Philosophy and Religion / Arthur Avalon: Mahamaya

Sir John Woodroffe and Pramatha Natha Mukhyopadhyaya

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

Chapter I: Consciousness as Power-Holder and as Power

The concept Chit is unique.

Indian Thought in its highest form regards it as the fundamental Reality. In the West, there have been thinkers who have reduced the World to Idea, to Will, to Intention or to Imagination, but it is the Indian Vedanta—and other cognate doctrines based upon it—which makes the World Chit, in its root as well as in its manifestation. Chit as Power (Chit-Shakti) appears as the World but in so appearing never ceases to be in itself Chit. This is the essence of non-dualist doctrine. Chit is Being or Fact (Sat) and Chit is Bliss (Ananda). Veda says that the World proceeds out of Bliss, is sustained by Bliss and is reabsorbed into Bliss. Being is Bliss which is Chit. The latter as such, that is as distinguished from its Power, never becomes other than Chit. How Reality can change as the changing world and yet remain what it is—how in fact change and no change can be predicated of the same Reality—is a problem of which the Mayavada of Shangkara is one solution and Shaktivada or the Doctrine of the World as Power is another.

Chit is, to use an English term, the Spiritual Principle in man in which his universe of experience lives, moves and has its being. Not only is it the static basis of such universe, but it is that which by and as its own power (Shakti) becomes or appears as that Universe. This Spiritual Principle, which in itself is immense¹ and immeasurable,² becomes by its own Power³ differentiated into a multiplicity of correlated Centres, some of which are the human selves. This Power by which the Immense and Immeasurable becomes as such Centres limited and measured, by which the “Fact” becomes veiled and ignored as “Fact-sections,” is Maya (which operates as a measuring, limiting or determining and therefore negating Principle).⁴ Subjectively considered it is the sense of difference⁵ by which the object of experience is seen as other than and different from the Self. It is no Cosmic Material, foreign to and independent of the Spiritual Principle⁶ in man which evolves as the Universe of Mind, Life and Matter, deriving its efficiency from the presence of the Spiritual Principle (whose action on “Matter” is comparable to catalytic action in chemistry). Non-dualism says, firstly, that the Universe is wholly a product of the Spiritual Principle as Power, which is not only the “catalytic” source or prompter of its efficiency, but which is its ground and its material as well; secondly, that It, in so becoming the varied universe, does not require the operation upon Itself of a Power other than Itself; and thirdly, that in such evolution it presents two aspects, namely, a static, quiescent aspect or the ‘Male’ Shiva in which it remains the self-same Principle, and a dynamic, stressing aspect as the Mother-Power in which it moves and changes as the world of Mind, Life and Matter.

This reduction of the universe into a Spiritual Principle and its Power one with itself (or Chit working as Power), calls to mind the attempt of the modern physicist to reduce the mass of Matter to electromagnetic mass alone which is referred to by way of illustration.

Is the mass of a material particle, charged with an electrical charge, partly mechanical and partly electrical? Or, can its mass, in the last resort, be reduced to the electrical mass alone? Is mass in its nature of one kind or two kinds—non-dual or dual? Now, the answer of modern Science has been clearly pointing to the non-dual alternative. The Electron Theory of Matter makes the mass of Matter of one kind; its mass is constituted by the masses of the positive and negative charges, protons and electrons {whatever be their precise number and distribution) which constitute an atom of matter. But even after such reduction of material mass to electrical mass, duality persists in another form. How is electrical mass related to Energy? Are they two and independent of each other? An electron for unit charge of negative electricity) is in motion in a varied manner; its kinetic and potential energies in a given system are thus different. Now, does it possess the same mass whatever be its velocity and energy ? Will its mass remain unaffected when, for example, its velocity approaches that of light? Physicists have shown that velocity—particularly when it is high—changes the mass of the moving thing: this is what is called mass-acceleration. Mass and Motion (or Energy for the matter of that) are not independent of each other: Mass becomes a function of Motion, that is, it varies (may be beyond certain limits only) as the latter varies. This indeed points to the unity of Mass and Energy which, however, it still remains for Science to definitely establish.

Electricity is a substance, which many have thought, to be Ether which is quasi-material. What, therefore, Science is now called upon to investigate is the exact relation which subsists between this Substance and Energy (or Motion). It is practically confronted with the question: Are Power and Holder of Power⁷ one or two? Translated into the language of Science, and restricted to the physical plane, this means: Is Ether (if we must separately retain it) and the Stress by which it is strained into various forms, which are probably the Prime Atoms, one or are they two? In other words, can we say this that the same substance, which considered in its static aspect is Ether, is also Energy when considered in its stressing or dynamic aspect? Or, to use the expressive language of the Shakta Tantra, can we say that the Ether aspect is the Shiva-aspect (restricted to the physical plane), and that Energy at work subjecting Ether to various forms of stress-and-strain is the Power or Shakti aspect (restricted also to the physical plane) of the one fundamental Reality? The next problem is, how Power and Power-holder are related not only on the physical plane, but beyond on the planes of Life, Mind and on that of Power as the Radical Potential of which Life, Mind and Matter are the evolutes. In other words, Ether and its Energy must be brought into rapport with Life and Vital Power, these again with Mind and Will Power, and so on, until all pragmatic limitations of the data are dispensed with, and Substance and Energy are seen in their alogical identity (which man’s logical thinking splits into aspects) in the complete Fact⁸ itself which is Chit.

For a clearer understanding of the meaning of Chit, we should distinguish the different standpoints from which It can be regarded. In the first place, we must distinguish between the standpoint of the Whole⁹ and that of the Part¹⁰ between the complete view of Reality and the partial view of it. There is the former when Experience is avowed and accepted without the least veiling or ignorance of what is given—when there is absolutely no limitation of the data. This is Perfect Experience.¹¹ It is an experience of All presentation or No-veiling, Man’s centralised or individualized life is commonly a life of greater or less veiling or ignorance of the Given. By trying to remove the veil, or by trying to own and accept what has been disowned and ignored, he can more or less closely approximate to Perfect Experience which is the Limit (in the sense of consummation or perfection) of progressively higher and higher forms of experience; but which remains unattainable so long as his life, and therefore, his standpoint, remains centralised (i.e., referring to a Centre such as the Ego) and individualised. Central reference or individualization means a stressing and straining in a particular manner of Being and of Experience; by such stressing and straining Being and Experience is apparently limited, and circumscribed, so that this circumstance precludes the possibility of a complete avowal and acceptance of Being-Experience as it is in its entireness.

Man’s view-point is therefore ordinarily partial, imperfect. He may indeed extend his frontiers, and thus more and more closely approximate to the All,¹² but so long as central reference, conscious or sub-conscious, remains, he cannot reach out to the realisation of the Perfect Being-Experience itself. His essay is therefore an essay of approximation, of nearer and nearer approach. Ordinarily he stops more or less short of the Goal or Limit itself which gathers, subsumes and perfects all. He stops because he refers to a Centre; because he is an Individual; and has therefore to know, feel and act practically with reference to other Centres or Individuals in a correlated system or Kosmos or Rita as Veda calls it. Such knowing, feeling and acting in a correlated system is practical or pragmatic living, and it not only implies but requires limitation of the data, or ignorance of the given, or veiling of the concrete, which is called Ignorance.¹³ For instance, life such as man ordinarily lives it would be impossible if at every moment he were to attend impartially to all that he felt, accept and emphasise uniformly all that he knew, and frame his actions indifferently with respect to whatever he felt and knew. As a matter of fact, he selects, ignores and emphasises in what he feels and knows; he owns and accepts a section only as being of interest or practically useful to him, and ignores and disowns the rest though given. Actions too are framed with respect to selected sights, sounds, etc., in the “objective” world, and selected ideas, feelings, desires, and so forth, in the “subjective”. And such veiling and acceptance, such rejection and selection, is made (not always voluntarily by men) in a universe of Being-Experience which is undefined, seamless and alogical in itself, and which, in itself, cannot be labelled exclusively as either objective or subjective.¹⁴ It is by such practical veiling and acceptance that we seem to see only a particular star or cluster of stars when looking up to the sky in a clear night; it is thus that we seem to hear a particular sound only in a “situation” in which not only many other sounds but countless sights, smells, touches, organic sensations, etc., constitute our actual Given of experience; it is also thus that we seem to have a particular idea, memory or desire in the mind when the actual universe of the moment is an undefined and undefinable whole of countless “objective” and “subjective” elements (i.e., perceptions and ideas), most of which happen, for the time being, to be not of interest, and are therefore silently ignored. In a given universe of experience, attention is, for pragmatic reasons, focussed at a particular point which happens to be of interest for the time being; around this point of clearest attention or emphasis, spread tracts of comparative inattention till they merge into the outlying realm of the unfelt or unknown.¹⁵ The process is analogous to the operation of turning the search-light of a vessel plying in a dark night upon different portions of the surrounding situation. The search-light is here Attention or Regard,¹⁶ and the mechanism of its working is that of the tendencies or partialities¹⁷ connected with a given Centre or Individual.¹⁸ And it need be hardly pointed out that, like the vessel also, a Centre¹⁹ cannot move to any definite purpose, if it be not provided with such special mechanism. It is useful and also indispensable in a certain sense.

We have therefore necessarily to select and refuse, accept and ignore in the midst of what we actually have. In all this a Principle of Limitation, selection or contraction²⁰ is operative. Now, in so far as its operation can apparently be traced to, and therefore connected with, the energising of a given Centre, it is called Ignorance;²¹ and in so far as this veiling, measuring, limiting operation is the expression of a Cosmic Tendency or Will-to-become, and in so far therefore as it not only transcends but underlies (as generating activity) the life of the individual Centres, it is called Maya, a power of finitization.²² And whether we consider it cosmically or individually, it is patent that this Principle of finitization (which is the Power of Reality itself) is a limiting or contracting Principle—the Radical contracting force²³ by which the All,²⁴ without actually ceasing to be such, becomes Part,²⁵ by which Experience of Everything²⁶ without actually ceasing to be such, become Experience of something²⁷; in brief, by which the “Fact” becomes “ Fact-section”.

The first distinction, therefore, is that between Experience as whole,²⁸ and Experience as section or part.²⁹ The former remains for man a goal or “limit” only so long as there are central reference and selective regard in his experience. He can, however, more or less closely approximate to it. Nearer approach can be made to the All in proportion as the operation of the two conditions—viz., reference to a Centre and selective attention—can be diminished. The All is realised when the operation of each ceases. To realise is to live and accept what has lived without being accepted. In realisation man does not veil or ignore what he has or rather what he is.

His experience, therefore, does not really cease to be the All, when, on account of his having to refer to a Centre and bestowing his attention selectively, he has experience of parts or segments only; nor, on the other hand, does a previously non-existent All tend to be established and consummated, when, by making attention a-centric and impartial as completely as possible, man tends to come as near as possible to its realisation.³⁰

Footnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE