Consciousness and the Self

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