Para vs. Apara
Question: I have some problems understanding apara, para, existence, and presence. Apara exists, but is not present; para is present but does not exist. Are you saying that what is present does not exist, what exists is not present? If so, how can you reconcile with our common sense notion that what exists is present? Even though presence doesn’t imply existence, we can’t say that existence imply non-presence. So, this is an issue of definitional equivalence: para = presence; apara = existence.
There are (at least) three sources generating the problems that you signal. First, therefore, the sources:
(a) The post tried to relate ‘para’ and ‘apara’ to the English language-use. In doing so, it tried to keep to a simple word-usage and avoid convoluted formulations. However, the English words (‘present’ and ‘presence’) themselves have multiple linguistic and grammatical functions and roles. These could not be taken into consideration. This fact complicates matters and generates problems.
(b) Our common-sense notions and linguistic uses merely indicate that ‘para’ and ‘apara’ are known and familiar even to those who do not know Sanskrit. They are also indicators of how we deal with living and our daily experiences. These will play an important role as ‘evidences’ only at a later stage of hypothesis formation. (Your question about reconciling common-sense notions arises only at that stage.)
(c) The distinction (between ‘para’ and ‘apara’) is difficult to understand and conceptualize. Hence the reason why many brilliant minds could only raise but not answer questions about the ‘grotesque’ forms of the Indian ‘gods’. The innumerable discussions about ‘murthypuja’, ‘idolatry’, etc. over centuries attest to this difficulty.
Second, now to the problem itself. The answer is this: ‘presence’ and ‘present’ are distinguished from each other. In the form of a slogan, here is the difference: what is present might or might not have an accessible ‘presence’; however, ‘presence’ is always there in the ‘present’. (One possible heuristic to keep this distinction in mind is to think about ‘presence’ as another word for ‘real’. However, because of the complex roles played by the word ‘present’ (it is a noun, an adjective, a transitive verb etc.), it is difficult to use it as a synonym for ‘existence’ and draw a consistent contrast between ‘presence’ as ‘real’ and the ‘present’ as ‘existence’.)
Consider the six sentences where the word ‘present’ is used in the previous post. The explications, hopefully, will reduce your problems.
1. “(a) Access of any kind requires that the accessed ‘object’ is present in the world; (b) ‘presence’ of an ‘object’ does not imply or mean its ‘existence’”.
The sense that (b) tried to convey could not be captured if (a) was formulated as: “the accessed object is ‘there’ in the world” or “is ‘available’ in the world” and so on. ‘Exists in the world’ is not possible in this context. The idea was to draw attention to the word ‘presence’ in the hope that the word ‘present’ in (a) would then get an added dimension, namely, as ‘present-in-the-world’ (to be read as one word). Perhaps, you could read (a) as: …‘present (in some sense)’…, if that helps. Or, having once read the sentence in its current formulation, it could be re-read as ‘there-in-the-world’ (again, as one word). The simplest formulation of (a), after reading both the sentences is this: ‘presence’ is accessible only if it is present in the world (But it does not exist.).
2. The previous suggested re-reading gets formulated later: “As a slogan: no presence outside existence. If anything is present, it is and must be there in this world.” Thus, for instance, you can read the second sentences as: “if anything is there, it is there in the world”.
3. The above considerations should make sense of the following two sentences: “we are accessing ‘objects’ that do not exist but are present (could be read as: ‘are there-in-the-world’) in the world. In more general terms: one accesses things that are present (again, ‘are there-in-the-world’) without requiring that they exist”. In this and the previous point, the same contrast is repeated: ‘present’ is used as a noun here, contrasting it to ‘existence’.
4. The last two uses: “‘Para’ has to be present in the world, but it does not exist…The ‘brahma-in-the-para’, ‘parabrahman’, must be present in the world.” Again, the same point: ‘existence’ is contrasted to ‘present-in-the-world’ or ‘there-in-the-world’.
A choice was made not to use hyphenated words (‘there-in-the-world’, for example) because this is how words from some continental languages (German, French, Dutch, etc.) are translated into English. The attempt was to formulate some thoughts in English but not to translate continental European languages into English. In such cases, the hyphenated words become clumsy or technical or appear long-winded.
With these said, to the questions you ask: (a) “Apara exists, but is not present”. Apara exists, yes, but it is not presence. (b) ‘Para is present but does not exist’. No, ‘para’ is presence and it does not exist. (c) “Are you saying that what is present does not exist, what exists is not present?” No, presence does not exist and what exists is not presence. (d) “we can’t say that existence imply non-presence”. Yes, we cannot, because of the dependency relationship between existence and presence. One could say: ‘if there is existence, it implies that presence is manifest there’ or ‘where there is existence, presence is manifested’. If one does not make a fine-point of it, one could say: ‘existence has presence’ because presence is manifest only in existence. (If it helps, read ‘manifest’ as the Sanskrit ‘pratyaksha’.)
As indicated, the word ‘present’ has multiple linguistic functions because of which it is also possible to use it as a synonym for ‘presence’ at times. Such formulations facilitate smooth writing. At other times, they can be sharply contrasted with each other. One has to keep the context in mind to decide which is the case. Consider: (a) ‘Even though he was present at the meeting, actually he was not (present)’; (b) ‘He was present there as the great spiritual leader but had all the presence of a wet rag or a dead-frog’; (c) ‘Even though the same house is present in all the photographs, because of the face lift or the redesigning, it now gets a striking presence in the last two photos’; (d) ‘Even though he was not present at the gathering, his presence could be vividly felt’ ; (e) ‘Was he present at the meeting? My God, was he present?’; (f) ‘He really has a palpable presence’ or ‘he was explicitly (or palpably) present’; etc. etc.
(e) Thus, in one sense, yes, “para = presence; apara = existence”. Here, the focus is on the meaning of the Sanskrit word ‘apara’, which means the NEGATION of the ‘other of’. Then, existence could be seen as the NEGATION of the ‘other of’. Yet, in another sense, if we focus on the English word ‘existence’, that is not the case: ‘existence’ is also predicated of the Universe or Cosmos (the Sanskrit ‘Vishwa’ or even ‘Iha’), as in, say, ‘The World exists’ or ‘the Cosmos or the Universe exists’. In that case, both para and apar ‘exist’. Then, ‘existence’ is not a-para; it is not the NEGATION of ‘other of’, i.e. para.”
The Christian way of resolving this issue is well-known to us today: ‘para’ is outside the Cosmos, the Universe or the World. ‘Para’ names where the Christian God is; that is, outside the world, the cosmos, the universe. It becomes the ‘real world’, the ‘true world’, contrasted to which stands our ‘mundane world’, the ‘unreal world’, ‘the false world’, ‘the illusory world’, etc. The Sanskrit ‘a’ then becomes a very deep negation: a-para becomes the logical negation of ‘the true’, ‘the real’, the ‘spiritual’ etc.; then it can only be the ‘false’, the ‘unreal’, the ‘material’ and the ‘mundane’. The world becomes ‘asat’, ‘apara’, ‘maya’, which is invariably translated as ‘illusion’, and even ‘mithya’ (a ‘fable’ as the word is translated). Today, this story is sold by all and sundry as ‘Indian culture’, ‘Indian religion’ and ‘Indian thought’. Christianity has truly become ‘Catholic’, i.e. ‘universal’. (Thus, our souls could finally get saved; even if ‘salvation’ (here) merely means an invitation to give a talk, if not a faculty position, at Columbia, Princeton or Chicago. Yet others might wish to be more modest and try to save their souls in ‘humbler’ ways, including merely holding forth at home to a ‘captive audience’.)
Briefly: yes, para=presence and apara=existence. This translational issue is easily solved. The problem does not lie here, but begins thereafter.
To which culture do you want to map these languages and translations? By using Marx, Foucault, Derrida etc. (or their Indian counterparts) to bullshit about ‘enlightenment’, ‘para and ‘apara’ and ‘atman and arivina niluvu’ etc., one is simply slavishly reproducing the extant mapping of India to western Christianity. Here it is of no consequence whether one speaks in Kannada, Tamil, Telugu or Sanskrit. It remains bullshit because the problem is not which language one uses (or whether Sanskrit words can be ‘ever be translated’ into English) but on the mapping between languages and cultures. This mapping occurs at a conceptual level, both in the background and when one puts on an explicit ‘intellectual’ cap. This is the familiar route.
The research programme that I am outlining chooses another route: it begins to map these languages and translations to Indian culture and her traditions. Yes, there are and will be many problems; yes, there is no established market; yes, one will not be rewarded by fame and fortune. The question is: what does one want?
Just a small word of warning: There is a cottage industry in philosophy that rails against ‘the metaphysics of presence’. Here, ‘presence’ means objects that exist and refers mostly to objects that are currently at hand. Here, ‘presence’ is equated with objects that are ‘present-and-at-hand’. If possible, avoid dipping into the products produced by this cottage industry.
zrp:ldne2