Comments on C.G. Jung 5-2

Dear friends,
Here follows the second part and the most crucial part. The questions about the simultaneuos presence of both Good and Evil is analysed very exhaustively here and the lines of argument are indeed profound. Read many times and think deeply in order to understand the srguments. It is worth the time spent on it.
 

COMMENTARY:

  Part 1: Absolute hetereology and consequent Nihilism

  1. The metaphysical questions Arunandi raises are profound and touch upon the great controversy
  that has divided the Indian philosophers for more than two  millenniums  and which arose a the
  central question underlying the burst of Bakti movement in the  Tamil country from the 5th cent.
  onwards and in the course of which the essentially nihilistic Buddhism,  Jainism and Vedanta were
  overcome. As already outlined by Meykandar, Existence is Being-in-the-World that holds the
  possibility of Being-One-With-the-World (BWW)  i.e. atheistic and  Being-One-With-BEING
  (BWB) i.e. theistic. It is also asserted that there is a GROWTH that the anmas undergo and that
  this growth is obtained by a process in which the Phenomenological Being of the anmas is
  BACKGROUNDED and overcome and  simultaneously the presence of BEING  foregrounded
  and firmly installed i.e. a transformation from a state of {P-Being~(BEING)} into
  {BEING~(P-Being)}. Now if the former is the state of Being that obtains for all psychic entities
  that they have to overcome, a state of finitude and IGNORANCE, then it becomes  immensely
  puzzling for the penetrating intellect of Arunandi, an adroit  scholar of vast  scholarship and who
  entered into a vehement controversy with young Meykandar himself. If {P-Being~(BEING)}
  means the state of finitude, of IGNORANCE because of the presence of  MALAM, a
  metaphysical DARKNESS, Arunandi is puzzled over the co-presence of both BEING and
  MALAM in the anmas. For MALAM, as the ANTIBEING, that which breeds DARKNESS, is
  opposed to BEING that which is pure RADIANCE. How can the two, as such,  be simultaneously
  present in one and the same entity? How can, to speak metaphorically here, LIGHT and
  DARKNESS be simultaneously present in the anmas ?

 And it is here that Arunandi and Jung are similar for both are concerned with the basic tendencies for good and evil  already in man. But Jung concludes that " we don't need to inquire into the origin of Satan. We have plenty of evidence in the Old Testamant that Yahweh is moral and immoral at the same time, the Rabbinic theology is fully  aware of this fact"  While Meykandar proposes the preasence of Maalam, a metaphysical reality just as true as BEING and the psychic entities, Jung does not and confuses the DESTRUCTIUVE and wrathful presentations of BEING as immoral. The Hindu gods and godesses of Destruction like Rudra , KaalLi etc will be , according to Jung , immoral because dark and destructive. However Meykandar sees differently and Arunandi  brings out in a  masterly fashion  the hidden meanings.

   2. Now attention shifts to the pedagogical processes that are brought in to explain the
  supplanting of the P-Being of the psychic entities and implanting the presence BEING itself in its
  place.
    The notion of instruction implies face to face interaction in which the two, the GURU and sysya
  meet each other in a confrontational stance  for otherwise instruction as such will not take place.
   But this implies BEING standing totally Other (Ì'Ó?î «Ñ´³Å, Oraalinai uNarththum) and
  hence not-one-with, and hence ineffectual for preventing the emergence of the false and illusory.
  Furthermore instructing requires standing apart and above and hence such instructional processes
  can never bring about the ONENESS where there is a fusion of identity. The ONENESS is
  neither the DIFFERENCE nor the SAME that are related to each other but   rather a fusion where
  the understanding ceases to be different. In other words   pedagogic processes alone will not bring
  about a state of being of the sort  {BEING~(P-Being)} as it  implies that BEING remains totally
  Other and Above and hence beyond the self-possession of the anmas.

The overcoming of the tendencies for evil in man cannot be accomplished if the existential processes are viewed pedagogically, process in which thwe presence of Maalam is overcome through archetypal interferences.

   3. Now if the presence of BEING as totally Other is denied and stated that BEING stands
  one-with as the anma itself (??×þÆ °'þîÆ'Ë, C.B Sut.2,avaiyE thAnEyAi) another  dilemma
  emerges. The presence of finitude and along with it the DARKNESS of Ignorance is an empirical
  truth. But then it becomes a puzzle to note that this is so DESPITE THE ONENESS of BEING.
  And therefore such descriptions as the Absolutely Pure,  the  Radiant and so forth become
  incomprehensible. How is human understanding  finite and
  full of ignorance despite the fact that BEING, the supremely radiant and pure is there  within the
  understanding as a NON-ABSENTING PRESENCE?  In other words, how can man is evil while BEING is always present?
 

   4. If the pedagogical are related to historical and cosmological, i.e. something that  happens in the
  historical involvement of the psychic entities, the problem is not over. For BEING is always
  trans-historical, uninvolved in the enormous manipulations of the elements of Earth, Water, Fire,
  Space and Wind and in the existential struggles of the anmas.  As the Totally Other, Being
  remains forever the Absolutely Beyond for the anmas.

   5. These dilemmas lead to an impasse and as a result of which a kind of nihilism emerges. The
  pedagogical understood as instructional makes the BEING totally Other  hierarchically Above and
  Totally Beyond  and this will make the neutralization of DIFFERENCE impossible and the
  attainment PARAMUKTI  totally beyond the reach of the anmas. And in order to overcome this
  nihilism, attention now shifts to a reconsideration of the meaning of the  pedagogical itself and in
  connection with which Arunandi introduces two technical terms  related each other, viz.
  pakkuvam and paruvam. While 'pakkuvam' means a special stage of readiness that have signs of
  its own (kuRi), 'paruvam' like the seasons of the year, are natural processes of change and decay.
  The pedagogical involves not instructions   per se but rather disclosures or revelations of a kind.
  The special individuals who are  'ripe' enough for such disclosures are singled out, and BEING
  discloses truths only  to such individuals. The pedagogical as such do not exist but only special
  revelations, the messianic disclosures. While this has the merit of avoiding the total aloofness of
  BEING, but   creates problems of its own. For when someone is not "ready" in this sense, even
  disclosed, the "messages will be simply BEYOND the comprehension of the individuals. Also
  requiring as a precondition such a special status of being ripe and ready, makes  the  presence of
  BEING itself irrelevant and useless. And if such profound and, we may  add here, metaphysical
  disclosures are said to be dispensed only when somehow there is a state of readiness, then
  becoming ready in  this way, is made totally beyond the historical processes of growth and decay,
  conflict and resolution. The state of being 'ready' becomes mystical and magical, something
  beyond the natural. And this means there will be no one resembling BEING, reflecting BEING in
  this world. In other words the possibility of someone becoming a civanjaani, one who  radiates the
  presence of BEING in his personality, is denied here. If disclosures are simply selective violations
  and interference, a bursting forth into the understanding  of some selected individuals, the gradual
  unfolding of the presence of BEING  in the
  understanding of every creature is denied. And this makes   BEING  the Totally Incomparable
  (¿º'Ñ Ó, oppaar ili) the forever Beyond and hence not available for the molding of self  in the
  image of BEING. The phenomenal presence of BEING is made impossible except as Violence.

   6. Now begins another line of inquiry in the face of this impasse. The pedagogical  is now
  interpreted in terms of 'paruvam nikazththal' i.e. bring about maturation through a sequence of
  stages in a progressive manner. There are the maturational  processes in which the anmas begin to
  radiate more and more of the presence of BEING  so that there are different 'paruvams' of
  developmental stages, like in the biological.
   Now if BEING by his presence brings about such developmental changes, then the question
  arises as to what exactly undergoes these changes. For there are problems here in view the
  possibility of different candidates. Meykandar has already established the   Fundamental
  Ontology, in which over and above BEING, there are innumerable psychic entities and the
  atomizing  ANavam as metaphysical realities and that along with Anavam, there are also Karma
  and MaayEyam as deep constraints that make the phenomenal presence  of the anmas finite and
  hence given over to thetic understanding (cudduNarvu),  understanding always with referentiality.
  If BEING effects at all the evolutionary and developmental changes, it has to be by 'working' on
  the Anavam, Kanmam, or Mayeeyam or the aNu, the finite self. Now the mummalam, the
  aNavam etc, are insentient -cadam-  and hence while they can undergo transformations of  various
  sorts, they cannot be characterised as either developmental or evolutionary. The latter notions
  imply not simply a change in state but also a movement towards something Yonder, and which is
  approximated gradually. The maayeeyam- the primordial   ENERGY- suffers only
  transformations or modifications but does not evolve. In such transformations, there is no progress
  or regress; evolution or devolution; development   or degeneration. The Karma   - the
  action-schemata -   being configurations of  mantra-complexes, pass from one sort of formation
  into another and into which again we  cannot read developmental progress. The aNavam stands
  there as insentient unleashing  forces of destruction and death and simultaneously constraining the
  understanding so that it remains finite. It disperses itself into countless number of forms
  depending  upon the  context. So in the processes of these insentient but metaphysically  real
  substances, there is NOTHING on the basis of which we can single out ONE as the more
  developed than another i.e. there is no way  in which we can note a hierarchical  relationship of
  subordination and superordination.
 
   Now the aNu is the finite self and since it is sentient, it would appear that the  notion of
  development and so forth can be made sense here. There are two distinct  possibilities. One is the
  biological processes of growth and decay in which there are the aging processes. But in
  conjunction with the question of the meaning of pedagogy, the biological changes such as these
  are irrelevant. An old man can be philosophically naive while a young man may not be so. More
  importantly, the anma in relation to its M-Being is absolutely transcendental, BEYOND the
  unceasing historical-flux of the  phenomenal world and hence suffers no changes at all- it has no
  states of Being such  as young and old, and hence neither mature nor immature.

   This bring us to the final and the most likely candidate: the understanding itself and the
  hermeneutical meaning of the pedagogical.  The phrase 'uNarvezu niikkam' indicates that the
  pedagogical removes something from the  understanding itself and because of which results
  developmental changes. The   understanding is 'purified' and because of it, it  is better, more
  developed and so forth. But the sharp intellect of Arunandi notes a problem here too. If BEING
  absolves all the prejudices finitising the understanding so that it is absolutely PURE without any
  obscurants that would distort and thwart the perceptions, then it makes the  understanding of
  BEING as iNaiyili, an absolutely indivisible UNITARY WHOLE, problematic. BEING involved
  in the removable of the obscurants of human understanding that configure the understanding itself
  as finite, impure, unsaturated, imperfect, incomplete etc cannot  be ONE, for it requires splitting
  into a variety of guises each suitable to a specific task of purification. Is BEING absolutely
  UNITARY or not? is the question that perplexes Arunandi now.

   7. Now can BEING instruct itself as a way of REALIZING ITSELF and because of which
  emerges the pedagogical in the world? is the question that remains  to be taken up, having
  eliminated all other possible candidates. But the question: nI ninmalan, paruvam  nikazththiyathu
  yArkkO? itself contains the answer : that which is already absolutely Pure , free of the defiling
  MALAM, the obscurants, has no necessity to instruct Itself , no matter how; it has to be for
  something else while simultaneously itself not learning anything at all.

  8. Now emerges another possibility  that is not only nihilistic but possibly Atheistic.  For the
  presence of the instructional is not  denied but only the invocation of the involvement of BEING
  itself  in it and hence the irrelevancy of BEING for the pedagogical. For it is considered now that
  understanding can move from itself to itself and in that the obscurants removed. This can be either
  by the efforts the self itself in its Being-in-the World  or the  self- removal of the obscurants on
  their own accord. The understanding can be taken to be PROJECTIVE, projecting unto itself from
  within  itself  states of Being as its own innermost possibilities  and move by itself to BE what it
  projects for itself.  If this is the case and the pedagogical is essentially this, then BEING as such
  becomes irrelevant, the analysis of Being of the self itself being sufficient.  



HOME