On Attention to Relations
This post is based on the talk by Prof. Arindam Chakrabarti.
ग्राह्यग्राहकसंवित्तिः सामान्या सर्वदेहिनाम् |
योगिनां तु विशेषोऽयं संबन्धे सावधानता ||
grāhyagrāhakasaṁvittiḥ sāmānyā sarvadehinām |
yogināṁ tu viśeṣo'yaṁ saṁbandhe sāvadhānatā ||
Meaning:
The buyer-seller relationship is commonplace for embodied individuals. For the yogis, as a specialty, there is attention on the relationship.
The above verse is from Vignana Bhairava written by Abhinavagupta of the Kashmiri Shaivism tradition. It is written in the 7th or 8th century AD and is framed as a discussion between goddess Bhairavi (Mahakali) and her husband Bhairava. The text presents 112 Tantric meditation methods in the form of verses.
Vedantic explanation of the verse
How would we interpret the verse as per Advaita Vedanta?
In each subject-object relationship, there is an underlying reality beyond the subject or the object that is ground of the relationship. That reality alone (Brahman) exists and is the focus of the yogis.
Challenge with this explanation
Vedanta exercises economy of words in going straight to what is true. But in doing so, it dispenses away with the world entirely.
In particular, we have lived experiences of various relationships, but these are abstracted ultimately to the one inherent reality of Brahman.
While being true and canonical philosophically, this may be inadequate for those who seek an aesthetic path for realization - a path that retains and builds upon the richness of our lived experiences.
Abhinavagupta provides such an aesthetic path by discussing the perspective of the yogi from within a relationship. While experiencing ordinary relationships, the yogi focuses not on the relata (ones that are related) but on the relation itself.
This in-betweenness provides a path to higher experience, and Abhinavagupta draws our attention to study them carefully.
The Study of Relations
Our ordinary lives are suffused with relationships. Mother-child, father-child, teacher-student, governor-governed, employer-employee and so on. Many of these relationships come to define our lives.
There are other subtle relationships as well, such as between object and quality (eg. the whiteness of a white lily), word and meaning (eg. the letters D A R K and the experience of darkness), thought and object (eg. an imagined house and the future object), cause and effect (eg. clay and pot), etc.
Philosophers have long studied relationships because even the most basic ones reveal much mystery.
Mystery in relations
Consider the relation of contact. Two physical objects touching each other are said to be related by contact.
An object A that is touching another object B has two distinct parts - the part that is in touch with B and the part that isn’t. If the first part is empty, then it negates the relation of touch. If the second part is empty, then A is not distinct from (a part of) B. So, both parts exist and thus any object that is related by contact with another object is divisible.
Now consider the smallest physical object that is no further divisible. Can this object be in contact with any other object? This cannot be the case as per the above argument. If all smallest objects are not touching any other object, then how do we have compositions of objects?
~
Consider another case of the relation between word and meaning. How are the letters D, A, R, K related to darkness? Or how are the waves of sound pronouncing DARK related to darkness.
Let us say we were able to define a relation R between a word W and meaning M.
Since R has to be expressed in words, we can then define a relationship between R and W, and R and M. What are these second-order relations?
This process can continue ad infinitum and expresses our inability to formally define the relation between word and meaning, a relation that is foundational to all communication.
~
Thus, even the most basic of relations when carefully probed, devoid of personal contexts, can reveal mysteries which do not admit simple explanations.
Maya - where logic breaks
The above is anticipated in Vedanta as being the nature of Maya, which is unreasonable.
For instance, the world is found to be both real and unreal. It is real in that we experience things. But it is unreal in that this world has come from one homogeneous whole and thus cannot have any property that is not already present in the homogeneous whole which is propertyless.
Vedanta suggests looking beyond this unreasonable world of Maya into the primal cause.
But Abhinavagupta wants to engage us to study these conundrums through our commonplace experience of relationships as a meditative practice.
Practicing attention to the in-between
Consider the experience of relating to payasam (sweet rice) with desire. I am fond of payasam and when I see freshly prepared payasam I feel desire.
In our ordinary lives, we focus on the nature of the object - the payasam: how hot is it, how sweet is it, what is the consistency, who prepared it, what is the occasion, and so on.
We also focus on the nature of the subject - me. How I used to eat paysam as a child, how much I like it, how I liked the payasam my mother made, how I don’t like the payasam made by so-and-so, and so on.
Both nodes - payasam and me - have rich detail that create and sustain our thought flows.
But we do not focus enough on the in-between: the relation of desire. What is the nature of desire? Where is the happiness that desire promises?
Upon careful study the yogis say the following for desire - The relationship of desire is an agitation in my mind that seeks an object. The happiness that desire promises is not in the object. Instead, it is in the temporary subsiding of the agitations in my own mind.
When focusing on the relation, the yogi can delve on this insight that is revealed by the commonplace experience of desiring paysam. This takes one from the specifics of payasam and me to the generics of the nature of desire.
In-betweenness as Sadhana
Abhinavagupta is recommending a similar movement from the specific to the generic in each of our experiences.
One can also apply this to various forms of Sadhana through Karma, Bhakti, or Raja yogas.
For instance, the relation between an aspirant and a goal, e.g., I want to build something for my country. There is much detail about the country and much detail in what I want to build. But the generic relation is that of setting an ideal. And the insight is that a higher ideal helps one shed one’s false ego-centric impulses. And the highest ideal is self-knowledge.
Similarly, when one says I love Krishna. There is much detail about Krishna, and also much detail about myself and how I don’t love Shiva or some other god. But the generic relation is that of love and how love is universal and independent of reciprocation.
Finally, there is the relationship of one thought to the next thought. There is much force in each thought to engage us. But if we were to focus on the in-betweenness between two thoughts, i.e., on the reason why one thought led to the next, we can dive deeper into meditative insight.
The ultimate relation
In Kashmiri Shaivism, the ultimate relation is between Shiva and Jiva.
This universe is Shiva’s creative potential created so that Jiva may realize its true nature and merge into Shiva.
In this sense, the deepest relations moves us from twoness to oneness.
And this is how Abhinavagupta reconciles with Advaita Vedanta. It is through relations that we move from two to one.