77. 84 CHAPTER 11

84 CHAPTER 11

as there is no "not.being" from which "being" is to be distinguished, it cannot be spoken of as determinate consciousness.

But one may say that the conception of determinacy, as given above, is not traditional but original. For, tradi- tion recognises determinacy to consist in the use of expression (Sabhilāpam Vikalpākhyam). And because in the case of transcendental self-consciousness there is the use of the expression "Aham" or "I", how can its determinacy be denied ? To this the Saiva replies that it is only the gross ex- pression, which is consequent on the movement of speech- organ, or the clear and distinct consciousness of expression, which brings in determinacy. But expression is not neces- sarily always gross. Expression (Vak or Abhilapa) in its ultimate form is the subtlest. This is what the grammarians speak of as "Para vak" and as such, identical with the Ultimate Reality. The self-consciousness that the Saiva admits is not gross, but identical with "Para vak" and as such is free from all determinacy. The Saiva position in regard to the Absolute is that it is Unity as grasped in mystic experience. But this unity, when viewed by the eyes of logic for a rational grasp and intelligible interpretation, is conceived as it were a duality consisting of self-luminosity and self-consciousness. In reality, however, self-consciousness is as identical with self- luminosity as fire is with its so called capacity to burn. The two are inseparable. Self-luminosity (Siva or Prakasa) is never without self-consciousness (Sakti or Vimarsa). From the rationalistic point of view, therefore, the Absolute is not pure identity but identity-in-difference, This conception of the Absolute is represented in Art by a figure