|
Absolute & Relative
"A belief may be a necessary condition
of life and yet be false." Nietzsche
 I highly recommend the reading of this chapter taken out of The Conquest of
Illusion,by J.J. Van Der Leeuw (1928), as I find it the
basis for justice, ethics - all degrees of both societal and individual evolutionary stages - and all religious
teachings, as well as, primarily in the major differentiation between western monotheism and eastern enlightenment,
the idea of subjective-objective self and the empirical world, to that of the relative and the absolute. The West
consists of monotheism, that of a higher Being or a highest Being of all Beings, the goal to achieve higher realms
of Being, or to become part of a higher realm, or simply gaining favor under this higher deity, while some of the
East and mystics attempt to loose and dissolve the self, the relative self, into the Absolute, into Oneness, where
no distinctions exist.
This whole idea and understanding is the very basis for the major questions of suffering, of good verses evil,
of war and peace, of ethical and moral restraints, all living in the real world of relativity, in the uninhibited
Faustian indulgence and polar opposite of inertia and quietism, all doing so from each relative position. Here
in relativity is where both unauthenticity, blinded fundamentalism, phenomenalism and in contrast, degrees of balanced
interior authenticity thrive in human thinking, while in the Absolute exists as both nothing and everything, all
in One, apart from countless misconceptional (relative) beginning points. The balance and understanding of the
Absolute and the relative is crucial, being the very foundation and starting point of all human thought.
In commenting on the relative nature of our nature and perception of reality, Karl Jaspers, relates:
"Fundamentally we can express the reality of the
world as the phenomenality of empirical existence. Everything we have said thus far: that there is an element of
suspension in all modes of reality; that world systems represent merely relative perspectives; that knowledge has
the character of interpretation; that being is manifested in the dichotomy of subject and object - our whole characterization
of the knowledge to which man can attain - implies that objects are mere appearances; no being that we know is
being in itself and as a whole. The phenomenality of the empirical world was made fully clear by Kant. Though it
is not subject to compelling knowledge, because it cannot be perceived objectively but only by a transcending,
nevertheless it imposes itself on every intellect that is capable of transcendence. And then it does not add a
new particular knowledge to the knowledges we had before, but effects a shift in our whole consciousness of being.
Hence the sudden but enduring light which is kindled in the philosophical approach to the reality of the world.
If the light is not kindled, the propositions of philosophy remain unfulfilled and hence fundamentally not understood.
It is not only the absolute world systems that are gone. The world is not self-contained and for our knowledge
it breaks down into diverse perspectives, because it cannot be reduced to a single principle. The reality of the
world as a whole is no object of knowledge. Karl Jaspers, The
Way to Wisdom, pp. 79-80
THE ABSOLUTE AND THE RELATIVE
Chapter Four
From The
Conquest of Illusion
By J.J. Van Der Leeuw (1928)
There is an endless world, O my Brother! and there is the Nameless Being,
of whom nought can be said.
Only he knows it who has reached that region: it is other than all that is heard and said.
No form, no body, no length, no breadth is seen there: how can I tell you that which it is? --KABIR, Tagore, 76
THE REALIZATION OF THE ABSOLUTE
THE world of the Real, which we enter when we pass through our centre of consciousness,
is the Absolute, it is That beyond and beside which nothing exists. In a way it is not even right to speak of a
world which we enter. First of all it is not a world, secondly we do not really enter it and finally it is not
really we who enter that world. No phraseology derived from the experience of our world-image can fit the Absolute,
ultimate Reality. Down here we speak of a ‘world’ and the word immediately conveys a conception of a universe arranged
around us, outside us, with spatial separation between its creatures and objects, changing, growing and evolving
in time. In that sense the Absolute is not a world; if, however, we call it ‘world’ it is the one and only World
that exists, which ever did exist or ever can exist. Let us then for a moment call it neither world nor state of
consciousness or being, nor by any name derived from experience in our world-image consciousness. It is That, the
Absolute, and if in speaking about It we must of necessity use words derived from our common experience, let it
always be understood that the insufficiency of such words is recognized and felt, but that the impossibility of
an adequate language makes it necessary to take our refuge in the insufficient.
When we say that it is not really we who enter that world something is indicated which must be experienced in order
to be known. When we emerge through our centre of consciousness, the Void in which there is no content of consciousness,
and when we `emerge on the other side,’ we do not enter something which we are not, but we are That which we realize
on the other side of this centre of consciousness. We are It in its entirety, we are It fully and wholly, we are
It in all its possible manifestations, in all that It is, has been or can be, for in It time is eternity. Thus
it is not really correct to speak any longer of `I' or `we'; we truly are That and lose for the time being all
consciousness of being a separate creature, of being someone. That is why even the term `consciousness' is no longer
valid for the realization of the Absolute, the nearest expression we can use for it is `being.' Consciousness always
implies someone who is conscious of something; in the word `consciousness' there is implied a consciousness and
a content of the consciousness, something of which we are aware. Therefore the word consciousness seems futile
when used for that ultimate Reality, we there gain a realization in which we are all that is and our knowing is
being.
HOW IS THE ABSOLUTE KNOWN?
What right have we to give the name `Absolute' to that which we realize when emerging through our centre of consciousness,
how do we know that it is not a world only relatively more real than our world-image, how can we term it absolute
Reality?
Let us first realize that what we experience is not something which differs in quantity or greatness or measure
from the world image we know in our daily consciousness; it is not something greater, more glorious, more beautiful
or more comprehensive, it is utterly and entirely different. Where our world image presents itself to us decked
in all the rich variety of sense-qualities, with colour and sound, taste, smell and touch, with form and shape,
with measures of space and time, with a multiplicity of separate creatures and objects, all distinct one from the
other and dependent on one another, interrelated, this Reality which we experience shows nothing of all that. If
we experienced a world only relatively more real than our world-image there would be still some characteristics
corresponding at a higher level to our world-image; we might see more beautiful, more ethereal colours, hear more
wonderful sounds, find ourselves in the midst of greater beauty and fullness of life. But here in the world of
the Real there is no longer a universe surrounding us, there is no longer separateness, there are no longer the
qualities which form the garment of our world-image; we have become That which is pure Unity, containing all multiplicity,
though not showing any separateness.
Here the intellect, bound as it is to the illusions of the world-image, fails us; to the intellect the world may
seem one or many, but cannot be both at the same time. The realities of the Absolute must always be paradoxes to
the intellect and whatever is explained about them intellectually will always lead to misunderstanding. Perhaps
an image may help us to understand, though, like all images and comparisons, it must necessarily be insufficient
and even somewhat misleading.
When we consider the number one in arithmetic that number is a unity, it is entirely and homogeneously one. Yet
we can also think of that number one as being composed of a vast number of fractions; we can divide it again and
again into millions of fractions of different values until we are bewildered by the seemingly endless multitude
of the parts. Yet, at the same time, the number one has not been touched at all in its serene unity; it is ever
one, and yet at the same time it is ever these countless fractions ; they are contained in it, hidden in it, present
in it and one with it. We cannot say that there are two different things, a unity on the one side and a multiplicity
of fractions on the other, no, the two are one and it depends on the way in which we consider the number one whether
we shall see it as unity or multiplicity. When we see it as unity, there is no interaction, there is no relation
of part to part, there is no relativity. In this sense the number one may be compared to the Absolute, that which
is determined in, by and through itself and is not related to anything else. Yet, the Absolute is all the time
the multiplicity of all things; unchanged and eternally serene in Itself, It yet contains within Itself all that
ever has been or can be; It is all that eternally. When we thus experience reality as multiplicity, as the manifoldness
of different things, we can speak of relation between one thing and another, then we are in the realm of relativity.
In this world of relativity each relative thing is related to all else; there is not an atom in this universe of
mine to which I am not related, even though I may not be conscious of the relation. I have no existence at all
as a separate creature, though I may at times imagine myself as such; rather am I part of an intricate web of relativity
in which all things mutually determine one another. The standpoint of each relative thing in this world of relativity
must necessarily always be relative; whatever it sees is seen from that standpoint which necessarily has a certain
relation to all other things. No two standpoints can ever be the same, all standpoints are different and therefore
the outlook from each standpoint is different from all others-all truth is relative in the world of relativity.
Only then can we speak of absolute truth in the world of relativity when we can discount the element of relativity
in each relative outlook, that is to say, when, instead of fondly imagining our relative viewpoint to show absolute
truth we can take into account the relativity of our standpoint and deduct that, as it were, from our outlook,
leaving a truth which is no longer relative. Thus we come to this apparently paradoxical conclusion, that we are
only able to approach absolute truth when we can realize our truth as relative truth; only the theory of relativity
makes it possible to formulate scientific law in an absolute and no longer in a relative way.
There can never be freedom for the relative, since every relative thing is at least partially determined by all
else that is relative. Only the Absolute is free since there is naught beside It. There is no interaction between
the Absolute and the relative; the relative thing can only be related to other relative things. Relation denotes
relativity, and the Absolute has no relation to anything because It is all things. Its only relation to the relative
is that the relative as a whole is the Absolute, but there is never the possibility of a relation between a relative
thing or being and the Absolute.
Since there is no relation between the relative and the Absolute, except in so far as the Absolute is the relative
in its entirety, we are no longer the relative when we realize the Absolute, that is to say we are no longer `we'
or `I' when we are That. That is why in Buddhism the realization of the Absolute is called Nirvana, literally the
`going out' or `becoming extinct,' since from the standpoint of the separate self it means the end of all things,
though from the standpoint of reality it means the beginning of all things. Nirvana is the extinction of the craving
to be the relative thing and thereby the extinction of the relative as such in the realization of the Absolute.
We are as justified to say that we become the Absolute, that the dewdrop becomes the shining sea, as we are in
saying that the dewdrop is lost when slipping into the sea, that we are annihilated when realizing the Absolute.
It will ever be impossible to express reality in the language of our world-image.
Since there is no relation possible between a relative thing and the Absolute there is no such thing as a worship
of the Absolute, devotion to the Absolute, or response from the Absolute to a worshipping being; all this is a
philosophical impossibility and the very suggestion implies a lack of understanding. If we desire to give the name
'God' to the Absolute-and it does not really matter what name we give to That-let it be well understood that it
can never be the God to whom we pray, whom we invoke, whom we worship, whom we speak of as loving or kind, whom
we look upon as Creator of the universe. Magnificent as the conception of such a Deity may be, infinitely fertile
as it has been and must ever be in calling forth the noblest emotions and the highest endeavour, we must never
for a moment confuse it with That, compared to which even this Deity is relative.
Our universe as such is relative, limited and finite and so is the ensouling Life or the Deity whose creation we
suppose this universe to be. The God of Christianity, the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is the Deity of
our universe, the Deity to whom we can pray and who is Love. Even so is the Logos of theosophical doctrine; the
three Logoi of whom modern theosophy speaks are identical with the Christian Trinity, but they are not That, not
the Absolute; the Logos too, though beyond our human understanding, is yet a Being, not Being. The great difference
between Buddhism and Christianity is that where Buddhism is concerned with That, with the Absolute, Christianity
speaks of the Deity of our universe. Hence in Buddhism no mention of God, no worship of God and in Christianity
a wonderful system of ceremonial worship and devotion to the God of our universe.
We must not make the mistake of looking upon the Absolute as one step higher than the Deity of a universe; it is
not as if there were first humanity, then superhuman beings and those who govern our human evolution, then the
Deity of our universe and then-if we ascend still very much higher the Absolute. When the Hindu speaks of the God
of this universe as Brahma and of the Absolute as Parabrahman we should misunderstand his meaning if we thought
of Parabrahman as a magnification and glorification of Brahma. In some ways the Absolute is infinitely nearer to
us than the Deity of a universe, in another way It is infinitely greater. Yet to say that It is greater would denote
a greater measure of the same Being or reality and It is not such. It is of such a nature that It cannot even be
compared to the greatest Being in the world of the relative, there is nothing to which It can ever be compared.
Sometimes we hear people say, ‘I do not attempt to understand the Absolute; even the Deity of a universe is far
beyond my understanding, and how can I hope to know anything of the Absolute which is still greater.' Such an attitude,
in a seeming humility, yet shows misunderstanding and misconception. If the Deity of our universe is seen along
an ever ascending line of ever increasing greatness and perfection, the attitude spoken of implies that, if we
ascend that line still further and mount still higher, we may some day reach the Absolute, which is absurd. In
the world of the relative truly there is always greatness beyond greatness, and when we have reached the greatest,
noblest we know or dimly apprehend, yet wider vistas open up before us and we see a greatness undreamt of at our
previous level of understanding. But not of such is the Absolute. It is not great; to call It great would be misunderstanding
the reality of the Absolute. How can we call anything great when there is nothing else to compare to it in size
or in fullness of manifestation; there is no comparison where there is only the One; there is no greatness and
there is no smallness. We do not reach the Absolute by ascending or hoping to ascend some day beyond even the greatest
Being whom we can now dimly see on our spiritual horizon; the way to the Absolute is not along that ever ascending
line of greater and greater, of more and more, of nobler and nobler; we can reach the Absolute at the very point
where we are now, just as much or just as little as we can reach It when we are the greatest Being in the world
of relativity. It is rather as if, instead of continuing the endless process of ever ascending greatness, of ever
increasing perfection we went by a different dimension altogether and disappeared out of the realm of change and
growth and evolution into that of changeless and ever abiding Being, Nirvana. It is as if, instead of moving along
a certain path, ascending in a certain direction, we were to move within, into the very point where we find ourselves
and, through that, reached the Absolute. That is what does happen to us when we reach It through the centre of
our consciousness. We do not aspire, ascend, or strain towards something greater than we are, we disappear into
ourselves and, through ourselves as the relative, reach the Absolute which is at every point of the relative. Magnificent
though the conception of spiritual evolution is, utterly true though it is for our world-image consciousness, yet
to one who has seen the Vision of That which is eternal and which neither changes nor evolves, containing as it
does all change and all evolution, the highest dreams of evolutionary progress become but--dreams.
Returning then to our question, how we know that this world of the Real is the Absolute, we can answer-it is by
experiencing just that which is characteristic of the Absolute. We have seen that it is only in the relative consciousness
that the interpretation of absolute Reality into sense-qualities, time and space measures is affected. Reality
itself is devoid of all that, yet contains the fullness of it. That which we become in reaching reality is of this
nature; it has no qualities, yet is that which produces qualities in the relative consciousness. It is not time,
yet it is that which, when realized by the relative consciousness, is experienced as time with its illusory past
and future; it is not space nor distance, yet contains within itself that which, when appreciated and interpreted
by the relative consciousness, becomes space in our world-image. Again, That which we become is not related to
anything else; It is everything and everything is within It. When we are That we do not feel greater than we are
in our ordinary consciousness, not increased, not more real when compared to that reality of every day; we have
entirely left the world of the relative and are That which knows no relativity and no comparison. In That we are
not in relation to anything else, since we are all things; hence here alone is freedom, since there is nothing
outside to cause limitation.
That which we experience is changeless, though containing all change, and as such neither increases nor decreases.
Being unchanging it is all that we call past and all that we call future, these are present in it as an eternal
Reality. There alone is peace, there alone there can never be the desire for more or greater or nobler; It is All.
The absence of all relativity, of all relationships denotes that which we call the Absolute; it is not dependent
upon anything else because it is the Alone. It is the `one dark Truth' of which the Mystic speaks, the final Mystery
for which there is no explanation, since there is naught to explain it with. If the unphilosophical mind were to
ask: Why the Absolute? and Whence the Absolute? the unchanging Voice of that which is eternal and unchanging would
give him the answer, could he but realize it. The Absolute is its own explanation, its own cause, its own fulfillment
and its own realization. It is That.
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE IN RELIGION
In the light of the foregoing the difference between science and philosophy, or between
occultism and mysticism stands out clearly; the aims of science and occultism lie in the world of the relative,
those of philosophy and mysticism in the Absolute; science and occultism are content to investigate the ways in
which the relative appears to the relative and to gain power and control in the world of relativity; philosophy
and mysticism know no peace until they reach that ultimate Reality which has no beyond; to them reality means either
the Absolute or nothing at all. Once again we can see how foolish it is to extol one above the other; a complete
knowledge implies knowledge of the relative as well as realization of the Absolute.
In matters of religion the relative outlook shows man as a growing, evolving being with those greater than himself
ahead, those less than himself behind. It shows a world, beginning and ending, created, thought or imagined by
a Deity who is the informing life of this universe. Thus, in religious matters, occultism speaks to us of a hierarchy
of ever evolving beings, a seemingly endless ladder of perfection of which none has ever beheld the topmost rung.
The Deity of occultism is the great Being upon whom we look as Creator of this universe; Him we can worship and
adore, to Him devotion can rise up and from Him benediction can descend. Thus the occultist will stress the scientific
value of ceremonial magic which in this world of the relative unites man closer to the God of His universe and
provides a method of pouring out divine creative Energy.
How different is the religious aspect of philosophical mysticism; equally valuable and equally justified, but different
in aims and methods. The philosophical mystic does not speak much of a hierarchy of ever greater and greater beings,
for him there is but one goal, one achievement-the Absolute. That is the God of the philosophical mystic, a God
who is not Creator of the universe but who is eternally all universes, a God to whom no man can pray, but whom
we are when we reach Reality. To Him no adoration can ascend, from Him no benediction descends to man. He is unchanging
eternal Peace, the Alone beyond which naught is. This eternal Peace of the Absolute is the Buddhist Nirvana; Nirvana,
as taught by the Buddha, is not the evolution into greater power and knowledge, but the passing out of evolution
into an Eternal in which is no suffering, no unsatisfied craving because there is no separateness, no `I,' no possibility
of incompleteness. Nirvana thus is not a crowning glory in an ascending scale of ever increasing divine experiences,
it is the radical and fundamental departure from all that is relative into the Absolute.
If we compare Christianity and Buddhism we cannot help but feel that Buddhism is more the religion of the Absolute,
Christianity that of the Relative. The God of Christianity is the Triune Deity of this universe rather than the
Absolute, even though, in the experiences of Christian mystics we, at times, find God as the ultimate Reality.
Hence also the difference in ideals between the Buddhist Nirvana and the Christian Kingdom of God; in the attaining
of Nirvana the realm of relativity is left for the eternal peace of the Absolute, in the Kingdom of God we see
a religious ideal which is rather a deification of the world of relativity in a life of perfect love. In the love
of the Christian we see the endeavour to realize the unity of divine life in the world of relativity, in the Nirvana
of the Buddhist the departure from relativity for the peace of the Absolute. We should not make the mistake of
trying to judge which ideal is better or nobler, rather should we rejoice that there is a religion which shows
the divine in the relative, like Christianity, and also a religion like Buddhism which shows the divine as the
Absolute.
Christianity is a ritualistic religion, there is no ceremonial so complete and deeply valuable as the Christian;
in Buddhism we in vain look for ceremonial. In a Buddhist temple we may lay a few flowers in front of the image
of the Buddha, we may place a candle or burning light in front of the shrine in token of reverence, but beyond
that there is no ritual. Neither do we find in Buddhism a conception of God as we do in Christianity, hence Buddhism
has often been termed theistic. Yet we can understand why there is no place in Buddhism for a Deity as in Christianity,
when we realize that for Buddhism, as the religion of the philosophical mystic, there is no reality short of the
Absolute and no peace short of Nirvana. We should not fear such differences in religion, true tolerance tries to
recognize the value of each religion as a characteristic manifestation of living truth which necessarily implies
essential differences between the different religions; to smooth out these differences until they all appear to
be the same would mean a leveling down of a rich variety to the dead monotony of similarity. True tolerance does
not lie in blindness to characteristic differences, but rather in understanding why these differences exist and
why they are valuable in the unity of universal religion.
Naturally we find different types of men in each of the great religions; thus there are Christians to whom ceremonial
is the breath of life and whose worship centres round the invocation and descent of divine grace and power in the
Eucharist, and, on the other hand, there are those in the Christian religion to whom ceremonial seems but an obstacle
and for whom the path to reality is one of renunciation of externals rather than one of the emphasis of external
means in ceremonial worship. We must not confuse this with the contempt of ceremonial worship which we find sometimes
in Protestant Christianity and which often is based not so much on intensity of mystical endeavour as on the inability
to appreciate aught but an intellectual dogmatism. On the other hand, in Roman Catholicism, we at times meet with
a ceremonialism which is merely traditional and claims to be essential to man's salvation and to his life in the
world of relativity. Yet, even at these levels the difference between mystical endeavour and occult methods appears
and often leads to misunderstanding and antagonism.
To the occultist the philosophical mystic's realization of the Absolute will seem to be a baseless presumption;
to him, working as he is in the world of relativity the Absolute means but a Being still greater than the Deity
of his universe, a yet higher level, of still greater power and glory. He would fail to understand that the mystic's
achievement does not lie in the attaining of ever greater glory, but in leaving the world of the relative altogether
and in entering That, with regard to which words like power and glory, greatness and wisdom have no meaning. The
occultist would see the Absolute as part of his world of relativity, the very highest and noblest part it is true,
but yet part of it. But the Absolute cannot be expressed in terms of relativity, the quadrature of the circle is
impossible. On the other hand the philosophical mystic at times fails to recognize the value of that worship which
sees God in the world of the relative and adores him as a Being, great and loving, tender and wise.
Absolute and relative both have their place in religion; for our world of relativity a religion of relativity is
of daily value, yet if we would attain to ultimate Reality we must seek the Absolute and its realization.
THE ABSOLUTE AND THE RELATIVE IN MAN
Relativity is but another way of considering the Absolute; the Absolute is one and many
simultaneously, it is the infinitude of fractions as well as the unity of which all fractions are part. Yet there
are not two worlds, one of relativity and one of the Absolute; there is but one world of ultimate Reality, the
Absolute, which, when approached in its multiplicity is the relative. This multiplicity of all that ever was or
can be is the Absolute and therefore the infinitely small is as essential to the unity of all things as the infinitely
great; not a grain of dust could ever be taken away from that totality of things, since it is not a detached object,
but an inseparable part of a living Unity.
Plotinus illustrates the unity of Absolute and Relative in the following passage from Ennead iv. 2, where he says:
"On the other hand, there exists another kind of essence (`being'), whose nature
differs from the preceding (entirely divisible things), which admits of no division, and is neither divided nor
divisible. This has no extension, not even in thought. It does not need to be in any place, and is not either partially
or wholly contained in any other being. If we dare say so, it hovers simultaneously over all beings, not that it
needs to be built up on them, but because it is indispensable to the existence of all. It is ever identical with
itself, and is the common support of all that is below it. It is as in the circle, where the centre, remaining
immovable in itself, nevertheless is the origin of all the radii originating there, and drawing existence thence."
The Absolute, indeed, contains within itself all relativity as the circle contains within itself the infinitude
of rays from centre to circumference. Each ray is connected with the centre, proceeds from the centre and in the
centre all rays are one. On the circumference, however, they are many; while there is unity in the centre of the
circle there is multiplicity and separateness on the circumference. Thus in the circle, too, unity and multiplicity
are contained; in the realization of the Absolute we have all multiplicity within us as a unity, just as, from
the centre of the circle we see all rays, see the whole circle and its multiplicity in unity. On the circumference,
however, where we do not realize the centre which binds all, we may have the illusion that all rays, which we only
know at their furthest extension, are separate; the circumference is the realm of relativity. The philosophical
mystic travels along his ray to the centre and from there understands the circle as a whole in one comprehensive
realization; the occultist and scientist explore along the circumference and there gain a detailed knowledge of
the world of multiplicity.
Every human being, every created thing is as a ray going forth from the centre of the eternal Circle to its circumference.
In the centre, whence it issues forth, it is one with all other rays and realizes itself to be the whole; it is
all things, it is the Absolute. Where it touches the circumference it is but one of many and instead of realizing
itself as the Absolute it gazes upon the world of multiplicity, the world of relativity, where problems arise since
the unity of life is lost. Thus in ourselves we are the great mystery, absolute and relative simultaneously; when
we look within, piercing through our own consciousness, we can realize ultimate Reality and cease to be ourselves
by being That which is all things; on the other hand, when we feel ourselves only as the separate ray, we are surrounded
by the multitude of other created things and subject to the illusion of separateness, bringing with it the externalizing
of our world-image and its objectivation as an independent reality. Our consciousness has as it were two windows,
one through which we gaze on our own world-image and behold multiplicity in the world of the relative and another
through which we emerge into the world of the Real, where we cease to be the relative and are the Absolute. These
two apparently contradictory facts form the paradox in the unity of our human nature; in ourselves takes place
that mystery which cannot be accomplished by any other means--the quadrature of the circle; in us the Eternal becomes
time, the Absolute the relative.
We must guard against the illusion of duality, as if there were on the one hand the Absolute and on the other the
relative, which then are synthesized in a higher unity. This idea is but an example of intellectual fallacy and,
like most fallacies, is glibly accepted by many, especially when demonstrated by a symbol like that which we have
just used, the circle. How easy it is to say that the centre of the circle symbolizes the Absolute, the circumference
the relative and the two are aspects of the supreme Reality. Yet this would be entirely wrong, a mere intellectual
superficiality. There is but one Reality, the Absolute, which we may, if we wish to do so, symbolize by the circle
containing within itself the multitude of rays. A circle, however, is not a combination of centre and circumference,
but is essentially radiation from a point. That is the reality of the circle, to be seen only from the centre;
thus also the Absolute can be realized only from the Centre where the entire Circle is seen in its multiplicity
of rays. The world-view of the separate ray which has traveled away from the common Centre is the relative view;
surrounded by the many other rays the individual ray feels itself as separate amongst other creatures and is conscious
of a world of relativity. But the Absolute is ever That beyond and beside which naught is and not in any way the
opposite of the relative. The relative is eternally contained within the Absolute.
In the world of relativity we can never come to the realization of truth, since there we are always subject to
the illusions due to the objectivation of our world-image. The relative cannot express the Absolute, and ultimate
reality or living truth must ever remain a paradox to the intellect which is subject to the world-image. It is
only in the world of the Absolute that we can come to a realization of truth and can know Reality by becoming it.
ENTIRE BOOK:
The
Conquest of Illusion,by J.J. Van Der Leeuw (1928)
|
