Techno-Capitalism and Post-Human Destinies III by Debashish Banerji

Following up on my earlier posts here on Techno-Capitalism and Post-Human Destinies (I and II), here are my concluding reflections on the subject.

To ask ourselves the question where we are headed in these civilizational end-times, this eschatological hour of the realized hubris of techno-capitalism and to pose the question in terms of godhood – omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence – is to foreground the issue of post-human destinies. Are we to remain what we are or is something else taking shape in us, an alien life-form being born imperceptibly in the spectral interstices of our already blurred humanity? And what is the nature of this life-form – is it Heidegger’s “god (who will) save us,” Derrida’s unnamable l’avenir, Nietzsche’s superman or Sri Aurobindo’s? Or is it Kafka’s metamorphosed cockroach or William Burrough’s ventriloquist whose anal speech-trick ran uncontrollably out of hand and took over his body and brain?

Let us consider the godhood of our contemporary post-Enlightenment hour of global power and control. What kind of omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence do we have here? Techno-capitalism is a regime of international globalized flows leveling all differences into universal exchangeable measures – a flow of technology as capital and of capital as technology – the two imperceptibly intertwined like Mercurius’ caduceus or the Ida and Pingala occult streams of internal circulation. But that does not mean they are one – their sources of origin are separate and though they work as one within the universal body of the psycho-sphere, it may be possible to unbraid them if we know the why and how.

What then is our present Omniscience and Omnipresence? Our omniscience and Omnipresence are those of anonymous instrumentation and its master, anonymous Rationality, of the extension and refinement of sense organs turned upon the material world and probing it for its universal secrets, and ultimately for its intrinsic singular rationality, for this is how the Enlightenment has defined “the human” to itself – the secret possessor of the Logos of God who by collective effort of/as history will distil and release this objectified universal Logos, the Immortal Static Infinite Intelligent Word of God which is the hidden operative rationality of Matter and Life and the conscious instrumental rationality of the human. But whereas individual human beings are finite and mortal, the “human race” is potentially immortal (for such is the rationality of Nature) and its collective historical reach is infinite. This is how its effort can produce an Age of Universal Enlightenment which belongs to no single person but is made available for the use of humanity as a whole. But this statement has to be understood in its fullness – not merely in the utopic ring of its idealism. For if it cannot belong to any single person, this is not because no single person can come into control and possession of it, but because no single person can be equal to it in consciousness. This is one of the two fundamental dualities of the regime of instrumentation as technology – that it produces a globalized objectified Rationality as instrumentation, which is far beyond the capacity of any individual to equal, which therefore dwarfs and obliterates that same individuality which it produces as the subject of its own production, splitting the individual from all past and present systems of identity/belonging, producing in him the conscience of prized individuality and anonymizing him.  This individual anonymous “member of the human race”, producer of the universal rationality of the age of enlightenment objectified as the regime of globalized instrumentation must then perforce become a continuing producer, user and consumer of its Omniscience and Omnipresence through the mediation of technological instrumentation. And this mediation determines through its totalitarian McLuhanesque extra-human far-from-neutral neurality the conditioned responses of human agents, responses more proper to a silicon-based life-form, which reduces the human to a ticking (pun intended) part of its machinery.

Which leads to the second duality at the heart of this Omniscience/Omnipresence – that between the essence of technology and the essence of the human. For Technology as the product of the Enlightenment remains objectified Rationality but humanity if reduced to the rational, loses its essence as an undefinable life-form in transition, seeking to create in itself its own godhood. This second duality is a realized godhood as human creation which slays the essence of the godhood of human creativity, its own sources of self-transcendence. This then is the Omniscience and Omnipresence beckoning us as the fulfilled end of Technology, an end which is largely unquestioned and avalanches towards its fulfillment, taking “the human race” to its own post-human destiny as cannibalized machinery.

And what of Omnipotence, the secret urge behind every seeking for Omniscience, the human dream of making a better world than that which God has made, a world more suited to its needs and desires? Here is where Technology and Capitalism become separable, for if global Technology anonymyzes and dwarfs us as individuals and splices us into the nano-genetics of its non-dual world reality as Instrument, this same inequality between the finite mortal individual and the Infinite Immortal objectified Reason as Knowledge spawns a different valence for Power – one of the huge individual hunger to become the possessor of such a Dream Machine – a possessor not in/for consciousness but as property for enjoyment. This is the urge of global capitalism, which produces the regime of Technology as an increasingly accelerating desiring machine, machine of the production and consumption of human beings as desiring subject/objects and of universal capital as impersonal exchange property of property exchange driving the hunger and thirst of infinite possession known as the world market.

The operating logic of such a regime is that of the ecology of speed and the mythology of rupture. A mythos of perpetual progress flattens Time towards pure spatiality, where the Here is the Now, distancing itself ever more radically from “the past” through the production of History and projecting itself ever more thoroughly into “the future” through its ceaseless reinvention, a double fetish of willed obsolescence assimilated ever more rapidly into the world museum of ruins and a compulsive turnover of fleeting novelty as its “other,” two specifically modern forms of sensational pleasure. But is this mythos of “rupture” from the past the same as the discontinuity of the messianic Return, is this pure spatiality of Time the diaphaneity of the fourth dimension, is this eschatological moment the inauguration of a new time-structure of perpetual rebirth, the Aurobindonian condition for the physical immortality of one kind of post-human future?

Hardly so. This spurious supermanhood at the end of Hegelian/Enlightenment History does not yield the phenomenology of the diaphanous fourth dimension but the commodification of Subjectivity which amounts to the oblivion of memory and the erasure of Being. Its Omnipresence is not an omnitemporality which redeems or fulfills the past but betrays it by tearing from it the historicity of its presence and packaging it as alienated product of consumption or collection. Its Omnipotence does not grasp the plenitude of infinite Being as a non-dual self-possession, but marks its object with the unfulfillment, dis-ease and boredom of its own wanting finitude. Its Omniscience is not a penetration of or identification with the Intelligence of God in all things but a voluntary abdication of creative consciousness in favor of a conditioned instrumentality yielding a piecemeal fragmentary knowledge at best simulating the integral. What it is most useful for is not the global reproduction of democratic godhood but the global surveillance of the Unitary Panopticon, invisibly and anonymously mapping every point in space and moment in time for the control of whatever power or principle may manage to lay hold of its machinery. But effective though this may be in subjecting human bodies to its disciplinary regime, human consciousness persists in its incalculable presentation of something beyond instrumentation and discreteness, something which no calculus of limits or nano-resolution of binarity can capture, something which is reality itself as integral Idea, Real-Idea, escaping its hold, though deferred or pre-empted from its own post-humanity. The Godhead we have collectively produced, by forced conscription of all the energisms of the human race over 500 years of labor, toil and blood-sacrifice in the yajna of the Enlightenment is simply the hugely magnified and universalized double Ego of Mental-Vital Man, objectified as global machinery and desiring Will, Technology and the World-Market.

And today, it is not a matter of choice, not the lure of the god of the Enlightenment which attracts the adherence of our will but the avalanche of its momentum which sweeps inexorably towards the end of its projected temporality, its time-structure as world history. Does Heidegger’s alternate god, the “god that can save us” hide its footsteps behind the mask of this mental-vital fraud? We cannot say. For Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, the answer is “yes,” though what is uncertain there is if we will have any part of it. The Aurobindonian superman does not need our assistance or midwifery to make its appearance. For Heidegger or Derrida, the answer is unimportant, our propriety as beings at the end of “human history” one of knowing how to awaken the sleep of unsuspecting travelers, how to indicate the margins of human possibility and how to wait. Is that all? And what are the margins of human possibility? What post-human forms loom in those margins? And what futures await us at the culmination of Enlightenment history? And is there a history beyond?

I have spoken of two dualities dividing the human individual from the God of the Enlightenment. One of these is the division between the finitude of the individual and the infinity of God. The other is the division between the essence of the human and the essence of Technology. It is both these dualities that Arthur Kroker is invoking when he refers to the lack in McLuhan’s (following Chardin’s) theological metaphysics to bring into awareness or overcome the irreducible alienation of an Enlightenment godhood. Western metaphysics as western theology (displacements of each other) and the two together as onto-theology are premised on these dualities. The essence of the human individual there is a finitude faced with an infinite God or Universe and a struggling irrationality faced with a rational God or Universe. This is the human structure or onto-theology from which it knows no escape.

The only apotheosis of the human individual here at the end of the cycle of objectified and universalized Rationality is its disappearance into Machinery. This is a post-human future which looms large as a possibility at the nearing margins of the impending end of human history – maybe first the surreptitious disappearance of man in the Machine, an embodied instrument in the world wide web of impersonal Techno-Capitalism, then an increasing nano-bionic mutation of physical substance going hand in hand with an increasing miniaturization and de-materialization of machinery and ending with the extinction of the human – the consciousness of universal human history and experience ceding its temporality and mortality to the continuance of a memory bank in astral cyberspace pulsing out its permutated algorithms of post-human desire in cyber-sensory worlds without limit.

Or may we dare to question the lack at the heart of Christian/western onto-theological duality and posit a radical post-structuralism on the one hand as the essence of the human – not a finitude but an ever creative infinity, and on the other, as the essence of God or Universe – not a rationality but a post-rational integrality? May the universalization and objectification of Rationality and Instrumentation as the end of Enlightenment history be an intermediate invitation to a non-duality where a supra-rational subjective power of consciousness in the individual measures, equates and overpasses itself? The practical phenomenology of Vedanta would seem to indicate such a possibility, not as an astrologism, but as a necessarily participative process, a process termed yoga. It is this possibility that Sri Aurobindo holds out as the post-human future of choice which can activate an evolutionary transcendence. Can the objectification of universal Rationality as non-local Instrumentation be mirrorred in identical structures of subjective consciousness? May, indeed, such an objectification facilitate such a realized equivalence of subjective consciousness, make it easier for the individual to realize its operational non-locality and universality in consciousness, so even as to eventually make the objectified machinery unnecessary and obsolete? And if such a possibility may be imagined, under what individual and social conditions could it be realized?

Sri Aurobindo has a provocative statement about the Enlightenment drive for Godhood and the end of Machinery ending the chapter on “The Materialist Denial” in The Life Divine. He says:

Science itself begins to dream of the physical conquest of death, expresses an insatiable thirst for knowledge, is working out something like a terrestrial omnipotence for humanity. Space and Time are contracting to the vanishing-point in its works, and it strives in a hundred ways to make man the master of circumstance and so lighten the fetters of causality. The idea of limit, of the impossible begins to grow a little shadowy and it appears instead that whatever man constantly wills, he must in the end be able to do; for the consciousness in the race eventually finds the means. It is not in the individual that this omnipotence expresses itself, but the collective Will of mankind that works out with the individual as a means. And yet when we look more deeply, it is not any conscious Will of the collectivity, but a superconscious Might that uses the individual as a centre and means, the collectivity as a condition and field. What is this but the God in man, the infinite Identity, the multitudinous Unity, the Omniscient, the Omnipotent, who having made man in His own image, with the ego as a centre of working, with the race, the collective Narayana, the visvamanava  as the mould and circumscription, seeks to express in them some image of the unity, omniscience, omnipotence which are the self-conception of the Divine? “That which is immortal in mortals is a God and established inwardly as an energy working out in our divine powers.”  It is this vast cosmic impulse which the modern world, without quite knowing its own aim, yet serves in all its activities and labours subconsciously to fulfil.

But there is always a limit and an encumbrance,—the limit of the material field in the Knowledge, the encumbrance of the material machinery in the Power. But here also the latest trend is highly significant of a freer future. As the outposts of scientific Knowledge come more and more to be set on the borders that divide the material from the immaterial, so also the highest achievements of practical Science are those which tend to simplify and reduce to the vanishing-point the machinery by which the greatest effects are produced. Wireless telegraphy is Nature’s exterior sign and pretext for a new orientation. The sensible physical means for the intermediate transmission of the physical force is removed; it is only preserved at the points of impulsion and reception. Eventually even these must disappear; for when the laws and forces of the supraphysical are studied with the right starting-point, the means will infallibly be found for Mind directly to seize on the physical energy and speed it accurately upon its errand. There, once we bring ourselves to recognise it, lie the gates that open upon the enormous vistas of the future.

Yet even if we had full knowledge and control of the worlds immediately above Matter, there would still be a limitation and still a beyond. The last knot of our bondage is at that point where the external draws into oneness with the internal, the machinery of ego itself becomes subtilised to the vanishing-point and the law of our action is at last unity embracing and possessing multiplicity and no longer, as now, multiplicity struggling towards some figure of unity. There is the central throne of cosmic Knowledge looking out on her widest dominion; there the empire of oneself with the empire of one’s world; there the life in the eternally consummate Being and the realisation of His divine nature in our human existence.

This Neo-Vedantic appropriation and supercession of the Enlightenment furthers an alternate teleology of the Subjective which travels to a non-dual post-human future prioritizing Consciousness. It also indicates an alternate Science of the Subjective, a collective phenomenology of experience and the development of subjective technologies of consciousness. Are we up to such developments? Are we permitted the time within the hyper-temporality of Techno-Capitalism’s ecology of rupture and insistent objectification of commodified space-time? Are we permitted the choice within the totalitarian globalized regime of the ever-tightening ubiquity of the world wide web, the economic barbarism of its tinsel-town neo-liberal techno-optimism, its Panopticon of terrestrial surveillance?

Without the growth of collective awareness in the imperative of this alternative, its teleology, even if admitted, may well bypass the human. But to awaken to a more than personal responsibility does not come easy to humankind. This too is an ironical aspect of the dwarfing of human consciousness in the regime of Techno-Capitalism, where the individual is expected to be global but all this amounts to in terms of responsibility is an uniformitarian adherence to multinational consumption. Apathy is the badge of its regime, aspiration merely its lip service to an ideal for which it seeks deified substitutes for its own insufficiency. And yet, without the growing awareness in humanity of the urgent need for a change in direction, the hope in a “God who can save us” will remain an impotent and impractical faith, the prospect of the God who came and went and remained unrecognized, an eventuality far more pathetic than that of the God who earned men’s hate and martyrdom. Intentional groups which can make the collective choice to refuse the imperative of global capitalism and persist in economies and ecologies determined by the alternate imperative of developing the accumulated phenomenologies of the Subjective and technologies of Consciousness in engagement with the regime of post-Enlightenment Modernity may alone have a chance at this transition. Every attempted experiment in this direction is a possible evolutionary bifurcation, a possibility of socio-personal mutation whose success or failure or dimensions are completely unknown at this time, but which urgently demands our participation. What is primary for this initiation is individual awakening to the images of the post-human futures driving the present, the trajectories of Techno-Capitalism and their power, the urgent imperative for alternate post-human futures which lead to non-dual identities of Consciousness in being and power and a heroic aspiration and global responsibility flaming up within as a result of these contemplations. Without these understandings, these contemplations and these aspirations one is not ready for the transition, either as an individual or a collective, and social experiments even based on teachings such as those of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, are blighted from the outset. With these requirements, do we have a better chance? And can the experiments of miniscule collectives, even if lucky enough to survive, mean anything to globalized humanity? Without the attempt we will never know. A post-human future of non-dual consciousness which glorifies and transcends the human is least likely to arrive without human participation. And perhaps if we can overcome the pressure of inertia and apathy endemic to the regime of Techno-Capitalism and wake to the necessary post-human aspiration, the Mother’s message may become meaningful in a new and active way: “Blessed are those who take a leap towards the future.”

Techno-Capitalism and Post-Human Destinies – II

 

 

Techno-Capitalism and Post-Human Destinies – II

by Debashish Banerji

To continue with our reflections on the regime of technology or what I have called the universal desiring machine of techno-capital (Techo-Capitalism and Post-Human Destinies I), let us dwell for a moment also on the “traditional” understanding of Marx, one which Postone is at pains to distinguish himself from, since this version also meshes in its own way with the goals of the Enlightenment and may debatably show itself to be be identical with the techno-utopia of Hegel/Teilhard/McLuhan, and pushing in its own ingenuity, the self-same mythology with the same structural order of frozen time (teleology).

Among Marx’s own internal narratives, this could very well be one of his spectral alternates, since Hegel was more than an influence in his thinking. The “traditional” version then is that products are produced by concrete labor and “originally” for their concrete and (subjectively) specific use-value(s) in the self-consumptions of communities. But the process of marketization is one of the necessary birth of history, of the journey of capital as abstract use value of commodity translating labor now also abstracted for the universalization/globalization of human exchange. This process of the materialization and terrestrialization of human labor is mediated for competitive self-advantage by a “middle” class, the bourgeois, a mediation that accumulates capital privately and fuels the processes of the production and consumption of unbounded increasing surplus – the exploitation of labor and of nature, the production of technology, the production of knowledge and the production of desire. But the internal contradiction in this system between the use and abstract value of the product and the subjective concreteness and objectified abstraction of labor (these two sets of contradictions mapping into one another as necessary translations, since it is labor which translates into the value of  product) drives the dialectic of inexorable necessity towards the “justice” of pure unmediated translations, a global order which achieves the end of history in the completed identity of abstract/concrete exchange/use producer/consumer as the self-representation  of collective humanity in the form of the international union of labor through the political organ of the World State.

The traditional view of Marxist revolution is that of human intervention in accelerating the inherent rationalization of this process by the overcoming of the mediation of the bourgeois and his competitive privatization of capital through a collective organization of the proletariat and its direct ownership of the means of production and the products and control over their consumption, distribution and exchange through nation-states and eventually, the world-state. The mythology of this narrative should not be lost on us. This is the Sacrifice of the originary Unified Body of collective Man in the Symbol, pure communities of the Symbolic Age of humanity, Satya Yuga, consuming their own production, but now driven to the reconstitution of the dis-membered body through acts of exchange, leading logically (since the hidden Subject of this leading is the Logos, who makes Himself visible only through His adjectival quality, logic) to the terrestrialization of Universal Value (which is Universal Justice) in the reintegrated Body-Politic of International Labor as the unmediated self-determining producers/consumers of their own labor/produce of use/exchange (each of these opposition-pairs being now realized identities in consciousness). Marxists, of course, will shudder at this mythologization, since they will say it is exactly the Geist, Spirit of Hegel which Marx rejected in materializing his dialectic in the collective human body and its material processes of  production and consumption, with the proletariat as its real Subject. But be that as it may, why the process of history should take this logical form, of a loss of “innocence” through private selfishness and the transformation of individual selfishness to universal justice and finally of the revelation in universal justice of Universal Love, were it not for the immanence of the Logos, the Word of God made flesh hidden in the heart of human history, whatever may be its manifest actors and their motivated/material acts, is difficult to comprehend. The subsumption of the Chrisian mythos in the Hegelian vision of the Enlightenment undergoes a second level of secularization in the “traditional” narrative of Marx, but cannot divorce itself from the source of its necessity in its Origin.

Where Postone questions this version is in the centrality of its “original sin,” since this will determine also the totality of its apotheosis in the “end of history.” According to Postone, for the later Marx this is not an act of selfishness but one of self-alienation. The decision to produce not for self-consumption but for exchange produces not merely the mediation of economic and more fundamentally, social relations (the transformation of the habitus) by the layer of the “middle class” but by another layer of immanent mediation, which becomes more and more manifest through the historic process as the “true subject” and beneficiary of this history – the layer of alienation itself materializing and universalizing itself as Technology - Technology as Logos or Logos as Technology, which no revolution of the proletariat or overcoming of the bourgeois can displace, produced out of the dismembered body of the sacrifice of collective Unity in the Symbolic Age of Innocence, the shining Bio-Robotic Cow of Universal Plenty, its mechanical udders vibrating with the fatal fascination of alterity, cannibalizing its producers into its own alienated Substance. Marx’s mature view of the “end of history” then for Postone is not the apotheosis of labor and the utopia of Universal Love but the totalitarianism of Technology as the regime of alienation, his revolution not a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeois but an immanent revolution of human production and consumption against technicity, the technologized consciousness-structures of the alienated social habitus, of commodified social relations. In this version, Marx visioned Hegelian Universal Enlightenment as a mistake and his own narrative is a historical explanation and critique of Hegel. In this view, Hegel mistook a non-human Universal Spirit (Geist) as the progressively materializing and rationalizing Subject of History because he himself was embedded within the structural temporality of modernity, which was already marked by its endemic alienation. This ojectified alienation, rationalizing itself materially as Technology is what Hegel mistook as Spirit.

But granted that this is a possibility, can Hegel/Teilhard/McLuhan be dismissed so easily? Can the Enlightenment and the fascination of its mythos be  negativized unequivocally? After all, the Aurobindonian narrative sounds surprisingly similar to some ears as the Hegelian one; many there are who read the regime of globalization as the materialization of the Brahman, even of that specially mystifying Aurobindonian term, the Supermind. And Postone’s Marx and his attribution of self-alienation at the “origin” of modern history – how does this history realize itself universally – I mean how did it even get this far, what processes of chance or necessity or combination of the two took local phenomena of exchange and turned it into the globalizing world-market, whose ontology (hauntology, as Derrida will tell us in his Specters of Marx) is technicity? Was it perhaps the Hegelian Zeitgeist, Time-Spirit, the Heideggerean disclosure of Being in the horizon of modern Time, the Foucauldian inexplicable epistemic change? And what does it portend for the future destiny of the human at the end of its history? Or can its history be aborted and transformed through immanent revolution, as Postone suggests (but never makes practically concrete) in his text?

What are the dimensions of the Enlightenment narrative and where does Sri Aurobindo fit into it or where does it fit into Sri Aurobindo, if we are to be more audacious or is there a radical misfit between the two? Where is the inadequacy in “Catholicism” which Arthur Kroker invokes to explain McLuhan’s failure or is it some other kind of inadequacy, in the heart of the Enlightenment ideal and that of its proponents who see subsumed and hidden in it the track or trace, footsteps of the Holy Spirit of archaic ages?

What indeed, is the Enlightenment ideal and where do we stand in its realization today? Put simply, the onto-theological ideal of the Enlightenment is the universalization of Divine Reason, the Rationality or Intelligence of the Universe as the common property of Humanity on earth – not the property of any one person but of Humanity as a whole, for its access and use. Enlightenment brings liberation, this was the belief, and a universalized Enlightenment will bring universal liberation through the terrestrialization of the properties of Divinity (or as Divine Reason equated with Divinity) being accessible to all humans. The prime properties of such a realized divinity would be the Omnisicience, Omnipotence and Omnipresence of the Divine Reason within unversal access. Today, the virtual universalization of satellite technology, telecommunications and intercontinental travel have effectively non-localized our experience of the world, we can almost be “present” at any point on the earth at any time. Is this not Omnipresence? The proliferation of electronic archives and incredible information density of storage systems are making all the history of textual and multimedia expression and discursivity of the earth available to the access of all human beings at the push of a button. Is this not Omniscience? And Technology today makes it possible to give life and take life universally – we are on the verge of being able to overcome every natural deterrent to food production and to regenerate human organs and we can blow out the world at the push of a button. Is this not Omnipotence? So where did we go wrong or did we? And is there anything else that Sri Aurobindo can give us here – or is this indeed also the Aurobindonian mythos, the terrestrialization and universalization of Supermind as the Vedic Cow of Human Plenty?

These are questions worth reflecting on and bringing into alignment with the Neo-Vedantic teleology (if it can be called that) of Sri Aurobindo.

Sri Aurobindo’s Vision and the 20th Century by Rod Hemsell

Sri Aurobindo’s Vision and the 20th Century

Physics and the Philosophy of Evolution

Nature’s Dialectic

Few among humanity have yet undertaken the challenge, availed the opportunity, transcended their conventional mental formulas, and achieved the clarity of intention necessary to see the vision of Sri Aurobindo. Fewer have gone so far as to integrate his vision into their thought and life, and so to understand it fully, to grasp its historical significance, and to realize its force, its evolutionary potential. Therefore it can truly be said that Sri Aurobindo belongs to the future.1 And yet his vision, and the thought forms and literary expressions that he created to embody it, are vibrant within the epoch of human achievement known as the 20th Century – that moment in time and the history of civilization that can be understood as the culmination of the rational cycle of human development and the beginning of a suprarational, integral cycle – like a subtle ether flowing through everything.

Abundant are the signs of that evolutionary transition of which he was the harbinger, indications of the integral and supramental structures of consciousness that he said would emerge. But the emergence of creative thought formations, and of new evolutionary forms, takes time. And very little is known about this process of emergence in any case. It is not common knowledge, and it is not the way we have been conditioned to understand how evolution happens. The signs, nevertheless, are most evident in the subtler, more spiritual thought of the century, but clearly perceptible also in the arts and literature, and in the human sciences – philosophy, psychology, sociology. They are progressively apparent in the startling theoretical discoveries of the natural sciences, in physics, evolutionary biology, ecology. But there, in the mental disciplines, the fundamental aporias and enigmas of thought that permeate the epoch are still, as always, the questions of man, of consciousness, of our ability, or inability, to know and conquer our human limitations. The new has not yet emerged, but its emergence is presaged by new perspectives, flashes, intensities, forebodings, and irrepressible facts, and by the failure and breakdown of old structures.

In an epoch of incomparable human cruelty, depravity and destruction, paired with almost miraculous advances in the products and processes of global technological civilization, when the human has become godlike in its mastery of nature, humanity is being forced, at last perhaps, to seek hope shrouded in its most desperate moment of deficient self-revelations, and the self-realization of its shadow identity as creator of the culture of nihilism and extinction.^2  It is perhaps inevitable, then, that we rewrite Sri Aurobindo, that we revision and rethink his vision as the background of  this passing age of scientific and technological hubris, and that we narrate the necessary emergence of the trans-human. For, as he saw and wrote in the first few pages of his massive literary life-work, early in the century:

“…today we see a humanity satiated but not satisfied by victorious analysis of the externalities of Nature preparing to return to its primeval longings. …to convert our twilit or obscure physical mentality into the plenary supramental illumination, to build peace and a self-existent bliss where there is only a stress of transitory satisfactions besieged by pain and emotional suffering, to establish infinite freedom in a world which presents itself as a group of mechanical necessities…
“… all Nature seeks a harmony, life and matter in their own sphere as much as mind in the arrangement of its perceptions. The greater the apparent disorder of the materials offered or the apparent disparateness, even to irreconcilable opposition, of the elements that have to be utilized, the stronger is the spur, and it drives towards a more subtle and puissant order than can normally be the result of a less difficult endeavour.^3

But the dialectic of progress that evolutionary Nature utilizes to achieve her ends is a difficult lesson for us; it is one that we would in fact prefer to ignore. Or, perhaps it is because of our ignorance and unwillingness to learn, that she chooses to use this method. However that may be, it is by negation that she affirms and by destruction that she creates, as Sri Aurobindo stated unequivocally in those first pages, in 1914:

In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is  really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal.^4
The world today presents the aspect of a huge cauldron of Medea in which all things are being cast, shredded into pieces, experimented on, combined and recombined either to perish and provide the scattered material of new forms or to emerge rejuvenated and changed for a fresh term of existence. …For the march of Nature is not drilled to a regular and mechanical forward stepping. She reaches constantly beyond herself even at the cost of subsequent deplorable retreats. …And these self-exceedings are the revelation of that in her which is most divine or else most diabolical, but in either case the most puissant to bring her rapidly forward towards her goal.^5

The First World War was then upon us, soon to be followed by the Holocaust and Hiroshima. These were followed, in turn, by the liberation of many new nations formerly subjugated by Colonialism, and the ascendancy of the civilization of affluence, with Germany and Japan, ironically, near the top. It appears that the will to power evolved rapidly in these cases, from a lower, infrahuman and destructive form into a form of creativity, efficiency and excellence. Perhaps a reverse paradox might be represented historically by the invention and widespread use of antibiotics during and after World War II, followed by the exponential increase of the human population from 2.5 billion in 1950 to over 6 billion in 2000. (It had already almost doubled from 1.6 billion at the turn of the century, largely in response to the spread of mechanized agriculture.) If, as a result of the population explosion, pollution, global warming, and the depletion of natural resources this “progress” were to bring an end, or a rapid decline, to our species, we might see a parallel with the end of the age of the dinosaurs, which apparently made room for the rise of primates just a few million years later. This pattern of reversals would apparently illustrate and be the justification for what Sri Aurobindo terms, poetically, Nature’s harsh economy, and yet the indication of a process of change that is neither random nor arbitrary, but is rather characterized by order and purpose.  It is one in which Nature sets up the oppositions necessary to create the circumstances, structures, conditions for the emergence of that next stage of development, without which her processes could not continue to evolve. Therefore it might be said, to reaffirm the theoretical insights of critical thought with Sri Aurobindo’s more holistic, spiritual vision: if the apparent oppositions are terms of Nature’s intentional process, there are in fact no oppositions.

Could it perhaps then be said, that the extraordinary developments of scientific thought, knowledge, and technology in the 20th Century have set the stage for the further evolution of consciousness, not so much by what they have accomplished for humanity and the Earth, but rather by having created the possibility of such catastrophic circumstances that survival can only be achieved by overcoming and transcending this “intelligent human” with his righteous violence? Such speculation is at least not out of place in the context of the English literary traditions of Blake and Huxley to which Sri Aurobindo’s prophetic writing might also be said to belong.

Uncertainty and Complementarity

In 1914, Sri Aurobindo wrote, in the context of his speculations about the development of scientific thought, “It will be evident that essential Matter is a thing non-existent to the senses and only… a conceptual form of substance; and in fact the point is increasingly reached where only an arbitrary distinction in thought divides form of substance from form of energy.”^6 He was making a comparison between the truths of the ancient Vedic knowledge and the new discoveries of modern science, for the purpose of illustrating a possible trend of the latter towards “a Monism which is consistent with multiplicity, towards the Vedic idea of the one essence with its many becomings.”^7 And then, within a few short paragraphs, he formulated the integral knowledge, towards which science only  now, at the beginning of the next century, tentatively begins to move: “Life…begins to reveal itself as an obscure energy of sensibility imprisoned in its material formulation; and when the dividing ignorance is cured which gives us the sense of a gulf between Life and Matter, it is difficult to suppose that Mind, Life and Matter will be found to be anything else than one Energy triply formulated, the triple world of the Vedic seers. Nor will the conception then be able to endure of a brute material Force as the mother of Mind.”^8 As we shall see, this understanding is still a step before which scientific thought hesitates. And the one beyond, the final destined leap, it does not yet dare to think: “The Energy that creates the world can be nothing else than a Will, and Will is only consciousness applying itself to a work and a result.”^9

Einstein had published the special theory of relativity in 1905 and then developed the general theory of relativity in 1915, definitively altering the traditional conceptions of Space and Time. Commenting on the subsequent development of quantum theory in the 1920s, Capra (1982) says, as if to confirm Sri Aurobindo’s prediction, “The most important consequence of the new relativistic framework has been the realization that mass is nothing but a form of energy.”^10 And the Nobel physicist, Ilya Prigogine (1984), currently at the forefront of cosmic evolutionary theory, writes: “Quantum mechanics teaches us that… on all levels reality implies an essential element of conceptualization.”^11

The seminal discoveries of quantum mechanics in that theoretical “golden age” of physics in the 1920s, made by Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, Dirac, Shrodinger, etc., have been described by Hawking (2001) as “a new picture of reality” in which, “No longer did any particles have a definite position and speed. Instead, the more accurately one determined a particle’s position, the less accurately could one determine its speed, and vice versa.”^12 Thus it became uncertain whether matter is something stable and solid or something fluid and in motion. And this “uncertainty principle,” as formulated by Werner Heisenberg, has become perhaps the most often cited, because the most profoundly disturbing, discovery of scientific thought in the Twentieth Century. Let us therefore ask why this should be so, and how it happens to be especially significant in the context of Sri Aurobindo’s evolutionary vision.

The theory of relativity presented a conception of the universe in which Space was not a boundless container lasting through an eternal Time, in which material objects move and change in predictable ways. Rather it replaced this static view of the physical universe, which had been held by scientific and philosophical thought at least since Plato and Aristotle, with the view that space and time are relative dimensions of a universe in which everything is in motion. As Capra puts it: “In such a framework space and time are intimately and inseparably connected and form a four-dimensional continuum called “space-time”. … Physicists have now lived with relativity theory for many years and have become thoroughly familiar with its mathematical formalism. Nevertheless, this has not helped our intuition very much. We have no direct sensory experience of the four-dimensional space-time…”^13

Moreover, with the development of quantum mechanics, which presents a picture that Capra says “clashes with our deepest intuition of reality,” subatomic particles, or quanta of matter-energy, do not really appear to exist except insofar as they are defined by observers. Matter is a conceptual form of energy as Sri Aurobindo said. And according to quantum physics, the behavior of this matter-energy is determined by non-local events, as if the “particle” were spread throughout great expanses of space as a “wave” and the existence and behavior of this energy – of which everything is made – is known only through a mathematics of probability. Thus, the principle of uncertainty, which defines a dynamic world that appears to be, as Heisenberg said, “a complicated tissue of events, in which connections of different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and thereby determine the texture of the whole.”^14 Contrary to the conventional, analytical, and mechanistic paradigm, the part is determined by the whole, rather than the other, common sense, way around.

Hawking, who helped to prove, in the late 60s, that space-time had a beginning with the Big Bang and that the universe is continually expanding and evolving, says that Einstein himself refused to accept these bounded implications of his theory, preferring the classical view of a static, essentially unchanging and eternal universe. And of the implications of quantum theory, Einstein reportedly said, “It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could build.”^15

And so, the universe at bottom is not mechanical and not made up of well defined building blocks (atoms, quarks, etc.), with cause and effect relationships that determine the whole in predictable ways, but is rather a whole which determines its parts through an interconnected web of vast energy fields, and this whole appears to be somehow self-determining, and unpredictable by our way of understanding. Several troublesome implications seem to follow. One is that, if the universe is not deterministic and predictable, it must be ultimately random, chaotic, irrational; another is that, if we can neither know nor determine the structures and processes of Nature with certainty, then  we haven’t much reason for hope. It would seem that we are led necessarily to a position of existential nihilism. And in fact, the 20th Century has often been characterized as such an irrational age of nihilism.

However, our mathematical understanding of the physical universe has also led to a very impressive sort of control, extraordinarily effective within certain limits, and we are able to construct quite an orderly “picture” or “concept” of this uncertain “reality.” As Hawking says, the quantum laws of physics have been “the basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular biology, and electronics, and the foundations for the technology that has transformed the world in the last fifty years,”^16 referring of course primarily to digital computer and laser technologies. In addition, the visionary inclinations of many physicists has tended more and more toward the conclusion that the universe is not only orderly and self-determining, but it evolves in ways that tend to produce consciousness. It would seem that Niels Bohr, in formulating the principle of complementarity as a corollary to the uncertainty principle, had given a nod to the idea with which we began: that the contrariness of Nature is quite meaningful in its results. Bohr’s principle suggests that both terms of any empirical duality, such as particle/wave, position/velocity, space/time, structure/process, order/chaos, stability/change should be recognized, measured, and considered holistically as aspects of a unity. Thus the uncertainty principle leads in fact to a more complete and complex grasp of reality.

Evolution and Consciousness

Many scientists, including especially Capra, Prigogine, Penrose and others who have applied the principles of uncertainty and complementarity, analogically and metaphorically as well as computationally perhaps, in the domains of chemistry and biology, have been led to the proposition that apparently stable structures in nature are the product of processes of constant energy transformations at all levels: subatomic, molecular, and biological. According to Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures, all physical systems, from electromagnetic fields to molecules, weather systems to amino acids, cells and organs to organisms, are self organizing and self replicating as a result of energy flowing through their systems. The structures of physical systems reproduce their own stable forms through constant structural interactions with their environment. Such self-making, self-sustaining structural transformations are on-going within and between organisms, according to this theory, exhibiting patterns of deliberate response and reaction, memory and choice, which are thought to be parallel to and indicative of mental processes, or intelligent behavior.  The ability of organisms to co-exist and co-evolve, through processes of non-local energy field causation, whether at the quantum, biological or mental levels, and at moments of extreme disequilibrium to diversify or evolve new structures and processes of ever greater complexity and viability, are leading some scientists to conclude that the organization of life itself is in fact a kind of mental process.

As Capra puts it in The Web of Life – A new scientific understanding of living systems (1996):

To understand the nature of life from a systemic point of view means to identify a set of criteria by which we can make a clear distinction between living and nonliving systems. …the recent formulations of models of self-organization and the mathematics of complexity indicate that it is now possible to identify such criteria. The key idea of my synthesis is to express those criteria in terms of the three conceptual dimensions, pattern, structure, and process. …I propose to understand autopoiesis, as defined by Maturana and Varela, as the pattern of life; …dissipative structure, as defined by Prigogine, as the structure of living systems; …and cognition, as defined by Gregory Bateson and more fully by Maturana and Varela, as the process of life. …Autopoiesis (self-making) and cognition (process of perceiving and knowing) are two different aspects of the same phenomenon of life. In the new theory all living systems are cognitive systems, and cognition always implies the existence of an autopoietic network.(p.160)

Although these theories are still based on observable physical, chemical, and biological processes, and as such remain materialistic and structural theories, it is clear that the wave-fluctuations of this line of thought, from Heisenberg and Bohr to Capra, Prigogine, and Penrose, approach that knowledge of which Sri Aurobindo spoke, and perhaps herald a time when, as he said, scientific knowledge would reach conclusions similar to those of the Vedas. It seems that matter, life, and mind are in fact beginning to be understood as different formulations of one unknown Energy. But a strong reductionist bias is still evident, even in Capra’s attempts to formulate a synthetic, unified theory of life and mind, and even more so in Hawking’s positivist version of anthropomorphism.^17 Maturana and Varela, two scientists of consciousness whose work forms a substantial part of Capra’s synthetic point of view, state the bias unequivocally: “as scientists we can only deal with unities that are structurally determined.”^18 And in their interpretation of apparently conscious linguistic behavior, they state the qualifying paradigm “to operate in languages is to operate in a domain of congruent, co-ontogenic structural coupling.”^19 What this means is that what the observer perceives and interprets as linguistic behavior in animals is accompanied by a parallel but dissimilar underlying set of nervous and muscular system behaviors characterized as “structural coupling.”  For these scientists, there is ultimately no difference between structural coupling and conscious behavior or “cognition;” the latter is reduced to the former.

The next step that Sri Aurobindo predicted, “at which stage of development the conception of material Force as the mother of Mind would not be able to endure,” has obviously not occurred. If it had, instead of reducing consciousness to structural coupling or an emergent quantum event, there would be the realization that Consciousness was the first principle, from which the structures and processes of the universe proceed, rather than being the penultimate outcome of those physical processes. This next step would make it evident that the reason why stable structures appear to evolve in matter by means of self-determining processes, and why patterns or forms persist without change even though everything of which they are composed is constantly changing, is that there is a Will in them, infinitely diverse and omnipresent, a will of self-manifestation and self-being, and not a merely physical evolutionary dynamism, whether inherently one of chance/necessity or of chaos/order.

This is a form of understanding that is of course more characteristic of philosophy than of science, especially if we look back to the time, in ancient Greece, and perhaps as early as Vedic India, when the distinction between these modes of thought was not yet clearly defined. Aristotle’s works are burdened throughout with the attempt to understand the relationship between form, which is apparently unchanging, and matter, energy, motion, which are the elements of change from potential to actual form. And at that time the distinction was also not being made between form as such, and form as concept derived from perceptions and observations of the material world; the idea that the material world is separate from mind, or consciousness, had not yet intervened in the history of knowledge. For Aristotle, who was a biologist, mind was a form of nature whose activity was to know and understand other forms like itself.  And especially important to the history of knowledge, the idea had also not yet intervened that our measurements of matter, energy, motion – and on a macro level, patterns, structures, processes – tell us what “reality” is. For the ancient thinkers, the world of stable forms and values that we experience, and that the invisible physical micro-world of change upholds, was the reality. This inversion of the known and unknown, and the reduction of form to mechanical forces or subatomic measurements and mathematical probabilities has been precisely the work of modern scientific thinking.

It would be ironic indeed, if as Hawking and others seem to half-seriously suggest, the universe has evolved from an invisible world of Platonic forms to a world of Platonic solids, through the vast infinitude of the forms of cosmic life and mind, just so that physicists could reduce everything to mathematical probabilities, parallel universes, and imaginary dimensions of time. But Hawking’s colleague, Roger Penrose, seems to have reached a considerably more serious point of departure, and one quite pertinent to our present concerns. In his book Shadows of the Mind – A search for the missing science of consciousness (1994), Penrose states:

If Einstein’s general relativity has shown how our very notions of the nature of space and time have had to shift, and become more mysterious and mathematical, then it is quantum mechanics that has shown, to an even greater extent, how our concept of matter has suffered a similar fate.  Not just matter, but our very notions of actuality have become profoundly disturbed. How is it that the mere counterfactual possibility of something happening – a thing which does not actually happen – can have a decisive influence on what actually does happen? There is something in the mystery of the way that quantum mechanics operates that at least seems much closer than is classical physics, to the kind of mystery needed to accommodate mentality within the world of physical reality. I have no doubt myself that when deeper theories are at hand, then the place of mind in relation to physical theory will not seem so incongruous as it does today. (p.419)

Penrose argues in this book that consciousness – which he defines as awareness, understanding, and will or intention – will be explainable when physical science itself evolves its own theories and methods beyond their present limitations, because consciousness is beyond any possibility of computational understanding. And yet he believes that the ground of consciousness will ultimately be found at the interface between the world of quantum effects and the world of biological structures. While still adhering to the reductionism and structuralism characteristic of the scientific paradigm, he is able to foresee the possibility of an entirely knew understanding yet to come: “For physics to be able to accommodate something that is as foreign to our current physical picture as is the phenomenon of consciousness, we must expect a profound change – one that alters the very underpinnings of our philosophical viewpoint as to the nature of reality.”^20

Perhaps what this means is that the next quantum leap in consciousness, one foreseen by Sri Aurobindo as necessary in order to resolve the dilemmas of matter and mind, will be an even more disturbing paradigm shift than the ones already brought about by the new physics of the 20th Century. In Sri Aurobindo’s interpretation of the Vedic cosmology, everything in the universe, from the physical to the mental plane, is an expression of the will-force of consciousness. Therefore it is possible that the non-computational interface between the quantum world and cellular structures theorized by Penrose, which brings about the “objective reduction” of quantum reality to the real-time world of phenomena that we know, is one level where consciousness-will can indeed be found. Penrose’s intuition is that the phenomenon of objective reduction will be related to gravity; though the phenomenon must be a Force, it is likely to be one that is as yet unknown to science. To observe this phenomenon will require a movement of consciousness toward such an understanding, which is not currently a movement characteristic of science. At the beginning of his discussion of this possibility of scientific knowledge, Sri Aurobindo said, “If modern Materialism were simply an unintelligent acquiescence in the material life, the advance might be indefinitely delayed. But since its very soul is the search for Knowledge, it will be unable to cry a halt; as it reaches the barriers of sense knowledge and of the reasoning from sense knowledge, its very rush will carry it beyond and the rapidity and sureness with which it has embraced the visible universe is only an earnest in the conquest of what lies beyond, once the stride is taken that crosses the barrier.”^21

The “stride” that Sri Aurobindo hints at here, and which he refers to in the same context as being “attainable by a supreme effort of consciousness” but also as “escaping the grasp of our thought and speech, instruments which proceed always by the sense of difference and express by the way of definition” implies another methodology than the one normally employed by science, which is always based on observation of the external world, on “sense-knowledge”, and on reasoning from that knowledge, even if it is sometimes accompanied by a more global phenomenon of inspired seeing. The proposed methodology entails a process often referred to by Sri Aurobindo as a transformation of consciousness.  Vedic knowledge apparently used that method and was of that type. But it was at the same time not “other worldly.” It was, however, “spiritual knowledge” achieved by a supra-mental consciousness which can could know the world from within. It is knowledge of the Self, which is one with everything in time and space because everything is essentially That. This is obviously a rather mystical view of things, and yet the philosophy of evolution proposed by Sri Aurobindo, in which consciousness and force, spirit and matter are complementary, non-dual polarities at each level of existence – physical, vital, mental, and spiritual – has as its foundation precisely this premise. And such a theory is in fact consistent with the underlying connectedness and evolutionary self-determination of everything in the universe, as proposed by quantum physics. What is missing from that theory is the principle that would explain the emergence of a highly ordered self-determining physical universe in the first place, and then the emergence of consciousness from such a material base. Sri Aurobindo’s basic argument for the evolution of consciousness in a material universe is that it could not happen from an inconscient base; consciousness must be a fundamental principle of the universe itself in order for it to emerge; it is “a self-involution of Consciousness in form and a self-evolution out of form.” Therefore the fundamental complementarity of consciousness-force provides an explanation at every level of the order that exists in the observable universe, and of every other complementarity that we can identify as being essential to an adequate understanding of things. In this vision of reality, the ancient and modern dualities that have always presented insoluble paradoxes, such as form and substance, stability and change, chaos and order, life and death, self and other, are finally resolved into unities rather than contraries.

Do the current limitations of our knowledge therefore indicate something essential about the limited nature of “mind,” or do they indicate an essential indeterminacy and consequent unknowability in the nature of “reality?”  Both of these questions, surprisingly, must be answered in the negative. The sense mind, the rational mind, and the inspired imagination, etc., as we know them, are limited, but the limitations are evolutionary, temporal, structural limitations; they are not essential. And the indeterminacy of processes, beyond the conservation of structural histories and patterns of adaptation, especially at the point of disequilibrium where novel forms can emerge, does not make them essentially unknowable simply because they are non-computational. Reality is infinitely complex but it is also only What Is; the evolutionary structures at every level of matter, life, and mind are only structures of consciousness, knowable by the Self through Identity. But that requires the evolutionary emergence of another potential of consciousness beyond mind, which Sri Aurobindo chose to call “supermind.” In his descriptions of its characteristics, he speaks of the necessity of realizing in oneself an extraordinary force of concentration, an absolute stillness, and a cancellation of the mind’s normal patterns of reactions and responses to external stimuli. It is a process in which the personal will merges with the universal Will, the individual mind with universal Consciousness.

So, if we ask then, Is reality Finite or Infinite? the Unchanging or Change? Being or Time? Spirit or Matter? Substance or Form?, the answer in every case is “both,” although any particular definition will depend on the point of view, just as Heisenberg said. And after a century of unparalleled advances in both scientific and spiritual knowledge, a scientific mind like Prigogine’s can therefore now think, along with the mystic philosopher:

Each great period of science has led to some model of nature. For classical science it was the clock; for nineteenth-century science, the period of the Industrial Revolution, it was an engine running down. What will be the symbol for us? …In some of the most beautiful manifestations of sculpture, be it in the dancing Shiva or in the miniature temples of Guerrero, there appears very clearly the search for a junction between stillness and motion, time arrested and time passing. We believe that this confrontation will give our period its uniqueness. ^22

During the brief period of historical time known as the 20th Century, as the discoveries of the new physics were taking place, and Sri Aurobindo’s discovery of the supermind was being formulated, in the forefront of the “human sciences” also many barriers of  consciousness were ceding: Husserl wrote The Idea of Phenomenology in 1907 and The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology in 1933. Freud published his theory of the three-fold structure of mind in 1923, Heidegger published Being and Time in 1927, Whitehead’s Process and Reality was published in 1929. And one could go on: Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception in 1945, Jean Gebser’s The Ever-Present Origin in 1949/53, Sri Aurobindo’s later works,1940-50, Heidegger’s  writings on technology and language,1950-60, to the newer physics of the 1960s, the post-structural philosophies of the 1970s, the quantum biology of the 1980s, and the super-technology of the 1990s.

As we shall perhaps see, if we explore in greater detail the explosion of ideas that characterized this epoch in the development of thought, within the context of the century’s equally dramatic “outer” developments, the arc of the entire project of human consciousness throughout may appear to have been delimited inspired by one evolutionary formula for human advancement: to reconcile Spirit and Matter. To achieve the realization of their unity; to consciously perceive the stillness and force that combined constitute the essence of the infinite energy of existence; and to know directly by a “supramental consciousness” – one with the world it perceives – that unity and diversity, identity and difference are the principles of all Being in Time, could be the outcome of the pursuit of Knowledge, as Sri Aurobindo indicated. But for it to be so, he said, the human mind “must traverse the degrees which our inner consciousness imposes on us and, whether by objective method of analysis applied to Life and Mind as to Matter or by subjective synthesis and illumination, arrive at the repose of the ultimate unity without denying the energy of the expressive multiplicity.”^23   A study of the 20th Century in relation to the vision of Sri Aurobindo should reveal the progress made along this arc of potential human development, and also give us a clear indication of the distance still to be traversed if we are to complete the journey.

Physics and the Philosophy of Evolution

Bibliography

1. The Mother, “Sri Aurobindo does not belong to the past nor to history. Sri Aurobindo is the Future advancing towards its realization…” (April 2, 1967)
2. See Arthur Kroker (2004), The Will to Technology and the Culture of Nihilism and Frederic Bender (2003), The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology
3. Sri Aurobindo (1970ed.), The Life Divine, pp.1-5
4. Ibid., p.12
5. Sri Aurobindo (1970ed.), The Synthesis of Yoga, p.1,6
6. Sri Aurobindo, op.cit. (LD), p.14
7. LD, p.14
8. LD, p.14
9. LD, p.14
10. Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point, p.90
11. Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stenger (1984), Order Out of Chaos, p.226
12. Stephen Hawking (2001), The Universe in a Nutshell, p.12
13. Capra, op.cit. p.89
14. Capra, op.cit., p.81
15. Capra (1996), The Web of Life, p. 39
16. Hawking, op.cit., p.26
17. Hawking (p.85) gives this rather droll characterization of the anthropic principle: “While it may be that intelligent beings can evolve without galaxies ands stars, this seems unlikely. …The anthropic principle says that the universe has to be more or less as we see it, because if it were different, there wouldn’t be anyone here to observe it.” And although he frequently equates the physical universe with “reality,” he qualifies his position as a positivist in a manner that is pertinent here (p.59): “From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?”
18. Humberta Maturana and FranciscoVarela (1987), The Tree of Knowledge – The biological roots of human understanding, p.96
19.  Ibid., p.211
20. Roger Penrose (1994), Shadows of the Mind, p. 406
21. LD, p.13
22. Prigogine & Stenger, op.cit., p. 22-23
23. LD, p.13

© Rod Hemsell
4/06

Integral Psychology – Theorizing its Disciplinary Boundaries


INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY – THEORIZING ITS DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIES: A TALK AT THE CULTURAL INTEGRATION FELLOWSHIP,  SAN FRANCISCO, 2008

Today I would like to reflect on the relationship between the ancient Indian discipline of yoga and the modern western discipline of psychology. I undertake this reflection in a spirit of a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural dialog, so as to explore what may be the boundaries of the emerging discipline of Integral Psychology.

To begin my reflection, I wanted to start by acknowledging a piece of New Year Meditation music by Sunilda played at the start of this meeting. I would like to repeat the message embedded within this piece as something that we should keep in our consciousness through this exploration. This message says: “Thou always and everywhere Thou, nothing but Thou, in the essence and in the manifestation.” This is the message of integrality given to us by Sri Aurobindo, and this is the reality that we are groping towards in our exploration of Integral Psychology.

The theme of Integral Psychology is an inviting one. Integral Psychology brings us straightaway into the domain of integrality – integrality of experience, integrality of consciousness. As  I said earlier, my response to this invitation is this present reflection on the two fields, the ancient Indian field of yoga and the modern western discipline of psychology. I will start by looking at the western field of psychology. I am no psychologist but I look at this field as a discipline, something belonging to the whole corpus of “logies,” disciplines that emerged in Europe from the 18th century. Actually this corpus of specialized scholarly disciplines can be traced back to Aristotle. But in the form in which we have them today, its modern institutional form, as systemic fields of universal scholarship which have  structured modern society, it’s really from the 18th century that we have the beginnings of this disciplinary approach to knowledge. This approach takes its roots in the European historical phenomenon known as the Enlightenment.

The Faith of the Modern Academy

Thus, our institutional fields of scholarship may all be termed post-Enlightenment scientific disciplines, marked by a central unifying faith. This one characteristic factor marks off the initiation from pre-modernity into the modern age – a change of faith. It is not a loss of faith, it is a change of faith. This change of faith is that of the movement from a world with its faith centred in the Divine to one with a faith centred in the Reason. The faith centred in the Reason is also a faith and behind it too, as with all faiths, there are certain supra-mundane considerations. This faith starts from our observation and intuition that the world is composed of rationally understandable laws, that all around us there seem to be the manifestations of Reason. Nature itself is instinct with an Intelligence. The whole cosmos runs according to a rational plan; at the cosmic and the sub-atomic level there is the operation of Reason; so we humans, possessors of Reason, and recognisers of this fact – how easy it is for us to think that it’s only a matter of time before we can ourselves arrive at the Reason that has structured this universe?

In other words, Omniscience. It is the will to the Omniscience of Reason that is inaugurated by the 18th century Enlightenment. It is this view that spawns the entire gamut of knowledge-disciplines, the systemic and systematic search for knowledge by the reason, carried out by humanity, by the collective endeavor of human beings seeking to discover the laws of reality. We are still seeking; and whereas there was a certain initial priority given to the purity of the search, in what have been called the Pure Sciences, and only secondarily to its application, in what are called the Applied Sciences, the Technologies, today many critical thinkers are reversing this scheme and saying that from the beginning, underlying the will to Omniscience has been the will to Omnipotence.

In other worlds, it is the Will to Power, to the exploitation and enjoyment of “the Other,” for which we seek Knowledge. But even this view of the priority of Power may have its nobler side. We may counter that it is to create a perfect world that we seek for knowledge. This attempt to create a perfect world by ignorant people is in itself an aspiration. But behind this aspiration, there is much darkness. The blindness of human understanding, in trying to create a perfect world, has resulted in exploitation, in inequalities and imbalances and all the other ills of modern society. We have sought for knowledge, but we have sought for it using human reason. And human reason, while understandably a faculty that can recognize the presence of Intelligence in the universe, is not the faculty that can arrive at its integrality. The reason feels sorely its own lack as a faculty that can apprehend integrality and yet it posits itself as the master of the undivided and integral world. This is the great paradox of the rational disciplines of this era and “Psychology” is one of them.

The Aspirations and Limitations of Science

I bring this up because if we are to move towards something more conscious, an alternate Psychology, something we might wish to call Integral Psychology, we have to recognize the limits of the present field, the disciplinary limits, and then from these limits we have to be bold enough to determine the possibilities of an alternate – by which the lines of a critique can be made possible, and the limitations of the discipline overpassed. So there is on the one hand a search for integrality, a search for integral knowledge implicit in Science. Science starts off with certain assumptions. That is why I said it’s a faith. The locus of its faith is that nature is rational, nature is ultimately simple and that nature’s rationality is comprehensible and in fact, identical with human rationality. In other words, a complete description of Nature can be reduced to a few and perhaps one law by which everything can be explained and human reason can arrive at that law. This Mahavakya that is sought for by Science is essentially the Logos, the unitary Divine Word. So this is one of the aspirations of Science: its instrumentality is insufficient, but this is one of its key aspirations. This epistemological aspiration (or may we say, ambition or hubris) leads also to a totalistic locus to each of its disciplines. This absolutism or will to singularity gives a paradoxical religious character to the Sciences – a competitive assumption of universal Truth. In the case of the Human Sciences, this raises in the collective imagination, the image of Humanity as a whole, definable and knowable in its subjective universality through Psychology; and within this field, each claimant to knowledge becomes a discipline with its votaries or devotees who accept it as providing the singular Truth of the Universal Human.

The other aspiration that I have already touched on is the seeking for a perfect world, a perfect humanity, the perfectability of humanity. The Enlightenment makes its beginnings with a very bold departure from the medieval ages in Europe by positing that the world we find ourselves in is not a perfect one, and that it is within human capacity to perfect this world. But it tries to go about this too with the use of the human reason, the use of the intellect, insufficient, incapable of integrality. How can that which is imperfect build perfection? It can only build endless approximations towards perfection, simulations where the variables multiply but can never arrive at the whole. Thus, in both of its aspirations, its bid for perfect Knowledge, through Science, and its bid for a perfect world, through Applied Science, Technology, it is marked by a fundamental and irredeemable lack. Moreover, this lack of wholeness in our understanding and our dealings, combined with the precarious interdependence of the world, and the impurity of our motives, introduces new dangers at each stage of our progress, dangers that become more unforgiving the more sophisticated our grasp becomes. This indeed is the condition of our contemporary world, whose ecological, economic and cultural balances have been severely disrupted by modern technological meddling.

Finally, we need to consider the method of seeking; what is the methodology of Science? The methodology of Science is that of an ignorance seeking for knowledge through trial and error and through the accumulating consensus of a variety of people investigating together the object of knowledge under acceptable standards of verifiability and repeatability. It is to be noted that the legacy of this methodology, born in the Enlightenment, defines our epoch and creates its disciplinary boundaries. It has also yoked all of mankind to this effort and this method; as touched on earlier, in its totalistic ambitions, it has for the first time in human history, created the idea of Humanity as a whole marked by a common human goal. This temporally-constructed definition of “humanity” and its epistemological and methodological bearings implicitly inform our understanding of the “Humanities,” “humanism” and “humanitarianism.” This method has led us from theory to theory, from expansion of understanding to expansion of understanding, from piecemeal understandings to larger piecemeal understandings. But it has not brought us face to face with integrality. Integrality cannot be pieced together from the fragments of understanding, however large or systemic.

The other notable aspect to the methodology of Science is its necessary distinction of the knower and the object of knowledge, or the subject and the object. As the late Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant brought out with incisive clarity in his Critique of Pure Reason, the Subject can never know the truth or reality of the Object, the Object will in-itself remain always transcendental to the Subject. The Subject can only arrive at models to explain its own subjective experience of the Object. The best such model to describe the correlation of subjective perceptions, reduced to objectively measurable and universally verifiable dimensions, is what the rational knower can aspire for, no more. This limitation is implicit to Science, yet hardly overtly acknowledged. Its implications for the “human sciences,” eg. Psychology, are even more marked, since we presume to arrive at the truth of human subjectivity itself through this knowledge discipline, a paradoxical and irreconcilable blurring of boundaries of the kind known in postmodern thinking as an “aporia.” In terms of Applied Science, this paradox extends to the disciplines of psychiatry and psychotherapy, where the “practitioner” assumes a position of knowledge dominance over the “patient,” without acknowledging that by dint of disciplinary limitations, the object of knowledge is never comprehensible.

The Disciplinary Formation of Yoga

At this point, let us turn our attention to yoga. Yoga has its own history and its own disciplinary boundaries, which are not the same as those of Science. Nor are their goals the same. Firstly, yoga’s seeking for knowledge ends with practical experience. It is not a theoretical science. It is not a total system of objectified understandings describing the laws of  nature with which one can then manipulate the world. It is a practical discipline for the attainment of truth as experience. But associated with yoga, there is a theoretical discipline, though subordinated to its practical goals. This is known as Darshana . Darshana and Yoga form an inseparable pair in the disciplinary construct of Indian epistemology. Darshana, which has been translated as philosophy, is the theoretical system that describes Reality in terms which explain the cosmology, the interrelations, the processes, the goals that are explored as a practical discipline through yoga. So Yoga and Darshana comprise the two aspects related to Knowledge and Power, which we find analogically addressed as Science and Technology in the modern western tradition.

But we should immediately see the differences – as a reverse priority to the western dscipline, the applied aspect, yoga becomes the primary concern of the Indian disciplinary formation with the theoretical aspect supporting it. And as a corollary, the theoretical aspect does not claim absolute power over the Knowledge domain, is not in seeking for an absolute epistemology, a singularity in expression, but a description of Reality which will facilitate its own experience (through yoga) for those interested in realizing it. Moreover, the theory of practice which yoga is, is not meant to be verified or applied in an objectified empirical form, but individually and subjectively, as experience. Again, neither Yoga nor Darshana is really concerned with the perfectibility of the world. I am speaking here about the pre-modern disciplinary formation of Indian yoga, not its modern post-Enlightenment variants, which have been modified through their engagement with humanistic trajectories. Here, we have to acknowledge that both science, including the science of psychology, and yoga are in transition. Neither of these is fixed. They are changing and today, more than ever before, they are in flux; and the attempt of this exploration is to express some aspects of these conscious and unconscious changes occurring within the hybrid postmodern epistemological landscape, and to also acknowledge what needs to be theorized, because it needs to be theorized. Without theorizing it, this transition is not understood, nor are its imperatives, possibilities and choices well directed. So, the next question to address would be – what are the pressures for change in both disciplinary formations of psychology and science that we are seeing today as a result of postmodern circumstances and where in this flux can we locate the possibility of an Integral Psychology?

Disciplines in Flux and a Non-Dual Epistemology

In this consideration, we need to look first at what the traditional disciplines envisaged and then predicate what is in transition. Yoga, as I pointed out, was not interested at all in the perfectibility of the human race or in humanity. Yoga was not done for humanity, nor today is it done for humanity. Even Integral Yoga is not primarily engaged in for humanity, this is in fact one of its disciplinary boundaries. Yoga is done for the attainment of the Divine and for the realization by the individual, of Reality. It may be asked where humanity fits in this, whether or not, somehow, reality is subsumed by humanity, whether humankind is not created in the image of God. This is in fact one of the founding intuitions of the western tradition, and remains one of the inheritances of Science. If there is some truth in it, nevertheless, it is the individual experience of Reality as Conscious Being which forms the primary goal of yoga, any humanistic or post-humanistic goal can only be thought of on that basis.

Again, if we look at the yogic systems, we find firstly that the methodology is markedly different from the western discipline of science. It isn’t the idea of moving from ignorance to knowledge using the mind. Whatever yoga we look at, there is the premise that consciousness is not restricted to the mental. Consciousness has locked potencies of self-assured knowledge that we have to arrive at, these awakenings of consciousness, of forms of perception and action that far overpower our human consciousness and that grant us knowledge by experience, knowledge by identity. Thus, the unbridgeable distinction of subject and object, which forms a necessary premise of rational epistemology, is replaced here by a faith in non-dual experience and knowledge based on this. Indeed, one may say this is the implication of Darshana, a seeing in which the distinction of subject and object collapses and Reality is experienced as non-dual consciousness. These are the epistemological foundations of yoga as a science, as a practical psychology.

So, in its very basis, the individual is called upon to exceed himself in yoga, we are called upon to discover, at first through intuition, and opening to knowledge, other comprehensions of Reality that move towards identity. Sri Aurobindo has a chapter in ‘The Life Divine’ called ‘Methods of Vedantic Knowledge’. In this chapter, he clarifies that the debates engaged in by the masters of yoga in pre-modern India did not proceed on the basis of the question, ‘what do you think?’ but rather, ‘what do you see?’ or ‘what do you experience?’ It is by the growth of intuitive and phenomenological comprehension that we arrive at knowledge, knowledge by identity, forms of consciousness which make Reality self evident to us. So this epistemological foundation of yoga is a major difference from the foundation of psychology as a science and this needs to be theorized and understood, if we are to engage in the cross-disciplinary dialog implicit in the building of the postmodern discipline of Integral Psychology. But, on the other hand, the traditional yogas have not really sought for integrality. Neither have they sought for perfectibility of human nature or of humanity as a whole, because they have felt these things are outside their domain. Sri Ramakrishna commented with regard to Vivekananda’s social service programmes, which the latter termed “Practical Vedanta,” that this was not really legitimate to the field of yoga.

Now, Sri Aurobindo envisages a perfect world, but at the same time, he, too, does not think it legitimate to travel outside of oneself to help others. The perfect world is to come about through the expansion of knowledge within, through the performance of yoga, but not through social service, not through humanitarianism or humanism, seen as the “helping of others.” And so this whole issue of humanity as the focus of sciences, of theoretic or applied science, is another area that needs to be addressed in arriving at the boundaries of Integral Psychology, that this is not what Integral Psychology is meant for.

A Cross-Disciplinary Concern

From the above discussion, we may arrive at a number of differences between the two disciplines of our consideration, which need to be acknowledged in negotiating the boundaries of Integral Psychology: If we hold that the seeking for the knowledge of an integral description of human subjectivity is the goal of this discipline, the dialog of the western “human science” of Psychology with the Indian theory of practice, Yoga, yields the following aporia for our considerations: (1) An empirical study of human behavior by objective measurement of samples of human population can at best yield statistical median characteristics as descriptors of human consciousness, that can hardly say anything about subjective experience, human potential, the submerged interrelationships of consciousness, or the limits of the human. Instead, the locus of such a knowledge must be sought through individual introspection, experience, and comparison with the constructs of others who have established adequate approaches towards such descriptions (darshanas/yogas). (2) The seeker of such an integral description of human subjectivity cannot remain unchanged in the basis of his/her knowledge as a rational subject but as part of the disciplinary method, aim at the transformation of the basis of knowing to forms of non-dual experience. (3) An integral discipline of human subjectivity cannot assume prefigured limits to human consciousness, but will seek the extension of the boundaries (if any) of human consciousness based on its refusal to limit consciousness to mentality and its openness to trans-personal experience. (4) An integral description of human subjectivity cannot remain a theoretical construct practically applicable by a rational knower of this construct in instances of therapist-patient interactions in psychotherapy or psychiatry. The proper or primary field of application of such a description is the individual practitioner him/her-self, as a dual discipline of knowledge and self-transformational practice. As a “humanistic” discipline, its extension can find its legitimate field of social application in communities of transformational intent through processes of consciousness communication and sharing (what has sometimes been dubiously called “collecive yoga”).

Vedantic Darshanas and Integrality in Yoga

Let us move on to consider the idea of integrality in “yoga.” If we attend to the traditional yogas, we find that there are three major pre-modern fields of yoga related to darshanas that exist within the corpus of knowledge called Vedanta. These darshanas are given the names Adwaita or Unqualified Non-Dualism, Vishista Adwaita or Qualified Non-Dualism and Dwaita or Dualism. Adwaita takes the stance that Reality is Transcendental, that the entire phenomenal universe, is not only irrelevant but non-existent. It is phantasmal and illusory and can be erased from the consciousness. This Adwaitic view is part of a broader system of what might be called Mayavadin philosophies and yogas. Mayavadin yogas all envisage a reality that is outside of the domain of phenomena, or a non-reality, if you wish to call it that, for the Buddhists. But whatever it is or is not, it is to be sought for outside of the phenomenal realm.

Vishista Adwaita takes a different stance. For Vishista Adwaita, Qualified Non-Dualism, there is one Reality which modulates itself in a variety of differences, and whatever we experience are  modifications or modulations of this Universal Reality. Dwaita takes a third stand. According to Dwaita, the Divine is personal, a Being with which or with whom, we relate as persons, and this relation will always be that of an inferior to a superior. We will have an ever-increasing devotion towards the Supreme Being but we will never be one with that Supreme Being. This Darshana leads to its own kind of yoga and all the Bhakti schools of India derive from it. We may even say all the dualistic devotional traditions of the world, including Christianity, could be constellated with Dwaita.

There is profound truth to each of these Darshanas and their corresponding yogas. None of them are false. The great mystic and yogi, Sri Ramakrishna, after having the Adwaitic realisastion, threw it aside saying ‘I don’t want to be sugar, I want to eat sugar’. We wish to enjoy the relationship with the Divine. Who is there to enjoy, if you are the Divine? Why did the Divine create a world in which there is the Enjoyer and the Object of Enjoyment, if this distinction was meant to be erased? At the same time, the Divine and the human are related in an integral way, so that each of us is the Divine. We are names and forms of the one Being.

In the traditional approach, these three poises of yoga have been seen as distinct. There have been many schools that have grown up out of these and out of certain combinations of these. But there has been no attempt to seek for an integration. The seeking for integration, for one Reality, for an integral Reality, is intrinsic to the human being. This is why Science starts with the assumption that Nature is ultimately simple and we can arrive at a single Law. It is the faith of Science. How can we posit such a faith? We can posit it because we intuit it. At the origin of the birth of modern Science, there is an intuition of this kind. On the other hand, when we look at the yogas, we find that the founders of these fields have appealed to a certain body of knowledge that went before them, the Vedanta. That’s why they have all named themselves after Vedanta. Each of the founding figures of the Vedantic Darshanas has interpreted the Vedanta, and through their interpretation has tried to validate himself. They have selectively interpreted the Vedanta to support their poise of experience. It is because the Vedanta contains more, is more fertile and not exhausted by any of these interpretations, that other schools can also find support in it. So each of these Darshanas is true but each of these is partially true. Yet the very fact that they look back at the Vedanta means that they see there the source of an integrality, an integral source to which they must subordinate themselves. The Vedanta itself is pervaded and penetrated by this intuition and experience of the integrality of Reality. Yet there has been no attempt to integrate the darshanas since there has been no totalistic epistemological demand in Indian philosophy, no seeking for an exclusive statement of Knowledge which is absolute. The preferential right of individuals to approach Truth in a variety of ways through the disciplines of yoga (adhikara-vada) and the subordination of darshana to yoga as a cognitive aid to praxis has diluted this demand. It is not that sectarian rivalry and antagonism has not existed in India because of this, but they have been relatively contained prior to the modern period with its politicization of religion.

Neo-Vedanta, Inclusivism and Integrality

Modernity however has brought, among its problems, a clash of civilizations (in Samuel Huntington’s now celebrated though controversial terms). In the Indian context, it has meant, among other things, a yoking of the social destiny with the knowledge goals of the Enlightenment – the need to assert a totalistic knowledge system as absolute. This, combined with the need for firmly defined disciplinary boundaries and a national identity construct based in religion, has led to the deplorable formation of an exclusionary Neo-Vedantic Hindutva. Hindutva is clearly a modern phenomenon, but it hides the seeking for an integral description of reality which was implicit but not realized in pre-modern Indian Vedantic darshanas. Neo-Vedanta itself is a term coined in the modern academic discipline of “Religious Studies,” to account for formulations based in Vedanta but under the impress of an Enlightenment epistemology. Scholars like the German Paul Hacker or closer to our time, Wilhelm Halbfass, have pointed to other totalistic possibilities for Neo-Vedanta. Whereas we may think of Hindutva as exclusivistic, Hacker and Halbfass have indicated the presence of an inclusivistic Neo-Vedanta in modern formulations of Advaita Vedanta, such as with Vivekananda, or following him, Radhakrishnan or closer to the present, Chinmayananda. An inclusivistic Neo-Vedanta would make the Enlightenment claims of absolute Knowledge for itself by “including” all other descriptions of Reality under it. Modern Indian Neo-Vedanta does this, in fact, by fielding the schools of devotion, will, etc. as stages or rungs of a journey leading to the experience and description of an illusionistic Adwaita Vedanta. In fact, this approach was already adopted by Shankara and the modern version of this is merely a re-working of an old thesis in updated terms. Looked at from this viewpoint, Hindutva can be seen as deriving its power of integration from an inclusivistic version of Adwaita Vedanta, as formulated by Chinmayananda, the founder-figure of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The problem with this formulation is its insidious subordination of philosophies and experiential/transformational approaches other than its own, based on the priority of a mental or ideological principle.

Sri Aurobindo provides an alternate solution to this implicit seeking for integrality under the universalist drive of Enlightenment epistemology and teleology. This is the basis of Sri Aurobindo’s darshana, what has been called Purnaadvaita Vedanta or Integral Non-Dualism and expressed in his magnum opus, The Life Divine. According to this, the three streams of darshana and yoga, as possibilities of consciousness and experience are co-existent in the Vedanta as conterminous and convergent realties. This is a description which transcends Mind. Mental existence seeks for mutually contradictory realities to be distinct, with only one description which can be absolute and true while the rest must be relative or false. Pre-modern formulations of darshana have relativized these three distinct descriptions of Reality, nominally asserting each to be absolute for the purposes of experience through its corresponding yoga. Modern Neo-Vedanta asserts Advaita Vedanta to be absolute and true, the other darshanas and yogas to be relative phenomenological stages towards its achievement. It is only thus that a description of Reality can be valid to the mind. But one may conceive of an organ of Knowledge in which multiple descriptions of Reality can all be equally true and simultaneous experiences. This is what Sri Aurobindo calls Supermind.  With Sri Aurobindo, we find the positing of this organ of experience and Knowledge, something which can hold these different possibilities of experience together – the transcendental, the universal, the individual as three simultaneous poises of the supramental existence. We may extend this idea beyond the cultural boundaries of Indian epistemological discourse and see all spiritual disciplines and/or religions of the world in terms of a convergent pluralism when seen thus. However, it is important to realize that this is not the convergence in a new religious or ideological principle which seeks to supplant all previous religions in its superior totalistic truth-claim of integrality. This openness to a rupture beyond rational predictability or assimilability into the terms of mentally bound human experience is critical to any formulation of an Integral Yoga Philosophy or an Integral Psychology. The unspeakable dimension of the culminating possibility of an Integral Psychology must be acknowledged and not reified into discourse as dictated by the disciplinary and regulatory requirements of the modern Knowledge Academy or the ideological nation-state. In terms of yoga, this requires of any spiritual approach to admit of an integral status of experience in which its own reality overpasses its reasonable or interpretable limits, into a supramental experience without subordinating or supplanting any other approach but rather discovering its identity with them beyond Mind.

This is what makes for the integrality of the Integral Yoga. We may say that this is also the truth which  answers also to the aspiration of the early 18th century European notion of the Enlightenment. Enlightenment is the full experience of integrality and the release that comes from this. If our intuition of integrality is true, it can only be in an experienceable reality beyond Mind, to be had in its fullness in a Supermind. This is the other daunting aspect of what we might call an integral psychology, that we have to recognize. Once we recognize this, we see then that the possibility of a perfected life on earth becomes a part of yoga. It becomes a part of yoga because the bringing down of this kind of possibility makes the world a field of perfection, because a field of integrality – ‘only Thou in essence and in manifestation’ as we contemplated at the beginning of our present consideration. We will then need to look at this field of humanity, this field of the earth not as western science has structured it, not in terms of the relations, the roles that we play as specialized experts of various kinds who have come out of institutions with higher educational or terminal degrees and book knowledge, some unqualified amount of relative experience and consciousness, and who presume, on that basis, to “help others” through a posture of superior knowledge.

The oneness consciousness is not something which is mediated through hierarchy and through economics. The oneness consciousness has to be experienced and can only be given to those who are ready for the experience. This does not mean that what psychologists/psychotherapists do is irrelevant. But if we are to arrive at a legitimate description for the scope and field, the disciplinary boundaries and legitimate applicability of a postmodern discipline of Integral Psychology, we must establish new conditions for its discursivity. When we talk about Integral Psychology, it is necessary to see the totality of what it holds as its possibility. As someone who opened up the possibility for such a supramental discourse and praxis and provided his own general description of integral consciousness and the means to its realization, Sri Aurobindo can be seen as the founding figure of this discipline. But perhaps, if the discipline is to develop its own corpus of verifiable experiences and descriptions, it must open itself to a variety of cultural formulations and their dialog of mutual translatability and irreducibility.  Science aims at a universal description, a value-neutral and culture-neutral languaging which can assimilate all possible specific expressions into its vocabulary and syntax. We may think of the vocabulary and usage of the Integral Yoga given by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother as an attempt at such a universal description of integral human subjectivity and the way to its attainment. But freedom from value and culture, which develop inevitable orthodoxies over time, would necessitate the generation of new descriptions, interpretations, translations and dialogic encounters which arise from continuously renewed attempts at the formulation of such a discipline seen through the perspectives of individual subjectivities, whether utilizing partially, entirely, or not at all, already established systems of expression.

Experience of Integrality in Integral Psychology

Now, to move to the question of human accessibility to the integral consciousness, we need to ask whether, apart from specific instances of the numinous, which can be compared/contrasted, there is any direct consciousness within human access which can be considered integral. When we consider the sources of integrality in Sri Aurobindo’s teaching, we see that he has explicated not only this vast, distant and supreme source of Supermind, he has also opened an inner possibility of integral consciousness, not directly theorized in the traditional yogas or other spiritual disciplines. This is the psychic being. In Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s teaching, we can find two approaches to integrality, one within and one above. Undoubtedly, the single root of integrality in the Integral Yoga is the Supermind above, but the psychic being, within, too has its own power of integrality as a primary key to transformation of consciousness. Interestingly, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother teach that we have some access to each of these.

Firstly, the psychic being: The psychic being is the soul personality or what may be called the true person, the source of the sense of personhood within the human being. Many spiritual paths have talked of or dealt with the soul, but the fullness of treatment and description of development, content, function and purpose of the psychic being in the human subjectivity theorized by Sri Aurobindo is unprecedented. To recognize the inner door to integrality represented by the psychic being, we need to first recognize that consciousness is of many forms and modalities. In the hegemonic modern definition of “consciousness,” we think of it as rationality, but consciousness is of a variety of kinds, all different from one another. The human being carries within him/her the marks of a discontinuous evolution of consciousness on earth through matter, plant, animal and human expressions, and their characteristic modalities of respective consciousness – material, vital and mental. Mental consciousness is different from vital or material consciousness, vital consciousness is different from mental or physical consciousness; they don’t understand each other. Within the human being all these modes of consciousness co-exist. Even in common parlance, this is acknowledged in calling man a “rational animal.” Our body consciousness is a kind of living matter with its own consciousness, we carry in ourselves the animal consciousness of sensational or brutish drives for possession and enjoyment, or of more refined feelings, sentiments and aspirations which constitute our vital existence; and we are also reasoning beings who can seek disinterestedly for the meanings and causes of things. Yet all these aspects of our life are separate and independent. They co-create through cooperation and competition what we experience as ourselves. The mind can justify the desires of the life force or curb them with its own moral preferences and ideologies. We can spend our whole life trying to police the vital with our minds, and in fact, “civilization” can be read as a long history of that kind. But it doesn’t serve any real purpose. All it does is suppress the vital.

How then can we bridge these differences, how can we arrive at an integrality of consciousness? We can come to integrality at the human level through integrating all the varieties of consciousness within us around the psychic being. The reason this is possible is because the psychic is consciousness itself. The psychic is not a kind of consciousness that is different from other consciousness modalities and thus cannot understand them. The substance constituting the psychic can be thought of as the most basic and primordial form of consciousness, which can modulate itself into all the other modalities. There can thus be a psychic mentality, a psychic vitality, a psychic physicality. The psychic being can psychicise the mind, psychicise the vital, psychicise the physical. The psychic being is a portion of pure consciousness that comes out of the original Consciousness Force, what in yogic terminology is referred to as chit-shakti, and what Sri Aurobindo also calls the Mother – the consciousness body of the Mother planted in each of us. Therefore, when we talk about integrality at this human level, we cannot talk about it without acknowledging the psychic being and again giving it that place of priority in our alternate science of human subjectivity, Integral Psychology.

To talk about theorizing the psychic being, we must yet realize that the psychic being is not a theoretical construct, nor is it something accessible selectively as a quality of the subjective life. It is a distinct reality that can be experienced and its experience as a reality makes possible the beginnings of what one might call the psychic integration. There can be experiences of psychic influence in one’s life, but until there is a true opening of the psychic being and an experience of the psychic as an independent reality of consciousness different from mind, life and body, one can’t really talk about integrality, the cornerstone of Integral Psychology in any authoritative way. This, again, implies a rupture in experience, something which does not lend itself to assimilation or translation. The incessant repetition of the term “psychic being” in Integral Yoga or Integral Psychology or Integral Theory, like that of the term “Supermind” has a desensitizing effect, not too dissimilar from the bombardment of the mind and senses with  images of sex, violence and death transmitted universally in contemporary media. Its effect is to render these experiences in domesticated terms, as imagined and surrogate realities through which a social world can be structured and ordered morally and ideologically. An Integral Psychology which seeks to hold its ground of truth must be conscious of this unavoidable pressure and find ways to evade the appropriation of experience by the will to power posing as knowledge or truth.

Finally, we may consider what access we have to the original source of integrality according to Sri Aurobindo – the supramental consciousness. It seems very distant to us. But it is necessary to address this in some way in theory and practice if one wishes to approach integrality. What I wish to posit here is its accessibility at our level of humanity. Deriving from Sri Aurobindo, we may say, it is accessible as the Mother, because the Mother is the consciousness and force of the Supermind present in the Ignorance and embodies that integrality, which we can never arrive at in our foundational ignorance. Thus we can invoke this integrality through our surrender to the Mother. It can enter actively as a power in our lives, it can organize our thoughts and expressions, it can lay out the steps and the directions that lead us imperceptibly towards the knowledge that we call the Supramental, towards its experience; and as we proceed, our perception, our seeing , darshana, becomes more and more integral. It is perhaps the most difficult thing to theorize, because it is the Name in which the most rampant falsehoods may be authorized; but that also needs to be accepted as a pillar of what one might call Integral Psychology.

It is here that the equivalence or even transcendence of Truth as Person over Truth as Principle presents itself to us. What is beyond the Mind may yet be intimate to our relationship; yet such relationship cannot be allowed to speak in generalities outside of personal experience. The Mother as supramental Shakti in an Integral Psychology is best described first and foremost in terms of negative theology. It is what is illegitimate to assert about her and in her name that concerns us foremost. Yet a corpus of collective experience in an Integral Psychology about what is possible and how, cannot but speak of her and must find the languages to do so. These languages may be impersonal, personal but ahistorical or personal and historical or all of these (as in Sri Aurobindo’s own case, in his varied narrations). But without this attempt, the formulation of an Integral Psychology will remain impractical and incomplete as a core possibility within the (post)-human.

The Yoga of Self-Perfection and the Triple Transformation, by Richard Hartz

The Yoga of Self-Perfection and the Triple Transformation

by Richard Hartz
Introduction: Yoga and Evolution

A remarkable result of the meeting of the “timeless” East with the progressive West is the idea of Yoga as a process related to evolution. The origins of this idea can be traced back at least to Swami Vivekananda. But it was left to Sri Aurobindo to arrive at a synthesis of the principles and methods of Yoga that is profoundly evolutionary in its spirit.

As early as 1909, Sri Aurobindo declared: “Yoga must be revealed to mankind because without it mankind cannot take the next step in the human evolution.”[1] It was soon after his release from Alipore jail that he wrote this sentence in an essay entitled “Man—Slave or Free?” A year’s enforced withdrawal from the Indian freedom struggle had given him an unexpected opportunity for concentration and spiritual realisation. The sentence in his essay foreshadowed the view of the evolutionary significance of Yoga on which his future work would be based.

But “Yoga” has meant many things in India’s long history. In all its forms, it has aimed at some kind of surpassing of the ordinary human condition through the development of supernormal capacities or states of consciousness. In the Indian tradition, however, the recognition of the limitless inner potential of the individual human being was not accompanied by an equally dynamic ideal of outward, collective progress. Nor was there an explicit idea of evolution in anything like the modern sense, in spite of some tantalising hints.[2] It was only at the end of the nineteenth century that, under the stimulus of Western thought, a Vedantic conception of evolution arose and provided a framework for reinterpreting Yoga in an evolutionary context.

The theory of evolution provoked heated controversy in the West due to its perceived conflict with Christian doctrines. But it was readily assimilated by Indian thinkers, who adapted it to their philosophy by seeing it as a kind of cosmic Yoga. In both evolution and Yoga, there is an unfolding of higher and higher grades of consciousness. Consciousness is a puzzling anomaly to Western science. In contrast, it is central to the neo-Vedantic theory which posits a prior involution of Spirit in Matter as a precondition for evolution.[3] A major problem of materialistic reductionism is thus avoided. Moreover, the involution hypothesis suggests the possibility that mind is only an intermediate outcome of the evolutionary process. Yoga, which attempts to go beyond the rational mind, can therefore be redefined as a deliberate means of accelerating our further evolution. As Swami Vivekananda put it:

Now… take the whole of the animal creation, man and the lower animals, as one whole. There is an end towards which the whole is moving. Let us call it perfection. Some men and women are born who anticipate the whole progress of mankind. Instead of waiting and being reborn over and over again for ages until the whole human race has attained to that perfection, they, as it were, rush through them in a few short years of their life.[4]

No culture has had a monopoly on these forerunners, among whom Vivekananda included all the great incarnations and prophets. But he went on to speak of methods by which even those not born with extraordinary gifts can hasten their progress. The Indian subcontinent has long been the scene of particularly intensive, systematic and many-sided efforts to work out such methods. These are the various forms of Yoga as it has been transmitted and elaborated from ancient times. Yoga in this sense remains largely unknown to the world in spite of the popularity of the postures and breathing exercises of Hathayoga, which recently have all but usurped the name “yoga”.

Yoga means literally “joining”.[5] Its basic aim is, as Sri Aurobindo phrased it, “the union of that which has become separated in the play of the universe with its own true self, origin and universality.”[6] But there are two possible views of the results of this union. The choice between them is crucial for the connection between Yoga and evolution.

One view holds that the soul’s return to its origin brings its participation in the life of this transient world to an end. For centuries this is what most systems of Yoga and related spiritual traditions have assumed in one way or another. Whatever positive life-values they affirm are means of loosening the knot of the ego that is the cause of ignorance and bondage. But the untying of that knot leads, we are told, to a permanent exit from this world of separative existence once the momentum of life in the present body is exhausted.

Conceivably, this is the nature of the final “perfection” towards which we are moving: an exclusive liberation of each soul, not only from its egoistic limitations, but from cosmic existence itself, seen as a prison of divided being from which all must try to escape sooner or later. If so, many disciplines for accomplishing this end have long been known. There would seem to be no need for any fundamentally new developments in spirituality and little reason to talk about evolution when speaking of Yoga. Even so, much progress could surely be made by the revival and restatement of ancient spiritual knowledge, its harmonisation with modern discoveries and the creation of a more enlightened global civilisation on that basis. This by itself, if it happens, might seem momentous enough to call it an evolutionary advance for the human race. It is evidently what Vivekananda meant by “the evolution of spiritual humanity”.[7] It is perhaps what Sri Aurobindo had in mind in 1909 when he wrote of “the next step in the human evolution”. But he would soon go on to conceive of a more radical leap forward in evolution and explore the means to achieve it.

Swami Vivekananda, as we have seen, seemed to suggest that the end-point of evolution has already been reached by a few, however distant it may be for most of humankind. But he added: “Continuously, we are growing as a race…. Where do you fix the limit?”[8] The intrepid spirit of Vivekananda was an inspiration for Sri Aurobindo’s evolutionary audacity. Speaking of the past “messengers of God”, the Swami once exclaimed:

I fall down and worship them; I take the dust of their feet. But they are dead!… And we are alive. We must go ahead!… Religion is not an imitation of Jesus or Mohammad. Even if an imitation is good, it is never genuine…. The greatest religion is to be true to your own nature. Have faith in yourselves!… These [great souls] are signposts on the way. That is all they are. They say, “Onward, brothers!” We cling to them; we never want to move. We do not want to think; we want others to think for us. The messengers fulfill their mission…. A hundred years later we cling to the message and go to sleep.[9]

One unintended result of the modernising of the Indian mind by British education was that the newly imported idea of collective progress became spiritualised. Certain movements in Indian spirituality became as progressive as any form of rationalism—if not more so, since rationalism by definition restricts its notion of progress to what can be done without exceeding our normal mental consciousness. This forward-looking spirituality is seen in Sri Aurobindo, who saw the material world as “a progressive manifestation of the Divine” and maintained:

It is possible for the spiritual life in the world, and it is its real mission, to change the material life into its own image, the image of the Divine.[10]

This affirmation, published by Sri Aurobindo in 1914 in his Introduction to The Synthesis of Yoga, challenges traditional views regarding the aim of spiritual life and departs from age-old assumptions about the purpose of Yoga. Yet Sri Aurobindo held that Indian spirituality in its “total movement” has all along, without fully acknowledging it, been trying to find the way to “transmute all the instruments of the human into instruments of a divine living”.[11] More broadly, throughout history the Spirit has pressed for manifestation and has not merely called world-weary souls to flee from the afflictions of mortal life:

Therefore, besides the great solitaries who have sought and attained their self-liberation, we have the great spiritual teachers who have also liberated others and, supreme of all, the great dynamic souls who, feeling themselves stronger in the might of the Spirit than all the forces of the material life banded together, have thrown themselves upon the world, grappled with it in a loving wrestle and striven to compel its consent to its own transfiguration.[12]

Despite the tremendous resistance they have encountered, these indomitable spirits have shaped whole civilisations and their influence has persisted through millenniums:

These attempts have been the supreme landmarks in the progressive development of human ideals and the divine preparation of the race. Every one of them, whatever its outward results, has left Earth more capable of Heaven and quickened in its tardy movements the evolutionary Yoga of Nature.[13]

History presents us, then, with mixed evidence to support or refute the hypothesis that spirituality is the key to the next step in evolution. On the one hand, past spiritual outbursts have shown the Spirit to be the most powerful force that can act upon human life. The effects of its intervention have spread over continents and outlasted empires. In most cultures, extraordinary faculties of various kinds have been attested in individuals with a high degree of spiritual development. And all this can be said to have happened although humanity is spiritually still in its infancy. If the spiritual consciousness is that which is beyond the rational intelligence, it would seem natural and inevitable that evolution, unless cut short by a catastrophe, will proceed onward to this higher level whose possibilities we have barely begun to glimpse.

On the other hand, skeptics might reject the high claims made for spirituality and point to the dubious history of the world’s religions. They would say it is the revolt of reason against the irrationality of religion that has brought about progress. Even if spirituality aspires to the suprarational, it has lent its authority to religions which are bastions of obscurantism. In short, religion and spirituality have worked at cross-purposes with progress and evolution. They have looked backward instead of forward and have promised escape from earthly life, not its transformation—except perhaps by an improbable apocalypse abruptly and unaccountably ushering in the millennium.

The element of truth in this cannot be denied. But we are not concerned here with the record of ordinary religion, but with the evolutionary potential of spirituality, specifically in its Indian form called Yoga. That potential need not be undermined by the world-negating tendency that Yoga contracted under past conditions and the influence of an archaic worldview. The value of Yoga for the future depends on what it can become under new circumstances, especially if spirituality becomes allied with the progressive mind at its highest and begins to see itself as a means of conscious evolution and the transformation of life.

Since the premodern world had no clear concept of evolution, Yoga could not have been knowingly developed for an evolutionary purpose. But let us remember that, according to scientists, the wings of birds cannot have originally evolved for the purpose of flying. Partial wings would have been useless for flight during the hundreds of thousands of years it would have taken for wings to evolve. Therefore it is supposed that during that long period they must have had some other function. It is speculated that the precursors of wings were used for gliding or as aids to running, making them advantageous for survival even in a rudimentary form.

Human evolution obeys its own laws which are not those of natural selection. But if spirituality acquires a radically new meaning, its previous cultivation for purposes relevant to the concerns of former ages could be compared to the evolution of wings for uses other than flying. In that case, if humanity is going to take flight into a luminous future, it will have to learn to use in a new way the wings of spirituality or Yoga—of union with a higher reality—which it has been evolving for centuries without realising their full potential. Sri Aurobindo poetically envisioned our collective destiny as such a flight:

Ascending from the soil where creep our days,
Earth’s consciousness may marry with the Sun,
Our mortal life ride on the spirit’s wings,
Our finite thoughts commune with the Infinite.[14]
The Triple Path and the Yoga of Self-Perfection

The distinctive ideas of Indian culture, Sri Aurobindo observed, were such as to “exalt the life of man and make something like godhead its logical outcome.”[15] Yoga was the means by which this godhead was to be realised. But it was an inner divinity that was realised, leaving the life of this world untransformed. India’s initially disastrous contact with the West exposed the weakening effects of a one-sided emphasis on the inner life to the neglect of outer progress. At the same time, there has been a danger that India could swing to the other extreme, discarding her spiritual heritage just when the knowledge it contains is most necessary for the future. Conservative efforts to revive the tradition as it was are unlikely to succeed in halting the forward surge of the time-spirit. A creative synthesis such as Sri Aurobindo undertook in his integral Yoga offers a more promising way of revitalising Indian spirituality to meet today’s challenges.

During his last forty years on earth, Sri Aurobindo explored possibilities of the further evolution of consciousness that had rarely, if ever, been contemplated. But his starting-point was to renew in himself spiritual experiences that had been cultivated in India from ancient times. His first major breakthrough came in January 1908. Meditating with a Yogi who instructed him on silencing the mind, within three days he reached a state of consciousness he would later describe as one of Nirvana or extinction of the sense of separate self. In the months that followed, he continued his outward life as before, giving speeches and playing his part as a national leader. But inwardly he now lived in the awareness of a spaceless and timeless Reality, featureless, relationless, sheer, indescribable, unthinkable, absolute, yet supremely real and solely real… pervading, occupying or rather flooding and drowning this semblance of a physical world, leaving no room or space for any reality but itself, allowing nothing else to seem at all actual, positive or substantial.[16]

To our ordinary consciousness, the material world is solid and tangible, while the spirit is a tenuous abstraction. Plunged into Nirvana, Sri Aurobindo experienced an extreme reversal of this relation between matter and spirit. Such an experience had led others before him to reject the world as an illusion. But Sri Aurobindo did not succumb to that temptation. Soon his spiritual experience itself began to develop in a manner that no longer seemed in any way to support a negation of life. As “realisation added itself to realisation and fused itself with this original experience”, the sense of the unreality of things disappeared. It was replaced by the perception of a world in which illusion was only a small surface phenomenon with an immense Divine Reality behind it and a supreme Divine Reality above it and an intense Divine Reality in the heart of everything that had seemed at first only a cinematic shape or shadow.

All the subsequent developments of Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga and the philosophy founded on it would follow from this more integral realisation. He emphasised that this was no reimprisonment in the senses, no diminution or fall from supreme experience, it came rather as a constant heightening and widening of the Truth; it was the spirit that saw objects, not the senses, and the Peace, the Silence, the freedom in Infinity remained always with the world or all worlds only as a continuous incident in the timeless eternity of the Divine.[17]

One who has attained spiritual liberation and continues to participate in the life of this world is known in India as a Jivanmukta. Maintaining his “freedom in Infinity” as he led a revolutionary movement, Sri Aurobindo was a Jivanmukta with a difference. Traditionally it is assumed that the Jivanmukta has achieved the highest realisation and only has to keep it intact while living with complete detachment as long as he remains in the body. But for Sri Aurobindo, the liberation of Nirvana was a stepping-stone to further realisations. His work in the world also took on a deeper significance as part of the terrestrial unfolding of the Divine and was not just a prolongation of his former activity. A “constant heightening and widening”, with no end in sight, became the character of the Yoga he practised and taught during the remainder of his life on earth.

Sri Aurobindo was an explorer of the realms of consciousness. Like Aswapati in his epic Savitri, he was a “voyager upon uncharted routes”,[18] an untiring and undaunted discoverer and experimenter. The vision of this pioneer of a higher evolution was continually evolving. In his writings, he was capable of building massive structures of thought. But as he was more intent on forging ahead than on consolidating and publicising what he had already done, he left many of his works unfinished or incompletely revised. Not only did his terminology vary from one book to another and change in the course of time, but even within a single book he sometimes left us with layers of writing and revision belonging to different stages of his development.

This is particularly true of The Synthesis of Yoga, which cannot be accurately understood without knowing something about the history of the text. The incompleteness of this book reflects the exigencies of the attempt to refashion Yoga into a means of further evolution. A transition of the magnitude Sri Aurobindo envisaged could not be accomplished in one lifetime. By leaving The Synthesis unfinished he emphasised, as it were, the point made in the book itself that one who sets out on the adventure of this Yoga “is not the sadhaka of a book or of many books; he is a sadhaka of the Infinite.”[19]

Of the works Sri Aurobindo published in monthly instalments in the Arya, there was only one that continued from beginning to end of the six and a half years of the journal’s existence—from August 1914 to January 1921. This was The Synthesis of Yoga. Years later, after he had substantially reformulated some aspects of his Yoga, Sri Aurobindo returned to this book. In the 1930s and 1940s, he thoroughly revised Part One, “The Yoga of Divine Works”, which was published as a separate volume in 1948. He partially revised Part Two, “The Yoga of Integral Knowledge”, but did not publish the revised version.[20] The Introduction remained almost untouched. Part Three, “The Yoga of Divine Love”, was left as it was written in 1918. The half-finished Part Four, “The Yoga of Self-Perfection”, also remained unrevised. Thus its terminology is that of the Arya period, unlike Part One and some chapters of Part Two which reflect later developments.

Part Four of The Synthesis contained, when it was first published, Sri Aurobindo’s most original contribution to the theory and practice of Yoga. This is not said with the intent of minimising the significance of the other parts of the book. The Introduction placed Yoga in an evolutionary context and gave a new meaning to the word “integral”. Today more than ever, these chapters deserve the attention of all who are concerned with the future of spirituality, even if they read no further. “The Yoga of Divine Works”, in the form in which Sri Aurobindo eventually expanded it, was to become his definitive account of the most dynamic aspect of his teaching. As for “The Yoga of Integral Knowledge”, it is a monumental treatment of a subject on which he could write with unrivalled depth and insight. The beautiful part that follows, “The Yoga of Divine Love”, has an importance out of proportion to its comparative brevity.

But the paths of selfless action, transcendent knowledge and ecstatic love—Karmayoga, Jnanayoga and Bhaktiyoga—are ancient disciplines, however new the light Sri Aurobindo shed on them. The idea of harmonising them in a single synthesis also had the support of no less a scripture than the Gita. Most of the experiential knowledge needed to speak with authority on the “triple path” of Indian spirituality came to Sri Aurobindo with astonishing ease in the first few years of his practice of Yoga. It was after this that he began to break new ground and faced challenges for which the knowledge received from the past provided relatively little guidance.

The real difficulty, he explained, “was to apply the spiritual knowledge utterly to the world and to the surface psychological and outer life and to effect its transformation”. It was this that “took decades of spiritual effort to work out towards completeness”.[21] This effort proceeded for many years along certain lines that were revealed to Sri Aurobindo from within. When he wrote The Synthesis of Yoga and needed a name for this discipline of life-transformation, he called it the Yoga of self-perfection.

His exposition of the triple path in Parts One to Three of The Synthesis anticipates several elements of the Yoga of self-perfection. But the latter as a whole is presented as belonging to a more advanced stage of spiritual practice. It begins in its own right only when there has been a “growth out of the separative human ego into the unity of the spirit”. For only then can the “liberated individual being, united with the Divine in self and spirit,” begin to become “in his natural being a self-perfecting instrument for the perfect outflowering of the Divine in humanity.” Until that time, the first need is for the mental being “to enlarge itself into the oneness of the Divine”. As Sri Aurobindo pointed out, explaining the large place given in The Synthesis of Yoga to his restatement of the main spiritual approaches of the Indian tradition:

That is the reason why the triple way of knowledge, works and love becomes the key-note of the whole Yoga, for that is the direct means for the soul in mind to rise to its highest intensities where it passes upward into the divine oneness.[22]
The Magic Leverage

The idea behind Yoga is that any human faculty can be turned from its ordinary functions to a higher purpose by purifying and concentrating its action. Even apart from spirituality, all intellectual, ethical and aesthetic culture does this to some degree. Reason, will and emotion are freed from the confusions of their haphazard workings in the undisciplined nature and trained to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of truth, good or beauty. The primary task of culture has always been to lift these most conscious powers of our normal being out of subjection to the obscure and disorderly movements of the lower nature into the clear light of self-awareness. But throughout history, as Sri Aurobindo shows in The Human Cycle, the supreme expressions of thought, art and moral idealism have tended to go further than this. Not content with raising humanity from the infrarational to the rational level, culture at its highest has been in effect a preparation for Yoga, where the same psychological powers are directed deliberately towards a superhuman and suprarational object.

The great dreamers and doers rise above our ordinary limits by sheer force of genius and character despite the resistance of human nature and society. But these are exceptional cases which seem to have no rational explanation. In Yoga, on the other hand, a principle is recognised by which the surpassing of the current stage of general development becomes a natural and intelligible possibility. Three factors have to be taken into account: the individual, the universal and the transcendent. Referring to the second of these as “Nature”, Sri Aurobindo reveals how the link between the individual and the transcendent that is the secret of Yoga can change the rules of the cosmic game:

If the individual and Nature are left to themselves, the one is bound to the other and unable to exceed appreciably her lingering march. Something transcendent is needed, free from her and greater, which will act upon us and her, attracting us upward to Itself and securing from her by good grace or by force her consent to the individual ascension.[23]

So far, human evolution as a whole has proceeded at the pace of Nature’s “lingering march”, however much it may have speeded up in comparison with the staggering expanses of time involved in biological evolution. If the individual’s evolution is quickened by introducing another factor with a freer law, this should have an effect on the general movement.

But if individual liberation is seen as an end in itself, drawing souls away from the world, its potential impact on the collective evolution will be neutralised. That is what tended to happen in India in the past. Sri Aurobindo, on the other hand, refused to regard a quietistic liberation as the ultimate goal of Yoga. According to his experience, a one-pointed concentration of thought, will or feeling that brings us into contact with something beyond ourselves canand should have more dynamic consequences. It may even set in motion the “magic leverage” whose effect he evokes in Savitri:

A prayer, a master act, a king idea
Can link man’s strength to a transcendent Force.
Then miracle is made the common rule,
One mighty deed can change the course of things;
A lonely thought becomes omnipotent.[24]

This suggests the possibility of not only a union of the human soul with a transcendent Existence—the traditional conception of the aim of Yoga—but a linking of all human powers with the Force or Shakti of that Transcendence.

This linkage can be brought about by a heightened working of the same emotional, volitional and cognitive faculties as are directed to more exclusively spiritual purposes in the paths of Bhakti, Karma and Jnana as usually conceived. “Prayer” in these lines from Savitri represents the emotional relation with the Divine—though prayer is not the only way of establishing that relation. It can create “the contact of man’s life with God, the conscious interchange” that “is a much greater power than our own entirely self-reliant struggle and effort”,[25] with results that could well seem miraculous. The disinterested work of the Karmayogi is done with calm detachment, unmoved by success or failure. Yet by serving as the instrument of a greater Will, his “master act” may change things far more effectively than a vehement activism could do. The “lonely thought” of the Jnani or man of knowledge turns from the mutable appearances of life to the unchanging Truth that underlies them. But if it discovers behind these appearances the secrets of the manifestation of the Eternal in Time, it might return with the “king idea” that can transform the world.

When divested of otherworldly tendencies, therefore, any one of these three approaches could provide a starting-point for a dynamic spirituality. A convergence of all three would lead naturally to “the wideness of the integral way by which the liberated soul transcends all, embraces all”.[26] Yet Sri Aurobindo found that something more was needed for a Yoga which, without lowering its aspiration or compromising its integrity, accepts life in order to uplift and transfigure it. It is not enough that a divine Force should act through us and override our limitations. Our nature itself must change from top to bottom:

The aim of our effort at perfection must be to make the spiritual and supramental action no longer a miracle, even if a frequent or constant miracle, or only a luminous intervention of a greater than our natural power, but normal to the being and the very nature and law of all its process.[27]

This defines, as concisely as possible, the aim of the Yoga of self-perfection where it goes beyond what is attempted in the other paths. Anything less than this would fall short of the transformation Sri Aurobindo considered necessary to establish “a secure and settled new principle, a new creation, a permanent new order of being in the field of terrestrial Nature.”[28] Such a thoroughgoing change of our complex nature may look forbiddingly difficult, even impossible. The difficulty must be admitted, but not the impossibility. It should be kept in mind that each manifestation of a new principle in the evolution—as when living creatures and, later, thinking beings first appeared—would, if there had been anyone to observe it, have seemed equally impossible until it actually happened.

A spiritual evolution beyond this reasoning animal who now regards himself as the summit of earthly possibility has been in preparation throughout most of the known history of the race. Diverse means have been found for taking the step from mind, the principle of separative consciousness, to a higher principle that is at home with oneness and infinity. What has still to be done is, first, to make the liberating, unifying and transformative knowledge of the Spirit the object of widespread seeking in place of the divisive and regressive beliefs that have so often travestied it; and, second, when that knowledge is attained, to apply it as integrally as possible to our inner and outer life. That application in its fullness is what Sri Aurobindo called the Yoga of self-perfection. The outline of his approach to it in Part Four of The Synthesis of Yoga, incomplete though it is, may yet play a role in shaping the spirituality of the future.

Life and the Suprarational

At the heart of the difficulty of spiritualising human existence and elevating it towards the suprarational is the resistance of the parts of our being that seem to belong intrinsically to the domain of the infrarational. Our physical nature offers an inert obstruction to any radical change. But before we can even hope to deal with it, we must master the life-force connecting mind and body—the vital being, as Sri Aurobindo called it—whose problematic character already raises serious doubts about the possibility of an integral transformation.

We have seen that the leading powers of human nature—the intellect, the ethical will and the aesthetic and higher emotional faculties—may be said to be pursuing, each in its own way, some ideal of truth, good or beauty that points beyond itself to the Divine and Infinite. The vital being, on the other hand, appears to have no motive except its own self-assertion and enjoyment. Ethics, religion and spirituality have generally responded to its waywardness with coercion and repression, frustrating or throttling its impulses instead of transmuting them. Yet its free and enthusiastic cooperation is needed for the fullness of living. The vital nature dominates much of our individual and social existence. If it cannot be converted, the idea of spiritually perfecting our embodied life would seem to be a chimera.

The viability of a Yoga of self-perfection depends, therefore, on the discovery that “this great mass of vital energism contains in itself the imprisoned suprarational”. It has, in other words, an “instinctive reaching out for something divine, absolute and infinite which is concealed in its blind strivings”. Sri Aurobindo makes this point in a chapter of The Human Cycle entitled “The Suprarational Ultimate of Life”—the longest chapter in the book, whose extensive revision indicates the importance he gave to it. He goes on to observe: “The first mark of the suprarational, when it intervenes to take up any portion of our being, is the growth of absolute ideals”. As instances of vital ideals of this kind, he continues, we need only note, however imperfect and dim the present shapes, the strivings of love at its own self-finding, its reachings towards its absolute—the absolute love of man and woman, the absolute maternal or paternal, filial or fraternal love, the love of friends, the love of comrades, love of country, love of humanity.[29]

It is relevant to note that one of these ideals, “the absolute love of man and woman”, is the theme of the ancient story of Savitri and Satyavan. If Sri Aurobindo, instead of completing The Synthesis of Yoga and other works, devoted most of his literary energy in his later years to an epic based on this legend, it was evidently because through this tale of the victory of love over death he could symbolise a truth that was central to his message. That truth, we may say in the terminology of The Human Cycle, is the presence of “the imprisoned suprarational” in human life and the possibility of releasing it, with a consequent transformation extending even to the conquest of death.

It is the depiction of the Yoga of King Aswapati in Part One of Savitri, especially in the third canto, that resembles most closely in a number of places the Yoga of self-perfection as described in The Synthesis and in Sri Aurobindo’s diary, the Record of Yoga. But the poem as a whole, through the way the legend itself is told, conveys symbolically an essential aspect of the Yoga: the power of the Spirit over life and matter and the deliverance of our vital and physical being from subjection to the determinism of the present laws of Nature. Moreover, the debate between Savitri and Death provides an opportunity for bringing out the significance of the ideals which Sri Aurobindo saw as signs of a suprarational influence. In The Human Cycle, after mentioning the various expressions of love’s “reachings towards its absolute”, he goes on to say:

These ideals of which the poets have sung so persistently, are not a mere glamour and illusion, however the egoisms and discords of our instinctive, infrarational way of living may seem to contradict them. Always crossed by imperfection or opposite vital movements, they are still divine possibilities and can be made a first means of our growth into a spiritual unity of being with being.[30]

In Savitri, Sri Aurobindo joins his own voice to those of the poets who have chanted through the ages “the anthem of eternal love”.[31] In Book Ten, Canto Two, “The Gospel of Death and Vanity of the Ideal”, and in “The Debate of Love and Death” which follows, he takes up precisely the question raised in The Human Cycle. Are such ideals mere self-delusion or do they point to a divine possibility? Death heaps scorn on them, harping on human selfishness and the mutability of this world. Savitri’s reply is reminiscent of The Human Cycle, where Sri Aurobindo maintains that human relations, however disfigured by our present egoism, can become “not the poor earthly things they are now, but deep and beautiful and wonderful movements of God in man fulfilling himself in life”.[32] Savitri traces love to its source in a transcendent Bliss that is seeking to manifest in our lives:

Even in all that life and man have marred,
A whisper of divinity still is heard,
A breath is felt from the eternal spheres.
Allowed by Heaven and wonderful to man
A sweet fire-rhythm of passion chants to love.
There is a hope in its wild infinite cry;
It rings with callings from forgotten heights,
And when its strains are hushed to high-winged souls
In their empyrean, its burning breath
Survives beyond, the rapturous core of suns
That flame for ever pure in skies unseen,
A voice of the eternal Ecstasy.[33]

This passage is preceded by a more personal declaration on the part of Savitri. In response to Death’s contemptuous appraisal of love as nothing but a “hunger of the body and the heart”, she asserts:

My love is not a hunger of the heart,
My love is not a craving of the flesh;
It came to me from God, to God returns.[34]

A close look at what this implies brings us back to the Yoga of self-perfection, whose first stage is one of purification, called in Sanskrit śuddhi.

Purification and the Will to Delight

The “heart”, or emotional being, is one of the parts of our nature whose perfection as an instrument for expressing an aspect of the Spirit is—like the ideal working of the mind, vital energies and body—an essential element of the integral Yoga. The characteristic function of the heart is love. But before its capacity for love (prema-sāmarthya)[35] can be fully realised in a tranquil intensity of feeling not subject to fluctuations of mood, it must be freed from illegitimate interference by other parts of the being and from its own natural deformations in an egoistic consciousness. Love, in other words, must cease to be “a hunger of the heart” or “a craving of the flesh”, as it all too often is because of the intrusion of vital demands and physical desires. By this purification it becomes a movement of something deeper in us, “a soul of love and lucid joy and delight, a pure psyche”, capable of “receiving with an untroubled sweetness and clarity the various delight which God gives it in the world”.[36] Love is then revealed in its true essence as a feeling that comes to us “from God, to God returns.”

As this example suggests, “purification” in this Yoga means unravelling the confused and self-defeating mutual interference of the various parts of our nature which normally prevents them from functioning at their highest potential. What this psychological operation brings about is not what is usually meant by purity in a moral, religious or even spiritual sense. Morality and religion ordinarily try to inculcate purity mainly by the negative method of prohibiting certain kinds of actions and, if possible, suppressing the thoughts, feelings and impulses that motivate them. Contemplative disciplines often go further and cultivate a quietistic, ascetic purity intended to prepare the being for a liberating immobility and passivity. “But here,” Sri Aurobindo notes, “we have the more difficult problem of a total, unabated, even an increased and more powerful action founded on perfect bliss of the being”. What is needed for this purpose “is not a negative, prohibitory, passive or quietistic, but a positive, affirmative, active purity”.[37]

The difference between these two approaches will become clearer if we consider the case of the vital being, whose purification is a crucial step in the process of clearing away the obstacles to a higher perfection. For this part of our nature, with its desires and passions, is likely to present the most effective opposition to any attempt to transfer the basis of life and action from the separative ego to the unity of the Spirit. So antagonistic to inner peace and illumination are its normal impulses that for spiritual purposes there might seem to be no alternative to the negative, coercive method of dealing with it.

Yet according to Sri Aurobindo, desire and the disturbances it generates are not inherent in the very nature of the life-force. They belong to a particular stage in the evolutionary struggle of life to emerge out of matter and they may disappear at a higher stage. Behind the surface phenomena of the thirst for power and pleasure is something deeper:

The essential turn of the soul to possession and enjoyment of the world consists in a will to delight, and the enjoyment of the satisfaction of craving is only a vital and physical degradation of the will to delight.[38]

Once this is discovered, it becomes possible to conceive of purifying the vital being, not negatively by repression, but positively by eliciting its true in place of its deformed working. All depends on learning to “distinguish between pure will and desire, between the inner will to delight and the outer lust and craving of the mind and body”. Subtle as this distinction may seem, the necessity of making it is inescapable. The inability to do so has been responsible for the failures of religion, spirituality and ethics in their dealings with life. “If we are unable to make this distinction practically in the experience of our being,” Sri Aurobindo observes, “we can only make a choice between a life-killing asceticism and the gross will to live or else try to effect an awkward, uncertain and precarious compromise between them.” These unsatisfactory alternatives account for almost the whole range of attitudes that human beings have adopted with respect to their own vital nature. To be more precise, a small minority trample down the life instinct and strain after an ascetic perfection; most obey the gross will to live with such modifications and restraints as society imposes or the normal social man has been trained to impose on his own mind and actions; others set up a balance between ethical austerity and temperate indulgence of the desiring mental and vital self and see in this balance the golden mean of a sane mind and healthy human living.[39]

But if our aim is an integral spiritual perfection in which all the energies of the being will participate freely and fully, none of these solutions is adequate. Rigid suppression or uninhibited indulgence of the vital force, or any compromise between these extremes, implies in each case accepting desire as intrinsic to the life-principle and the motive of all its activity. Underlying the disagreements about the amount of control to which the vital impulses should be subjected is a widely shared assumption that their fundamental nature cannot be changed. But it was Sri Aurobindo’s experience that the vital being can be radically purified in a “positive, affirmative, active” sense and converted into a magnificent vehicle for the manifestation of the Spirit. This depends only on our ability to “get at the pure will undeformed by desire,—which we shall find to be a much more free, tranquil, steady and effective force than the leaping, smoke-stifled, soon fatigued and baffled flame of desire,—and at the calm inner will of delight not afflicted or limited by any trouble of craving”.[40]

Self-Perfection and the Triple Transformation

This “calm inner will of delight” is an attribute of a mysterious psychological entity for which Sri Aurobindo gradually adopted the name “psychic being”. This term occurs mainly in his later writings, especially in letters of the 1930s and 1940s and in portions of his major works that were added or revised during the same period, such as the last chapters of The Life Divine and Part One of The Synthesis of Yoga. But even in the original versions of these works as published in the Arya between 1914 and 1921, the word “psychic” was already used occasionally to refer to the innermost soul or “psyche” concealed deep within us. Later Sri Aurobindo abandoned other uses of “psychic” and placed more and more explicit emphasis on the psychic being as the key to the first of the transformations to be accomplished in the integral Yoga.

In two chapters of The Life Divine and The Synthesis of Yoga as published in the Arya in June and July 1916, respectively, we find the expressions “psychic being”, “psychic principle” and “psychic entity”. The twenty-third chapter of The Life Divine, entitled “The Double Soul in Man”, was originally preceded by an “Argument” where the chapter’s opening paragraphs were summed up as follows:

The ascent of Life is in its nature the ascent of the divine Delight in things from its dumb conception in Matter to its luminous consummation in Spirit. Like the other original divine principles, this Delight also must be represented in us by a cosmic principle corresponding to it in the apparent existence. It is the soul or psychic being.[41]

Most of the occurrences of “psychic being” in the final version of this chapter were not present in the original text, but were introduced in Sri Aurobindo’s later revision of the concluding paragraphs. But even the 1916 version included a sentence, only slightly revised in 1939, which defines the psychological entity through which the supreme Bliss or Ananda is manifested in our lives. This entity is described as something in us which we sometimes call in a special sense the soul,—that is to say, the psychic principle which is not the life or the mind, much less the body, but which holds in itself the opening and flowering of the essence of all these to their own peculiar delight of self, to light, to love, to joy and beauty and to a refined purity of being.[42]

In July 1916, a month after he wrote about this psychic principle in The Life Divine, Sri Aurobindo published a chapter in The Synthesis of Yoga called “The Release from the Heart and the Mind”. This chapter, which is now the seventh chapter of Part Two, “The Yoga of Integral Knowledge”, was never revised. Here he returned to the nature of the soul and the true meaning of “psychic”. He explained that the real soul, the real psychic entity which for the most part we see little of and only a small minority in mankind has developed, is an instrument of pure love, joy and the luminous reaching out to fusion and unity with God and our fellow-creatures.

He went on to comment on the normal relation of the psychic to the Prana or vital being:

This psychic entity is covered up by the play of the mentalised Prana or desire-mind which we mistake for the soul; the emotional mind is unable to mirror the real soul in us, the Divine in our hearts, and is obliged instead to mirror the desire-mind.[43]

In the Yoga of self-perfectionas described in The Synthesis and the Record of Yoga, a purification of the Prana enabling the emotional mind to “mirror the real soul in us, the Divine in our hearts”, would be regarded as part of śuddhi. In Sri Aurobindo’s later reformulation of the integral Yoga it would come under the heading of psychicisation or psychic transformation. It is clear that there has been a change in terminology reflecting other significant developments. At the same time, there was nothing entirely new in the use of the word “psychic” to designate “the divine element in the individual being”, as Sri Aurobindo put it in a letter, an element whose characteristic power is to turn everything towards the Divine, to bring a fire of purification, aspiration, devotion, true light of discernment, feeling, will, an action which transforms by degrees the whole nature.[44]

Changes of terminology are also to be found in the more advanced stages of the Yoga. In the Yoga of self-perfection, śuddhi or purification is followed by mukti or liberation, then by bhukti, “a cosmic enjoyment of the power of the Spirit”,[45] and siddhi or perfection. The order of the last two was sometimes reversed, with implications which we will see. But in the subsequent period, instead of four stages of self-perfection we hear of a triple transformation: psychic, spiritual and supramental. At first sight, the systems appear to be quite different. Yet there are correspondences between them which shed light on the continuity as well as the evolution of Sri Aurobindo’s spiritual experience.

Purification is a preparation for liberation. It can even be said that it is itself a kind of liberation:

Śuddhi is the condition for mukti. All purification is a release, a delivery; for it is a throwing away of limiting, binding, obscuring imperfections and confusions…. But all this is an instrumental liberation. The freedom of the soul, mukti, is of a larger and more essential character; it is an opening out of mortal limitation into the illimitable immortality of the Spirit.[46]

The concept of liberation, like that of purification, acquires a more dynamic sense in the integral Yoga than is conventionally associated with it—although this was amply foreshadowed in the Gita and elsewhere, where liberation does not imply cessation from action. Just as he makes a distinction between negative and positive purity, Sri Aurobindo also distinguishes negative from positive freedom, insisting in this case on the necessity of both. The “negative movement of freedom” is defined as “a liberation from the principal bonds, the master-knots of the lower soul-nature”, these bonds being “desire, ego, the dualities and the three gunas of Nature”. The “positive sense of freedom”, on the other hand, “is to be universal in soul, transcendently one in spirit with God, possessed of the highest divine nature”.[47]

What concerns us here is how mukti or liberation, as a step towards self-perfection, relates to the spiritual transformation which follows the psychic transformation in Sri Aurobindo’s later accounts of the Yoga. We have seen that the purification of the nature, liberating as it is in itself, is insufficient unless it is completed by a larger freedom which universalises the soul and brings it into union with the transcendent. Likewise the psychic transformation is not all that is needed for the largest spiritual change. In the first place, since this is the individual soul in Nature, it can open to the hidden diviner ranges of our being and receive and reflect their light and power and experience, but another, a spiritual transformation from above is needed for us to possess our self in its universality and transcendence.[48]

But even the freedom that the spiritual transformation brings was not enough for Sri Aurobindo. In almost all traditional systems of Yoga except Tantra, inner liberation was pursued as an end in itself. In the Yoga of self-perfection, on the other hand, not only is the meaning of mukti enlarged to include liberation of the nature as well as liberation of the spirit, but even this leads beyond itself to bhukti and siddhi. We meet a similar situation in the case of the triple transformation, as described by Sri Aurobindo near the end of the revised text of The Life Divine and in other writings of the 1930s and 1940s. In a letter of that period, he indicates the liberating and other effects of spiritualisation, the second transformation, but also points out why a still greater transformation is needed to complete it:

Spiritualisation means the descent of the higher peace, force, light, knowledge, purity, Ananda, etc., which belong to any of the higher planes from Higher Mind to overmind, for in any of these the Self can be realised. It brings about a subjective transformation; the instrumental Nature is only so far transformed that it becomes an instrument for the Cosmic Divine to get some work done, but the self within remains calm and free and united with the Divine. But this is an incomplete individual transformation—the full transformation of the instrumental Nature can only come when the supramental change takes place. Till then the nature remains full of many imperfections, but the Self in the higher planes does not mind them, as it is itself free and unaffected.[49]

The process of spiritualisation occupied Sri Aurobindo for many years. It involved not one, but several transformations by the ever-increasing power of a series of ascending planes. On each of them “the static realisation of Infinity and Eternity and the Timeless One remains the same,” but “the vision of the workings of the One becomes ever wider and is attended with a greater instrumentality of Force”. From the point of view of knowledge, “what is thought-knowledge in the Higher Mind becomes illumination in the Illumined Mind and direct intimate vision in the Intuition”.  Still higher is the overmind, which sees not “in flashes”, like the Intuition, but “calmly, steadily, in great masses and large extensions of space and time and relation, globally”. But even here there “is not the absolute supramental harmony and certitude”.[50] Sri Aurobindo saw in the end that nothing short of what he called a supramental transformation could bring about the integral perfection or siddhi “which finishes the passage of the soul through the Ignorance and bases its consciousness, its life, its power and form of manifestation on a complete and completely effective self-knowledge”.[51]

We find, then, that there is a broad correspondence between the “triple transformation” and three stages of the earlier Yoga of self-perfection termed śuddhi, mukti and siddhi, or purification, liberation and perfection—we will see in a moment why there is nothing in the later scheme that seems to correspond to bhukti. The system presented in the unfinished Part Four of The Synthesis of Yoga appears to be superseded by the three transformations—psychic, spiritual and supramental—as the definitive statement of Sri Aurobindo’s distinctive approach to an evolutionary spirituality. But just as the old triple way of Karma, Bhakti and Jnana was surpassed but kept in a new form, so Sri Aurobindo continued to speak of self-perfection as the consummation of the Yoga. In a passage in a letter summarising the Karmayoga as he had “developed it for the integral spiritual life”, he concluded:

Finally, works, bhakti and knowledge go together and self-perfection becomes possible—what we call the transformation of the nature.[52]

There seems to be no good reason to regard the Yoga of self-perfection as out of date or irrelevant in the light of later developments, even though Sri Aurobindo’s account of it published in his major work on Yoga remained incomplete and unrevised. But because the last part of The Synthesis was never revised, its terminology has to be interpreted according to the period when it was written. When “supramental transformation” is mentioned in a chapter written in 1920, for example, it should not be assumed that it means exactly what Sri Aurobindo intended by these words after a decade or two. For his experience was constantly evolving. As a result, not only did he invent new terms such as “overmind”, but words he had used previously, including “psychic” and “supramental”, have to be understood in a different context.

A comparison of the main terms of Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga of self-perfection with his later terminology reveals parallels, as we have seen, which show more continuity in the development of his Yoga than is apparent at first glance. This does not mean that the “supramental transformation” of which he spoke in his latest period was the same as his earlier conception of siddhi, but that it evolved out of it. A similar evolution may explain what happened to bhukti in the transition from the Yoga of self-perfection to the triple transformation. For Sri Aurobindo does speak of a fourth transformation; but ultimately the fullness of this “beatific” transformation became such a distant prospect that he rarely alluded to it. However, the enjoyment of spiritual bliss (ānanda) which he had called bhukti did not disappear from the Yoga.

Undreamed Ecstasy

Bhukti is literally “enjoyment”. In the Yoga of self-perfection it refers, of course, to a more exalted type of enjoyment than what is usually meant by that word. Sri Aurobindo explains:

A really perfect enjoyment of existence can only come when what we enjoy is not the world in itself or for itself, but God in the world, when it is not things, but the Ananda of the spirit in things that forms the real, essential object of our enjoying and things only as form and symbol of the spirit, waves of the ocean of Ananda.[53]

It may be objected that this kind of rarefied enjoyment would not satisfy the demand of the vital being for tangible pleasures. Sri Aurobindo maintained, on the contrary, that what we call pleasure is no more than a faint and evanescent shadow of the real thing. Our half-conscious nature cannot fulfil its own seeking for enjoyment unless it undergoes a spiritual transformation:

Life… seeks for pleasure, happiness, bliss; but the infrarational forms of these things are stricken with imperfection, fragmentariness, impermanence and the impact of their opposites. Moreover infrarational life still bears some stamp of the Inconscient in an underlying insensitiveness, a dullness of fibre, a weakness of vibratory response,—it cannot attain to true happiness or bliss and what it can obtain of pleasure it cannot support for long or bear or keep any extreme intensity of these things. Only the spirit has the secret of an unmixed and abiding happiness or ecstasy, is capable of a firm tenseness of vibrant response to it, can achieve and justify a spiritual pleasure or joy of life as one form of the infinite and universal delight of being.[54]

Sri Aurobindo added this passage to the chapter entitled “The Suprarational Ultimate of Life” when he revised The Human Cycle around 1937. Almost two decades earlier he had dealt with the same question in expounding the Yoga of self-perfection. In The Synthesis of Yoga, he clarified what he meant by the “capacity for enjoyment”, bhoga-sāmarthya, that is to be developed by the Prana or vital force:

The enjoyment it will have will be in the essence a spiritual bliss, but one which takes up into itself and transforms the mental, emotional, dynamic, vital and physical joy; it must have therefore an integral capacity for these things and must not by incapacity or fatigue or inability to bear great intensities fail the spirit, mind, heart, will and body.[55]

The vital being’s capacity for enjoyment depends on a power that has to be developed in the body “to hold whatever force is brought into it by the spirit and to contain its action without spilling and wasting it or itself getting cracked”. This general “faculty of holding”, termed dhārana-śakti or dhārana-sāmarthya, is considered “the most important siddhi or perfection of the body”,[56]since it is required for a higher working of all the other parts of the being. It is especially necessary if the bhoga-sāmarthya of the life-force is to be imparted to the physical consciousness, creating there a “capacity for bliss” such as is attributed in Savitri to Aswapati at a certain stage in his ascension:

His earth, dowered with celestial competence,
Harboured a power that needed now no more
To cross the closed customs-line of mind and flesh
And smuggle godhead into humanity.
It shrank no more from the supreme demand
Of an untired capacity for bliss….[57]

Many entries in the Record of Yoga show that Sri Aurobindo was systematically perfecting the body’s ability to sustain a more and more intense and continuous physical Ananda. What he ascribed to Aswapati was evidently his own experience. In cultivating such experiences, his Yoga of self-perfection seems to part company with almost all spiritual disciplines in the Indian tradition except Tantra. But in its methods it also differs widely from Tantra of either the right-hand or the left-hand path. Sri Aurobindo made his relation to Tantra clear when he affirmed that this Yoga “starts from the method of Vedanta to arrive at the aim of the Tantra.”[58] It attempts to achieve “a spiritualising and illumination of the whole physical consciousness and a divinising of the law of the body.” But “the reliance is on the power of the higher being to change the lower existence” and “a working is chosen mainly from above downward and not the opposite way”.[59] Entries on the subject of physical Ananda in the Record of Yoga illustrate this distinction. For instance, Sri Aurobindo writes on 19 June 1920:

An Ananda of a much greater potentiality of continuity, pervasion, largeness and intensity felt on the vijñāna summit and descending into the sukshma body….[60]

Later the same day, the Ananda which had thus descended from the vijñāna or “supramental” level—as Sri Aurobindo understood it at that time—into the sūkshma or subtle body is described as “insistent on possession of the sthula [physical] body”.[61]

Twenty years later when he added several new chapters at the end of The Life Divine, Sri Aurobindo wrote about the physical manifestation of the delight of the Infinite in terms reminiscent of the experiences he had once recorded in his diary:

In the body it reveals itself as an ecstasy pouring into it from the heights of the spirit and the peace and bliss of a pure and spiritualised physical existence.

This statement in the chapter entitled “The Gnostic Being” follows the observation that even “before the gnostic change there can be a beginning of this fundamental ecstasy of being translated into a manifold beauty and delight.” Sri Aurobindo then proceeds to enumerate a few of these “manifold” forms of Ananda as it is felt by different parts of the nature. They include the Ananda of the mind, heart and senses to which he had often referred in the Record of Yoga, where he designated them by the Sanskrit terms ahaituka ānanda, premānanda and vishayānanda:

In the mind, it translates into a calm or intense delight of spiritual perception and vision and knowledge, in the heart into a wide or deep or passionate delight of universal union and love and sympathy and the joy of beings and the joy of things. In the will and vital parts it is felt as the energy of delight of a divine life-power in action or a beatitude of the senses perceiving and meeting the One everywhere, perceiving as their normal aesthesis of things a universal beauty and a secret harmony of creation of which our mind can catch only imperfect glimpses or a rare supernormal sense.[62]

Sri Aurobindo himself had begun to experience all these things at a comparatively early stage in his spiritual development. In the Record of Yoga he grouped them under the heading bhukti, enjoyment. Initially he placed this term after mukti, liberation, in the yogachatushtaya or siddhichatushtaya which summed up in four terms (chatushtaya) the steps to the siddhi of his Yoga.[63] This sequence had an experiential basis which he recognised later when he wrote in his revision of The Life Divine:

In the liberation of the soul from the Ignorance the first foundation is peace, calm, the silence and quietude of the Eternal and Infinite; but a consummate power and greater formation of the spiritual ascension takes up this peace of liberation into the bliss of a perfect experience and realisation of the eternal beatitude, the bliss of the Eternal and Infinite.[64]

In the Introduction to The Synthesis of Yoga, written in 1914, “integral beatitude” follows directly after “integral purity” and “integral liberty” and precedes “integral perfection” in a paragraph giving a brief synopsis of the integrality of the Yoga. But when in March 1919 he came to the fourth chapter of “The Yoga of Self-Perfection”, Sri Aurobindo reversed the order of the last two items and listed them as “purification, liberation, perfection, delight of being… śuddhi, mukti, siddhi, bhukti.”[65]

It could be argued that this reversal of bhukti and siddhi prepared the way for the omission of a distinct stage of transformation corresponding to bhukti when Sri Aurobindo reformulated his Yoga as three transformations, psychic, spiritual and supramental, corresponding to the former śuddhi, mukti and siddhi. However, the place of Ananda in the Yoga was not diminished, but greatened by regarding its consummation as a consequence of the supramental change. In a sense, Sri Aurobindo recognised a quadruple transformation as the complete aim of the integral Yoga. But he insisted that “one must pass through the supermind to arrive to the highest Ananda”.[66] Supramentalisation, the transformation whose accomplishment would constitute the next decisive step in evolution, was his immediate concern. For most of us, the psychic transformation is already enough of a challenge. Yet it is of at least theoretical interest to note that Sri Aurobindo looked beyond even the supramental transformation to what would follow it. He wrote in 1940 in his expansion of The Life Divine:

A supramental manifestation in its ascent would have as a next sequence and culmination of self-result a manifestation of the Bliss of the Brahman: the evolution of the being of gnosis would be followed by an evolution of the being of bliss; an embodiment of gnostic existence would have as its consequence an embodiment of the beatific existence.

A central feature of Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy and Yoga is the recognition that an “aspiration, a demand for the supreme and total delight of existence is there secretly in the whole make of our being”. This trend, moreover, is founded in the truth of the being; for Ananda is the very essence of the Brahman, it is the supreme nature of the omnipresent Reality. The supermind itself in the descending degrees of the manifestation emerges from the Ananda and in the evolutionary ascent merges into the Ananda.[67]

Humankind, as it is now, has a limited capacity to experience Ananda. Even “a diminishing transmission through an inferior consciousness”, however, gives “the sense of an ecstasy and an unsurpassable beatitude.” Sri Aurobindo asks: “And what will be the bliss nature when it manifests in a new supramental race?” His answer gives a glimpse of what our future evolution may have in store for us:

The fully evolved soul will be one with all beings in the status and dynamic effects of experience of a bliss-consciousness intense and illimitable. And since love is the effective power and soul-symbol of bliss-oneness he will approach and enter into this oneness by the gate of universal love, a sublimation of human love at first, a divine love afterwards, at its summits a thing of beauty, sweetness and splendour now to us inconceivable.[68]



Notes

[1]. Sri Aurobindo, Essays in Philosophy and Yoga, vol. 13 of The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1998), p. 14.

[2]. In some passages in the Upanishads and other Sanskrit texts one can find insights into the processes of Nature that seem to prefigure elements of evolutionary theory. Sri Aurobindo noted a few of these in The Karmayogin: A Commentary on the Isha Upanishad, written around 1905-6. (See The Upanishads – I: Isha Upanishad [Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2004], p. 228.) He also discerned “a parable of evolution” in the traditional series of Avatars beginning with Vishnu’s incarnations as a fish and a tortoise. (See Letters on Yoga: Part One [Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1971], p. 402.)

[3]. See Richard Hartz, “India and Evolution”, Mother India, March 2005, pp. 249-55.

[4]. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 2002), vol. 2, p. 18.

[5]. Sri Aurobindo uses the word “joining” to describe the culmination of the spiritual search in Savitri (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1993, p. 307):

Transcending every perishable support
And joining at last its mighty origin,
The separate self must melt or be reborn
Into a Truth beyond the mind’s appeal.

[6]. Sri Aurobindo, The Synthesis of Yoga (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2005), p. 32.

[7]. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 4, p. 332.

[8]. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 19.

[9]. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 483-84.

[10]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 27.

[11]. Sri Aurobindo, The Renaissance in India and Other Essays on Indian Culture (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2004), p. 198.

[12]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 27.

[13]. Ibid., p. 28.

[14]. Savitri, p. 256.

[15]. The Renaissance in India and Other Essays on Indian Culture, p. 156.

[16]. Letters on Yoga: Part One, p. 49.

[17]. Ibid., p. 50.

[18]. Savitri, p. 91.

[19]. The Synthesis of Yoga, pp. 55-56.

[20]. Most of Sri Aurobindo’s revision of Part Two was incorporated in the first complete edition of The Synthesis of Yoga, published five years after his passing. Some minor revision of the Intro°©duction and more substantial alterations in Chapters 15-17 of Part Two were discovered later and first appeared in print in 1999.

[21]. Sri Aurobindo, On Himself (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1972), p. 86.

[22]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 614.

[23]. Ibid., p. 32.

[24]. Savitri, p. 20.

[25]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 567.

[26]. Ibid., p. 445.

[27]. Ibid., p. 805.

[28]. Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2006), p. 923.

[29]. Sri Aurobindo, The Human Cycle (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1998), p. 165.

[30]. Ibid., pp. 165-66.

[31]. Savitri, p. 462.

[32]. The Human Cycle, p. 166. Sri Aurobindo began to publish The Psychology of Social Development (later renamed The Human Cycle) in the Arya in August 1916, the month of the first drafts of Savitri.

[33]. Savitri, pp. 612-13.

[34]. Ibid., pp. 611-12.

[35]. See Sri Aurobindo, Record of Yoga (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2001), pp. 12, 686, 1471, and The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 737.

[36]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 661.

[37]. Ibid., p. 643.

[38]. Ibid., p. 658.

[39]. Ibid., pp. 658-59.

[40]. Ibid., p. 659.

[41]. Essays in Philosophy and Yoga, p. 478.

[42]. The Life Divine, p. 233.

[43]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 351.

[44]. Sri Aurobindo, Letters on Yoga: Part Four (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1971), p. 1197.

[45]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 612.

[46]. Ibid., p. 674.

[47]. Ibid., pp. 674-75.

[48]. The Life Divine, p. 240.

[49]. Letters on Yoga: Part One, p. 106.

[50]. Letters on Yoga: Part Four, p. 1154.

[51]. The Life Divine, pp. 951-52.

[52]. Sri Aurobindo, Letters on Yoga: Part Two and Part Three (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1971), p. 529.

[53]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 655.

[54]. The Human Cycle, pp. 171-72.

[55]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 735.

[56]. Ibid., p. 731.

[57]. Savitri, p. 236.

[58]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 612.

[59]. Ibid., p. 695.

[60]. Record of Yoga, p. 1235.

[61]. Ibid., p. 1236.

[62]. The Life Divine, p. 1027.

[63]. Record of Yoga, pp. 23, 1478.

[64]. The Life Divine, p. 1026.

[65]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 639.

[66]. Letters on Yoga: Part One, p. 92.

[67]. The Life Divine, p. 1025.

[68]. The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 509.