Relative purity rules

The example of Magellan’s voyage can be applied also to the contemporary mankind, it seems to define well the modern age. The mixing of cultures that happened in the last centuries at a slow pace created a worldwide relativization of the self-identification with the external appearances. The localized visions about the Self and the Universe became relative. What previously was “unquestioned, undisputed me” stepped into an uncertain area with all kind of influences, determining the search for a more clear definition about “who is really me”.

The previous traditional positions, static and local, could not be maintained anymore, thus, the modern people embarked in a journey, a quest for the real identity in the other Planet Earth, that one created by the minds of the people. They started to travel and explore the continents and the islands of the mental notions, to review them step by step in order to organize and codify a new geography of the identity. This supposes the exploration of any mental territory met, until an impression appears about it, impression good to be added to this modern geography. They keep a single direction, helped by the rapid pace of the technological and social changes (which supports the belief that every movement is another conquest of a piece of time, that every time something new happens). The prevalent belief is that the realm of the mental notions is a flat one, that the identity explorers may go further indefinitely in codifying the Self and the World, because this is how it appears to a localized view (the same as it was the belief about our planet Earth, for a long time in the human history). However, as the time passed there came out more and more signs that the new territories continuing to appear in front of the modern self-colonizers were already explored before. At a first glance, it is not easy to see this, because only the interpretation matters, and the infinity of possible approaches of the imagination makes less likely to give every time the same interpretation.

And, unlike in the cases presented above of the assimilating minority and of Magellan’s crew, there is no population to compare to, to give them the idea that their static outlook does not suit this modern world. Thus the rounds of the mental circumnavigations succeed each other unnoticed, every time estranging them further from the identity, by not respecting the local time zones. Using the comparison from the article Romani identity, the patching of an initial fabric, after some time becomes a continuous patching of a collection of sewed patches, an improvisation that keeps tearing. On the one hand, from the point of view of modern mind’s approach, the following of the belief that it is possible to grasp an identity (as opposed to others identities), by interpreting everything that appears in front of the self-colonizers, determines repeated circumnavigations of the mental patterns. On the other hand, from the point of view of the relation with the reality, there is a continuous patching of the fabric that keeps tearing and tearing. The former is the official policy of most of the modern people, continuing idealized opinions from the older times. The latter is just a matter of necessity, determined by the maladjustment of the modern theory of the identity to the reality.

Thus, the previous self-sufficient opinions and interpretations of the Self and of the Universe lost their absolute (2) status. Here too, the changes occurred on two levels. The repeated circumnavigations of the same mental patterns gradually void of any value the idea of a beginning and an end for the static outlook. They reveal it as a restless pursuit of interpretations in a closed system of patterns, in a mental sphere that for an Egoistic approach may give the appearance of an endless expansion. It remains to be acknowledged the major flaw of the contemporary prevalent approach to the modernity, the lack of considering the other dimension, that of the reality, which would permit the escaping from the obsolete self-sufficient and self-containing Egoistic sphere. On the other hand, in the unofficial level of the relations with the reality, the same approach is relativized by gradually stepping from “unquestioned, undisputed me” into “me, but not you”. The result may be perceived as a caste system, if it is acknowledged that the personal group is just one among many other people, or as sectarianism, if it is preserved the pre-modern opinion that a selection of external appearances validate the personal group as the true one, while the others follow a wrong way. In both cases, the public identity of the group is constructed by selecting what is special in that group, what makes it distinct among others, not understanding that specialty is not equal to identity.

Paradoxically, this pursuit of distinct marks is what brought together most of the contemporary people into a common worldwide framework. A framework that permits both the preservation of the absoluteness of the pre-modern identity notion (in the absence of ideas for a modern one) and its relativisation resulting from the modern social life. The notion of identity remained the same as in older times (focused on the external appearances and the self-sufficiency), but, employed to enforce the answer “me, but not you”, it switched its role to organize a modern caste system. Thus, it lost gradually the relation with its object, with the identity itself. Or, from another point of view, the identity was liberated from the grip of the pre-modern notion about it (since that notion was not very accurate, just belonged to the bygone “unquestioned me”; self-sufficient meant also self-limiting). It is yet to be seen the outcome of this framework combining self-contradicting absoluteness and relativeness, how it will reach a stable point. By now, there are just opinions and feelings (mostly based on the consequences of the continuous patching) that the contemporary assertion or attempts of revival of the static vision of the World is misleading. However, it did not appear yet an officialization of the relative nature of the contemporary notions about the Self and the World.

Something similar seem to have happened when the Desi civilization made the passage from the Vedic to the Dharmic religions. The mixing of different population groups determined the drift of the previous identity notion to a framework of the caste system (3) and the subsequent question of “who is really me?” Since the questioning of the Vedic ritual’s absolute value grew together with the increased mixing of Caucasoid, Australoid and Mongoloid people, probably the external appearances of the people had also an important role in challenging the self-limiting Egoistic worldview. After the mooting from the Upanishads (and to a lesser extent, from the Vedas), it appeared the conclusion that the external appearances are Maya. The term expresses the notion of illusion, meaning that these appearances are coherent and functional (at least at an idealistic level), by they do not have the reality ascribed by the people, making the latter to forget their real identity. It is recognized that the pursuit of codifying the identity by interpreting the external appearances may continue indefinitely, repeating, again and again, the same patterns with different approaches. Hence, the time is perceived as cyclical, nothing really new happens.

The “me, but not you” approach of the caste system is accepted as relative, it will never grasp the fundamental identity. It is perceived an irreparable difference between the idealistic view stemming from the Ego and the reality this view presumes it describes and organizes. It becomes obvious that it is a just matter of belief to consider the World as an extension of the Ego, waiting to be moulded by its theories. By the recognition of the reality dimension it is acknowledged that the personal/group notions are confined only in the minds of the person/group that employs them. This while the consequences of the deeds become part of the reality, where they may be interpreted from many points of view or they may be considered, if possible, just as reality.

The area of expression possibilities stemming from the Ego is limited and all that is possible to happen in this closed system is already happened at an idealistic level. The step by step approach of the Ego, starting from a certain point and then codifying the Universe, recognizes something as new only if there is possible a continuity, an interpretation according to something already existing in Ego’s system of notions. If it is not possible, then it does not exist officially, eventually emerging an unofficial relation, if the reality imposes its presence (relations that, as the times passes, may determine real changes).

However, this worldview, that became the base of the Dharmic religions, was not followed immediately by ideas about how to conform the lifestyle according to it. From the perspective of some circumnavigators who rounded a planet many times (until they recognized that the place they live on is not really flat and that they keep estranging from the initial time they keep using) it must be found out how it is possible to relate to any local time zone in a coherent manner. Everything that happened from the moment of departure, of abandoning a static position, is perceived as estranging the person/group from the reality by interpretations that are true only in the borders of their logic, thus self-limiting. The net of these interpretations is also compelling, because of their ability to produce the belief in their absolute truth, resulting from their internal logic. As a result of their lack of concordance with the reality, they and the deeds becoming meaningful through them (karm) are not considered anymore as an interface between the Ego and the reality (as in static times), but rather as creating the Ego. The relation between these self-contradicting absolute (from the point of view of the Ego) and relative (resulting from the contact with the reality) views does not offer an obvious answer that would permit a right perception, a liberation (moksh) from the older view.

Keeping the logic of the Ego, the answer would be to turn the ships back and to sail in the opposite direction, until the initial point of departure will reappear, thus to get rid of any karm accumulated in the meantime. Obviously, the existence of this initial point is idealized, is more a part of the abstract view of the Ego, since the initial point of departure was already reviewed with other interpretations during the circumnavigations. Since that point is the only one where the absolute view is confirmed (locally) by the more comprehensive relative view, it is expressed the hope that there it may appear an answer about how to add coherently the reality dimension in the personal/group worldview (not to regress, to run back to the initial pre-relativeness stage, the relative view is firmly part of the worldview).

It appears also available the possibility to focus on any place, different from the initial one, with the purpose of making a lucid passage from the Ego’s point of view to the local point of view. The other point of view is not better or worse itself than that of the Ego, but its witnessing, experiencing would clarify the concrete details of the limitations of the Ego, thus permitting further exploration and awareness of the Self and ultimately, the moksh. There were persons who attained moksh in this manner, but only on individual basis, few people from all the Dharmic society. Then, neither did it appear in this manner a moksh of the entire society, nor the persons who attained it offered a solution of a coherent social life for liberated people that would replace the overlapping, at most guides, advices for the others who would want to become liberated.

Much more popular became the solutions from Mahabharat and Ramayan. In Mahabharat, there are reviewed the main solutions proposed already, presented as different paths leading to moksh, each one with its own peculiarity from the point of view of the Ego. Then, after this description of the moksh’s bigger picture, it appears also the understanding that it is possible to be liberated and to live with this conflicting overlap between the absoluteness of the Ego’s view and its relativisation in contact with the reality. By recognizing that Ego’s point of view is a functional one only in its own environment, but not necessarily comprising the entire context, an individual may continue the current manner of performing social duties without identifying with their limitations.

The relative purity rules remained as a solution, with its goods and bads, for supporting the vision of an infinity of simultaneously possible ideals. The acknowledgement that any caste is just a peculiar one among others, any ideology is just a peculiar one among others permitted an unique freedom of thinking and argumentation, a coherent diversity. On the other hand, the fact that it did not appear yet a coherent expression of the fundamental identity, determined the people to keep relying on “me, but not you”, with the well-known propensity for rigidity of the social values of “me” vs. “you” and the fragmentation and the peculiarisation of the social interests.

Overall, it is obviously a positive change, it is better to have a larger image of the Self and of the World, to overcome the appearance, not being stuck in the Ego’s view. It is also irreversible, the Desis who converted to other religions kept the framework of the caste system. Those who emigrated from the Subcontinent and managed to preserve the identity recreated it in other lands, like the emergence of the Romani caste system or the Jahaji Bhai (“Boat Brother”) (4) system of the Desis who emigrated in the 19^th century.

Nowadays, the rest of the World attained also this unavoidable conclusion about the relativity of the static “unquestioned me”, with the same “me, but not you” drifting. It is the same conflict between the social safety and order of the older rituals and the free thinking that not abide to them like in the times of the passage from Vedism to Dharm. And a search for something that does not exist in the static way of thinking. An important difference between the two cases is the rapid pace of the technological and social changes of the modern people, which may support easier the opinion that the time brings something new every moment and that the realm of the Ego is flat and infinite. Also it remains to be seen the direction of the contemporary framework of “me, but not you” identities, how it will be accepted their relativity.

------

(3) I mean the Desi caste system based on jatis, not that better known worldwide, presenting only the four initial varnas.

(4) The Desi emigration for indentured labor in the 19^th century was mostly on individual basis, uprooting persons from their social framework. They recreated a new one in the areas of settlement, by the crystallization of the groups of people who arrived with the same ship, who made together the sea passage.