|
The Terminology of His Writings
Spiritual and Supramental
Krishnaprem has always complained (and quite naturally) that it was difficult to get the right meaning of the “technical terms” used by you. . . . Of course a full expounding of the difference between Spiritualisation and Supramentalisation would fatten into a volume, but is it not possible just to indicate why the one is called partial transformation and the other complete transformation? Also in what way the supramental consciousness-force is not identical with the spiritual.
If spiritual and supramental were the same thing, then all the sages and devotees and Yogis and sadhaks throughout the ages would have been supramental beings and all I have written about the supermind would be so much superfluous rubbish. Anybody who had spiritual experiences would then be a supramental being; the Asram would be chock-full of supramental beings and every other Asram in India also. As for writing about these things, I do not see the utility. I have already two philosophical essays to write and I do not find them writing themselves. If I start explaining the supramental, it would mean a book of 200 pages at least and even then you would be no wiser than before — as everything I wrote would probably be misinterpreted in the terms of mental cognition. The supramental has to be realised, not explained; I therefore prefer to leave it to explain or not explain itself when it is there and not waste my time in explaining mentally the supramental. As to technical terms, I have explained many times over in a way sufficient for those who practise this Yoga. If I have to explain philosophically to others, I must write a few more volumes of the Arya. I have no time just now. I may say that spiritual experiences can fix themselves in the inner consciousness and alter it, transform it, if you like, one can realise the Divine everywhere, the Self, the universal Shakti
Page – 141
doing all things, one can feel merged in the Cosmic Self or full of ecstatic bhakti or Ananda, but that need not transform the instrumental being. One can go on thinking with the intellect, willing with the mental will, feeling joy and sorrow on the vital surface, undergoing physical afflictions etc. just as before. The change only will be that the inner self will watch all that without getting disturbed or bewildered, taking it as a part of nature. That is not the transformation I envisage. 12 October 1935
*
People seem to misunderstand certain words used by Dr. Sircar in his lectures: “supermind” or “supramental”, “psychic”, “ascent and descent” etc. I think such terms should be defined precisely when used.
The words supermind and supramental were first used by me, but since then people have taken up and are using the word supramental for anything above mind. Psychic is ordinarily used in the sense of anything relating to the inner movements of the consciousness or anything phenomenal in the psychology; in this case I have made a special use of it, relating it to the Greek word psyche meaning soul; but ordinarily people make no distinction between the soul and the mental-vital consciousness; for them it is all the same. The ascent of the Kundalini — not its descent, so far as I know — is a recognised phenomenon, there is one that corresponds in our Yoga, the feeling of the consciousness ascending from the vital or physical to meet the higher consciousness. This is not necessarily through the chakras but is often felt in the whole body. Similarly the descent of the higher consciousness is not felt necessarily or usually through the chakras but as occupying the whole head, neck, chest, abdomen, body. 18 June 1937
Supermind
Others besides X have assumed that they had the Supermind because something opened in them which was “super” to the ordinary human mind. It is a common mistake. Even the word supermind (which I invented) has been taken up by several
Page – 142
people (writers in the Prabuddha Bharata and elsewhere) and applied generally to the spiritual consciousness. I see no reason to doubt that X saw things in vision (hundreds of people do) or had experiences. 7 July 1936
Supermind and Overmind
Is it true that when you write “must”, it is from the Supermind, and when you write “maybe” or “if”, it is from the Overmind?
No — I can’t say that. The Overmind has its certitudes also, though of a less absolute kind than the supramental. 19 March 1933
*
What is the connection between Overmind and Supermind?
That would need some chapters to explain. It is not important to know it before you have got some experience of the planes above mind. 23 June 1933
*
What you call supramental overmind1 is still overmind — not a part of the true Supermind. One cannot get into the true Supermind (except in some kind of trance or Samadhi) unless one has first objectivised the overmind Truth in life, speech, action, external knowledge and not only experienced it in meditation and inner experience. 25 February 1934
*
I sent up an article on your Yoga some time ago. You returned it without comment. I do not know whether you have gone through it and approve of its publication or not.
There are some errors about the Supermind and Overmind, — the two getting rather mixed up as they always do (I had much
1 This expression is a misnomer since overmind cannot be supramental: it can at most
Page – 143
difficulty in separating them myself); I have tried to clear that up but it is difficult to put in language that the mind can grasp. I hope you will manage to unravel the writing which has become microscopically illegible owing to lack of space for the corrections. Supermind by the way is synthetic only in the lowest spaces of itself where it has to prepare the principles of Overmind — synthesis is necessary only where analysis has taken place; one has dissected everything, put in pieces (analysis) so one has to piece together. But Supermind is unitarian, has never divided up, so it does not need to add and piece together the parts and fragments. It has always held the conscious Many together as the conscious One. 26 October 1938
Overmind
In the whole of The Synthesis of Yoga [as originally published in the Arya] there is nowhere any mention of Overmind. If there is anything in that book similar to what you now call Overmind, it would be in the last seven chapters.
At the time when these chapters were written, the name “over mind” had not been found, so there is no mention of it. What is described in these chapters is the action of the supermind when it descends into the overmind plane and takes up the overmind workings and transforms them.2 It was intended in later chapters to show how difficult even this was and how many levels there were between human mind and supermind and how even supermind, descending, could get mixed with the lower action and turned into something that was less than the true Truth. But these later chapters were not written.
The lack of a clear distinction between overmind and super mind is causing me some confusion, as you have said that some of my experiences belonged to the overmind.
2 The highest Supermind or Divine Gnosis existent in itself is something that lies
Page – 144
Not exactly that. They result from the overmind pressure on the intervening mental and lower planes, trying to pour into them the overmind movements. The process is very intricate, has many stages, is not of a simple, single, definite character. 13 April 1932
*
Is Overmind the same as what you call “supramental reason” in the Arya? No, — although there is a supramentalised overmind which is not very different from it, but overmind has always something relative in its knowledge. 18 March 1933
*
In the Arya there is no mention of the Overmind. You have mentioned the supramental or Divine Reason in the gradations of the Supermind, but from its description it is quite different from the Overmind. Why was the Overmind not mentioned and clearly distinguished from the Supermind in the Arya?
The distinction has not been made in the Arya because at that time what I now call the Overmind was supposed to be an inferior plane of the Supermind. But that was because I was seeing them from the Mind. The true defect of Overmind, the limitation in it which gave rise to a world of Ignorance is seen fully only when one looks at it from the physical consciousness, from the result (Ignorance in Matter) to the cause (Overmind division of the Truth). In its own plane Overmind seems to be only a divided, many-sided play of the Truth, so can easily be taken by the Mind as a supramental province. Mind also when flooded by the Overmind lights feels itself living in a surprising revelation of divine Truth. The difficulty comes when we deal with the vital and still more with the physical. Then it becomes imperative to face the difficulty and to make a sharp distinction between Overmind and Supermind — for it then becomes evident that the Overmind Power (in spite of its lights and splendours) is not sufficient to overcome the Ignorance because it is itself under
Page – 145
the law of Division out of which came the Ignorance. One has to pass beyond and supramentalise Overmind so that mind and all the rest may undergo the final change. 20 November 1933
*
Judging from your description of Overmind [in the preceding letter], it would seem that what the Vedantins (especially of the Mayavada School) call kārana is Overmind, īśvara is the cosmic spirit in Overmind, and prājña is individualised being in the Overmind. Supermind would be in turīya and mahākārana, about which they had only a few glimpses. In kārana and īśvara, they must have found something wanting of the Highest Truth.
That is evidently what they meant. But they had no clear perception of these things because they lived at the highest in the spiritualised higher mind, and for the rest could only receive things from even the Overmind — they could not enter it except by deep samadhi ( सुषुप्ति ). Prajna and Ishwara were for them Lord of the susupti. 20 November 1933
*
Is it possible for another being to take birth in a human being’s কারণ দেহ [kārana deha] and see everything from that standpoint?
The কারণ দেহ may be simply a form answering to the higher consciousness (overmental, intuitive etc.) and I suppose a being could be there working in that consciousness and body. It is not likely to be the supramental being and supramental body — for in that case the whole consciousness, thought, action subjective and objective would begin to be faultlessly true and irresistibly effective. Nobody has reached that stage yet, even the overmind is, for all but the Mother and myself, either unrealised or only an influence mostly subjective. 24 March 1934
*
In my translation I have been obliged to find or make a word for “Overmind”. I want to know if Hiranyagarbha can be used
Page – 146 with a change from its old connotation? It is not prājña as far as I can make out. Have you any other word more suitable to convey the idea of the Overmind?
Hiranyagarbha is not the Overmind, but the subtle subjective Consciousness which includes much more than the Overmind. Prajna certainly won’t do — prājña belongs to the Mind; you are probably thinking of the prājña प्राज्ञ (cidghana) caitanya, but that is a different thing from prājña प्रज्ञा. Perhaps Overmind can be described as आद्य हिरण्यगर्भ चैतन्य (as opposed to the rest of सूक्ष्म from the intuitive mind to the bottom), but that is a of the very long phrase. It is really, however, a different classification and other words ought to be found for it. परा मनीषा, आद्या मनीषा, दैवी मनीषा, any of these might do, if no single word can be found or invented.
Overmind and Intuition
Is Overmind to the Cosmic Spirit as Intuition is to the individual Self?
The Cosmic Spirit uses all powers, but Overmind power is the highest it normally uses in the present scheme of things here. In that sense as intuition is normally the highest power used by the individual being in the body, what you say may be considered as correct. 2 June 1933
Intuition
In a recent letter to me you wrote: “But the Intuition sees in flashes and combines through a constant play of light — through revelations, inspirations, intuitions, swift discriminations.” Since all these terms connect up with “Intuition”, perhaps “intuitions” is unnecessary. “Intuition” is the word for the general power proper to that plane, but it works through a fourfold process expressed in the four words connected together here. If you like you can substitute “intuitive intimations” for the third. 17 October 1936
*
Page – 147
Your intuition says everything to you? Have you nothing to think whether right or wrong? Alas! How then can the shishya follow the Guru?
Good heavens! after a life of sadhana you expect me still to “think” and what is worse think what is right or wrong. I don’t think, even; I see or I don’t see. The difference between intuition and thought is very much like that between seeing a thing and badgering one’s brains to find out what the thing can possibly be like. Intuition is truth-sight. The thing seen may not be the truth? Well, in that case it will at least be one of its hundred tails or at least a hair from one of the tails. The very first step in the supramental change is to transform all operations of consciousness from the ordinary mental to the intuitive, only then is there any hope of proceeding farther, — not to, but towards the supramental. I must surely have done this long ago, otherwise how could I be catching the tail of the supramental whale? 7 May 1938
Jivatman, Spark-Soul and Psychic Being
The Jivatman, spark-soul and psychic being are three different forms of the same reality and they must not be mixed up together as that confuses the clearness of the inner experience. The Jivatman or spirit, as it is usually called in English, is self-existent above the manifested or instrumental being — it is superior to birth and death, always the same, the individual Self or ātman. It is the eternal true being of the individual. The soul is a spark of the Divine which is not seated above the manifested being, but comes down into the manifestation to support its evolution in the material world. It is at first an undifferentiated power of the divine consciousness, containing all possibilities, but at first unevolved possibilities, which have not yet taken form, but to which it is the function of evolution to give form. This spark is there in all living beings, from the lowest to the highest. The psychic being is formed by the soul in its evolution. It supports the mind, vital, body, grows by their experiences, carries the nature from life to life. It is the psychic or caitya
Page – 148
purusa. At first it is veiled by mind, vital and body, but, as it grows, it becomes capable of coming forward and dominating the mind, life and body; in the ordinary man it depends on them for expression and is not able to take them up and freely use them. The life of the being is animal or human and not divine. When the psychic being can by sadhana become dominant and freely use its instruments, then the impulse towards the Divine becomes complete and the transformation of mind, vital and body, not merely their liberation becomes possible. The Self or Atman being free and superior to birth and death, the experience of the Jivatman and its unity with the supreme or universal Self brings the sense of liberation; but for the transformation of the life and nature the awakening of the psychic being is indispensable. The psychic being realises its oneness with the true being, the Jivatman, but it does not change into it. The bindu seen [in vision by the correspondent] above may be a symbolic way of seeing the Jivatman, the portion of the Divine; the aspiration there would naturally be for the opening of the higher consciousness so that the being may dwell there and not in the ignorance. The Jivatman is already one with the Divine in reality, but it may want the rest of the consciousness to realise it. The aspiration of the psychic being is for the opening of the whole lower nature, mind, vital, body to the Divine, for the love and union with the Divine, for its presence and power within the heart, for the transformation of the mind, life and body by the descent of the higher consciousness into this instrumental being and nature. Both aspirations are necessary for the fullness of this Yoga. When the psychic imposes its aspiration on the mind, vital and body, then they too aspire and this is what was felt as the aspiration from the level of the lower being. The aspiration felt above is that of the Jivatman for the higher consciousness with its realisation of the One to manifest. Therefore both aspirations help each other. The seeking of the lower being is necessarily at first intermittent and oppressed by the ordinary consciousness. It has by sadhana to become clear, constant, strong and enduring.
Page – 149
The sense of peace, purity and calm is brought about by the union of the lower with the higher consciousness. It cannot be permanent at first, but it can become so by increased frequency and endurance of the calm and peace and finally by the full descent of the eternal peace and calm and silence of the higher consciousness into the lower nature. 5 May 1935
*
I read a [copy of the preceding] letter on Jivatman, spark-soul and psychic being. I would like to ask some questions. Is Jivatman of (or in) one person different from that of another?
It is one, yet different. The Gita puts it that the Jiva is an अंशः सनातनः [amśah sanātanah] of the One. It can also be spoken of as one among many centres of the Universal Being and Consciousness.
If different, is it a qualitative or a quantitative difference?
Essentially one Jiva has the same nature as all — but in manifestation each puts forth its own line of Swabhava.
Is not what you term “Jivatman” the same as what they call kūtastha?
No. Kūtastha is the अक्षर पुरुष [aksara purusa] — it is not the Jivatman.
What is the plane on which the Jivatman stands?
It is on the spiritual plane always that is above the mind, but there it is not fixed to any level.
Is there anything like union of one’s psychic being with another’s?
No. Affinity, harmony, sympathy, but not union. Union is with the Divine. 3 October 1936
Page – 150 Psychic and Spiritual
Ordinarily, all the more inward and all the abnormal psychological experiences are called psychic. I use the word psychic for the soul as distinguished from the mind and vital. All movements and experiences of the soul would in that sense be called psychic, those which rise from or directly touch the psychic being; where mind and vital predominate, the experience would be called psychological (surface or occult). “Spiritual” has nothing to do with the Absolute, except that the experience of the Absolute is spiritual. All contacts with self, the higher consciousness, the Divine above are spiritual. There are others that could not be so sharply classified and set off against each other. The spiritual realisation is of primary importance and indispensable. I would consider it best to have the spiritual and psychic development first and have it with the same fullness before entering the occult regions. Those who enter the latter first may find their spiritual realisation much delayed — others fall into the mazy traps of the occult and do not come out in this life. Some no doubt can carry on both together, the occult and the spiritual, and make them help each other; but the process I suggest is the safer. The governing factors for us must be the spirit and the psychic being united with the Divine — the occult laws and phenomena have to be known but only as an instrumentation, not as the governing principles. The occult is a vast field and complicated and not without its dangers. It need not be abandoned but it should not be given the first place.
Psychic Being
I have translated the words “psychic being” as jīva but I was doubtful whether jīva conveys the idea of the psychic being.
How can jīva = psychic being? Ask X for the proper word — if there is any. 15 June 1931
*
Page – 151
Can antarātmā or hrt-purusa do for ” psychic being”? Or your own term caitya purusa?
Antarātmā is the inner being — it is a larger term than the psychic being. Hrt-purusa or caitya purusa would do. June 1931
*
As directed, “psychic being” has been translated as caitya purusa. Does this mean the purusa in the citta? Is jīva the combined and the fundamental being of all the beings — the vital, the psychic and others?
चैत्य पुरुष [caitya purusa] means rather the पुरुष [purusa] in the चित् [cit], the fundamental (inner) consciousness. जीव [jīva] is the fundamental, or as we call it, the central being. But the fundamental being is not combined of the mental, vital, psychic etc., these are only expressions of the Jivatman; the Jivatman itself is self-existent in the Divine; essential in its being, it cannot be regarded as a combination of things. 1 July 1931
The Psychic
How is it that in the Arya you never laid any special stress on the psychic centre and considered the centre above the head the most important in your Yoga? Is it because you wrote under different conditions and circumstances? But what exactly made you shift your emphasis?
You might just as well ask me why in my pre-Arya writings I laid stress on other things than the centre above the head or in the post-Arya on the distinction between overmind and supermind. The stress on the psychic increased because it was found that without it no true transformation is possible. 5 July 1937
Transformation
If you find time to answer my letter, do at least remember my chief questions: (1) whether in Vaishnavism and Ramakrishna ism there wasn’t partial transformation at least, and (2) does
Page – 152
not any light of realisation, if it is to be lasting, presuppose some transformation of the ādhāra in order that the descent may not be fugitive?
Under your pressure (not supramental) I have splashed about a little on the surface of the subject — the result is imperfect and illegible. (I am sending it down to Nolini to wrestle with it.) Your fault! How on earth do you expect me to go deep on the point or do anything else but scribble when I have no time at all, at all, at all. I am not sure what you mean by the Vaishnava transformation or Ramakrishna’s, so I can’t say anything about that. I can only say that by transformation I do not mean some change of the nature — I do not mean for instance sainthood or ethical perfection or Yogic siddhis (like the Tantrik’s). I use transformation in a special sense, a change of consciousness radical and complete and of a certain specific kind which is so conceived as to bring about a strong and assured step forward in the spiritual evolution of the consciousness such as and greater than what took place when a mentalised being first appeared in a vital and material animal world. If anything short of that takes place or at least if a real beginning is not made on that basis, a fundamental progress towards it, then my object is not accomplished. A partial realisation does not meet the demand I make on life and Yoga. Light of realisation is not the same thing as Descent. I do not think realisation by itself, necessarily transforms anything; it may bring only an opening or heightening or widening of the consciousness so as to realise something in the Purusha part without any radical change in the parts of Prakriti. One may have some light of realisation at the spiritual summit of the consciousness but the parts below remain what they were. I have seen any number of instances of that. There must be a descent of the light not merely into the mind or part of it but into all the being down to the physical and below before a real transformation can take place. A light in the mind may spiritualise or otherwise change the mind or part of it in one way or another, but it need
Page – 153
not change the vital nature, a light in the vital may purify and enlarge the vital movements or else silence and immobilise the vital being, but leave the body and the physical consciousness as it was, or even leave it inert or shake its balance. And the descent of Light is not enough, it must be the descent of the whole higher consciousness, its Peace, Power, Knowledge, Love, Ananda. Moreover, the descent may be enough to liberate, but not to perfect, or enough to make a great change in the inner being, while the outer remains an imperfect instrument, clumsy, sick or unexpressive. Finally, the transformation effected by the sadhana cannot be complete unless it is a supramentalisation of the being. Psychicisation is not enough, it is only a beginning; spiritualisation and the descent of the higher consciousness is not enough, it is only a middle term; the ultimate achievement needs the action of the supramental consciousness and Force. Something less than that may very well be considered enough by the individual, but it is not enough for the earth consciousness to take the definitive stride forward it must take at one time or another. I have never said that my Yoga was something brand new in all its elements. I have called it the integral Yoga and that means that it takes up the essence and many procedures of the old Yogas — its newness is in its aim, standpoint and the totality of its method. In the earlier stages which is all I deal with in books like the Riddle or the Lights or in the new book to be published [Bases of Yoga] there is nothing in it that distinguishes it from the old Yogas except the aim underlying its comprehensiveness, the spirit in its movements and the ultimate significance it keeps before it — also the scheme of its psychology and its working: but as that was not and could not be developed systematically or schematically in these letters, it has not been grasped by those who are not already acquainted with it by mental familiarity or some amount of practice. The later stages of the Yoga which go into little known untrodden regions, I have not made public and I do not at present intend to do so. I know very well also that there have been seemingly allied ideals and anticipations — the perfectibility of the race, certain Tantric sadhanas, the effort after a complete physical Siddhi by certain schools of Yoga, etc. etc. I have alluded to these things
Page – 154
myself and have put forth the view that the spiritual past of the race has been a preparation of Nature not merely for attaining to the Divine beyond the world, but also for the very step forward which the evolution of the earth-consciousness has now to make. I do not therefore care in the least, — even though these things were far from identical with mine, — whether this Yoga and its aim and method are accepted as new or not, that is in itself a trifling matter. That it should be recognised as true in itself and make itself true by achievement is the one thing important; it does not matter if it is called new or a repetition or revival of the old which was forgotten. I laid emphasis on it as new in a letter to certain sadhaks so as to explain to them that a repetition of the old Yogas was not enough in my eyes, that I was putting forward a thing to be achieved that has not yet been achieved, not yet clearly visualised, even though it is the natural but still secret destined outcome of all the past spiritual endeavour. It is new as compared with the old Yogas (1) Because it aims not at a departure out of world and life into a Heaven or a Nirvana, but at a change of life and existence, not as something subordinate or incidental, but as a distinct and central object. If there is a descent in other Yogas, yet it is only an incident on the way or resulting from the ascent — the ascent is the real thing. Here the ascent is the first step, but it is a means for the descent. It is the descent of the new consciousness attained by the ascent that is the stamp and seal of the sadhana. Even Tantra and Vaishnavism end in the release from life; here the object is the fulfilment of life. (2) Because the object sought after is not an individual achievement of divine realisation for the sake of the individual, but something to be gained for the earth consciousness here, a cosmic not a supra-cosmic achievement. The thing to be gained also is the bringing in of a Power of consciousness (the supramental) not yet active directly in earth-nature, even in the spiritual life, but yet to be organised and made directly active. (3) Because a method has been preconised for achieving this purpose which is as total and integral as the aim set before it, viz., the total and integral change of the consciousness and nature, taking up old methods but only as a part action and present aid
Page – 155
to others that are distinctive. I have not found this method as a whole or anything like it proposed or realised in the old Yogas. If I had I should not have wasted my time in hewing out paths and in thirty years of search and inner creation when I could have hastened home safely to my goal in an easy canter over paths already blazed out, laid down, perfectly mapped, macadamised, made secure and public. 5 October 1935
Brahma — Brahman — Brahmin
Please favour me with the correct transliteration of the words ब्रह्म and ब्राह्मण in the English language. In the Essays on the Gita, they are spelt alike, viz. Brahman. What is the necessity of an “n” when transliterating ब्रह्म?
In English, Brahma = the Creator, one of the Trinity. Brahman is the Eternal and Infinite. In English very often the stem is taken as the form of the name in transliterating and not the nominative form e.g. Pururavas, not Pururava. So Vivekananda writes “Sannyasin bold” instead of Sannyasi. 1 February 1933
*
You have given me the spellings of ब्रह्म (the Eternal) and ब्रह्मा (the Creator). Kindly write to me the correct spelling of ब्राह्मण (a caste) also.
I spoke of Brahma the Creator in order to explain why the n was necessary in transliterating ब्रह्म the Eternal. As for the other word the correct English is Brahmin, but it is often transliterated Brahmana or Brahman in order to be nearer the Sanskrit. Usually, I write Brahmin but in the Press it gets altered into Brahman. 2 February 1933
Dynamis
Dynamis is a Greek word, not current, so far as I know, in English; but the verb dunamai, I can, am able, from which it derives, has given a number of words to the English language
Page – 156
including dynamise, dynamics, dynamic, dynamical, dyne (a unit of force), so that the word can be at once understood by all English readers. It means power, especially energetic power for energetic action. It is equivalent to the Sanskrit word, Shakti. Philosophically it can stand as the opposite word to status, Divine Status, Divine Dynamis.
Ineffugable
“Infinity imposes itself upon the appearances of the finite by its ineffugable self-existence."3 [Note by a correspondent:] “Ineffugable is a new word, like dynamis, introduced into the English language by Sri Aurobindo. It means inescapable, inevitable, not to be avoided. A similar word was used by Blount in 1656 with slight change of form — ineffugible. Etymologically it is an adaptation of the Latin ineffugibilis, from effugere, to flee from, avoid. (Vide, Oxford English Dictionary.)”
Ineffugible is the correct formation, but it has not force or power of suggestive sound in it. The a in ineffugable has been brought in by illegitimate analogy from words like “fugacious”, Latin fugare, because it sounds better and is forcible. 1 October 1943
Sublate
“It claims to stand behind and supersede, to sublate and to eliminate every other knowledge. . . .”4
“Sublate” means originally to remove: it implies denial and removal (throwing off) of something posited. What appeared to
be true, can be sublated by a greater truth contradicting it. The experience of the world can be sublated by the experience of
Self, it is denied and removed; so the experience of the Self can be sublated by the experience of Sunya; it is denied and removed.
3 Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, volume 21 of
T
4 Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine
Page – 157
[Note by a correspondent:] “Hegelian philos. (rendering G. aufheben, used by Hegel as having the opposite meanings of `destroy’ and `preserve’). See quotation: `Nothing passes over into Being, but Being equally sublates itself, is a passing over into Nothing, Ceasing-to-be. They sublate not themselves mutually, not the one the other externally; but each sublates itself in itself, and is in its own self the contrary of itself.’ (Vide, Oxford English Dictionary.)”
Hegel could not have used the word “sublate” as he wrote in German.5 I do not know what word he used which is here translated by sublate, but certainly it does not mean both destroy and preserve, nor in fact does it mean either. Being passes over into Non-being, so it sublates itself, changes and eliminates itself as it were from the view, becomes Non-being instead of being; but so also does Non-being, what was Non-being passes over into being; where there was nothing, there is being; nothing has eliminated itself from the view. This, says Hegel, is not a mutual destruction by two contraries each of which was outside the other. Being inside itself becomes nothing or Non-Being; Non-Being or Nothing equally inside itself passes into being. They do not really sublate or drive out each other, but each sublates itself into the other. In other words it is the same Reality that presents itself now as one and now as the other. 31 July 1944
Global
“To contact” is a phrase that has established itself and it is futile to try to keep America at arm’s length any longer; “global” also has established itself and it is too useful and indeed indispensable to reject; there is no other word that can express exactly the same shade of meaning. I heard it first from Arjava who described the language of Arya as expressing a global thinking and I at once caught it up as the right and only word for certain things, for instance, the thinking in masses which is a frequent characteristic of the Overmind.
2 April 1947
5 Aufheben, if that is the German word, must mean the same as the Latin word
Page – 158 |