Consciousness and the Self
"Be yourself." We hear this message repeated everywhere. But what does this mean exactly? We are are encouraged to "Be ourselves" by buying certain products or voting with a political party. And yet little attention is given to this vital question. In this age of doubt and materialism, questions concerning the self are given little importance.
While the Greeks gave us the aphorism, "Know thyself," this is hardly the subject of an education today. Schools from primary to university level are busy with teaching students to be productive, to pass standardized exams, and to conform. Our public forums ban the very question. It seems there is a certain taboo on introspection. If you're reading this now, you're defying certain conventions on asking about who you are.
But the ancients felt the question of self to be the most important in philosophy. In fact, knowledge of the self has always been at the core of the ancient wisdom traditions.
The most well-known of these traditions is still quite occult, since it is foreign to the western mind. The sense of self has become twisted in modern culture as it has come to be identified with individualism, and individualism with consumption.
As we grow more obsessed with consumer culture, with exploitation, and its benefits we become deeply entrenched in selfishness that has nothing to do with the real self. A society based entirely on exploitation cannot stand. And a concept of self based on selfishness overlooks true self-interest.
Eastern thought was rejected as fatalistic by the materialistic philosophers of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Now, as we reach the end of the exploitive model of civilization and self it may be time to reconsider the wisdom of the ancients.
The Upanishads were written thousands of years ago, and yet hold keys to the secrets of the self not contemplated again until the 20th Century inventors of quantum physics. And yet the questions posed there are still worthy of our consideration. The truth-seekers of old discovered the knowledge of self as the root of all knowledge. They understood deeply the problem of consciousness and its position as the ground of all existence.
Modern science attempts to exclude consciousness from their analysis of the space-time frame of objective matter. Quantum physics has demonstrated the inability of this paradigm to explain reality. The wisdom developed by the thinkers of the Upanishads is no more sectarian than modern science. It gives us a framework to better understand the universe and our place in it. A university without consciousness was inconceivable to the ancients. They taught that true knowledge involves a deeper understanding of the interaction between conscious and unconscious reality. While the ancient seers of the Upanishads may have lacked the amazing technological advances that allow us to split atoms and explore the material universe, they had the transcendental vision to understand how consciousness itself evolves: upward and inward toward a more spiritual reality; downward and outward toward a more material existence.
Sincere truth-seekers interested in intellectual, moral, and spiritual evolution, should understand the evolution of consciousness, both subjective and objective, that they may dive more deeply into reality.
Consciousness and the Subjective World
“Matter or Object is related to Spirit or Subject; and the subject or spirit is equally related to the object or matter. If there were no object there would be no subject, there would be no object. For on either side alone nothing could be achieved.
Kauśitaki Upaniṣad 3.8.9
"To sum up: the Upanishads investigate the nature of reality and their main conclusion is that in both the universe at large and in the individual human being there is a ground of pure Being which is impervious to change." R.C. Zaehner (Oxford, Everymans University Library, 1966)
If we examine reality in light of consciousness[1] we are faced the problem of matter and spirit, of being and nonbeing, of an aware or conscious reality and of unconscious material objects. How are they related? And which comes first? Does matter create spirit? Is consciousness and awareness a product of brain functions which have evolved from stardust? Or is stardust itself a mental construct? Is the world in the mind or is the mind in the world?
These questions about consciousness and matter have long been discussed throughout the history of science, philosophy and religion. What is matter and what is spirit? Philosophers from Plato to Hegel have said that spirit or mind or ego is the cause of matter, while others reverse the relation and believe that matter is the cause of spirit or mind or ego.
There are three main theories about consciousness and matter and their relationship that warrant consideration: the spiritualistic or idealistic view, the materialistic philosophy, and the monistic theory.
The spiritualistic or idealistic theory claims that spirit or mind is the creator of matter and energy, hence of all material objects; and it denies the existence of matter as distinct and separate from the mode or condition of spirit or mind.
The materialistic theory, holds that matter produces spirit, mind, ego, or subject.
There have been many idealistic or spiritualistic philosophers in different countries at different times. From Ancient India to the Greek Neoplatonists like Plotinus[2] to Bishop Berkely in England, a certain class of idealists have gone so far as to deny the very existence of the external world and of matter as an entity separate from mental ideas.
In recent times Christian Science, which teaches that there is no such thing as matter but that everything is mind, has been built upon this idealistic point of view. The idea that matter does not have any existence at all is an extreme version of idealism, one that exists mainly as a reaction to extreme materialism.
The materialistic theory of the universe, on the other hand, is maintained by most philosophers and scientists of the present day. They try to deduce everything from matter, and claim that it is the cause of consciousness, mind, ego or spirit, and that consciousness is merely a function of matter.
Apparently the idea that matter does not exist is absurd on its face. We are so sure that matter exists that we are willing to stake our very self on it. And yet, although this theory is widely held and everyone today call themselves materialists, still very few can define the term “matter” and give a clear idea “ give a clear idea of what they understand by it.
So before we take a second look at the idea that the world is made of ideas, let’s look at the idea of matter.
What is matter? Has anybody ever seen matter? This question can be asked of the materialists. Do we see matter? No. We see color. Is color the same as matter? No. It is a quality. Where does it exist? An unsophisticated layman may think that the color of a flower, as perceived, exists in the flower.
But scientists explain that the color which is perceived does not exist as such in the flower. Color is a sensation caused by a certain order of vibrations coming in contact with our consciousness through the medium of the optic nerves.
This may seem strange, but it is true. The perception of color is a compound effect produced by the frequencies of light waves which, entering the optic nerves through the eyes, create another set of vibrations in the brain cells; and these vibrations, when translated by the conscious entity, are called sensations of color.
Color, therefore, is the result of the blending of the objective and subjective elements. It is the product of the combination of that which comes from the outside world and that which is given by the subjective or mental activities. Thus we can understand that color does not rest in the flower; but it depends upon the retina, optic nerves and brain cells as well, so it cannot be the same as matter.
What about sound? Is the sound which we hear the same as matter? No. It is the result of a certain kind of vibration plus the conscious activity of the mind. A dog's ear takes apart a sound wave much differently than your own ear. Again, when asleep, the sound vibrations your ears and are carried through the auditory nerves into the brain cells, but you will not hear it; the percipient mind is not there to translate the vibration into the sensation of sound. Sound, therefore, is not the same as matter.
In the same manner it can be shown that the other senses do not give us any information about that which we call matter.
So, what is matter? The very practical English Philosopher, John Stewart Mill defines matter as the "permanent possibility of sensation," and mind as the "permanent possibility of feeling."
The whole difficulty lies in the word "possibility." It means, matter is that which permanently makes sensation possible, and mind or spirit is that which permanently makes feeling possible; or, in other words matter is that which can be permanently felt or perceived, that which is the object of feeling; and spirit is that which can permanently feel or perceive, that which is the subject of feeling.
That which permanently makes sensation possible can never be revealed by the senses, for the senses are no more than open doors for our sensations. All that we can predicate of matter is that it causes sensations. When we try to know its nature per se, or any particulars concerning it, our senses do not help us.
The eyes are only instrumental in perceiving the sensation of color, the ears of sound, nostrils of odor. Our perception of the external world is limited by these sense powers, and all sensations are either direct or indirect results results of our sense activities. Although we know that matter is something which exists in space and time and causes various sensations, still we cannot see or touch it. That which corresponds to the name "matter" will always remain intangible.
So that we may touch a chair, a piece of wood or gold, but we cannot touch matter by itself. This is very curious. Gold or stone is not matter, but it is that which is produced by matter. Matter appears as wood or stone. “It may be interesting to know the history of the term matter. This word is derived from the Latin materies, meaning "stuff," and it was originally used in the sense of the solid wood of a tree or a timber for building. Gradually a generalized concept was formed which meant anything substantial out of which some other thing was fashioned. When a wooden statue was made, the form was distinguished from the substance wood or materies. Here it was still wood. But when a statue was made of stone or metal it was still called materies. Thus the name materies signified the substance out of which something was shaped or fashioned. Gradually when the question arose, "What was the substance out of which this world was madethe answer was materies or matter.
So while we may quibble on the meaning of “consciousness” or “soul” the word “matter” does not mean any definite thing. It is used for that unknown substance out of which the known objects of perception are formed. Here ends the literal and real meaning of the term. Matter can be used in the sense of any unknown substance which lies at the bottom or foundation of some form or object.
John Stuart Mill has defined matter as the "permanent possibility of sensation," and mind as the "permanent possibility of feeling."
In Sanskrit the word possibility or potential is sometimes translated as śakti, which means “power.” The world of matter is considered to be a kind of potency or energy that flows from the ultimate spiritual reality. So that both matter and spirit arise as potencies of the supreme reality. Energy flows from the infinite consciousness, gradually congealing into the subjective reality of the material world. The subtle reality of consciousness hardens into the material of exploitation just as water vapor solidifies into ice.
So how does the supreme reality divide itself into matter and spirit? Is it even possible to divide the indivisible? Of course the nature of supreme reality is acintya or inconceivable. Still, we are engaged in an exercise to contemplate the nature of this this reality. What do the Upaniṣads say?
ॐ पूर्णम् अदः पूर्णम् इदं
पूर्णात् पूर्णम् उदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णम् आदाय
पूर्णम् एवावशिष्यते
oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate
(The word Oṁ is an affirmation that invokes the infinite absolute as supreme reality.) The Infinite Supreme Consciousness is perfect and complete; all emanations from Him, such as this material world, are also infinite in scale. What is produced by the infinite is also complete and perfect. Because He is the Complete Supreme Consciousness, even though so many complete conscious units emanate from Him, He is the Super-infinite. When the Super-infinite is divided by the infinite, the infinite remains and manifests itself in infinite ways. Whatever is produced from the infintie is also infinite. If the Super-infinite is reduced an infinite number of times, it remains Absolutely Infinite. Such is the nature of the Divine Infinite Consciousness. Iśopaṇiṣad.
In the evolution of consciousness from undifferentiated consciousness to the world of misconception, matter is not independent of spirit, but is dependent upon it. Without spirit, no matter can exist. In the undifferentiated plane of spiritual consciousness, we are equipoised in the marginal potency as an infinite number of pinpoints of spiritual rays, electrons of consciousness. These spiritual rays are as projected into the world of misconception by their own exploiting tendency. The conscious units emanating from the supreme are endowed with free will, for without free will no consciousness can be conceived. This free will is misconceived when one wants to supplant the position of the higher divinity. Thus the subordinate conscious units become bewildered. Enchanted by their own divinity they conceive of themselves as god and evolve downward. They conceive of themselves as purusha, rather than prakriti, as enjoyers rather than enjoyed, as masculine powerful instead of feminine divine power. As such the spiritual conscious units develop their own illusory world as a kind of hologram.
Perception is reality.
But the perceived reality is hardened into matter by divine perception. According to Hindu mythology, Mahavishnu glances over the illusory energy or mayic potency and thus brings the world into existence. Reality is not only perceived by the finite souls as a kind of mass hypnosis; it is congealed by the glance of God Himself. So matter does exist. Its hardness is invincible. But it exists as a product of spiritual power.
The individual souls are captivated by the illusion. As Milton’s Satan put it, “Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven.” Rather than conceive of themselves as serving units, subordinate to the Divine Will, the individual rays of consciousness see their divinity reflected in the mirror of illusion and want to live as tiny gods in the plane of misconception.
An atomic pinpoint of consciousness has very meager free will, and by misuse of their free will these jivas have taken their chance in this material world, which exists as a kind of holographic projection of divine mental energy. They refused to submit to the supreme authority; they wanted to dominate. So, with this germinal idea of domination, the jiva enters into the world of exploitation, the world of possibilities, or as Mill puts it, the world of the "permanent possibility of sensation," and mind as the "permanent possibility of feeling."
It may be possible to explain the dichotomy between spiritual and material reality in another sense, but this is the gist of the Upanishadic approach. The world exists as a function of spirit; the object is a function of the subject. But both subject and object are functions of the Super-subject. In the relative plane many different kinds of infinite may exist, but in the end both the infinite universe and the infinite spiritual units that populate it are all functions of the Super-Infinite.
The search for spiritual reality should be an essential part of any self-examination. We want knowledge. Ignorance, after all is slavery. Knowledge is freedom. In the Brahma-sūtra it is said, “Inquire after the supreme cause of this world. Search!” From where has everything come? How is everything maintaining its existence? By whom? And ultimately, where does everything enter after death? That is brahma, spirit, the most fundamental plane from where everything springs up, remains, and ultimately enters.
“Where is brahma? The Brahma-sūtra advises us to inquire after the prime cause, the biggest, the all-accommodating. But Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu replaced that, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam replaced that with Kṛṣṇānusan-dhāna: the search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
Brahmā-jijñāsā, the search for spirit, is a dry thing. That is only the exercise of your thinking faculty, a jugglery of reason. Leave that behind. Begin the search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa and quench the thirst of your heart. Rasa jijñāsā, raso vai saḥ. The things acquired by your reason won’t satisfy you. Jñāna, knowledge, cannot really quench your thirst, so instead of brahma-jijñāsā accept Kṛṣṇānusandhāna and begin the search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
Where is Kṛṣṇa? Our real want will be satisfied only by getting the service of Kṛṣṇa; not by anything else. We want to satisfy the innermost demands of our hearts. We don’t care to know where we are or what is controlling everything, but we really want to quench our thirst for rasa, for mādhurya, for sweetness. We must search neither for knowledge nor for the controller of this world; we must search after rasa, ānandam, after beauty and charm.
Beyond the simple teachings of the Upanishads, Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam have taught us what to beg for, what to pray for, what to want. They have taught us, “If you beg, beg for Kṛṣṇa, not for anything else.” So, the fate of the Vaiṣṇavas, the students of the Bhāgavata and the followers of Mahāprabhu, is sealed in the search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa. We want nothing else but Kṛṣṇa.
The Vedas say, sṛṇvantu viśve amṛtasya putrāḥ: “O, you sons of nectar, sons of the nectarine ocean sea: please listen to me. You were born in nectar; you were born to taste nectar, and you must not allow yourselves to be satisfied by anything but nectar. So, however misguided you may be for the time being, awake! Arise! Search for that nectar, that satisfaction.” The Vedas tell us, “Oṁ!” Oṁ means a big “Yes!” “What you are searching for, that is! Don’t be disappointed “The Vedas say that the object of our inner search exists. The common search of all your hearts is existing, and your thirst will be quenched. By your constitution you are meant for that and you deserve that, so don’t be afraid; don’t be cowed down. It is already given in your being. And you can never be satisfied with anything else. So prepare yourself, after your long search, to receive that long missing nectar in its full form and quality. Awake! Arise! Search for your fortune and you cannot but have that. It is your birthright. It is the wealth of your own soul. It cannot but be within you. You have no other business, no other engagement but Kṛṣṇānusandhāna, the Search for Śrī Kṛṣṇa: Reality the Beautiful.”
[1] The term "consciousness" is hard to define. In English it may mean the state of being awake as opposed to being asleep or unconscious, but also means "awareness," as in political "consciousness." It is perhaps too flexible a term to be philosophically rigorous. Atma, on the other hand denotes "the higher self, the spirit, the inner consciousness." We use the word "consciousness here both as an attribute of atma or the living spirit, as well as the soul itself. But all these words in English have particular connotations for they have been long in use in religious arguments and debates. Since we are avoiding a sectarian description, here, Atma essence, breath, soul, in Sanskrit has a more developed connotation, but for the purpose of avoiding too many foreign language words, the word consciousness will serve as a variant on soul, spirit, living entity.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
 |
| Quantum Models of Reality |
The search for spiritual reality should be an essential part of any self-examination. We want knowledge. Ignorance, after all is slavery. Knowledge is freedom. In the Brahma-sūtra it is said, “Inquire after the supreme cause of this world. Search!” From where has everything come? How is everything maintaining its existence? By whom? And ultimately, where does everything enter after death? That is brahma, spirit, the most fundamental plane from where everything springs up, remains, and ultimately enters.
“Where is brahma? The Brahma-sūtra advises us to inquire after the prime cause, the biggest, the all-accommodating.
In a sense, this conception of self is also superficial. Argument and metacognition can reveal but a partial understanding of the truth.
Existence devoid of consciousness is meaningless. But a fuller view of consciousness will need to take into consideration the very food of consciousness, which is ecstasy. In Sanskrit, this is called sat, or being, cit, or conscious awareness of that being, and ananda, or ecstasy. Enlightenment and awareness devoid of ecstasy and joy is an empty experience of spiritual reality. But leaving aside for a moment the question of ananda or ecstasy, please allow me to continue my reflections on the self and self-realization.
How can we know the self?
Am I alone in this quest?
Am I alone in the universe?
The problem of self-realization is often thought to be entirely personal. After all, I am the one who has to die when it’s time for me to die. I am the one who has to live and make decisions for myself. Self-realization would appear to be the most selfish of acts.
And yet, it is unavoidable for an honest seeker to consider the place of the infinite. If I am a particle of infinite consciousness, what is my relationship to the infinite? Is this a question I am left to answer for myself, or is it possible to seek help from the infinite.
The infinite perfect is not so if it lacks the capacity to reveal itself to the imperfect finite. If communication is possible for the finite conscious individual why should it be impossible for the infinite perfect?
Let us continue our consideration of the Upanishadic version. Please be patient if the answers don't seem so simple. Sometimes the questions are more powerful.
According to the Upanishads this communication takes the form of divine sound.
At a recent lecture I was confronted by an intellectual who demanded to know how I could maintain faith in a spiritual life, given that the universe is silent.
She wanted to know what evidence we have that the universe hears us? In spite of all our prayers and meditations, the universe is silent in reply.
I found her answer in one word: Oṁ,ॐ. I told her she had only to listen closely to the universe and automatically she would have her reply. Oṁ is the universal sound, the background hum of existence.
The syllable Oṁ is characterized as divine sound by the Upanishads. A mystic syllable, considered the most sacred mantra, the word Oṁ appears at the beginning and end of most Sanskrit recitations, prayers, and texts. And what is the meaning of this “divine sound?” Om means 'Yes.’
You may try this as a meditation exercise while trying to understand the nature of consciousness. Close your eyes and listen. See if you can hear the universal sound, Oṁ. If you listen, you can hear it.
So, if we listen closely to the universe, we will have our answer, and that answer is 'yes.'
As we meditate on divine sound and consciousness we find our answer in the universal sound of ॐ. According to the Upanishadic wisdom, this sound is confirming something. The sound ॐ is saying “Yes! What you are searching for exists. You are searching for happiness, pleasure, joy, fulfillment. You are in want, and in one word—yes—ॐ fulfillment is there.
Of course the syllable ॐ has a deeper more esoteric meaning. We shall take this up later.
But the idea is that consciousness is a self-evident truth; Infinite consciousness is another self-evident truth. These truths are apparent to one who listens. The universe is not a void, empty of meaning. Only highly evolved, highly educated philosophers could invent such a nihilistic theory. All life forms experience the existence of a higher force, from amoebas to mammals. Only human beings in their extreme hubris posit the nonexistence of a higher power. But the divine syllable ॐ provides self-evident experience of consciousness and its connection to a higher consciousness to anyone who meditates on the divine sound. Try it.
Again, we are defending the experience of divine truth as it was felt by the ancient seers who composed the Upanishads. This is a non-dogmatic, non-sectarian experience. Is there something more at work in the universe than atoms in the void? The Vedic viewpoint determines that there is.
Is consciousness only an epiphenomenon of the neural functions of the brain? Quantum physicists like Paul Davies have concluded that the 21st Century demands a “new way of thinking that is in closer accord with mysticism than materialism.” Fritjof Capra explored this idea in “The Tao of Physics,” and many popular works on the new science have drawn clear parallels between Western science and Eastern mysticism.
Let us begin by stipulating then, the wisdom of the Upanishadic version, just for the sake of argument. Turning the modern materialistic view of the universe on its head for a moment, let’s consider consciousness as the background of reality.
Good scientists have good questions. Obviously populisers of scientific ideas are left to defend many of the advances made through scientific inquiry. In their enthusiasm to ensure that we don’t return to the dark ages of Galileo vs. the Catholic Church, men like Richard Dawkins and other atheists attack dogma and defend what they consider to be science. Strangely, science often develops its own dogmas, as “paradigms,” scientific models that have proved useful over time. But true scientists are capable even of questioning the paradigms upon which theories are based.
An example would be the Ptolemaic paradigm which sustained astronomy until the development of better observational techniques and tools like the telescope revealed the Copernican universe. The paradigm “shifted” from the view of “flat earth as center of the universe” advocated by followers of Ptolemy to the idea of “earth as globe circling the sun.” Today only a fool or a madman would question the Copernican view, but in 1633 Galileo was famously tried for heresy for just such a notion.
Soon, Newton developed his theories of gravity and the laws of physics and thermodynamics governing ordinary objects. Generations of observations demonstrated the validity of his conclusions to the exclusion of other paradigms.
And yet, Einstein’s theories of relativity changed our ideas about how gravity works. And advances in Quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity blew apart the Newtonian paradigm.[1] We know now that gravity may affect time and that the velocity and location of subatomic particles depend on subjective observation.
Without referencing the Upanishads Physicist Sir James Jeans came to a conclusion not dis-similar from their conclusions:
“The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.
“I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe... In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine.
“It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind. What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the forbidding materialism of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds. To this extent, then, modern physics has moved in the direction of philosophic idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar nature, are at least found to be ingredients of one single system. There is no longer room for the kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes.”[2]
As Fritzof Capra points out, the two basic theories of twentieth-century physics, quantum theory and relativity theory, transcended the principal aspects of the Cartesian worldview and of Newtonian physics. Quantum theory showed that subatomic particles are not isolated grains of matter but are probability patterns, interconnections in an inseparable cosmic web that includes the human observer and his or her consciousness. Relativity theory revealed the intrinsically dynamic character of this cosmic web by showing that its activity is the very essence of its being.
Current research in physics aims at unifying quantum theory and relativity theory into a complete theory of subatomic matter.
But this is a quandary. Modern physicists are stymied in advancing the so-called “unified theory” or “theory of everything,” precisely because of the failure to properly incorporate the idea of consciousness in their calculations.
Of course, it may be argued that physics generally deals only with the space-time continuum of atoms and subatomic particles and their movements over time. While external forces such as gravity may play a role in the physical universe, there is no scientific grammar or vocabulary that contemplates including the metaphysical universe, if it indeed exists. The extreme skepticism required for the rigorous discipline of a science that has handed us so many technological advances demands a distance from personal introspection or subjective consideration of reality.
Unfortunately subjective reality plays such an important role in quantum physics that it becomes impossible to determine either the velocity or the location of a moving subatomic particle without taking into consideration the observor of the phenomenon.
And so we return to the Upanishads for further insight as to the nature of consciousness and its evolution as inherent facets of reality that demand our attention.
Evolution is usually thought of in an objective way. An infinite concentration of mass exploded into the big bang, creating balls of hot gas which congealed into stars. Stardust solidified into planets, gases cooled and became water, and life appeared as a consequence of the proper combination of amino acids electrified by lightning in a kind of primordial soup. The oceans were the original source of life which evolved over millions of years from primitive bacteria and aquatic forms to plants and jellyfish, followed after millions of years by amphibians. The amphibians crawled out of the sea and evolved as the ancestors of the dinosaurs. And so on. Apes evolved into human beings. We can establish without much difficulty the idea that ape-forms preceded human forms, but cannot pin down the exact mechanism by which “evolution” works. It seems to have to do with the “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection” but what exactly that means is left to evolutionary biologists like Dawkins who insist this paradigm is correct, even if it leaves many questions unanswered.
One such unanswered question is how “space-gas” or “star-dust” becomes “life.” If only we had access to the original “building blocks of life,” we could solve the conundrum, we’re told. And yet, it would seem a simple thing to create life from “building blocks,” given that we have so many millions of examples of life forms. Having invested millions of dollars in scientists like Dawkins would it be asking to much for him to leave aside his lecturing on the importance of Darwin and produe a single viable life form in the laboratory?
In any case, the science of fossilism is a material science and we are concerned with consciousness and its evolution.
How inert matter evolves into living tissue is a fascinating question which we are told not to ask, for it violates the taboo on questioning the authority of the established paradigm.
Very well. Evolution, then, is normally thought of as a process by which matter creates life, or in other words an “objective” process.
According to the ancient wisdom traditions of India, however, this is a misconception. It is inaccurate to think that “matter” creates “spirit,” or that the “object” creates the “subject.” Objective evolution is a misperception of reality.
By “Subjective evolution” we understand the process by which consciousness evolves into objective reality.
While it may trouble the populizers of the current scientific paradigm to think that “design” in the universe may be evidence of a “creator,” the alternative, namely to attribute the properties of design creation to inert matter is patently absurd.
And this is not merely a dry exercise in academic argument. If the soul, or consciousness, exists and we deny ourselves participation in spiritual life on the basis of a misguided philosophy, are we not cheating ourselves?
It is hardly sectarian to assert that consciousness exists and that it is the very fiber of existence. Consciousness comes first and then matter. The basis of all things material, according to the ancient wisdom traditions of India and even many modern scientists, is consciousness, which is spiritual.
Of course, we are not entirely satisfied intellectually by this knowledge. We live in a technological society. We want to know how things work. Knowing this we can manipulate matter. So how does consciousness evolve or “devolve” into matter? By what mechanism does the metaphysical reality influence physical reality?
[1] http://www.fritjofcapra.net/the-unification-of-physics/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
The Supreme Consciousness,
and How Metaphysical Reality Manifests itself
I was recently asked to try to explain some ideas about the subjective evolution of consciousness as seen by the followers of a branch of mysticism and devotion known as Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
In 1986, working at Guardian of Devotion Press, we successfully published a book titled, "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness," By Bhakti Rakshak Shridhar.
Shridhar Mahārāja appreciated our work and had it translated into Bengali and published in India.
Our book sold modestly in the United States. The 1990s were a time of great prosperity in America. Perhaps new ideas about introspection and spiritual life were not as welcomed as were new ideas on prosperity and success. Our press could not survive the economic model of the 90s and the "Me" generation.
Strangely, the book survived in translation. Given new openings in the Soviet Union just after the Gorbachov years of Perestroika, people took a new interest in "yoga" and spiritual ideas.
30 years after its publication, I was invited to Russia to explain some of the ideas in "Subjective Evolution."
I was astonished and pleased that anyone remembered the subject of that treatise published so long ago.
This year I was again invited by a great mystic and yoga Swāmī His Divine Grace B.B. Avadhuta Mahārāja to lecture on the conclusions of Subjective Evolution of Consciousness.
As a serious young man I worked hard on Subjective Evolution...
Before and After
...and it was good to have a chance to meet with my oldfriend and publishing partner, Bhakti Sudhir Goswami with whom I had many rewarding conversations on ontology and reality.
In the course of my lecture series I faced a number of difficult questions. What is consciousness? How can we understand the relationship between infinite consciousness and the finite souls, according to the progessive bhatki yoga school. How does the metaphysical reality manifest itself?
I was encouraged, once again by Avadhuta Maharaja, to continue writing on these themes. This blog article is an extension of that encouragement, and perhaps will be taken up as a book project at a later date.
The idea that the universe is expanding is known as the Big Bang theory. The theory has also been applied to the spiritual universe, in the teachings of Śrī Caitanya. According to this analysis which amplifies the truths found in the Upanishads, the Absolute Infinite expands infinitely, first as the quadruple manifestations of Godhead and then in an infinite variety of spiritual worlds or Vaikuṇṭhas.
In 1986, working at Guardian of Devotion Press, we successfully published a book titled, "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness," By Bhakti Rakshak Shridhar.
Shridhar Mahārāja appreciated our work and had it translated into Bengali and published in India.
Our book sold modestly in the United States. The 1990s were a time of great prosperity in America. Perhaps new ideas about introspection and spiritual life were not as welcomed as were new ideas on prosperity and success. Our press could not survive the economic model of the 90s and the "Me" generation.
Strangely, the book survived in translation. Given new openings in the Soviet Union just after the Gorbachov years of Perestroika, people took a new interest in "yoga" and spiritual ideas.
30 years after its publication, I was invited to Russia to explain some of the ideas in "Subjective Evolution."
I was astonished and pleased that anyone remembered the subject of that treatise published so long ago.
This year I was again invited by a great mystic and yoga Swāmī His Divine Grace B.B. Avadhuta Mahārāja to lecture on the conclusions of Subjective Evolution of Consciousness.
Before and After
...and it was good to have a chance to meet with my oldfriend and publishing partner, Bhakti Sudhir Goswami with whom I had many rewarding conversations on ontology and reality.
In the course of my lecture series I faced a number of difficult questions. What is consciousness? How can we understand the relationship between infinite consciousness and the finite souls, according to the progessive bhatki yoga school. How does the metaphysical reality manifest itself?
I was encouraged, once again by Avadhuta Maharaja, to continue writing on these themes. This blog article is an extension of that encouragement, and perhaps will be taken up as a book project at a later date.
The idea that the universe is expanding is known as the Big Bang theory. The theory has also been applied to the spiritual universe, in the teachings of Śrī Caitanya. According to this analysis which amplifies the truths found in the Upanishads, the Absolute Infinite expands infinitely, first as the quadruple manifestations of Godhead and then in an infinite variety of spiritual worlds or Vaikuṇṭhas.
The individual conscious being known as jīva or individual soul is a “Separated Infinitesimal Particle” of the Absolute who expands Himself into an infinite variety of transcendental forms.
Krishna Dās Kavirāja Goswāmi’s records the teachings of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in his Caitanya Caritamṛta.
There, Śrī Caitanya elaborates on the inner meaning of the Oṁ Purnaṁ Vedic-Upanishadic verse, where it is written that the infinite has the power to expand infinitely.
He teaches, "Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the nondual Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one, He maintains different personal expansions and energies for His pastimes.” [1]
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa expands into many forms. Some are personal expansions, and some are separate expansions. Thus He performs pastimes in both the spiritual and material worlds. The spiritual worlds are the Vaikuṇṭha planets, and the material universes are brahmāṇḍas, gigantic globes governed by the creator (Brahmā).
“Expansions of the Godhead’s personal self (for example, the quadruple manifestations of Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, and Vāsudeva) descend as incarnations from Vaikuṇṭha to this world. The separated expansions (vibhinnāṁśa) are living entities. Although they are expansions of Kṛṣṇa they are counted among His different potencies.” [2]
Bhaktivedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda in a taped lecture available here: https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/661203ccny/ explains this teaching from Caitanya Caritamṛta further:
“Here Lord Caitanya is describing about the various forms of Kṛṣṇa. This is very important subject. How Kṛṣṇa is all-pervading, He is describing.
kṛṣṇera svarūpa-ananta, vaibhava-apāra
cic-chakti, māyā-śakti, jīva-śakti āra
Kṛṣṇera svarūpa ananta. The transcendental forms of Kṛṣṇa are innumerable, vaibhava, and His opulence, that is also innumerable. Nobody can estimate. How many forms are there of Kṛṣṇa or how much opulent He is, nobody can estimate; nobody can measure. This is inconceivable. The first proposition. Cic-chakti māyā-śakti jīva-śakti āra. And His potencies are also unlimited, out of which, three potencies are generally accepted = cit-śakti, spiritual potency; material potency; and marginal potency. These three potencies I have described many times. Cit-śakti, the spiritual potency, is a manifestation of the spiritual world, and material potency is a manifestation of this material world, and the marginal potency, we are, we living entities.
Śrīla Prabhupāda continues, “We are marginal potency. Why it is marginal? Because although we belong to the spiritual potency, but we have got tendency to come into contact of this material potency. Therefore it is called marginal, "this way or that way." That a slight independence which is there in every living entity, he can use that, and he may select either to live in the spiritual potency or in the material potency. Therefore the living entities are called marginal potency. So parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate [Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport]. Although the energies of the Supreme Lord are innumerable---nobody can count or measure---but they are divided into three.
vaikuṇṭha, brahmāṇḍa-gaṇa-śakti-kārya haya
svarūpa-śakti śakti-kāryera-kṛṣṇa samāśraya
“Now, Lord Caitanya says, Vaikuṇṭha. Just like this universe is a jagad-aṇḍa, is a big round ball, aṇḍa. Aṇḍa means egglike, just like egg is round. Therefore it is called brahmāṇḍa. It is a round ball. Every planet is round, and the universe is also round, and the Vaikuṇṭhas are also round, all round. Vaikuṇṭha, brahmāṇḍa-gaṇa-śakti-kārya haya. So all these universes, the universe which we experience... There are innumerable universes that we cannot see.
We can see only one universe, and in one universe there are innumerable planets. Similarly, there are innumerable universes, and in each universe there are innumerable planets. This information we get from Brahma-saṁhitā.
yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi-
koṭiṣv aśeṣa-vasudhādi vibhūti-bhinnam
tad brahma niṣkalam anantam aśeṣa-bhūtaṁ
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
[Bs. 5.40]
That brahma-jyotir, in that brahma-jyotir there are all these universes and Vaikuṇṭhas. All, they are resting in that brahma-jyotir. Just like in the sunshine so many planets are resting, similarly, in the brahma-jyotir, the personal shining of Lord Kṛṣṇa, in that shining which is called brahma-jyotir, all the universes and Vaikuṇṭha planets or universes, they are all resting. And the universes, the material universes are only one-fourths in quantity of the Vaikuṇṭha universes. All the universes taken together of this material world, it is only one-fourths in comparison to the other Vaikuṇṭha, or spiritual, universes. Vaikuṇṭha, brahmāṇḍa-gaṇa-śakti-kārya haya.
Now, these universes and the brahmāṇḍas, or the Vaikuṇṭhas, they are manifestation of the energy of the Supreme Lord.
God is all-pervading. "God is all-pervading" does not mean God has lost His identification. This is the mistake of the impersonalists. "Because God is everywhere, God is all-pervading; therefore there should not be any particular existence of God." This is impersonalism. But this is material thought. They do not study Vedic literature properly.
In the Vedic literature it is said, pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate [Īśo Invocation]. Just like I have several times explained before you that in the spiritual absolute identity, one minus one equal to one and one plus one equal to one.
So although innumerable energies are coming out of the supreme body of the Supreme Lord, still He is full.
There is no loss of energy. Just like we can have some material example = the sun. We do not know for how many millions of years the sunshine and temperature is coming out of the sun planet, but still the sun is the same. There is no loss of temperature. So if in a material object this is possible, that in spite of distributing heat and light from the sun disk for millions and millions of years, the sun disk is still of the same temperature, there is no loss of temperature---this is a material thing---so why in the spiritual body of the Supreme there will be any loss?
This is a material idea, that "Because God has become all-pervading, therefore He has lost Himself." Why He should lose His identity? This is confirmed in the Vedic literature = pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evavaśiṣyate. If you take from the... He is so full that if you take the whole thing from Him, still, He is whole. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate.
So as described here, kṛṣṇa svarūpa ananta vaibhava apāra. So although He is transmitting innumerable energies and although He is expanding Himself in innumerable forms, still, He is one. Still, He is the same and one.
That is the spiritual conception, or absolute conception. Absolute is not relative. "Because something has being taken away, therefore it is something less"---it is relative. It is not absolute. This idea is relative.
I have got in my pocket ten dollars. So I have taken two dollars. Now it is eight dollars. This is relative truth. This is not absolute idea.
 |
| Oṁ Purnam adaḥ purṇam idam... |
Absolute idea is that pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate [Īśo Invocation]. Avaśiṣyate means the balance is still full. Whatever you may take, the balance is still.
daśame daśamaṁ lakṣyam
āśritāśraya-vigraham
śrī-kṛṣṇākhyaṁ paraṁ dhāma
jagad-dhāma namāmi tat
In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there are twelve cantos. In the Tenth Canto the appearance of Kṛṣṇa and His activities are mentioned, in the Tenth Canto.
 |
| Before studying Krishna's pastimes in the 10th Canto it is important to understand the ontology of the first 9 Cantos. |
And before Lord Kṛṣṇa's activities and life is mentioned, there are nine cantos. So why?
Now, daśame daśamaṁ lakṣyam āśritāśraya-vigraham. Now, to understand Kṛṣṇa, we have to understand what is this creation, how this creation is going on, what are the activities, what are spiritual knowledge, what is philosophy, what is renunciation, what is liberation. All these things we have to learn very nicely. After learning these perfectly, then you can understand Kṛṣṇa. So in the nine cantos of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these different nine manifestation of His energies are described.
If we can understand... Just like if we can study the sunshine, the energy of the sun, then we can estimate the value of sun = "Oh, what sort of temperature is there." So if you want to study God, if you want to know God, then you must first of all study His energies. God is all-pervading by His energy.
You study. Just the scientists, what they are studying? They are studying a portion of the energy of God, only a portion of the energy of God. That is also not perfectly. So the energy is so vast and immense that one cannot study even the energy. Therefore those who are studying about God, after finishing the study of the energies, they are at a loss to understand how so much energy can be emanated from the person.
Therefore they cannot conceive any personal idea of God. The energy is so vast and immense that they are bewildered in the energy. And how such great amount of energy can emanate from a person they cannot conceive, because they compare with their own energy. Because I am limited... I have got this body, I have got my personality, but my energies are limited. But we cannot understand that the Unlimited has got unlimited energy.”
The teachings of Caitanya Mahāprabhu as further explained by Śrīla Prabhupāda are subtle and require not only thought and meditation in bhakti-yoga, but spiritual dedication to further realize. Let’s return to a more “Upanishadic” version.
Gitopanishad confirms this version of the eternal transcendental nature of the soul as follows, where Bhagavan Śrī Krishna affirms: “The living entities in this world are My eternal atomic parts. Because of conditioned life, they are struggling hard with the six senses, including the mind.” [3]
Krishna continues his discourse on the eternal transcendental nature of the jiva
“For the soul there is never birth or death. Having once been, he never ceases to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying, primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.” [4]
The soul can never be cut into pieces, nor can he be burned by fire, nor
moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. [5]
“This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be never be burned nor dried. He is everlasting, all-pervading, unchangeable, immovable, and eternally the same.[6]
It is important to keep in mind the relationship between the infinitesimal particle of consciousness, or jīva ātma, and the Supreme Soul or Paramātmā. According to the Upanishadic version, we can understand the jivātmā as a subatomic particle of a ray of Paramātmā, the Supreme soul.
“As innumerable sparks emanate from a fire, so all the jīvas with their particular characteristics emanate from the Paramātma, along with the gods, planets, animate and inanimate beings.” [7]
In his explanation of Vedānta before the followers and sannyāsīs of the Śankarācārya school, Caitanya Mahāprabhu began his refutation of Advaita monism with an explanation of this idea from the Upanishads:
“The Supreme Absolute Truth, or Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa is like a great blazing fire, and the living entities are like small sparks of that fire. [8]
Śrīla Prabhupāda comments in his purport on this verse: "Although sparks and a big fire are both fire and both have the power to burn, the burning power of the fire and that of the spark are not the same. Why should one artificially try to become like a big fire although by constitution he is like a small spark? It is due to ignorance. One should therefore understand that neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor the small spark-like living entities have anything to do with matter, but when the spiritual spark comes in contact with the material world his fiery quality is extinguished. That is the position of the conditioned souls. Because they are in touch with the material world, their spiritual quality is almost dead, but because these spiritual sparks are all Kṛṣṇa's parts and parcels, as the Lord states in the Bhagavad-gītā (mamaivāḿśaḥ), they can revive their original position by getting free from material contact.
This is pure philosophical understanding. In the Bhagavad-gītā the spiritual sparks are declared to be sanātana (eternal); therefore the material energy, māyā, cannot affect their constitutional position.
Someone may argue, "Why is there a need to create the spiritual sparks?" The answer can be given in this way: Since the Absolute Personality of Godhead is omnipotent, He has both unlimited and limited potencies. This is the meaning of omnipotent. To be omnipotent, He must have not only unlimited potencies but limited potencies also. Thus to exhibit His omnipotency He displays both. The living entities are endowed with limited potency although they are part of the Lord. The Lord displays the spiritual world by His unlimited potencies, whereas by His limited potencies the material world is displayed. In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.5) the Lord says:
apareyam itas tv anyāḿ prakṛtiḿ viddhi me parām
jīva-bhūtāḿ mahā-bāho yayedaḿ dhāryate jagat
"Besides these inferior energies, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises all living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature." The jīva-bhūta, the living entities, control this material world with their limited potencies.
Generally, people are bewildered by the activities of scientists and technologists.
"Due to māyā they think that there is no need of God and that they can do everything and anything, but actually they cannot. Since this cosmic manifestation is limited, their existence is also limited.
Everything in this material world is limited, and for this reason there is creation, sustenance and dissolution. However, in the world of unlimited energy, the spiritual world, there is neither creation nor destruction.
"If the Personality of Godhead did not possess both limited and unlimited energies, He could not be called omnipotent.
Aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān: "The Lord is greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest."
He is smaller than the smallest in the form of the living entities and greater than the greatest in His form of Kṛṣṇa. If there were no one to control, there would be no meaning to the conception of the supreme controller (īśvara), just as there is no meaning to a king without his subjects.
If all the subjects became king, there would be no distinction between the king and an ordinary citizen. Thus for the Lord to be the supreme controller there must be a creation to control. The basic principle for the existence of the living entities is called cid-vilāsa, or spiritual pleasure.
The omnipotent Lord displays His pleasure potency as the living entities. The Lord is described in the Vedānta-sūtra (1.1.12) as ānanda-mayo 'bhyāsāt. He is by nature the reservoir of all pleasures, and because He wants to enjoy pleasure, there must be energies to give Him pleasure or supply Him the impetus for pleasure. This is the perfect philosophical understanding of the Absolute Truth."
There is a very clear line here between the ancient wisdom teachings of the Upanishads, the Vedantic interpretation of Śrī Caitanya and his followers and the explanation given by Bhatkivedānta Swāmi.
Consciousness exists. God exists. God is Great. We are small. The living entities who emanate from the Supreme Reality do so as particles of particles of spiritual energy. As such they are like subatomic spiritual particles.
The idea that the jīva is conscious atomic spiritual energy is reasserted again and again in the Upanishads wherein it is explained that the soul is infinitesimal:
Here’s the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad: “If we divide the tip of a hair into one hundred parts and then take one part and divide this into another one hundred parts, that ten-thousandth part is the dimension of the living entity. And this living entity is capable to attain the unlimited Lord.”[9]
Of course the uppermost tip of a hair may be understood metaphorically to mean mathematical point which recedes infinitesimally.
Dividing the infinitesimal thousands of times is a mathematical impossibility. It is not that the soul may be identified physically through an electron microscope by splitting hairs. The point is to develop our understanding of how insignificant the tiny soul is in comparison with the absolute infinite.
By recognition of our smallness, we may come to a higher understanding, one that involves humility and ultimately, surrender.
The spiritual teacher who initiated me on this path, on this journey to surrender was His Divine Grace Bhakti Rakshak Śrīdara Dev Goswāmī.
Śrīdhara Mahārāja refers to the above quote from the Upanishads as follows in his teachings he says of this calculation of one ten thousandth of the tip of a hair:
"It has been suggested for us to understand our position. That there is one hair, if you cut the hair into a hundred pieces, and again one piece into a hundred pieces, again that piece to a hundred … infinitely small, infinitesimal. Try to realise you, then you will come to the reality. "Oh, I am so small. Then how can I stand without some help from outside?"
So your real inner hankering will come for atma-nivedanam. "I want a support, I want a support. Otherwise I can't stand independently. I am so small." That sincere, intense desire, that will takes us to some support, atma-nivedanam.
First dainyam (humility), to find out the real meanness of the self, and necessarily there will come a natural search for some support, atma-nivedanam. Then goptrtve varanam (embracing the Lord's guardianship), and when we get some sort of support, most earnestly to embrace that. "That without You I am nowhere so I can't leave You, goptrtve varanam, and You must protect me."[10]
[1] অদ্ৱয-জ্ঞান-তত্ত্ৱ কৃষ্ণ — স্ৱযḿ ভগৱান্
[2] স্ৱাংশ-ৱিভিনাংশ-রূপে হঞা ৱিস্তার অনন্ত
ৱৈকুণ্ঠ-ব্রহ্মাণ্ডে করেন ৱিহার স্ৱাংশ-ৱিস্তার চতুর্-ৱ্যুহ,
অৱতার-গণ ৱিভিন্নাংশ জীৱ তাঞ্র শক্তিতে গণন
svāṁśa-vibhināṁśa-rūpe hañā vistāra ananta
vaikuṇṭha-brahmāṇḍe karena vihāra svāṁśa-vistāra catur-vyuha,
avatāra-gaṇa vibhinnāṁśa jīva tāñra śaktite gaṇana (Cc. Madhya 22.8-9)
[3] ममैवांशो जीव-लोके जीव-भूतः सनातनः
मनः-षष्ठानीन्द्रियाणि प्रकृति-स्थानि कर्षति
mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ
manaḥ-ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi prakṛti-sthāni karṣati
(Bhagavad-gītā 15.7)
[4] न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्
नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतो ऽयं पुराणो
न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे
na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin
nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ
ajo nityaḥ śāśvato 'yaṁ purāṇo
na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre
(Bhagavad-gītā 2.20)
[5] नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः
न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्य् आपो न शोषयति मारुतः
nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ
na cainaṁ kledayanty āpo na śoṣayati mārutaḥ
(Bhagavad-gītā 2.23)
[6] अच्छेद्यो ऽयम् अदाह्यो ऽयम् अक्लेद्यो ऽशोष्य एव च
नित्यः सर्व-गतः स्थाणुर् अचलो ऽयं सनातनः
acchedyo 'yam adāhyo 'yam akledyo 'śoṣya eva ca
nityaḥ sarva-gataḥ sthāṇur acalo 'yaṁ sanātanaḥ
(Bhagavad-gītā 2.24)
यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवम् एवास्मादात्मनः
सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति
yathāgneḥ kṣudrā visphuliṅgā vyuccarantyevam evāsmādātmanaḥ
sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti
(Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.1.20)
[8] ঈশ্ৱরের তত্ত্ৱ যেন জ্ৱলিত জ্ৱলন জিৱের স্ৱরূপ যৈছে স্ফুলিঙ্গের কণ
īśvarera tattva yena jvalita jvalana jivera svarūpa yaiche sphuliṅgera kaṇa (Cc. Ādi 7.116)
বালাগ্র-শত ভাগস্য শতধা কল্পিতস্য চ
ভাগো জিৱঃ স ৱিজ্ঞেযঃ স চানন্ত্যায কাপ্তে
bālāgra-śata bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jivaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kāpte (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9)
[10] Quote courtesy of Julie Cluer https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=julie%20cluer%20posts
The theory of relativity explains the behavior of phenomena on the macroscopic level, on the level of planetary events; quantum theory on the other hand, explains the behavior of phenomena on the microscopic level, on the atomic and subatomic level. Perplexingly, however, for reasons we haven’t time to fully explore here, the two theories are incompatible.
In short the theories that explain the effect of gravity on time, black holes, and the speed of light are incompatible with the theories that explain the laws governing the movement of subatomic objects.
Levels of Consciousness
Macro and Micro Consciousness: Unified Theory of Knowledge
The modern dilemma in physics is the “unified field theory” or the “theory of everything,” a theory tying together all known phenomena to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy in existence.
In physics, a field refers to an area under the influence of some force, such as gravity or electricity, for example. A unified field theory would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations. Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and make a myriad of wonders possible, including such benefits as time travel and an inexhaustible source of clean energy, among many others.
According to Michio Katu, a theoretical physicist at City College, City University of New York, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God."
The theory of relativity explains the behavior of phenomena on the macroscopic level, on the level of planetary events; quantum theory on the other hand, explains the behavior of phenomena on the microscopic level, on the atomic and subatomic level. Perplexingly, however, for reasons we haven’t time to fully explore here, the two theories are incompatible.
In short the theories that explain the effect of gravity on time, black holes, and the speed of light are incompatible with the theories that explain the laws governing the movement of subatomic objects.
One might think that the same laws would apply both to subatomic as well as cosmic events. After all, laws are laws. In a perfect world, the microcosm should be governed by the same laws as the macrocosm.
Leaving aside the quandaries of physics for the quiddities of metaphysics, one would think that there exists a “unified field theory of consciousness.” But if the mechanism governing the movements of material objects is so difficult to understand at the macro and micro level, discovering the exact mechanism or software behind the engineering of the metaphysical universe presents an even greater problem.
This problem is known as ontology at the level of individual consciousness and cosmology at the level of universal consciousness. Ontology is the study of being: it may include personal spiritual existence as well as the existence of a superior or supreme being. Cosmology involves the study of how our universe came into existence and how to properly describe it. Really they are two sides of the same coin in the sense that we are looking at the same problem from two ends: macro-existence and micro-existence.
So that a theory of consciousness, or how consciousness informs the universe, might begin with the creation of matter on a cosmic level; but it might also begin with a study of how mind influences matter on the human, personal level.
It is difficult for me to conceive of how a singularity of consciousness may have created the infinite expansion of the cosmos. It may be easier for me to see the development of consciousness within an individual human life.
And so it is possible to speak of “levels of consciousness” both at the micro and macro levels. When we speak of “levels of consciousness” at the macro or cosmic level we are touching on the Upanishadic or Vedic version of what Carl Jung called “Collective Unconscious.” At the “micro” or personal level we begin to enter into an understanding of spiritual psychology.
The re-iteration of a cliché makes it appear trite, a truism that has lost meaning through repetition. A film by Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton appears primitive to us, since we have seen the gags they invented repeated thousands and thousands of times in movies and TV commercials. We have seen the cliché so oft repeated that when we see the original, it seems trite. And yet Chaplin and Keaton were geniuses precisely for having invented the form and content of cinema.
In the same way, the aphorisms of the Vedas and Upanishads may sometimes seem “trite” or clichéd to us, now that they have been re-packaged millions of times in the form of religious dogma, textbook psychology, and even facebook slogans. And yet, it is important to remember that these ideas originated with seers who dedicated their lives to introspection and who discovered these truths.
According to the seers themselves this wisdom was revealed to them through a divine process. And we have good reason to believe that they were gifted with a certain form of divine intelligence, one that allowed them a higher degree of perception into levels of consciousness.
In the same way, the aphorisms of the Vedas and Upanishads may sometimes seem “trite” or clichéd to us, now that they have been re-packaged millions of times in the form of religious dogma, textbook psychology, and even facebook slogans. And yet, it is important to remember that these ideas originated with seers who dedicated their lives to introspection and who discovered these truths.
According to the seers themselves this wisdom was revealed to them through a divine process. And we have good reason to believe that they were gifted with a certain form of divine intelligence, one that allowed them a higher degree of perception into levels of consciousness.
Lately it is popular in educational circles to speak of “multiple intelligences.” Psychologist Howard Gardner has identified seven.
This theory has emerged from recent cognitive research and "documents the extent to which humans possess different kinds of minds and therefore learn, remember, perform, and understand in different ways," according to Gardner (1991). According to this theory, "we are all able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves. Where individuals differ is in the strength of these intelligences - the so-called profile of intelligences -and in the ways in which such intelligences are invoked and combined to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and progress in various domains."
As an example of perfection in these different intelligences, we might say that a chess-master or a brilliant artist Picasso would be expert in Visual-Spatial intelligence, an Olympic gymnast of Bodily-Kinesthetic, a Mozart of Musical-Audio intelligence. We could say that a leader like Alexander might be an example of Interpersonal intellence, a Shakespeare or Cervantes in linguistic intelligence, and an Einstein in mathematical intelligence.
But the genius of interpersonal intelligence would be discovered in a person like Freud who probed his own mind and the mind of others; or in the transcendental person of a Jesus or a Buddha, who probed even more deeply into the nature of eternal truth.
Such were the seers of the Upanishads and the teachers of Vedic reality. They were such profound thinkers that, even though they lacked the technology we enjoy today, they were capable of diving deeply into the most profound of truths.
Its interesting that many of the formulas and theorems taught in mathematics derive from the Greeks who observed the stars thousands of years ago. They had no internet, no google; only their imperfect senses by which to make observations. But thousands of years later we rely on their insight.
In the same way, while our modern technology affords us luxuries unavailable to the ancients, our powers of perception and meditation have been weakened by so much luxury. The insights of the ancients are as clear today as when they were first developed thousands of years ago, and they are just as relevant.
Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung had the luxury of referring to centuries of wisdom when they developed their psychologies. If the psychologies of consciousness developed by yogic thinkers centuries ago seem less scientific by comparison it is only because the latest versions appeal more to our modern life-styles.
Let’s take a look at the idea of “levels of consciousness” then, and see how it may be applied both at the macro and micro levels.
We are obsessed with knowledge and want to know, “If subjective evolution of consciousness is a possibility, how would it work?” We may argue that in a higher sense, these are questions of faith. And yet different philosophers working over thousands of years have considered the problem.
So how does “subjective evolution of consciousness” work at the “macro” level? In other words, “how does consciousness produce matter?” And how does “subjective evolution of consciousness work at the “micro” level? In other words, “how does the individual self evolve?” What are the different “levels of consciousness?” After reading this, you may discard all these ideas as wishful thinking, but at least you have considered them carefully. Perhaps you will benefit by reflecting on the same ideas that occupied the great philosophers of India at the dawn of time.
In either case, “macro” or “micro,” as consciousness enters and influences the world, there must exist a kind of medium, a filter between the divine metaphysical reality and the world of māyā, misconception or illusion.
In “Subjective Evolution of Consciousness,” Śrīdhara Mahārāja says, “Consciousness comes first and then matter. The basis of all things material is consciousness, which is spiritual. Consciousness can contact consciousness directly. When consciousness comes into the stage of matter, material conception, we experience a kind of vague consciousness; first there is hazy consciousness and then material consciousness. ...The soul, coming into material consciousness, must come through some hazy reflection of consciousness, cidābhāsa. Only then can the soul experience material consciousness. What is cidābhāsa? Something like ‘mind.’” [i]
This cidābhāsa is described by Bhaktivinoda Thakura as an indication of spirit:
Apart from this, in the existence of a human being an indication of spirit (cidabhasa) is found in the form of ego, which pervades the intelligence, mind, and body. From these symptoms a strong feeling of "I" and "mine" has become accepted as part of the human beings existence. This is known as false ego. It is to be understood that knowledge of subjects up to false ego is called material knowledge. Yet false ego, intelligence, mind, and the prowess of the senses are not totally material. In other words, they do not consist entirely of material elements, but their existence is rooted in material elements. In other words, unless they are related with the material elements their existence is incomplete. They are under the shelter of spirit to some extent, because the act of revelation is their very life and material knowledge is the result. From where does this consciousness originate? The soul is pure and the basis of consciousness. It is not easy for a soul to come under the subordination of matter. By the will of the Supreme Lord—certainly for some reason—a pure spirit soul has contacted matter. Although in our conditioned state it is very difficult to investigate the cause, if we consider the lack of happiness in our conditioned state, we can certainly realize that our present condition is a degradation from our original consciousness.[ii]
While we may quibble on the use of “mind” vs. “spirit,” the vocabulary used in English for defining matters of consciousness is vague. For example the distinction between “mind and spirit.” Hegel’s “Phenomology of Geist” has been translated both as Phenomonology of Spirit, and Phenomology of Mind. So sometimes the words “mind” and “spirit” are confused.
Here Śrīdhara Mahārāja himself is making a clear distinction between “mind” and “spirit,” saying in essence that where “matter” is the consequence of “spirit,” “mind” itself acts as a kind of filter between the two.
What then is “mind?” My dictionary gives the following: “the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.” So here, there is a distinction between “the person” and the “element that enables them to be aware,” or in the language of Śrīdhara Mahārāja, “consciousness” and cidābhasa or “something like mind,” “a filter.”
In terms of the macrocosmic process of the subjective evolution of consciousness from “spirit” to “mind” to matter, in his commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, (2.2.28)[iii] Srila Sridhara Svami confirms that a part of the material nature, after being initiated by the Lord, is known as the mahat-tattva. A fractional portion of the mahat-tattva is called the false ego. On the macro level, the intervening filter, then between spirit and mind is called mahat-tattva and the development of false ego. In any case, as highly developed consciousness degrades it becomes covered with different levels of coverings. These are called “koshas” in Sanskrit, of which there are five: annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vijñāna-maya and anandamāya. Just as it is posible for consciousness to degrade through the medium of mind and false ego, it is posible for us to evolve higher to the stage of divine bliss consciousness, as we shall see further.
In Freud’s analysis of the “self,” he talks about “Id, Ego, and Superego,” where Ego is “the part of the psyche that experiences the outside world and reacts to it, coming between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social environment, represented by the superego,” “Id” is “the part of the mind in which innate instinctive impulses and primary processes are manifest,” and “Super-ego” is “the ethical component of the personality and provides the moral standards by which the ego operates. The superego's criticisms, prohibitions, and inhibitions form a person's conscience, and its positive aspirations and ideals represent one's idealized self-image, or “ego ideal.”
In Freudian language, the “Id” has the function of senses and the uncontrolled mind, “Superego,” occupies the role of intelligence and even perhaps paramatma, where Ego seems to play the role of the conscious mind. But Freudian analysis employs its own technical language and we are merely touching on the superficial and popular understanding of his contribution.
More interesting to us is the analysis of levels of consciousness found in the Upanishadic and Yogic texts.
Yoga philosophy teaches that the mind is pure consciousness which has been filtered through a false conception of ego and mind and as a consequence of that filtering process there is the creation of five different layers of consciousness:
These are known as annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vijnanamaya, and anandamaya koshas, or coverings.
The division of the mind into five layers is similar to the structure of an onion – as one layer is peeled away the next layer is revealed until one reaches the innermost layer. The outermost layer of this perverted consciousness is the physical body itself. This physical body is formed from the food we eat and this level of “bodily” consciousness is known in Sanskrit as annamaya, which means also “food consciousness.”
The next level of consciousness is called prānamaya and corresponds to Freud’s “Id.” Just as with Freud’s Id, the prānamaya state functions during our normal waking awareness. In this state, the mind and senses engage with the external world and react to stimulus. This may also be called the “conscious mind”.
When we pass by a bakery, smell the fresh bread, see a batch of cookies and want them, buy them and eat them, all these are operations that fall within the state of consciousness called the prānamaya which may be translated as “life-air” consciousness or “survival” consciousness.
Going further into the mind we find another layer known as the manomaya level which is also known as the subtle mind. This is the layer which governs memory. All memory is stored here, and we can recall a previous experience due to the capacity of this layer. In addition the mind’s ability to process and use previously acquired data also depends on this layer.
An example of its operation is found in a university student who reads many books in preparation for an examination. At the time of the examination there may be one or two questions and it is the manomaya level of consciousness which recollects the diverse facts from all the books and helps to synthesize them into a coherent response.
The manomaya may correspond in psychology to what Freud and Jung called “the subconscious mind”. The subconscious mind is active during sleep while the conscious mind (pranamaya) is inactive. Dreams take place in this layer. A further function of the manomaya is that pleasure and pain are experienced here.
Above the manomaya or “mental platform” stage of consciousness is the vijñāna plane where one may actually become conscious of spiritual reality. And above this is the anandamaya plane where one exeriences spiritual ecstasy. This is defined as the highest stage in the evolution of consciousness.
Śrīla Prabhupāda has discussed the topic of these five levels of consciousness in his Krishna Book[iv] as follows:
“Within the body there are five different departments of existence, known as anna-maya, prana-maya, mano-maya, vijnana-maya, and at last, ananda-maya. In the beginning of life, every living entity is food conscious. A child or an animal is satisfied only by getting nice food. This stage of consciousness, in which the goal is to eat sumptuously, is called anna-maya. Anna means "food." After this one lives in theconsciousness of being alive. If one can continue his life without being attacked or destroyed, one thinks himself happy.
This stage is called prana-maya, or consciousness of one's existence. After this stage, when one is situated on the mental platform, his consciousness is called mano-maya. The materialistic civilization is primarily situated in these three stages, anna-maya, prana-maya, and mano-maya.
The first concern of civilized persons is economic development, the next concern is defense against being annihilated, and the next consciousness is mental speculation, the philosophical approach to the values of life. If by the evolutionary process of philosophical life one happens to reach the platform of intellectual life and understands that he is not this material body but a spiritual soul, he is situated in the vijnana-maya stage.
Then, by evolution in spiritual life, he comes to the understanding of the Supreme Lord, or the Supreme Soul. When one develops his relationship with Him and executes devotional service, that stage of life is called Krishna consciousness, the ananda-maya stage. Ananda-maya is the blissful life of knowledge and eternity. As it is said in the Vedanta-sutra, ananda-mayo ’bhyasat.
The Supreme Brahman and the subordinate Brahman, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entities, are both joyful by nature. As long as the living entities are situated in the lower four stages of life—anna-maya, prana-maya, mano-maya, and vijnana-maya—they are considered to be in the material condition of life, but as soon as one reaches the stage of ananda-maya, he is a liberated soul.
This ananda-maya stage is explained in the Bhagavad-gita as the brahma-bhuta stage. There it is said that in the brahma-bhuta stage of life there is no anxiety and no hankering. This stage begins when one is equally disposed toward all living entities, and it then expands to the stage of Krishna consciousness, in which one always hankers to render service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
This hankering for advancement in devotional service is not the same as hankering for sense gratification in material existence. In other words, hankering remains in spiritual life, but it becomes purified. Similarly, when our senses are purified, they are freed from all material stages, namely anna-maya, prana-maya, mano-maya, and vijnana-maya, and they become situated in the highest stage—ananda-maya, or blissful life in Krishna consciousness.
[i] (Subjective Evolution of Consciousness, By Bhakti Rakshak Shridhar Guardian of Devotion Press, 1989 P. 2)
[ii] Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Krishna-Samhita, translated by Kushakratha p. 99.
[iii] ततो विशेषं प्रतिपद्य निर्भयस्तेनात्मनापोऽनलमूर्तिरत्वरन् ।
ज्योतिर्मयो वायुमुपेत्य काले वाय्वात्मना खं बृहदात्मलिङ्गम् ॥२८॥
tato viśeṣaḿ pratipadya nirbhayas
tenātmanāpo 'nala-mūrtir atvaran
jyotirmayo vāyum upetya kāle
vāyv-ātmanā khaḿ bṛhad ātma-lińgam
[iv] http://btg.krishna.com/stages-consciousness
Subjective Evolution of Consciousness
An analysis of the subjective evolution of consciousness is found in many places in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and in its commentaries from the original commentator Śrīdhara Swāmī to Jīva Goswāmī.
The most erudite scholar of the Bhāgavatam in the 19th century was Bhaktivinoda Thakura.
His explanations of Vedic ontology are found in his books, especially Kṛṣṇa-saṁhita, (Krishna-samhita) Caitanya-Sikṣamṛta, (Caitanya Sikshamrita) and Tattva-Viveka (Tattva-Viveka) When we approached Śrīdhara Mahārāja to clarify some of his remarks about Subjective Evolution he referred us again and again to these three books, especially Kṛṣṇa-Saṁhita.
In our previous article, we mentioned cidābhāsa a kind of intermediary state between pure consciousness, or cit and the degraded consciousness covered by different kośas experienced in the world of misconception called māya. We're interested in understanding how pure consciousness gradually becomes deformed and degraded into successively lower states.
Śrīdhar Mahārāja has explained cidābhāsa as a kind of filter between consciousness and matter. We have seen that there may be many filters between spirit and matter, including the various kośas, for example mind, intelligence and false ego.
Cidābhāsa is described by Bhaktivinoda Thakura as an indication of spirit in his Kṛṣṇa-Saṁhita:
He begins his discussion of the nature of the living entity in his conclusion to the work, after quoting a verse from Bhāgavad-Gīta. Here you may find Bhaktivinod Thakura's own explanation of Subjective Evolution of Consciousness.
apareyam itas tv anyam
prakrtim viddhi me param
jiva-bhutam maha-baho
yayedam dharyate jagat
prakrtim viddhi me param
jiva-bhutam maha-baho
yayedam dharyate jagat
SYNONYMS
aparā—inferior; iyam—this; itaḥ—besides this; tu—but; anyām—another; prakṛtim—energy; viddhi—just try to understand; me—My; parām—superior; jīva-bhūtām—the living entities; mahā-bāho—O mighty-armed one; yayā—by whom; idam—this; dhāryate—being utilized or exploited; jagat—the material world.
TRANSLATION
Besides this inferior nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is a superior energy of Mine, which are all living entities who are struggling with material nature and are sustaining the universe. (Bhagavad-Gita 7.5)
"By studying this verse it is clearly understood that the living entities are different from the previously mentioned material elements mind, intelligence, and false ego. This is certainly a swanlike conclusion.
"In this visible world of varieties, there are two elements, or prākṛtis: the individual spirit soul (jīva) and dull matter (jaḍa-jagat) , or the elemental spiritual entities and the material elements.
"The Vaisnavas accept these two prākṛtis as the effects of the inconceivable potency of the Supreme Lord.
"Now let us standardize the definitions of the material elements and the living entities. The living entities are conscious and can act independently. Matter is dull and under the control of consciousness.
If we consider the existence of a human being in his present conditioned state, then we will undoubtedly consider his consciousness and the material elements, because by the Lord's sweet will the conditioned souls are seen to be riding on a machine of the material elements.
The material body made of seven constituent fluids, the senses, as well as the mind, intelligence, and false ego (which are the sources of material knowledge), as well as other factors: the place, the time factor, and consciousness are all seen in the existence of a human being."
Bhaktivinoda continues:
"The body on the other hand is completely material, because it is made of material elements and their characteristics.
"The material elements are not able to realize spirit, but we can perceive some evidence of spiritual existence in wonderful instruments like the eyes, ears, and nervous system in the body of a human being. The instruments by which material knowledge enters the material body are called senses.
"After entering the material body, material knowledge mixes with an internal instrument that interprets the material elements. This instrument is called the mind.
"The mind realizes material knowledge through the medium of the heart and accumulates knowledge through the medium of remembrance.
"The shape of material knowledge changes through the medium of imagination. Material objects are considered with the support of two mediums developed and undeveloped intelligence.
"Apart from this, in the existence of a human being an indication of spirit (cidabhasa) is found in the form of ego, which pervades the intelligence, mind, and body. From these symptoms a strong feeling of "I" and "mine" has become accepted as part of the human beings existence.
"This is known as false ego. It is to be understood that knowledge of subjects up to false ego is called material knowledge. Yet false ego, intelligence, mind, and the prowess of the senses are not totally material. In other words, they do not consist entirely of material elements, but their existence is rooted in material elements. In other words, unless they are related with the material elements their existence is incomplete.
"They are under the shelter of spirit to some extent, because the act of revelation is their very life and material knowledge is the result. From where does this consciousness originate?
"The soul is pure and the basis of consciousness. It is not easy for a soul to come under the subordination of matter. By the will of the Supreme Lord—certainly for some reason—a pure spirit soul has contacted matter. Although in our conditioned state it is very difficult to investigate the cause, if we consider the lack of happiness in our conditioned state, we can certainly realize that our present condition is a degradation from our original consciousness."[i]
While we may quibble endlessly on the use of “mind” vs. “spirit,” the vocabulary used in English for defining matters of consciousness is vague.
For example the distinction between “mind and spirit.” Hegel’s “Phenomology of Geist” has been translated both as Phenomonology of Spirit, and Phenomology of Mind. So sometimes the words “mind” and “spirit” are confused. "Mind" has a variety of meanings. "Mind your manners." While perhaps in the early part of the 20th Century the word "Mind" may have had a more "spiritual" context, "mind" today is such a flexible term as to be devoid of any real philosophical meaning. The word "Spirit" is also problematic may refer to the fervor of "team spirit," academic nostalgia as "school spirit," or even a "spirited" horse. "Spirit" can can even refer to "alcohol."
As a student of Hegel, Śrīdhara Mahārāja uses "mind" in the sense of "Geist" as an interchangeable coverall term that may approach the meaning of "spirit" in the same sense that Hegel's word Geist has been translated both as "spirit" or "mind." But his definition of cidābhāsa refers back to Bhaktivinoda. Anyone interested in further elucidation on the subject of cidābhāsa is invited to go through Kṛṣṇa-saṁhita, especially in the original Bengali.
In "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness," Śrīdhara Mahārāja elaborates on the analysis made by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
“The soul, coming into material consciousness, must come through some hazy reflection of consciousness, chidābhāsa. Only then can the soul experience material consciousness. Before pure consciousness evolves to material consciousness, it will pass through a hazy stage of consciousness or chidābhāsa.
So in the background of every material thing, there is a spiritual conception. This cannot but be true. What is chidābhāsa?
Something like mind: Suppose consciousness comes to feel matter. When consciousness is coming to the material world to know the material world, it has to first pass through material consciousness, and then it can feel what is matter.
According to Darwin’s theory, matter gradually produces consciousness, but before producing consciousness it must produce some hazy consciousness, then mind, and then the soul.
But in reality, it is just the opposite. So subjective evolution parallels objective or material evolution.
But in the evolution of consciousness, the Supersubject is first, then the individual soul or jīva-subject is next. Then, from the subjective consciousness of the jīvas, matter is produced. But consciousness must penetrate hazy consciousness to perceive matter.
I say that the process of evolution moves from the top downward. Reality the Absolute is full in Himself. All other things are coming from Him. The perfect substance already exists.
What appears to us as imperfect comes down according to our own defective senses. The imperfect must be dependent upon the perfect, the ultimate reality. And the imperfect may be so arranged by Him in order to prove His perfection.
To prove the perfection of the Absolute, there is conditioned and unconditioned, finite and infinite reality. The defective world therefore has an indirect relation to the truth.
However, consciousness cannot jump at once into the conception of matter; it must pass through a process to come to material consciousness.
From the marginal position, from the verge of the higher eternal potency, evolution and dissolution of this material world begins. This takes place only on the outskirts of svarūpa-śakti, which is the system responsible for the evolution of the spiritual plane, and is an eternally evolving dynamic whole.
It is not that nondifferentiation is the origin of differentiation. An eternally differentiated substance exists.
That plane is filled with līlā, dynamic pastimes. If a static thing can be conceived of as eternal, then why can’t a “ a dynamic thing be conceived of as eternal? That plane of svarūpa-śakti is fully evolved within.
It is eternal. Evolution and dissolution concern only the degradation of the subtle spirit to the gross material platform and his evolution towards perfection. Here there is evolution and dissolution, but these things do not exist in the eternal abode of svarūpa-śakti.[ii]
Knowledge of the Supreme,
Brahman and Energy
There are some natural questions that arise if try to establish that the Absolute Infinite Consciousness exists as the background to the material universe. We can prove by our own experience that consciousness exists. Our own spiritual existence is not in doubt as we can sense this at every moment. Then again, we sense something greater, the foundation of all existence. If everything is spirit, then were does matter come from? Is matter real? What is the relationship between spiritual and material reality?
A certain class of spiritual philosophy tries to establish that there is no distinction between the Soul and the Supersoul or even between matter and spirit. This school is called Advaita-vāda, where Dva means Two. Dvaita means “two-ness,” and Advaita means “oneness.” Vāda means philosophy. So Advaita-vāda means the “philosophy of oneness.”
The real pioneer of this school was Śaṅkara.
 |
| Shankara Shrine Temple |
According to this view the nondifferentiated spirit called Brahman is the ground of all creation. Śaṅkara holds that there is no essential distinction or division in Brahman. Everything is one.
Brahman or spirit is free from all qualities. In this sense it is very similar to the Buddhistic void in the way that zero and infinity are similar concepts. The elimination of qualities leads us to the same conclusion, in the Buddhist case nothingness, in the case of Śaṅkara infiniteness. Infinite divided by infinite is also infinite. Zero divided by zero is also zero. Om purnam adah purnam idam. First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is.
There are many philsophical problems for the Śaṅkarites. One of them is the relationship between eternal spiritual reality and the phenomenal world. If reality is spiritual and eternal, then how does this temporal material world come into being and how does it reconcile with eternal spiritual reality?
Or in other words, how is it that eternal unchanging Brahman is the ground of impermanent phenomenal appearance? What is the relationship between Brahman or Spirit and the world?
The ideas forwarded by Śaṅkara resolve this paradox with the introduction of the concept of māyā, and the distinction between levels or degrees of reality. The famous aphorism by Śaṅkara is brahma-satyam jagan-mithya: Brahman is true, world is false. This world is an illusion, created by māyā. The problem with this idea is that the nature of the relationship between spirit and the phenomenal world is left unresolved. How spirit creates the material world is an unanswered question. Brahman itself is undifferentiated and has no causal properties. In fact at this highest level of reality according to Śaṅkara there is nothing else but spirit.
 |
| Shankar Acharya |
While Advaitic philosophy differentiates between Spirit and World, between the reality of spirit and the unreality of the material universe, but tries to end in oneness with no distinction. There is no duality between Spirit and the Universe, because ultimately the universe does not exist. It exists only as an illusion, but the illusion itself has no reality. Therefore there is only spirit. Duality is mere appearance; reality is nondual or one.
In this view, in the end, there is neither subject nor object. The Subject exists only as illusion, and where the subject is illusory, the object is nonexistent. Again, this mirrors Buddhistic philosophy with the important difference that eternal spiritual oneness replaces the nirvana of nothingness and the void.
Śaṅkara’s analysis of different levels of consciousness offer a valuable heirarchical treatment of different states of awareness. He ranks states of consciousness according to the subtlety of phenomenal experience, according to increasing levels of purification, from the mere awareness of food (annamaya) to survival (pranamaya), mental consciousness (manomaya), intellectual and spiritual knowledge (vijñānamaya), and spiritual realization in ananda, or ecstasy (anandamāya).
Where the Greek philosophers calculated the formulas determining the axioms of geometry, India’s greatest minds examined the inner workings of spiritual reality. Many of Śaṅkara’s ideas on Vedānta were considered revelations even for 20th Century Quantum Physicists like Erwin Schrodinger.
Śaṅkara’s views echo Buddhism to the point where his Nondualism almost reads like a kind of Buddhism in disguise. Where Buddhism resolves everything into nothingness, Śaṅkara’s version resolves into the spiritual oneness of Brahman. But where Buddha’s austere nirvana stripped away all the trappings of Vedic social life, Śaṅkara allows for a robust version of varnāśrama: the gods are an illusion anyway, why not worship them. Many feel that Śaṅkara’s single greatest achievement was to reduce the popularity of Buddhism by offering a more native version of the same thing. But where Buddhism rejects brahmanism, Śaṅkara returns the brahmanas to their place in society. Śaṅkara relies on the Vedas and Upanishads to establish his oneness theory, giving the Vedic version and its culture prominence, where Buddha had rejected it. Scant years after Śaṅkara preached his version far and wide, Buddhism disappeared from the Asian subcontinent, never to return in power.
There is little difference between the Buddhist concept of nirvana or “cessation of existence” and the views of Śaṅkara, where the individual soul loses its separate existence and “merges” into oneness.
In Tattva-Viveka, Bhaktivinoda points out:
“One might go so far as to say that the Saṅkara Advaita (Monism or Impersonalism) philosophy is really only another kind of materialistic philosophy of cessation of existence.
“In the end, the impersonalist followers of Śaṅkara really yearn to end their own individual existence and then taste the spiritual bliss of merging into impersonal Brahman. However, after nirvāna they no longer exist. If they do not exist, then they cannot experience bliss (ananda) or anything else. So, their concept of ananda-maya consciousness is ultimately flawed, since there can be no ananda or bliss in an undifferentiated world void of qualities. There may be sat, or existence and cit, or consciousness, but without love there can be no ananda, bliss. And how can love exist when both the subject and object of love are nonexistent? If subject and object are mere illusions there is no dynamic. Without dynamic, without the interplay between subject and object, there can be no love and no ecstasy.
In summary, the impersonal Advaita philosophy of Śaṅkara teaches: “Brahman is the only thing that exists. Nothing else exists. The idea that spirit, matter, and God are different things is useful only for ordinary activities. In truth Brahman is the unchanging root from which they all have grown. Brahman is eternal, changeless, formless, and qualityless. It has no characteristics. It has no power. It has no activities. Brahman never changes into anything else. All these statements are found in different places in the Vedas."
Still, these philosophers leave some doubts unanswered. One might ask, “How is it possible that the impersonal Brahman is the origin of this material world? We can see this world with our own eyes. How did it come into existence? ”These are questions which haunt the followers of Śaṅkara. If they cannot answer these questions their philosophy will not stand. In his darkest hours, thinking and thinking, Śaṅkara considered these points: “Brahman never performs any activity. How can it have created the world? How can we accept that it has the power to perform activity? If we accept that something else exists besides Brahman, then the whole Advaita (non-dual) philosophy will be broken."
Thinking and thinking in this way, they came to this conclusion: If we say that Brahman has the power to transform itself into other things, that will not destroy our Advaita philosophy. Therefore, Brahman transformed itself into the things of this world. That we can believe."
(They say) the variety-filled material world is in truth a transformation of Brahman. It is not different from Brahman.
In this way a theory of transformation became accepted. But then another impersonalist philosopher said, It is not right to say that Brahman has a defect. If Brahman becomes transformed, then it no longer remains Brahman.
“Therefore this theory of transformation should be thrown far away and in its place the theory of illusion (māyā) should be accepted. Brahman never becomes transformed into any other thing. Therefore the theory of transformation is impossible.”
“However my theory,” thought Śaṅkara, “which maintains that all that exists is in reality Brahman and Brahman alone, and the idea that a variety of things exists is really only an illusion is a beautiful theory, beautiful in every limb. When one mistakes a rope for a snake, one becomes afraid. When one mistakes the glitter in a seashell for silver, one becomes filled with hopes.
Śaṅkara thought, “Therefore if my theory of illusion is accepted, then Brahman has no defect. The material world is an illusion. Only because of ignorance does one believe it exists. In this way my therory is proved. The material world does not exist. Life does not exist. Only Brahman exists.”
Śaṅkara said, “The belief that the material world exists is only pretending on the part of Brahman. This pretending is called by the names `avidya' (ignorance), `māyā' (illusion) and other like words found in dictionaries. The pretending here does not posit the existence of something different from Brahman. Therefore Brahman is the only reality. Nothing else exists. The reality is spirit, and the the pretending, the illusion, is matter. That is now proved.”
Śaṅkara thought, “When material consciousness is defeated by spiritual truth, then the material pretending is destroyed, the true reality is revealed, and liberation is attained."
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura points out, “The blunder is their idea that Brahman alone exists and there is nothing but it. If they do not accept that Brahman has inconceivable power, then all their ideas are worthless. Some talk of maya (illusion, other talk of avidya (ignorance), others talk of pretending, and still others talk of pretending to pretend, but if they say that Brahman has no power to do anything, then how can they establish their idea that only Brahman, and nothing else, exists?
In every one of their ideas is seen the fatal flaw that kills the impersonalist philosophy. If we accept the idea that Brahman has inconceivable power, and if we say Brahman is the only thing that exists, then Brahman has no need to take shelter of anything but itself. Then Brahman is not different from any substance or any power. Then, by Brahman's inconceivable power, change and changelessness, form and formlessness, qualities and qualitylessness, and a host of other mutually contradictory natures may simultaneously and eternally exist within Brahman without negating each other's existence.
|
| Bhaktivinoda Thakura, author of Krishna Samhita |
Even the greatest effort of human reason cannot understand Brahman's inconceivable power. Why should we not accept the truth that Brahman has inconceivable power? The glories of Brahman who has inconceivable powers is infinitely greater than the glory of the impersonal qualityless Brahman.
I glorify the Supreme Brahman, that is to say, the Godhead. The Brahman who has transcendental powers is the Supreme Brahman or Bhagavan. The Brahman without qualities or powers is called merely Brahman. That Brahman is merely a part of the Supreme Brahman, or Bhagavan. The philosophy that turns away from the Supreme Brahman and accepts only the partial Brahman is a very inferior kind of philosophy, a philosophy born of small minds. Of this there is no doubt.
Bhaktivinoda continues, “This impersonalist philosophy has no power to satisfy the questions posed by good logic. It has no power to understand the true meaning of the Vedas. It has no power to give to the individual spirit souls the greatest auspiciousness.”
|
| Mahayogi at Vedalife Festival Discussing Subjective Evolution of Consciousness |
A deeper analysis is given in the Vaiṣṇava view on Vedānta:
The Supreme Brahman or the Supreme Truth (para-tattva) has a inconceivable potencies: first there is the spiritual potency (parā-śākti). The shadow of that spiritual potency is the potency of illusion (māyā-śakti). Māyā-śakti is the mother of the material world. The great variety of qualities māyā offers are accepted by the souls residing in the material world as their own qualities.
In this way the soul's original qualities are withdrawn and the specific mixture of qualities and an identity offered by māyā are accepted by the soul. In this way the spirit soul identifies with matter.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explains how the Supreme Brahman is considered by topmost learned transcendentalists:
vadanti ta tattva-vidas
tattvaà yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call the non-dual substance Brahman, Paramātmā, or Bhagavān."*
Bhagavān (the Supreme Brahman) is superior to Brahman (the impersonal divine effulgence) and Paramātmā (the all-pervading Supersoul). Still, one should not think that Brahman, Paramātmā, are two separate gods and Bhagavān is the Supreme God that dominates Them.
Here the individual spirit soul is the seer, and Bhagavān is the object seen. When he first begins his spiritual life, and he travels on the path of philosophical speculation (jñāna- mārga), the soul sees the Brahman feature of Bhagavān. When he makes some advancement on that path, the soul begins to walk on the path of yoga (yoga-mārga). When he walks on that path, the soul sees the Paramatmā feature of Bhagavān.
When by good fortune the soul walks on the path of pure devotional service (śuddha-bhakti-mārga), the soul sees Bhagavān directly.
Bhagavān brings great sweetness to the eyes. He is full of transcendental bliss. He is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss. His form is graceful. He is a very handsome and charming person. He has all opulence, all power, all fane, all handsomeness, all knowledge, and all renunciation. He has them in the best, the most sublime way. Brahman and Paramātmā are both hidden within Bhagavān. Bhagavān has all potencies. By His wish His potencies manifest His regular and occasional pastimes. He is supremely independent. He is the author of all rules and regulations. Still, He is never bound by any rules or regulations. Bhagavān has no rival. No one is equal to Him. No one is superior to Him. His spiritual potencies are multifarious. They have many different powers.
By these spiritual potencies Bhagavān's spiritual abode, spiritual pastimes, and spiritual paraphernalia are all manifested. That are all transformations of Bhagavān's spiritual potency. From His perfect spiritual potency the spiritual world is manifest. Bhagavān's potency acts in many different ways. One kind of action it performs is the manifestation of the many atoms. That is seen. Spiritual effulgence, spiritual qualities, and spiritual activities are all manifested from Bhagavān's spiritual potency. From the jīva-śakti potency the many individual spirit souls (jīvas) are manifest. The spiritual potency has a shadow. From that shadow are manifest the five gross material elements, the five sense objects, the ten senses, and the mind, intelligence, and false ego. In this way 24 material elements are manifest.
The potency that manifests the material world is thus called the chāyā-śakti (shadow potency).
Bhagavān (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) is like the sun. The many individual souls are like particles of light that come from that Bhagavan-sun. Each individual soul has an eternal spiritual form like the form of Bhagavan. Each individual soul is by nature spiritual and blissful. His nature is to love Bhagavan. He is like a son entitled to a share in his father's (Bhagavan's) property.
Bhagavān is like the sun. The rays of light emanating from that sun are the individual spirit souls. These rays-of-light individual spirit souls have a nature like Bhagavän's. Each individual soul has an effulgent spiritual form suited to its own particular nature. Each soul's form is effulgent and spiritual. Therefore each soul is spiritual in nature. Each soul has spiritual qualities. A small particle of love is part of each soul's spiritual nature. Therefore a particle of love is the soul's nature.
Therefore it is said, Love is the soul's nature.”
Śrīdhara Mahārāja comments on the “Potency” or “Energy” of the Supreme Brahman, Bhagavān, as follows in “Subjective Evolution” “In our conception of divinity, puruṣa/prakṛti, the masculine/feminine, are existing together. Potent and potency, substance and potency, are inconceivably interconnected.
Otherwise, if we conceive of the Supreme Soul as existing independent of any potency, that will be the brahman conception of Śaṇkarācharya: ultimate consciousness as non-differentiated oneness. So the Absolute Truth includes both potent and potency – puruṣa/prakṛti – consciousness with energy.
Actually there are three main elements to be traced within divinity: jñāna, bala, and krīya.
The eternal aspect of the absolute whole is divided in three ways: energy, consciousness, and ecstasy. Thinking, willing and feeling. Sat, chit, ānanda. Sat, the potency for maintaining existence, is the potency of Baladeva (bala). Chit, the aspect of consciousness, is Vāsudeva (jñāna). And ānanda, ecstatic feeling, is Rādhikā (kriya). Jñāna, bala, krīya (knowledge, strength, feeling); sat, chit, ānanda (eternity, cognition, bliss); sandhīnī, samvīt, hlādinī (existence, realization, ecstasy): Baladeva, Krishna, Rādhārānī.
These are the three phases of advaya-jñāna, or the one whole. The one whole can be thought of in its primary, evolved stage in three ways: main consciousness, main energy, and main satisfaction. In three phases we are to conceive of that ultimate reality. It is there: jñāna willing. Sat, chit, ānanda. Satyam, śivam, sundaram (eternity, auspiciousness, beauty). And these three principles are expressed through evolution and dissolution in the eternal and non-eternal.
These aspects of theism have been dealt with in a very scientific way in the Śrī Kṛṣṇa Saṁhitā of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. ”
[i] Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Krishna-Samhita, translated by Kushakratha p. 99.
[ii] Excerpt From: Swami B. R. Sridhar. “Subjective Evolution.” Guardian of Devotion Press, 1989..
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.