The Self and Consciousness, II

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

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