Philosophy and Religion / Arthur Avalon: Mahamaya

Sir John Woodroffe and Pramatha Natha Mukhyopadhyaya

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

Chapter V: Perfect Experience

Perfect Experience can be best described by the negative method.¹ The Ether of Consciousness² as undifferentiated pure Consciousness, is also describable by the negative method. One is, however, not exactly the other. In the first place, Perfect Experience is an Experience of no-veiling.³ Veiling treats and disturbs experience fundamentally by setting up Dynamic Points or Centres of strain and stress, whereby Experience becomes referred to, determined and limited by the action and reaction of, correlated Centres. Centralized experience is essentially veiled and cramped experience. Then, secondarily and incidentally, veiling proceeds to create aspects and poles in experience. Thus there arise such distinctions as that between actual experience and possible experience, presentations and tendencies,⁴ conscious and sub-conscious experience; that between clear, accepted experience and obscure, ignored experience; actual experience and pragmatic experience; that between the “Fact” and “Fact-Section”; experience and beyond; that between statical aspect and dynamical; changing and unchanging; and so on. Briefly it limits experience firstly by setting up separate “universes” in it; secondly by cutting up each universe into aspects and planes such as statical-dynamical, actual-possible, latent-patent; thirdly by making man partial to sections, pragmatically unmindful of the whole. Now, in Perfect Experience the veil must go in all these three forms. In other words, Perfect Experience cannot be limited to particular “universes,” to particular aspects and planes, and to particular sections or features. Conversely, an Experience which is that of a particular Centre operative as such; which is statical only or dynamical only; which is actual in part and possible in part; which is accepted in sections and ignored in the whole;—is not Perfect Experience.

In the second place, Perfect Experience, which is also the Supreme Fact, is alogical.⁵ It cannot be reached and expressed by the logical categories. For instance, the Supreme Fact is not a numerical Fact; one and many are categories which do not apply to it. So as regards the categories of Time, Space, Causality. Fact is not now and then, here and there, cause and effect. But, then, two things are to be noted as regards the alogicality of Perfect Experience. First, though transcending all categories, it involves them all. That is, categories of quantity, quality, relation and modality are all immanent in it; arise out of the Power of Consciousness;⁶ relate to particular determinations wrought by that Power; and therefore to all “Fact-sections” contained, and even to their sum-total.⁷ Thus Consciousness,⁸ both in the sense of Ether of Consciousness⁹ and that of Perfect Experience, is unreachable by thought and discourse.¹⁰ This is the true characterization¹¹ of Consciousness as Chit.¹² Secondly, we may have nevertheless an approximate characterization,¹³ based upon man’s experience and thought: that though the categories of judgment do not apply to the fulness and perfectness of experience (which is therefore alogical), yet some concepts come nearer to it than others, and therefore, some concepts may be thought as giving an approximate representation of it. It is thus allowable to speak of it as one, immense and infinite, whole and perfect,¹⁴ Nevertheless, in seeking to completely possess and express the alogical by means of logical concepts, we ultimately discover ourselves as dealing in contradictions. To think of the unthinkable, to speak of the unspeakable, involves, ipso facto, contradiction. And since man cannot help sometimes thinking and speaking of his Experience, in its perfectness as well as in its segments, his thought does sometimes necessarily involve contradiction. We should expect it rather than be surprised.

For example, we find, in thinking about Consciousness and the World, that Chit does not and also does change: that it stresses and changes as the world, and yet it remains unchanged as Pure Chit. In trying to cure this logical defect, we commonly do two things. We say either with Mayavada Vedanta that from the absolute standpoint changing is unreal, that Chit does not really change at all; or with Shakta and some other forms of Vedanta that changing and unchanging are both real, and that they relate to two aspects of Consciousness.¹⁵ But in either solution the contradiction remains unsolved. The former soon finds that contradiction turned out by one gate inevitably returns by another. Maya or the “hypnotic suggestion”¹⁶ by which unchanging Consciousness¹⁷ appears as the changing world is said to be neither real nor unreal,¹⁸ nor partly real and partly unreal, and hence inscrutable.¹⁹ Contradiction thus reappears in the statement of Maya, and inscrutableness or alogicality is ultimately recognised as the only answer. The crux of the whole problem is this: Though of “course the changing world is not real in the sense of ‘being persistent in the three tenses of time,’²⁰ yet it is there in a way; and it can never be said that it does not exist.²¹ And this changing existence (call it unreal if to change is to be unreal) of the world-experience side by side with unchanging existence of Pure Experience²² is a gordian knot which (some may say) we do not either untie by any theory of cosmic hypnosis, or cut by any logical or dialectic weapon. It is best to frankly recognise that Reality (though Consciousness²³ itself) in its wholeness is alogical, and that, therefore, any attempt, direct or indirect, to clothe it in logical concepts must involve us in contradiction.

Neither is the contradiction solved by splitting up Experience into aspects. Aspects help us to imagine pictorially different functionings of one substance; but, as for understanding, they tell us no more than this that the functionings, and therefore, the corresponding powers are different, and that they are experienced as such. Consciousness²⁴ by its quiescent,²⁵ mind-transcendent²⁶ Power²⁷ remains the Pure Ether of Consciousness²⁸ or Shiva; and by its active, stressing²⁹ immanent-in-mind³⁰ or involved Power³¹ changes as world-experience. This is, from the point of view of understanding, no more than saying that Consciousness³² exercises two different (and one may say, opposed) functions, and that we do not know how and why. In spiritual intuition, not swayed by any pragmatic interests whatever, Consciousness³³ is beyond the antithesis of quiescent and moving;³⁴ beyond the antithesis of active and passive, agent and patient;³⁵ beyond the antithesis of negation and affirmation;³⁶ and even beyond “thatness” or the antithesis of this and that, immanent and transcendent.³⁷ ‘Beyond’³⁸ here means this: Consciousness³⁹ while presenting to thought the antitheses, polarities or dualities of active-passive and so forth, is not, in its completeness, summed up and expressed by those correlatives. It is Absolute.⁴⁰ The correlations are, however, not to be dismissed as mere illusion or an unreal imposition (“unreal” even in Mayavada means something different); since it is Consciousness⁴¹ itself which, primarily as the Supreme Centre or “I,”⁴² and, secondarily, as Finite Centres or the individual Egos,⁴³ thinks itself in, and as, such correlations.

For example, again, let us ask this: is Consciousness—without or with aspects?⁴⁴ In Kundalini yoga⁴⁵ we have the “place” beyond the sixth⁴⁶ Centre, where there is the thousand-petalled lotus representing perfect dynamic⁴⁷ Reality, Universe or Experience as well as the perfect static Void⁴⁸ which represents pure Reality or Experience.⁴⁹ This is to say that contradictions meet here in non-dual⁵⁰ experience. So that it is “beyond”⁵¹ all categories of dual experience⁵² as well as the “Supreme”⁵³ of all categories—the “Limit” of all definitions. Thus it is Supreme Reality in its aspect as the source of all which is partial:⁵⁴ supreme Time,⁵⁵ supreme Ether, supreme Sound, supreme Speech, infinitely concentrated Power, and supreme Shiva and Shakti.⁵⁶ Even ordinary experience, reviewed apart from pragmatic interests, indicates such a solution of contradictories in a way; but for a perfect proving appeal must be made, however, to Supreme Experience—that is, Experience of the yogi beyond the sixth Centre.⁵⁷ “Supreme”⁵⁸ in the above characterizations means an experience which subsumes all dual and imperfect experiences; which, with reference to Centres, becomes dualized and polarized as subjective-objective, active-passive, statical-dynamical experiences.⁵⁹ When, for example, it has been said that Experience has both statical and stressing aspects,⁶⁰ it remains to be recognised that there is an Aspect of Experience of which these both are dual, polarized manifestations, and which therefore is not in itself completely expressed either by the one or by the other. This fuller Aspect is the Supreme Aspect.⁶¹ So also as regards subjective-objective and other polarities.

Let our next question be this: is Consciousness as Chit statical or dynamical? Whether Western psychologists may or may not agree, it has generally been patent to Indian thought that Consciousness presents two aspects—the unmoving, undifferentiated aspects of “Consciousness-Ether,” and the moving, diversified aspect of particularized experiences. Now, Consciousness as Perfect Experience (i.e., in its Supreme Aspect) involves and subsumes both; is alogical and cannot be defined or characterized by either. Any attempt to treat logically(i.e., by categories) the Alogical and Perfect Experience will lead sooner or later to a tangle of thinking. Suppose one were to say first that Perfect Experience is moving, evolving ad infinitum. But how can Experience be perfect which is in the making, which is unevolved? How can knowledge be perfect the bounds of which are ever widening and widening? Shall we say, then, that Perfect Experience is not an “Ideal” merely, realizable in an infinitely distant time, but that it is an actual Fact that it is completely realized, evolved and statical? The Perfect⁶²has no need to move, and it does not move. It has nothing to add to it; no deficiencies to supply; no ends to realize. Why should it move, or change? But this view also involves difficulties. The whole⁶³ does not move; but the parts imbedded in it, the experiences of the Centres living in it, do move. Now, how can the whole be imagined to remain unchanged, unmoved, while the parts in it are changing and moving? To say with Maya-vada that the parts and their changes are unreal is no solution for those who cannot but accept their reality. To say again that the changes of the parts neutralize one another and do not therefore disturb the equilibrium of the whole is no solution either, for the analogy of physical equilibrium cannot be extended fully to Experience which to be full⁶⁴ must sum up the experiences of the parts, must subsume the changing experience of the parts. Hence we find ourselves between the horns of a destructive dilemma in attempting to “rationalize” the whole.⁶⁵

The dilemma is this: to say that Perfect experience changes and evolves is to deny that it is Perfect; and to say that experience is unchanging and statical is to deny that it is the whole of Experience as it actually is. But as a whole it must be either moving or unmoving. There is no logical escape from the dilemma.⁶⁶ In spiritual intuition, the whole⁶⁷ is alogical, and, to the analytic understanding, it presents the two aspects of statical and dynamical. It is known as the whole⁶⁸ in spite of all immanent movements: additions and subtractions do not affect it, as expressed by the mystical saying—“even if the whole⁶⁹ be subtracted from the whole,⁷⁰ the whole⁷¹ remains.”⁷²

The question whether Perfect Experience is subjective or not, will be found, if pressed home, to lead to a similar dilemma. By subjective experience is meant an experience that is referred to and “owned” by a Centre or Self. If, therefore, we hold that Perfect experience is subjective, we must imagine a Perfect Centre or Self as the owner of it. In other words, we must define Perfect Experience as the experience of the Lord.⁷³ Approximately, that is, to the highest reach of our understanding and expression, it is so, of course. Perfect experience, in so far as it can be owned at all, can be owned only by the Supreme Self.⁷⁴ That is to say, after alogical non-dual⁷⁵ Perfect Experience has been polarized into the aspects mentioned,⁷⁶ there arises the relation of owner and owned, subject and object, and Perfect Experience thus polarized, becomes the experience of the Supreme Subject or Lord. It is obvious from this that the Perfect Experience which is polarized into aspects and the “Perfect” Experience which as one aspect is owned by another aspect, are not logically of the same order. The former is extralogical. The Lord⁷⁷ owns and makes an object of Perfect Experience. To express it in other terms, the Lord,⁷⁸ is the highest logical construction⁷⁹ (not fiction) that man can put upon alogical Perfect Experience. This, however, is not to say that the Lord is “our ” construction merely. For the existence of the Supreme Centre and for the Supreme Experience owned by it, man, according to Vedanta, possesses as sure a guarantee as he possesses for his own self and his own experiences. It is more than a mere speculative idea. The Lord is the Brahman and the mind which conceives Him is the work of His Power.

Before we pass on, it should be observed that “Perfect” and “Supreme” as epithets applied to the Lord’s Experience mean perfect or supreme in the logical order or hierarchy in which we, together with countless other centres, are placed. The Lord is the “Limit” or Ideal of logical or rational experience. He is thus the Supreme Cause; the Supreme Agent; the Supreme Knower; the Supreme Being as regards Infinite Time⁸⁰ and Space⁸¹ and so on. He is thus the “Limit” of perfection of the logical categories (Causality, Time, Space, etc.). He is thus the perfection of “rational” existence. But as man’s own experience, and therefore existence, is not wholly rational or logical, as, in other words, his experience presents two aspects to him (that of the alogical Fact, and that of “Fact-sections” logically treated), so also in Vedanta does the Lord’s Supreme Experience. His Experience has a logical or rational aspect, and an alogical or ultra-rational aspect, and, as in man’s case, it is the latter which is larger than, subsumes and sustains the former. Man’s experience is alogical while it is being logically known, treated or constructed by him. While in his experience a self knows an object, the experience is not wholly either the one or the other. Nor is it merely the sum of the two. So also in the Lord’s case, the Lord’s Supreme Experience presents to Himself and to man’s thought the poles of a Supreme Self and a Supreme Object; but it has, and presents to the Lord, another and a “more” supreme aspect,⁸² viz., a Whole⁸³ and alogical Experience or Fact in which, and of which, Supreme Self, Supreme Object and the rest are but modes, which is not therefore wholly one of these modes. This indeed does not belittle but really establishes the greatness of the Lord. It says that He has an aspect of being and experience larger than and transcending what He presents to man’s thought and belief (viz., the rational or thinkable aspect). As the famous Purusha Sukta in Rigveda and Atharva-veda has it: “He is thousand-headed, thousand-eyed and thousand-footed; He, while completely pervading all this, exceeds all this by the measure of ten fingers (so to say).”

Next, we deal with the moral and aesthetic question: Is Perfect Experience (or Being) good or evil, beautiful or ugly? Does “Perfectness” as applied to experience mean or connote ethical and aesthetic perfection? Undoubtedly it does connote it; but it is more than (“exceeds by ten fingers” so to say) ethical and aesthetic perfection. Good and Beautiful are undoubtedly aspects of it, but we cannot say that Perfect Being is Good and Beautiful only. Is It then Evil and Ugly also? Yes, according to the Hindu view, for these are also aspects of It. It means this: Good and Evil, Beautiful and Ugly are categories which are applicable to Experience (=Being) when it has divided and manifested itself as aspects or polarities; it is good or evil, beautiful or ugly in so far as aspects or poles exist in it and divide it. But apart from, or without reference to, aspects or poles, it is unreachable by either pair of categories. Even while it is taken into poles or aspects, it is agreeable to these pairs of categories in so far as it is taken into aspects or poles; but even then, in its wholeness, “it exceeds all this by ten fingers”. The categories belong to the logical, rational or thinkable order; they are therefore applicable when, and in so far as, that order has appeared. And since Perfect Being is of the alogical, ultra-rational and unthinkable order even when the logical, rational and thinkable has evolved in it, the categories are not applicable to it as the whole.⁸⁴

Well; but are they applicable to It as Experience of the Supreme Self, as Lord’s Experience or Being? Is not the Lord’s Being perfectly good and perfectly beautiful? Undoubtedly it is. But since according generally to the Hindu conception, the Lord’s being is the “Limit” or “Supreme Position” of the logical, rational or thinkable order, we cannot restrict His Being and manifestation to one set of poles only such as good and beautiful, leaving out the correlative poles such as evil and ugly. These latter are also in Him and in His manifestation. Hindu thought has again and again, and boldly, attributed all possible polarities or pairs of opposite categories to the Lord’s manifestation. Thus He is at once beautiful⁸⁵ and fearful,⁸⁶ righteousness⁸⁷ and unrighteousness,⁸⁸ light⁸⁹ and darkness,⁹⁰ knowledge⁹¹ and error,⁹² and so on. The Mother Kali who holds Her blood-streaming sword and the severed head of the demonic Asura, both dispels all fear and gives all blessings. As the supreme synthesis⁹³ of the logical (i.e., presenting polarities, correlations, aspects) order of experience, the Lord’s experience cannot evidently in this view be narrowed down to one set of poles, correlations or aspects only; and not only His experience but His being. A purely ethical God and the existence of Evil (moral and physical) in the world have never been successfully made to fit in with a monistic scheme of the world-order: they have involved an ill-concealed dualism or pluralism. Without however, discussing this aspect of the question, it may be observed that by setting up a God in whom poles and contradictions live side by side, the basis of human morality and religion is not necessarily undermined. Good and Evil both exist in Him, both flow out of Him as streams that variously mingle in the world; but man has, and knows that he has, his law that is the law his essential being,⁹⁴ given to operate in the line of righteousness; he has his satisfaction and happiness in operating along that line; his progress and ascent in the pursuit of it; and ultimately his liberation, when he again goes beyond the realm of law.⁹⁵ To be thus essentially constituted in spite of his apparently being a mixture of good and evil,⁹⁶ is part of the Divine outburst, is organic to the cosmic plan. This is, to say in one word, his law of being. Hence the same Power which stands surety for the cosmic plan also stands surety for man’s law.⁹⁷ There is thus divine guarantee for human evolution.

Summing up we find that Perfect Experience is not in Time and in Space and yet it manifests itself as beginningless and endless cosmic flux and cosmic configuration; it is not Cause, and yet it is ultimate Basis of causation; it is not a Centre, and jet countless subjects and objects are in varied stress on its bosom; it is not Cosmos, and yet myriads of worlds appear and disappear in it like bubbles on water; it is unthinkable and yet all thought and speech proceed from it; it is the Whole and yet all aspects are its aspects.⁹⁸

Footnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE