Noumenon & Phenomena

[neti neti]

Some consolidated excerpts found in a blog I've been glancing through, put together by Ramesh S. Balsekar, from the book -- "Pointers from Nisargadatta Maharaj"

 

Full post here:

https://sri-nisargadatta-maharaj.blogspot.com/2015/02/noumenon-and-phenomena-summary-of.html

 

 

At what stage exactly did I come to have the knowledge of my 'existence'? What was I before this knowledge 'I am' came to me? This knowledge 'I am' has been with me ever since I can remember, perhaps a few months after this body was born. Therefore, memory itself must have come with this knowledge 'I am', this consciousness.

What was the position before that? The answer is: I do not know. Therefore, whatever I know of anything has its beginning in consciousness, including pain and pleasure, day and night, waking and sleeping - indeed the entire gamut of dualities and opposites in which one cannot exist without the other. Again, what was the position before consciousness arose?

These interrelated opposites inevitably must have existed but only in negation, in unicity, in wholeness. This must then be the answer. This unicity is what I am. But this unicity, this identity, this wholeness cannot know itself because in it there exists no subject as separate from an object-a position that is necessary for the process of seeing, or knowing, or cognizing. In other words, in the original state of unicity, or wholeness, no medium or instrument exists through which 'knowing' may take place.

Mind cannot be used to transcend the mind. The eye cannot see itself; taste cannot taste itself; sound cannot hear itself. 'Phenomena' cannot be phenomena without 'noumenon'. The limit of possible conceptualization - the abstract of mind - is noumenon, the infinity of the unknown. Noumenon, the only subject, objectifies itself and perceives the universe, manifesting phenomenally within itself, but apparently outside, in order to be a perceivable object. For the noumenon to manifest itself objectively as the phenomenal universe, the concept of space-time comes into operation because objects, in order to be cognizable, have to be extended in space by giving them volume and must be stretched in duration or time because otherwise they could not be perceived.

So, now I have the whole picture: The sentient being is only a very small part within the process of the apparent mirrorization of the noumenon into the phenomenal universe. It is only one object in the total objectivization and, as such, 'we' can have no nature of our own. And yet - and this is important- phenomena are not something separately created, or even projected, but are indeed noumenon conceptualized or objectivized. In other words, the difference is purely notional. Without the notion, they are ever inseparable, and there is no real duality between noumenon and phenomena.

This identity - this inseparableness - is the key to the understanding, or rather the apperceiving of our true nature, because if this basic unity between the noumenon and the phenomenon is lost sight of, we would get bogged down in the quagmire of objectivization and concepts. Once it is understood that the noumenon is all that we are, and that the phenomena are what we appear to be as separate objects, it will also be understood that no entity can be involved in what we are, and therefore, the concept of an entity needing 'liberation' will be seen as nonsense; and 'liberation', if any, will be seen as liberation from the very concept of bondage and liberation.

When I think about what I was before I was 'born', I know that this concept of 'I am' was not there. In the absence of consciousness, there is no conceptualizing; and whatever seeing takes place is not what one - an entity - sees as a subject/object, but is seeing from within, from the source of all seeing. And then, through this 'awakening', I realize that the all-enveloping wholeness of the Absolute can not have even a touch of the relative imperfection; and so I must, relatively, live through the allotted span of life until at the end of it, this relative 'knowledge' merges in the noknowing state of the Absolute. This temporary condition of 'I-know' and 'I-know-that-I-know' then merges into that eternal state of 'I-do-not-know' and 'I-do-not-know' that 'I-do-not-know.

[neti neti]

As it follows the same thread of thought, it's best to add on to this existing thread with more excerpts from the same author, Ramesh S. Balsekar, although from a different work.

 

 

"Amritanubhava" or, "Experience of Immortality", is an English rendering of Sri Jnanadeva's Bhavartha Dipika; otherwise known as "Jnaneshwari". A veritable master of Advaita.

 

What follows are key points shared by Ramesh in the introduction which happen to delightfully outline the chapters.

 

 

Quote

"In chapter one (64 verses) Jnaneshwar goes at once to the heart of the subject-matter by saying that what-we-are is the subjective noumenon, the Absolute which is essentially formless, which has objectified within itself, as the manifested universe and the infinite ever-changing phenomena therein.

He devotes the bulk of this chapter to establishing the identity of the noumenon and the phenomena, the manifestation being the objectivization of the supreme subjectivity.

Then, towards the end of the chapter he introduces the principle that he himself as a sentient being, obviously cannot remain separate from this basic identity, and thereby surrenders his own individual ego (or identification with a separate entity).

He declares that the only way to pay his respects to the conceptual primeval couple of Shiva-Shakti (the male-female aspect of creation) is by apperceiving the essential identity of all interdependent opposites forming the apparent duality, without which -- as subject/object, the observer/observed -- no manifestation would be possible."

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Quote

"Chapter 2, entitled "Homage to the Guru" has 80 verses, in which Jnaneshwar's profound love for his Guru overflows into the full flood of his poetic fancy...

...his Guru's name Nivritti does not imply the opposite of Pravritti, but the greatness of the name lies in the fact that it represents neither action (pravritti) nor absence of action (nivritti), but absolute actionlessness, without the slightest touch of either the presence or absence of action. Jnaneshwar avers that neither inferences nor criteria of any nature can apply to the Guru who is indeed the objective expression of the Absolute.

...living beyond all sense of duality, the Guru cannot become an object of worship and that, when he attempted to worship him, he found that he himself had been demolished as an individual entity along with his Guru, just as camphor and fire both vanish when brought together.

...a great mystery, beyond the pale of the triad of worshipper, worshipped and worshipping, the Guru gives as both the Guru and the disciple."

 

[neti neti]

Quote

"Chapter 3, entitled "The Debt to the Four Forms of Speech", has 33 verses, and the theme developed therein is that knowledge that is relative to ignorance is not true knowledge. The individual (Jiva) firmly identified with the body is totally ignorant of his true nature.

According to the traditional Hindu teaching, the waking state is identified with the vocalized word (vaikhari), the dream state with the stage of thought before being vocalized into speech (madhyama), and the deep sleep state is identified with thought in its sub-conscious stage (pashyanti), while the fourth state -- the basic thought I AM -- is associated with the impersonal consciousness.

The identification is unequivocal in the first 3 stages ... because an individual wakes up when called aloud by his name.

...by the study of the mahavakyas (That Thou Art, etc.) and various disciplinary practices that identification can be corrected and thereafter, the Jiva would become one with Shiva.

...but this union of Jiva and Shiva is not our true nature because what-we-are has never been sundered into Jiva and Shiva.

...all that practice could have achieved is that the individual entity, instead of believing he is a body, now thinks "I am Brahman". Yet underneath both these entities lies the real culprit, the individual entity, the basis of which is the conceptual thought represented by the four kinds of speech.

 

In other words, whether considering himself as ignorant or enlightened, the Jiva continues to exist. Therefore, it is only when the identification with a separate entity is totally abandoned that we remain as what-we-are in the total absence of all ignorance and all knowledge. That is to say, in the total absence of both, the positive and negative existence as a separate phenomenon in duality."

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Quote

"In chapter 4, entitled "Nothingness and the Plenum", containing 43 verses, Jnaneshwar goes to the root of the matter. He refers to the arousal of consciousness -- I AM -- on the original state of the plenum or pure potentiality when awareness was not aware of itself.

...only when this sense of presence arises on the original state of unity that consciousness concurrently comes into movement and brings forth upon itself the totality of manifestation. The movement of consciousness also simultaneously brings about the concepts of knowledge (I AM -- the sense of impersonal presence) and ignorance (when the impersonal consciousness or presence becomes identified with each sentient being as a separate entity).

 

The unicity of the potential plenum -- the I-subject -- gets dichotomized in the process of manifestation as subject and object, each object considering itself as the pseudo-subject-observer vis-à-vis all other observed objects.

This itself is the conceptual "bondage" of the individual; and liberation consists in the realization that our true nature is the impersonal consciousness and not the psychosomatic apparatus with which consciousness has identified itself.

When such a realization -- the metanoesis or para-vritti -- occurs, the pseudo-subject ceases to be an object and becomes void by the superimposition of the opposites (subject/object) over each other and, through this void or nothingness, returns to the orginal I-subject which is the potential plenum.

... the Absolute-noumenon-plenum cannot be an object to itself or to anyone else, and this is the very reason for its beingness.

 

It is the substratum -- the eternal I-subject -- which manifests itself objectively by extending itself in conceptual space-time so that it may become perceptible as phenomenal objects. This total potentiality -- the I-subject -- cannot offer itself for comprehension because it would then be an object. The eye can see everything but it cannot see itself."

 

[neti neti]

Quote

"Noumenon and phenomena, the unmanifest and the manifested, are what might be called the original set of interrelated opposites -- the one conceiving the total potential and the other the totality of what is sensorially perceptible.

 

The significant point is that they include each other like the object and its mirror; they are not different but opposite aspects of what remains in the mutual negation of what is conceived: and that is the absence of no-phenomena, or THAT which was -- and is -- prior to the conceiving process, or prior to the very arousal of consciousness. This applies to all conceivable sets of contraires or opposites in the temporal manifestation. In the absence of all that appears-to-be, all that is manifested in duality, what remains is the noumenal PRESENCE without awareness, pure subjectivity -- "I".

 

If this is understood, it would be needless to add that this could be said -- or conceived -- by any and every sentient being. But let it also be understood that this "I" prohibits expression by any word or sound or symbol -- and any attempt to do so would at once drag it down into a concept!" ~Ramesh S. Balsekar

 

[neti neti]

Quote

"In that state of Awareness - consciousness-at-rest - the first movement is the arising of the thought I AM, the sense of impersonal presence - impersonal, direct, immediate thought, the objectivization of the subjectivity which brings about the universe that is apparent in space and maintains it in the apparent seriality of time. This process of manifestation necessarily demands what is known as "dualism" involving the thing cognized as well as the cognizer, both existing only in consciousness without any independent existence and functioning only in relevance to each other.

 

Shiva and Shakti, non-phenomena and phenomena are evidently the original pair of contraries constituting the duality - the subjective element constituting the negative or absence (noumenon) and the objective element, the positive or presence.

The important point is that the interrelated opposites - all of them - do not unite with each other but negate and, therefore, abolish or destroy each other thereby creating the additional concept of nothingness or voidness. It is for this reason that Jnaneshwar calls the dualities "enemies" of the orignal state of awareness or wholeness or holiness; and Nisargadatta Maharaj calls the cause of these dualities
- consciousness arising in movement - an "illness" or an "eclipse".

This original state of wholeness or awareness is, therefore, not just the annihilation of the interrelated dualities, but THE FURTHER NEGATION OF THE RESULTING VOID.

This further negation - the which the sage points his finger - is the absence of the absence of presence: the absence of the presence of presence and the absence of the presence of absence: the presence of ABSOLUTE ABSENCE.

Can there be a "self' without the "other"? The self and the other are the very basis of duality, of temporal manifestation, as the interrelated subject/object. Both are empty concepts, images extended in conceptual space-time, cognized in consciousness by consciousness. One cannot exist without the other and in the absence of both (when conceptualization ceases) peace and holiness and wholeness and unicity prevail - IN THE PRESENCE OF ABSOLUTE ABSENCE."

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

The Self is free, free of extortionist like mental gymnastics, and also has no problem with meaning and form which it sees and knows beyond mental seeing and knowing.

[neti neti]

7 hours ago, 3bob said:

The Self is free, free of extortionist like mental gymnastics, and also has no problem with meaning and form which it sees and knows beyond mental seeing and knowing.

 

Did you mean contortionist?

 

And yes I agree. Self is its meaning and form in reflection, and is also the mirror upon which it reflects. It is free in that there exists nothing which it is not.

 

It is the seeing, and it is the knowing.

Edited June 24, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

Hello neti neti, yes I meant contortionist although an element of extortionist could  come into play mentally.  (lol)  I like your paraphrasing although I'd say, ...It is free in that there exists nothing which does not spring from It although It is not bound by any-thing  namely the various laws which apply to various things...thus being transcendent yet immanent. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by 3bob

[neti neti]

3 hours ago, 3bob said:

Hello neti neti, yes I meant contortionist although an element of extortionist could  come into play mentally.  (lol)  I like your paraphrasing although I'd say, ...It is free in that there exists nothing which does not spring from It although It is not bound by any-thing  namely the various laws which apply to various things...thus being transcendent yet immanent. 

I thought so too so wanted to make sure lol.

 

Yes, nothing which It is not in either substance or shadow. The ornament is indeed gold.

 

It is also immanent in the very laws which govern spontaneously sprung forth phenomena. This quote by Ramesh sums it up well.

 

Quote

"Noumenon is immanent in all its phenomena while at the same time transcending them. This-which-we-are (the noumenal), while transcending that-which-we-appear-to be, is immanent therein; their identity - Shiva and Shakti - is absolute, and their separation as such is entirely notional.

 

It is in this indefectable identity - our absolute totality - that one realizes with firm conviction that "one" could not possibly exist as an autonomous individual apart from the "other." And, it is in this conviction that the concepts of bondage and liberation stand naked in their illusory shame."

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

I can relate to parts of that last quote ...while the sentence about bondage and liberation is off to me in seemingly dismissing soul and matrix evolution  as illusory which is not so per their realm...or equating that which springs from the Self as just being illusory. (which opens up possible  attachment for all sorts of negative and or nihilistic connotations)

Edited June 25, 2018 by 3bob

[neti neti]

Yes, in the quest of joyfully realizing that which is sought was the seeker all along, I've tangled with nihilistic implications. A seemingly necessary side-effect of self-inquiry through negation, which essentially consists of pointing naturally incapable of touch. The inference is an honest one at first glance, as the term illusory seems to discount phenomena entirely.

 

Eventually one is made to more intimately recognize the nature of Maya as that which does not exist independently of oneself. Once the realm of conceptualization "recedes back from whence it sprung", the notion of illusion seems quite fitting. The intention is sound, as it ultimately only pointedly discounts any independent existence of Shakti apart from Shiva, which I'm positive you'd agree is paramount.

Edited June 25, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

hmm...if  all conceptual thoughts recede do not all "notions" recede right along with same thus leaving naked Truth - which needs no fitting or covering? 

 

also if an eye can only see in the direction in which it is pointed then that eye can not see where it is not pointed  and thus claim that which is not in its vision is illusory and or non-existant.   

[neti neti]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

hmm...if  all conceptual thoughts recede do not all "notions" recede right along with same thus leaving naked Truth - which needs no fitting or covering?

 

also if an eye can only see in the direction in which it is pointed then that eye can not see where it is not pointed  and thus claim that which is not in its vision is illusory and or non-existant.   

 

Yes. There is no illusion or covering, but consciousness does stir; that arousal of the sense of Being manifests, and thereby assumes a "limited I" identity simultaneously creating "the other". IT is as IT is, always, yet knowledge does not arise apart from ignorance.

 

The act of seeing becomes indistinguishable from the seen, such that the seer is also part of the "illusion."

Once the eye is no longer an object even to itself, there is no question of seen or unseen.

Edited June 25, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

agreed that a particular soul or "I" identity comes into being at some point...but that does mean there is not the Self-"I" as so deeply and repeatedly pointed to in the Upanishads...thus the Self is not an abstraction except to mind and words which can not grasp or delineate It.

[neti neti]

Indubitably so. Hence the scriptures themselves admit futility, resigning in failure concluding, "not this, not this."

 

Even transcendence coupled with immanence is to abstract. Self alone is.

[3bob]

I would put that a lot differently...namely that revealed scriptures and dharmas succeed (more or less) in helping one attain the threshold to the Self in noble ways...but that the power of Grace and the Self (which chooses the Self so to speak) are needed to cross that threshold. (even though the Self never really left)

 

one might take a look at the Isa Upanishad for one of the shortest  examples.

Edited June 25, 2018 by 3bob

[neti neti]

There are several apparently varying schools of Vedantic philosophy/interpretation, but all spring from the singular divinity. To each their own, whichever way one may be led to that threshold.

 

I say the resignation is a wonderful affirmation of the sanctity beyond what mere words can illustrate. The brute may storm the gates of heaven to take it by force, only to be met with unconditional loving-kindness. Or the saint, having the noblest of intentions, can be thrust into the unknown most ignobly. Both experience the power of grace, that Self which is the all in all.

Edited June 26, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

fair enough,  and we could add in the sayings about "the plans of mice and men" and "life turning on a dime'...(although with some limits to randomness)

Edited June 26, 2018 by 3bob

[neti neti]

.

Edited August 31, 2020 by neti neti

[3bob]

 btw, it takes a will to surrender a will,  for critical mass must be dealt with in one way or another.

Edited June 26, 2018 by 3bob

[neti neti]

How about: the appearance of will reveals one is "prior to" the will to Be?

 

Impulse sparks perpetual chain reactions.

 

[Jeff]

3 hours ago, 3bob said:

 btw, it takes a will to surrender a will,  for critical mass must be dealt with in one way or another.

 

Surrender is not an act that overcomes something.  True surrender comes from the letting go and the inherent clarity of it. Things drop, not forced away.

[3bob]

I'd say that is one take Jeff applicable in or to its related context...

 

Another is a will surrendering to a greater will which does not mean one losing will-power, but a re-alignment to or a joining with.