As is well known, the Mandukya Upanishad explicates the individual letters of the sacred monosyllable \u201cAUM\u201d as symbols of Atma within various states, and finally with the twelfth verse describes the AUM taken as a whole as the \u201cstate\u201d of Turiya: the identity of Aum and the Self, the ineffable reality of Atma knowing Atma, for, by, and through Atma.<\/p>\n
Recently, in his Living the Dream<\/a> essay, Cologero summarized the \u201cdescription\u201d of Turiya as found within the Vedanta Tradition, in \u201cvia negativia\u201d language; with the important conclusion being drawn, that the state need be cultivated by mastering thought, and stilling the mind.\u00a0 As opposed to repeating those “descriptions” herein, readers may wish to review the respective entry before proceeding.<\/p>\n Since metaphysics as \u201cUniversal science\u201d is not the \u201cproperty\u201d of any religious form, as Frithjof Schuon put it, one might then anticipate within the Western Tradition to locate something equivalent or parallel to the elucidation of Aum. And indeed, with the Neo-Platonic \u201cTo Hen\u201d, The One, is such, a rather obvious ineffable equal of Atma or Para Brahman.<\/p>\n In his Commentary on Plato\u2019s Parmenides, Proclus explains that while there can really be no \u201cname\u201d to assign to the Principle he is speaking about, the best that can be done is to settle upon \u201chen\u201d, although calling it \u201cThe One\u201d must never be understood as anything other than a place holder for what can never truly be named. Still, the word \u201chen\u201d itself,<\/p>\n Proclus points out, contains some clues to assist our contemplations\u2014clues moreover worth comparing with the Mandukya: 2. Proclus continues, \u201cThe second is represented by the utterable vowel which now becomes utterable with the breathing, and it in itself becomes both utterable and unutterable, unspeakable and speakable; for the procession of the second order of existence has to be mediated\u201d. Similarly, the \u201cU\u201d of Aum has the function of mediator in the Mandukya Upansishad, not just as occupying the central place within the word, but as the dream state (hence between waking and dreamless sleep), and more importantly by analogy, as the \u201cpsychic\u201d world, the \u201cMundus Imaginalis\u201d betwixt the corporeal and spiritual worlds. The \u201clower\u201d bounds communicating with the corporeal; the \u201cupper\u201d bounds communicating with the spiritual, which is why Proclus calls it \u201cutterable AND unutterable\u201d, \u201cunspeakable AND speakable\u201d, as it participates in both directions.<\/p>\n 3. \u201cThird comes hen which contains the unsounding breathing and the soundable force of \u2018e\u2019 and the letter that goes with this, the consonant \u2018n\u2019, which represents in a converse way the same thing as breathing\u201d. As it \u201crepresents in a converse way\u201d breathing, it is a return to breathing, which began with the \u201crough breathing\u201d of hen (1); similarly, the \u201cM\u201d of Aum is in Mudukaya a type of return to the unmanifested in the \u201cA\u201d, or the \u201cbeyond breath\u201d at the initiatilization of hen. As is well known, the Mandukya Upanishad explicates the individual letters of the sacred monosyllable \u201cAUM\u201d as symbols of Atma within various states, and finally with the twelfth verse describes the AUM taken as a whole as the \u201cstate\u201d of Turiya: the identity of Aum and the Self, the ineffable … Continue reading
\n1. Proclus states the One is \u201cbeyond breath\u201d, \u201cBut the first of the things that emanate from it is represented by the rough breathing with which we utter \u2018hen\u2019. Itself, it is unnamable, just as the breathing by itself is silent\u201d. The \u201cA\u201d of Aum is \u201call pervasive\u201d, unmanifest, yet the principle of all manifestation–while well near the Absolute, it still is not quite the metaphysical “beyond Being”; similarly, the hen cycle proceeds with “rough breathing”–primitive, the rudiments of all breath that could be breathed, and yet not indistinct enough to be not breath, or “beyond breath” (The One).<\/p>\n
\n4. Proclus concludes this section noting \u201cThe whole is a triad formed in this way: from this one derives a dyad, but behind the dyad there is a monad. But the first principle is beyond everything and not merely beyond this triad which is the first thing that comes after it\u2026.that prior breathing which is the silent symbol of Being\u201d. This whole then, more than just sharing an accord with previous \u201cdescriptions\u201d of Turiya as in the mentioned Cologero essay, is to be found only in a certain profound, “prior” (primordial) \u201csilence\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"