{"id":632,"date":"2013-07-13T01:29:21","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:29:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=632"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:29:21","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:29:21","slug":"32-the-eternal-and-the-individual-vol-18-the-life-divine-volume-18","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/18-the-life-divine-volume-18\/32-the-eternal-and-the-individual-vol-18-the-life-divine-volume-18","title":{"rendered":"-32_The Eternal and the Individual .htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n


\nC<\/font>HAPTER<\/font>
\nIII <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n


\nThe Eternal and the Individual<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

                       
\n              <\/font><\/p>\n

   
\n           
\n           
\n        He and I.
\n                                                                                       
\n                                 
\nIsha Upanishad.<\/i>1<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

\n                                   
\n
           
\n           
\n           It is an eternal portion of Me that has become the living being
\n                                   
\nin a world of living beings…. The eye of knowledge sees
\nthe Lord
\n                                   
\nabiding in the body and enjoying and going forth from it.
\n
                                                                                                                                               
\nGita 2
\n                                   
\n<\/sup>         
\nTwo birds beautiful of wing, friends and comrades, cling to a
                                   
\ncommon tree, and one eats the sweet fruit, the other regards him
\n                                   
\nand eats not…. Where winged souls cry the discoveries of know-
\n                                   
\nledge over their portion of immortality, there the Lord of all,
\n                                   
\nthe Guardian of the World took possession of me, he the Wise,
\n                                   
\nme the ignorant.
\n                                                                                                                                          
\nRig Veda.3<\/sup><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

    T<\/font><\/b>here<\/font><\/span>
\nis then a fundamental truth of existence, an Omnipresent Reality,
\nomnipresent above the cosmic manifestation and in
\nit and immanent in each individual. There is also a dynamic power of
\nthis Omnipresence, a creative or self-manifesting
\naction of its infinite Consciousness-Force. There is as a phase or
\nmovement of the self-manifestation a descent into an
\napparent material inconscience, an awakening of the individual out of
\nthe Inconscience and an evolution of his being into the
\nspiritual and supramental consciousness and power of the Reality, into
\nhis own universal and transcendent Self and source
\nof existence. It is on this foundation that we have to base our
\nconception of a truth in our terrestrial being and the possibility
\nof a divine Life in material Nature. There our chief need is to
\ndiscover the origin and nature of the Ignorance which we see
\nemerging out of the inconscience of matter or disclosing itself within
\na body of matter and the nature of the Knowledge that
\nhas to replace it, to understand too the process of Nature’s
\nself-unfolding and the soul’s recovery. For in fact the Knowledge
\nis there concealed in the Ignorance itself; it has rather to be
\nunveiled than acquired: it reveals itself rather than is learned, by\n<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n       1  <\/sup>Verse 16          
\n2 <\/sup>XV. 7, 10.        3 <\/sup>164.
\n20, 21.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage 365<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n

an inward and upward self-unfolding. But first it will be convenient to meet and get out of the way one difficulty that
\ninevitably arises, the difficulty of admitting that, even given the immanence of the Divine in us, even given our individual
\nconsciousness as a vehicle of progressive evolutionary manifestation, the individual is in any sense eternal or that there can
\nbe any persistence of individuality after liberation has been attained by unity and self-knowledge. <\/p>\n

     
\nThis is a difficulty of the logical reason and must be met by a larger
\nand more catholic enlightening reason. Or if it is a
\ndifficulty of spiritual experience, it can only be met by a wider
\nresolving experience. It can indeed be met also by a
\ndialectical battle, a logomachy of the logical mind; but that by itself
\nis an artificial method, often a futile combat in the clouds
\nand always inconclusive. Logical reasoning is useful and indispensable
\nin its own field in order to give the mind a certain
\nclearness, precision and subtlety in dealing with its own ideas and
\nword-symbols, so that our perception of the truths which
\nwe arrive at by observation and experience or which physically,
\npsychologically or spiritually we have seen, may be as little
\nas possible obscured by the confusions of our average human
\nintelligence, its proneness to take appearance for fact, its
\nhaste to be misled by partial truth, its exaggerated conclusions, its
\nintellectual and emotional partialities, its incompetent
\nbunglings in that linking of truth to truth by which alone we can
\narrive at a complete knowledge. We must have a clear,
\npure, subtle and flexible mind in order that we may fall as little as
\npossible into that ordinary mental habit of our kind which
\nturns truth itself into a purveyor of errors. That clarification, the
\nhabit of clear logical reasoning culminating in the method of
\nmetaphysical dialectics, does help to accomplish and its part in the
\npreparation of knowledge is therefore very great. But by
\nitself it cannot arrive either at the knowledge of the world or the
\nknowledge of God, much less reconcile the lower and the
\nhigher realisation. It is much more efficiently a guardian against
\nerror than a discoverer of truth,—although by deduction
\nfrom knowledge already acquired it may happen upon new truths and
\nindicate them for experience or for the higher and
\nlarger truth-seeing faculties to confirm.\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 366<\/p>\n

<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n

In the more subtle field of synthetical or unifying
\nknowledge the logical habit of mind may even become a stumbling-block
\nby the very faculty which gives it its peculiar use; for it is so
\naccustomed to making distinctions and dwelling upon
\ndistinctions and working by distinctions that it is always a little at
\nsea when distinctions have to be overriden and overpassed.
\nOur object, then, in considering the difficulties of the normal mind
\nwhen face to face with the experience of cosmic and
\ntranscendental unity by the individual, must be solely to make more
\nclear to ourselves, first, the origin of the difficulties and
\nthe escape from them and by that, what is more important, the real
\nnature of the unity at which we arrive and of the
\nculmination of the individual when he becomes one with all creatures
\nand dwells in the oneness of the Eternal. <\/p>\n

     
\nThe first difficulty for the reason is that it has always been
\naccustomed to identify the individual self with the ego and to
\nthink of it as existing only by the limitations and exclusions of the
\nego. If that were so, then by the transcendence of the ego
\nthe individual would abolish his own existence; our end would be to
\ndisappear and dissolve into some universality of matter,
\nlife, mind or spirit or else some indeterminate from which our egoistic
\ndeterminations of individuality have started. But what
\nis this strongly separative self-experience that we call ego? It is
\nnothing fundamentally real in itself but only a practical
\nconstitution of our consciousness devised to centralise the activities
\nof Nature in us. We perceive a formation of mental,
\nphysical, vital experience which distinguishes itself from the rest of
\nbeing, and that is what we think of as ourselves in
\nnature — this individualisation of being in becoming. We then proceed
\nto conceive of ourselves as something which has thus
\nindividualised itself and only exists so long as it is individualised,
\n— a temporary or at least a temporal becoming; or else we
\nconceive of ourselves as someone who supports or causes the
\nindividualisation, an immortal being perhaps but limited by its
\nindividuality. This perception and this conception constitute our
\nego-sense. Normally, we go no farther in our knowledge of
\nour individual existence. <\/p>\n

    
\nBut in the end we have to see that our individualisation is only a
\nsuperficial formation, a practical selection and limited\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 367<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n

conscious synthesis for the temporary utility of life in a particular body, or else it is a constantly changing and developing
\nsynthesis pursued through successive lives in successive bodies. Behind it there is a consciousness, a Purusha, who is not
\ndetermined or limited by his individualisation or by this synthesis but on the contrary determines, supports and yet exceeds it.
\nThat which he selects from in order to construct this synthesis, is his total experience of the world-being. Therefore our
\nindividualisation exists by virtue of the world-being, but also by virtue of a consciousness which uses the world-being for
\nexperience of its possibilities of individuality. These two powers, Person and his world-material, are both necessary for our
\npresent experience of individuality. If the Purusha with his individualising syntheses of consciousness were to disappear, to
\nmerge, to annul himself in any way, our constructed individuality would cease because the Reality that supported it would no
\nlonger be in presence; if, on the other hand, the world-being were to dissolve, merge, disappear, then also our
\nindividualisation would cease, for the material of experience by which it effectuates itself would be wanting. We have then
\nto recognise these two terms of our existence, a world-being and an individualising consciousness which is the cause of all
\nour self-experience and world-experience. <\/p>\n

   
\nBut we see farther that in the end this Purusha, this cause and self of
\nour individuality, comes to embrace the whole
\nworld and all other beings in a sort of conscious extension of itself
\nand to perceive itself as one with the world-being. In its
\nconscious extension of itself it exceeds the primary experience and
\nabolishes the barriers of its active self-limitation and
\nindividualisation; by its perception of its own infinite universality
\nit goes beyond all consciousness of separative individuality
\nor limited soul-being. By that very fact the individual ceases to be
\nthe self-limiting ego; in other words, our false
\nconsciousness of existing only by self-limitation, by rigid distinction
\nof ourselves from the rest of being and becoming is
\ntranscended; our identification of ourselves with our personal and
\ntemporal individualisation in a particular mind and body is
\nabolished. But is all truth of individuality and individualisation
\nabolished? does the Purusha\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 368<\/p>\n

<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n

cease to exist or does he become the world-Purusha
\nand live intimately in innumerable minds and bodies? We do not find it
\nto be so. He still individualises and it is still he who exists and
\nembraces this wider consciousness while he individualises: but
\nthe mind no longer thinks of a limited temporary individualisation as
\nall ourselves but only as a wave of becoming thrown up
\nfrom the sea of its being or else as a form or centre of universality.
\nThe soul still makes the world-becoming the material for
\nindividual experience, but instead of regarding it as something outside
\nand larger than itself on which it has to draw, by
\nwhich it is affected, with which it has to make accommodations, it is
\naware of it subjectively as within itself; it embraces
\nboth its world-material and its individualised experience of spatial
\nand temporal activities in a free and enlarged
\nconsciousness. In this new consciousness the spiritual individual
\nperceives its true self to be one in being with the
\nTranscendence and seated and dwelling within it, and no longer takes
\nits constructed individuality as anything more than a
\nformation for world-experience. <\/p>\n

   
\nOur unity with the world-being is the consciousness of a Self which at
\none and the same time cosmicises in the world
\nand individualises through the individual Purusha, and both in that
\nworld-being and in this individual being and in all individual
\nbeings it is aware of the same Self manifesting and experiencing its
\nvarious manifestations. That then is a Self which must
\nbe one in its being, — otherwise we could not have this experience of
\nunity, — and yet must be capable in its very unity of
\ncosmic differentiation and multiple individuality. The unity is its
\nbeing,—yes, but the cosmic differentiation and the multiple
\nindividuality are the power of its being which it is constantly
\ndisplaying and which it is its delight and the nature of its
\nconsciousness to display. If then we arrive at unity with that, if we
\neven become entirely and in every way that being, why
\nshould the power of its being be excised and why at all should we
\ndesire or labour to excise it? We should then only diminish
\nthe scope of our unity with it by an exclusive concentration accepting
\nthe divine being but not accepting our part in the
\npower and consciousness and infinite delight of the Divine. It would in
\nfact be the individual seeking peace and rest of union
\nin a motionless identity, but\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 369<\/p>\n

<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n

rejecting delight and various joy of union in the nature and act and power of the divine Existence. That is possible, but there
\nis no necessity to uphold it as the ultimate aim of our being or as our ultimate perfection. <\/p>\n

    
\nOr the one possible reason would be that in the power, the act of
\nconsciousness there is not real union and that only in
\nthe status of consciousness is there perfect undifferentiated unity.
\nNow in what we may call the waking union of the
\nindividual with the Divine, as opposed to a falling asleep or a
\nconcentration of the individual consciousness in an absorbed
\nidentity, there is certainly and must be a differentiation of
\nexperience. For in this active unity the individual Purusha enlarges
\nits active experience also as well as its static consciousness into a
\nway of union with this Self of his being and of the
\nworld-being, and yet individualisation remains and therefore
\ndifferentiation. The Purusha is aware of all other individuals as
\nselves of himself; he may by a dynamic union become aware of their
\nmental and practical action as occurring in his
\nuniversal consciousness, just as he is aware of his own mental and
\npractical action; he may help to determine their action by
\nsubjective union with them: but still there is a practical difference.
\nThe action of the Divine in himself is that with which he is
\nparticularly and directly concerned; the action of the Divine in his
\nother selves is that with which he is universally concerned,
\nnot directly, but through and by his union with them and with the
\nDivine. The individual therefore exists though he exceeds
\nthe little separative ego; the universal exists and is embraced by him
\nbut it does not absorb and abolish all individual
\ndifferentiation, even though by his universalising himself the
\nlimitation which we call the ego is overcome. <\/p>\n

    
\nNow we may get rid of this differentiation by plunging into the
\nabsorption of an exclusive unity, but to what end? For
\nperfect union? But we do not forfeit that by accepting the
\ndifferentiation any more than the Divine forfeits His oneness by
\naccepting it. We have the perfect union in His being and can absorb
\nourselves in it at any time, but we have also this other
\ndifferentiated unity and can emerge into it and act freely in it at any
\ntime without losing oneness: for we have merged the
\nego and are absolved from the exclusive stresses of our mentality.\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 370<\/p>\n

<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Then for peace and rest? But we have the peace and rest by virtue of our unity with Him, even as the Divine possesses for
\never His eternal calm in the midst of His eternal action. Then for the mere joy of getting rid of all differentiation? But that
\ndifferentiation has its divine purpose: it is a means of greater unity, not as in the egoistic life a means of divisions; for we
\nenjoy by it our unity with our other selves and with God in all, which we exclude by our rejection of his multiple being. In
\neither experience it is the Divine in the individual possessing and enjoying in one case the Divine in His pure unity or in the
\nother the Divine in that and in the unity of the cosmos; it is not the absolute Divine recovering after having lost His unity.
\nCertainly, we may prefer the absorption in a pure exclusive unity or a departure into a supracosmic transcendence, but there
\nis in the spiritual truth of the Divine Existence no compelling reason why we should not participate in this large possession
\nand bliss of His universal being which is the fulfilment of our individuality. <\/p>\n

    
\nBut we see farther that it is not solely and ultimately the cosmic
\nbeing into which our individual being enters but
\nsomething in which both are unified. As our individualisation in the
\nworld is a becoming of that Self, so is the world too a
\nbecoming of that Self. The world-being includes always the individual
\nbeing; therefore these two becomings, the cosmic and
\nthe individual, are always related to each other and in their practical
\nrelation mutually dependent. But we find that the
\nindividual being also comes in the end to include the world in its
\nconsciousness, and since this is not by an abolition of the
\nspiritual individual, but by his coming to his full, large and perfect
\nself-consciousness, we must suppose that the individual
\nalways included the cosmos, and it is only the surface consciousness
\nwhich by ignorance failed to possess that inclusion
\nbecause of its self-limitation in ego. But when we speak of the mutual
\ninclusion of the cosmic and the individual, the world in
\nme, I in the world, all in me, I in all,—for that is the liberated
\nself-experience,—we are evidently travelling beyond the
\nlanguage of the normal reason. That is because the words we have to use
\nwere minted by mind and given their values by an
\nintellect bound to the conceptions of physical Space and circumstance<\/p>\n

\nPage 371<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

and using for the language of a higher psychological experience figures drawn from the physical life and the experience of
\nthe senses. But the plane of consciousness to which the liberated human being arises is not dependent upon the physical
\nworld, and the cosmos which we thus include and are included in is not the physical cosmos, but the harmonically manifest
\nbeing of God in certain great rhythms of His conscious-force and self-delight. Therefore this mutual inclusion is spiritual and
\npsychological; it is a translation of the two forms of the Many, all and individual, into a unifying spiritual experience, — a
\ntranslation of the eternal unity of the One and the Many; for the One is the eternal unity of the Many differentiating and
\nundifferentiating itself in the cosmos. This means that cosmos and individual are manifestations of a transcendent Self who
\nis indivisible being although he seems to be divided or distributed; but he is not really divided or distributed but indivisibly
\npresent everywhere. Therefore all is in each and each is in all and all is in God and God in all; and when the liberated soul
\ncomes into union with this Transcendent, it has this self-experience of itself and cosmos which is translated psychologically
\ninto a mutual inclusion and a persistent existence of both in a divine union which is at once a oneness and a fusion and an
\nembrace. <\/p>\n

    
\nThe normal experience of the reason therefore is not applicable to
\nthese higher truths. In the first place the ego is the
\nindividual only in the ignorance; there is a true individual who is not
\nthe ego and still has an eternal relation with all other
\nindividuals which is not egoistic or self-separative, but of which the
\nessential character is practical mutuality founded in
\nessential unity. This mutuality founded in unity is the whole secret of
\nthe divine existence in its perfect manifestation; it must
\nbe the basis of anything to which we can give the name of a divine
\nlife. But, secondly, we see that the whole difficulty and
\nconfusion into which the normal reason falls is that we are speaking of
\na higher and illimitable self-experience founded on
\ndivine infinites and yet are applying to it a language formed by this
\nlower and limited experience which founds itself on finite
\nappearances and the separative definitions by which we try to
\ndistinguish and classify the phenomena of the material
\nuniverse. Thus we have to use the word\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 372<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

individual and speak of the ego and the true individual, just as we speak sometimes of the apparent and the real Man.
\nEvidently, all these words, man, apparent, real, individual, true, have to be taken in a very relative sense and with a full
\nawareness of their imperfection and inability to express the things that we mean. By individual we mean normally something
\nthat separates itself from everything else and stands apart, though in reality there is no such thing anywhere in existence; it
\nis a figment of our mental conceptions useful and necessary to express a partial and practical truth. But the difficulty is that
\nthe mind gets dominated by its words and forgets that the partial and practical truth becomes true truth only by its relation to
\nothers which seem to the reason to contradict it, and that taken by itself it contains a constant element of falsity. Thus when
\nwe speak of an individual we mean ordinarily an individualisation of mental, vital, physical being separate from all other
\nbeings, incapable of unity with them by its very individuality. If we go beyond these three terms of mind, life and body, and
\nspeak of the soul or individual self, we still think of an individualised being separate from all others, incapable of unity and
\ninclusive mutuality, capable at most of a spiritual contact and soul-sympathy. It is therefore necessary to insist that by the
\ntrue individual we mean nothing of the kind, but a conscious power of being of the Eternal, always existing by unity, always
\ncapable of mutuality. It is that being which by self-knowledge enjoys liberation and immortality. <\/p>\n

   
\nBut we have to carry still farther the conflict between the normal and
\nthe higher reason. When we speak of the true
\nindividual as a conscious power of being of the Eternal, we are still
\nusing intellectual terms, — we cannot help it, unless we
\nplunge into a language of pure symbols and mystic values of speech, —
\nbut, what is worse, we are, in the attempt to get
\naway from the idea of the ego, using a too abstract language. Let us
\nsay, then, a conscious being who is for our valuations
\nof existence a being of the Eternal in his power of individualising
\nself-experience; for it must be a concrete being, — and not
\nan abstract power, — who enjoys immortality. And then we get to this
\nthat not only am I in the world and the world in me,
\nbut God is in me and I am in God; by which yet it is not meant that God
\ndepends for <\/p>\n

\nPage 373<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

His existence on man, but that He manifests Himself in that which He manifests within Himself; the individual exists in the
\nTranscendent, but all the Transcendent is there concealed in the individual. Further I am one with God in my being and yet I
\ncan have relations with Him in my experience. I, the liberated individual, can enjoy the Divine in His transcendence, unified
\nwith Him, and enjoy at the same time the Divine in other individuals and in His cosmic being. Evidently we have arrived at
\ncertain primary relations of the Absolute and they can only be intelligible to the mind if we see that the Transcendent, the
\nindividual, the cosmic being are the eternal powers of consciousness, — we fall again, this time without remedy, into a wholly
\nabstract language, — of an absolute existence, a unity yet more than a unity, which so expresses itself to its own
\nconsciousness in us, but which we cannot adequately speak of in human language and must not hope to describe either by
\nnegative or positive terms to our reason, but can only hope to indicate it to the utmost power of our language. <\/p>\n

  
\nBut the normal mind, which has no experience of these things that are
\nso powerfully real to the liberated consciousness,
\nmay well revolt against what may seem to it nothing more than a mass of
\nintellectual contradictions. It may say, “I know
\nvery well what the Absolute is; it is that in which there are no
\nrelations. The Absolute and the relative are irreconcilable
\nopposites; in the relative there is nowhere anything absolute, in the
\nAbsolute there can be nothing relative. Anything which
\ncontradicts these first data of my thought, is intellectually false and
\npractically impossible. These other statements also
\ncontradict my law of contradictions which is that two opposing and
\nconflicting affirmations cannot both be true. It is
\nimpossible that there should be oneness with God and yet a relation
\nwith Him such as this of the enjoyment of the Divine. In
\noneness there is no one to enjoy except the One and nothing to be
\nenjoyed except the One. God, the individual and the
\ncosmos must be three different actualities, otherwise there could be no
\nrelations between them. Either they are eternally
\ndifferent or they are different in present time, although they may have
\noriginally been one undifferentiated existence and
\nmay eventually re-become one undifferentiated\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 374<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

existence.
\nUnity was perhaps and will be perhaps, but it is not now and cannot be
\nso long as cosmos and the individual
\nendure. The cosmic being can only know and possess the transcendent
\nunity by ceasing to be cosmic; the individual can
\nonly know and possess the cosmic or the transcendent unity by ceasing
\nfrom all individuality and individualisation. Or if unity
\nis the one eternal fact, then cosmos and individual are non-existent;
\nthey are illusions imposed on itself by the Eternal. That
\nmay well involve a contradiction or an unreconciled paradox; but I am
\nwilling to admit a contradiction in the Eternal which I
\nam not compelled to think out, rather than a contradiction here of my
\nprimary conceptions which I am compelled to think out
\nlogically and to practical ends. I am on this supposition able either
\nto take the world as practically real and think and act in it
\nor to reject it as an unreality and cease to think and act; I am not
\ncompelled to reconcile contradictions, not called on to be
\nconscious of and conscious in something beyond myself and world and yet
\ndeal from that basis, as God does, with a world
\nof contradictions. The attempt to be as God while I am still an
\nindividual or to be three things at a time seems to me to
\ninvolve a logical confusion and a practical impossibility.” Such might
\nwell be the attitude of the normal reason, and it is clear,
\nlucid, positive in its distinctions; it involves no extraordinary
\ngymnastics of the reason trying to exceed itself and losing itself
\nin shadows and half-lights or any kind of mysticism, or at least there
\nis only one original and comparatively simple mysticism
\nfree from all other difficult complexities. Therefore it is the
\nreasoning which is the most satisfactory to the simply rational
\nmind. Yet is there here a triple error, the error of making an
\nunbridgeable gulf between the Absolute and the relative, the
\nerror of making too simple and rigid and extending too far the law of
\ncontradictions and the error of conceiving in terms of
\nTime the genesis of things which have their origin and first habitat in
\nthe Eternal. <\/p>\n

\n

    We
\nmean by the Absolute something greater than ourselves, greater than the
\ncosmos which we live in, the supreme
\nreality of that transcendent Being which we call God, something without
\nwhich all that we see or are conscious of as
\nexisting, could not have been, could not for a moment remain in
\nexistence. Indian<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage 375<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

thought calls it Brahman, European thought the Absolute because it is a self-existent which is absolved of all bondage to
\nrelativities. For all relatives can only exist by something which is the truth of them all and the source and continent of their
\npowers and properties and yet exceeds them all; it is something of which not only each relativity itself, but also any sum we
\ncan make of all relatives that we know, can only be, — in all that we know of them,—a partial, inferior or practical
\nexpression. We see by reason that such an Absolute must exist; we become by spiritual experience aware of its existence:
\nbut even when we are most aware of it, we cannot describe it because our language and thought can deal only with the
\nrelative. The Absolute is for us the Ineffable. <\/p>\n

     
\nSo far there need be no real difficulty nor confusion. But we readily
\ngo on, led by the mind’s habit of oppositions, of
\nthinking by distinctions and pairs of contraries, to speak of it as not
\nonly not bound by the limitations of the relative, but as if
\nit were bound by its freedom from limitations, inexorably empty of all
\npower for relations and in its nature incapable of them,
\nsomething hostile in its whole being to relativity and its eternal
\ncontrary. By this false step of our logic we get into an
\nimpasse. Our own existence and the existence of the universe become not
\nonly a mystery, but logically inconceivable. For
\nwe get by that to an Absolute which is incapable of relativity and
\nexclusive of all relatives and yet the cause or at least the
\nsupport of relativity and the container, truth and substance of all
\nrelatives. We have then only one logical-illogical way of
\nescape out of the impasse; we have to suppose the imposition of the
\nworld as a self-effective illusion or an unreal temporal
\nreality, on the eternity of the formless relationless Absolute. This
\nimposition is made by our misleading individual
\nconsciousness which falsely sees Brahman in the figure of the cosmos, —
\nas a man mistakes a rope for a serpent; but since
\neither our individual consciousness is itself a relative supported by
\nthe Brahman and only existent by it, not a real reality, or
\nsince in its reality it is itself the Brahman, it is the Brahman after
\nall which imposes on itself in us this delusion and mistakes
\nin some figure of its own consciousness an existent rope for a
\nnon-existent snake, imposes on its own indeterminable pure\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 376<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

Reality the semblance of a universe, or if it does
\nnot impose it on its own consciousness, it is on a consciousness
\nderived
\nfrom it and dependent on it, a projection of itself into Maya. By this
\nexplanation nothing is explained; the original
\ncontradiction stands where it was, unreconciled, and we have only
\nstated it over again in other terms. It looks as if, by
\nattempting to arrive at an explanation by means of intellectual
\nreasoning, we have only befogged ourselves by the delusion
\nof our own uncompromising logic: we have imposed on the Absolute the
\nimposition which our too presumptuous reasoning
\nhas practised on our own intelligence; we have transformed our mental
\ndifficulty in understanding the world-manifestation
\ninto an original impossibility for the Absolute to manifest itself in
\nworld at all. But the Absolute, obviously, finds no difficulty
\nin world-manifestation and no difficulty either in a simultaneous
\ntranscendence of world-manifestation; the difficulty exists
\nonly for our mental limitations which prevent us from grasping the
\nsupramental rationality of the co-existence of the infinite
\nand the finite or seizing the nodus of the unconditioned with the
\nconditioned. For our intellectual rationality these are
\nopposites; for the absolute reason they are interrelated and not
\nessentially conflicting expressions of one and the same
\nreality. The consciousness of infinite Existence is other than our
\nmind-consciousness and sense-consciousness, greater and
\nmore capacious, for it includes them as minor terms of its workings,
\nand the logic of infinite Existence is other than our
\nintellectual logic. It reconciles in its great primal facts of being
\nwhat to our mental view, concerned as it is with words and
\nideas derived from secondary facts, are irreconcilable contraries. <\/p>\n

    
\nOur mistake is that in trying to define the indefinable we think we
\nhave succeeded when we have described by an
\nall-exclusive negation this Absolute which we are yet compelled to
\nconceive of as a supreme positive and the cause of all
\npositives. It is not surprising that so many acute thinkers, with their
\neye on the facts of being and not on verbal distinctions,
\nshould be driven to infer that the Absolute is a fiction of the
\nintelligence, an idea born of words and verbal dialectics, a zero,
\nnon-existent, and to conclude that an eternal Becoming is the only
\ntruth of our\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 377<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

existence. The ancient sages spoke indeed of Brahman
\nnegatively, — they said of it, neti neti, it is not this, it is not
\nthat, — but
\nthey took care also to speak of it positively; they said of it too, it
\nis this, it is that, it is all: for they saw that to limit it either by
\npositive or negative definitions was to fall away from its truth.
\nBrahman, they said, is Matter, is Life, is Mind, is Supermind,
\nis cosmic Delight, is Sachchidananda; yet it cannot really be defined
\nby any of these things, not even by our largest
\nconception of Sachchidananda. In the world as we see it, for our mental
\nconsciousness however high we carry it, we find
\nthat to every positive there is a negative. But the negative is not a
\nzero, — indeed whatever appears to us a zero is packed
\nwith force, teeming with power of existence, full of actual or
\npotential contents. Neither does the existence of the negative
\nmake its corresponding positive non-existent or an unreality; it only
\nmakes the positive an incomplete statement of the truth
\nof things and even, we may say, of the positive’s own truth. For the
\npositive and the negative exist not only side by side, but
\nin relation to each other and by each other; they complete and would to
\nthe all-view, which a limited mind cannot reach,
\nexplain one another. Each by itself is not really known; we only begin
\nto know it in its deeper truth when we can read into it
\nthe suggestions of its apparent opposite. It is through such a
\nprofounder catholic intuition and not by exclusive logical
\noppositions that our intelligence ought to approach the Absolute. <\/p>\n

    
\nThe positives of the Absolute are its various statements of itself to
\nour consciousness; its negatives bring in the rest of
\nits absolute positivity by which its limitation to these first
\nstatements is denied. We have, to begin with, its large primary
\nrelations such as the infinite and the finite, the conditioned and
\nunconditioned, the qualitied and unqualitied; in each pair the
\nnegative conceals the whole power of the corresponding positive which
\nis contained in it and emerges from it: there is no
\nreal opposition. We have, in a less subtle order of truths, the
\ntranscendent and the cosmic, the universal and the individual;
\nhere we have seen that each member of these pairs is contained in its
\napparent opposite. The universal particularises itself
\nin the individual; the individual contains in himself all the
\ngeneralities of the universal. The <\/p>\n

\nPage 378<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

universal consciousness finds all itself by the
\nvariations of numberless individuals, not by suppressing variations;
\nthe
\nindividual consciousness fulfils all itself when it is universalised
\ninto sympathy and identity with the cosmic, not by limiting
\nitself in the ego. So too the cosmic contains in all itself and in each
\nthing in it the complete immanence of the transcendent; it
\nmaintains itself as the world-being by the consciousness of its own
\ntranscendent reality, it finds itself in each individual being
\nby the realisation of the divine and transcendent in that being and in
\nall existences. The transcendent contains, manifests,
\nconstitutes the cosmos and by manifesting it manifests or discovers, as
\nwe may say in the old poetic sense of that word, its
\nown infinite harmonic varieties. But even in the lower orders of the
\nrelative we find this play of negative and positive, and
\nthrough the divine reconciliation of its terms, not by excising them or
\ncarrying their opposition to the bitter end, we have to
\narrive at the Absolute. For there in the Absolute all this relativity,
\nall this varying rhythmic self-statement of the Absolute,
\nfinds, not its complete denial, but its reason for existence and its
\njustification, not its conviction as a lie, but the source and
\nprinciple of its truth. Cosmos and individual go back to something in
\nthe Absolute which is the true truth of individuality, the
\ntrue truth of cosmic being and not their denial and conviction of their
\nfalsity. The Absolute is not a sceptical logician denying
\nthe truth of all his own statements and self-expressions, but an
\nexistence so utterly and so infinitely positive that no finite
\npositive can be formulated which can exhaust it or bind it down to its
\ndefinitions. <\/p>\n

    
\nIt is evident that if such is the truth of the Absolute, we cannot bind
\nit either by our law of contradictions. That law is
\nnecessary to us in order that we may posit partial and practical
\ntruths, think out things clearly, decisively and usefully,
\nclassify, act, deal with them effectively for particular purposes in
\nour divisions of Space, distinctions of form and property,
\nmoments of Time. It represents a formal and strongly dynamic truth of
\nexistence in its practical workings which is strongest
\nin the most outward term of things, the material, but becomes less and
\nless rigidly binding as we go upward in the scale,
\nmount on the more subtle rungs of the ladder of being. It is especially
\nnecessary for us in\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 379<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

dealing
\nwith material phenomena and forces; we have to suppose them to be one
\nthing at a time, to have one power at a
\ntime and to be limited by their ostensible and practically effective
\ncapacities and properties; otherwise we cannot deal with
\nthem. But even there, as human thought is beginning to realise, the
\ndistinctions made by the intellect and the classifications
\nand practical experiments of Science, while perfectly valid in their
\nown field and for their own purpose, do not represent the
\nwhole or the real truth of things, whether of things in the whole or of
\nthe thing by itself which we have classified and set
\nartificially apart, isolated for separate analysis. By that isolation
\nwe are indeed able to deal with it very practically, very
\neffectively, and we think at first that the effectiveness of our action
\nproves the entire and sufficient truth of our isolating and
\nanalysing knowledge. Afterwards we find that by getting beyond it we
\ncan arrive at a greater truth and a greater effectivity. <\/p>\n

\n

   
\n The isolation is certainly necessary for first knowledge. A
\ndiamond is a diamond and a pearl a pearl, each thing of its
\nown class, existing by its distinction from all others, each
\ndistinguished by its own form and properties. But each has also
\nproperties and elements which are common to both and others which are
\ncommon to material things in general. And in
\nreality each does not exist only by its distinctions, but much more
\nessentially by that which is common to both; and we get
\nback to the very basis and enduring truth of all material things only
\nwhen we find that all are the same thing, one energy, one
\nsubstance or, if you like, one universal motion which throws up, brings
\nout, combines, realises these different forms, these
\nvarious properties, these fixed and harmonised potentialities of its
\nown being. If we stop short at the knowledge of
\ndistinctions, we can deal only with diamond and pearl as they are, fix
\ntheir values, uses, varieties, make the best ordinary use
\nand profit of them; but if we can get to the knowledge and control of
\ntheir elements and the common properties of the class
\nto which they belong, we may arrive at the power of making either a
\ndiamond or pearl at our pleasure: go farther still and
\nmaster that which all material things are in their essence and we may
\narrive even at the power of transmutation which
\nwould give the greatest possible control\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 380<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

of material Nature. Thus the knowledge of distinctions arrives at its greatest truth and effective use when we arrive at the
\ndeeper knowledge of that which reconciles distinctions in the unity behind all variations. That deeper knowledge does not
\ndeprive the other and more superficial of effectivity nor convict it of vanity. We cannot conclude from our ultimate material
\ndiscovery that there is no original substance or Matter, only energy manifesting substance or manifesting as
\nsubstance,—that diamond and pearl are non-existent, unreal, only true to the illusion of our senses of perception and action,
\nthat the one substance, energy or motion is the sole eternal truth and that therefore the best or only rational use of our
\nscience would be to dissolve diamond and pearl and everything else that we can dissolve into this one eternal and original
\nreality and get done with their forms and properties for ever. There is an essentiality of things, a commonalty of things, an
\nindividuality of things; the commonalty and individuality are true and eternal powers of the essentiality: that transcends them
\nboth, but the three together and not one by itself are the eternal terms of existence. <\/p>\n

   
\nThis truth which we can see, though with difficulty and under
\nconsiderable restrictions, even in the material world
\nwhere the subtler and higher powers of being have to be excluded from
\nour intellectual operations, becomes clearer and
\nmore powerful when we ascend in the scale. We see the truth of our
\nclassifications and distinctions, but also their limits. All
\nthings, even while different, are yet one. For practical purposes
\nplant, animal, man are different existences; yet when we
\nlook deeper we see that the plant is only an animal with an
\ninsufficient evolution of self-consciousness and dynamic force;
\nthe animal is man in the making; man himself is that animal and yet the
\nsomething more of self-consciousness and dynamic
\npower of consciousness that make him man; and yet again he is the
\nsomething more which is contained and repressed in his
\nbeing as the potentiality of the divine, — he is a god in the making.
\nIn each of these, plant, animal, man, god, the Eternal is
\nthere containing and repressing himself as it were in order to make a
\ncertain statement of his being. Each is the whole
\nEternal concealed. Man himself, who takes up all that went before him
\nand transmutes it into the\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 381<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

term of manhood, is the individual human being and yet he is all mankind, the universal man acting in the individual as a
\nhuman personality. He is all and yet he is himself and unique. He is what he is, but he is also the past of all that he was and
\nthe potentiality of all that he is not. We cannot understand him if we look only at his present individuality, but we cannot
\nunderstand him either if we look only at his commonalty, his general term of manhood, or go back by exclusion from both to
\nan essentiality of his being in which his distinguishing manhood and his particularising individuality seem to disappear. Each
\nthing is the Absolute, all are that One, but in these three terms always the Absolute makes its statement of its developed
\nself-existence. We are not, because of the essential unity, compelled to say that all God’s various action and workings are
\nvain, worthless, unreal, phenomenal, illusory, and that the best and only rational or super-rational use we can make of our
\nknowledge is to get away from them, dissolve our cosmic and individual existence into the essential being and get rid of all
\nbecoming as a futility for ever.
\n
\n        <\/p>\n

   
\n In our practical dealings with life we have to arrive at the same
\ntruth. For certain practical ends we have to say that a
\nthing is good or bad, beautiful or ugly, just or unjust and act upon
\nthat statement; but if we limit ourselves by it, we do not get
\nat real knowledge. The law of contradictions here is only valid in so
\nfar as two different and opposite statements cannot be
\ntrue of the same thing at the same time, in the same field, in the same
\nrespect, from the same point of view and for the
\nsame practical purpose. A great war, destruction or violent
\nall-upheaving revolution, for example, may present itself to us as
\nan evil, a virulent and catastrophic disorder, and it is so in certain
\nrespects, results, ways of looking at it; but from others, it
\nmay be a great good, since it rapidly clears the field for a new good
\nor a more satisfying order. No man is simply good or
\nsimply bad; every man is a mixture of contraries: even we find these
\ncontraries often inextricably mixed up in a single
\nfeeling, a single action. All kinds of conflicting qualities, powers,
\nvalues meet together and run into each other to make up
\nour action, life, nature. We can only understand entirely if we get to
\nsome sense of the Absolute and yet look at its workings
\nin all the relativities which are being\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 382<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

manifested, — look not only at each by itself, but
\neach in relation to all and to that which exceeds and reconciles them
\nall. In
\nfact we can only know by getting to the divine view and purpose in
\nthings and not merely looking at our own, though our
\nown limited human view and momentary purpose have their validity in the
\ncadre of the All. For behind all relativities there is
\nthis Absolute which gives them their being and their justification. No
\nparticular act or arrangement in the world is by itself
\nabsolute justice; but there is behind all acts and arrangements
\nsomething absolute which we call justice, which expresses
\nitself through their relativities and which we would realise if our
\nview and knowledge were comprehensive instead of being
\nas they are partial, superficial, limited to a few ostensible facts and
\nappearances. So too there is an absolute good and an
\nabsolute beauty: but we can only get a glimpse of it if we embrace all
\nthings impartially and get beyond their appearances to
\nsome sense of that which, between them, all and each are by their
\ncomplex terms trying to state and work out; not an
\nindeterminate, — for the indeterminate, being only the original stuff
\nor perhaps the packed condition of determinations, would
\nexplain by itself nothing at all, — but the Absolute. We can indeed
\nfollow the opposite method of breaking up all things and
\nrefusing to look at them as a whole and in relation to that which
\njustifies them and so create an intellectual conception of
\nabsolute evil, absolute injustice, the absolute hideousness,
\npainfulness, triviality, vulgarity or vanity of all things; but that is
\nto
\npursue to its extreme the method of the Ignorance whose view is based
\nupon division. We cannot rightly so deal with the
\ndivine workings. Because the Absolute expresses itself through
\nrelativities the secret of which we find it difficult to fathom,
\nbecause to our limited view everything appears to be a purposeless play
\nof oppositions and negatives or a mass of
\ncontradictions, we cannot conclude that our first limited view is right
\nor that all is a vain delusion of the mind and has no
\nreality. Nor can we solve all by an original unreconciled contradiction
\nwhich is to explain all the rest. The human reason is
\nwrong in attaching a separate and definitive value to each
\ncontradiction by itself or getting rid of one by altogether denying
\nthe other; but it is right in refusing to accept as final\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 383<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

and as the last word the coupling of contradictions which have in no way been reconciled together or else found their source
\nand significance in something beyond their opposition. <\/p>\n

   
\nWe cannot, either, effect a reconciliation or explanation of the
\noriginal contradictions of existence by taking refuge in
\nour concept of Time. Time, as we know or conceive it, is only our means
\nof realising things in succession, it is a condition
\nand cause of conditions, varies on different planes of existence,
\nvaries even for beings on one and the same plane: that is to
\nsay, it is not an Absolute and cannot explain the primary relations of
\nthe Absolute. They work themselves out in detail by
\nTime and seem to our mental and vital being to be determined by it; but
\nthat seeming does not carry us back to their sources
\nand principles. We make the distinction of conditioned and
\nunconditioned and we imagine that the unconditioned became
\nconditioned, the Infinite became finite at some date in Time, and may
\ncease to be finite at some other date in Time, because
\nit so appears to us in details, particulars or with regard to this or
\nthat system of things. But if we look at existence as a
\nwhole, we see that infinite and finite co-exist and exist in and by
\neach other. Even if our universe were to disappear and
\nreappear rhythmically in Time, as was the old belief, that too would be
\nonly a large detail and would not show that at a
\nparticular time all condition ceases in the whole range of infinite
\nexistence and all Being becomes the unconditioned, at
\nanother it again takes on the reality or the appearance of conditions.
\nThe first source and the primary relations lie beyond
\nour mental divisions of Time, in the divine timelessness or else in the
\nindivisible or eternal Time of which our divisions and
\nsuccessions are only figures in a mental experience. <\/p>\n

    
\nThere we see that all meets and all principles, all persistent
\nrealities of existence, — for the finite as a principle of being
\nis as persistent as the infinite, — stand in a primary relation to each
\nother in a free, not an exclusive unity of the Absolute, and
\nthat the way they present themselves to us in a material or a mental
\nworld is only a working out of them in secondary,
\ntertiary or yet lower relativities. The Absolute has not become the
\ncontrary of itself and assumed at a certain date real or
\nunreal relativities\n<\/p>\n

\nPage 384<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

of which it was originally incapable, nor has the
\nOne become by a miracle the Many, nor the unconditioned deviated into
\nthe
\nconditioned, nor the unqualitied sprouted out into qualities. These
\noppositions are only the conveniences of our mental
\nconsciousness, our divisions of the indivisible. The things they
\nrepresent are not fictions, they are realities, but they are not
\nrightly known if they are set in irreconcilable opposition to or
\nseparation from each other; for there is no such irreconcilable
\nopposition or separation of them in the all-view of the Absolute. This
\nis the weakness not only of our scientific divisions and
\nmetaphysical distinctions, but of our exclusive spiritual realisations
\nwhich are only exclusive because to arrive at them we
\nhave to start from our limiting and dividing mental consciousness. We
\nhave to make the metaphysical distinctions in order to
\nhelp our intelligence towards a truth which exceeds it, because it is
\nonly so that it can escape from the confusions of our
\nfirst undistinguishing mental view of things; but if we bind ourselves
\nby them to the end, we make chains of what should only
\nhave been first helps. We have to make use too of distinct spiritual
\nrealisations which may at first seem contrary to each
\nother, because as mental beings it is difficult or impossible for us to
\nseize at once largely and completely what is beyond our
\nmentality; but we err if we intellectualise them into sole truths, — as
\nwhen we assert that the Impersonal must be the one
\nultimate realisation and the rest creation of Maya or declare the
\nSaguna, the Divine in its qualities, to be that and thrust
\naway the impersonality from our spiritual experience. We have to see
\nthat both these realisations of the great spiritual
\nseekers are equally valid in themselves, equally invalid against each
\nother; they are one and the same Reality experienced
\non two sides which are both necessary for the full knowledge and
\nexperience of each other and of that which they both are.
\nSo is it with the One and the Many, the finite and the infinite, the
\ntranscendent and the cosmic, the individual and the
\nuniversal; each is the other as well as itself and neither can be
\nentirely known without the other and without exceeding their
\nappearance of contrary oppositions. <\/p>\n

    
\nWe see then that there are three terms of the one existence,
\ntranscendent, universal and individual, and that each of
\nthese <\/p>\n

\nPage 385<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

always contains secretly or overtly the two others.
\nThe Transcendent possesses itself always and controls the other two as
\nthe basis of its own temporal possibilities; that is the Divine, the
\neternal all-possessing God-consciousness, omnipotent,
\nomniscient, omnipresent, which informs, embraces, governs all
\nexistences. The human being is here on earth the highest
\npower of the third term, the individual, for he alone can work out at
\nits critical turning-point that movement of
\nself-manifestation which appears to us as the involution and evolution
\nof the divine consciousness between the two terms of
\nthe Ignorance and the Knowledge. The power of the individual to possess
\nin his consciousness by self-knowledge his unity
\nwith the Transcendent and the universal, with the One Being and all
\nbeings and to live in that knowledge and transform his
\nlife by it, is that which makes the working out of the divine
\nself-manifestation through the individual possible; and the arrival
\nof the individual, — not in one but in all, — at the divine life is the
\nsole conceivable object of the movement. The existence of
\nthe individual is not an error in some self of the Absolute which that
\nself afterwards discovers; for it is impossible that the
\nabsolute self-awareness or anything that is one with it should be
\nignorant of its own truth and its own capacities and
\nbetrayed by that ignorance either into a false idea of itself which it
\nhas to correct or an impossible venture which it has to
\nrenounce. Neither is the individual existence a subordinate
\ncircumstance in a divine play or Lila, a play which consists in a
\ncontinual revolution through unending cycles of pleasure and suffering
\nwithout any higher hope in the Lila itself or any issue
\nfrom it except the occasional escape of a few from time to time out of
\ntheir bondage to this ignorance. We might be
\ncompelled to hold that ruthless and disastrous view of God’s workings
\nif man had no power of self-transcendence or no
\npower of transforming by self-knowledge the conditions of the play
\nnearer and nearer to the truth of the divine Delight. In
\nthat power lies the justification of individual existence; the
\nindividual and the universal unfolding in themselves the divine
\nlight, power, joy of transcendent Sachchidananda always manifest above
\nthem, always secret behind their surface appearances, this is the
\nsecret intention, the ultimate significance of the divine play, the
\nLila. <\/p>\n

\nPage 386 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

But it is in themselves, in their transformation but also
\ntheir persistence and perfect relations, not in their self-annihilation that
\nthat must be unfolded. Otherwise there would be no reason for their ever having
\nexisted; the possibility of the Divine’s unfolding in the individual is the
\nsecret of the enigma, his presence there and this intention of self-unfolding
\nthe key to the world of Knowledge-Ignorance. <\/p>\n

\nPage 387<\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CHAPTER III The Eternal and the Individual                                                                            He and I.                                                                                                                           Isha Upanishad.1…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-18-the-life-divine-volume-18","wpcat-13-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}