The Center and Circumference of Silence: Yoga, Poststructuralism, and the Rhetoric ofParadoxAuthor(s): George KalamarasReviewed work(s):Source: International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Apr., 1997), pp. 3-18Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20106447 .Accessed: 06/12/2011 07:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of HinduStudies.
http://www.jstor.org
The center and circumference of silence: Yoga, poststnicturalism, and the rhetoric of paradox
George Kalamaras
[T]he divine eye is cento" everywhere, circumference nowhere.
?Paramahansa Yogananda
THE CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL DEPRIVATION OF POSTSTRUCTURALIST POETICS
In recent decades sacred experience in general, and in particular that of silence, has been interrogated by poststructuralist theory. This critique argues against the
naming of a condition that it perceives as being separate from discursive repre
sentation, casting such a condition as a 'metaphysics' that sees itself as separate from social and cultural conditions (see, for instance, Derrida 1978: Chapter 4). Hindu philosophies of meditative silence, built as they are upon an examination
of nondiscursive realms, quite naturally fall prey to certain of these post structuralist arguments. Jacques Derrida, for one, depicts the condition of the
unsaid as a 'violence of primitive and prelogical silence' (1978: 130). Silence, he maintains, is a condition only of cultural oppression, a 'violence' that the
speaking subject must try to overthrow if one is to have any psychological or
cultural power. For the postmodern sensibility in general, silence is most often a 'death' that
threatens the power to make meaning. Specifically, silence hinders symbolic access to experience; furthermore, in the absence of any 'meaning' it even
prevents the endless 'play' of words?or, as Michel Foucault describes, 'mirrors'
?themselves, a play of discourse that alone contains, as he argues, 'a single
power' that prevents the speaking subject from falling into the abyss of silence:
International Journal of Hindu Studies 1, 1 (April 1997): 3-18.
? 1997 by the World Heritage Press Inc.
4 / George Kalamaras
'Headed toward death, language turns back upon itself; it encounters something like a mirror; and to stop this death which would stop it, it possesses but a
single power: that of giving birth to its own image in a play of mirrors that has
no limits' (1977: 54). In such a depiction, then, language becomes the only means of preventing one from slipping into the void of silence, a nihilistic?or, as Derrida argues, 'primitive'?condition that inhibits one's power to make
meaning. Within such a depiction, the meditative traditions of India become
suspect as either tools of a metaphysical mystification of the rational or philoso
phies of spiritual transcendence which ignore social dimensions of language and,
thus, are grounded in and maintain oppressive systems of discourse.
Both one of the greatest strengths and weaknesses in recent decades of post
structuralist poetics (which take their lead from poststructuralist theory) has been
to pose problems with the nature of the 'sacred.' While Romantic concepts of
sacred experience as a condition lying outside textuality have served in large measure to reinforce hegemonic culture by mystifying discourse and the mean
ings it inscribes, as several poststructuralist critiques rightly argue, the absence
of, and in some cases hostility toward, authentic sacred experience in poetic
theory has left our most radical poetries culturally and spiritually deprived. The
primary culprit in this deprivation seems to lie in postmodern epistemology
itself. Poststnicturalism indeed offers a new liberatory ground from which to
critique oppressive systems of discourse. However, its method of dismantling
hierarchical systems of discourse faces two serious limitations: the inability to
conceive of the condition of paradox as, first of all, a generative experience, and,
furthermore, as a kind of 'center' itself, albeit a reconstituted or 'decentered' one.
Indeed, the concept of paradox as center ought to be examined with the same
scrutiny that accompanies oppressive claims to discursive 'origins.' As Derrida,
among others, has argued, a concept of 'origins* implies a first, originary expe
rience, an 'essence,' that language can never represent. 'Origins,' he argues, or
'the meaning of being represented.. .will never be given us in person, outside the
sign or outside play' (Derrida 1976: 266). Such a concept can lead to a hierar
chical system which carries with it cultural oppression of those subjects who
speak from the margins and not from the cent?* of the privileged discourse.
However, I want to argue that the apprehensiveness of radical poetries in the
last several decades to even approach a reassessment of concepts of a 'center'
suggests itself a kind of oppressive 'center' at the core of poststructuralist poetic
theory. Specifically, poststructuralist theory often posits an epistemological
ground that holds suspect those systems different from 'itself,' that is, those
epistemologies positioned at the circumference of poststructuralism's 'center.'
The very ground of meaningfiilness of poststructuralist critiques is thus plagued
with a binary system of investigation in which deconstructive theory often
The center and circumference of silence / 5
depicts the 'other' of alternative epistemologies as distinct from the 'self,' so to
speak, of its own method of discursive analysis. This dichotomy of 'self and
'other* or 'center' and 'circumference,' ironically, appears to be dissonant with
the intersubjective and dialogical ground poststnicturalism claims as its domain.
As Mikhail Bakhtin describes, language acts shape one another in a kind of
'mutual cause-and-effect and interillumination' (1981: 12). If this is so, then
true intersubjectivity needs to include the 'other* not simply as a measure of
egalitarian responsibility, nor even as a nod toward benign relativism, but rather
as a generative method of refining and even interrogating the ground of
meaningfulness of one's own poststructuralist critique. One method of refining the ground of poststructuralist poetic theory, then,
might be to reopen a dialogue between seemingly 'distinct' epistemologies, that
is, between what lies at both the 'center' and 'circumference' of radical poetic
theory. Such a dialogue could be approached not just through classical rhetorical
strategies, say, as through the process of dialectic hallowed by Aristotle (1932) and other classical rhetoricians. Nor should it be approached only through the
more liberatory analysis of deconstruction, which still often positions competing discourses in a binary way, for instance, as 'others' distinct from the 'self of a
liberatory project. Rather, a new dialogue might occur from within an arena that
foregrounds reciprocity, a system, for example, which holds binary categories? such as 'center' and 'circumference'?suspect. One such arena is Eastern philoso
phy, particularly the Hindu-yogic tradition that has arisen during the past several
centuries in India.
A dialogue between Eastern and Western theory, positioned within an arena
that foregrounds reciprocity, can enrich not only poststructuralist poetics of the
West, but it can also enable Indian philosophy to reconsider itself, as Harold
Coward (1990: 12) (following the lead of his teacher, T. R. V. Murti [1983])
notes, from the perspective of the philosophy of language. Because of space
limitations, I will center my discussion on the form?- rather than on the latter of
these concerns. It is my intention to focus on paradox as sacred experience, to
argue that the reciprocal paradigm of yogic meditative philosophy is a system
capable not only of accommodating paradox and recasting it as a generative condition but also of offering an epistemology compatible with that of radical
poetics, one that can ultimately enrich poststructuralist poetics in ways truer to
their radical intent.
Before I proceed with my discussion of the compatibility of the Hindu-yogic tradition and Western poststructuralist poetic theory, however, let me first claim
as my philosophical ground the Advaita Ved?nta tradition?radical (or absolute) nondualism?the dominant school of Hinduism. Certainly the meditative tradi
tions of Hinduism are diverse; even, for instance, traditions of Advaita (non
6 / George Kalamaras
dualism) and Ved?nta are themselves comprehensive. For instance, although
Ved?nta chiefly favors a nondualist system, it has manifested in a variety of
ways, the most influential being radical nondualism, and even a form of dualism,
represented by the dualist school, the Dvaita of Madhva. The term yoga is
similarly comprehensive. As Georg Feuerstein notes, yoga 'played a varyingly
prominent role in these schools [of Ved?nta] and was interpreted differently by
their protagonists' (1990: 389). Yoga, comprised of a variety of specific psycho
spiritual practices, has as its goal the joining or 'yoking' of the individual 'self
(?tman) with the larger, more expansive 'Self (brahman),1 an emphasis on
nonduality that it shares with Advaita Ved?nta. (Indeed, the etymology of the
word, yoga, itself means 'to join, to yoke.') Therefore, focusing on certain non
dual yogic aspects of the Advaita Ved?nta tradition can offer us ways to deepen
our understanding of this dominant methodology of Hindu thought and can also
help demonstrate its harmony with a major philosophy of the West, post
structuralist poetics.
Furthermore, within this tradition, I will emphasize yogic philosophies and
practices that enable the practitioner of silence to achieve an awareness of the
nondual nature of experience. Self-realization, the Hindu scriptures repeatedly
describe, is experiential, and the actual practice of yoga (meditation and ?sanas)
is the central method of attaining the enlightenment state that philosophical
discourses describe. In other words, the study and practice of yoga is a site of
metaphysical 'praxis.' By claiming the yogic tradition within Advaita Ved?nta
as my principal citing, then, I also hope to argue implicitly for a further dimen
sion of the nondual aspect of meditative silence, namely, a true praxis in which
theories and practices inform one another in reciprocal, nonhierarchical ways.
Finally, I will also occasionally draw upon elements of other Eastern mystical
philosophies that are closely aligned in purpose with Hinduism, and particularly
yoga?those philosophies that share concepts regarding knowledge, as well as
silence as the ground of such meaningfulness. Specifically, I will sometimes
draw upon Buddhism (especially some of the Mah?y?na schools such as Zen)
and Tantrism (a distinct school of obscure origin within both Hinduism and
Buddhism, emphasizing the concept of ?akti, or the feminine principle of divine
experience, in both outer rituals of devotion and those of a more inner or sym
bolic nature). I have chosen not to limit my discussion to Hindu-yogic philosophy since the
yogic tradition (as is Hinduism) is diverse and varied. Furthermore, and perhaps
more significantly, occasionally drawing on the intersections between yoga and
other meditative traditions will often allow me to illuminate my points with
greater complexity and concreteness. This seems particularly appropriate given
the interest in Western poetics in recent decades in both Zen and Tantric Bud
The center and circumference of silence / 7
dhism. An analysis of the fine lines of distinction between Eastern mystical
practices, and even those of the yogic tradition alone, seems more appropriate for an article on comparative religion. Drawing on the commonalties of some
core tenets of various Eastern meditative practices as they relate to the Hindu
yogic tradition, as I will do here, should more properly facilitate my goal: to
demonstrate that yogic meditative philosophy is a system capable not only of
accommodating paradox and recasting it as a generative condition but also of
offering an epistemology compatible with that of radical poetics, one that can
ultimately enrich poststructuralist poetics in ways truer to their radical intent
YOGIC PHILOSOPHY AND THE PARADOX OF BEING AND BECOMING
The meditative traditions of India have always relied upon paradox as a central
method of exploration, as well as a means of describing an experience of 'higher consciousness' itself. Buddhist philosophy (particularly the Zen traditions that
arose in China and Japan after Buddhism's migration from India), for example, and its focus on the k?an have attained recognition to various degrees in American
poetic theory, from experiments of the Beat poets in the 1950s, up through the
introduction of the radical juxtapositions of the Surrealist movement (thanks to
the more lucid translations of the past several decades), particularly of the French
and Hispanic traditions. As I (Kalamaras 1994: 115-17) have argued elsewhere,
the seemingly contradictory phrases of traditional Zen k?ans, such as 'What is
the sound of one hand clapping?' and 'What is your face before your parents were born?,' are designed to short-circuit the discursive capacities of the mind
and open it to an experience of the nondiscursive, where seeming opposites reside in a condition of reciprocity rather than conflict.
Just as significantly, though, paradox permeates the philosophies of yoga,
from methods of attaining 'divine consciousness' to descriptions of the qualities of this experience itself. In the case of the former, for instance, numerous Tantric
and Hathayogic texts, among others, delineate specific techniques for 'neutral
izing' the binary experiences of discursive consciousness. Many of these tech
niques (such as mentally focusing upon the apparent contradictions of inhalation
and exhalation, or even yoking often divergent impulses of 'body' and 'mind'
into a more reciprocal 'mind-body' relationship) themselves work with para
doxical techniques. In the case of the latter, Br?hmanical texts such as the Vedas
?especially the fourth and most philosophical of these, the Upanisads?
repeatedly describe the condition of sam?dhi (the unified experience of medi
8 / George Kalamaras
tators) as a paradoxical condition, where experiences of 'self and 'other,' 'this'
and 'that,' and 'center' and Circumference' reciprocally reside and are not in
conflict.
That is, paradox constitutes both the practice of yoga and the outcome
(enlightenment). As a generative experience, paradox can lead one to enlight enment and also permeates this supreme consciousness pursued by yogis and
attained by advanced meditators, what Alex Comfort calls 'the oceanic expe rience' (1984: 4). This highly fluid condition in which opposites reciprocally
reside, thus presents an interpretation of paradox as a generative experience which is, indeed, meaningful. One 'paradox' of yogic practice, then, is that the
condition of paradox is not only a method of attaining the supreme, unified
state of awareness but also an outcome of the practice of paradox itself. To put this another way, paradox is not a method of transcending itself but, rather, a
means of investigating itself and of engaging in a more complex and intimate
way with a condition of apparent opposition that is nonconflictive and recip rocal. One might say, then, that it enables an epistemology of true 'praxis,'
where theory and practice?in this case, 'Self-realization' and meditative
technique?are one.
More specifically, the supreme realization of 'divine consciousness' is that
one's own Being is the same as the condition of Being within the entire universe;
furthermore?and perhaps paradoxically?this condition of Being is known by the practitioner to be one that is ever-changing, in short, a condition of Becoming.
This is a concept found throughout many central yogic texts, including the
Upanisads. It is especially articulated in explanations of spanda (the dynamic
quality of 'absolute' consciousness) as described in Kashmir Saivism. As Mark
Dyczkowski argues:
[T]he dynamic (spanda) character of absolute consciousness is its freedom to
assume any form at will through the active diversification of awareness
(vimar?a) in time and space, when it is directed at, and assumes the form of,
the object of awareness. The motion of absolute consciousness is a creative
movement, a transition from the uncreated state of Being to the created state
of Becoming. In this sense Being is in a state of perpetual Becoming
(satatodita); it constantly phenomenalises into finite expression....Rightly
understood, Being and Becoming are the inner and outer faces of universal
consciousness which becomes spontaneously manifest, through its inherent
power, as this polarity (1987: 77).
Supreme consciousness, then, is a condition in which the consciousness of
Being is not static and stable, say, like the nihilistic state that Derrida (1978:
The center and circumference of silence / 9
96-97), for one, attributes to metaphysics, but rather ever-changing and dynamic.
In the context of such a nondualist model, in which 'Being is in a state of
perpetual Becoming,' I want to suggest that the endless play of meanings that
poststructuralist theory locates is, thus, not distinct from but similar to that of
meditative awareness of symbolic transaction. Therefore, while poststnicturalism
warily points to paradox as a condition of psychic stasis, the meditative traditions
of Hindu yoga find sustenance in paradox. Paramahansa Yogananda has described this experience of cosmic consciousness
in paradoxical terms, namely, that 'the divine eye is center everywhere, circum
ference nowhere' (1981 [19461: 208). Paradoxically, the yogi, through various
meditative practices, withdraws consciousness from the periphery of the body in
ways which heighten the inner sensorium; in total intimacy with a 'center' of
awareness, then, the advanced meditator's consciousness expands to embrace the
immensity of the universe, moving beyond all awareness of limitation, psycho
logical borders, or psychic 'circumference.'
Since the sacred unified experience embraces all things, it cannot include a
condition hostile to itself. That is, when perceived from the perspective of thfe
meditative, nonbifurcated consciousness, one immersed in a condition of non
discursive psychic expansion or fluidity between 'subject' and 'object,' even
apparent contradictions inform one another in significant nondialectical ways. In
other words, in meditative consciousness, the 'profane' of discursive awareness
is reconceived as reciprocally connected to the 'sacred' of the nondiscursive?to
borrow terms from Mircea Eliade (1959). The 'sacr?d' experience of cosmic
consciousness, consequently, is sacred only because it no longer excludes the
'profane.'
One of the great paradoxes of the 'sacred' experience of meditation, therefore,
is that nondiscursiveness (or silence) contains symbolic experience. One might
say, then, that language culminates in silence, and one locates in silence an
emptiness that is 'full.' It is full in large part due to its expanded perception of
the interanimation of all things. Silence is also full in that it carries with it, according to the yogic tradition, a
profound experience of sound that permeates all things, what yogis refer to as
Om, the sound of the molecular vibration of the universe one hears when one's
consciousness is free of discursive separation between subject and object. As Sir
John Woodroffe has noted, Om is the 'Maha?akti,' or 'Radical Vital Potential,'
of the universe. '[T]he letters A, U, M, which coalesce into Om,* he argues,
represent the continuous dissolution and rejuvenation of the 'molecular activity'
of 'matter' (1985 [1922]: 296). Numerous yogic texts, then, refer to the state of
meditative sam?dhi as an unbroken attentiveness to Om, or to the underlying
sound of an undifferentiated universe that exists as unmanifested potential, that
10 / George Kalamaras
is, as a 'radical vital potential.' This full-emptiness, what W. T. Stace has described as the 'vacuum-plenum
paradox' (1960: 162), is a dynamic state of awareness where silence and sound
reciprocate, self and other merge, and distinctions between this and that dissolve.
A central paradox, then, exists in Hindu-yogic philosophy in that language and
silence are reciprocal rather than conflictive. As poet Octavio Paz, himself a
practitioner of Tantric yoga, has noted:
If language is the most perfect form of communication, the perfection of
language cannot help but be erotic, and it includes death and silence: the
failure of language....Failure? Silence is not a failure, but the end result, the
culmination of language. Why do we keep saying that death is absurd? What
do we know about death? (1982 [1974]: 14).
Western language theory often positions language against silence, emphasizing
logos or the Word. This emphasis on logos, though, is often based upon a false
understanding that meditation strives for a transcendent ground separate from the
Word, and that it seeks stable meanings which lie outside linguistic referents.
However, in the Hindu-yogic tradition, meditative silence is a symbolic form
itself, and the perception the yogi has within silence is a complete absorption within the layers of this symbolic form, most notably the dimensions of Om,
the most sacred of all Hindu mantras.
The relationship between silence and symbolic form is a subtle yet pervasive one in Hindu philosophy. To begin with, language has held a central role in
Indian philosophy for thousands of years, placing language at the center of all
activity?even that of meditative silence. As Coward notes:
In contrast to the relatively recent stress on linguistics and the philosophy of
language in the West, linguistic speculations were begun by the Hindus before
the advent of recorded history. Beginning with the Vedic hymns, which are at
least 3,000 years old, the Indian study of language has continued in an unbro
ken tradition upto [sic] the present day. The Indian approach to language was
never narrow or restrictive. Language was examined in relation to conscious
ness?consciousness not constricted even to human consciousness. All aspects of the world and human experience were thought of as illuminated by lan
guage (1980: 3).
This emphasis on language has not foregrounded the methodologies of logos
over those of silence, as has Western analysis. In fact, at the center of this specu
lation has been a continuous examination of the integration of language, sound,
The center and circumference of silence / 11
and silence?specifically, that of Vedic mantras. In meditation, for instance, the
repetition (either oral or mental) of a mantra is said to affect material and psychic conditions, as C. Mackenzie Brown (1986: 73), among others, has argued.
Mantras, therefore, are said to actually activate the dissolution of dualistic
perceptions, helping the meditator attain nondualistic realization. In the Hindu
tradition, as Woodroffe (1985 [1922]: 113, 165-74) describes, one such mantra,
hamsa, is said to have the capacity to unite both masculine and feminine
tendencies, ham referring to ?iva, or the masculine principle of the universe, and
sa referring to Sakti, or the feminine tendency. Hamsa means *I am He/She,' and is also a mantra often used to unite one's consciousness with that of
brahman ('He/She'). When one attains the consciousness of unification with the
Creator of all things, then, one attains a unified Self in which all opposites? even those of masculine and feminine aspects?are dissolved.
There are numerous mantras, each used for different purposes or to effect
particular material and psychic occurrences, the most important being, Om, the
root sound and source of all other mantras. Om, specifically, is described by
yogis as one of the most predominant manifestations (along with light) of deep, meditative attention. The Upanisads, for instance, abound with descriptions of
Om as the source of all things. The M?ndukya Upanisad (1.1) is particularly
explicit in its depiction of Om as the eternal source: 'The syllable Om [which is
the imperishable brahman] is the universe.' Becoming one with O m?the
imperishable brahman?yogis tell us, enables one to realize the supreme Self.
As the M?ndukya Upanisad (1.12) continues: 'The Fourth, the Self, is Om, the
indivisible syllable. This syllable is unutterable and beyond mind. In it the
manifold universe disappears. It is the supreme good?One without a second.
Whosoever knows Om, the Self, becomes the Self/
A full description of the complexities of this most sacred of all Hindu mantras
is beyond the scope of this present analysis. However, I want to emphasize that
central to nearly all Hindu traditions?particularly those rooted in Vedic,
Ved?ntic, and Yogic schools?is a focus on the primacy of silence as the Word
(not as a condition separate from it), and the concept that the realm of non
conceptualization (meditative sam?dhi) is permeated with the all-encompassing sound, Om. Because the condition of nonconceptualization is itself nondualistic, its primary experience, Om, is likewise nondualistic?'One without a second,' as the M?ndukya Upanisad describes?containing within its manifestation the
ability to resolve all contraries and recast paradox as reciprocal rather than
dichotomous. At the core of nonconceptualization, therefore, lies the condition
of paradox?a sound-filled silence. It is within the realm of this paradox in
which other paradoxes (such as subject and object, or symbol user and symbol) become resolved.
12 / George Kalamaras
A THEORY OF THE SACRED IN POSTSTRUCTURALIST POETICS: 'CENTER EVERYWHERE, CIRCUMFERENCE NOWHERE'
This reciprocal paradigm of yogic meditative philosophy, a system capable of
accommodating paradox as a generative experience, can offer to the poststruc turalist perspective an epistemology that is compatible with it, one that can
enrich poststructuralist poetics in ways truer to their radical intent. That is, the
silences or discursive gaps demonstrated and at times even evoked in radical
poetry such as that of the 'language' poetry movement, can be recast in light of
yogic meditative philosophy as conditions of 'emptiness' which are, paradoxi cally, 'full' of meaning. One such meaning might be the reconstitution, say, of
the significance of 'center' and 'circumference' and a more complex rendering of
their reciprocity. As Yogananda has described the sam?dhi experience, 'the
divine eye is center everywhere, circumference nowhere.'
Such an argument for a reading of poststnicturalism through the lens of
Eastern meditative texts is not widely accepted in radical poetics. Poststruc
turalist poetic movements often focus on the nonreferential aspect of textual
symbols. One example is 'language' poetry, a radical poetics that has exerted
much influence in American poetry since the early 1970s. The work of Charles
Bernstein, Lyn Hejinian, Ron Silliman, and Rae Armantrout, among others, is
typical of this radical school. Although writers connected to this 'movement'
hesitate to define the poetics of language poetry?especially because language
poetry is by no means monolithic?we can make some observations about the
poetic ideas that language poets share. As Joel Lewis describes, language poetry,
following the lead of poststructuralist theorists such as Roland Barthes, Julia
Kristeva, Foucault, and others,
developed a stance that treats the poem as a text that is a part of a larger inter
textual discourse. Rejected is the idea of the isolated iconic poem (that New
Critic ideal) or the notion that language is purely representational?the idea of
language as being a carrier for meaning that melts away as a story or anecdote
unfolds. This emphasis is on textuality. The notion of the poem as a well
wrought urn, a perfect unity with an absolute meaning beyond paraphrase,
gives way to the notion of the poem as a linguistic complex, a field of
meaning, and the poet as a sort of air-traffic controller for the numerous
cultural and ideological codes that make up the poem (1990: 23-24).
Emphasizing textuality and ideology, then, language poetry (as well as other
poststructuralist poetic theories and practices which share a common interest in
The center and circumference of silence / 13
'language' as a culturally-grounded nonreferential symbol) sees its project as
foregrounding social critique and demystifying oppressive forms of discourse
(see, for instance, Bernstein's edited collection [1990]). One such form is the discourse of 'mysticism,' which from the perspective of
this critique is often perceived as a romanticized 'transcendental' philosophy which privileges individual experience and the transcendence of symbolic expres sion over social and historical factors which shape and are shaped by symbolic form. However, as I have argued in my discussion of Om, the arena of mysti cism does not ever 'transcend' symbolic form but actually enables the meditator to enter a deeper, more complex relationship with symbolic expression, that is,
with the textures of sound and silence. This may require one further point of
elaboration, one more explicit to Western poetics.
Specifically, similar to Gaston Bachelard's concept of 'intimate immensity' (1969 [1964]: 183-210), where the image user achieves psychic vastness from
concentrated attention upon a poetic image, the meditator likewise achieves
psychic 'immensity' (the yogic sam?dhi experience) from an 'intimate' attention to various yogic techniques, those grounded chiefly in paradox. For example, by
concentrating upon the symbolic form of a mantra (the paradox being sound and
silence), or even, say, upon one's own breathing (the paradox being inhalation and exhalation), yogis can become so intimate with the symbol that they psychi cally merge with it. To put this another way, yogis, by interiorizing conscious ness through deep attention to and concentration upon various symbolic experi ences, become 'intimate' with these experiences and with their 'individual'
consciousness. Through such intimacy, they attain the psychic vastness of cosmic
consciousness, a fluid, paradoxical, and nondiscursive condition where opposites
reciprocate, and such concepts as 'individual' are lost in the more 'public' expe rience of being interconnected with the consciousness in all things (for a more
detailed discussion of the nontranscendental quality of yogic meditation, see
Kalamaras 1994: 186-96). I want to turn now to a recent interview in Lingo with the French writer
Claude Royet-Journoud (1995: 160-67). While Royet-Jouraoud would probably resist my attempt to connect concepts in his work to those of Hindu philosophy
?in light of the poststructuralist critique of mysticism above?his discussion of concepts of 'center' nonetheless can provide insight into some of the similari
ties between poststructuralist and Indian mystical concepts of 'center,' as well as
begin pointing to a reconsideration of the meaningfuiness of a concept of 'center'
in radical poetics. I have chosen Royet-Journoud as my principal citing not only because he has
been instrumental in beginning a conversation between contemporary French and
American poetry, but also because his articulation of the concept of 'center' illus
14 / George Kalamaras
trates the kind of paradox at work in both poststructuralist poetic theory and
philosophies of meditative silence. Such an examination of similarities, I want
to argue, can help demonstrate that the reciprocal paradigm of yogic meditative
philosophy can indeed offer an epistemology compatible with that of radical
poetics, one that can ultimately enrich poststructuralist poetics in ways truer to
their radical intent. In particular, examining similarities can help reintroduce into
poststructuralist poetics a concept of the 'sacred' without sacrificing a critique of
'transcendent' (and implicitly hierarchical) forms of discourse that are oppressive.
Royet-Journoud describes the concept of a 'center' in terms of his writing this
way:
I've always seen my books as it were in suspension along the fluid periphery
and at the same time linked by a shared center. Something of a fiction, of
course, since I don't believe in a center any more than in origins....
But the center that unites all four [books] is always something in process of
dissolving, of coming undone (1995: 161).
Royet-Journoud thus argues for the postmodern sensibility prevalent in move
ments such as language poetics: a concept of text as decentered language-body,
elliptical yet social, neither pointing outside of itself for meaning nor inward
toward 'deeper' signification. While Royet-Journoud posits the existence of a
'cento,' he simultaneously deconstructs this concept, reconceiving it as unstable,
and existing, if you will, 'in a process of dissolving, of coming undone.' He
points to a key paradox, therefore, at the core of poetics which take poststnic
turalism as their epistemol?gica! ground: the relationship between Being and
Becoming.
Furthermore, true to poststructuralist theory, Royet-Journoud questions the
concept of 'Being,' arguing that a text's 'meaning' has no stable point of origins,
but that 'meaning' lies (if at all) in the enactment of confronting a text's opacity.
Here, then, he echoes Derrida's description of 'origins' (1976: 266), as well as
theories of nonreferential symbols espoused by other French poststructuralists.
His argument also corresponds to that of American language poet Bruce Andrews,
who notes, for instance, that '[w]hat we face first is the language seen in formal
terms: the sign. There is no "direct treatment" of the thing possible, except of
the "things" of language. Crystalline poetry?or transparency?will not be found
in words' (1990: 104; emphasis in original). The 'center' of Being, that is, ultimately cannot exist, for such existence
implies meaning outside of Being, outside of the text. Furthermore, to even
attempt to name this condition implies textual stability, an illusion and phantom.
Like many poststructuralist thinkers, then, Royet-Journoud's theory of textu
The center and circumference of silence / 15
ality approaches the limitation of its epistemological method.
Many poststructuralist critiques of paradox therefore conceive of it as stasis, a
condition that language cannot ever penetrate, much less get beyond. A mystify
ing and binding form, paradox deepens the opacity of textual meaning. The best
that can be hoped for is to keep talking in the midst of such textual suspension, what Paul Christensen has described as 'The language merely drift[ing] forward,
advancing in medium-width columns down the page, beginning arbitrarily and
ending arbitrarily' (1986: 22). But what if this 'something' that Royet-Journoud
points to were reconceived not as a condition of merely static origins? What if
this 'something' were reconceived?in the context of Hindu-yogic philosophy? as a condition of origins that was 'original,' but it was original only because by its fluid, continuous nature it posed problems with a static worldview, even,
paradoxically, with the very idea of its own 'original' existence? In other words, what if the point of origins was 'original' only because it was continuously in
flux? Furthermore, what if poststructuralist poetry took up the charge of its own
implication, finding in the ground of its syntactic slippages and paradoxical
meanderings a stable instability, so to speak, a condition of Being that is always
Becoming? If we were to read Royet-Journoud through the more reciprocal paradigm
depicted in philosophies of yoga, we would see that he begins to take up the
challenge of paradox (albeit by implication), pointing to it as a possible way to
reconstitute textual stasis in terms of something more fluid yet persistent, dis
solving yet present. As he has argued, even though 'the center.. .is always some
thing in process of dissolving, of coming undone,' it is nonetheless present. That is, the 'center,' as he notes, is '[sjomething of a fiction' (emphasis added). If it is '[sjomething of a fiction,' then it might also simultaneously be some
thing that is not a fiction. Here, then, Royet-Journoud approaches the language of the mystic, who holds paradox as central to a description of the experience of
meditative silence. More precisely, the yogi turns to paradox as the only means
of expressing in an unfettered way a perception of experience of simultaneity, one of psychic fluidity between subject and object. Such consciousness is often
referred to by yogis in paradoxical terms as 'neti, neu," as in the Brhad?ranyaka
Upanisad (4.5.15), where '[T]he Self is described as not this, not this.'
Paradox, therefore, permeates the consciousness and discourse of the yogi. The
'center' of meditative awareness, like Royet-Journoud's center, is only a center
because it is dynamic and not static, that is, because it is 'in the process of
dissolving, of coming undone' and not in the process of solidifying. One might
perceive this 'center' in meditation and poetry, consequently, as a liminal space, one which looks neither forward nor backward toward meaning but is itself
entirely because its condition of Being is a state of perpetual Becoming. Here, it
16 / George Kalamaras
is worth repeating Dyczkowski's point that, 'The motion of absolute conscious ness is a creative movement, a transition from the uncreated state of Being to
the created state of Becoming. In this sense Being is in a state of perpetual
Becoming.' C. H. Knoblauch (1988: 138) argues that a dialogical ideology (one that takes
up the charge of the Marxist argument for a rhetoric of intersubjectivity)?if it is
to be truly dialogical?must present opportunities for critique of its own posi tion. I have been arguing that one limitation of poststructuralist analysis has been
its very method of investigation, one that positions the 'other' of alternative
epistemologies as distinct from the 'self of its own method of discursive
analysis. Reading poststnicturalism through the less binary, more reciprocal lens
of yogic philosophy offers an opportunity for the kind of critique Knoblauch
suggests. Recently, Andrew Joron has taken up a critique of poststructuralist
poetics. He tells us:
If metapoetics is an owl's flight, in that critical theory can never fully
anticipate, much less produce, the object of criticism, then an untheorized?
perhaps untheorizable?moment exists at the inception of the poetic object. Renewed interest in Surrealism attests to a desire to resituate poetry at exactly this point where practice exceeds its theoretical measure?a point of Utopian
discontinuity (Joron 1995: 12).
The philosophies of the East and, in particular, the experiences of yogic medi
tation offer just such a 'utopian discontinuity' that can inform our radical poetries in ways which reintroduce the quality of the sacred back into poetic theory with
out succumbing to hierarchies and oppression. What is 'utopian' is the perma nence of Being, of a 'center everywhere'; what is 'discontinuous' is the shifting of this point of reference, the continual 'process of dissolving' of which Royet Journoud speaks. It is a condition of Being that is always Becoming, or in the
words of the great yogi Paramahansa Yogananda, it is a condition where 'the
divine eye' of mystical union 'is center everywhere, circumference nowhere.'
Notes
1. Central to Hindu mystical practice is the assumption of one's own yet-to-bc-real
ized divinity, that is, undifferentiated, nondualistic consciousness?what the Hindu
refers to as an identification of the individual divine principle (?tman or self) with the
broader, ultimate principle (?tman or Self). The former is the divine principle manifest
ing within the confines of ego-personality, while the latter is the unrestricted divine
The center and circumference of silence / 17
principle manifesting as the expansive Self. Such an awareness of Self is paramount to
an identification with brahman, the originary principle that underlies all creation. Thus, ?tman and ?tman are really the same; it is only for spiritual aspirants to perceive and
experience this nondualism for themselves. I have capitalized the word Self in those
places where the concept is meant to denote the condition of the expansive, 'realized'
awareness to which Hindu-yogic philosophy attests, while I have used the small case to
denote the more limited awareness that is restricted by ego-personality.
References ci ted
Andrews, Bruce. 1990. Poetry as explanation, poetry as praxis. Paper air 4, 3:103-9.
Aristotle. 1932. The rhetoric of Aristotle (trans. Lane Cooper). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bachelard, Gaston. 1969 [1964]. The poetics of space (trans. Maria Jolas). Boston:
Beacon Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The dialogic imagination (ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl
Emerson and Michael Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bernstein, Charles, ed. 1990. The politics of poetic form: Poetry and public policy. New
York: Roof Books.
Brown, C. Mackenzie. 1986. Pur?na as scripture: From sound to image of the holy word
in the Hindu tradition. History of religions 26,1: 68-86.
Christensen, Paul. 1986. Talk poetry: The 1970s. Vortex: A critical review 1, 3: 3, 22
24.
Comfort, Alex. 1984. Reality and empathy: Physics, mind, and science in the 21st
century. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Coward, Harold. 1980. Sphota theory of language: A philosophical analysis. Varanasi:
Motilal Banarsidass.
Coward, Harold. 1990. Derrida and Indian philosophy. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of grammatology (trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). Balti
more: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Writing and difference (trans. Alan Bass). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dyczkowski, Mark S. G. 1987. The doctrine of vibration: An analysis of the doctrines
and practices of Kashmir Shaivism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Eliade, Mircea. 1959. The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion (trans. Wiilard
R. Trask). New York: Harvest-Harcouit.
Feuerstein, Georg. 1990. Encyclopedic dictionary of Yoga. New York: Paragon House.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and
interviews (cas. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon). Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Joron, Andrew. 1995. Twilight languages. Talisman: A journal of contemporary poetry
18 / George Kalamaras
and poetics 13:12-15.
Kalamaras, George. 1994. Reclaiming the tacit dimension: Symbolic form in the rhetoric
of silence. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Knoblauch, C. H. 1988. Rhetorical constructions: Dialogue and commitment. College
English 50: 125-40.
Lewis, Joel. 1990. Ink mathematics: An introduction to language poetry. Poets & writers
magazine 18,5: 18-25.
Murti, T. R. V. 1983. The philosophy of language in the Indian context. In, Studies in
Indian thought: The collected papers of Professor T. R. V. Murti (ed. Harold G.
Coward), 357-76. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Paz, Octavio. 1982 [1974]. Conjunctions and disjunctions (trans. Helen R. Lane). New
York: Seaver Books.
Royet-Journoud, Claude. 1995. An interview by Keith Waldrop and Rosmarie Waldrop.
Lingo: Ajournai of the arts 4: 160-67.
Stace, W. T. 1960. Mysticism and philosophy. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tardier.
Upanisads. 1957 [1948]. The Upanishads: Breath of the eternal (trans. Swami Prabha
vananda and Frederick Manchester). New York: Mentor-New American Library.
Woodroffe, Sir John ('Arthur Avalon'). 1985 [1922]. The garland of letters: Studies in
the Mantra-S?stra. Pondicherry: Ganesh.
Yogananda, Paramahansa. 1981 [1946]. Autobiography of a yogi. Los Angeles: Self
Realization Fellowship.
GEORGE KALAMARAS is Associate Professor of English and Director of
Creative Writing at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.