COSMICBUHAY: DOES ABSOLUTE KNOW ITSELF?

DOES ABSOLUTE KNOW ITSELF?

Erle Frayne D. Argonza

Does the Absolute know itself? What is Absolute Being? Does it not require senses in order to know the self? How can the senses be there during the ‘deep sleep’ phase of the great cycle of Maha-kalpa? If in such a state without senses, is Absolute Being then the same as Non-Being?

Such a guide question is surely tough to ponder about. Precisely why there is a great difference between a chela, who goes through an initiation program towards self-realization or nirvana with full guidance of a sage or Master (teacher), from a mere freethinker who pursues the Path by going through blind alleys.

To reflect more on the ‘problematique’, the Perfected Ones contended on the subject, in Sloka 2 of Stanza 1, Book of Dzyan, to wit: “ . . . WHERE WAS SILENCE? WHERE WERE THE EARS TO SENSE IT? NO! THERE WAS NEITHER SILENCE, NOR SOUND (a). NAUGHT SAVE CEASELESS, ETERNAL BREATH (Motion) WHICH KNOWS ITSELF NOT (b).”

A further substantiation of the said contention was articulated by HPB in Volume I, Secret Doctrine, thus:

(a) The idea that things can cease to exist and still BE, is a fundamental one in Eastern psychology. Under this apparent contradiction in terms, there rests a fact of Nature to realise which in the mind, rather than to argue about words, is the important thing. A familiar instance of a similar paradox is afforded by chemical combination. The question whether Hydrogen and Oxygen cease to exist, when they combine to form water, is still a moot one, some arguing that since they are found again when the water is decomposed they must be there all the while; others contending that as they actually turn into something totally different they must cease to exist as themselves for the time being; but neither side is able to form the faintest conception of the real condition of a thing, which has become something else and yet has not ceased to be itself. Existence as water may be said to be, for Oxygen and Hydrogen, a state of Non-being which is “more real being” than their existence as gases; and it may faintly symbolise the condition of the Universe when it goes to sleep, or ceases to be, during the “Nights of Brahmâ”—to awaken or reappear again, when the dawn of the new Manvantara recalls it to what we call existence.

(b) The “Breath” of the One Existence is used in its application only to the spiritual aspect of Cosmogony by Archaic esotericism; otherwise, it is replaced by its equivalent in the material plane—Motion. The One Eternal Element, or element-containing Vehicle, is Space, dimensionless in every sense; co-existent with which are—endless duration, primordial (hence indestructible) matter, and motion—absolute “perpetual motion” which is the “breath” of the “One” Element. This breath, as seen, can never cease, not even during the Pralayic eternities. (See “Chaos, Theos, Kosmos,” in Part II.)

But the “Breath of the One Existence” does not, all the same, apply to the One Causeless Cause or the “All Be-ness” (in contradistinction to All-Being, which is Brahmâ, or the Universe). Brahmâ (or Hari) the four-faced god who, after lifting the Earth out of the waters, “accomplished the Creation,” is held to be only the instrumental, and not, as clearly implied, the ideal Cause. No Orientalist, so far, seems to have thoroughly comprehended the real sense of the verses in the Purâna, that treat of “creation.”

Therein Brahmâ is the cause of the potencies that are to be generated subsequently for the work of “creation.” When a translator says, “And from him proceed the potencies to be created, after they had become the real cause”: “and from IT proceed the potencies that will create as they become the real cause” (on the material plane) would perhaps be more correct? Save that one (causeless) ideal cause there is no other to which the universe can be referred. “Worthiest of ascetics! through its potency—i.e., through the potency of that cause—every created thing comes by its inherent or proper nature.” If, in the Vedanta and Nyaya, nimitta is the efficient cause, as contrasted with upadána, the material cause, (and in the Sankhya, pradhâna implies the functions of both); in the Esoteric philosophy, which reconciles all these systems, and the nearest exponent of which is the Vedanta as expounded by the Advaita Vedantists, none but the upadána can be speculated upon; that which is in the minds of the Vaishnavas (the Vasishta-dvaita) as the ideal in contradistinction to the real—or Parabrahm and Isvara—can find no room in published speculations, since that ideal even is a misnomer, when applied to that of which no human reason, even that of an adept, can conceive.

To know itself or oneself, necessitates consciousness and perception (both limited faculties in relation to any subject except Parabrahm), to be cognized. Hence the “Eternal Breath which knows itself not.” Infinity cannot comprehend Finiteness. The Boundless can have no relation to the bounded and the conditioned. In the occult teachings, the Unknown and the Unknowable MOVER, or the Self-Existing, is the absolute divine Essence. And thus being Absolute Consciousness, and Absolute Motion—to the limited senses of those who describe this indescribable—it is unconsciousness and immoveableness. Concrete consciousness cannot be predicated of abstract Consciousness, any more than the quality wet can be predicated of water—wetness being its own attribute and the cause of the wet quality in other things. Consciousness implies limitations and qualifications; something to be conscious of, and someone to be conscious of it. But Absolute Consciousness contains the cognizer, the thing cognized and the cognition, all three in itself and all three one. No man is conscious of more than that portion of his knowledge that happens to have been recalled to his mind at any particular time, yet such is the poverty of language that we have no term to distinguish the knowledge not actively thought of, from knowledge we are unable to recall to memory. To forget is synonymous with not to remember. How much greater must be the difficulty of finding terms to describe, and to distinguish between, abstract metaphysical facts or differences. It must not be forgotten, also, that we give names to things according to the appearances they assume for ourselves. We call absolute consciousness “unconsciousness,” because it seems to us that it must necessarily be so, just as we call the Absolute, “Darkness,” because to our finite understanding it appears quite impenetrable, yet we recognize fully that our perception of such things does not do them justice. We involuntarily distinguish in our minds, for instance, between unconscious absolute consciousness, and unconsciousness, by secretly endowing the former with some indefinite quality that corresponds, on a higher plane than our thoughts can reach, with what we know as consciousness in ourselves. But this is not any kind of consciousness that we can manage to distinguish from what appears to us as unconsciousness.