Purush and Prakriti: Masculine and Feminine, god and goddess.

नारायणं नमस्कृत्य नरं चैव नरोत्तमम्

 देवीं सरस्वतीं चैव ततो जयम् उदीरयेत्

महाभारत

Mahābhārata

As retold by

Michael Dolan, B.V. Mahāyog

Bhagavad-Gītā Chapter 13 continued

When Arjuna asks Kṛṣṇa about prakṛti  and puruṣa  he is asking profound philosophical questions that get at the heart of reality.

Puruṣa and Prakṛti:

Subject and Object

We looked at the word Puruṣa  in Sanskrit from the point of view of  “subject,” where Puruṣa   means “subject” and prakṛti   means “object,”  and concluded with Śrīdhara Mahārāja’s argument that subject determines object, that is that the subjective world, or “consciousness” is responsible for the existence of the objective or perceived world. Without perception by the subject the so-called “objective” world has no real existence.

This is the basic concept of idealism. But Śrīdhara Mahārāja, and indeed Kṛṣṇa Himself takes the argument a step further. Without perception on the part of the Supersubject, the so-called “objective” world has no reality. The world is real then, but it is real because it is perceived as such by God Himself in the form of the Super Subject, or Paramātmā. Śrīdhara Mahārāja refers to this as Ideal Realism. He finds some common ground between the views of Vedāntic philosophy and the reasoning of Berkeley and Hegel.

Is the world in the mind or is the mind in the world?

The idea that the world is unreal is seen in opposing Vedantic commentators. The followers of Śankarācārya are known as “Mayāvādīs” because they support the view that while Brahman or spirit is real, the world is unreal, being only an illusion. (brahma satyam, jagan mithya).

Is perception reality?

Since they argue for oneness, the evident duality of existence is hard to explain.  If all is one, how is it possible that matter exists alongside spirit? Their theory of “illusion” is supposed to reconcile this. But it’s hard to explain how the reality of the spiritual absolute becomes perverted into the unreality of the “illusory” material world.

Is the material world "maya," or unreal? Or temporary but real as a part of a higher reality? 

 The followers of Śrī Caitanya consider this analysis inexact.  The world is real.  Its reality is temporal. Duality exists. We are not “one” with the absolute. We share certain qualities: just as a sun-ray shares the ultraviolet qualities of the radiant sun, so the individual soul or jiva  shares the qualities of sat cit  and ananda  with the Supreme Consciousness.  But there is a great difference in degree: Katha Upanishad says, nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman: “Among eternal conscious beings, there is a a prime eternal among all eternals. He is the supreme living entity of all living entities, and He alone is maintaining all life.” The distinction between the physical and metaphysical worlds is real but inconceivable. (acintya-bheda-abheda tattva) It is beyond our cognitive capacity. 

This is to say that both duality and nonduality are real and coexist, but beyond the capacity of reason. The German philosopher Kant established the limits of reason, and yet he believed that there is transcendental experience beyond reason. 

If you stare at the below optical illusion you will see movement where there is no movement. Cognitively you know that there is no movement, but your eyes tell you the circles move. 

So the nature of  puruṣa and prakṛtī  as well as the distinction between the two is real but inconceivable. Divine Reality is approachable only by faith. Faith, as an instrument beyond cognition, can guide us in realizing the true nature of consciousness and our relationship with the absolute.

Faith can guide us...

Words like “subject” and “object” have a dry philosophical tone. The conception of  puruṣa and prakṛtī  may be more readily understood if we consider of  puruṣa to mean “predominator” and prakṛtī  to mean “predominated.” 

The "Goddess Principle"

In fact, Śrīdhara Maharāja’s translator has titled the 13^th Chapter  “The Predominated and the Predominator, ” the Sanskrit, prakṛti-puruṣa-viveka-yoga प्रकृति-पुरुष-बिबेक य़ोग The title of this chapter means that the real point under discussion is the nature of puruṣa and prakṛtī.  Leaving aside “Subject” and “Object,” or “Spirit and “Matter” as possibly vague, the words puruṣa and prakṛtī  can also be defined as “Enjoyer and Enjoyed,” “Predominator and Predominated.”

In the higher scheme of reality, God Himself is Puruṣa, the Supreme Person, the Enjoyer. Reality is By Himself and For Himself and exists only for His pleasure. Prakṛti then is what is “enjoyed” by Him. Sexually speaking Prakṛtī is feminine, where Puruṣa is masculine.  The positive and negative aspects of divinity imply both god and godesss.As such, Lakshmi may be considered as the Prakriti of Vishnu, for example.

Vishnu and Lakshmi: Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine

 Another example of the god-goddess principle is Shiva-Parvati, where Shiva represents the collective spiritual energetic and Parvati the material receptive energy whose combination gives rise to the evolution of materialistic existence.

Shiva and Parvati

The Shiva-Lingam is the representation of their combined progenerative aspects: where male productive spiritual power meets female receptive material energy.

Shiva Lingam, Angkor Wat.

The Divine Feminine Energy complements the Divine Masculine Energetic as Predominating and Predominated Moieties of the Same Absolute Truth, according the the Chaitanya Saraswata school of Vaishnavism, as seen in the Deity of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa.

Kṛṣṇa, left with Rādhā, right.

When the living entity misidentifies himself as the “Enjoyer” material nature acts as “Enjoyed.”  All living entities are really the “objects” or prakṛti of the original Supreme Person (Puruṣa), the Super Subject. When an individual soul misappropriates the role of puruṣa,  through false ego, she tries to enjoy the misconceived material nature called prakṛti.  

When this situation is corrected through self-realization, the individual soul called jiva  returns to her constitutional position of prakṛti. In a strict philosophical sense, the jīva souls are considered as feminine, predominated in nature, as counterposed to the masculine predominating nature of the Supreme Absolute. 

As a way of getting around the sexual aspects of positive and negative conception with the use of the words puruṣa and prakṛtī m where masculine is positive and feminine is negative, another terminology is used here, that of kṣetra  and kṣetrajna. 

Field Theory

Kṣetra  means “field.”  Here Bhagavad-Gītā takes up the question of “field theory.” The macro-cosmic “field” is the space-time continuum, of vast but finite dimensions, universe whose elliptical orbit describes an egg or  aṇḍa.

The knower of the field is called kṣetrajña.  This term refers to both the subjective knower, the infinitesimal quantum of consciousness known as jiva,  as well as the supersubjective knower, the infinite Paramātmā.

In his explanation of the "field theory" of consciousness established in the 13th Chapter of Bhagavad-Gītā, Bhaktivedānta Swāmī comments, 

"Arjuna was inquisitive about prakrti, or nature, puruṣa, the enjoyer, kṣetra, the field, kṣetrajña, its knower, and of knowledge and the object of knowledge. When he inquired about all these, Kṛṣṇa said that this body is called the field and that one who knows this body is called the knower of the field. This body is the field of activity for the conditioned soul. The conditioned soul is entrapped in material existence, and he attempts to lord over material nature. 

And so, according to his capacity to dominate material nature, he gets a field of activity. That field of activity is the body. 

And what is the body? The body is made of senses. The conditioned soul wants to enjoy sense gratification, and, according to his capacity to enjoy sense gratification, he is offered a body, or field of activity. Therefore the body is called kṣetra, or the field of activity for the conditioned soul. Now, the person who identifies himself with the body is called kṣetrajña, the knower of the field. It is not very difficult to understand the difference between the field and its knower, the body and the knower of the body. 

Any person can consider that from childhood to old age he undergoes so many changes of body and yet is still one person, remaining. Thus there is a difference between the knower of the field of activities and the actual field of activities. A living conditioned soul can thus understand that he is different from the body. It is described in the beginning--that the living entity is within the body and that the body is changing from childhood to boyhood and from boyhood to youth and from youth to old age, and the person who owns the body knows that the body is changing. 

The owner is distinctly kṣetrajna. Sometimes we understand that I am happy, I am mad, I am a woman, I am a dog, I am a cat: these are the knowers. The knower is different from the field. Although we use many articles-our clothes, etc.-we know that we are different from the things used. Similarly, we also understand by a little contemplation that we are different from the body."

In the first six chapters of Bhagavad-Gītā, the knower of the body, the living entity, and the position by which he can understand the Supreme Lord are described. In the middle six chapters of the Gītā, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the relationship between the individual soul and the Supersoul in regard to devotional service are described.

 The superior position of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the subordinate position of the individual soul are definitely defined in these chapters. The living entities are subordinate under all circumstances, but in their forgetfulness they are suffering. When enlightened by pious activities, they approach the Supreme Lord in different capacities-as the distressed, those in want of money, the inquisitive, and those in search of knowledge. That is also described. 

Now, starting with the Thirteenth Chapter, how the living entity comes into contact with material nature, how he is delivered by the Supreme Lord through the different methods of fruitive activities, cultivation of knowledge, and the discharge of devotional service are explained. Although the living entity is completely different from the material body, he somehow becomes related."

Subjective Evolution of Consciousness

Bhagavad-Gītā Chapter 13

Subjective Evolution, Artist's conception

The 13th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita revisits ontological and cosmological questions.  Arjuna has experienced a profound epiphany: he has witnessed divinity firsthand. He is  prepared to surrender himself completely. And yet for his own edification as well as for the benefit of those who may hear this dialogue, he has further questions.

He asks Krishna to define more philosophical terms. He wants Krishna to explain the word prakṛti, (matter) the word puruṣa, (spirit) as well as kṣetra  and kṣetrajña,  the known and the knower (the “field” and the “knower of the field,”) or in philosophical terms “subject," the knower, kṣetrajña, and “object" the known, kśetra.

One does not need to be a philosopher to accept the path of devotion, bhakti. Krishna has given ample arguments that we may understand the value of dedication.

But the Bhagavad-Gita, just as the Vedanta, is not a book for religious fanatics. A deep and well considered ontology of being is under discussion here. 

Those who are not interested in ontology or cosmology may skip this chapter. And yet, given that India is often accused of dark superstitions, one would do well to go through this chapter for the light it sheds on the nature of "Being and Nonbeing."

"Oh, Krishna, I wish to know..."

Arjuna said, "O Krishna, I wish to know about prakṛti, puruṣa, kṣetra, kṣetrajña, as well as the knower and the known. (prakṛtiṃ purusaṃ caiva kṣetraṃ kṣetrajñam eva ca, etad veditum icchāmi jñānam jñeyaṃ ca keśava.   BG 13.1)

The definitions of these philosophical terms are ancient. Even a very recent date for the  Bhagavad-Gita makes the definition  of these philosophical terms at least 3000 years old. No Sanskrit dictionary can avoid the meaning given these words by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita.

The terms prakṛti and puruṣa can be defined variously. In a general sense, the word prakṛti refers to the primal matter or substance from which the physical and mental universe evolves under the influence of puruṣa.

Bhaktivedanta Swami’s  Bhagavad-Gītā As It titles this chapter Nature, The Enjoyer, and Consciousness.

The word prakṛti  here refers to “Nature.” Sometimes the word prakṛti refers to “matter” or the “time space continuum,” while the word puruṣa refers to “consciousness.” (puruṣa  also refers to “the Enjoyer” as we shall see.)

 Unfortunately in the English language, the word  "consciousness" is void of any real scientific or philosophical meaning. "Consciousness" might referred to nervous sensation, feeling, emotions, mental awareness, intelligence, metacognitive self-awareness, spiritual reality, or even the supreme being. 

While clearly capable of some form of nervous sensation, a jellyfish has no brain. Without qualifying adjectives it is difficult to use the word “consciousness” with regard to a jellyfish. Many scientists, including evolutionary biologists, believe that so-called "consciousness" is a byproduct of electrical activity within the brain. Since a jellyfish has no brain, according to their definition it is not "conscious." Since the brain is the center of nervous sensation, it is difficult to understand how jellyfish survive.

Are Jellyfish "conscious?"

While "consciousness" is probably the best word we have in English to describe the "phenomenology of the soul", as Hegel puts it, given the tremendous flexibility of the English language, and the influence exerted upon it by popular culture, it is imprecise philosophically. Using the word "consciousness" as a coverall term to describe the nature of being, then, is problematic.

In a general sense however, it may be said that this chapter takes up the question of matter and consciousness, or matter and spirit,  where Prakriti is matter, and  Purusha is spirit. This is the generally accepted sense.

Now Arjuna, speaking thousands of years ago, is aware of the general meaning of these words. He knows that prakriti means matter. He knows that purusha means spirit.  Arjuna is not an ignorant man. But he's looking for a deeper definition of these terms.

A more philosophical way of probing puruṣa and prakṛti  would be to think in terms of subject and object: the conscious world being subjective, and the unconscious world being objective.

It's interesting to look at these words in another way: a deep discussion on “being” and "reality" inevitably turns on the question of subject and object. The Idealist philosopher Berkeley posited that reality is subjective: the world is in the mind. In Berekeleyan language we are all "subjects" who perceive the world. The known world, strictly speaking, is the "object" of our perception.  This is quite a sticky argument, with ramifications for quantum physics where atomic entities are either waves or particles according to how they are perceived; where we can know the location or velocity of an entity, but not both, according to our "perception" of a subatomic event. 

An extreme reductio ad absurdum of this argument results in saying that this world is nothing more than a product of my personal consciousness. If I am the subject in the world is my object. Were this the case, I would be God.

Obviously the world is not a figment of my imagination. I am not the creator.

Being and Nonbeing: subjective or objective realities?

And yet the other side of the argument may also be reduced. If the world is objective, it exists without the need for consciousness. 

I've often heard the meme that we are nothing more than the fallout from the dead stars, who in turn have become conscious of the universe.  Stardust somehow become self-aware. 

But how does matter become conscious? This is a problem that is supposed to been worked out millions of years ago when the primeval molecules of ancient comets somehow conjugated into life. Our scientists are probing the secrets of those celestial bodies with the use of the latest technology. But curiously, with all the advance of artificial intelligence, there is no answer as to the origin of consciousness. How does the objective world produce the subjective world? Or put more bluntly, how does stone produce consciousness?

Which comes first, then, the objective world of matter or the subjective world of consciousness?

Quantum worlds

Arjuna is aware of the relationship between the subjective and objective world. After his conversation with Krishna, he understands something of the relationship between matter and spirit. Here he is asking Krishna for a deeper explanation.

In Subjective Evolution of Consciousness, B. R. Sridhar explains, "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, the "material conception," we experience a kind of vague consciousness; first there is "hazy consciousness" and then "material consciousness." But everything has its spiritual side.

Everything has its spiritual side.

“And as eternal souls, our direct connection is really only with the conscious aspect of existence.

"The soul, coming into material consciousness, must come through some hazy reflection of consciousness.

"Only then can the soul experience material consciousness; before pure consciousness evolves to material consciousness, it will pass through a hazy stage, “cidābhāsa.” So in the background of every material thing, there is a spiritual conception. This cannot but be true."

“This hazy stage of consciousness or cidābhāsa  is 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 pass through a kind of "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 super subject is first, then the individual soul or jiva subject is next. Then from the subjective consciousness of the jivas, matter is produced.

From the subjective consciousness of the jivas, matter is produced.

But consciousness must penetrate hazy consciousness to perceive matter.”

Arjuna has asked Kṛṣṇa to define prakṛti and puruṣa,  as well as the nature of the relationship between the knower and known or the subject and object.  Here Shridhar Mahārāja describes another idea, the “Super subject.”

According to atheistic evolutionary biologists, consciousness evolves from primitive one-celled animals to jellyfish to human beings over thousands of years; from primitive consciousness to adaptive minds to self-aware philosophers. Perhaps in the future we will develop super-aware machines with artificial intelligence. Consciousness evolves from unconsciousness in this view.

A chart made by evolutionary biologists demonstrating how UV light combined with Co2 and mixed with 5 billion years produces dinosaurs, philosophers, and evolutionary biologists.

B.R. Shridhar argues the exact opposite. To summarize his point, beginning with the Super subject, consciousness expands outwards into individual subjects, who when given to exploitation fall into misconception.

 The misconceived world is a consequence of misperception. Consciousness becomes shadowy, and through that hazy misperception of reality generates the perceived world.

The perceived world is not abandoned by the Super Subject. Without the divine perception of the Super Subject, the perceived world fades into nonexistence. The objective world is the object both of the individual jiva’s misperception as  well as the Super Subject’s perception.

The metaphor by which this may be understood is given by the conception of Mahavishnu, the sleeping avatar who dreams the world into existence.

Mahavishnu

Supreme consciousness  enters a dream-like state through which hazy consciousness is allowed to congeal into material existence. This is a very subtle understanding of the relationship between Subject and Object, or Matter and Spirit.

The idea of Subject and Object is twofold: the relationship between the individual soul and his perceived world: the classic “mind-body” problem of Cartesian thought, and the relationship between the Super-soul, the individual soul and the perceived or objective world.

Bhaktivedānta Swāmī comments, “‘While discussing the subject of this body and the owner of the body, the soul and the Supersoul,  we shall find three different topics of study: the Lord, the living entity and matter. In evey field of activities, in every body, there are two souls: the individual soul and the Supersoul.

Paramātmā

"Because the Supersoul is the plenary expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa says, “I am also the knower, but I am not the individual owner of the body. I am the superknower. I am present in every body as the Paramātmā, or Supersoul.’  One who studies the subject matter of the field of activity and the knower of the field very minutely, in terms of this Bhagavad-Gītā, can attain to knowledge.”

Paramātmā

Writing in Subjective Evolution of Consciousness, Shridhar Maharaja continues,"I Say that the process of evolution moves from the top downward. The absolute reality – if we all assert that there is anything which is the absolute reality – must possess to qualifications: What are they? First, in the words of Hegel, he must be  "By Himself."  Second – and more important to us, he is  "For Himself,"  He exists to fulfill his own purpose. He is not subservient to any other entity, for then his position would be secondary. 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 her own defective senses."

"The imperfect must be dependent upon the perfect, the ultimate reality. And the imperfect may be so arranged by them in order to prove his perfection. To prove the perfection of the absolute, there is conditioned and unconditioned, finite and infinite reality. This defective world therefore hasn't in direct 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 began. Evolution and dissolution concern only the degradation of the sorrowful spirit to the gross material platform and his evolution towards perfection.

"Take the example of hypnotism. Through form of  mystic "hypnotism," the super subject controls the subject to see a particular thing, he is bound to see that.

"One may think that as we see a stone, for example,  the stone compels us to see it as stone. But it is just the opposite; we are compelled to see it as stone being under the influence of the super subject who displays everything as he likes. When he commands, "see Stone," then we shall see stone. Full control over whatever we see rest in his hands. No  power to control what we see rests in the objective world. The objective world is fully controlled by the subject this is confirmed in Bhagavad-Gita, where Krishna says paśya me yogam aiśvayram.  if I say, "behold my mystic power," you are bound to see it. You have no other choice."

 "Reality is subjective.  It is based on consciousness. Color is perceived through the eye.  It is not that the color is there and I can catch it. But the Seer sees through the eye and perceives color. So color is a perception. Its position as actual substance should be traced to the subtle plane of existence this is the nature of reality: the gross is coming from the subtle."