Knowing the Knower

By Pankaj / Frank van den Bovenkamp, Jan. 17, 2015

If knowing leads to not-choosing, then choosing leads to not-knowing.

"Knowing" here refers to supreme knowledge. In philosophy this is Paramashiiva, the Supreme Cognitive Entity. In a somewhat more technical or scientific line of thinking this is Jina Purusa, the Universal Knowing Faculty. There is a subtle difference between the two.

"Choosing" is evolutionary heuristics. It's the self-taught skill of pragmatism which helped us survive the physical elements and our psychic worlds. There is a certain element, a more or less deliberate choise of convenience in it without which our full conscious awareness would be devoted to each and every perception, yes, to each and every nerve cell of our biological body, like in the case of an insect or reptile. Fortunately, nature has allowed us to delegate this task through automation and passed it on genetically. This sum total of genetic heuristics, re-booted and unleashed during our childhood years, is referred to as "citta" in philosophy. It is the immensely vast storehouse of "not-Knowing", the very physical substance this known creation is made of.

That which knows, in other words, that which is the ultimate Knower, cannot be known itself. It's a tautology. So how can we know or understand the Jina Purusa of microvita cosmology? It is not a devotional approach per sé, such as in the case of the Cosmic Nucleus. Nor is it an analytical one - we have to take a deeply intuitional, yet logical approach here.

That which cannot be known, can yet subtly and indirectly be intuited through a process of negation. "It is not this, it is not that..". Or in a sadhana style, like for example Shrii Ramana Maharshi: "I'm not this, I'm not that..". This way Shrii Maharshi crossed the great unknown beyond the boundless ocean of creation, and went into a state of ultimate absorbtion in the non-dualistic tradition.

Do we need the non-dualistic approach all the time? Shrii P.R. Sarkar has given an alternative in his many spiritual shastra's. In relation to microvita science the line of thinking is still a different one though. In the Abstract plane, or the primordial stage, there is no great difference between philosophy and science. Hence we can say, Paramashiiva and Purusottama (the Cosmic Nucleus) are one and the same. In science, before the bifurcations, also, Jina Purusa and Krta Purusa are one and the same - there is no practical difference.

In relation to the physical world, Paramashiiva is all-pervasive - He occupies each and every created entity a billion times, like a very fine matrix of pure light, rather than a homogenous field. Similarly, Purusottama exists inside each and every entity, in each and every atom and molecule as it's Cosmic Nucleus, like it's spiritual centre of gravity. Thus, in the planes of physicality, there are certain styles of differentiation or specialization of the Purusa, through a special kind of reciprocity between the "Doer-I" and "Knower-I" portions of the Abstract (i.e. after the bifurcation), and this allows us to have an ever so small bit of knowledge of the physical world.

Now, in a very precise approach, a non-dual, rather than a non-dualistic approach, we may say, Jina Purusa is not the same Entity as Paramashiiva. It is neither Paramashiiva in the physical world, nor is it the same in the Abstract, in the primordial plane of the creation. Therefore, being neither abstract nor matter, Jina Purusa exists precisely at the boundary, that is "at the silver lining between matter and abstract" (just like microvita). We may say, Jina Purusa represents the subtlest form of energy, the enery of the spatial-eternal dimension that activates and motivates primordial vibrations to evolve as physical waves. Therefore, this universal energy is the Knower of the entire creation.

Back to