Note on Aphorism 11 of and by Franklin Merrell Wolff

[Guest guest]

II ... Within Consciousness-without-an-object

lie both the Universe and Nirvana,

yet to Consciousness-without-an-object

these two are the same.

 

Superficially considered, nothing may seem more incomprehensible than

a state of consciousness from which two dissimilar states, such as

the Universe and Nirvana, have the same value. But actually, the

difficulty is not so great when once analysis has led to the

realization that consciousness, as such, is unaffected by

superimposed states or forms. Neither the Nirvani nor the man in the

Universe is outside of Consciousness, as an abstract and universal

principle. If a conception from mathematics may be borrowed, it may

be said that the Universe and Nirvana have the same modulus but are

different in sense. The notions of " modulus " and " sense, " as employed

in mathematics, have the following meaning: In the series of positive

and negative numbers we have an unlimited number of pairs of numbers

having the same absolute magnitude, but of opposite signs. In this

case, it is said that the members of such pairs have the same modulus

but are opposite in sense. Applying this analogy, the modulus that is

common to both the Nirvanic State and to consciousness in the

Universe is the common quality of being Consciousness. The difference

in " sense " refers to the opposed qualities of being objectively

polarized, in the case of consciousness in the Universe, and

subjectively polarized, in the Nirvanic State. Now, when

the " modulus " of a number alone is important, then the positive and

negative " sense " of the number is irrelevant, and therefore, may be

regarded as having the same significance. By applying this analogy,

the meaning of the aphorism should become clearer.

There is a profound Level of Realization wherein the two states of

the Universe of Objects and Nirvana, instead of seeming like forever

separated domains, become interblended coexistences. In other words,

at that Level of Recognition, consciousness of objects and

consciousness of absence of objects are known to be mutually

complementary states, the one dependent upon the other, just as the

notion of negative numbers is dependent upon the notion of positive

numbers, and vice versa. And just as the student of mathematics very

soon reaches the point where the notion of number, as such,

comprehends the positive and negative " sense " of number, so that he

no longer thinks of two distinct domains of number, so, also, is it

at that higher Level of Recognition. Nirvana and the Universe of

objects are simply phases of a more ultimate Reality.

Consciousness-without-an-object is not simply consciousness of

absence of objects. It is THAT which is neutral with respect to the

presence or absence of objects. As such, IT stands in a position of

Indifference to this presence or absence. In contrast, the

consciousness of absence has a positive affective quale, just as

truly as is the case with the consciousness of presence of objects,

and this is not a state of indifference. The actuality of positive

affective quale both during presence and absence may be noted by

studying the effect produced after the performance of a fine musical

composition. If a period of silence is allowed to follow the

performance, and the listener notes the effects upon his

consciousness, he will find that there is a development of musical

value in that silence. Actually, this value has a greater richness

for feeling than the music had as audible sound. Further, that

silence is not like any other silence, but on the contrary has an

affective quale that is specifically related to the particular

composition that has been rendered. We may call this the nirvanic

aspect of the given musical selection. Now Nirvana, as a whole,

stands in analogous relationship to the totality of the Universe of

Objects. The Universe of objects is an affective privation, which

becomes a corresponding affective richness in the Nirvanic Aspect.

Also, the form-bound knowledge of the Universe of Objects becomes the

free-flowing Gnosis, having inconceivably rich noetic content. But

Con-sciousness-without-an-object stands in neutral relationship to

both these aspects.

In the strict sense, from the standpoint of Con-sciousness-without-an-

object, objects are neither present nor absent. Presence or absence

has meaning only from a lower level. The older notion of space, as

being that which is affected neither by the presence nor absence of

bodies, suggests the idea.

 

...thinking this may be of some interest to some.....bob