Comments on C.G. Jung 5-2


Dear Friends,
This is the final part of not only the fifth comment but also the whole series.  My apologies for being too metaphysical. But my intention is to disclose to the readers the depth of understanding and the immense relevance of the notion ofHermeneutic Science to bring CLARITY into the basic questions of metaphysics without which psychology as a genuine science with a solid foundation cannot thrive. Simultaneously I want to introduce Meykandar as one of the most outstanding philosophers of the World, a credit that he rightfully deserves but which has DENIED by the Indologists to this day for reasons that are very unprofessional, and I may add, unethical.

Dr Loga

Part 2: Overcoming Nihilism

  1) We have come to the end of an exposition of the essential content of the first set of
  metaphysical QUESTIONS the adroit Arunandi raises more to highlight and prepare the ground
  for the final statement that he makes  come out from the mouth of his master himself. The kind of
  dialectics that he enters into may be the kind of dialectics that transpired in his time in the circle of
  Meykandar.  An overview   of all these discourses quite clearly indicate that what is involved is a
  species of deconstruction that we shall call disconstruction,   the unsettling the settled and
  through that introducing a trauma in the mind of the philosophers who assert positively this and
  that and remain complacent with an air of finality in the truth of their utterance. This confidence
  and complacency is that which is undermined  while simultaneously disclosing the impasses that
  assails any philosophical explanations about the problem he begins with : How is BEING which is
  Radiance itself can be co-present with Darkness in the understanding of the psychic entities? Any
  explanation within Alterity, the primordial condition of discourse and ethics, cannot explain the
  meaning of the pedagogical that ultimately leads to ParaMukti, a condition of Nonalienness with
  BEING. But disconstruction is not simply  deconstruction , that which unsettles and through that
  allows continuos translatability, substitutability , uninterrupted flow , nondirectional
  disemmination and so forth.  Disconstruction as cangkaaram, does not simply unsettle;  it, in
  doing that, clears the ground for the emergence  of another that till now remains concealed,
  covered-up, hid behind a veil, a curtain. In other words, as Meykandar articulates it, it is
  antham-aathi, an act of terminating one in order to initiate another, episodizing so that present
  becomes the past and future becomes the present.

  2)  The impasses lead to undecidability about the presence and involvement of BEING and at
  times marginalising it so that it becomes   supremely  IRRELEVANT even if it is there
  somewhere. This irrelevancy of BEING and hence anything absolutistic, permanent with
  unchanging   essences is the kind of NIHILISM that emerges as the possibility with the line of
  metaphysical thinking  underlying the discourses we have considered so far.  The understanding
  of pedagogical as instructional that brings along with it absolute hetereology, is the  root cause of
  all these impasses. For it binds thinking to Alterity, Separation, the face-to-face as ultimate,
  alienation, the nondissolubiltiy  of  Other and the impossibility of making sense of the important
  notion of ParaMukti as that for which existence is , remains the possibility of all creatures and
  which can be bestowed by BEING  alone. The metaphysics of indissoluble  discourse  cannot
  lend itself for understanding the notion of ParaMukti which is already there even before any
  discourse along with the presence of BEING. What we need is a metaphysics that allows the
  overcoming of speech and hence, discourse and  simultaneously the reaching the primordial
  situation that is prelinguistical.  The true metaphysics is that which reaches the prelinguistical and
  the postlinguistical ground and of  which such an enterprise is called meta-physical, the going
  beyond the physis , that which stands as there i.e. por-uL. ParaMukti also demands, as that which
  hovers in front as the possibility for all, as something already inscribed,  the transcending of
  language and hence going beyond discourse, towards a communicative situation that is at the
  same time non-linguistic i.e. cuththa mOnam , Deep Silence. Such a possibility is contained within
  a notion of pedagogy that was first articulated by Appar and Jnaanasambanthar and at the end of
  the impasses, the solution offered by them is made to be repeated by Meykandar as a way
  overcoming  the nihilism that surfaced as the only possibility within absolute hetereology. The
  disconstruction clears the ground for the emergence of the TRUTH and simultaneously true
  metaphysics, Metaphysica Universalis.
  3) The solution is contained in the words of Appar wherein he says :  "?'¯º'Ñ Ñ-?'Ö ?¯
  ¸°Ö ?'ª¥'?'þÒ" "kaaNpaar aarkol kaN n-uthal kaattaakkaalE" and the words of
  Thirujnaanasambanthar :  "ªº'Ò×Ñ? ?ÏæŠׯ«ÃÅ ± À'¯½Å þ?ªº'ò ½ZÖ,
  ?ãØÖ?Ò Zã? þׯ¥'" "aatpaalavarkku aruLum vaNNamum aathi maaNpum kEtpaan
  pukil, aLavillai kiLakka vENtaa". Roughly these words can be translated as meaning: there
  cannot be anyone SEEING any thing at all if not SHOWN as such by the Three-Eyed archetypal
  presentation of BEING and the phenomenal presentations of BEING as such are infinite,
  uncountable. The immediate implication is that the pedagogical is not instructional that
  presupposes an eternal hetereology but rather opening up the eyes so that what is already there but
  remains UNSEEN begins to be SEEN and the ways in which such removable of BLINDESS is
  effected are INFINITE and uncountable.  How the selves are transformed so that they are more
  mature, how they are GRACED so that they DEVELOP as  individuals , the modes in which they
  are effected  and so forth are beyond measure, a MYSTERY beyond the reach of the calculating
  mind. In other words BEING-IN-ITSELF  or the Metaphysical BEING  (henceforth M-BEING)
  remains a MYSTERY perhaps forever beyond the reach of the frail and finite human
  understanding. And this means that we can understand BEING only when and  as   HE chooses
  HIMSELF to disclose to the human mind.  And each one of these disclosures are really opening
  up the eyes of the psychic entities so that what remains UNSEEN  begins to be SEEN.
  The SEEING of more and more of what is already there is genuine LEARNING and hence the
  processes  of opening up the eyes in this manner is genuine pedagogy.  There is SHOWING
  because of which there is SEEING , each such seeing constituting an act of learning, the
  destruction of the Darkness of ignorance.
  But does not this notion of pedagogy   also presuppose an absolute hetereology and hence all the
  impasses that we have met?  The answer to this basic question is provided by Meykandar's
  rightly famous observation: "Æ'?×ÉÅ ¡ïÆÅ ´³ ±Ñ" "yaavaiyum chUniyam chaththu
  ethir"i..e. 'there  is only Nothingness in the face of the Absolute':  at the limiting situation there is
  no face to face for there is NO  FACE AT ALL, the FACE disappears and only  a
  NOTHINGNESS comes to prevail. It  is also described by Meykandar as an-n-iyaminmai, the
  absence of alienness or alterity. But how can the notion of SEEING as Learning lead us to
  absolve Alterity and hence neutralize separation, difference and so forth? The seeing , when it
  progresses from the physicalistic, then to the hermeneutic , then to the transductive and so forth
  archeoductively, in the limit it becomes SEEING WITHOUT SEEING, the n-Okkaathu n-Okkal
  of Meykandar.  While all seeings are infected with referentiallity i.e. cuddu, it is only the
  SEEING  WITHOUT SEEING  that is free of it.  If there is no referentiallity , there is no
  temporality as well and hence along with it a condition of the impossibility of speech as such. A
  deep silence, a silence that is not  a modality of speech but rather because the roots of speech are
  cut asunder, becomes the only mode of communication. This is the limiting condition for there
  exists NOTHING beyond, which is also understood within this state of Being.  There exists
  NOTHING that can be encountered as there, nothing yonder, there is no more the Other. There is
  the ABSOLUTE CLOSURE , the PARAMUKTI that informs from within that it is so.
  At this stage emerges a true understanding of BEING in itself, the corUbam disclosing that
  BEING  hitherto is only the transitory phenomenal presentations, P-BEING, the thadastham,  that
  which stands as the Incomparable, the Wholly Other , that One without a second, the Most high
  and so forth. All these are ways of Being of BEING, each suited for some kind of SHOWING and
  hence opening up the eyes of the spiritually blind anmas. There is no contradiction between
  hetereological understanding of BEING and the TRUE understanding of BEING. The BEING   as
  it in itself is disclosed to the anmas at the point of Nothingness, at the end of the complete and
  total burning to cinders all the prejudices, the constraints, the obscurants that delimited and
  distorted the seeing and understanding.

  With this the nihilism is totally overcome. The M-BEING stands as the ABSOLUTE, which in its
  phenomenal presence throws the anmas into an hetereology, forcing to have a FAITH and
  consider   the BEING-IN-ITSELF as the Wholly Other, the Impossible , forever the Beyond and
  so forth. But when the phenomenality of Being-in-the-World is overcome, where everything is
  transcended hermeneutically, where every impulse is evaporated in the  burning grounds of Tillai
  so that intentionality and along with it referentiallity, temporality and so forth cease to emerge,  in
  the SEEING WITHOUT SEEING, the ABSOLUTE BEING itself is seen bringing to a FINAL
  CLOSURE to the phenomenal existence itself.

And it is here that Meykandar goes beyond Kant or any other Western Philospher that I know about. It is by this that Meykandar dealt the death blow to the Advaita of Sankara . However it must remembered that this brilliance of Meykandar was lost and at the moment it is Mayavadam , the magicalism of Sankara that reigns as the supreme achievement of the Indian philosophers thanks to untiring efforts of Brahmin scholars such as  Dr Radhakrishnan and a host of others who in their writings have projected Sankara as second to none not only in India but in the whole world, something quite unethical, I believe and quite untrue.