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
