incapacity to relate itself to any other similar object. There are many electrons—
which means to say, they are divisible bodies. There is a connection of one with the
other. One can be related to the other, one can be defined in terms of the other, and
one fixes the velocity, the path and the position of the other in respect of the
arrangement among themselves that is necessary for the formation of an atom or an
object.
The indivisibility of consciousness is of a different character. Here, indivisibility
means identity with infinity. Finitude of any kind is the characteristic of divisible
objects. That which is finite is also divisible, and that which is not divisible is not
finite. So, the indivisible principle of consciousness is also trans-finite in every
respect, and the characteristic of finitude is, again, the location in space and in time.
It amounts to saying that consciousness is not in space, and is not in time. If it is not
in space, naturally it should transcend space; therefore, it should be vaster than
space. If it is not in time, it should be in the past and present and future. All these
things follow from the position that consciousness is not spatial and not temporal. It
is as vast as space—even vaster than space—and timeless, durationless, and not
conditioned by the limitations of the divisions of time known as past, present and
future. Inasmuch as space is a content of consciousness, and even the vastness of
space is that which is known by consciousness as an object, it follows that the
principle that knows this vastness of space should be as vast as space itself.
Consciousness is vast like space. And, that which can connect the past, present and
future in a series of successions should also have the capacity to transcend these
relationships of past, present and future; so, it is timeless. It is spaceless and
timeless—which means to say, it is infinite and eternal. That which is spaceless is
infinite; that which is timeless is eternal. Such is the characteristic of the pure seer.
And, we are also seers. We can see things. The definition of the seer given in this
sutra implies certain unthought-of characteristics present even in individual
perceivers, and we come to a very startling conclusion that we are something quite
different from what we appear to be—even to our own selves.
The principle of awareness that is in us is something different from what it appears to
be in its association with this body. Due to the connection of consciousness with this
body, it appears to be a means of contacting external objects and becoming aware of
them conditionally in space and in time. But a careful analysis of the nature of
consciousness, as we are trying to do now, will reveal that it cannot be connected to
the body like that. It cannot be limited to the location of the body, and it cannot be
subjected to the activities of the senses in respect of objects, because all this
conditioning would amount to saying that it is limited, finite, spatial and temporal—
which, on the very face of it, cannot be the nature of consciousness.
This consciousness, which is of this transcendental character, appears to be
associated in a strange manner which individuals cannot know. Philosophy stops
here. Inasmuch as philosophy is logical conclusion, it fails and gives way to a new
type of knowledge—we may call it intuition—when it comes to a question of the
ascertaining of the nature of the very precondition of all thought and the
presupposition of logical thinking. The axioms of logic are themselves limitations of
logic; therefore, they become the halting point of all analytic thought and
investigative analysis, giving way to an insight which surpasses all that the human
mind can comprehend.