7.4 OTTO KERNBERG:BORDERLINE STATES( ANADHI?)
Kernberg postulated a “ borderlinelevel of personality
organization” as a common feature to all personality problems. He hypothesized
this borderline organization as a
nucleus shared by most subtypes of personality disorders. He defined it as
characterized by the following features:
1)nonspecific manifestation of ego weakness such as
lack of impulse control, lack of anxiety tolerance and lack of sublimatory
potential.
2) specific ego defects lsuch as partially blurred
self object boundaries, mild to moderate primary process thinking and
periodicallydistorted impaired reality testing.
3) Partial object relations such as alteration between
all good and all bad perceptions of self and external objects.
4) primitive defence mechanisms centred around splitting.
5)identity disturbances
6) inadequately developed super ego such as sadistic
or rigid anankastic tendencies or conflict free discharge of undisireble
impulses.
However immature defences and fragmentary self concept
are feature in normal early mental development. A pathological persistence of
immaturity is postulated to reflect the individuals constitutional factors like
genetics or environmental trauma in early childhood.
Kernberg felt traumatic factors, aggressively charged representation of the
self, negative external objects are incorporated into the internal mental world
during development. This process interferes with the crystallization of the
early ego and its development.
As a consequence primitive defences pathologically
persists in the inner world and interfere with normal mind. Splitting requires
only low energy levels for their operation compared to mature defence
mechanisms. This process eventually
perpetuate each other and lead to a neutralization of defences against fear and
aggression.
Kernberg proposed the core feature of borderline
personality organization as
1) chronic free
floating anxiety
2) poly symptomatic neurosis, such as multiple
phobias,bizarre conversion and dissociative symptoms, dysmrphophobias and
hypochondriasis.
3)polymorphous perverse sexual trends.
4) poor impulse controland addictions
5) shift towards primary process thinking like magical
and primitive fantasies.
6) partially impaired reality thinking.
These features are common however to all personality
disorder subtypes. Indeed a personality disorder reflects a persons’s effort to
heal themselves. The borderline level of organization is a fundamental healing
process. This process reflects a fundamental healing process and the resultant
thought,affect, impulse, behavior or attitude reflects the basic inflammatory
mechanism’.
These descriptions often resemble the anaadhi states
of the saiva siddhantham- the siddhiyar description of anaadhi is best
comparable to this state[i]-[ii]
"ஐந்துபுலன் ஐம்பூதங் கரண மாதி
அடுத்தகுணம் அத்தனையும் அல்லை அல்லை
இந்தவுடல் அறிவறியா மையுநீ யல்லை
யாதொன்று பற்றின்அதன் இயல்பாய் நின்று
பந்தமறும் பளிங்கனைய சித்து நீஉன்
பக்குவங்கண் டறிவிக்கும் பான்மை யேம்யாம்."
( the soul and its individual lone status in
siddhantham is described by Nallaswamy pillai with references from siddhiyar).
[i]
SUTRA
III - PASU LAKSHANA. SivagyAna SidhdhiyAr,OF ARUL NANDI SIVACHARIYA, Mr.
J. M. Nallaswami Pillai, B.A., B.L., Shaiva Siddhanta Home Saiva Siddhanta Texts
1. There is a soul separate from the body. It is existent; it is united to a
body and possessed of faults (the feeling of 'I' and 'mine'); it wills, thinks
and acts (Iccha, Gnana and Kriya); it becomes conscious after dreams; it
experiences pleasures and pains, (the fruits of Karma); it undergoes the five
avasthas; and it rests in Turyatita. Each one of these statements is made in answer to a different theory as regards the soul. It is said to be 'existent' in answer to those who deny the reality of a soul-substance, as such a thing is implied in the very act of denial. The next statement is made in answer to those who would assert that the body itself is the soul, and that there is no soul other than the body. The fact is though the soul may be in conjunction and correlation with the body, yet it asserts its own independence when it calls, "my body,' 'my eye' &c. Another asserts that the five senses form the soul. To him the answer is made that the soul is possessed of more powers than those exercised by the gnanendriyas. Another states that the Sukshuma Sarira forms the soul. The answer is that after awaking, one becomes conscious of the experiences in sleep as separate, the one becoming so conscious must be different from the dream body. Prana is shown not to be the soul, as there is no consciousness in deep sleep, though Prana may be present. It is different again from God, as instead of its intelligence being self-luminous, it understands only in conjunction with the different states of the body. The combination of all the above powers of the body is shown not to be soul, in as much as it subsists even in the Turyatita condition when all the bodily functions cease.
This stanza is further important as it gives a clear and concise definition of the soul or jivatma, a definition which we fail to get in many other systems. It is shown to be different from the body composed of maya and its products, Buddhi, senses, &c., and also different from God. It is not to be identified with any one or with all or any combination and permutation of the bodily functions; nor is it a combination of the body (maya) and andakaranas and God or any abhasa of these. But how is it found? It is always found in union with a body, gross or subtle; and the mystery of this union is of more serious import than most other problems. It is possessed of certain powers, will, intellection, and power but distinguished from the Supreme Will and Power, in as much as this is faulty or imperfect and dependent. It is possessed of feeling and emotion, and suffers pain and pleasure as a result of its ignorance and union with the body; and this suffering is not illusory, which must distinguish it again from God, who is not tainted by any and who has neither likes nor dislikes, 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமையிலான்,' 'பற்றற்றான்' 'மலமிலான்' ' சஞ்சலமிலான், &c.
The soul is also limited by its coats, and this limitation is not illusory either.
Even after saying all this, there is one characteristic definition of the soul, which is alone brought out in the Siddhanta and in no other school, and which serves to clear the whole path of psychology and metaphysics, of its greatest stumbling blocks. We mean its power "அது அது ஆதல்." சார்ந்ததன் வண்ணமாதல், யாதொன்று பற்றினதன் இயல்பாய் நிற்றல்," to become identical with the one it is attached to, and erasing thereby its own existence and individuality, the moment after its union with this other, and its defect or inability to exist independent of either the body or God as a foothold or rest (பற்றுக் கோடிண்றி நிற்றலாகம்மை). So that the closest physiological and biological experiment and analysis cannot discover the soul's existence in the body, landing, as such, a Buddha, and a Schopenhauer and a Tyndal in the direst despair and pessimism; and it is this same peculiarity which has foiled such an astute thinker as Sankara, in his search for a soul when in union with God. The materialist and idealist work from
"We all, with unveiled face, reflecting, as a mirror, the glory of the Lord are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the spirit."
He paraphrases the sentence as follows, 'We all reflecting as a mirror the character of Christ are transformed into the same image from character to character - from a poor character to a better one, from a better one to one a little better still, from that to one still more complete, until by slow degrees the perfect image is attained. Here the solution of the problem of sanctification is compressed into a sentence, reflect the character of Christ, and you will become like Christ," or as we will say, reflect the image of God in yourself, and you will become God like, or God."
But how is the poor character to be made better and better, or the reflecting image clearer and clearer? It is by cleansing the mirror (soul) freer and freer from dirt, and bringing it more and more in line with the effulgent light, that this can be effected, and when the mirror is absolutely perfect and nearest, the light shines brightest, and so overpowers the mirror, that the mirror is lost to view, and the glory and Light of the Lord is felt. For, observes the learned Professor truly, "What you are conscious of is the 'glory of the Lord.' And what the world is conscious of, if the result be a true one, is also the 'glory of the Lord. In looking at a mirror, one does not see the mirror or think of it, but only of what it reflects. For a mirror never calls attention to itself - except when there are laws in it." These flaws are the colours of the Siddhanti who compares them to the maya or body. In union with the body, it is the body alone that is cognized, and not the mirror-like soul. In union with God, the Glory and Light alone is perceived and not the mirror like soul either; and the Professor declares, "All men are mirrors - that is the first law on which this formula (of sanctification or corruption) is based. One of the aptest descriptions of a human being is that he is a mirror", and we must beg our readers to go through the whole pamphlet to note how beautifully he draws out this parallel.
He notes the second principle which governs this process, namely, the law of assimilation or identification. 'This law of assimilation is the second, and by far the most impressive truth which underlies the formula of sanctification - the truth that men are not only mirrors, but that these mirrors, so far from being mere reflectors of the fleeting things they see, transfer into their own inmost substance and hold in permanent preservation the things that they reflect. No one can know how the soul can hold these things. No one knows how the miracle is done. No phenomenon in nature, no process in chemistry, no chapter in Necromancy can even help us to begin to understand this amazing operation. For think of it, the past is not only focussed there in a man's soul, it is there. How could it be reflected from there if it were not there? All things he has ever seen, known, felt believed of the surrounding world, are now within him, have become part of him, in part are him - he has been changed into their image."
These two principles in fact underlie our mantra and tantra, our upasana, and Sadana, Bavana and Yoga, and our books instance the case of the snake charmer chanting the Garuda Mantra in illustration of this second principle of assimilation or identification. The doctrine of regarding God as other than the soul requires very elaborate treatment, and we hope to deal with it separately. It is the one point which distinguishes the true Vedanta as borne out by the text of the Vedanta Sutras themselves and which is accepted by all the Tamil philosophers like Tirumular and Tayumanavar and others, and the Vedanta so called, as interpreted and expounded by Sankara.
SOUL IS OTHER THAN BODY AND PRANA.
2. Why should you require a soul other than the body? Does the body itself feel and know? Then if so, why does not the body feel when it becomes a corpse? If it be replied that feeling is absent, as Prana is absent; then, there is no feeling either in sleep, though Prana is present in the body.
THE FIVE SENSES DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOUL.
3. If the senses constitute real soul, then why don't they perceive in sleep. Then the senses perceive one after another and each one a different sensation. You say this is their nature. But it is a defect that one sense does not perceive another sensation. What cognises each sense and sensation and all together must be different from all these and it is the soul. The five senses have no such cognition.
PRANA IS NOT THE SOUL.
4. Prana is the conscious Being as there is no consciousness when the breath is stopped temporarily or permanently. But it is not conscious in deep sleep. You say this is so, as it is not in conjunction with the senses. But if the Prana is the soul, the senses cannot drop when Prana is conscious. The soul really cognises everything, by controlling the Prana.
[ii]
III - THIRD SUTRA:ON THE EXISTENCE OF SOUL-Sivagnana Bodham with english
Translation, By J M Nallaswami Pillai
Sutra. It rejects every portion of the body as not being
itself; It says my body; it is conscious of dreams; it exists in sleep without
feeling pleasure or pain or movements; it knows from others; This is the soul
which exists in the body formed as a machine from Maya.
This Sutra is a remarkable example of condensation of thought and brevity of
expression. This contains 7 arguments on a most important subject and yet there
is only a word or two to express each argument and there are not more than 20
words in Tamil or 14 words in Sanskrit. The first Sutra established from the
fact of the objective universe and its undergoing evolution, the existence of
Sat. In the next Sutra the nature of Chit by which this evolution is brought
about and which is all Love is explained. Now God need not be active and be all
loving, if nobody is to be benefited by it. He could not desire anything for
Himself, as He is "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமையிலான்" (has no likes nor dislikes).
Every act of His must be construed as Para-Prayochanam and not Swaprayochanam.
We have therefore to postulate a separate entity as Soul which requires the
support of the Supreme Intelligence and Love. This Sutra therefore proceeds to
the proof of its existence.1. The first argument is directed against Suniyavadis according to whom there is no Atma at all. The subject though it identifies itself with every part of the objective body, organs and sensations yet it exercises its sense of difference and distinguishes itself from one and all of these. Therefore that which so discriminates could not be a not-entity. This discriminating subject is the Soul of Atma. Even if we were to think we do not exist, the very thinking so, proves the existence of the thinking beings. The illustration further enjoins a caution that this thinking intelligence, being no other than Atma is not to be confounded with Divine intelligence, when we see it is not Maya or objective consciousness. The Atma occupies a place different from the other two i.e., a middle position. God is Sat; Maya is Asat; hence Atma is called Satasat (சதசத்து). The author of Ozhivilodukkam calls it Ali Arivu (அலியறிவு - Hermaphrodite intelligence) comparing the Divine Arivu to male and the Maya Arivu to female intelligence. Though all these are intelligences, they are of different orders. There is a dependence of the lower intelligence on the higher and when viewed from the stand-point of the higher, the lower ceases to exist as it were, the latter becomes Asat. Maya is Sat, but as compared with Atma, it is Asat. Atma is sat but as compared with God is Asat; Maya could not be compared with anything lower, nor God (Sat) with anything higher. So these latter occupy extremes Asat and Sat and the middle one is called Satasat, partaking of the nature of both and not being both. When it identifies itself with Maya, (as in man) it is hardly distinguishable from Maya and when it becomes identified with Sat, its presence cannot also be seen. So it is an Ali.
One other distinction between Sat and Satasat is that Sat is காட்டும் அறிவு or அறிவிக்கும் அறிவு (intelligence that induces Perception) or Light that removes darkness and the latter is காணும் or அறியும் அறிவு (Intelligence that perceives after the darkness is removed by Sat).
The relation of God, Atma and Maya is illustrated by the following analogy. Atma is the eye which is affected by a general disability and a particular defect. It cannot see in darkness nor when its eye sight is defective. God is the Sun, the dispeller of darkness, thereby giving light to the eye and other objects and enabling it to perceive. Maya is like the eye glasses which afford temporary relief to defective sight. By continued use of the glasses (births) and by a touch of the Surgeon’s lancet (God’s Grace or Arul Sakti) the defective eye sight (Anavamala) may be permanently cured. But the defective eye sight could not be cured by the Sun however powerful it may shine, and it shines ever before and after the eye sight is cured. And yet at no moment could you compare the light of the eye to the light of the sun, the one is the dispeller of darkness and the other is subject to darkness inherently. Sri Panchatchara is synonymous with Pranava. See further treatment of the subject in the subsequent chapters. Cf. Thayumanaver.
"ஐந்துபுலன் ஐம்பூதங் கரண மாதி
அடுத்தகுணம் அத்தனையும் அல்லை அல்லை
இந்தவுடல் அறிவறியா மையுநீ யல்லை
யாதொன்று பற்றின்அதன் இயல்பாய் நின்று
பந்தமறும் பளிங்கனைய சித்து நீஉன்
பக்குவங்கண் டறிவிக்கும் பான்மை யேம்யாம்."
2. This is an argument gathered from a habit of speech to prove that the
Soul is different from the body as against the Theganma Vadis. The different
forms of speech I and mine involve a difference between the non-Ego (body) and
the Ego and asserts the separate existence of the Ego. Such usages as ‘I am the
body’; ‘I am the leg or arm,’ &c., are not in existence.3. This argument is against regarding the soul as identical with the five external senses. Each sense stands apart and cannot feel a different class of sensations. So the Soul can neither be one nor all of them. Even when the sensations are experienced, there is simply the feeling present and no thought of any such feeling. The eye sees no doubt, but it does not think that it sees. This is of course the distinction between subjective thought and objective feeling. The objective feeling or object is not the subject mind or Atma.
4. This argument is against the view that Sukshuma Sarira is itself the Atma. That it is not so is proved by the fact of the Soul passing in the waking state into the Sthula Sarira remembering its experiences in sleep and remembering them not clearly even.
In fact, it is in the Sthula Sarira, all the faculties are present and in full play; and in the Sukshuma Sarira 10 of the Tatwas (5 elements and 5 senses) are wanting. In dream, there is merely reproduction of ideas as determined by the previous Karma (experiences) and without the command of reason or will. This sensorium and blind reproduction is not the subject. It can be so, if in that condition the Soul is in its full working order.
5. Nor is the Soul in its full working order and undergoing movements, feelings, &c., in dead sleep and hence the respiratory organ is not the Atma. In Jakratha, respiratory function is working but in conjunction with other organs, external and internal senses, and certain sequences follow, feelings and actions. If the first is the sole cause or Atma, then we must eliminate other antecedents and see if the sequences still continue. In Sukshupthi, the other antecedents are absent and the respiratory function is the sole function present and it is not accompanied by the sequences. This is the inductive method of elimination of antecedents as causes which are not followed by the same effects. This same method is also used in the last argument.
6. The law of human consciousness as here stated is the same as that postulated by Dr. Bain, “change is essential to consciousness.” Unless we change our thought to another, our consciousness of the thought ceases. To be conscious of the next we must forget the present. So the Tamil axiom is stated as "நினைப்புண்டேல் மறப்புண்டாம்" “When we are conscious we are also subject to forgetfulness.” When we continue to think of a particular object or idea for a time and do not change it, we in fact do not continue conscious of it. Our mind becomes incapable of thinking, owing to its inherent weakness. Man’s intelligence therefore is weak or changing; and it is this which distinguishes it from God who is all Intelligence, who is cognizant of all at the same time. One other distinction is Human Intelligence requires to be taught, improved and developed; it is imperfect and needs the support of a Perfect Intelligence.
7. This argument sums up all the previous arguments, and points out one distinction between the bodily senses, Sukshuma and Karana Sariras which are all products of Maya, and the Soul. The distinction is that whereas these products of matter are ever changeable and changing and hence called Asat or false, the soul is unchangeable and hence called Sat. This sat however becomes Asat when in union with Asat or Maya and Sat when in union with the True Sat or God and hence it is called Satasat. The definition of Asat is given in the first Varthika of the sixth Sutra. It does not mean non-existent, but one perceivable in one aspect or objective attitude of the soul and not perceivable in the subjective attitude of the soul.
This finishes the chapter on proof. I have already pointed out that Maya (Cosmic Matter) and Anava (Imperfection in nature) are taken as facts and not capable of further explanation or resolution into any other cause, and that matter undergoes evolution, and that there is some method in this and this method is determined by Karma (Law of Causation.) And matter not being capable of Evolution itself and the individual Ego not being able to determine the Evolution, we require a Superior Force, a Grand Energy and this is the Unknowable. Its relation with mind and matter is Adwaitha and its Omnipresence is brought about by its Maha Chaitanyam. The reason for separately postulating a soul is then shown and this soul could not be confounded with Buvana and Bhoga, and is proved to be other than the body, the five senses, and Sukshuma Sarira and Karana Sarira; That is, it is different from Maya as well as from God. one group of Phenomena or faculties have been omitted from the consideration of these questions and that is, the four internal senses, Manas, Buddhi, Chittam and Ahankaram and these four answer to the Mind of the Western Philosophers. These are also shown to be distinct from the soul and as the subject requires a fuller treatment it is discussed in a separate Sutra. It will be seen from what follows that these occupy a middle position between the Soul and the objective Phenomena (Thanu, external senses, and Buvana, and Bhoga); and there is thus involved a triple division of man, as soul, mind and animal life (body). As between mind and body, body is object (Asat) and mind is sat; as between the soul and the other two, the last two are objective (Asat) and the soul the subject (Sat). As between God and Soul and the rest, God is the True subject (Sat) and soul and the rest are objective (Asat) This relationship is discussed in the subsequent chapters and must be borne in mind. It is a point for the Scientific Inquirer to consider if the proof adduced in this chapter is sufficient and convincing, or if the statement is taken as a mere theory or hypothesis (and in these grand question it is not possible to arrive at more than a true hypothesis) whether it is a true hypothesis i.e., whether it explains all the phenomena of human existence and satisfies all human aspiration or whether it omits any facts unexplained and contradicts any facts of our existence. It is also a point worth notice that in the elucidation of these principles, nothing is made a matter of mystery - no real difficulty left unexplained by being consigned to the realms of the mysterious, and language is not used to puzzle man and baffle argument. When once proof is attempted, so far as the human mind is capable of grasping and proving these things, one must confine oneself to strictly human logical tests, and if the theory fails on the application of these tests the theory must be condemned by human reason. If after all the trouble taken to postulate a theory, adduce proof &c. a man is going to plead his own ignorance and God’s mysterious ways, it would be far better for him to confess his ignorance at the beginning and attempt no explanation at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment