irupa6

Chapter 6: On the Duality of Self

Having brought out the enormous importance of PURE LOVE between a man and woman and the relevance of the disruption of the erotic life between such individuals for the transmutation of such a human love into Bakti, true love towards BEING ,that affords enjoyment of the embrace of immense bliss, now questions are raised with respect to the DUALITY that seems to be inherent to all the anmas that necessitates disconstructions of various sorts so that anmas are freed from the clutches of the IMPURE and transported towards modes of Being that are essentially PURE and in which the impure of whatever form do not emerge at all. The self is peculiar in that there is an inherent polarity of desires or possibilities that can be owned and appropriated as one's own and stand as SAME. There can be ONE-WITH-BEING or avoid that possibility and be ONE-WITH-NONBEING or MALA, which normally means being earthly , entangled forever with the phenomenal and hence the historical. This double structure that is distinctive of the anmas and which necessitates the thIkkai, the cleansing, that are so painful becomes the problem now for the immensely astute Arunandi.

   
     - 
    
  ?

mathin-inpaal in-tha malaththinpaal n-iRka
vithiyen kol veNNai vaaz meyya ; pathi n-inpaal
van-thaal ithil varaththil van-thiraNtum paRRukilEn
en-thaay iraNtaamaaRu en?

Oh! Thou who hast seen TRUTH and lives in VeNNai, how does it come to be that my mind stands simultaneously both one-with-you and one-with-the-malas.? And furthermore how is that when I am one-with-you, I enjoy thy disclosures that make me blind towards the disclosures pertaining to the psychical and physical? Oh! Father! How is that I have these propensities that are in fact polar opposites?

Notes: The existential reality of the anmas is generated by BEING which alternatively is ONE-WITH and NOT-ONE-WITH the anmas. BEING or at least the archetypal BEING withdraws , conceals itself and hence virtually absent in the psychic interiority of anmas, thereby abandoning them to the malas- the forces of decay degeneration and death. Arunandi wants to know the <vithi> , the rationale for this kind of PLAY.

   
   
   ,
   
   ?

eNtichai viLangka irutpataam pOkki
muNtakam alarththi mUthaRivu aruLum
mEthini uthaya meykaNta thEva,
kOthil amutha kuNapperung kunRa
ennin aarthalum akaRalum ennaikol?

Having violated the prevailing DARKNESS of aaNava malam and ushered in LIGHT and because of which blossoms the divine lotus from which emerge as an expression of Thy GRACE the deathless illuminations of Sivajnaanam, Thou who art mountain of faultless ambrosia and the supremely NOBLE! To what purpose is this painful GAME of Being -with- me and later abandoning me ?

Notes: The BEING embraces the anmas to the full but however this is not a fusion that is eternal and something that can be taken for granted. At certain times the archetypal BEING abandons the anmas throwing them to the clutches of malas, an existential truth that puzzles Arunandi. The EMBRACE of BEING or at least its eternal presence within oneself cannot be taken for granted, it appears.

    
   
   
 ;

un n-inRu unni unnaavitil peyarkuvai
ennum athuvE n-inniyalpu eninE,
viyangkOL aaLanum aaki iyangkalum
uNtenap patuvai;

Now if it si said that Thy essence is to maintain the embrace when Thy presence is intensely thought of and reflected upon and to abandon and conceal when not done so, then it would follow that Thou art susceptible to being manipulated somehow by the anmas and hence someone at the beck and call of the miserable anmas.

Notes: BEING as the totally autonomous supreme POWER is beyond the manipulative machinations of the anmas. If prayer , meditation <un n-inRu unnal> and such activities of the anmas secure the presence of BEING, it would follow that BEING is not autonomous but rather susceptible to the instrumental manipulations of the anmas; the anmas at their own will can keep the presence of BEING firmly entrenched in themselves by such rituals . <viyangkOL aaLan>: someone who can be ordered about to do things one desires.

; 
     
    ,
   
    
   
 ;

;eNthOL mukkaN
yaangkaNum piriyaathu Ongku n-in n-ilaiyin
yaan van-thu aNain-thu mILkuvan aayin,
aaRRaththuyar uRROr aNin-izal n-achaii,
vIRRu vIRRu izithara vENtalum veRuththalum
inRu achchaayaikku n-anRuman iyalpE
aNaiyai yaakuvai;

To avoid this reduction of Thy supreme autonomy and the total ABOVENESS, if it is said that while Thou standeth eternally and unmoving with archetypal forms of the Third-Eyed Siva and Eight-Shouldered Catasiva, it is I who enters thy PRESENCE and abandons therefrom, there are problems here too. For then Thou becometh so aloof and totally indifferent to my existential anguish and excruciating pains, like a tree of cool shades that is indifferent to the plights of the travelers in the hot sun who seek its cool shades and later depart from it to continue their painful journey. Thou becometh the tree that neither invites nor throws out the travelers who take shelter to escape from the miseries of the burning sun.

Notes: When BEING is simply present in archetypal forms that are of some benefit to the anmas, what is lacking is LOVE on the part of BEING towards the anmas. BEING is not like the tree of cool shades that simply stands there unconcerned with the world, enclosed within itself. <caayai>; branches of trees.

...  
   
   ,
  ;

...n-inaivarung kaalai
in-n-ilai yathanin EzaiyERku irangki
n-innai veLipatuththu oLippai n-IyEl,
aruL maaRaakum peruma;

To avoid the inconsistency that emerges on the understanding of Thee as above, if it is said that it is out of your own WILL and LOVE that you have for the creatures, that Thou disclose Thyself and later conceal, then again a problem emerges. For now it would mean Thou art full of GRACE when you disclose Thyself and without it when withdraw and conceal.

Notes: The term <veLipatuththal> means disclosing, making the presence within the seeing so that there is no uncertainty as to its presence. The opposite of this is <oLiththaL> which literally means hiding, here of course meaning withdrawal and concealment, the thirObavam, casting a screen so that something is made unavailable for seeing. The aruL that is intrinsic to BEING now appears as something that can be absent during moments of withdrawal ; something contradictory to the essence of BEING.

; 
   
    

;aqthu anRiyum
n-in peRRavarkku uRpavam uNtenum
choRpeRum aqthu iththol ulaku illai

And furthermore, if you abandon even those who have attained your PRESENCE and EMBRACE, then it would follow that there is rebirth, existential repetition, phenomenal re-circulation even for such selves contradicting the essential meaning of MUKTI, where phenomenality and historicity are said to be overcome and transcended totally and absolutely.

Notes: <uRpavam>: existential repetition, rebirth, getting back into the web of phenomenal realities that are in historical flux, forever changing, flowing, moving.

    
   
   

av avai amaivum chaalpum mayarvaRach
cholliR chol ethir chollaach
chollE cholluka chol iRan-thOyE

Oh! Thou beyond the reach of discursive thoughts, the ONE above all, the absolutely transcendent! Explain to me these dilemmas ; how is that even though I am within Thy presence, there is the possibility of being abandoned by Thee? Thou should explain to me so that I understand the issues fully so that any desire to raise more questions are subdued, the explanations are so thoroughly illuminating that no further questions are raised and metaphysical quest comes to natural closure.

Notes: The phrase< col ethir collaac col>, taken from ThirukkuRaL, explains the real intend of Arunandi and the methodological presuppositions underlying his inquiry. He is seeking out a DISCOURSE, a TEXTUAL production that would dull or numb his interrogatory zeal so that he is dispossessed the interrogative violence that he is prepared to exercise on any TEXT, including the verbal. What he is seeking is an absolutely illuminating TEXTUAL production , a TEXT that makes everything transparent so that metaphysically every thing is CLEAR, there remains nothing covered-up or concealed. It makes transparent the MEANING of the metaphysical inquiries with absolute CLARITY , brings to a close metaphysical inquiries in general, serves as death to philosophical quests in general. Because of this, there comes to be apodictic certainty, a certainty that does not hold within itself any doubts whatsoever as all doubts are transcended. Such a TEXT, because it is supremely illuminating, silences the metaphysical quest totally; instead of the need to effect further disconstructions the individual is incapacitated to do this.

These dilemmas and paradoxes are resolved by an explanation given in the following Venba quoted by one of the commentators.

 ,  
   -- 
    
  

aRivippathu onRu, aRivathonRum aRiviththu
aRiyaathathonRu enRu aRin-thum ; aRiviththu
aRiporuL UtE kUtith thannaRivu maayn-thu
pirivaRRu n-iRpathEp pERu

That which informs is one; that which learns is another and there is also the realization that there is failure to learn even when instructed upon. BEING stands as that which illuminates through being within that which learns as a result of which that which learns loses its own identity having given it over to the BEING itself. The BEING stands at this limiting point, the SAME as the self so that there is absolutely no egotism at all. The ego of the self withdraws itself to allow the presence of BEING to shine out totally and completely.

COMMENTARY Part 1:

1) What Arunandi interrogates in this chapter is the phenomenon of possession and abandonment that emerges for view as a component of religious existence that the disconstructive inquiries regarding the meaning of tIkkai, cleansing, has caused to surface. In terms of the notions of Love and Bakti, we called it the EMBRACE of BEING and its abandonment. We are attending to the same phenomenon but perhaps more in the psychological vein and hence the use of the terms of possession and abandonment. The phenomena of self-possession is wider than that involved in TRUE LOVE and Bakti which are special cases of it. While inner purity is a necessity for true love and its transmutation into Bakti, that of possession and abandonment do not require that, the anmas can be possessed even when impure, caught up with the malas. BEING plays a divine game in terms of archetypal possessions and abandonment as a way of being present in the world and redeeming even the wicked. The phrase < ennin aarthalum akaRalum> , possessing and abandoning and PLAYING thus rather arbitrarily is that which puzzles Arunandi now. The manner the archetypal BEING stands the SAME and later not so, the mystery surrounding this kind of PLAY puzzles Arunandi immensely. Why this alternation? Why once possessed, the sameness as a certain archetype is NOT maintained indefinitely? Why there is withdrawal and perhaps simultaneously also the installation of another? What conditions such a PLAY of archetypal possession and abandonment?

2) If the abandonment is said to result because of the meditative reflections, worship, prayer and so forth which serve as the instrumental actions for maintaining the state of being possessed, this in no way satisfies Arunandi. For then, he notes, it would follow that the state of being possessed by an archetype is instrumental in nature and hence BEING itself something manipulable, something that can be forced or persuaded to grant something one desires by effectuation of such actions. I f through meditative practices and prayer, the existing state of being possessed by an archetypal BEING can be maintained eternally, the possible severance and abandonment negated then such practices become instrumental in nature and BEING becomes like a human King, full of powers but at same time susceptible for praise and such ego gratifying practices. But this is certainly inconsistent with the TRUTH of BEING who is absolutely egoless and that HE is totally ABOVE such paltry manipulations. BEING as totally self-saturated and self -sufficient, does not SEE anything at all in order to appropriate and own as his own; HE is totally closed within as there is no OTHER in His understanding.

3) Now if the ecstatic and secure state of Being that being possessed by some archetypal forms of BEING affords for the anmas, is NOT attained by any instrumental means , the questions arises as to how it comes about at all. A number possibilities are considered now. One is that it is the anmas that gravitate towards a pre-existent archetypal form of BEING on their accord, maintain themselves within its reign and later depart from it. Allowing or disallowing being possessed by an archetypal BEING belongs to the WILL of the anmas and not to the presence and absence of GRACE in BEING. But the problem with this possibility is that it means BEING stands aloof with total INDIFFERENCE to the existential plights of the anmas. BEING is said to be not at all a help during moments of anguish, fear and excruciating pains. This aloofness and indifference is explained in terms of a model- that of a tree with cool shades that thrives within a desert landscape. Though weary travelers stand under it and by enjoying the coolness, recover somewhat from their weariness, the tree as such is not aware of the function it plays and also is totally indifferent to who comes and goes. There is no measuring as to who deserves to be in the shades and who is not. BEING on such a view, turns out to be not only LOVELESS, but something that does not judge and with no care and concern for the wellbeing of the anmas, an understanding of BEING that contradicts that He is LOVE incarnate, that SIVA, the BEING is LOVE as well as Nimalan, the absolutely PURE.

4) Now if the motivational dynamics is attributed to BEING, that it is BEING that chooses to possess or dispossess the anmas, again there are problems. For such a discriminatory functioning would turnout to be totally dispensational and hence somewhat arbitrary, a state of being contrary to the essence of ARUL, a disposition to give uncalculatingly. BEING is spontaneously procreative and dispensatory, everything is ^done^ without any economics, without any calculations. And if possession and dispossessions are willed somehow, a judgement is involved and this contradicts the ARUL dominance of BEING.

5) Furthermore if there is abandoning and abstaining from it, if total and indissoluble being-possessed-by- BEING is not the case, then it would follow that even the anmas that have being-in-the-presence-of-BEING would suffer phenomenal re-circulation, unending imprisonment within the historical processes. For the anma, being something that is nonautonomous, attaches itself to the world of physis and the hence also the malas, on being abandoned by BEING. When the anma does not have BEING for self-grounding, it falls back upon the physical and hence the world of mummalam. Thus the existence of the anma is oscillatory- it is IN-THE-WORLD when abandoned by BEING and with-BEING-intimately when not abandoned but rather graced and embraced.

COMMENTARY Part 2

The immensely complex and uncanny dialectics of the anmas being possessed and dispossessed by BEING, has to be understood within the framework of pedagogical hermeneutics, a way of analyzing and understanding that will be illuminating . Among the whole range of substances, there is ONE that continuously and unfailingly INSTRUCTS , and there are others that benefit from such instructions and LEARN and gain in understanding. Over and above these two there are others that are totally insensitive to such pedagogical implications and hence remain BLIND, totally and forever. The first two called ^cit^, are entities capable of consciousness and the latter the ^acit^, the brute or the insentient. It is BEING that instructs, the anmas are those that learn and the physical are the insentient and which undergoes changes of state or transformations but no development. The processes of ^possession^ and ^dispossession^ that consists of the dialectics of the relationship between and BEING and the anmas, are pedagogical in nature in which the anmas are drawn irresistibly to an archetypal presentation of BEING that facilitates a learning of a kind. Each archetype opens up the doors to an hitherto unexplored domain, or a field of experience. The archetypal possession will continue to be strong and non-dissoluble till everything that needs to be learnt is already learnt. At the point where the destruction of IGNORANCE that an archetype has as its essence is complete, its function is over, it is displaced and another installed.

2) This is the essence of the dynamics of archetypal possession and dispossession. It is not either willed by BEING or the anmas. The gravitation unto BEING already exists in the form of various kinds of psychotropisms. But the movement unto BEING is torturous as there is the contrary pull of the malas, elements that obscure the vision and mislead one into the wrong ways and paths. It is because of this that a variety of archetypal presence of BEING becomes a necessity with each suitable to an anma in a special psychological and metaphysical situation. Though seemingly such existential situations would suggest such notions as possession and abandonment, as a matter of fact it does not appear to be so. There is an installation <pirathittai> of an archetype in the mind of an anmas, so that its eyes are opened towards SEEING things that it has failed to see so far so that existing IGNORANCE in that area is destroyed and it gets released from that area of the metaphysical world. Each such archetypal installation is ILLUMINATING and hence liberating for what is understood ceases to be attractive and interest arousing. The disengaging of the archetypes <nivriththi> is also something that is natural and necessary for liberating the anmas. An archetype that takes over from another must open up the eyes towards a DIFFERENT area of ignorance , perhaps something in the deeper realms. Only collectively there will be more and more of ILLUMINATION and correspondingly more and more of releasement.

3) In such an understanding of the dialectics of archetypal possessions, BEING as ARUL is not compromised at all. BEING remains the supremely radiant, absolutely PURE and LOVE itself. The emanations of archetypes, their possessing and disposessing the anmas, in fact is an expression of PURE LOVE and CARE. The dialectics is not an expression of total indifference but rather infinite care ; for each anma is looked at individually and the archetypes that are necessary for each is provided with in an unfailing manner. Even when the anmas are fully in the clutches of the malas, they are not abandoned- archetypes suitable for that lowly state of Being are provided with so that the anmas are forever rescued from falling into the hands of malas and through that suffer self-destruction.

4) The illuminatory aspects of the dialectics of archetypes is called <viththai> : understanding .or knowledge. The viththai is a clearance, destroying an area of DARKESS within, an existent twilight zone. What existed as something mysterious ceases to be so and because of that there is no more being drawn unto it. What enters understanding as that which has been seen and understood as to what it is, ceases to INTEREST any further. One OVERCOMES it through such a viththai and hence gets liberated from its charms. One becomes FREE and more AUTONOMOUS because of the CLARITY one gains by such archetypally instituted experiences. Since each archetype is limited somewhat in the area that it can light up, it follows that being possessed by an archetype cannot be something that lasts indefinitely . There must be a succession of them so that there is less and less mystery surrounding existence and finally no mystery at all. The succession of archetypes that takes control of the anmas, brings about demystification through the destruction of the DARK LIGHT within.

5)There is a direction in this succession of archetypal possession. In the limiting case we do not have any archetypes but BEING in itself at which point there is NO OTHER archetype to displace BEING and install itself in its place. The limiting point is reached when BEING itself takes over the anma so that there is no more egoity, individuality; the anma shines forth BEING itself and nothing of itself. Now this limiting possibility also shows that before that there are hierarchical differences among the archetypes, some being higher and others lower. The general trend of the dialectics of archetypal dominance is that of displacing the lower with higher so that an anma is brought closer and closer to the manner of Being of BEING itself. The higher archetypes, it should be noted here, are more DIVINE than the lower and because of which the person of the higher archetypes is more developed as a person

6)The possession by a new archetype, because of the novelty, may create fear and anxiety in the living of it. And as one progresses in it , the fear and anxiety of the unknown along with the excitement it creates, subsides somewhat and a calmness comes to prevail. This calmness is called <saanthi> : contentment, peace, calmness and so forth. The familiar is no more an alien and hence no more something to be feared at and fought with. A state of peace comes to prevail as a result of the acceptance of the new and unknown. It comes to be fused with the horizon so that the reconstituted horizon is more inclusive. This saanthi could also be the pacification of the initial disturbance introduced by the displacement of the old and installation of the new.

7) Now subsequent to this state of familiarity and nonalieness, comes a mood for novelty, something different, a change and for new kind of excitement. This <saanthiathiithai>, is going beyond or transcending the state of complacence contentment and pacification When the novel becomes the familiar, when novelty wears out, there emerges a desire as if spontaneously for further excitement, for the experiencing of the unexplored and uncharted. The person becomes willing to change, make amendments and plan new ways of living.

8) The terms pirathittai, nivriththi, viththai, saanthi and saanthiathIthai are collectively known as pancakalaikaL , the five fold hermeneutic processes in classical Saiva Siddhanta literature . These are expressions of the Panca Krittiyam but within the realms of Suddha Maayai, the world of PURE BINDU and the functions of BEING as the WOMAN. These are the processes that demystify so that the phenomenal world ceases to be charming, mysterious , alluring and fascinating. The anmas must be liberated from the clutches of the WOMAN before being liberated to the full, i.e. MUKTI as such is conferred. The limiting experience within these five fold kalais is the attainment of an INNER PURITY so that the anmas are universalized through the destruction of EGOITY, the anmas are transformed by such a succession of archetypes into being thoroughly universal in outlook so that PURE LOVE come to prevail as the dominant existence constituting factor.

HOME