TRANSCENDENTAL RELATIVITIES
We now proceed to say a few words on transcendental relativity. Hitherto we were noticing the question of relativity in phenomena, which has the intermediate position between Immanence and Transcendence. The usual tendency of rubbing out the relativity in the Immanence or in the Transcendence is observed to gain the supremacy in the two positions. The Immanence and the Transcendence would have no manifestation which is considered as the conspicuous feature of an insensate observer. The imperfect manifestive world does not want to supplement the inadequacy by the extension of appropriate relativity.
The phenomenal observation has decided to eliminate the relativity, on the basis of imperfection, in the two wings of Immanence and Transcendence. The solution of the extension and unusual curtailing tend to verge on relativity, which should be no factor in the conception of different situation from phenomena. So transcendental relativity is quite unintelligible at the very outset, but we are out to deal with the same. Is transcendental relativity irreconcilable by the apparent contradiction, or can these two have harmonious affinity?
============
Recent studies at the Oak Ridge Atomic Research Center have revealed that about 98 percent of all the atoms in a human body are replaced every year. You get a new suit of skin every month and a new liver every six weeks. The lining of your stomach lasts only five days before it’s replaced. Even your bones are not the solid, stable, concrete-like things you might have thought them to be: They are undergoing constant change. The bones you have today are different from the bones you had a year ago. Experts in this area of research have concluded that there is a complete, 100 percent turnover of atoms in the body at least every five years. In other words, not one single atom present in your body today was there five years ago.*
Science of Identity Foundation - Siddhaswarupananda
* Taken from Guy Murchie, The Seven Mysteries of Life (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1978), pp. 321-22.
============
The Absolute craves for a singular situation where no relation could find place in our mundane reason. We need not be disturbing the Absolute by accompanying anthropomorphic suggestions when we talk of the Absolute, Who is quite different from the views entertained by mundane relativity. In the mundane sphere we are the judge to accept a particular view, though we are sometimes forced to change our views by unexpected revelation of hidden Truths.
Our analytic exertion may give us some hope of entering into the particular details of the Absolute by the synthetical method. The synthetic method has been observed to suit best in the inspection of phenomena. But in the Absolute no synthetic method can work out its way, as the word 'Absolute' has monopolised as an autocrat not to allow any plurality which would have a conflicting situation. However, the Absolute may show us some delineative manifestations which will permit analysis of the Absolute.
Why should we deprive the Absolute of His eternal manifestation by our approaching? The rationalist would shudder at the very thought of an Inspector of the Absolute. He will then pass a quarantine to the observer when the Absolute becomes a part of the whole which is going to locate the three distinctive positions, as are often found in the phenomena. The objector will not allow us to transcend the phenomena, keeping his existence which, in his view, is one of the components of phenomenal existence.
Science of Identity Foundation
