Consciousness and the Self III

The Supreme Consciousness, 

and How Metaphysical Reality Manifests itself

I was recently asked to try to explain some ideas about the subjective evolution of consciousness as seen by the followers of a branch of mysticism and devotion known as Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

In 1986, working at Guardian of Devotion Press, we successfully published a book titled, "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness," By Bhakti Rakshak Shridhar.  

Shridhar Mahārāja appreciated our work and had it translated into Bengali and published in India. 

Our book sold modestly in the United States. The 1990s were a time of great prosperity in America. Perhaps new ideas about introspection and spiritual life were not as welcomed as were new ideas on prosperity and success.  Our press could not survive the economic model of the 90s and the "Me" generation. 

Strangely, the book survived in translation. Given new openings in the Soviet Union just after the Gorbachov years of Perestroika, people took a new interest in "yoga" and spiritual ideas.

30 years after its publication, I was invited to Russia to explain some of the ideas in "Subjective Evolution."

I was astonished and pleased that anyone remembered the subject of that treatise published so long ago.

This year I was again invited by a great mystic and yoga Swāmī His Divine Grace B.B. Avadhuta Mahārāja to lecture on the conclusions of Subjective Evolution of Consciousness.

As a serious young man I worked hard on Subjective Evolution...

Before                                and                             After

...and it was good to have a chance to meet with my oldfriend and publishing partner, Bhakti Sudhir Goswami with whom I had many rewarding conversations on ontology and reality.  

In the course of my lecture series I faced a number of difficult questions. What is consciousness? How can we understand the relationship between infinite consciousness and the finite souls, according to the progessive bhatki yoga school. How does the metaphysical reality manifest itself? 

I was encouraged, once again by Avadhuta Maharaja, to continue writing on these themes. This blog article is an extension of that encouragement, and perhaps will be taken up as a book project at a later date. 


The idea that the universe is expanding is known as the Big Bang theory. The theory has also been applied to the spiritual universe, in the teachings of Śrī Caitanya. According to this analysis which amplifies the truths found in the Upanishads, the Absolute Infinite expands infinitely, first as the quadruple manifestations of Godhead and then in an infinite variety of spiritual worlds or Vaikuṇṭhas.

 

The individual conscious being known as jīva or individual soul is a “Separated Infinitesimal Particle” of the Absolute who expands Himself into an infinite variety of transcendental forms.

Krishna Dās Kavirāja Goswāmi’s records the teachings of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in his Caitanya Caritamṛta.

There, Śrī Caitanya elaborates on the inner meaning of the Oṁ Purnaṁ Vedic-Upanishadic verse, where it is written that the infinite has the power to expand infinitely.

He  teaches, "Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the nondual Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is one, He maintains different personal expansions and energies for His pastimes.” [1]

 “The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa expands into many forms. Some are personal expansions, and some are separate expansions. Thus He performs pastimes in both the spiritual and material worlds. The spiritual worlds are the Vaikuṇṭha planets, and the material universes are brahmāṇḍas, gigantic globes governed by the creator (Brahmā).

“Expansions of the Godhead’s personal self (for example, the quadruple manifestations of Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, and Vāsudeva) descend as incarnations from Vaikuṇṭha to this world. The separated expansions (vibhinnāṁśa) are living entities. Although they are expansions of Kṛṣṇa they are counted among His different potencies.” [2]

Bhaktivedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda in a taped lecture available here: https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/661203ccny/ explains this teaching from Caitanya Caritamṛta further:

“Here Lord Caitanya is describing about the various forms of Kṛṣṇa. This is very important subject. How Kṛṣṇa is all-pervading, He is describing.

kṛṣṇera svarūpa-ananta, vaibhava-apāra

cic-chakti, māyā-śakti, jīva-śakti āra

Kṛṣṇera svarūpa ananta. The transcendental forms of Kṛṣṇa are innumerable, vaibhava, and His opulence, that is also innumerable. Nobody can estimate. How many forms are there of Kṛṣṇa or how much opulent He is, nobody can estimate; nobody can measure. This is inconceivable. The first proposition. Cic-chakti māyā-śakti jīva-śakti āra. And His potencies are also unlimited, out of which, three potencies are generally accepted = cit-śakti, spiritual potency; material potency; and marginal potency. These three potencies I have described many times. Cit-śakti, the spiritual potency, is a manifestation of the spiritual world, and material potency is a manifestation of this material world, and the marginal potency, we are, we living entities.

 

Śrīla Prabhupāda continues, “We are marginal potency. Why it is marginal? Because although we belong to the spiritual potency, but we have got tendency to come into contact of this material potency. Therefore it is called marginal, "this way or that way." That a slight independence which is there in every living entity, he can use that, and he may select either to live in the spiritual potency or in the material potency. Therefore the living entities are called marginal potency. So parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate [Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport]. Although the energies of the Supreme Lord are innumerable---nobody can count or measure---but they are divided into three.

vaikuṇṭha, brahmāṇḍa-gaṇa-śakti-kārya haya

svarūpa-śakti śakti-kāryera-kṛṣṇa samāśraya

“Now, Lord Caitanya says, Vaikuṇṭha. Just like this universe is a jagad-aṇḍa, is a big round ball, aṇḍa. Aṇḍa means egglike, just like egg is round. Therefore it is called brahmāṇḍa. It is a round ball. Every planet is round, and the universe is also round, and the Vaikuṇṭhas are also round, all round. Vaikuṇṭha, brahmāṇḍa-gaṇa-śakti-kārya haya. So all these universes, the universe which we experience... There are innumerable universes that we cannot see. 

We can see only one universe, and in one universe there are innumerable planets. Similarly, there are innumerable universes, and in each universe there are innumerable planets. This information we get from Brahma-saṁhitā.

yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi-

koṭiṣv aśeṣa-vasudhādi vibhūti-bhinnam

tad brahma niṣkalam anantam aśeṣa-bhūtaṁ

govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi

[Bs. 5.40]

That brahma-jyotir, in that brahma-jyotir there are all these universes and Vaikuṇṭhas. All, they are resting in that brahma-jyotir. Just like in the sunshine so many planets are resting, similarly, in the brahma-jyotir, the personal shining of Lord Kṛṣṇa, in that shining which is called brahma-jyotir, all the universes and Vaikuṇṭha planets or universes, they are all resting. And the universes, the material universes are only one-fourths in quantity of the Vaikuṇṭha universes. All the universes taken together of this material world, it is only one-fourths in comparison to the other Vaikuṇṭha, or spiritual, universes. Vaikuṇṭha, brahmāṇḍa-gaṇa-śakti-kārya haya.

Now, these universes and the brahmāṇḍas, or the Vaikuṇṭhas, they are manifestation of the energy of the Supreme Lord.

God is all-pervading. "God is all-pervading" does not mean God has lost His identification. This is the mistake of the impersonalists. "Because God is everywhere, God is all-pervading; therefore there should not be any particular existence of God." This is impersonalism. But this is material thought. They do not study Vedic literature properly.

In the Vedic literature it is said, pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate [Īśo Invocation]. Just like I have several times explained before you that in the spiritual absolute identity, one minus one equal to one and one plus one equal to one.

So although innumerable energies are coming out of the supreme body of the Supreme Lord, still He is full.

There is no loss of energy. Just like we can have some material example = the sun. We do not know for how many millions of years the sunshine and temperature is coming out of the sun planet, but still the sun is the same. There is no loss of temperature. So if in a material object this is possible, that in spite of distributing heat and light from the sun disk for millions and millions of years, the sun disk is still of the same temperature, there is no loss of temperature---this is a material thing---so why in the spiritual body of the Supreme there will be any loss?

This is a material idea, that "Because God has become all-pervading, therefore He has lost Himself." Why He should lose His identity? This is confirmed in the Vedic literature = pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evavaśiṣyate. If you take from the... He is so full that if you take the whole thing from Him, still, He is whole. Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate.

So as described here, kṛṣṇa svarūpa ananta vaibhava apāra. So although He is transmitting innumerable energies and although He is expanding Himself in innumerable forms, still, He is one. Still, He is the same and one.

That is the spiritual conception, or absolute conception. Absolute is not relative. "Because something has being taken away, therefore it is something less"---it is relative. It is not absolute. This idea is relative.

I have got in my pocket ten dollars. So I have taken two dollars. Now it is eight dollars. This is relative truth. This is not absolute idea.

Oṁ Purnam adaḥ purṇam idam...

Absolute idea is that pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate [Īśo Invocation]. Avaśiṣyate means the balance is still full. Whatever you may take, the balance is still.

daśame daśamaṁ lakṣyam

āśritāśraya-vigraham

śrī-kṛṣṇākhyaṁ paraṁ dhāma

jagad-dhāma namāmi tat

In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there are twelve cantos. In the Tenth Canto the appearance of Kṛṣṇa and His activities are mentioned, in the Tenth Canto.

Before studying Krishna's pastimes in the 10th Canto it is important to understand the ontology of the first 9 Cantos.

And before Lord Kṛṣṇa's activities and life is mentioned, there are nine cantos. So why?

Now, daśame daśamaṁ lakṣyam āśritāśraya-vigraham. Now, to understand Kṛṣṇa, we have to understand what is this creation, how this creation is going on, what are the activities, what are spiritual knowledge, what is philosophy, what is renunciation, what is liberation. All these things we have to learn very nicely. After learning these perfectly, then you can understand Kṛṣṇa. So in the nine cantos of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these different nine manifestation of His energies are described.

If we can understand... Just like if we can study the sunshine, the energy of the sun, then we can estimate the value of sun = "Oh, what sort of temperature is there." So if you want to study God, if you want to know God, then you must first of all study His energies. God is all-pervading by His energy.

You study. Just the scientists, what they are studying? They are studying a portion of the energy of God, only a portion of the energy of God. That is also not perfectly. So the energy is so vast and immense that one cannot study even the energy. Therefore those who are studying about God, after finishing the study of the energies, they are at a loss to understand how so much energy can be emanated from the person.

Therefore they cannot conceive any personal idea of God. The energy is so vast and immense that they are bewildered in the energy. And how such great amount of energy can emanate from a person they cannot conceive, because they compare with their own energy. Because I am limited... I have got this body, I have got my personality, but my energies are limited. But we cannot understand that the Unlimited has got unlimited energy.”

The teachings of Caitanya Mahāprabhu as further explained by Śrīla Prabhupāda are subtle and require not only thought and meditation in bhakti-yoga, but spiritual dedication to further realize.  Let’s return to a more “Upanishadic” version.

Gitopanishad confirms this version of the eternal transcendental nature of the soul as follows, where Bhagavan Śrī Krishna affirms: “The living entities in this world are My eternal atomic parts. Because of conditioned life, they are struggling hard with the six senses, including the mind.” [3]

Krishna continues his discourse on the eternal transcendental nature of the jiva

“For the soul there is never birth or death. Having once been, he never ceases to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying, primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.” [4]

The soul can never be cut into pieces, nor can he be burned by fire, nor

moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. [5]

“This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be never be burned nor dried. He is everlasting, all-pervading, unchangeable, immovable, and eternally the same.[6]

It is important to keep in mind the relationship between the infinitesimal particle of consciousness, or jīva ātma, and the Supreme Soul or Paramātmā. According to the Upanishadic version, we can understand the jivātmā as a subatomic particle of a ray of Paramātmā, the Supreme soul.

“As innumerable sparks emanate from a fire, so all the jīvas with their particular characteristics emanate from the Paramātma, along with the gods, planets, animate and inanimate beings.” [7]

In his explanation of Vedānta before the followers and sannyāsīs of the Śankarācārya school, Caitanya Mahāprabhu began his refutation of Advaita monism with an explanation of this idea from the Upanishads:

“The Supreme Absolute Truth, or Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa is like a great blazing fire, and the living entities are like small sparks of that fire. [8]

Śrīla Prabhupāda comments in his purport on this verse: "Although sparks and a big fire are both fire and both have the power to burn, the burning power of the fire and that of the spark are not the same. Why should one artificially try to become like a big fire although by constitution he is like a small spark? It is due to ignorance. One should therefore understand that neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor the small spark-like living entities have anything to do with matter, but when the spiritual spark comes in contact with the material world his fiery quality is extinguished. That is the position of the conditioned souls. Because they are in touch with the material world, their spiritual quality is almost dead, but because these spiritual sparks are all Kṛṣṇa's parts and parcels, as the Lord states in the Bhagavad-gītā (mamaivāḿśaḥ), they can revive their original position by getting free from material contact. 

This is pure philosophical understanding. In the Bhagavad-gītā the spiritual sparks are declared to be sanātana (eternal); therefore the material energy, māyā, cannot affect their constitutional position.

Someone may argue, "Why is there a need to create the spiritual sparks?" The answer can be given in this way: Since the Absolute Personality of Godhead is omnipotent, He has both unlimited and limited potencies. This is the meaning of omnipotent. To be omnipotent, He must have not only unlimited potencies but limited potencies also. Thus to exhibit His omnipotency He displays both. The living entities are endowed with limited potency although they are part of the Lord. The Lord displays the spiritual world by His unlimited potencies, whereas by His limited potencies the material world is displayed. In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.5) the Lord says:

apareyam itas tv anyāḿ prakṛtiḿ viddhi me parām

jīva-bhūtāḿ mahā-bāho yayedaḿ dhāryate jagat

"Besides these inferior energies, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises all living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature." The jīva-bhūta, the living entities, control this material world with their limited potencies. 

Generally, people are bewildered by the activities of scientists and technologists.

"Due to māyā they think that there is no need of God and that they can do everything and anything, but actually they cannot. Since this cosmic manifestation is limited, their existence is also limited. 

Everything in this material world is limited, and for this reason there is creation, sustenance and dissolution. However, in the world of unlimited energy, the spiritual world, there is neither creation nor destruction.

"If the Personality of Godhead did not possess both limited and unlimited energies, He could not be called omnipotent. 

Aṇor aṇīyān mahato mahīyān: "The Lord is greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest." 

He is smaller than the smallest in the form of the living entities and greater than the greatest in His form of Kṛṣṇa. If there were no one to control, there would be no meaning to the conception of the supreme controller (īśvara), just as there is no meaning to a king without his subjects. 

If all the subjects became king, there would be no distinction between the king and an ordinary citizen. Thus for the Lord to be the supreme controller there must be a creation to control. The basic principle for the existence of the living entities is called cid-vilāsa, or spiritual pleasure. 

The omnipotent Lord displays His pleasure potency as the living entities. The Lord is described in the Vedānta-sūtra (1.1.12) as ānanda-mayo 'bhyāsāt. He is by nature the reservoir of all pleasures, and because He wants to enjoy pleasure, there must be energies to give Him pleasure or supply Him the impetus for pleasure. This is the perfect philosophical understanding of the Absolute Truth."

There is a very clear line here between the ancient wisdom teachings of the Upanishads, the Vedantic interpretation of Śrī Caitanya and his followers and the explanation given by Bhatkivedānta Swāmi. 

Consciousness exists. God exists. God is Great. We are small. The living entities who emanate from the Supreme Reality do so as particles of particles of spiritual energy. As such they are like subatomic spiritual particles.

The idea that the jīva is conscious atomic spiritual energy is reasserted again and again in the Upanishads wherein it is explained that the soul is infinitesimal:

Here’s the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad: “If we divide the tip of a hair into one hundred parts and then take one part and divide this into another one hundred parts, that ten-thousandth part is the dimension of the living entity. And this living entity is capable to attain the unlimited Lord.”[9]  

Of course the uppermost tip of a hair may be understood metaphorically to mean mathematical point which recedes infinitesimally. 

Dividing the infinitesimal thousands of times is a mathematical impossibility. It is not that the soul may be identified physically through an electron microscope by splitting hairs. The point is to develop our understanding of how insignificant the tiny soul is in comparison with the absolute infinite.

By recognition of our smallness, we may come to a higher understanding, one that involves humility and ultimately, surrender.

The spiritual teacher who initiated me on this path, on this journey to surrender was His Divine Grace Bhakti Rakshak Śrīdara Dev Goswāmī.

Śrīdhara Mahārāja refers to the above quote from the Upanishads as follows in his teachings he says of this calculation of one ten thousandth of the tip of a hair: 

"It has been suggested for us to understand our position. That there is one hair, if you cut the hair into a hundred pieces, and again one piece into a hundred pieces, again that piece to a hundred … infinitely small, infinitesimal. Try to realise you, then you will come to the reality. "Oh, I am so small. Then how can I stand without some help from outside?"

So your real inner hankering will come for atma-nivedanam. "I want a support, I want a support. Otherwise I can't stand independently. I am so small." That sincere, intense desire, that will takes us to some support, atma-nivedanam.

First dainyam (humility), to find out the real meanness of the self, and necessarily there will come a natural search for some support, atma-nivedanam. Then goptrtve varanam (embracing the Lord's guardianship), and when we get some sort of support, most earnestly to embrace that. "That without You I am nowhere so I can't leave You, goptrtve varanam, and You must protect me."[10]

 

---

[1] অদ্ৱয-জ্ঞান-তত্ত্ৱ কৃষ্ণ — স্ৱযḿ ভগৱান্

ঽস্ৱরূপ-শক্তিঽ রূপে তাńর হয অৱস্থান advaya-jñāna-tattva kṛṣṇa — svayaḿ bhagavān

'svarūpa-śakti' rūpe tāńra haya avasthāna

[2] স্ৱাংশ-ৱিভিনাংশ-রূপে হঞা ৱিস্তার অনন্ত 

ৱৈকুণ্ঠ-ব্রহ্মাণ্ডে করেন ৱিহার স্ৱাংশ-ৱিস্তার চতুর্-ৱ্যুহ, 

অৱতার-গণ ৱিভিন্নাংশ জীৱ তাঞ্র শক্তিতে গণন

svāṁśa-vibhināṁśa-rūpe hañā vistāra ananta 

vaikuṇṭha-brahmāṇḍe karena vihāra svāṁśa-vistāra catur-vyuha, 

avatāra-gaṇa vibhinnāṁśa jīva tāñra śaktite gaṇana  (Cc. Madhya 22.8-9)

he creator (Brahmā).

Brahmā's.  d, Bhagavan Śrī

[3] ममैवांशो जीव-लोके जीव-भूतः सनातनः 

मनः-षष्ठानीन्द्रियाणि प्रकृति-स्थानि कर्षति

mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ 

manaḥ-ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi prakṛti-sthāni karṣati 

(Bhagavad-gītā 15.7)

[4] न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्

नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः

अजो नित्यः शाश्वतो ऽयं पुराणो 

न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे

na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin

nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ

ajo nityaḥ śāśvato 'yaṁ purāṇo 

na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre

(Bhagavad-gītā 2.20)

[5] नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः

न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्य् आपो न शोषयति मारुतः

nainaṁ chindanti śastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ

na cainaṁ kledayanty āpo na śoṣayati mārutaḥ 

(Bhagavad-gītā 2.23)

[6] अच्छेद्यो ऽयम् अदाह्यो ऽयम् अक्लेद्यो ऽशोष्य एव च

नित्यः सर्व-गतः स्थाणुर् अचलो ऽयं सनातनः

acchedyo 'yam adāhyo 'yam akledyo 'śoṣya eva ca

nityaḥ sarva-gataḥ sthāṇur acalo 'yaṁ sanātanaḥ

(Bhagavad-gītā 2.24)

[7]

यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवम् एवास्मादात्मनः

सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति

yathāgneḥ kṣudrā visphuliṅgā vyuccarantyevam evāsmādātmanaḥ

sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti

(Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.1.20)

[8] ঈশ্ৱরের তত্ত্ৱ যেন জ্ৱলিত জ্ৱলন জিৱের স্ৱরূপ যৈছে স্ফুলিঙ্গের কণ

īśvarera tattva yena jvalita jvalana jivera svarūpa yaiche sphuliṅgera kaṇa   (Cc. Ādi 7.116)

[9]

বালাগ্র-শত ভাগস্য শতধা কল্পিতস্য চ

ভাগো জিৱঃ স ৱিজ্ঞেযঃ স চানন্ত্যায কাপ্তে

bālāgra-śata bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca

bhāgo jivaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kāpte (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9) 

[10] Quote courtesy of Julie Cluer https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=julie%20cluer%20posts

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