desire and liberation

(The Fundamentals of Cosmicontology)

Vaddera Chandidas

WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY
KALIDAS BHATTACHARYYA
This, my “desire and liberation – The Fundamentals of
Cosmicontology”, perhaps, needs further clarification – as
any ‘Fundamentals’ would. I plan to write a more elaborate
Notes – (which, I tentatively call “desire and liberation – The
Nuances of Cosmicontology”). However, I sincerely believe,
that this ‘Fundamentals’ as such, gives one an occasion to
tune oneself to the possible details.

Clarification and detail are inevitable requisites of

communication. For one who looks into-, how untruthful and
absurd is language – a seductively marvelous medium of
communication.

All writing, in a way is whoring with ‘truth’. But it is a

promiscuous pleasure of inevitable monogamous ‘cursing’
bliss.

Language simply fails to express my indebtedness to Kalidas

Bhattacharyya mahasaya. Without his animating interest in
this work I would not have been able to either complete or
publish it so soon. What I owe to my friend Nageswara Rao
garu, working on his own theory of Aesthetics, whom, my
literary and philosophical work brought closer to me, is far
larger and deeper than ‘thanks’ can convey. – VC.

2
to cosmic music

3
 INTRODUCTION

Decades after Sri Arobindo’s and K.C.Bhattacharyya’s

writings, and particularly in the recent days of anti-
metaphysical thinking and sheer historical scholarship in
India, it is a pleasant surprise to find in Vaddera Chandidas’s
Desire and Liberation (hardly in one or two works of other
thinkers) a new complete system of metaphysics presented
though in an extraordinarily concise form, almost in the way
of ancient Indian Sutras. Vaddera Chandidas promises (to me
personally) that in a few year’s time he will expand his ideas
into a volume of three hundred pages. Until then we shall
have to be content with the Sutras and only struggle hard to
decipher them.

Struggle hard one must, because no one who has gone

through a few pages of the work can help feeling that almost
in every sentence – one might say, in every phrase and every
new word what is being pointed to is something not only
profound but also fittingly connected with every other thing
that has been said. The language he uses is undoubtedly
English – and, for that, mostly good English – but often
unconventional and sometimes deliberately made
ungrammatical. But when one has grasped the ideas behind,
one irresistibly feels that it could not be otherwise if precisely
those ideas were to be conveyed. I cannot imitate his
language which is so exquisitely attuned to the subtle
nuances of his thought. If in the following pages I am to
present some of his ideas by way of a sort of introduction, I
have to do it in my own language, and it will be necessary
also to exclude many of his topics which might otherwise be
of immence importance, and even to dilute the basic ones, if

4
only to make him just intelligible to common philosophical
readers.

* * *

Sometimes the real is understood as that which is given and

‘given’, in this context, means given to the senses. But this,
by all standards, is an inadequate definition of the real and it
does not cover cases like ‘future’ events and ‘scientific’
entities like electrons and protons. With a view to covering
these some have understood the real in and extended sense,
viz, as that which is somehow interpretable in terms of
sensuous givenness, ‘in terms of’ including ‘presupposed by’.
Such an expanded definition would even account for the
some times- claimed reality of the laws of nature and the
laws of logic. Still others, however, though permitting some
form of extended definition, would not seek to cover the
laws of nature (not to speak of logical laws) and some not
even ‘scientific’ entities, these according to them, having only
instrumental (operational) worth. Anyway, all such attempts
at defining the real in terms of the sensuous given, whether
in a restricted or in some extended import of ‘sensuous
givenness’, are typically empiricistic.

Vaddera Chandidas would not have patience with any such

definitions. He would brush these aside on the simple ground
that while in these definitions of reality of a real is sought to
be determined by its reference to the ‘senses’, it has not
been noticed that the ‘senses’ themselves are real, and quite
as real as any other thing, and that it would be foolish to hold
that their reality too is determined by some such reference.
Obviously, the ‘senses’ are not self-refering. (Chandidas has
given a full account of the ‘senses’ toward the end of his

5
monograph). The truly real must, therefore, be more basic
than either the ‘senses’ or whatever is interpretable in their
terms.

People might be tempted to definite the real as what exists,

as though the notion of existence is somehow more
intelligible than that of reality and not further analyzable.
Chandidas would have nothing of such nonsense too,
existence could at all be distinguished from reality if, and
only if, it were understood as somehow not separated from
either what is sensible or interpretable in terms of
sensuousness. As a matter of fact, those who insist
specifically on existence and reject the reality of non-existent
noumenal entities understand it that way. Although there is
some difference between the existent and the empirical, it is
yet a fact that in all philosophical pursuit we start our career
with the empirical- as –existent or the existent-as –empirical,
and Chandidas has shown in detail why the two can never be
separated. The existent, according to him, is exactly what is
called individual (Sometimes indeed he has spoken of the
real itself as individual. But that he does only with regard to
reality as a whole – the temporal cosmos which is being ever-
expanding.) and the individual as such differs from the
empirical individual in just being its conceptual prius. He has
ably demonstrated that metaphysically (in his language,
onticontologically) it is nothing but a ‘freeze point’ of the
‘reality-process’ which is perpetual dynamism. [Structurally,
the real is simply real; functionally the same thing is reality
process, and what changes the real into reality process is the
intervention of intellect which, however, itself belongs to the
real. The real as structure is ontic; intellect as such is the
instrument of ontologicality; and what is effected out of the
structure by the instrumentality of intellect (which is itself

6
also real) is onticontological. The change said to be effected
by intellect is no event in time, so far. The structure and the
function are the two metaphysical forms of the real.] if the
existent as such is here spoken of as a conceptual prius (of
the empirical individual), this does not mean that it is an
intellectual construction. Constructive intellect is itself as
much real as any other thing and, therefore, its constructions
too are reality-process. Intellect, basically a reality-process,
can, however, move a wrong way around too, because of its
additional capability of abstraction and construction which,
made that way, is not real but only superimposed.
Otherwise, however, (i.e. metaphysically) intellect is a reality-
process. In the present monograph he has developed a whole
theory of intellect vis-à-vis reality.

The real is not also, definitionally, spatial or temporal or

causally related. Undoubtedly, it is not something apart from
space, time or causal relation, but it is not definitionally so.
For spatiality, temporality causal relation are themselves also
real. Chandidas has shown that these are certain functional
features of the real.

Yet the real is the prius of all these, as much as it is of

sensuousness and of existence. Prius, here, has, of course, to
be understood initially (i.e. from the point of view of our
approach) as conceptual, i.e. intellectually constructed. But
the construction here, unlike in cases mentioned before, is
not in the direction of ‘freezing’. It is in the opposite direction
– the direction, one may say, of backward analysis. Indeed,
analysis (abstraction) and construction are only two opposite
sides of the same shield. Looked at in one way, it is
construction; looked at in the reerse way, it is analysis. The
looked is here the intellect itself, undivorced from the real.

7
The status of the real as such is ontic, and that of intellect
and all that is derived through it is onticontological, meaning
that is as much analytical constructional (in his language
ontological) as also ontic. The ontic, therefore, subsists
autonomously in a way, though not for that reason apart
from the ontological, and, therefore, from existence,
empiricality, space, time and causal relation. What it all
comes to is that the real, though of autonomous status, has
to be understood in a way completely different from how
others in the whole history of philosophy have understood.
Let us elaborate.

***

First, the real by itself cannot be said to exist, even though it

is autonomous. If it exists, it does so only as
onticontologically involved in existents, not by itself. This
disposes of a whole group of transcendental philosophers of
the Advaita Vedanta brand, according to whom what is
ultimately real – the Absolute – is Chandidas, there is no
Ultimate, no Absolute, no quintessence, such words meaning
only limiting concepts. According to him, reality tends ever as
much to withdraw towards a supposed core as it is an ever
increasing universe expanding towards an everreceding,
ever-completing whole. Advaita, in his opinion, is guilty of
two charges: unauthorisedly it has rejected not only the ever-
expansive aspect but also the very process of withdrawal that
otherwise it so much banks upon. Advaita has rejected both
under the wrong notion that, truly, the real is nothing but the
core. Why prefer the core to these other aspects when the so
called core, undenied though, is only a limiting concept, just
as a possible storehouse of an infinitely multifarious process?

8
Secondly, if by itself it does not exist, it is not also a mere
transcendental presupposition as Kant and the
phenomenologists would take it to be. For Kant and these
phenomenologists, every transcendental presupposition is
bound to be subject, an act of pure consciousness which
cannot by any consideration be said to exist, all existents
being natural entities – object outside or mental states (not
pure consciousness) or even things – in-themselves as the
prius of both. With Chandidas, on the other hand, the real as
such is neither consciousness nor the ‘other’ of
consciousness; these latter are, as he has labored hard to
show, only functional derivatives of the real, and that too at
a grade lower down than that of existence. Every ‘existent’
he holds, has some sort of ‘immortality’ ‘personate
immortality’ where existents are non-conscious. ( I cannot
claim I have understood these two concepts clearly.
Sometimes he has admitted personate immortality even of
existents that are non-conscious and often, too, described
impersonate immortality in terms of immediate relevance of
any individual existent to the ‘real’ of which it is a ‘fusional’
derivative’.

He has indeed said that in the case of personate immortality

the existent in question is itself a ‘contributory datum’, which
is not the case with impersonate immortality. But, then, he
has not also hesitated to add that even a non-conscious
existent can be a ‘contributory datum’. I confess I could not
follow the distinction alright. Perhaps the difference is one of
emphasis or degree, and this seems to be corroborated by
the facts (i) that he takes consciousness as operative only
because of the ‘senses’, according to him, are not sharply
differentiated from one another and once for all, (iii) that

9
wherever there is life there is, he holds, some ‘sense’,
however inchoate and fused and (iv) that a socalled
individual is often a wrong, merely surface, abstraction by
intellect). Further, according to him, the socalled ‘other’ of
consciousness is just because of the ‘senses’ inevitably
operating, the ‘senses’ alone, as undistinguished from
consciousness, being capable of positing their ‘others’.

Thirdly, Chandidas’s ‘real’ is not also a subsistent in the

Russellian sense. Russel’s ‘subsistent’ is neither subjective
nor objective, neither existent nor non-existent. It is a neutral
autonomous entity which, under different sets of conditions,
are logically constructed into subjective and objective affairs,
and each, again, as existing or non-existing (unreal). Russell,
in other words, gives a wholly logical account – the subsistent
is just a logical presupposition, and both the subjective and
the objective and the existent and the non-existent are
sought to be logically derived from it. Chandidas’s account,
on the other hand, is seriously metaphysical al through. In
case, again Russell’s logical account is pressed by some, as it
has actually been, as metaphysical, even then Chandidas
would deffer. First, his real is not separate from its functional
derivatives and features, and, secondly, intellect’s
construction would, in Chandidas’s philosophy, unless it were
a case of abstractional superficial non-experienced
superimposition, be all ontological and basically
onticontological, never, merely logical. What is merely logical
is either concerned with surfaces only and, therefore,
metaphysically misdirected, or deals only with remote
relevances i.e., from a distance not experiencing any of these
relevances.

10
Some, in rent days, have understood the logical as merely
linguistic structure or process. Philosophy as dealing with the
non-material (‘material’ meaning what is other than formal)
aspect of the world is, according to them, sheer linguistic
analysis, and they have advocated various citeria for
admissible linguistic behavior. Strangely enough, nowhere in
his monograph Chandidas has discussed the status and role
of language. Perhaps, to good extent he would reduce it to
logic and, for the rest, to the ‘othering’ process of the
‘senses’ (this othering being inevitably transformed on to the
conscious existent – the person with which the senses
remain associated). As, therefore, he would never equate his
‘real’ with either logic or othering (another name of which is
‘reference’), he a fortiori will not also equate it with
linguistic structure or process.

Fourthly, his philosophy, definitely, is not the Platonic type.

True, his ‘real’ transcends empiricality and space, time and
causal relation. But first, as so transcendent, it does not yet
exist; secondly, unlike Plato, he would never brush aside
either empiricality or space, time and causal relation. He
would retain all these, not only because his ‘real’ as the ontic
autonomous presupposition could not even be spokenof
unless one started with existent as the initial datum, but also
because this very existent, though by itself merely a
coagulation point of the onticontological reality-process, is
inevitably also historical, i.e., in time growing and fading so
far as is a simple individual (having ‘personate immortality’)
undergoing evolution and involution so far as it is a synthetic
complex of obvious simple existents (in Chandidas’s
language, a ‘phase’). [Chandidas admits, of course, a sort of
evolution even of the entire cosmos, the entire cosmos
historically moving toward what he calls ‘superfection’ which

11
is never an accomplished stage but ever only approximated
to a mere telos or ideal, though superabundantly forceful].
Chandidas will not desert space either, nor also causal
relations. The individuality of an existent – in his language,
individuation of reality as an existent has at all been possible
because of the mechanism of space. Space, he holds, is the
onticontological principle of solidification, with, of course,
fusional ramification on all sides. His ‘space ‘ performs the
dual function of ‘intensification’ and extensification’ – as
distinct from Kant’s which only extensifies, intensification
(which is onticontologically non-separate from rarefaction)
being left to time. Space he calls the ‘shade’ and time the
‘sound’ (rhythm) of reality process. Chandidas, equally also
accommodates all sensuous features as a sort of
reduplication of reality-process through sense-channels,
which channels too are as much functional features of reality
as anything else, excluding, of course, those which are only
superimpositions through superficial fusion.

Another fundamental difference from the Platonic

philosophy is that while Plato has, generally speaking, reified
logical features as ontic, Chandidas understands these as
only remote relevances, which are not only not actually
experienced but also spoken of distantly and, may be used
also technologically.

The system with which Chandidas’ philosophy bears

significant resemblance are Hegelianism and the philosophies
of Bergson, Alexander, Whitehead and also of some Tantrikas
in India and one may add, of Sri Arobindo. Yet it is different
from all these even in some relevant fundamentals.

12
Fifthyly, his reality, for example, like that of Hegel is, in a
way, both being and non-being. Like Hegel too, he has almost
equated them. Yet his difference with Hegel is abundantly
clear. His being (staticity) and non being (dynamism=process)
are both contradictory and non-contradictory. They
contradict each other at onticontological level where,
because of some unusual precisification by intellect, A tends
of itself to annihilate not-A. But at the mere ontic level there
is no question of annihilation, no clash whatsoever, no
dialectic. Ontic reality is an absolutely peaceful unity of the
two; it is even doubtful if there are two things here. At least
there is no question of one not being the other – the
atmosphere is so cool and poised and yet pregnant with so
much of possible explosion. (An apparently nearest – though,
truly, far distant – analogue is fire with its burning power.)
Yet, however, at the onticontological level there is
tremendous clash and conquest. Dialectic operates only at
this onticontological level where intellect (which is itself also
a feature of reality) has supervened. The onticontological is
thus necessarily a process, as much ontic as ontological, it is
dynamic reality, reality as process, one may call it becoming.
Yet, this becoming, in spite of its all-through dynamism, is
also being, because the whole thing is, after all, basically
ontic. Even non-being which is involved in becoming is
fundamentally being too: in the ontic the two-being and non
being are in perfect poise. (Chandidas, I am sure, will not like
the two terms being and non-being which, in his own
philosophy, he would use in some different senses. But I have
used them freely just in order to show where precisely he
would agree and differ with Hegel).

Hegel has nowhere distinguished between ontic and

onticontological. In his philosophy the first grand stratum is

13
that of logic, a field of dialectical interplay of bare forms as it
were, though these forms are richer than those of the
traditional formal logic. With Chandidas on the other hand,
the first grand stratum is that of the onticontological, with
the ontic as its autonomous prius and intellect (as a
functional feature) supervening on it and splitting it, as it
were, into a state of contradiction, in such a manner,
however, that either of the two clashing parts necessarily
also gets fused with the other because each belongs equally
to the same ontic reality. For him, there is no stratum of logic
as such – neither of abstract traditional formal logic nor of
any richer one, logic in either case being but remote
relevances spoken of distantly, not experienced.

The second grand stratum in Chandidas’ philosophy is that of

existents as individuals, involving as its features the principles
like space and time which are perpetually aiding the reality-
process to coagulate successfully as prehensional units. So
far as it just coagulates it is existents, but so far as it does this
successfully it is the spatio-temporal existents with all the
characteristics of space, time and causal relationships, if
there is any stratum nearly corresponding to this in the
philosophy of Hegel, it is that of Nature., the stratum of
Science as Hegel might call it.

The third grand stratum in Chandidas’s philosophy is that of

empirical, centring round the ‘senses’ – a sort of non-
superimpositional duplication of the field of existents.
Duplication, here, does not mean that from out of one
Nature there develops two – one in-itself and the other for
conscious existent. It is the same empirical Nature all
through, only posited this time as an ‘other’ and this because
of the constitutional ‘othering’ function of the ‘senses’. (but

14
do the ‘senses’, by that process, alienate themselves too
from themselves? I am not sure what Chandidas would say)
Chandidas adds the ‘senses’ of an existent operate in unision
and also that there are innumerable grades of their
excellence, they, when tending downward, sliding
imperceptibily into the most inchoate condition conceivable.
(Does he hint at pan-animism?
Again I am not sure). There is nothing like this kind of stratum
in Hegel except that with all its characteristics it is included in
his stratum of Nature, though now with a subject –object
distinction added. We have already seen what Chandidas
means by this distinction.

Hegel’s third and topmost stratum is that of spirit. Chandidas

would have nothing like this as a stratum though he would be
farthest from denying the importance of spirit. The concept
of sprit is relevant, he holds, only in the context of
‘liberation’, and of liberation he has given a novel account. It
is not merely an individual person’s (conscious existent’s)
recovery of himself as he truly is the entire scheme of reality,
but that very scheme of reality as aware of itself, including as
much that person as whatever is ontic and onticontological
and the whole gamut of derivatives the existent, the spatio-
temporal (including growth, decay, evolution and involution)
the empirical and even the asymptotic approach of the
historical cosmos to ‘superfection’.

He has in this connexion – and elsewhere too- discussed

threadbare the role of desire and feeling, understanding
these as not merely ‘psychological’ but basically as
onticontological – perhaps also more basically as ontic. He,
we have seen, is never satisfied with a mere logical
understanding of ontic reality, reality-process and all that

15
derives from it. Fundamentally, he is for experiencing the
whole scheme, and this ‘experience’, whether as feeling or
desire, is what the ‘psychological’ awareness would
conceivably be when it melts into and realizes thereby its
own authenticity as the awareness that the ontic, the
onticontological, etc. have of themselves. Desire,
fundamentally is but the entire reality-process experiencing
itself; and feeling, fundamentally, includes probably the self-
awareness of the ontic too.

This self-awareness of the ontic and the onticontological is

not only nothing psychological, it is not also what is
sometimes called mere consciousness.

There is no mere consciousness anywhere in the world,

neither in the world of space, time and causal relations nor
outside it. Consciousness, in whatever from it is found
anywhere, is but a conscious existent (as individual person)
operating as conscious – either experiencing Nature
sensuously or desiring and feeling psychologically or speaking
of (may be, also desiring or feeling) distant relevances
abstractionlly, another name of which last is (metaphysically
wrong-moving) intellect. The so-called mere consciousness is
one such (wrong) abstraction done by intellect.

It follows that what Chandidas means by ‘self awareness of

entire scheme of reality’ is nothing but its self-evidence,
implying that not only the other derivatives but even the
ontic and the ontological are entities that are immediately
and unchallengedly evident. [Note that it is unchallenged not
unchallengeable, for anything that is immediately evident
may later, through further sadhana, yield place to something
else then (i.e., at the later moment) immediately evident, in

16
which case we abide by the later and scrape the earlier]. It is
by thus characterizing the self-awareness of the ontic and the
ontological that he seeks to demarcate his philosophy from
that of any other transcendentalist – Indian or Western – for
which this self-awareness is some form (may be, the purest
form) of consciousness. He never forgets to add that it is no
form of impersonal consciousness too. The so-called
impersonal consciousness (i.e. consciousness which is not in
any way psychological) though strongly advocated in
different ways by Bergson, Alexander, Whitehead and Indian
transcendentalists (and even in a way by Hegel) is either
what he would call ‘self awareness of the ontic and
onticontological’ or just a jargon.

Often too, a sort of ecstasy is associated with the concept of

liberation. Chandidas admits this fully and explains it in a way
which, though extremely concise, is literally startling. It
reminds one immediately of some Tantrika mode of
realization.

Sixthly, his identity and difference with Bergson, Alexander

and Whitehead are too obvious for discussion in detail here.
At relevant places he almost uses the very language of these
philosophers. That shows how closely he has mastered them.
His indebtedness to them is obvious. But he has always gone
beyond them and placed them, with proper revision, though
unstated in so many words, in wider perspective of his own
philosophy. In details also he has differed enormously: this
will be evident even to a cursory reader.

Seventhly, if there is any system that comes nearest to his

philosophy, it is Tantrism, particularly that branch of it which
is known as Saktism. Resemblances to that system are

17
remarkable, though I have conclusive proofs that he had
never had any acquaintance with it. His philosophy is all his
own. I have advised him to study even now, with what
knowledge of Sanskrit he has, some Sakta and Saiva
literature. He will find there scores of cognate suggestions
which may help him in developing the present monograph
into a volume of three hundred pages as he has promised to
do.

In one fundamental point, however, he would still try to

distinguish his philosophy. While his ontic and
onticontological are neither conscious nor consciousness the
suddha tattavas of these Tantrikas are all forms of pure
consciousness, with the highest Sakti as mere consciousness
that is the most basic dynamism. (with the Saivas the highest
truth, viz. Siva, is itself pure consciousness). That apparently
this is a distinction no one will deny. But is not the pure or
mere consciousness of the Saktas and the Saivas and even of
many Vedantins, as distant from what Chandidas means by
psychological consciousness (which, according to him, is the
only legitimate form of consciousness) as his ‘self-evidence’
of the ontic and the ontological is from it? Is not the
difference between his ‘self- evidence’ and the others’ ‘pure
consciousness’ entirely nominal? The latter is still called
consciousness, only because, according to these others, the
basicality of their ‘pure consciousness’ is reachable (it
matters little whether asymptotically or not) by the Sadhaka
ultimately through a progressive process of purification of
gross psychological consciousness, passing from it to what
they call pure buddhi which is still fused with the
psychological, though one is then for the first time conscious
of this fusion; then from this buddhi to that form of pure
consciousness which, though realized as detached, refers yet,

18
though this time freely, to one’s own buddhi (distantly also
to one’s own psycho-physical make-up); and then from this
stage to the Suddha stge where even this free reference (i.e.
the last individuality) lapses. A serious drawback in
Chandidas’s philosophy is that he has not shown any passage
from the gross psychological to the self evidence of his ontic
and onticontological. His ontic and the onticontological and,
therefore, the entire forward fusion-process appear to all
have been shot out of a pistol. Until he has shown that there
is another passage of metaphysically purifying the given
sensuous spatio-temporal empirical world – a passage, in
other words, which is not (retrogressive) the purification of
gross psychological consciousness – he has no ground to
distinguish his ‘self-evidence’ from the others’ pure (or mere)
consciousness. I never mean that there is no other passage.
But what I further mean is that any passage of retrogressive
purification would inescapably describe his ontic and
ontological somehow in terms of what he last transcends to
leap at his ontic and onticontological.

Such description would, I admit, be seriously inadequate, and

perhaps wrong too, if only because that ‘last’ has after all
been transcended. But one has to chalk out the entire
pathway retrogradely from the grossest given to this last
transcendence; for, otherwise, one will have no ground even
to question the empirical, realistic and pluralistic philosophy
of good commonsense. Obviously Chandidas has intended to
go beyond it. But, then, how to understand his philosophy
except on the strength of the barrel it is shot forth from.

So, to do him full justice, let us assume that up his mind he

has some idea of appropriate Sadhana. Let us assume also
that he proposes transcending some last intelligible stage,

19
whatever that may be. Let us accept further that when that
last stage is transcended one has no right to understand the
transcendent in terms of that last stage – or, for the matter
of that, in terms of any earlier stage. But, then, what would
be its exact status? It would be neither this nor that
definitely, though to do fuller justice to Chandidas, it would
also be the potentiality of everything that has been
systematically transcended. For, unlike the Advaitin, he has
not brushed aside everything else as sheer nought, not even
as illusion. So far, then, as the status of his ‘onticontological’
is concerned one will have to say that it is wholly indefinite,
something undeniable and yet neither empirical nor spatial,
nor temporal nor even existent; and so far as the content too
is concerned, his ontic would be still more indefinite, though
equally the potentiality of everything that is derivable, so
much so that it would hold peacefully in its indefinite poise
all that would emerge (metaphysically, of course) as largely
contradicting one another. Still, however, there would be a
difficulty left. Does not the indefinite, once admitted – to be
more precise, once undenied – at least demand to be
experienced as definite, both in status and content? In a way,
Chandidas too has admitted this. He has admitted it so far as
the telos (ideal) of the historical cosmos is concerned. The
demand for realizing the indefinite telos as definite he has
delineated as the never-ending approach to it, and the
approach in this case is always in terms of whatever has, at
each stage, been proximately attained. May it not, on the
same ground, be argued that in the never-ending process of
retrogression too the ever-receding transcendent has to be
understood (experienced, though as half eluding) in terms of
what has last been attained? To be fair, of course, to
Chandids, one will have to add, in opposition to the thesis of
Advaita Vedanta, that the ever-expanding and ever-

20
withdrawing processes are, in effect, one and the same, the
self-same process – the two sides of the same shield. And,
this is exactly the Tantra thesis.

******

By way of a short introduction I have touched only the bare

outline of Chandidas’s system, dealing with just as few of his
original concepts as are necessary for my purpose. his
monograph is replete with novel concepts and novel
interpretation of traditional onces. The beauty of the
monograph lies in as much in the details he has developed as
in its general architectonic plan, perhaps more in the former
than in the latter. If I have discussed the latter only – and
that too largely superficially – it is only to give the reader
some preliminary idea. The last few pages of the monograph,
dealing with temporality, eternality, time, past, present,
future, duration, growth, decay, evolution, involution, cosmic
march toward ‘superfection’, jealousy, affection, personate
and impersonate immortality, beastiliness, saintliness, desire,
liberation, ecstasy, etc, are refreshingly original and
snowcaps the beautiful awesome peaks he had raised from
underground by a few sudden explosions in the first few
pages of the monograph.

Santiniketan,
December, 1974
KALIDAS BHATTACHARYYA

( At many relevant points it appears that he is almost at one with

Sri Arobindo and K.C.Bhattacharyya; particularly so, so far as the
self-awareness of the real and the reality-process is concerned.
With Bhattacharyya it is definitely beyond what is understood by
‘subjectivity’ even in its purest form (vide his ‘Absolute and its

21
Alternative Forms’, Studies in Philosophy). Sri Arobindo has, it is
true, understood it as still consciousness, but definitely as beyond
all that is normally understood by that term. With Sri Arobindo, as
with Hegel and Tantrism, he agrees also in rounding off the
withdrawal into the reality-core by multi-directional and ever
expanding prehensive act and vice versa though he differs sharply
with them in not having recognized any end-point either way.]

22
 desire and liberation
vaddera chandidas

Contradictoriness is an inherent structural tinge

of reality. Contradictoriness is not a functional
juxtaposing. Functional juxtaposing is a
derivative of intellection. Contradictoriness is the
ontic structurality. In so far as ontic structurality
is fusable through ontological functionality,
contradictoriness contradicts itself. This
functional contradicting of itself is the reason of
its identity.

Contradictoriness is not denying or negating.

Contradictoriness is not sustained by
incompatibility. Incompatibility is occasioned by
the mutual fusability of the structurality and
functionality of reality. The harmonious
differentiation o identity is incompatibility.

Yet, in so far as contradictoriness is functionally

operative, negation is acceptable; for negation
negates itself. And, in so far as negation negates
itself, it affirms itself structurally. This is because
negation cannot negate otherness; unless the
structural inclusiveness of reality is not a fact.
Otherness is a functional revelation of the
structural mutability of onticontological reality.
Thus contradictoriness is not negating or
annihilating.

23
It very often happens to make attempts to show
something as contradictory and finally to learn
that such a thing cannot at all be.

To say that the existence of something (be it

world, God or anything) is contradictory and
therefore it cannot exist- has become a common
practice. It is very easy to do so because
contradictoriness is an inherent tinge of reality.
But this contradictoriness does not give rise to
thesis – anti – thesis.

The functional variables give rise to thesis-anti-

thesis. They are functional stills of reality. Stills
are functional freeze-points. Functional freeze-
points are occasioned through individuating
intellection. Functional freeze-points form the
principle of contradiction. It is this principle of
contradiction that leads to thesis-anti-thesis.

The principle of contradiction is the explicable

grounding of the structurality of individuating
intellection. It explicates the limitational touches
of ontological juxtaposing. Through
onticontological fusion, the structural
inoperativeness of reality renders itself as
functional efficacy. Functional efficacy is
grounded upon the principle of contradiction. The
principle of contradiction explicates the
manifoldness of reality, that is, the limitational
touches of ontological juxtaposing. Juxtaposing is

24
established through the positionality of multi-
directional stills.

Contradictoriness is not identical with the

principle of contradiction. On the contrary,
contradictoriness structurally denies the principle
of contradiction. An attempt to identify
contradictoriness with the principle of
contradiction may be called structure- functional
extravagancy of the saturating intellection.

Through harmonious differentiation of identity,

the stupid insistence of incompatibility sustains
the paradoxicality of existence.

The principle of contradiction is a resultant of

intellection; and, therefore, it has no ontic
status. It only speaks of the intellection aspect of
the ontological status.

Contradictoriness, being an ontic characteristic,

is what makes the impossible possible.
Contradictoriness is the realization of the
impossible. Impossible are the possible
differentiations. Possible differentiations are
actualized by virtue of contradictoriness; in so far
as the trespassing of functionality is structurally
realized. Hence, bleached of contradictoriness
reality is untenable-unless reality could be
absolute staticness. Contradictoriness is the
functional conative to differentiation.
Differentiation is the functional reason of
structural identification. Through the negational

25
inclusiveness of contradictoriness structural
identification is intensified into differentiation.
Contradictoriness is one of the reasons for the
diasporical dynamisms of reality.

The impossibles are impossibles only with

reference to the intellection aspect of ontological
status. If there could be any impossible of ontic
status, the projection of the process of reality
would cease to be a fact (the word ‘fact’ unless
otherwise stated, is always a metaphysical fact;
and, a metaphysical fact is not distinct from an
ontic fact) and thereby fall into the oftrodden
concept, namely, discrete elements (either as
one, two, a few, many – it is all the same) of
staticness. The impossible is only a disclosure of
the failure of intellection to transfuse into ontic
fusion.

Contradictoriness is the reason of the transfusion

of reality. Contradictoriness, as conative to
functional differentiation, explicates the dynamic
structurality of reality. It is a structural occasion
for the heterogeneity of homogeneous reality. By
virtue of contradictoriness, reality transfuses
itself as differentiating undifferentiality and
undifferentiating differentiation. Thus the
functional content of reality breathes through
contradictoriness. Contradictoriness is the
explication of the structural texture of functional
contents and functional dynamism of structural
texture.

26
Contradictoriness is the reason of personality
formation; that by virtue of which individuating
takes place. Individuating, by its very continual
act of individuating, individuates the
individuating of the other trajectories of the
process of reality. It is a clue to the explication of
relative distinctness and isolation. It is an act of
the differentiation of transversal absorption.

Transversal absorption is a revelation of reality

through differentiation. To think of something as
what it is in itself and by itself is a testimony to
intellectual frailty. The notion of In-itself is
admissible only at the corners of freeze-points. It
is more prevalent in and through ontological
diaspora.

The central core of creative nucleus lies in

individuating fusion. But for individuating, reality
would have been an inert, inept and insipid
intertia. Individuating through its creativity
intensifies the existential; so that unity is
realized through isolating absorption.

Isolation is a creative revelation of unity.

Isolation, through its diasporical absorption,
forms personality. Personality is concretization of
differentiating unity. All this signifies the dynamic
functionality of reality; which, in turn, implies
contradictoriness – as contradictoriness is the
explicable reason of dynamic functionality.

27
Contradictoriness is also the ontic translucency of
reality. By virtue of translucency, onticontological
fusion is intelligible. Translucency is the shade of
the unity of reality. The ontological
preponderance translates translucency into
opacity; which, in turn, renders the intelligibility
of distinct and discrete existentia.

At the level of distinct and discrete existential,

translucency ceases to be a flowing current. The
coagulated translucency in an existence seeps
out into the realm of the diasporical links of
existence. As such, it is mostly indiscernible to
intellection. But through the flight of ontic
seeping it is realized by opaque absorption.
Opacity is the reason of the manifold texture of
reality.

Translucency is co-extensive with differentiating

as well as identifying acts of ontic fusion. The
projection of the process of reality flows through
the flight of translucency. The multi-
dimensionality of reality is a testimony to the
multi-variableness of translucency. Translucency,
therefore, makes it possible for temporality to
eternalize itself; so that, eternality can eternally
temporalise itself. The one is the identifying of
the many and the many are the differentiating of
the one. When translucency is grasped as
opaque, the dichotomous classification arises;
that is, reality either as one or many and as
spatial or non-spatial, et cetera.

28
Space and non-space are the names given to
certain aspects of the route of onticontological
fusion in all its processes. Space and non-space
are, therefore, fundamental characteristics of
reality.

Space and non-space, as contradistincts, are

only the abstractional facts of ontological status.
Space is the texture of the structural and
functional dynamism of reality. Texture is visible
functionality. There is no emptiness of space.
For, it is not a container of something. Space is a
structural characteristic of something.

Space is not a name given to the harmonious

coexistence of elements. Harmonious co-
existence is functional efficacy; and, as such, it
does not span the structural dynamism of reality.
It is a resultant of a more fundamental
structuro—functional dynamism.

Yet, empty space exists, in so far as intellection

seeks its facilities. Space may be called shade.

Non-space is the melody of the functional

structure of reality. Melody is audible
structurality. Non-space is not away and apart
from phenomenal world. In so far as reality is
accessible to the analysis of intellection, it may
be called phenomenal. Non-space is the
constitutive functionality of space.

29
Yet, non-space exists, in so far as feeling
ontically isolates itself. Non-space may be called
sound. Shade and sound together form one of
the most fundamental tinges of reality. Space
and non-space are infinitely divisible in so far as
they are finitely indivisible.

Space is the content of non space; non-space is

the form of space. Their generic mutual
inclusiveness renders any fundamental
separability impossible.

Thus it is conspicuous that contradictoriness is

not the principle of contradiction which posits
diametrically distict entities. Absolute
distinctness is the loical extremity of opacity or
opaqueness. Yet, opacity is a fact. For it is
ontological fact of the trespassing intellection.

II

Process is continual passage of reality. Process is

the pulse of reality. It is multi-dimensional
variableness. Reality is process in as much as it
exists. The non-existing aspect of reality is
sustained through the existing aspect of reality.
Process is onticontological.

The intensification of existence is the reason of

the continual passage of reality. Reality through
its multi-dimensional passage of duration is the

30
unity of existences in as much as existences are
the differentiating freeze-points of duration.

The enrichment of existences is estimated in

terms of intensification. Intensification is
estimated in terms of increase in the quantitative
degree of freezing. (Freezing transversally
includes non-freezing in it). Qualitativeness
determinates quantitativeness; and,
quantitativeness determinates qualitativeness.
The meanings of quantitativeness and
qualitativeness have to be drawn from the
generic mutual inclusiveness of the infinitely
small and the finitely great.

Process is a passage of intensification.

Intensification is sustained through existences.
This passage, this pulsing, this intensing, this
freezing – may be called fusion. Fusion is the all-
inclusive term for the passage of reality.

Intensification of existences through

objectificational fusions achieves impersonate
immortality, resulting in the achievement of
reality.

Objectional fusion leads to realized realisedness.

Realized realisedness is what the existences
achieve out continually. Immortality is the
realized realisedness. Immortality is not
grounded upon the notion of overcoming the
termination of the route of an existence or some
existences. Immortality is transitional.

31
Immortality, in so far as it is impersonate, is not
discernible in terms of the contributory datum of
a particular existence or existences. Existence, in
so far as it is objectificational, ceases to be an
identity with itself.

Impersonate immortality is rendered possible by

virtue of transversal transitional onticontological
fusion. Impersonate immortality is sustained
through the route of perpetual making of reality.
It has neither purely ontic status nor ontological.
It lays emphasis on the transitional. It is,
therefore, perpetually potentialising potentiality.

Personate immortality is the contributory datum

of the objectification of certain immediacy of a
set of existences; in that it is not sustained
through the route of perpetual making except in
so far as it is the contributory datum to
impersonate immortality.

All the immediacy of a set of existences is not

objectificational. Primarily, the immediacy of an
existence is contributory to the subjectificational
enrichment. But, because of the onticality of the
existences objectificational enrichment is realized
out through subjectificational enrichment. To the
extent an existence achieves the contributory
datum for objectional enrichment, it realizes
personate immortality. Personate immortality is
one of the lures of intensification.

32
Process as such signifies the perpetual making of
reality, in that it is not a given. Process is not a
quality, or property that reality acquires or is
given with. Reality is sustained through process.
Process is reality’s functional breath of its
structural realisedness.

Process is fusion. Process is perpetual making.

Process is intensification. Process is both ontic
and ontological. Process, in short, is the all-
inclusive term of reality’s existingness.

But the givenness of a certain set of existences

is the realisedness of the relatedness of all the
relational sets of existences on ontological
status.

Givenness is what is being perpetually realized.

It is not something given from without.
Givenness from without implies reality behind or
beyond reality. But the notion of reality behind
reality is only a resultant of certain stages of
intellection. Such a givenness does not enjoy any
ontic priority. Givenness is drawn only at the
corners of freeze-points on ontological
framework.

This perpetual making of process by virtue of its

ontic fusion is not an actualization of certain
existences of its potentiality. The potentiality of
perpetual making subsists in its very making.
Potentiality is the impossibleness that is
perpetually possibilised.

33
Potentiality is not a given latent fund that gets
actualized. Potentiality perpetually makes itself.
Potentiality is possibilised impossible. It is not an
undifferentiated mass with ontic priority. It is
not the ground of actualization. It is posterior;
posterior to itself; in that it is potentialising
potentiality. It is estimated in terms of the
preponderance of ontic fusion. The realisedness
of ontic fusion potentialises itself.

The potentiality of an existence, however, is a

givenness- a givenness that is drawn from the
relatedness of all the relational sets of existences
on ontological status. It is, therefore, not a
primordial reserve fund from which manifoldness
and novelty are achieved. Primordiality is
primordially posterior to itself.

Potentiality, hence, is not something like the

unmanifested that awaits its manifestation. But
potentiality is a fact. It is the symbolical indicator
of transversal transitional stages of
onticontological fusion.

Potentiality spreads either ways, by virtue of the

multi-directionality of duration. The crux of it
subsists more in the transversal transitional
stages of onticontological fusion. It potentiality
were not to be this, something static and
undifferentiated need be established as the
foundation bed rock of reality. But the

34
foundational bedrock of reality is perpetually
being made by reality itself.

Perpetual making involves perpetual perishing.

Perpetual perishing renders the perpetual making
possible. The perishing sustains itself through the
transversal transitional stages of fusion. The
perishing is not annihilation of something.
Perishing achieves; to the extent that it becomes
contributory datum to impersonate immortality,
as a structural factor of perpetual making.
Perishing, as it passes through personate
immortality, achieves relational realisedness.
Perishing is one of the grounds of novelty.
Hence, process renders defusion of existences
through impersonate immortality and afusion of
reality through through intensified freezing of
existences, possible.

Through the process of perishing, defusion

realizes ontic priority. Ontic priority is a
defusional achievement which enriches the
structural complexity a structural complexity that
could be an occasion for greater functional
realisedness.

Through the process of making, afusion realizes

ontological priority. Ontological priority is the
afusional enrichment of onticality which enriches
functional efficacy a functional efficacy that could
be an occasion for greater structural
realisedness.

35
Afusion and defusion are predominantly ontic; as
such they are posterior ground for the intensified
freezing of existences.

Process is perpetual making. Perpetual making is

continual fusion. Process is the name given to
this continual fusion. Or, better, it is called the
pulse of process. Fusion is not mere linking or
combining or mixing two things – similar or
dissimilar. Separating is also fusion. Through its
functional juxtaposing, it is both combining and
separating. It is, in fact, more fundamental and
profound than this. It is the pulsing process of
reality. It is the functional reason of the non-
staticness of reality. By virtual of fusion, the
inter-relatedness of reality is structurally
achieved and functionally explicated. It is, in
short, the reason and meaning of reality.

Fusion, in so far as it is ontic, is process, and in

so far as it is ontological, it is processes. The
singlecord dominance of the process at the ontic
gives less distinct semblance of variability. As
such, it may cause an illusory apprehension of
oneness leading to some type of unqualified
monism. The multi-cord dominance of the
process, at the ontological, gives less distinct
semblance of unity. As such, it may cause an
illusory apprehension of manyness leading to
some type of uncompromising pluralism. And, at
this point, by a suicidal stroke of compromise,
oneness and manyness might be dragged to
some type of stubborn dualism. But reality, by

36
virtue of contradictoriness, does not fit into such
positions.

Therefore, it does not mean that they are

different fusions. The ontological and the ontic,
are mutually inclusive. The predominance of
these two fusions is the reason of their
differentiation. The prevalence of equilibrium
state is rendered impossible for the fact that
ontological fusion is a freezing process and ontic
fusion is a non-freezing process. But the very
freezing process in so far as it does not reach its
realisedness, is non-freezing process. Non-
freezing process is perpetuated in and through
freezing process in as much as the latter is the
contributory datum to impersonate immortality.

Process, in as much as it is ontic, is neither

caused nor self-caused; for it is symbolical of
impersonate immortality. It is (in this regard)
referential to ontological fusion. But neither of
these two enjoys any priority order for the fact
that they are mutually inclusive. Ontic fusion
draws its breath from (in and through)
ontological fusion in as much as it is the
contributory datum to impersonate immortality.

Desire is the conatus of the fusion of process. It

is the pulse of fusion. It is ontological. Desire as
such is distinguishable from desire as a purely
psychological factor. It is the structural reason
and functional grounding of reality. As the
contanus of fusion it is the main reason for non-

37
staticness of reality. Its grounding is
contradictoriness. Contradictoriness is the
structural reason for the functional meaning of
desire. Yet, desire as the functional grounding of
reality, constitutes the structural complexity of
reality; in that, it is reality.

Desire, at the ontic level, is not desire for this or

that. As such it is the man grounding for the
contributory datum to impersonate immortality it
is the perpetual primordiality of reality. Yet, at
the ontological, it is a desire for this or that. But
this does not mean that, at this level, it is purely
a psychological factor. Because of the
predominance of the inter-relatedness of
transversal transitional stage. It is a realized
realisedness of personate immortality. In so far
as it is personate immortality, it is the reason for
the intensified freezing of existences.

Yet, it is also a psychological factor – as the

grounding for the grounding of inner-personal
seeping on and into the corners of freeze-points.
At the ontological, through functional
juxtaposing, desire is desires. But it would be
inappropriate to say that at this stage desire
splits into desires; for it was never one to split
into many and many to unite into one. Desire
composes itself into one as well as many. Desire,
as such is the reason for, meaning of, pulse of,
unity and variability of and goal direction of
reality.

38
Desire is the explication of the continual passage
of process. Desire as the breath of fusion,
perpetually makes itself by way of differentiating
identification and identifying differentiation
through the routes of the passage of process.

Thus, it is evident that desire is reality. Desire,

through contradictoriness is structural as well as
functional content of reality. The shade and
sound of reality are embedded on and in desire.

Fusion is the functional ways of desire. Desire is

the absurd answer to all absurd questions.
Absurd does not mean incredible or impossible.
An attempt to grasp anything in a primordial
sense leads to absurdity; for, primordiality
perpetually primordiates itself. Thus, desire is
such a primordial tinge of reality that it is almost
a synonym for reality.

Desire, as such conatus of fusion is neither

casual efficacy nor substantiating cause; yet, it is
that by virtue of which fusion is fusion. Desire
apart from fusion is neither a fact nor an ideal; in
as much as fusion is a mere abstraction apart
from desire. Yet, fusion is not all desire. But
desire is all fusion. The functional structures of
desire are fusion. Desire, as a structural
functionality, does not include fusion except in so
far as its structural functionality is realized
through functional efficacy.

39
Fusion is the process of desire. The revelations of
desire are fusion. Fusion is functional modes of
the structure-functional content of desire. To say
fusioning is to say desiring.

Desire is not merely functional efficacy. It is

substantiating reality. If reality were to be given
a name, the most fitting one would be (is) d-e-s-
i-r-e.

Process is its own substantiating. It is not an

attribute of something. To be a attribute of
something, that something must already be
there. For something to be already there devoid
of process, it must be a substance. Such a
substance must be pure staticness; for, it does
not pre-suppose process as its grounding
functionality. That is, it first is; and then
becomes. But an ontic mutual non-inclusiveness
cannot render their mutual trans-action possible.
The notion of ontic separable is a derivative of
juxtaposing incompatibility. Hence, reality apart
from process is tenable at the corners of
juxtaposing of freeze-points. One the contrary,
its own substantiating is everything.

The notion of a given substance as primordial

distinct, at the ontic level, is one of the valid
hoaxes played by the vagaries of intellection.

Process is not a functional category basically

distinct and apart from structural category.
None of them, in fact is a category. A category is

40
a mere derivative of ontological opacity. The
functional reality is process. That is why, process
is not a given. The given is a resultant of
intellection’s abstractioning. But, fusion, in so far
as it is intellection, is a relational given.

Fusion is the functional content of reality. Fusion,

by virtue of contradictoriness, is ontic fusion as
well as ontological fusion. Impersonate
immortality is the functional grounding of ontic
fusion and personate immortality is the
functional grounding of ontological fusion.

Afusion and defusion are the aspects of ontic

fusion. Defusion, through non-freezing, realizes a
type of afusion in so far as it results in the
contributory datum to impersonate immortality.
Defusion, therefore, should not be taken for a
mere disintegrating mode. Moreover,
disintegrating mode is also a route for the unity
of reality. Afusion, through freezing, realizes a
type of defusion, in so far as it does not result in
the contributory datum to impersonate
immortality. Afusion, therefore, should not be
taken for a mere integrating mode. Moreover,
integrating mode is also a route for the
incompatibility of reality.

Hence, afusion and defusion are mutually

complementary. These two aspects of ontic
fusion put together explicate the impersonate
immortality aspect of reality. They are functional
grounding for the unity of reality.

41
Feeling is the main tinge of ontic fusion. Feeling
is not fundamentally a psychological factor.
Feeling is the experiential endurance of an
existence. It is the cognitive unity of reality. As
such, at the ontic level, it is not cognitive
discreteness. Experiential endurance can be
estimated in terms of the seeping of existence.
Seeping is multidirectional inter-relational
penetrating contact.

Infusion and exfusion are the two aspects of

ontological fusion.

Fusion to the extent that it is contributory datum

to personate immortality, is infusion. Infusion is
an indicator of the realisedness of the intensity of
individuating. Hence the personal achievement of
an existence is coestensive with its infusion. But
infusion implies exfusion, as what is not being
realized through individuating has got to realize
itself through non freeze mode.

Intellection is the main tinge of ontological

fusion. Intellection is cognitive discreteness.
Cognitive discreteness stands as ground for the
grounding of personate immortality. Intellection,
as experiential endurance of an existence, at the
ontological level, is cognitive discreteness.
Cognitive discreteness, through seeping,
achieves a variability which, when fully realized,
paves the way to unity- a unity at the corners of

42
freeze-points. Intellection, through feeling, forms
the structures of the so called psychological.

Feeling and intellection are not devoid of each

other as ontic fusion and ontological fusion are
not exclusive of each other. The predominance of
the one over the other is the demarking arena of
ontic fusion and ontological fusion.

The opacity in the translucency of fusion is due

to its intellection. Intellection as it gets more and
more devoid of feeling, causes more and more of
opacity. Since the ontic and the ontological are
mutually non-exclusive pure translucency and
pure opacity are rendered impossible.

Fusion is awareness.

Ontic fusion is feel awareness termed as

consciousness. Ontological fusion is
intellectioning awareness termed as
consciousness.

The central core of consciousness is not

analytically illuminated by consciousness.
Analytical illumination is opacity. Consciousness
does not posit anything. It does not, rather,
cannot determinately focus on personate
immortality. It would be in appropriate to call it
impersonal consciousness as it lacks determinate
analytic discreteness. Onsciousness is a personal
seeping of an existence without being able to
touch the nuances of freeze-points.

43
It is an existence’s awareness of itself and, as
well as the not itself. This is way it cannot be
called impersonal consciousness. It is a
personal expedition, through transversal
transitional stages, on to its alienated itself. It is
the unrealized realisedness of unity of itself
through compatible variables of analytic
discreteness.

But when it is drawn into the corners of freeze

points through the transitional stages of
immortality, it settles itself as a flight of
consciousness. It is a translucent flexible flight
through opaque rigid coagulation. But for the
trespassing of intellection. It would gradually
sink into translucent dullness.

Consciousness is experiential unit of

discreteness. It draws the relational points into
the central core of itself. And as well as the not-
itself. Consciousness makes the occasion for
personate immortality. As analytic discreteness,
it realizes the non-relational points of itself by
swallowing in the transversal transitional stages
of immortality.

The intensity of individuating is co-existensive

with the saturation of consciousness.
Consciousness makes unity explicated through
the incompatible variables of reality. The realized
unrealisedness is sustained through
consciousness.

44
Consciousness is personal. Its analytic
discreteness renders any impersonality in it
impossible except in so far as it is a grasp of the
transversal transitional stages of immortality.

Existence, as an intensificating individuality, is

not impersonal consciousness. Impersonal
consciousness feebly sustains itself through a
borrowed positionality. As such, consciousness
may flee through impersonate stages of
personate immortality. But for the transgressions
of feeling it would rock opaque bluntness.

The variability of fusion is relative to the

gradations of reality. At certain gradations,
onsciousness may overshadow consciousness to
such an extent that consciousness, though
present, is hardly discernible. In such instances
consciousness may be at work surreptitiously
through remore relevance. The functionings of
ontic fusion are not determinately governed by
consciousness.

Similarly at certain other gradations

consciousness coagulates onsciousness to such
an extent that onsciousness, though present, is
hardly captured. In such instances, onsciousness
may intangibly be at work through
consciousness, by virtue of remote relevance.

The functionings of ontological fusion are not

deliberately governed by onsciousness.

45
Onsciousness is predominantly translucent.
Consciousness is predominantly opaque. Opacity
is analytic discreteness. Opacity operates
through translucency and vice versa. They may
be termed as translucent operations and opaque
operations.

Fusion, by virtue of contradictoriness, is multi

directional. Defusion and afusion are the two
aspects of non-freezing fusion. Infusion and
exfusion are the two aspects of freezing fusion.

Freeze is not in terms of the so-called

solidification; it is in terms of the intensificating
of individuating. Intensificating of individuating is
fusion and by virtue of contradictoriness it is
inclusive of certain tinges of non freezing.
Fusion, being a desiring, is fundamentally an
individuating process. Individuating is the
impetus of fusion. Non-freezing respirates
through the unrealisedness of freezing process.

Fusion is rapturous strain akin to say, birth

pangs. Rapturous strain is the lure of fusion.
Rapturous strain is the answer to the endurance
of reality. It, with all the mixed varieties of
temptations like seduction, repulsion, lures the
reality to endure. But this does not mean that
this relation is extraneous. Reality through its
fusion, is the rapturous strain. It is an answer to
all questions such as why existence enjoys in
spite of suffering and suffers in spite of joys. The

46
joys and sorrows are the sportive ways of this
rapturous strain. An interplay of joys and
sorrows, light and darkness, beauty and ugliness
and an innumerable variety of mixed modes is
explicable in terms of rapturous strain. It is the
umbilical cord of cosmic drama. This lure is co-
extensive with fusion and is termed as creativity
– creativity of fusion or fusion as creativity.

The substantiating of rapturous strain is

creativity. Creativity functions through making
and perishing. Creativity is perpetual
realisedness. It does not create something. It
perpetually creates itself through making and
perishing. As such it is coextensive with reality,
better yet, it is reality.

Creativity, through the multidirectionality of

fusion, is the varied unity if reality. Here it is
making; here it is perishing. Here it is making to
perish and perishing to make.

Creativity is aesthetic. Aesthetic is the pulse of

creativity. Aesthetic is rapturous strain as
assimilated by an existence. An existence,
through realisedness, sculptures the aesthetic.
The sculpture of the aesthetic the flowing
sculpture is the bearings of the history of
existences.

Creativity is drealistic. Dreality is the unity of

repeatedness and novelty. Creativity dreams the
reality and reals the dreams.

47
Creativity is not an apparition of an altogether
novelty. Repeatedness is the structural base of
novelty; as novelty is the functional base of
repeatedness. Thus, creativity, in its essentiality,
is inclusive of novelty and repeatedness which
are not totally isolated from each other.
Apparition of an altogether novel one leads to
the reality of reality et cetera. Hence absolute
novelty is not a fact.

Intensificating is the functional efficacy of

creativity. The perpetual making of creativity is
in terms of intensificating. Intensificating is the
structural route of novel repeatedness and
repeated novelty.

Repeatedness is the determinateness of fusion;

novelty is the freedom of fusion. The
determinateness of fusion necessitates freedom;
the freedom of fusion chances determinateness.
The predominance of one over the other is
rendered possible by existences, through
immediate and remote relevances.

The freedom of an existence is relative to the

modes of its trans-actions with immediate and
remote relevances. The immediate and remote
relevances of an existence largely depend on
gradational scale.

What is crushed out, in the process, is

unrealisedness. Unrealisedness is necessity. It is

48
the structural realisedness of necessity. And,
what is drawn into, in the process, is
realisedness. Realisedness is freedom. It is the
functional unrealisedness of freedom.

Fusion, in so far as it articulates through

impersonate immortality, is necessity. Freedom
is a flight into necessity and necessity is a
coagulating penetration into freedom. Necessity
horizons freedom. Freedom incomprehences
necessity.

The functional modes of freedom and necessity

are relative to the gradational scales of
existences.

The notion of freedom versus necessity is a valid

logical fact. Logical fact is founded upon
coagulated consciousness. Coagulated
consciousness is the refined achievement of
intellection which realizes realisedness by
bursting out melted consciousness.

Thus, a mutual non inclusiveness of freedom and

necessity is rendered possible by virtue of the
impact of contradictoriness upon the process of
reality.

III

Ultimate reality is an accomplished fact of

perpetual making. It is ultimate in as much as it

49
perpetually makes itself. That is, the
ultimateness of reality is perpetuated by reality
itself. Ultimateness of reality, therefore, cannot
be ‘exterior’ causual basis of the perpetual
making of reality.

Reality, in making itself, does not stand as its

own exterior basis. For such a basis is only a
resultant ideal extremity of intellection’s
abstractioning. An exterior basis is out of
question is reality causes all exteriority within
itself. The expression ‘outside the reality’ is
untenable as reality is the infinite limit of its
finitude. Then the question arises is reality an all
inclusive substance? The answer is a categorical
NO.

reality is not a giant sheath that contains

everything. On the contrary, all things ‘together’
cause reality, by virtue of the contributory datum
to impersonate immortality. Yet, it would be
improper to say that ‘realities’ precede ‘reality’.
Fusion, through its differentiating identification
and identificating differentiation, is the
explication of reality and realities.

Reality is not a mere name given to the sum

total of all things. Reality is what makes the
realities realities. Reality is also not a mere
binding principle of realities. A binding principle
as a mere quality possessed by realities cannot
be reality. Reality is something more than that.

50
Reality is perpetually made. Realities, through
realisedness, are their reality. Realities, in as
much as they are contributory datum to
impersonate immortality are reality. The
personate immortality aspect of realities is
relevant only to the extent that it could establish
remote relevance.

All the privacies of realities do not form part of

reality. To the extent these privacies are not the
immediate relevance to ther contributory datum
to impersonate immortality, realities are not
reality. Yet, realities and reality do not enjoy any
privileges of mutual non-inclusiveness.

Realities breathe through reality; and reality is

sustained in and through realities. Reality is not
personality; whereas realities enjoy the medium
of ‘personality’. Yet, reality is a quasi-personality
which, when grasped through greater
opaqueness, assumes personality – with all the
luxury of privacies.

Here it is realities; here they are reality. Reality

does not precede realities and vice versa.
Perpetual making is the explication of this infra-
intellectioning structure. Perpetual making
renders reality of reality or reality behind reality
impossible. Hence, the question of ‘one and
many’ is a pointer to the ideal extremity of
intellection’s abstractioning.

51
As reality of reality is not a fact, phenomenon
and nomenon are not fundamental tinges of
reality. (Any structurally and functionally
grounded perpetual achievement of reality is
called tinge). They are only the derivations of
intellection’s abstractioning with reference to
immediate and remote relevances. A
fundamental distinction between reality and
reality is untenable as the reality of reality, that
is, an accomplished casual fact as the basis of
reality. Then, is reality without a casual basis?
No it is its own casual basis in as much as it does
not cause anything in terms of exteriority and
interiority.

Exteriority and interiority are relative terms

having their genealogy ‘within’reality. That is, its
beginning lies perpetually in its making.
Perpetual making makes perpetually beginning
endings. They are only the fading out and fading
in clots of fusion. Hence, the notion of primal
beginning is untenable. Reality is not single to
have a primal beginning. Reality begins many a
time, in as in as much as realities begin and end.
The beginnings and endings are innumerable.

A beginning ends somewhere to begin to end to

begin to end to… At any given moment
innumerable beginnings and ends, by virtue of
crosssectional simultaneity, end and begin.
Through the eternal flow of temporality, they
only explain the fading-in and fading-out clots of
fusion. Fusion, by virtue of contradictoriness, is

52
fusions and vice versa. The notion of primal
cause that precedes reality to cause reality is an
ideal extreme limit of intellection’s
abstractioning.

Then, it is unjustifiable? Yes, it is; if justification

means casual explanation for its origin. But there
can be no such origin; for, origin subsists in the
perpetual making. A perpetual making cannot be
the cause of such cause. To be such a cause of
perpetual making, it has to defy itself as
perpetual making, that is, by being staticness.
Staticness cannot be the cause of anything, even
of itself. In other words, it does not exist at all –
except as an ideal limit of intellection’s
abstractioning, tht is, as an ideal limiting factor
of (in) reality.

Reality is caused. Reality, as the caused cause in

and through itself, is the perpetual cause of
itself. The multi-dimensional multi-directionality
of reality renders single primal static uncaused
cause impossible. A cause is a causing caused
causing.

But, the question, when and why did (does) this

perpetual making begin – is a persisting one.
This persistence is a resultant factor of
intellection. The only answer possible is – well,
nowhen (the word no when is due to lack of
proper substitute. Never at no time ever – such
terms are of no use as they are all time-bound.)
and for no reason except in so far as it is

53
explicable in terms of its characteristic fusion.
But such explication would only be a resultant
analysis of the nature of perpetual making; in
that it is, of course, without any exterior reason.
But the word exterior is meaningless apart from
it (reality).

Yet, through the ideal extreme limits of

intellection’s abstractioning, one can arrive at
something. But intellection is time-bound; and as
such it cannot explain the ‘when’. But it can
answer the ‘why’. The answer would be –
absurdity and unjustifiability. But this answer
does not implyany explanation for absurdity and
unjustifiability. Absurdity is absurd;
unjustifiability is unjustifiable. This trouble arises
because of the attempt to apply analytic
discreteness to onticality. That is, it reveals one
of its ideal extreme limits of opacity. The riddle is
due to the illegitimate extension of the words
‘when’ and ‘why’. The genealogy of such ‘when’
and ‘why’ subsists in and through the perpetual
making which is temporarility. Temporality is
eternal continuum. Eternality is a qualifying term
of the continuum of perpetual making. (A
continuum continues through its continual
breaks).

The perpetual making of reality renders reality

primordial, that is, primordially subsisting in
temporality. Temporality is the eternal multi-
directional passage. Multi directional passage is
the reason for the primordial plurality of reality.

54
Past and future do not exist; only the present is.
Past and future are formed by the present. The
past is not dead in as much as the future is not.
Present is a multi-directional stretching. Some
‘ends’ future. But all the ‘ends’ are in the entire
stretching of the present.

Present by its perpetual making of itself

enhances itself. Something of this enhancement
is marked as past and something of it as future.

Apart from present, past and future are mere

abstractions. Past is not something that recedes
backward. Future is not something that extends
forward. Backward and forward are only relative
terms depending on the phase in question. What
is regarded as past to one phasemay be
regarded as future to some other phase and to
some other phase what is regarded as future
may be regarded as past. And any ‘given’ whole
expanse of present of a phase is relative; and, it
may be either contemporaneous with or the
marked past or future of another phase.

Present is coextensive with the multiple multi-

directionality of process. As such, a number of
presents are discernible. That is why a particular
present can be past, contemporaneous and
future; in that they are some sort of modes of
the present.

55
A mode is a view-point based on the structural
and functional intensity of a phase.

Present is a single expanse of temporality at a

particular frame of reference. Present, in so far
as it results in unrealisedness, does not become
past. Past is not just what has happened.
“Tense has nothing to do with time”. Past is the
realisedness of present which, in so far as it is
transversal conatus to seeping is future. Future
is present in the shaping, which possibilises past.

Past and future are analytic resultants of

present. Present, in so far as it achieves
realisedness, pasts itself in order to future it.

Temporality, in so far as it is drawn into the

prehensive act of (an) existence, is called
present. Present covers both duration and time.

Duration is an impersonate tinge of temporality.

Time varies from phase to phase though duration
does not vary except in so far as it is variable
through the route of ontic fusion.

Duration is the awareness of ontic fusion and

time is the awareness of ontological fusion. But
duration and time as such are not absolutely
distinct from each other in so far as they are
certain aspects of temporality.

Duration is the continual thread of discontinuity.

It speaks of the unity of realities. It is

56
coextensive with the realisedness of the
perpetual making of reality.

Time is the continual indicator of discontinuity. It

subsists in its constinual breaks. It may be called
the graphical route of the pulsing points of the
strain in creativity.

Duration and time are structurally least distinct

and functionally most distinct from each other.

Yet they are one; for they are functional aspects

of temporality.

Time draws its time from duration to give

duration its duration.

Temporality is the sound of the continual process

of reality. Sound as the contituiting individuating
of reality is temporality. Hence, temporality apart
from shade is an abstraction.

The science of sound is the meaning of

temporality. Temporality is the constituting
factor of reality. Hence, it should not be equated
with time. Time is only an aspect of temporality.
But time and duration together may be clled the
explication of temporality.

Things neither endure through temporality nor

temporality flows over things. Things are
temporality and vice versa. Temporality is the
constituting content of reality.

57
The functional operativeness of temporality is the
sound of the perpetual making of reality.

The ‘deadening’ of time is not eternality. The

‘deadening’ of time can only be staticness.
Eternality is dynamic.

Eternality is continual flow of beginning lessness

and endinglessness. The perpetually perishing
beginnings and endings are the clots of the
continual flow of temporality. Eternality is a
name given to this continual flow of temporality.

Temporality is none other than the sound of

reality. Sound, when derived through prehensive
act, is grasped as temporality. Temporality,
therefore, is the musical notation of the ontic
prehending flow of process. Musical notation is
the constituting structurality of the prehending
reality, as perpetual making.

Sound and shade are the two fundamental tinges

of reality. They are not functional resultants or
derivatives of the perpetual making of reality.

Sound is the constituting individuum of and

shade is the individuating constitution of reality.
As such, pure sound and pure shade can only be
the resultant ideal extremities of intellection.

Shade is the ontic ‘factor’ that composes the

individuum. It patterns the individuum. It is the

58
reason for the structure of individuum.
Individuum is the textural tone of reality. The
pattern and the variability of textural tone are
determinately delineated by sound.

Sound is the perpetual primordial explanation of

the process of reality. The simple and the
complex, the harmonious and the conflicting all
such factors owe their uniqueness, to sound.
Sound, as the constitutive pulse of reality, is a
process. It eternally makes and unmakes itself.
Through its making and unmaking individuum is
patterned.

Shade is the ontic ‘factor’ that individuates the

constitution of reality. It patterns the
constitution. It is the reason for structure of
constitution. It is the rhythmical texture of
reality. The pattern and the variability of
rhythmical texture is determinately drawn by
shade.

Shade is also the perpetual primordial

explanation of the process of reality. The feeble,
the energetic, the intense, the clotting, the
flowing, the coagulating all such factors ow their
uniqueness, to shade.

Shade, as the individuating form of reality, is a

process. It eternally makes and unmakes itself.
Through its making and unmaking, constitution is
toned up.

59
Shade is the shade of sound and sound is the
sound of shade. Their mutual generic
inclusiveness renders any fundamental
separability, impossible. Only at the intellectual
extremities, they are taken for distinct.

Sound is the rhythm of and shade is the texture

of reality. The texture without rhythm is no
texture and the rhythm without texture is no
rhythm. Sound is the rhythm of texture and
shade is the texture of rhythm.

A non-constituted individuum and a non-

individuated constitution are not facts. (Sound
and shade may inexcusably be called Mind and
Body. Sound is the mind of shade and shade is
the body of sound).

By virtue of the transversal transitional multi-

directionality of fusion, sound is sounds and
shade is shades. This fact renders the variability
in sound and shades possible.

Sounds and shades, in terms of structural

complexity and functional intensity, compose the
variety of patterns and gradations.

Sounds and shades, in terms of structural

complexity and functional intensity, compose the
variety of patterns and gradations.

Sounds, through personate and impersonate

immortality, achieve the sound of the melodies

60
that determinately delineate the textures of
individuum. Shades, through personate and
impersonate immortality, achieves the shade of
the textures that determinately compose the
tone of constitution.

Creative lure is sustained through the perpetually

primordial sublime of rhythm and texture.

When an existence dives (up, in, far etc.,) deep

through the depths of texture, one realizes the
musical texture of the flowing sculpture of
realities.

Unless an attempt is made to derive reality

through analytic discreteness, reality is
soundshade or shadesound. A soundshade or
shadesound is a fusion point. A fusion point is a
freeze- centre (which is inclusive of non-freeze
by way of its unrealisedness). A freeze-point is
an infinitude of dimensionless- point. It is called
‘an’ infinitude because infinitude and finitude are
sustained in and through realization passage.

By virtue of transversal transitional

multidirectionality of fusion, an existence is
infinitely finite and finitely finite.

An existence, as a prehending point, withdraws

itself in, in such a way, that there is no end to its
finiteness. This finiteness is not in terms of
volume. It is in terms of in-composing intensity.
As existence is a non-isolated one this finiteness,

61
through its infinitely finite trajectory, draws
everything into itself. An existence as such
becomes, through its ‘personal’ prehending act a
type of microfiled totality. But this involves
personate and impersonate immortalities. It is an
eternally single and simple act that subsumes all
complexity. All this is achieved through in-
composing intensification.

In-composing intensification involves out-

composing intensification; rather, they are
naturally inclusive. That is why an existence is at
the same time finitely infinite. An existence,
therefore, as a prehending point, withdraws itself
out in such a way that there is no end to its
finiteness. But because of transversality, this
infiniteness is finitely infinite. Both finiteness and
infiniteness are eternally in the making.

This out composing is not an expansiveness of

volume. It is an expansiveness in terms of
intensification.

What are called microcosm and microcosm are

nothing but the double ‘edge’ of the trajectory of
intensification. Yet, through the predominance of
ontological fusioning a type of quasi microcosms
and macrocosms are achieved. Microcosm and
macrocosm are the realized realizedness of
fusion-points.

An existence is capable of fading in and fading

out and in so far as it is the contributory datum

62
to impersonate immortality it is also capable of
evolution and involution.

The growing and decaying of an existence should

not be mistaken for evolution and involution.
They can only contribute to personate
immortality. The evolution and involution of an
existence are sustained through the passage of
the phase to which it belongs. Only to the extent
that an existence is contributory datum to
impersonate immortality it involves evolution and
involution, that is, the greater ‘part’ of an
existence does not at all involve evolution and
involution.

From the cosmic historical view-point, a grater

part of any existence achieves only
unrealisedness through its realisedness between
the ‘terminal points’ – extinguish or re-extinguish
itself. But the continuance of an existence is
rendered possible to the extent it is contributory
to the context of cosmic historicity. That way, an
existence neither upsurges nor extinguishes.
Hence, the ‘terminal points’ of an existence are
called fading-in and fading –out.

Evolution and involution are sustained through

the convulutionary transversal transitional stages
of fusion. Evolution and involution are not
mutually isolated phenomena. The
convulotionary transversal transitional fusion
makes both evolution and involution.

63
The relisedness of convolutionary transversal
transitional fusion forms into evolution. And what
could not seep into the cosmic historicity
discharges as involution. But involution is also
making as the yet possibilised ‘part’ of reality.

An existence, therefore, neither evolutes nor

involutes. It can only convolute. Convolution is
always transversal transational and as such it is
a multiple multidirectional making and unmaking.

Growing and decaying are the personate routes

of convolution of an existence. Evolution and
involution are the impersonate routes of
convolution of an existence in so far as it is
referential to the context of cosmic historicity.

Convolution is the ‘life-story’ of any existence.

Transversal transitional convolutionary fold is the
route of seeping. Seeping is an ontic cognizance
that has ontological overtones as well as
undertones. Seeping is an unanalytic intrinsic
trans-action of the quiverings of an existence.

A phase, through its convolutionary fusions,

evolutes and involutes. The paradoxical part of it
is its revoluting contractions and expansions.
Revoluting is the heart of convolution. Revoluting
is the explication of contradictoriness involved in
convolution. It is the blow cold blow hot central
cord of the story of convolution. Revoluting is a
chain of arresting links of convolution. It arrests
evolution and involution so that evolution

64
involutes and involution evolutes – that is, it
renders convolution, possible.

An existence is a non-isolated single individual

passage of intensity. A cluster of existences is an
individual unitary-passage of intensity. However,
an existence as an infinite finitude nd finite
infinitude is neither purely individual nor purely
unitary. In this regard, by virtue of
contradictoriness, an existence is paradoxically
within itself. It is infinitely relative and finitely
absolute; for, reality is neither purely monistic
nor purely pluralistic (‘purely’ is a derivative of
absolute isolation which in turn is a derivative of
intellection’s abstractioning. As such,
metaphysically, the word ‘purely’ is applicable in
a relative sense only).

An existence can be of different phases. The

structural complexity and functional intensity is
the demarcating arena of one phase from
another phase. Phases are innumerable.
A phase is a single stretch of a cluster of
existences. The ‘internal’ details of a phase as a
cluster of existences reveal innumerable clusters
of existences. The gradational differentiality in
intensity distinguishes one cluster of existences
from another cluster of existences. The
gradational differentiality is qualitative.
Quantitativeness is in terms of the increase in
the gradational differentiality. Yet qualitativeness
implies quantitativeness within itself. Qualitative
quantitativeness and quantitative qualitativeness

65
are the positive and the negative charges that
determine gradational differentiality. The greater
effectiveness of either qualitativeness or
quantitativeness is relative to the positionality of
that existence.

The structural contours of a phase are

determinately governed by its intensity. It is a
non-isolated single independent unit of fusion. At
any given moment some phases may be flexible
and some rigid. In between the coagulating
phases the flowing pervasive phasal points form
into fluid phases. Fluid phase is the cream of
reality – the cream which is convertible both
ways.

The achievement of an existence is ultimately

subject to the limitational possible of its phase.

The predominance of ontic fusion troubled with

ontological fusion and the predominance of
ontological fusion troubled with ontic fusion are
the determinate factors in a classification of a
single stretch into divisions. In other words,
feeling and intellection are the demarcating
factors of one phase from another phase. Yet,
innumerable sub-divisions are possible.

A dividing line being a transversal transitional

one, has dividing lines of and in itself. The
development from one phase to another phase,
therefore, is a transversal transitional one.

66
Reality is never entirely either this or that; for,
what is called an evolutionary cosmic epoch is
not a single unidirectional passage.

An evolutionary or involutionary cosmic epoch is

a unit of unitary points in the convolutionary
passage of reality. As the passage is a multiple
multidirectional one, absolute and final
beginnings or endings are impossible. There can
be hardly be total simultaneity in them, because
of relational variability in terms of positionalities.

Cosmic convolution is eternal. It involves

innumerable evolutions and involutions. As the
infinite boundary of reality in-composes itself into
the centrality of dimensionless-point there
cannot be a dead end either way. It is sustained
through superfection. Superfection is
multidirectional ever-increase.

As greater and greater superfection is achieved,

the demarcating widens more and more
(Superfection is perfecting perfection and as
such, it involves both realisedness as well as
unrealisedness).

At any moment in question certain races (phases

or planets) are in offing and certain races are in
decay. (A moment is a unit of awareness of the
passage of intensity. Hence, a moment is relative
and variable. It is coextensive with functional
intensity). A race of a planet is a society of
clusters of existences.

67
Phases form into family units and family units
form into society units and society units into
national units and national units into world units
and world units into cosmic units. And cosmic
units form into the dimensionless core of the
macro-cosm.

The age of a phase is subjective. That is, it is

relative to itself. And the same may vary from
phase to phase. A phase at its culmination-points
of evolution and involution achieves increased
opaque translucency and reaches the context of
cosmic historicity. The context of cosmic
historicity is repeatedness that occasions
novelty.

Immediate and remote relevances render

interphasal trans-actions possible. Between one
phase and another phase there may be mutual
dependency and mutual independency or mutual
dependent independency and mutual
independent dependency. This mutual
reciprocality and need need not be equal. That
depends on its positionality and evolutionary
involutionary gradation.

The offing of a phase is an upsurge out of the

nothingness of reality. Similarly, the decay of a
phase is a withdrawal into the nothingness of
reality. Nothingnesses are the existential cores of
existences. They are the absurd fulfillment –
conations of reality. They are nothing because

68
they are not anything in themselves. They are
the explication of the dynamism of reality. They
are the breathing wave-points of
contradictionariness.

In accordance with the classification of a stretch,

knots ripples drops and waves are derived. What
is called ‘human’ (on our globe) is an existence
of a certain stage of a certain phase. An
existence of such stage of such phase may
roughly be termed as dropexistence. What is
called ‘life’ is not a unique characteristic of any
one stage of any one phase alone. The structural
and functional aspect of ‘life’ varies from phase
to phase (also from stage to stage of a phase) in
a multiple multidirectional cosmic epoch. ‘life’ is
one of the structural and functional aspects of
fusion itself.

This classification of a stretch into knots, ripples,

drops and waves is inexcusably inaccurate. The
gradations are innumerable.

With the greater and greater perfecting of the

existences of a gradation the later generations of
the gradation attain ‘higher’ perfecting gradation.
It must, therefore, be accepted that knots in
course of some (countless) generations might
reach the gradation of waves. This should never
be mistaken for unidirectional progression. This
progression is transversal transitional multiple
multi directional that sustains through
involutionary counter progressional leaps.

69
Similarly the waves, in course of some
(countless) generations might reach the
gradation of – the gradation of what?

Here a ‘silent’ bombarding of two fundamental

structurofunctional differentiation takes place.
From knots to waves it is ajourney of the micro-
cosmic in and through the macrocosm – by
pervading over into and absorbing on and into.
This is the negative cosmic realisedness-point.
From there onwards it is a journey of the macro-
cosmic in and through the micro-cosmic by
absorbing on and into; and pervading over and
into. Then this reaches the positive cosmic
realisedness-point. There the positive and the
negative points touch each other. This union-
point is the first cosmic realisedness-belt. And
thence further and further and further and
further------

But every gradation occasions the upsurge of the

existences of other gradations. This is why the
progress of reality is not unidirectional.

So the waves reach the first gradationals of the

positive stretch – which may be classified as
eases, composing, spotting and pinnings.

And then from the union-point; the entwined

stretch, the endearing stretch, then, the in-
flowing stretch, then and then and then…..

70
An existence is a prehending point of centre. A
prehending act involves feeling and intellection.
Prehension is in terms of infusion and exfusion.
It is transversal transfusion. As such prehension
is a structural and functional tinge of reality.

The focusing pervasive point is the positionality

of prehension. This positionality is relational.

Though the modes of prehension are

innumerable, prehensions are classifiable into
three kinds – but these three kinds of
prehensions are not totally exclusive of one
another.

1. Translucent prehensions.
2. Opaque prehensions
3. Translopaque prehensions.

In a translucent prehension, opacity becomes

more and more translucent and thereby
‘knowing’ becomes less and less positional and
seeping becomes more and more pervasive
focusing.

In an opaque prehension translucency becomes

and more and more opaque and thereby seeping
becomes less and less positional and ‘knowing’
becomes more and more pervasive focusing.

In a translopaque prehension, translucency and

opacity are transposed through each other,
resulting in a quasi-equilibrium of translucent

71
opacity and opaque translucency – which in an
existence strains in its perpetual approximation
to ideality.

Ideality is the paradoxical goal of fusion. Ideality

is not a fact. It is the paradoxical logicality of
fusion. It is a perpetual transcendence that lures
creativity. The reason for ideality lies in the
structural and functional tinges of the process of
desire (or fusion).

The classification of prehensions in tune with the

classification of existences may be stated as
follows:

1. Knotexistence is a translucent pervasive

point, encompassed by opacity.
2. Rippleexistence is a translucent pervasive
point, troubled by opaque prehension.
3. Dropexistence is an opaque prehensive
point troubled by translucent prehension.
4. Waveexistence is a deviation from all the
three kinds of prehensions, resulting in a
prehension that is troubled by all the three
kinds of prehensions.

Existentially, the nuances of a minute and feeble

difference amount to a great deal of significance.
Hence, prehensions are of innumerable
gradations. For example, an opaque prehension
may infuse ‘something’ of a translopaque
prehension and an opaque prehension
encompassed by translucency. The functional

72
intensity with structural complexity or the
structural complexity with functional intensity is
the demarcating range.

Similarly one the positive 1. Easexistence is a

compressed prehensive point wherein
translucency and opacity lie over each other 2.
Composingexistence is a contact prehensive
point wherein translucency and opacity drag
each other 3. Spottingexistence is a ruptured
prehensive point wherein translucency and
opacity pierce through each other 4.
Pinningexistence is a deviation from all the three
kinds of prehensions, resulting in a prehension
that is blazed by all these kinds of prehensions.

Then there are other kinds of prehensions: the

metaphorical prehensions that transpire the
other through immediate relevance; the symbolic
prehensions that transfuse the inner-other
through remote relevance; the grotesque
prehensions that transpierce the other-itself
through immediate and remote relevances and
the sublime prehensions and so on.

Senses are innumerable. They are the grounding

of prehensions. Senses are pregnant needles;
charged planes; suffocating leaps; buoyant
droops – they are fusion-bubbles. A sense is a
fusion- bubble that amoebically metamorphoses
itself.

73
An existence is a point or centre of senses. An
existence ‘microscopically’ is a unit of senses.
Senses are the ‘microscopic’ pulses of existence.
Senses, therefore, have no priority over
existences. In fact they ‘are not’ as themselves.
They are endearing infusional ‘microscopic’ inner-
dependencies. As existence which is not a point
of senses is not an existence at all. But it would
be wrong to state that an existence is ‘formed’
by senses. Senses as endering infusional
‘microscopic’ inner-dependencies’, cannot at all
have any priority. They are subsisting
simultaneity of existences. Existences are the
individual points of reality.

By virtue of transversal prehending fusion, any

one single sense can seep into any other sense-
realisation. Clusters of senses form into centres
or units. The centres of sense-clusters are
intermerging. The positionality of a centre of
sense clusters is relative to the dominance of
other centre or centres; in that, it is variable.
This variability is both structural and functional.
Hence no centre in and by itself privilegedly
enjoys a priority either in order or in significance
– for its isolatedness is correlative to relational
dominance. But normally they may have habitual
locales.

The number of centres may vary from one

prehending context to another prehending
context. As the clusters of senses may group and
regroup in terms of situational needs, variability

74
in positionality and significance is rendered
possible. This grouping and regrouping is in
accordance with the relatively stable routes of
prehension.

The central full-circuit centre of prehension is the

main chain of sense-clusters. It is the functional
seat of seeping. At the central pivotal locale, all
in-fusional screwing takes place. This point
through other points runs into the extreme end
point that churns the whole prehending modes
by screwing up all the other centres of sense-
clusters. This should not be construed as that
they are always invariably the significant centres.
Sometimes in terms of situational context a
peripheral centre becomes most significant. In
such a case, the whole significance and
positionalities of all the centres change.

All the centres of sense-clusters and their

positionalities are constantly formed by the
perpetually intermerging sense-clusters. This is
rendered possible by virtue of the
interdependency of change and permanence. At
every emissional prehensive point of all centres
of sense-clusters assume identical single
grouping, called existence-centre or existential
centre. Existence-centre is an evanescent point
of all centers of sense-clusters. It is called
prehensive act. Prehensive act is evanescent
realisedness of an existence. The capabilities and
achievements of the prehensive acts of an
existence are mostly in terms of the

75
convolutionary contexts of that existence. The
convolutionary contexts of an existence are
mostly in terms of the convolutionary contexts of
its stretch or phase. The contexts of a phase or
stretch are mostly in terms of the contexts of
other phases- amounting to the perpetually
fleeting cosmic contexts.

The perpetually intermerging clusters of senses

amount to either onsciousness or consciousness
subject to the various gradations of
onsciousness-consciousness. By virtue of
contradictoriness, all functioning of sense-
clusters is dual-point. Dual-point is a seeping
into the macrocosmic microcosm and
microcosmic macrocosm. Hence, the ‘otherness’
is the base of the functionings of sense-clusters.

As ready explained there is nothing like

impersonal onsciousness or impersonal
consciousness. Existence itself is ‘personal’. The
personate is grounded upon the individual. The
individual is the total unity of an existence as a
contrasting unity with the fleeting unity of all
realities.

Onsciousness (or consciousness) is not a

qualification of sense. The functioning of certain
clusters of senses of an existence is simply either
predominantly onsciousness or predominantly
consciousness. Hence the functional aspects of
senses are classifiable in terms of layers.

76
A layer is a gradational range of awareness. The
number of layers in an existence is coexitensive
with the number of modes of the prehensions of
that existence.

For example, with knotexistence it is a sixty fold

single layer shadowed by infra layer glow.
Ripplexistence – three hundred and sixty-fold
double padded-single layer illuminated by outer-
layer glow. Drop-existence over twenty five
billion-fold nine screwed layers. Waveexistence-
innumerable-fold single blazed layer. On the
positive – the number of folds become the
number of layers. And then; entwining of folds
and layers and then intermerging of folds and
layers and then, intermerged screwing of folds
and layers and then and then…

The functioning of prehension is ‘essentially’

paradoxical. It attempts to extract greater
translucency through greater opacity and greater
opacity through greater translucency. This factor
is the reason for cosmic drama.

Prehension takes place in tune with fusion,

through sense-doors. Sense doors are not
senses. They are simply doors. They are not
innumerable. These doors and qualitatively
differentiated from one another. The number of
sense-doors of an existence is relative to its
structural complexity. These doors are not
separating and isolating blocks between one
existence and another existence.

77
The doors are open from within and without. The
transparency of otherness paves the way for the
doors of another existence. The way paved thus
is such that the very way wraps the otherness;
for, the other than the otherness is precisely the
otherness. Here the otherness is wrapped with
illumination.

The illumination is fundamentally a double-fold

one. Jealousy and affection are these two folds.
These folds are the structural tinges of
illumination. Jealousy is more sharp; it cuts
through affection. Affection is more flappy; it
enwraps over jealousy.

Thus is the sense-structure of an existence. The

notion of supra-sensible can only be an
extravagance of intellection’s vagaries. Hence
the unperceivable is a hoax.

With regard to any existence, the field of

immediate relevance is the particular stretch of
cosmic epoch of which it is a rough demarcation.
Thus, by virtue of personate immortality, a
relatedness is rendered possible between any
two existences in a particular stretch. With
regard to a particular stretch, the field of
immediate relevance is the multidirectionality of
the passage of cosmic epoch.

Remote relevance needs greater transluecency

cut through opacity. The field of remote

78
relevance, by virtue of impersonate immortality
renders relatedness possible between an
existence in a particular stretch and an existence
in another particular stretch. This is way, at any
moment, an existence can hardly be stated to
have reached the absolute finale.

Perfection is perpetually in the perpetual making.

The finale subsists in the eternal continuum.
Absolute perfection is the haunting ideal of
process. It is, by virtue of contradictoriness, one
of the structural tinges of reality as the yet-to-
be-realisedness. The multiple multidirectionality
of process speaks of a number of perfections.
The perfection of an existence is its realisedness
that has yet to be or has been its realisedness
through the relational routes of process.

Absolute perfection is a name given to the

teleologicality of fusion. It is an indicator of the
infinite finiteness of reality. It is, in a sense, a
particular mode of the present. The immediate
and remote relevances render perfections and
‘absolute perfections’ possible. Absolute
perfection is superfection. It is the meaning of
transversal transition of fusion. ‘absolute’ does
not signify either ultimateness of
immutability. It signifies teleologicality that
issues itself through its haunting ideals. Ideality
is an approximating approximation to remote
relevance. It is the troubledness of remote
relevance that quivers to seep into immediate
relevance.

79
Greater and greater intensification of beastiliness
leads to saintliness. Saintliness is opacity which
is paradoxically full of translucency. Saintliness
transcends all limitational formalities and
prehends the opacity of translucency and the
translucency of opacity. It is superfecting
emotional tranquility; the stillness of the crazy
flight.

Beastliness is translucency which is paradoxically

full of opacity. But it is grounded upon
impersonation. Translucency is blocked by
opacity and opacity is arrested by translucency.
The operations of beastiliness are oriented by
stupidity. Stupidity is an absurd struggle without
‘understanding’ the structures of absurdity. It
only wanders around depth dimension. And,
therefore, it cannot realize the nuances of
emotional churning.

But when emotional churning is intensified,

beastiliness begins to quiver. Quivering of
beastiliness is the black radiance that illuminates
realisedness routes.

Existences can also be classified in terms of

saintliness or beastiliness or beastly saintliness
or saintly beastliness or other subtle transposing
of the two.

Intensification of saintliness leads to the

beastiliness of saintliness. The saintliness of

80
beastiliness and the beastliness of saintliness are
the two (negative and positive) union-points of
cosmic realisedness-belt.

Intensification of beastiliness does not mean

‘indulgence’ in beastliness. Indulgence is a
characteristic of surface-craving. Indulgence
lacks depth dimension. It is tied to the roots of
the peripheral. Out of the inflictions of opaque
restlessness, it fails to translucise and enret into
the layers of depth dimension. Indulgence in
beastliness results in the deprivation of
beastliness. Deprivation of beastiliness leads to
dullening of prehension, that is, the dissipation of
existence.

‘reaching the state of saintliness’ is not

discarding beastliness. It is not like leaving one
house and entering another one. Mutual
exclusion is a cardinal blunder.

Saintliness is the cream of beastliness. When

saintliness is emotionally churned through the
routes of intensification, saintliness flows
freezing.

In a way, beastliness may be called the shade of

desire. It is one of the structural tinges of desire.
Similarly, saintliness may be called the sound of
desire. It is one of the functional tinges of desire.
Greater and greater intensification of saintliness
leads to the realisedness of beastliness.

81
Transposing of beastliness and saintliness
through in-fusional intensificational qualms
renders ecstatic contexts possible. Ecstatic
contexts are the initiation belt to liberation
passage.

The superfecting realisedness of the transposing

of the macrocosmic microcosm and the
microcosmic macrocosm is liberation. Liberation
does not consist in closing the ‘chapter’. The
continual intensificational quiversings of desire,
involving personate and impersonate
immortalities, immediate and remote relevances
and the contexts of cosmic historicity, are the
passage of liberation. Liberation is never ‘fully
attained’. It is being continually and perpetually
draw in. except in an inexcusable sense, nothing
ends once for all for ever. The greater and
greater participational realisedness of existence
is through its desire. Liberation is through desire.
To get rid of desires is to extinguish existence.
Such an existinction is a ‘deafeatist-success’.

Desire is the virtue and vice and, blessing and

curse of existence. What is generally called
desire is only a denotation of certain
psychological conatives. They are peripheral
routes leading to desire. Desire in the ontic sense
as is used in this work, is a metaphysical fact.

The psychological conatives, when they pass

through the intensificational passage of desire,

82
get over indulgence and assume depth
dimension of the route of liberation.

Desire as the story of contradictoriness is the

explication of the paradoxicality of the history of
existences. History is not a record of ‘something
that happened’. It is the drama of existences.
And historicity is the realisedness of desire.
Realisedness is possibilised through the
intensification of individuum. Intensification of
individuum is through the fusioning process of
desire.

The demarcation of existence into beasts and

saints is in terms of surface-craving and
intensification.

What is called ‘emotional-out-bursts’ is not

intensification. “Emotional-out-bursts’ is a
resultant of defusional failures. Emotional-out-
burst is one of the aspects of surface-craving.

Orgasmicecstasy is the route of liberation.

Orgasmicecstasy involves severe emotional
clogging churned by the blaze of intensification.
Depth is the dimension of orgasmicecstasy.
Depth dimension has a number of dimensional
aspects which may be called the modes of
dimension or depth.

The passage of orgasmicecstsy involves

innumerable fusion –bubbles, through depth
dimension. A fusion-bubble is a realization unit.

83
Each unit involves three observances. Each
observance involves three performances. Each
performance achieves one treble sense-door
fulfillment.

These fusion-bubbles are classifiable into eighty

one million kinds of circularities. They are
transversal multidirectional circularities. Nine
million circularities make one circle. And nine
circles make one ecstasy-point. Nine ecstasy
points make one ecstasy year. Nine ecstasy-
years make one context of orgasmicecstasy. Nine
contexts of orgasmicecstasy make one cosmic
epoch. Cosmic historicity is a chain of cosmic
epochs.

Yet, the passage of orgasmicecstasy is not by

stages. It is in terms of vibratory continuum of
soundshade or shadesound. It is a possibilisation
of an infinite time in an infinite fraction of a
moment. The desire that liberates and the
liberation that desires are the spiral spinal
swinging current which is the infra-inflorescent
fusional trajectory of orgasmicecstasy.

Orgasmicecstasy is a structural and functional

complexity. The intelligibility of this complexity is
accessible through the infinite vibratory
continuum of the passage of orgasmicecstasy
itself. But, by adulterating the ineffability of
orgasmicecstasy it is possible to achieve non-
participational intelligibility through certain
channels of intellection.

84
Liberation, therefore, is not a static statehood
settled once forever. Temporality makes
liberation dynamic. The bells toll for those who
do not crawl on the surface or ‘lost’ drowned in.

***

Orgamic

Translucency – allowing light light to pass through partially or

diffusely (Opposite: Opaque)
Churn – a large container for milk; a vessel or machine in
which cream or whole milk is vigorously
Agitated to produce butter
Enwraps:
Hoax: a deception, a practical joke,
Subtle: Not immediately obvious or comprehensible, difficult
to detect, or analyze,
Indulgence: to allow oneself the pleasure of, he indulged
himself
Peripheral: Not relating to the most important part of
something; incidental (Antanym: relating to, situated near
the surface of the body
Infliction: to impose, something unwelcome etc
Opaque: not transmitting light; not transparent or
translucent
Opacity: the state or quality of being opaque, the degree to
which something is opaque
Deprivation: to prevent from possessing, or to prevent from
enjoying
Dissipation: unrestrained indulgence in physical pleasures

85
Qualms: a sudden feeling of sickness or nausea, a sudden
sensation of misgiving,
Ecstatic: a state of exalted delight; joy, etc; rapture, intense
emotion of any kind
Explication: to formulate or develop a theory, to make clear

86