________________
A Modern Understanding of...
that subjectivity to get dissociated. The demand, in other words, is just for the objective mental state to forgo its obiectivity In so far, then, as introspection has for its object a mental state that goes on liquidating itself, it cannot be said to be bound by that state. In plain language, it is not so far compelled to refer Whatever reference is there is free so far. So far, again, as the reference is free, so far the subjectivity of introspection is not jeopardized. Whatever of nonfreedom appears to linger is evidently in the process of selfdissolution. It follows inevitably that the ultimate freedom of man lies in purest non-referring subjectivity - subjectivity which is wholly in itself
All difficulties are not over yet. The Advaitın insists that there is another hurdle--and a big one at that-to cross Introspection, even of the spiritual form, is after all a subjectivity conscious of itself as an individual, as I, not as you or he. My introspection, whether spiritual or psychological, is after all my introspection, not yours or his What I introspect, spiritually or psychologically, is a particular group of mental states which are mine only I do not introspect your or his states, nor you or he mine. If, then, the final truth is to be pure subjectivity, it cannot be 1-consciousness only, however reflective and dissociate that may be There are many such centres of subjectivity each of which may claim to be the ultimate truth. Obviously, this is not the Advaita thesis It follows that even the sense of individuality-1-consciousness --has to be transcended. How is this transcendence to be effected in order that one may land in some impersonal subjectivity ? Normally, subjectivity is so much of the form of
that if there be any that could transcend this limitation it should better be given another name. A more non commital name is consciousness'. How, now, to pass from pure individual subjectivity (java-säksin) to impersonal consciousness?
