You Are Not Book.indb - Stephen H. Wolinsky Ph. D.

The spanda / 301
“The experience of void does not prove that there is
no Experient, for without the Experient, even the experience
of void would not be possible. This Experient is
the Spanda principle.” (Spanda Karikas, p. xx)
Within the spanda principle also lies the witness. However,
although it witnesses the principle, it is part of the principle.
Although it appears as separate from the spanda, it is made of
the same substance as the spanda. The realization of VOID is
still an appearance or gap between I AM (presence) – NOT
I AM (absence) and underlies the mirage. The Experient is
condensed VOID “experiencing itself” without which there
would be no VOID or experience or experient.
“Unmesa and nimesa denote succession. Succession
means Time, but . . . [THE SUBSTANCE] is above Time.
Therefore, unmesa and nimesa have not to be taken in
the order of succession. They are simply two expressions
of the Divine [THE SUBSTANCE]. . . It is only spanda
which is simultaneously unmesa and nimesa.” (Spanda
Karikas, p. 21)
Both unmesa and nimesa (manifestation and absorption)
simultaneously denote the “expression” of THE SUBSTANCE.
They are not two mutually opposed principles. Whether the
world is or is not—both are concepts intrinsic to one another
and made of the SAME SUBSTANCE.
“When there is unmesa or revelation of the essential
nature of the Divine, there is the . . . disappearance of
the world. When there is nimesa or concealment of the
essential nature of the Divine, there is the . . . appearance
of the world.” (Spanda Karikas, p. 23)
Once again, to best understand this, the concept of disappearance
is contained within the concept of appearance, and
the concept of appearance is contained within the concept of