Self and Consciousness XII: Society Consciousness v. God Consciousness

The taboo on knowing who you are

The academic world has neatly divided our discussions according to specialty. Where a discussion on the nature of self might belong to psychology, biology, or neuroscience, it is normally channeled into a discussion on faith.

Bertrand Russell

Psychology defines an “existential self” vs. a “categorical self,” that is your sense of who you are in an existential sense vs. the different categories that inform your participation in a phenomenal world. The “existential self” is the subject.

Since the self is what experiences all phenomenon, it must have an existential being apart from objective reality.

And yet we think of the self in terms of such different categories as physical description, personality, and social roles.

But while the word “psyche” means “inner self,” modern psychology focuses on describing thinking and behavior. In psychology today, we look at the relationships between thinking and behavior and try to explain the causes for them in order to understand,  predict and even to influence behavior.


Freud wasn't interested in the "self" as a spiritual problem per se.  He studied aspects of personality labled "Ego," "Id," and "Super Id." His analysis distances itself from religion or existential reality in the interest of resolving problems of neurosis and abnormal psychology.  He purposely removed any supernatural considerations from his analysis, since he hoped to poise his system as a new kind of science. Modern phsychologists follow his example and undertake a study of “self” or the “soul” only as the kind of “useful truth” mentioned by Stephen Hawkings.

"There is no truth. Only useful truths." Stephen Hawkings

Unless we can use the information to influence behavior, knowledge of the self is not “useful truth,” and therefore not worth studying. Why would anyone want to “influence behavior?” 

"Madmen" Public relations men from the 60s invented modern advertising as propaganda

Well, in effect education is society’s effort to influence a behavioral change in young people, to help them better adapt to the needs of the future. In a commercial society, the corporate and industrial world needs to “influence behavior” in order to ensure a productive work force. The political world also has an interest in influencing behavior, so that citizens conform to the rules of the state. 

The “useful truths” of psychology are used to manipulate voters and manufacture consent.
Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent
And again the consumer society needs the wisdom of psychology to influence customers to identify with a brand and to buy their product.

Apart from influencing behavior, psychology is useful as a kind of “safety valve” when citizens of a consumer society fail to adapt to “stress.” But insofar as the idea of the self considers anything metaphysical, modern psychology is largely devoid of interest in questions of the self. Such questions do not produce any “useful truths.” Above all such questions are taboo for political reasons.

Hard science produces “useful truths.” Quantum physics led to the splitting of the atom and the atomic bomb. Biological research led to the weaponization of the smallpox and anthrax virus, as well as such innovative drugs as antibiotics, Prozac, and Viagra. What truth could be more useful than a drug that would provide instant erections for aging politicians and scientists?

Viagra: "useful truth" for scientists?

Physics and biology, then are “hard science.” They provide indisputable answers that lead to technological solutions. Why pollute these “hard sciences” with mushy questions about the self? To pose questions about the origins of consciousness in any serious scientific forum is to consign oneself to academic death. This has been well documented by Rupert Sheldrake.  Sheldrake talk on scientists

His talk on the prohibitions of modern science was censored and prohibited on TedTalks.

But if the self is not a topic for psychology, physics or biology, what about philosophy?

Academic researchers depend on universities, publishing, and grants for their livelihood. Funding goes to the “hard sciences” since they produce “useful truths” that can be monetized. It’s hard to monetize a discussion on the self. The “soft” sciences like psychology and philosophy must serve the needs of the consumer society that sponsors their academic research. Psychologists can find work in advertising and corporate media helping to manipulate public opinion. 

Philosophers are left with logic and linguistic analysis, thanks to Wittgenstein who pointed out that much of philosophy and reason involves hairsplitting quiddities and quibbles on the meaning of language.

Wittgenstein: the culture of meaninglessness in philosophy

Fortunately, logic has been rescued by information technology and coding numbers into computer language, but this is equally soul-less. Logic has nothing to say about metaphysics.

And so, in academia, a discussion on the nature of self as Soul, or Being, may be allowed in a preliminary survey course on philosophy where the professor scoffs at such fantastic primitive views before taking up Bertrand Russell or Wittgenstein.  Such philosophers promote the culture of meaninglessness. They teach that philosophy has nothing to teach.

But for those interested in something deeper, the professor will refer his students to their local church for a discussion on “Faith.”

In this way, knowledge of the self is sentenced to the ghetto of a local religious group.

Unfortunately, the local group may fall into the category of “Religion,” and this is an example of the “categorical self”--where we identify the “self” with a given religion as a consequence of our birth. “I am an American, I am a Christian, I am a Catholic, I am a Jew...” But of course, this is an example not of the existential self, but the “categorical self.”

Discussion of the self at the local level may be a valuable experience, however, the local religious group may be more interested in getting a volunteer for the Sunday Bake Sale than any profound discussion of the Self.

Discussion of the self, over tea and apples with Asutosh in Kiev, 2015

And so our discourse on Soul, Self, God, Being, and Ontology is impoverished at the academic level, even while our senses and mind are bombarded by psychologically calculated advertisements meant to influence us into a continued misconception about the self.

Society Consciousness vs. God Consciousness

We really need no encouragement to believe that what is good for the senses is good for me. The eyes see, the ears hear, the skin feels. But if I merely run after the objects of the senses, I am no better than an animal. Civilization has left behind such sensual, bestial living.

A consumer society wants its citizens to participate in the work-force, contribute to the tax base, and spend as much as possible to continue the growth-rate that drives the economy. Religion is useful insofar as it keeps the citizens under control.

The French Philosopher whose ideas most influenced the early framers of the U.S. Constitituion was Jean Jacques Rousseau. While Rousseau extolled the virtues of the Noble Savage, he realized the need to keep our basest impulses in check. In “The Social Contract,” a seminal work which coins the idea of human rights, Rousseau held that “religion is good in that it joins divine worship to a love of the law, and that in making the homeland the object of a citizens' adoration, it teaches them that the service of the state is the service of the tutelary God." (Social Contract pp.181-182)

“If the sole purpose of religion is to buttress the state, then a civil religion is the one to pick: it inspires obedience and service, but could never become an independent standpoint from which the state might be criticized or called to task for misdeeds. Religion is necessary to provide the state with moral underpinings; but if religion is separate from the state, then there is always the danger that the decrees of religion will fail to match those of the state, and instead positively mandate

disobedience.”

Modern states take after Rousseau’s teaching, especially in the instance that religious decrees mandate disobedience. As long as religion serves to reign in the basic animal instincts of the populace and encourage them to follow the laws, such religion is welcome. But when it questions the state there are consequences, as for example when Gandhi challenged the British Raj on the basis of his  personal search for truth or Satyagraha.

But social religion  fails its function when it encourages citizens to question the prevailing order.

And so the current political, academic and religious order discourages self-examination and self-realization.

Conformity

Education encourages conformity;  religion that enforces conformity is welcomed by the state. When self-awareness and the contemplation of the eternal self eschews conformity, however, it is surpressed by the very authorities who promote social religion.

The great philosopher most famous for non-conformism, of course, was Socrates. He noted that “The unexamined life is not worth living,” and was later forced to take his own life by drinking hemlock for not “fitting in.” Our modern soul-less society is as calculated as that of the Greek tyrant Alcibiades to make sure that no one takes self-examination too seriously.

It is a strange irony that conformity to society’s rules and religion lead to materialism, where a true examination of the self leads us to an understanding of God and sacrifice.

"God Consciousness and Society Consciousness--these two are always clashing."

Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja used to say, “Society consciousness and God consciousness--these two are always coming in clash.”

The mystics and saints give us an awareness of God and Divinity. But their followers codify their teachings and try to involve a community. The community builds a church and creates a religion. But soon the religion needs to build a bigger church; donations are needed, money is needed to keep the religion going. The village elders participate but also use the religious leaders to uphold their edicts. Moral law, ethical rule, and political expediency all become inextricably entwined with the religion. The moral encodings of the religion ensure conformity with the society. This is called “social dharma.” India’s Mahābhārata is the history of a nation as social dharma. In the end, Arjuna is encouraged to revolt against social dharma, or society consciousness accepting a higher calling in transcendental dharma or God consciousness. (sarva-dharmān parityajyā...)



In Śrī Guru and His Grace, Śrīdhara Mahārāja describes the dichotomy between social and transcendental dharma.

“Kṛṣṇa says, “Give up everything. Come to Me directly.” This is the revolutionary way. This is absolute. And this is relative: “Stick to your own clan. Don’t leave them.” That is the national conception. There is nation consciousness and God consciousness, society consciousness and God consciousness. God consciousness is absolute. If society consciousness hinders the “development of God consciousness, it should be left behind. This is confirmed in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (5.5.18):

gurur na sa syāt sva-jano na sa syāt

pitā na sa syāj jananī na sā syāt

daivaṁ na tat syān na patiś cha sa syān

na mochayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum

Even a spiritual master, relative, parent, husband, or demigod who cannot save us from repeated birth and death should be abandoned at once. What to speak of ordinary things, even the guru may have to be abandoned. One may even have to give up one’s own spiritual guide, as in the case of Bali Mahārāj, or one’s relatives, as in the case of Vibhīṣaṇ. In the case of Prahlād, his father had to “be given up, and in the case of Bharat Mahārāj, it was his mother. In the case of Khaṭvāṅga Mahārāj, he left the demigods, and in the case of the yajña-patnīs (the wives of the brāhmaṇs), they left their husbands in the endeavour to reach the Absolute Personality. “We need society only to help us. If our affinity to the society keeps us down, then that should be given up, and we must march on. There is the absolute consideration and the relative consideration."

"When they come into clash the relative must be given up, and the absolute should be accepted."

“If my inner voice, my spiritual conscience, decides that this sort of company cannot really help me, then I will be under painful necessity to give them up and to run towards my destination, wherever my spiritual conscience guides me. Any other course will be hypocrisy, and it will check my real progress. If we are sincere in our attempt, then no one in the world can check us or deceive us; we can only deceive ourselves (na hi kalyāṇa-kṛt kaśchid durgatiṁ tāta gachchhati). We must be true to our own selves, and true to the Supreme Lord. We must be sincere.”

The message here is clear: When social dharma or “society consciousness” conflicts with transcendental dharma or “God consciousness,” it should be left aside. We must follow our conscience, even if it means being ostracized by our friends.

So the discussion on the self, the search for truth may lead me away from a dull conformity with the norms of society.

This is the central conflict faced by Vyāsa in his composition of Mahābhārata. His work promotes dharma at the same time promoting the pursuit of the divine life. Vyāsa does his best to uphold the religious principles which serve as the underpinnings of society. But in the end the burden is too great. In the end, he rejects social dharma at the beginning of his composition of his greatest work, the Śrīmad Bhāgatavam.
It may be said that the Bhāgavat picks up where the Bhagavad-gita leaves off.

धर्मः प्रोज्झित-कैतवो ’त्र परमो निर्मत्सराणां सतां

 वेद्यं वास्तवम् अत्र वस्तु शिवदं ताप-त्रयोन्मूलनम्

श्रीमद्-भागवते महा-मुनि-कृते किं वा परैर् ईश्वरः

 सद्यो हृद्य् अवरुध्यते ’त्र कृतिभिः शुश्रूषुभिस् तत्-क्षणात्

SB 1.1.2

dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ

 vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam

śrīmad-bhāgavate mahā-muni-kṛte kiṁ vā parair īśvaraḥ

 sadyo hṛdy avarudhyate ’tra kṛtibhiḥ śuśrūṣubhis tat-kṣaṇāt

“Completely rejecting all social dharma, all materialistic religion, the Bhāgavata Purāṇa gives the highest truth, known to the pure-hearted. For the highest benefit of all, here the highest truth is revealed. This is reality distinguished from illusion. This truth soothes all suffering, beginning with the threefold miseries. This beautiful Bhāgavat compiled by the great sage Vyāsadeva as his conclusion, is enough by itself for God realization. What is the need of any other scripture? As soon as one attentively and submissively hears the message of the Bhāgavat; by this culture of knowledge the Supreme Lord is established within his heart."

The Bhāgavat has nothing to do with "social religion." Just as the Upanishads are based on the profound meditation  made by great sages, the Bhagavat follows in their footsteps by relying on the conclusions of realized souls.  It has been said that the whole yoga system is based on the premise of concentrating one’s mind on the Supreme Self and leaving aside the fascination for the objects of the senses. What happens when one does this successfully? What if a group of such yogis gathered together to share their conclusions? Would their insight constitute a "church" or a "religion?" Vyāsa, the author, discounts this version.  The conclusions of the Bhāgavata have nothing to do with "established religion." The ideas expressed in the Upanishads are not sectarian. They are a sober reflection on reality.  No one is being asked to dress in a certain way or to follow the creed of a charismatic guru.  The Upanishads merely study the nature of soul and consciousness and arrive at certain conclusions. The Bhagavat is nondifferent from the Upanishads, merely extending their meaning.

In their essence, all religions, even those that promote social dharma  are striving after the same divine truth. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhakura in Kṛṣṇa-Saṁhita affirms,  "The religious principles taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious principles taught by Vaisnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar to Saiva-dharma. This is a scientific consideration of truths regarding religious principles. Those who consider their own religious principles as real dharma and others' religious principles as irreligion or subreligion are unable to ascertain the truth due to being influenced by prejudice. Actually, religious principles followed by people in general are different only due to the different qualifications of the practitioners, but the constitutional religious principles of all living entities are one. It is not proper for swanlike persons to reject the religious principles that people in general follow according to their situation."

We are not here involved in rejecting the social religious principles that serve as a kind of "glue" that hold social institutions together. And yet, we are humbly trying to draw attention to a deeper understanding of "self," and "consciousness," and considering the transcendental aspects of our existential condition.
If it is true that " the whole yoga system is based on the premise of concentrating one’s mind on the Supreme Self and leaving aside the fascination for the objects of the senses," this implies certain things about sacrifice, about ethics, and right living.