If we except the notion that Kali Yuga began roughly a few thousand years ago, and that it corresponds to the most "intellectual" of the four ages, then we would also be inclined to think that Kali Yuga has subdivisions of its own. We have already seen that Vimalananda describes the late Kali Yuga as the "Ghora (terrible) Kali Yuga", a kind of sub-age, but ultimately, we could scrap this schema altogether and replace it with whatever we like. After all, if the progression of the yugas is essentially characterized by a movement from "the extreme of intuitive consciousness to the extreme of intellectual consciousness", then the difference between the yugas is one of quantity rather than quality. In Satya Yuga righteousness is at 100%, in Treta Yuga it declines by one fourth, and so on - Satya Yuga is extremely intuitive, Kali Yuga extremely intellectual. But if this is Kali Yuga, we must amend the above model because we know that there have been more shifts on the intuitive-intellectual scale during the last few thousand years than can be accounted for by the terms "Kali Yuga" and "Ghora Kali Yuga". If the ancients (including in Greece and Rome) imagined the world divided into four ages, we should take heed but we need not slavishly follow their model. In particular, we are concerned with the shifts in mentality that have taken place during the last 500 years or so, and we may divide this period into two, three, five or ten sub-periods if we find it illuminating to do so.
I'm afraid I am not expressing myself clearly, but my point is this: The history of the world could be divided into various time periods, and each division would yield different kinds of patterns. For any division, all that is required is that the constituent parts would, taken together, represent the whole. The number 1 may be divided by 4, 10, 23 or 357 if you will, and each division will reveal different patterns. If the number 1 represents history, and we divide it by 4, then the "first age" of that division would not be equivalent to the first age of history divided by 10. An unspoken premise here also seems to be that each one of the ages should have equal weight, just as 1 divided by 4 equals 0.25, where 4 * 0.25 = 1. This does not mean that each age need to be equal in length, but that each is like a pillar, where all pillars together uphold or constitute Being in equal measure.
Whatever division you prefer, you are stating at least one of the following:
1) that there are abrupt shifts in the quantity of intuition relative to intellect at key points in history, such as the shift from the pre-modern to the modern world.
2) that there is not simply a continuum, after all, from intuition to intellect, but that differences in quality can in fact be captured which vary between ages.
While Vimalananda's model is a clear example of 1), it is not clear whether he also embraces 2). An example of 2) would be the idea of astrological ages, as well as the psychohistory model with its three paradigms of transcendentalism, materialism and magic. However, even if examples of 2) could be found which are valid, one is inclined to think that such shifts in quality are normally less important. After all, Earth has existed for billions of years and time has previously moved very slowly compared to the breathtaking speed of change in our contemporary world. So if, as astrologers claim, the last age of Pisces began 2000 years ago, that would be significant, but most past ages of Pisces probably would not. An astrological age lasts about 2160 years, which in the era of dinosaurs was nothing - whereas today it might make the difference between low-tech human civilization, posthuman hypermodernity, and planet-wide collapse.
A future query might be why there would be abrupt shifts in the quantity of intuition relative to intellect.
I'm afraid I am not expressing myself clearly, but my point is this: The history of the world could be divided into various time periods, and each division would yield different kinds of patterns. For any division, all that is required is that the constituent parts would, taken together, represent the whole. The number 1 may be divided by 4, 10, 23 or 357 if you will, and each division will reveal different patterns. If the number 1 represents history, and we divide it by 4, then the "first age" of that division would not be equivalent to the first age of history divided by 10. An unspoken premise here also seems to be that each one of the ages should have equal weight, just as 1 divided by 4 equals 0.25, where 4 * 0.25 = 1. This does not mean that each age need to be equal in length, but that each is like a pillar, where all pillars together uphold or constitute Being in equal measure.
Whatever division you prefer, you are stating at least one of the following:
1) that there are abrupt shifts in the quantity of intuition relative to intellect at key points in history, such as the shift from the pre-modern to the modern world.
2) that there is not simply a continuum, after all, from intuition to intellect, but that differences in quality can in fact be captured which vary between ages.
While Vimalananda's model is a clear example of 1), it is not clear whether he also embraces 2). An example of 2) would be the idea of astrological ages, as well as the psychohistory model with its three paradigms of transcendentalism, materialism and magic. However, even if examples of 2) could be found which are valid, one is inclined to think that such shifts in quality are normally less important. After all, Earth has existed for billions of years and time has previously moved very slowly compared to the breathtaking speed of change in our contemporary world. So if, as astrologers claim, the last age of Pisces began 2000 years ago, that would be significant, but most past ages of Pisces probably would not. An astrological age lasts about 2160 years, which in the era of dinosaurs was nothing - whereas today it might make the difference between low-tech human civilization, posthuman hypermodernity, and planet-wide collapse.
A future query might be why there would be abrupt shifts in the quantity of intuition relative to intellect.
No comments:
Post a Comment