I don’t know whether this capsule makes it more confusing but I have tried to bring out only the steps of the argument but if you have still any question please tell me so that I can expound it further. You will see that there are mainly three steps in the argument – one is the perception of the movement. The whole first page is nothing but perception of the movement. In our perception of movement we have three steps, first the perception of our egoistic consciousness which regards itself to be the center of the whole movement. Second is the withdrawal from egoistic perception in which we see the whole movement in which even the highest magnitudes look like a petty swarm, such a huge perception we are confronted with. Third step is to see that this vast movement is equal in everything, both quantitatively and qualitatively whatever differences there may be in the world the energy which is at work is equal in everything. The energy that is needed in producing the weakness is a same energy that is needed for creating strength in the strong. This is the first argument, the nature of the vast movement which is equal in everything in the whole world.
The second step of the argument is that pure reason asserts that this movement is subordinate to sthanu, to stability, something that is stable. And the third step of the argument is what the pure Reason perceives is confirmed by the Vedantic experience where we are told ‘Ekam eva adhvitiyam’. There is one reality without the second and it is entirely silent, quiet, without scar of division, pure, absolute. These are the three steps of the argument. First the perception of movement that the pure Reason saying that behind this movement there is a stable Reality and third argument is that this is also confirmed by the Vedantic experience. So that this stable is not is not merely a figment of your reason, it is also confirmed by experience. With regard to the second step there is a complication and it is that which is the most difficult part of this chapter really. How does pure reason perceive that behind the movement there is a stable?
In order to perceive this stable there are three steps in the argument, the first step is to realize that this movement is of the nature of space and time, that’s the first statement. This whole movement can be regarded as a vast movement of time and a vast extension of space. In these two words the entire movement can be summarized. The second step of the argument is to say that the space and time are infinite, there is something like beginningless–ness and endlessness and this should not be difficult to perceive because wherever you look, even physically you find that beyond what you think is the horizon there is still a further horizon that is in space and you have no experience of any time, when there was no time. It is, whatever is the time before that there was something and after what you are experiencing there is something else. This is what is normally called the infinity of space and time. There can be many definitions of infinity but one definition of infinity is that which is beginningless and endless. The third step of the argument is that this beginningless and endless space and time are normally experienced by us to be successive in character. We had given the example of the worm crawling on the branch of a tree and we had said that for the worm it moves from point to point and what it crosses, is past, what it is crossing is the present and what it is going to cross is the future and this is a successive movement both of space and time. Now there you will see that what is past is determined by the stand point that you take. What is past to the worm is not past to us, when you look at the whole branch all at once, at one glance. There is not that past and that future which the worm has got, so it’s a psychological way of placing yourself at a particular point and look this way and say that is past and look that way and you say that is future. The present is the movement, which you call the dividing point. Where you stand is the dividing point, but actually it does not divide, it’s only a psychological way of dividing you stand there and you say this is past and that is future. To us who are outside this worm’s consciousness the entire branch is one present because you are putting your present somewhere else not on that particular point where the worm is placed, so it is your psychological point of view, wherever you put yourself and stand yourself is your present moment then look this way is past and that way is future, but actually speaking this successive movement implies a non–successive background otherwise you can’t stand at a point. To be able to stand at a particular point the branch itself should be a straight branch, not divided itself so that you can say that one point and say this is past and this is future. If the branch itself was divided you could not stood at the point of division at all because there will nothing there to stand on, therefore, every successive movement implies a non– successive background on which you can according to your needs, you can make that past and that future that is why it is said that what we call successive time and space is a psychological way of dealing with a non–successive extension and non successive duration. So, successive time and successive space implies behind it a non–successive space, a non–successive time. Now if you want to describe that non–successive time and space the only way in which you can describe is to say that space is all containing point without magnitude and all–containing ever new moment. There can’t be two moments because it is non–successive, so there can’t be moment after moment. Its only one moment, but a moment which contains all so called moments, therefore behind successive movement of space and time we have a non–successive space and time which can be described respectively as all– containing point without magnitude and all–containing ever new moment, but both of them are extensions although not successive, although they are non successive but both are extensions.