unknown and unknowable. lt is Experience itself, Consciousness itself: no “thing-in-itself” beyond Experience. It is the Supreme Intuition.¹² It is unthinkable as is the Kantian “thing-in-itself,” but its essence is Consciousness itself;¹³ it is inscrutable¹⁴ as Consciousness-Power.¹⁵

Experience becomes thinkable or logical by being circumscribed or limited. Now, since Experience, Consciousness or Feeling is ever what it is, its limiting can only mean this that it is ignored or veiled as a whole, and accepted or attended to in a part. In other words, the two facts, viz. that we have actually at this moment a universe of experience comprising many sounds, sights, smells, touches, organic feelings, ideas, etc., and that we have at the same moment the perception of a particular sound or sight only, can be reconciled with each other only if we believe that the “universe,” though actually given at this moment, has not been avowed and accepted as such, and that the particular sound or sight of which alone we seem to have perception at this moment is the pragmatic section of the universe especially selected and noticed by us. The pragmatic point or section has not indeed displaced or effaced the universe; even when attention is very nearly concentrated at a point or section, it does not cease to be slightly diffused, like twilight, over the outlying tracts or indeed over the whole ‘‘universe” that is actually given. The point or section always remains imbedded in that universe; always set on a larger background of experience. [The psychologist William James would call it (that background of actual feeling) the “fringe” of experience.] It is always there. So that the universe and the pragmatic point or section are both given as actual feeling. They can be both given in actual feeling only if the former, though given, is more or less ignored (i.e., not attended to), and the latter given as it is as part of the larger experience, is, by reason of its special interest, especially attended to. Thus while we are especially attending to a point or section only, we have, and cannot but have, the “Universe” also. That it is not then attended to does not mean or constitute its ceasing to be an actual feeling: it does not become no experience. It then becomes or is an experience of a different tone or intensity—blurred, indefinite, confused. The pragmatic or interesting portion becomes lighted up, definite and discriminated. When, however, the experience of the moment the “universe” involving the points of interest is passed in review or thought about, it is commonly represented as though it were confined to or exhausted by the points of interest only. This is pragmatic thought giving the pragmatic facts, but which should be carefully distinguished from the Intuition of Fact. Circumscription or limitation of experience commonly means its veiling or ignoring as a whole and its avowal or acceptance in the “points of interest ”.

Veiling or contracting may, therefore, be defined as the circumstance which limits Reality considered as one aspect—as Power¹⁶—without making it other than what it is in its other aspect as Power-holder¹⁷: by which the whole¹⁸ appears as part¹⁹ and yet remains the whole. When, and in so far as, this circumstance operates in relation to the experience of an individual Centre, and its operation is immanent in it, it is called Ignorance.²⁰ When it operates cosmically, and its operation is transcendent to a given Centre, it is called Maya. Evidently a Centre as so constituted, becomes a Centre of individualised stresses (potential and kinetic) in Reality which is Perfect Experience, because Experience by its own Power²¹ so finitises and individualizes itself. Veiling maybe of two forms: (1) that which is done by the stresses (potential and kinetic)—that is, impressions tendencies and volitions²² in the case of an individual Centre; and (2) that which is done by the Stress or Power of Reality itself underlying and evolving as the world of finite forms. In both cases the general definition of veiling applies. That is to say, Experience, and therefore Reality, never ceases to be the whole²³ because it has been veiled or contracted in an Individual Centre, or because it veils itself in evolving and appearing as the world of varied forms. When, for example, we appear to see a star only or hear a sound only, we actually have, and cannot but have, an undefined and indefinable “universe” of experience which is ignored except as regards the star or sound: so also in the case of “subjective” experiences, e.g., a feeling in the mind, a memory, an idea. The “universe” never ceases to be such by being veiled in these cases, and emphasised in the points of interest. If we provisionally call that universe too the whole, then the whole remains as such while it appears as part.²⁴ In the cosmic or universal case also, where veiling has been called Maya, the Immense and Immeasurable remains so even when it is to the individual eye finitised and measured. This finitisation, this evolution of Brahman as world, of Shiva as Power determined in a particular way,²⁵ is not, however, “illusive”.

We may note also that between the cosmic case and the individual case, there is a threefold distinction as regards the circumstance of veiling. In the first place, in the individual Centre veiling or ignoring is partly voluntary and partly involuntary. When, for example, a person looking up at night wishes to see a particular star, he voluntarily veils (but cannot altogether efface) his universe of experience at that moment, and by that veiling his universe is apparently reduced to the perception of a single star or cluster of stars. In many cases, however, his universe becomes thus reduced not by an actual volition in his mind, but by the play of potential stresses in him which are his tendencies.²⁶ This is involuntary veiling. Such veiling may be either accidental or essential. It is accidental veiling when the total experience is ignored and a part accepted because of the working of a subliminal desire or subconscious interest in the mind which, for the time being, prevails most and vents itself in certain partialities. Thus even while we are not consciously attending to and selecting our experiences, we have our experiences apparently dealt out to us in partials: certain sounds out of a great many actually given, for example, are apprehended by us; these are apprehended by us because certain predispositions, working subliminally and possessing the greatest causal efficiency for the time being, make us partial to them. But there is also a deeper kind of involuntary veiling which pertains to the essence of a Centre as such. We have referred before to the fact that an individual Centre’s universe of experience cannot be Perfect Experience (which is ultimate Reality) in so far as that universe is referred to and organized round that Centre. Reference to, and organization round a Centre is itself a limitation of Perfect Experience. In fact, Perfect Experience limits or finitizes itself in appearing as such centre of reference and organization. This is the working of Maya by which the Immeasurable is measured, the Indefinable is defined, the Infinite is finitized. With respect to different Centres again, (e.g., amoeba and man) stresses, potential and kinetic, are differently organized, so that what is ordinarily one Centre’s universe is not that of another. Essential veiling means the limitation of Perfect Experience by reason of a Centre being a specialized centre of reference and organization.

It should be noted, however, that the difference between voluntary and involuntary veiling, and that between accidental and essential veiling, is a difference of degree and not one of kind. Ordinarily these differences seem to be fundamental like those between the voluntary and involuntary muscles, voluntary and involuntary nerve centres in the body. But by using appropriate means the jurisdiction of volitional control can be gradually extended over those centres which ordinarily lie outside it. The ganglia along the spinal axis, for example, which, according to some, are probably connected with race habits and instincts, can by proper discipline²⁷ be made amenable to voluntary control like the motor centres in the cerebral hemispheres. Such wakening of the spinal ganglia, is, it has been claimed, a collateral effect of the piercing of the “Six Centres” by Kundalini Yoga. It may be incidentally observed too that such extension of the range of voluntary control over motor centres of the body which are ordinarily involuntary, has its parallel in the transposition and extension of sensory functions under hypnotism and yoga. E.g., a hypnotic subject may “see” by the sense of touch. In the Psychic literature of the West many examples of such transposition and extension of special sensory functions are to be met with.²⁸ By training and effort²⁹ it may thus be possible for a given Centre to extend and rearrange its universe of experience
{1) by extending the range of its voluntary control,
(2) by extending the range of its sensory functions, and
(3) by lighting up what is dark and subliminal in consciousness. By this process his universe can be made to approach to Perfect Experience. And ultimately Perfect Experience itself can be realized when a Centre is able to transcend itself as a specialized centre of reference and organization.³⁰ Then, what has been called essential veiling is done away with, and Maya which measures and binds is transcended. A given Centre has ordinarily its universe of experience determined primarily by the Limiting Principle³¹ by which it has been constituted a specialized centre, and secondarily by the circumstances of its own choice and control. Even ordinarily, his universe is thus partly at least an “intentional world”.

Now, let us turn to the cosmic case. It will be shown later that the appearance of a primordial, generic cosmic Centre is a condition precedent to the appearance of a multiplicity of special individual centres. Perfect Experience (or full Reality) must first “divide” itself as a Self and its Object or Universe, in order that such division may be reproduced in a multiplicity of particular centres.³² Perfect Experience, is, it is true, alogical; but within this Experience the polarity of Subject and Object must appear in order that the veiling and limiting process producing the world of finite forms may start. In the Upanishads we accordingly read how the Supreme Self was alone in the beginning, and then, how He began to see Himself (i.e., made an object of Himself). In the Kamakalavilasa,³³ Shiva, whose nature is illuminating Consciousness or Prakasha is depicted as seeing himself reflected in the “Pure Mirror” which is his Power as Vimarsha³⁴ on which the latter evolves as universe.³⁵ The Vimarsha³⁶ or Self-reflection of the Supreme Reality, by which act It knows Itself as Perfect Universe, is the Perfect or Supreme Self.³⁷ Contrasted with this is the relative self,³⁸ whose object of experience is partial³⁹ compared with that of the Supreme Self whose object is All.⁴⁰

Now, the Supreme Reality makes use of Its own Power (vis., Maya)—(1) to appear as Supreme Self knowing Itself as a Perfect Universe, and (2) to evolve out of Itself a world of correlated finite centres. Unlike the finite centre, in which the operation of veiling is partly voluntary and partly involuntary, the Supreme Centre exercises Its veiling power freely—that is to say, It is the Lord of Maya⁴¹ whose creatures the finite centres are. In the Upanishads, the Lord has accordingly been called wielder of Maya.⁴² To distinguish it from the Maya of the Supreme, the “veil” in a finite Centre⁴³ has been called Avidya (Ignorance). In Vedanta, the former is constituted by the predominant and lucid principle of unveiling and presentation whilst the latter is dark, opaque veiling. This is the first distinction between the cosmic case and individual case.

The second distinction is that whilst in the experience of the Lord knowledge of the particulars⁴⁴ co-exists with knowledge of the universals,⁴⁵ in the experience of the finite Centre,⁴⁶ knowledge of particulars is commonly possible by the veiling of knowledge of the whole, and vice versa. Thus while we are attentively regarding a particular star, we do so at the cost of, that is by veiling, the universe of experience we actually have at that moment; conversely, if we wish to abandon ourselves to the “universe” or the entire “given,” we must disengage ourselves from the particular star which especially binds our interest now. Partial, especially focussed intuition and impartial and non-focal intuition (in so far as such intuition may be possible to a finite Centre) do not co-exist in man with an equal degree of psychic intensity, which means that the one must be veiled (without being actually effaced) in order that the other may rise to clearness and definiteness. In the Lord’s Experience, on the other hand, the Fact, the Whole,⁴⁷ need not retire into the shade in order that the Fact-Sections⁴⁸ may come into the light, and vice versa. This is because Maya which veils is His Maya, and Maya does not veil for Him who is the controller of it.⁴⁹ The Lord⁵⁰ is both knower of universals⁵¹ and of the particulars,⁵² and both these forms of knowing are eternal⁵³ in Him.⁵⁴ Therefore they co-exist.

The third distinction is that while Maya (the veiling and limiting Principle which is but Supreme Reality regarded as Power to evolve as the world of finite forms) is immanent in the Experience of the Lord, it is transcendent in relation to the experience of a particular Centre. The consequences of this are important:—(a) whilst a world of finite forms is “objectified” in the experience of the Lord, it is not ejected and localised as something alien and existing outside as with man; in other words, Space is not a form of that experience in the sense in which it is a form with man; accordingly, there is no foreign “matter” seeming to exist by its own right outside of that experience.⁵⁵ (b) Accordingly, there is no need for gradually knowing that foreign outside matter and extending control over it in that experience; the Lord is Possessor of Perfect knowledge and power.⁵⁶ In the finite Centre, on the other hand, the veil has operated in such a way that an alien objective world lies outside of it in Space, which it essays to know and control gradually and partially.⁵⁷ (c) Time also is a measure which is immanent in the experience of the Lord; that is to say, the Lord, His experience and His Creation are not subject to temporal determination; on the contrary, these transcend Time; and what is Timeless in the Lord becomes temporal in relation to the subordinate Centres. The Lord’s experience includes ideas of Time and Space, but, unlike man’s, is not subject to them.

The Shastric symbols (which are also claimed as real experiences of the seers) which depict the Lord and His Power—the two being in reality one—as unclad, or nude,⁵⁸ imply this (1) that Supreme Experience which is Supreme Reality is an experience of no veil; (2) that though it of course involves the veil, it is not applicable to the Whole,⁵⁹ and that therefore no veil can be drawn over it; and (3) that consequently the categories and forms of thought such as Time, Space, Causality and so forth by which our Pragmatic Facts are dressed up, though all born out of, and immanent in, the Complete⁶⁰ Experience, are not forms by which the whole⁶¹ itself can be dressed up or vehicled. In the above exposition, ‘Lord’ has been taken in the sense of the Supreme Personality⁶² which knows Itself as the Complete “I”⁶³: it is Perfect Experience making an object of itself. This object is Power as Vimarsha. Between Perfect Experience and this Supreme I⁶⁴ there is a distinction which will be dealt with again in our study of Perfect Experience and how the Tattvas are born out of it. Meanwhile, be it observed, that the distinction does not affect the position here stated, namely, that the Lord controls the Veil, and that Perfect Experience, involving Time, Space, Causality and so on, may be described as Experience of no veil. It is experience from which nothing has been ejected, held back; in which nothing has been ignored.

Footnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE