Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 
The Metaphysical Questions of Arunandi

 

PREFACE

Ѿ Ǣ
񽢨¢ --
ո á Ȣ

  kaN n-uthalung kaNtak kaRaiyung karan-tharuLi
  maNNitaiyin maakkaL malamakaRRum -- veNNai n-allUr
  meykaNtaan enRu orukaal mEvuvaraal vERinmai
  kaikaNtaar uLLaththuk kaN
 

 Anyone who approaches, even once, the TRUTH BEHOLDER of VeNNai NallUr, who in his Being-There, conceals the archetypal forms of SIVA as the Three-Eyed and Blue-Throated, will get destroyed the ALTERITY and ALIENNESS  within themselves as a matter of fact.

Ȣ: vERinmai: non-difference or non-alienness, the total absence of Alterity; the destruction of  Other with which BEING has been approached hitherto.

NOTES: In this preface Arunandi describes the certainty of attaining Absolute Illumination through a dialogic discourse with Meykandar, who stands not as a person but rather BEING itself, not as the TOTALLY ABOVE but rather in the archetypal forms suitable for the destruction of   ignorance and the redemption of the individual psyche through absorbing unto Himself the DARKNESS breeding stuff. The Three-Eyed is that which opens up the eyes so that what   remains UNSEEN, comes to be SEEN. The Blue-Throated is that which absorbs the indestructible Anava Malam, that which assails the anmas breeding metaphysical blindness within and because of which exists IGNORANCE in the understanding of the anmas.
 

Chapter 1: Nihilism and the Way Out

 Now begins an interrogation of Meykandar of a profound kind in which Arunandi takes to task  Meykandar's central notion 'an-n-iyaminmai' or absence of Otherness as the limiting condition of Being-in the-World of the anmas that he outlined in his magnificent Civajnana Botham(henceforth C.B) and which  is said to have been bestowed by BEING itself and no other. This is also the notion of ParaMukti, the absolute liberation that provides the meaning for Existence, that for which existence is.  The interrogation and the dialectics bring out the impossibility of making sense of this notion of Paramukti within absolute hetereology that always maintains an alienness, an Other. Having brought out  the numerous impasses and hence nihilism of a kind as the only possibility, he makes it come out from the mouth of Meykandar the solutions to these dillemmas that hark back to the words of Appar and Thirunjaanasambanthar.

 
Ȣ !
á ո Ģ Ũ
!
Ţ ɡШ
ī ¡
ȢŢ âŢ ɢ
áĢ Ţá Ȩɧ
󧾡
 

 kaNNakan nyaalaththuk kathiravan thaanena
 veNNaith thOnRiya meykaNta thEva!
 kaaraa kirukak kali aazvEnai n-in
 pEra inpaththu iruththiya peruma!
 vinaval aanaathutaiyEn  enathuLam
 n-Ingkaa n-ilaimai Ungkum uLaiyaal
 aRivinmai malam piRivinmai enin
 oraalinai uNarththum viraay n-inRanaiyEl
 thippiyam an-thO poyppakai aakaay

 Oh Meydanda Theva, who hast come down like the brilliant sun that dispels the DARKNESS of the wide world, and residing in VeNNai  Nallur, and has established me in everlasting bliss by destroying my inclinations towards the Dark, I am desirous of posing some  (fundamental metaphysical) questions (in the light of what you have already said)

 If Thou as the BEING, has been all along with me never departing at all, standing as the SAME, then how is that I am infected with DARKNESS OF IGNORANCE?
 If it is said, it is so because the MALAM remains non-alienated and separated yet, it would mean that Thou standeth aloof and apart. But if this is denied and is said that BEING as such remains WITH all nonalienly, then not only it is incredible but also   that it would be infered that Thou art NOT the foe of the false and illusory.

¸
¡

 chuththan amalan chOthi n-aayakan
 muththan paramparan enumpeyar mutiyaa

 And if so, then such descriptions of Thee as the Absolutely Pure, the Supremely  Faultless, the Totally Illuminant, the Eternally Liberated, the Absolutely  Transhistorical will be inapplicable.

ڽ Ţ¡ ȡ
ȡ !

 vERu n-inRuNarththin viyaapaka minRaayp
 pERum inRaakum emakku em peruma!

 Now in order to avoid such difficulties, if it is said that Thou standeth as an Other and instructs the creatures, then that would mean that Thou art not universally  pervasive and immanent. And furthermore it would also mean Being-absolutely-one- with- Thee   and  hence the SAME as Thee will be impossible for me.

 տ
տ ľĢ
ŧȡ ɡ Ţ
Ȣ    ڨ Ԩ

 irun-ilan- thIn-Ir iyamaanan kaalenum
 perun-ilaith thaaNtavam perumaaRku ilathaakalin
 vERO utanO viLampal vENtum
 chIRi yaruLal chiRumai yutaiththaal

 And furthermore as a Reality totally transcendent and above, Being-one-with-the-Physical- World of Fire, Air, Water, Earth and Space  and agitating them as a whole  (to instruct me) does not anymore belong to Thee. So explain to me whether Thou art one-with-me or not without loosing patience that is unbecoming.

Ȣ¡ Ȣ
Ȣ Ǣ Ӿġ ɢ
Ǣ Ȣ;
ɢ ɡ

 aRiyaathu kURinai apakkuva pakkuvak
 kuRi paarththu aruLinam kurumuthalaay enin
 apakkuvam aruLinum aRiyEn; mikaththakum
 pakkuvam vENtiR payanilai n-innaal

 Now if Thou repliest that I have posed these questions out of ignorance and that  the world process is pedagogical in nature in which through the intermediary  of  a GURU, I in fact instruct each according to his own cognitive maturity or  developmental attainment, we are not free of problems. For I am absolutely certain that even instructed, if I am not sufficiently matured for it, I will not be able to   understand it at all. The instructions will be completely beyond my grasp. Now if a  readiness for comprehension is required as a precondition, then  Thy instructions  become redundant.

  ɡ â
ɡ
Ģ ̧

 pakkuvam athanaaR payan n-I varinE
 n-innaip paruvam n-ikazththaathu annO
 than oppaar ili enpathuvum thakumE

 Now if Being-one-with-Thee results as if spontaneously because of a state of readiness (and through direct revelation), then it is not something that happens in the course of the developmental progress of  an individual. And because of this  uninvolvement, Thou  becometh the Supremely  Incomparable, the Wholly Other.

Ǩ¢
째?

 mummalanj chatam aNu mUppu iLamaiyil n-I
 n-inmalan paruvam n-ikazththiyathu aarkkO?

 Now if Thou art not only the Wholly Other (but also involved in the pedagogical   processes), and standeth as the Absolutely Pure, who or what is instructed by Thee? For the    three fold malas ( the ANavam, kanmam and maayeeyam) are insentient (and hence  incapable of learning); the finite self being a metaphysical reality does not age or remain youthful (i.e. does experience the historical processes of growth and decay). And since Thou art already the Absolutely Pure, it cannot also be as a way of realizing Thyself.

ɢ
¢Ģ ¢ Ȣ
¡ 츢

 uNarvezu n-Ikkaththai Othiyethu eninE
 iNaiyili aayinai enpathai aRiyEn
 yaanE n-Ikkinum thaanE n-Ingkinum
 kOnE vENtaa kURal vENtum.

 Now in order to overcome these difficulties if Thou asserts that these changes are  brought about in the UNDERSTANDING and not in the nature of the Metaphysical Being of  the selves, then it becomes incomprehensible how thou art the Wholly Other,  and the  Incomparable. Whether it is I who remove the finitizing factors of the understanding or it leaves on its own accord, Thy presence seems to be unwanted. Please illuminate me  and  enlighten me with respect to these questions.

¡ 측
Ҩ 󾢨
Ȣ

 kaaNpaar yaarkol kaattaakkaal enum
 maaNpurai uNarn-thilai manRa paaNtiyan
 kEtpak kiLakkum meynyaanaththin aRiyE

 (Meykandar replies:) You raise all these questions only because you are ignorant of what has already been articulated (by Appar wherein he says:) You cannot SEE  anything unless SHOWN as such by BEING. Furthermore you are also ignorant of the reply given by Thirujnaanasambanthar when the Pandian king queried him viz. BEING  discloses to each according to his own merits in a manner befitting his  hermeneutic capabilities and because of which the modes of disclosures are really infinite,  uncountable.
 
 

COMMENTARY:

Part 1: Absolute hetereology and consequent Nihilism

1. The metaphysical questions Arunandi raises are profound and touch upon the great controversy that has divided the Indian philosophers for more than two  millenniums  and which arose as the central question underlying the burst of Bakti movement in the  Tamil country from the 5th cent. onwards and in the course of which the essentially nihilistic Buddhism,  Jainism and Vedanta were overcome. As already outlined by Meykandar, Existence is Being-in-the-World that holds the possibility of Being-One-With-the-World (BWW)  i.e. atheistic and  Being-One-With-BEING (BWB) i.e. theistic. It is also asserted that there is a GROWTH that the anmas undergo and that this growth is obtained by a process in which the Phenomenological Being of the anmas is  BACKGROUNDED and overcome and  simultaneously the presence of BEING  foregrounded and firmly installed i.e. a transformation from a state of {P-Being~(BEING)} into  {BEING~(P-Being)}. Now if the former is the state of Being that obtains for all psychic entities that they have to overcome, a state of finitude and IGNORANCE, then it becomes  immensely puzzling for the penetrating intellect of Arunandi, an adroit  scholar of vast  scholarship and who entered into a vehement controversy with young Meykandar himself. If {P-Being~(BEING)} means the state of finitude, of IGNORANCE because of the presence of  MALAM, a  metaphysical DARKNESS, Arunandi is puzzled over the co-presence of both BEING and MALAM in the anmas. For MALAM, as the ANTIBEING, that which breeds DARKNESS, is opposed to BEING that which is pure RADIANCE. How can the two, as such,  be simultaneously present in one and the same entity? How can, to speak metaphorically here, LIGHT and DARKNESS be simultaneously present in the anmas ?

 2. Now attention shifts to the pedagogical processes that are brought in to explain the   supplanting of the P-Being of the psychic entities and implanting the presence BEING itself in its place.
  The notion of instruction implies face to face interaction in which the two, the GURU and sysya meet each other in a confrontational stance  for otherwise instruction as such will not take place.
 But this implies BEING standing totally Other (áĢ , Oraalinai uNarththum) and hence not-one-with, and hence ineffectual for preventing the emergence of the false and illusory.  Furthermore instructing requires standing apart and above and hence such instructional processes can never bring about the ONENESS where there is a fusion of identity. The ONENESS is neither the DIFFERENCE nor the SAME that are related to each other but   rather a fusion where the understanding ceases to be different. In other words   pedagogic processes alone will not bring about a state of being of the sort  {BEING~(P-Being)} as it  implies that BEING remains totally Other and Above and hence beyond the self-possession of the anmas.

 3. Now if the presence of BEING as totally Other is denied and stated that BEING stands  one-with as the anma itself (ŧ ¡ , C.B Sut.2,avaiyE thAnEyAi) another  dilemma emerges. The presence of finitude and along with it the DARKNESS of Ignorance is an empirical truth. But then it becomes a puzzle to note that this is so DESPITE THE ONENESS of BEING. And therefore such descriptions as the Absolutely Pure,  the  Radiant and so forth become incomprehensible. How is human understanding  finite and full of ignorance despite the fact that BEING, the supremely radiant and pure is there  within the understanding as a NON-ABSENTING PRESENCE?

 4. If the pedagogical are related to historical and cosmological, i.e. something that  happens in the historical involvement of the psychic entities, the problem is not over. For BEING is always trans-historical, uninvolved in the enormous manipulations of the elements of Earth, Water, Fire, Space and Wind and in the existential struggles of the anmas.  As the Totally Other, BEING remains forever the Absolutely Beyond for the anmas.

 5. These dilemmas lead to an impasse and as a result of which a kind nihilism emerges. The pedagogical understood as instructional makes the BEING totally Other  hierarchically Above and Totally Beyond  and this will make the neutralization of DIFFERENCE impossible and the attainment PARAMUKTI  totally beyond the reach of the anmas. And in order to overcome this nihilism, attention now shifts to a reconsideration of the meaning of the  pedagogical itself and in connection with which Arunandi introduces two technical terms  related each other, viz. pakkuvam and paruvam. While 'pakkuvam' means a special status of readiness that have signs of its own (kuRi), 'paruvam' like the seasons of the year are natural processes of change and decay. The pedagogical involves not instructions   per se but rather disclosures or revelations of a kind. The special individuals who are  'ripe' enough for such disclosures are singled out, and BEING discloses truths only  to such individuals. The pedagogical as such do not exist but only special revelations, the messianic disclosures. While this has the merit of avoiding the total Aloofness of BEING, but   creates problems of its own. For when someone is not "ready" in this sense, even disclosed, the "messages" will be simply BEYOND the comprehension of the individuals. Also    requiring as a precondition such a special status of being ripe and ready, makes the  presence of BEING itself irrelevant and useless. And if such profound and, we may  add here, metaphysical disclosures are said to be dispensed only when somehow there is a state of readiness, then becoming ready in  this way, is made totally beyond the historical processes of growth and decay, conflict and resolution. The state of being 'ready' becomes mystical and magical, something   beyond the natural. And this means there will be no one resembling BEING, reflecting BEING in  this world. In other words the possibility of someone becoming a civanjaani, one who  radiates the presence of BEING in his personality, is denied here. If disclosures are simply selective violations and interference, a bursting forth into the understanding  of some selected individuals, the gradual unfolding of the presence of BEING  in the
understanding of every creature is denied. And this makes   BEING  the Totally Incomparable ( Ģ, oppaar ili) the forever Beyond and hence not available for the molding of self  in the image of BEING. The phenomenal presence of BEING is made impossible except as Violence.

 6. Now begins another line of inquiry in the face of this impasse. The pedagogical  is now interpreted in terms of 'paruvam nikazththal' i.e. bring about maturation through a sequence of stages in a progressive manner. There is the maturational  processes in which the anmas begin to radiate more and more of the presence of BEING  so that there are different 'paruvams' of developmental stages, like in the biological evolutionary.

 Now if BEING by his presence brings about such developmental changes, then the question   arises as to what exactly undergoes these changes. For there are problems here in view the possibility of different candidates. Meykandar has already established the   Fundamental Ontology, in which over and above BEING, there are innumerable psychic entities and the atomizing  ANavam as metaphysical realities and that along with Anavam, there are also Karma and MaayEyam as deep constraints that make the phenomenal presence  of the anmas finite and hence given over to thetic understanding (cudduNarvu)  understanding always with referentiality. If BEING effects at all the evolutionary and developmental changes, it has to be by 'working' on the Anavam, Kanmam, or Mayeeyam or the aNu, the finite self. Now the mummalam, the   aNavam etc, are insentient -cadam-  and hence while they can undergo transformations of  various sorts, they cannot be characterised as either developmental or evolutionary. The latter notions imply not simply a change in state but also a movement towards something Yonder, and which is approximated gradually. The maayeeyam- the primordial   ENERGY- suffers only transformations or modifications but does not evolve. In such transformations, there is no progress or regress; evolution or devolution; development   or degeneration. The Karma   - the action-schemata -   being configurations of  mantra-complexes, pass from one sort of formation into another and into which again we  cannot read developmental progress. The aNavam stands there as insentient unleashing  forces of destruction and death and simultaneously constraining the understanding so that it remains finite. It disperses itself into countless number of forms depending  upon the  context. So in the processes of these insentient but metaphysically  real substances, there is NOTHING on the basis of which we can single out ONE as the more  developed than another i.e. there is no way  in which we can note a hierarchical  relationship of subordination and superordination.

 Now the aNu is the finite self and since it is sentient, it would appear that the  notion of development and so forth can be made sense here. There are two distinct  possibilities. One is the biological processes of growth and decay in which there are the aging processes. But in conjunction with the question of the meaning of pedagogy, the biological changes such as these are irrelevant. An old man can be philosophically naive while a young man may not be so. More importantly, the anma in relation to its M-Being is absolutely transcendental, BEYOND the unceasing historical-flux of the  phenomenal world and hence suffers no changes at all- it has no states of Being such  as young and old, and hence neither mature nor immature.

 This bring us to the final and the most likely candidate: the understanding itself and the hermeneutical meaning of the pedagogical.  The phrase 'uNarvezu niikkam' indicates that the pedagogical removes something from the  understanding itself and because of which results developmental changes. The   understanding is 'purified' and because of it, it  is better, more developed and so forth.

But the sharp intellect of Arunandi notes a problem here too. If BEING absolves all the prejudices finitising the understanding so that it is absolutely PURE without any  obscurants that would distort and thwart the perceptions, then it makes the  understanding of BEING as iNaiyili, an absolutely indivisible UNITARY WHOLE problematic. BEING involved in the removal of the obscurants of human understanding that configure the understanding itself as finite, impure, unsaturated, imperfect, incomplete etc cannot  be ONE, for it requires splitting into a variety of guises each suitable to a specific task of purification. Is BEING absolutely UNITARY or not? is the question that perplexes Arunandi now.

 7. Now can BEING instruct itself as a way of REALIZING ITSELF and because of which  emerges the pedagogical in the world? is the question that remains  to be taken up, having eliminated all other possible candidates. But the question: nI ninmalan, paruvam  nikazththiyathu yArkkO? itself contains the answer : that which already absolutely Pure , free of the defiling MALAM, the obscurants, has no necessity to instruct Itself , no matter how; it has to be for something else while simultaneously itself not learning anything at all.

8. Now emerges another possibility  that not is only nihilistic but possibly Atheistic.  For the presence of the instructional is not  denied but only the invocation of the involvement of BEING itself  in it and hence the irrelevancy of BEING for the pedagogical. For it is considered now that understanding can move from itself to itself and in that the obscurants removed. This can be either by the efforts the self itself in its Being-in-the World  or the  self removal of the obscurants on their own accord. The understanding can be taken to be PROJECTIVE, projecting unto itself , for itself and itself states of Being as its own innermost possibilities  and move by itself to BE what it projects for itself.  If this the case and the pedagogical is essentially this, then BEING as such becomes irrelevant, the analysis of Being of the self itself being sufficient.
 
 

Part 2: Overcoming Nihilism

We have come to the end of an exposition of the essential content of the first set of metaphysical QUESTIONS the adroit Arunandi raises more to highlight and prepare the ground for the final statement that he makes  come out from the mouth of his master himself. The kind of  dialectics that he enters into may be the kind of dialectics that transpired in his time in the circle of Meykandar.  An overview   of all these discourses quite clearly indicate that what is involved is a species of deconstruction that we shall call disconstruction,   the unsettling the settled and through that introducing a trauma in the mind of the philosophers who assert positively this and that and remain complacent with an air of finality in the truth of their utterances. This confidence and complacency is that which is undermined  while simultaneously disclosing the impasses that assails any philosophical explanations about the problem he begins with : How  BEING which is Radiance itself can be co-present with Darkness in the understanding of the psychic entities? Any explanation within Alterity, the primordial condition of discourse and ethics, cannot explain the meaning of the pedagogical that ultimately leads to ParaMukti, a condition of Nonalienness with BEING. But disconstruction is not simply  deconstruction , that which unsettles and through that allows continuos translatability, substitutability , uninterrupted flow , nondirectional disemmination and so forth.  Disconstruction as cangkaaram, does not simply unsettle;  it, in doing that, clears the ground for the emergence  of another that till now remains concealed, covered-up, hid behind a veil, a curtain. In other words, as Meykandar articulates it, it is  antham-aathi, an act of terminating one in order to initiate another, episodizing so that present becomes the past and future becomes the present.

The impasses lead to undecidability about the presence and involvement of BEING and at times marginalising it so that it becomes   supremely  IRRELEVANT even if it is there somewhere. This irrelevancy of BEING and hence anything absolutistic, permanent with unchanging   essences is the kind of NIHILISM that emerges as the possibility with the line of metaphysical thinking  underlying the discourses we have considered so far.  The understanding of pedagogical as instructional that brings along with it absolute hetereology, is the  root cause of all these impasses. For it binds thinking to Alterity, Separation, the face-to-face as ultimate, alienation, the nondissolubiltiy  of  Other and the impossibility of making sense of the important notion of ParaMukti  or Advaita as that for which existence is , remains the possibility of all creatures and which can be bestowed by BEING  alone. The metaphysics of indissoluble  discourse  cannot lend itself for understanding the notion of ParaMukti which is already there even before any discourse along with the presence of BEING. What we need is a metaphysics that allows the overcoming of  SPEECH  and hence, discourse and  simultaneously the reaching the primordial situation that is prelinguistical.  The true metaphysics is that which reaches the prelinguistical and the postlinguistical ground and for which reason  such an enterprise is called meta-physical, the going beyond the physis , that which stands as there i.e. por-uL
ParaMukti also demands, as that which hovers in front as the possibility for all, as something already inscribed,  the transcending of language and hence going beyond discourse, towards a communicative situation that is at the same time non-linguistic i.e. cuththa mOnam , Deep Silence. Such a possibility is contained within a notion of pedagogy that was first articulated by Appar and Jnaanasambanthar and at the end of the impasses, the solution offered by them is made to be repeated by Meykandar as a way overcoming  the nihilism that surfaced as the only possibility within absolute hetereology. The disconstruction clears the ground for the emergence of the TRUTH and simultaneously true metaphysics, Metaphysica Universalis.

The solution is contained in the words of Appar wherein he says :  "   Ͼ 측" "kaaNpaar aarkol kaN n-uthal kaattaakkaalE" and the words of Thirujnaanasambanthar :  " Ҹ Ţ 츧 " "aatpaalavarkku aruLum vaNNamum aathi maaNpum kEtpaan pukil, aLavillai kiLakka vENtaa". Roughly these words can be translated as meaning: there cannot be anyone SEEING any thing at all if not SHOWN as such by the Three-Eyed archetypal presentation of BEING and the phenomenal presentations of BEING as such are infinite, uncountable. The immediate implication is that the pedagogical is not instructional that presupposes an eternal hetereology but rather opening up the eyes so that what is already there but remains UNSEEN begins to be SEEN and the ways in which such removable of BLINDESS is effected are INFINITE and uncountable.  How the selves are transformed so that they are more mature, how they are GRACED so that they DEVELOP as  individuals , the modes in which they are effected  and so forth are beyond measure, a MYSTERY beyond the reach of the calculating mind. In other words BEING-IN-ITSELF  or the Metaphysical BEING  (henceforth M-BEING) remains a MYSTERY perhaps forever beyond the reach of the frail and finite human understanding. And this means that we can understand BEING only when and  as   HE chooses HIMSELF  to disclose to the human mind.  And each one of these disclosures are really opening up the eyes of the psychic entities so that what remains UNSEEN  begins to be SEEN.

The SEEING of more and more of what is already there is genuine LEARNING and hence the processes  of opening up the eyes in this manner is genuine pedagogy.  There is SHOWING because of which there is SEEING , each such seeings constituting an act of learning, the destruction of the Darkness of ignorance.

But does not this notion of pedagogy   also presuppose an absolute Hetereology and hence all the impasses that we have met?  The answer to this basic question is provided by Meykandar's   rightly famous observation: "¡ ɢ " "yaavaiyum chUniyam chaththu ethir"i..e. 'there  is only Nothingness in the face of the Absolute',  at the limiting situation there is no face to face for there is NO  FACE AT ALL, the FACE disappears and only  a NOTHINGNESS comes to prevail. It  is also described by Meykandar as "an-n-iyaminmai", the absence of alienness or alterity. But how can the notion of SEEING as Learning lead us to absolve Alterity and hence neutralize separation, difference and so forth? The seeing , when it progresses from the physicalistic, then to the hermeneutic , then to the transductive and so forth  archeoductively, in the limit it becomes SEEING WITHOUT SEEING, the n-Okkaathu n-Okkal of Meykandar.  While all seeings are infected with referentiallity i.e. cuddu, it is only the SEEING  WITHOUT SEEING  that is free of it.  If there is no referentiallity , there is no temporality as well and hence along with it a condition of the impossibility of speech as such. A deep silence, a silence that is not  a modality of speech but rather because the roots of speech are cut asunder, becomes the only mode of communication. This is the limiting condition for there exists NOTHING beyond, which is also understood within this state of Being.  There exists NOTHING that can be encountered as there, nothing yonder, there is no more the Other. There is the ABSOLUTE CLOSURE , the PARAMUKTI that informs from within that it is so.

At this stage emerges a true understanding of BEING in itself, the corUbam disclosing that BEING  hitherto is only the transitory phenomenal presentations, P-BEING, the thadastham,  that which stands as the Incomparable, the Wholly Other , that One without a second, the Most high and so forth. All these are ways of Being of BEING, each suited for some kind of SHOWING and hence opening up the eyes of the spiritually blind anmas. There is no contradiction between hetereological understanding of BEING and the TRUE understanding of BEING. The BEING   as it   in itself is disclosed to the anmas at the point of Nothingness, at the end of the complete and total burning to cinders all the prejudices, the constraints, the obscurants that delimited and distorted the seeing and understanding.

With this the nihilism is totally overcome. The M-BEING stands as the ABSOLUTE, which in its phenomenal presence throws the anmas into an hetereology, forcing to have a FAITH and consider   the BEING-IN-ITSELF as the Wholly Other, the Impossible , forever the Beyond and so forth. But when the phenomenality of Being-in-the-World is overcome, where everything is transcended hermeneutically, where every impulse is evaporated in the burning grounds of Tillai so that intentionality and along with it referentiallity, temporality and so forth cease to emerge,  in the SEEING WITHOUT SEEING, the ABSOLUTE BEING itself is seen bringing to a FINAL CLOSURE the phenomenal existence itself.



HOME