Conciencia y Ser V

Un  análisis acerca de la evolución subjetiva de la consciencia se halla en muchos sitios en el Śrīmad Bhāgavatam y en sus comentarios del comentador original Śrīdhara Swāmi y de Jīva Goswāmī.

El académico más erudito del Bhāgavatam en el S XIX fue Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura

Sus explicaciones de la ontología Védica se hallan en sus libros, especialmente en el Kṛṣṇa-Saṁhita, (Krishna-Saṁhita, el Caitanya-Sikṣamṛta, (Caitanya Sikshamrita) y el Tattva-Viveka (Tattva-Viveka). Cuando nos aproximamos a Śrīdhara Mahārāja para aclarar algunas de sus observaciones acerca de la Evolución Subjetiva nos refirió una y otra vez a estos tres libros, en especial al Kṛṣṇa-Saṁhita.

En nuestros artículos previos, mencionamos cidābhāsa, una especie de intermediario entre la consciencia pura, o cit y la consciencia degradada cubierta por distintas kośas experimentada en el mundo de la concepción errónea llamado māya. Estamos interesados en entender cómo la consciencia pura gradualmente se deforma y degrada hacia estados cada vez más bajos.

Śrīdhara Mahārāja ha explicado cidābhāsa como una especie de filtro entre el espíritu y la materia, que incluye variedad de kośas, como la mente, la inteligencia y el ego falso.

Cidābhāsa es descrita por Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura como una indicación del espíritu en su Kṛṣṇa- Saṁhita:

Inicia su discusión acerca de la naturaleza de la entidad viviente en su conclusión de la obra. Tras citar un verso del Bhagavad-Gīta. Aquí pueden hallar la propia explicación de Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura acerca de la Evolución Subjetiva de la Consciencia.

apareyam itas tv anyam

prakrtim viddhi me param

jiva-bhutam maha-baho

yayedam dharyate jagat

aparā — inferior; iyam — ésta; itaḥ — además de ésta; tu — pero; anyām — otra; prakṛtim — energía; viddhi — trata de entender; me — Mi; parām — superior; jīva-bhūtām — que consiste en las entidades vivientes; mahā-bāho — ¡oh, tú, el de los poderosos brazos!; yayā — por quienes; idam — este; dhāryate — es utilizado o explotado; jagat — el mundo material.

Traducción:

Además de todo ello, ¡oh, Arjuna, el de los poderosos brazos!, hay una energía Mía que es superior, la cual consiste en las entidades vivientes que están explotando los recursos de esa naturaleza material inferior. (Bhagavad-Gita 7.5)

“Al estudiar este verso se entiende claramente que las entidades vivientes son distintas a los elementos materiales antes mencionados como la mente, la inteligencia, el ego falso. Esta es sin duda la conclusión de quien es como un cisne.

“”En este mundo visible de diversidad, hay dos elementos o prākṛtis: el alma individual (jīva) y la materia inerte (jaḍa-jagat), o las entidades espirituales elementales y los elementos materiales.

“Los Vaisnavas aceptan estos dos (jīva) and materia inerte (jaḍa-jagat) como efectos de la inconcebible potencia del Señor Supremo.

“Estandaricemos las definiciones de los elementos materiales y las entidades vivientes. Las entidades vivientes están conscientes y pueden actuar independientemente. La materia es opaca y se halla bajo el control de la consciencia.

“Si consideramos la existencia de un ser humano e su estado condicionado actual. Entonces podremos sin duda considerar su consciencia y los elementos materiales, puesto que a través de la  dulce voluntad del Señor serán almas condicionadas y cabalgarán en una máquina de elementos materiales.

El cuerpo material elaborado de siete fluidos constituyentes, los sentidos, junto con la mente, la inteligencia y el ego falso (los cuales son la fuente del conocimiento material), al igual que otros factores: el lugar, el factor de tiempo, y la consciencia son todos vistos en la existencia de un ser humano.”

Bhaktivinod continúa:

“El cuerpo por otro lado es completamente material, debido a que esta hecho de elementos materiales y sus características.

“Los elementos materiales no son capaces de comprender el espíritu, pero pueden percibir alguna evidencia de la existencia espiritual con maravillosos instrumentos como los ojos, oídos y el sistema nervioso en el cuerpo de un ser humano. Estos instrumentos a través de los cuales el conocimiento material entra en el cuerpo material son llamados sentidos.

“Tras entrar al cuerpo material, el conocimiento material se mezcla con un instrumento interno que interpreta los elementos materiales. Este instrumento es llamado la mente.

“La mente entiende el conocimiento material a través del medio del corazón y acumula el conocimiento a través del medio del recuerdo.

“La forma del conocimiento material cambia a través del medio de la imaginación. Los objetos materiales son considerados con el apoyo de dos medios, la inteligencia desarrollada y la inteligencia sin desarrollar.

“Aparte de esto, en la existencia de un ser humano hay una indicación del espíritu (cidābhāsa) se halla en la forma del ego, el cual impregna la inteligencia, la mente  el cuerpo. De estos síntomas una fuerte sentimiento de “Yo” y “mío” se acepta como parte de la existencia del ser humano.

“Esto se conoce como ego falso. Ha de entenderse que el conocimiento de los sujetos desde el ego falso es llamado conocimiento material. Sin embargo, el ego falso, la inteligencia, la mente y la destreza de los sentidos no son totalmente materiales. En otras palabras, ellos no consisten enteramente en elementos materiales, sino que su existencia está enraizada en elementos materiales. En otras palabras, a menos que estén relacionados con elementos materiales su existencia es incompleta.

“Están bajo el refugio del espíritu hasta cierto grado, porque el acto de revelación es la propia vida y el conocimiento material el resultado. ¿De dónde se origina esta consciencia?

“El alma es pura y las bases de la consciencia. No es fácil para el alma el llegar a subordinarse a la materia. Por deseo del Señor Supremo- ciertamente por alguna razón- un alma espiritual pura contacta la materia. A pesar de que en nuestro estado condicionado es muy difícil investigar la causa, si consideramos la falta de felicidad en nuestro estado condicionado, podemos ciertamente entender que nuestra condición presente es una degradación de nuestra consciencia original. (i)

Podemos objetar sin cesar acerca del uso de “mente” vs “espíritu”, el término en inglés para definir asuntos de consciencia es vago. Por ejemplo la distinción entre “mente y espíritu” la “Phänomenologie des Geistes” ha sido traducida tanto como Fenomenología del Espíritu, como Fenomenología de la Mente. Así que entonces las palabras “mente” y “espíritu” son confusas. En Inglés “mente” tiene una variedad de significados. “Mind your manners (Cuida tus Modales).” Mientras que tal vez en los principios del Siglo XX la palabra “Mente” tal vez tenía un contexto más espiritual, “mente” hoy en día es un término tan flexible como desprovisto de cualquier significado filosófico real. La palabra “Espíritu” es también problemática puede referirse al fervor de “espíritu de equipo”, nostalgia académica como “espíritu escolar”, o incluso al “espíritu” equino. “Espíritu” puede referirse hasta al “alcohol”, en español lo hace con el término “bebidas espirituosas”.

Como estudiante de Hegel, Śrīdhara Mahārāj usa “mente” en el sentido de “Geist” como un término intercambiable que cubre todo, que puede acercarse al significado de “espíritu”  en el mismo sentido en que la palabra Geist de Hegel ha sido traducida tanto como “espíritu” o “mente”. Pero su definición cidābhāsa se remite a Bhaktivinod. Quien esté interesado en una aclaración adicional del tema de cidābhāsa está invitado a ir al Kṛṣṇa-Samhita, especialmente al original en Bengalí.

En la “Evolución Subjetiva de la Consciencia”, Śrīdhara Mahārāj elabora el análisis hecho por Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura:

“El alma. Llegando a la consciencia material, ha de pasar a través de una reflexión de consciencia nebulosa, cidābhāsa. Sólo entonces el alma experimenta la consciencia material. Antes de que la consciencia pura evolucione hacia la consciencia material, pasará por un estado confuso de consciencia o cidābhāsa.

Por lo que en el fondo de cada cosa material, hay una concepción espiritual. Esto no puede sino ser verdad. ¿Qué es cidābhāsa?

Algo como la mente: Supongamos que la conciencia llega a sentir la materia. Cuando la consciencia está llegando al mundo material a conocerlo, tiene que pasar primero a través de la consciencia material, entonces puede sentir la materia.

De acuerdo a la teoría de Darwin, la materia gradualmente produce consciencia, pero antes de producir consciencia ha de producir una consciencia confusa, luego la mente, y después el alma.

Pero en realidad es justamente lo opuesto. La evolución subjetiva paralela a la objetiva o evolución material.

Pero en la evolución de consciencia. El Súper-sujeto es primero, luego el alma individual o Jīva-sujeto. Entonces desde la consciencia subjetiva de las Jīvas, la materia se produce. Pero la consciencia ha de penetrar una consciencia nebulosa para percibir la materia

Yo digo que el proceso evolutivo se mueve desde arriba y hacia abajo. La Realidad Absoluta el total en Sí misma. Todas las otras cosas están llegando de Él. La substancia perfecta ya existe.

Lo que aparenta para nosotros ser imperfecto desciende de acuerdo a nuestros propios sentidos defectuosos. Lo imperfecto ha de depender de lo perfecto, la realidad última. Y lo imperfecto puede ser arreglado por Él con el fin de probar Su perfección.

Para probar la perfección del Absoluto. Está lo condicionado y lo incondicionado, la realidad finita y la infinita. El mundo defectuoso por ello tiene una relación indirecta con la verdad.

Sin embargo, la consciencia no puede brincar al instante hacia la concepción de materia; ha de pasar a través de un proceso para llegar a la consciencia material.

Desde la posición marginal, desde el borde de la potencia eterna suprema, la evolución y la disolución de los seres materiales del mundo. Esto se lleva acabo apenas y en las afueras de svarūpa-śakti. La cual es el sistema responsable de la evolución del plano espiritual, y es un todo dinámico que evoluciona eternamente.

No es que la no-diferenciación sea el origen de la diferenciación. Una substancia eternamente diferenciada existe.

Este plano está lleno de  līlā, pasatiempos dinámicos. Si se puede concebir algo estático  como eterno, entonces ¿por qué no puede algo dinámico concebirse como eterno?  El plano de svarūpa-śakti evoluciona totalmente en su interior.

Es eterno. Evolución y disolución tienen que ver únicamente con la degradación del espíritu sutil hacia la plataforma de la materia burda y su evolución hacia la perfección. Aquí hay evolución y disolución, pero esas cosas no existen en la morada eterna de svarūpa-śakti. (ii)

 [i] Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Krishna-Samhita, traducido por Kushakratha p. 99.

[ii] Extracto de: Swami B. R. Sridhar. “Evolución Subjetiva.” Guardian of Devotion Press, 1989..

Self and Consciousness XII: Society Consciousness v. God Consciousness

The taboo on knowing who you are

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

Bertrand Russell

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viagra: "useful truth" for scientists?

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

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

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

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

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

Wittgenstein: the culture of meaninglessness in philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Society Consciousness vs. God Consciousness

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

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

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

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

disobedience.”

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

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

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

Conformity

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

gurur na sa syāt sva-jano na sa syāt

pitā na sa syāj jananī na sā syāt

daivaṁ na tat syān na patiś cha sa syān

na mochayed yaḥ samupeta-mṛtyum

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

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

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

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

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

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

धर्मः प्रोज्झित-कैतवो ’त्र परमो निर्मत्सराणां सतां

 वेद्यं वास्तवम् अत्र वस्तु शिवदं ताप-त्रयोन्मूलनम्

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

 सद्यो हृद्य् अवरुध्यते ’त्र कृतिभिः शुश्रूषुभिस् तत्-क्षणात्

SB 1.1.2

dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ

 vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam

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

 sadyo hṛdy avarudhyate ’tra kṛtibhiḥ śuśrūṣubhis tat-kṣaṇāt

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

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

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

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

Self and Consciousness XI

 I’m not sure if I have entirely maintained my focus. But, given the nature of a blog, I’ve given myself a certain latitude in exploring these issues. If my musings and reflections lack a certain amount of discipline it's because I'm giving myself some free range and hope to come back and edit my writings later. I began with the idea of exploring the self and consciousness. 

But, since the ontology of the self leads into a discussion of the ontology of the universe, I have digressed a bit. The description of the planets has its place; I think it’s fair to say that the author of Bhāgavatam had something more in mind than a geographical view of the cosmos.

Śrīdhara Mahārāja has hinted at a more nonlinear, metaphysical understanding of the cosmic ideas mentioned in Bhāgavatam. Physicists like to look at the physical universe of space and time both on the macrocosmic and microcosmic level. So it is with the metaphysical universe of spiritual energy. More on that later.

But let’s return to a discussion of consciousness itself at the individual level. Instead of speaking on a theoretical level, let’s do an exercise in consciousness.

Ask yourself a simple question: Who am I?

Am I Russian? Mexican? American? But I can change my nationality. What if I became a citizen of the United Nations? Nationality is important. But is that really who I am? Does that answer my question?

What about sex? Am I a man or a woman? But is that the most important defining factor of who I am? How about race and skin color? Also superficial.

Let’s go deeper. Hold out your hand for a moment. Take a look. What do you see? Is that you? Self-image is important. I always see myself as a young man with dark hair. Go ahead and take a look in the mirror. Is the face looking back at you the same as your self-image? Or are you younger in your mind’s eye?

What if we strip away everything superficial: your nationality, sex, religion, political identification, skin color? Who are you then? A collection of thoughts and impressions? But when you enter the state of consciousness called deep sleep you have no thoughts and impressions, yet you don’t cease to be. Your existence is not dependent on your thoughts and impressions.

What is the real essence of being?

Energy, you may say. But what kind of energy? We may be considered as beings made of energy. Touch your hand. The neurons in your fingertips send electrical signals through your nervous systems, up the spine into the brain. There, the electricity is converted into the experience of touch. Are you electricity, then?

If that were true, it would be possible to send an electrical impulse into a dead body and make it laugh and sing again. This was Mary Shelley’s thesis in her famous book, “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus.” But life is more subtle still. Living energy is subtler somehow than electrical energy.

But somehow your life energy connects with the five senses to interpret what we see, smell, touch, taste, and hear, and so consciousness can interpret the “physical” dimensions of solid matter: color, flavor, odor, sound, and texture. Our five senses can “sense” the world of extension and depth, the entire three-dimensional world. A higher aspect of subtle energy organizes and evaluates sensual experience through the mind and intelligence.

इन्द्रियानी पराण्याहुर् इन्द्रियेभ्यः परम् मनः मनसस् तु परा बुद्धिर् यो बुद्धेआ परतस् तु सः

indriyānī parāṇyāhur

indriyebhyaḥ param manaḥ

manasas tu parā buddhir

yo buddheā paratas tu saḥ

TRANSLATION (by A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmī)

The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence. 

(Bhāgavad-Gīta Chapter 3: text 42)

When the ancient seers of the truth spoke of metaphysical reality,they began with this kind of simple analysis of the self. Before considering the nature of spiritual reality in a cosmic sense, they began with the microcosm of the individual self. What are the levels of consciousness, and from whence do they proceed? Before making any progress on the spiritual path to surrender, one must begin with this sort of inquiry.

Unfortunately, the sensual input we receive is often so overwhelming that we fail to step back and inquire. The senses offer us all kinds of delights: sex, drugs, and rock and roll. But it’s entirely possible to lose one’s self chasing after the objects of the senses.

Involved in a false identification of the self, we lose our own “self-interest.” We become “programmed” by the mind and senses

to seek false, temporary pleasures in the objects of the senses.

Bhagavad-gita teaches us to develop spiritual intelligence through dedication. This spiritual intelligence will guide us. Spiritual intelligence born of knowledge can guide one to become free from a false sense of self.

एवं बुद्धेः परम् बुद्ध्वा संस्तभ्यात्मानम् आत्मना जहि शत्रुम् महा-बाहो काम-रूपम् दुरासदम्

evaṁ buddheḥ param buddhvā

saṁstabhyātmānam ātmanā

jahi śatrum mahā-bāho

kāma-rūpam durāsadam

TRANSLATION

Thus knowing the Self to be transcendental to material senses, mind and intelligence, one should control the lower self by the higher self and thus-by spiritual strength-conquer this insatiable lust for satisfying the senses through exploitation and manipulation of the sense objects.

Ordinarily we may conceive of evolution as a kind of process by which beings evolve from simple life forms to more advanced life forms where the senses and mind become ever more sophisticated, culminating in the human form of life.

The subjective evolution of consciousness involves an attempt to evolve spiritually to a higher state of consciousness. 

Above simple cognition, metacognition allows us to examine our true self interest and arrive at the idea that the self has a spiritual nature founded not only in being (sat), but also in knowledge and awareness (cit) and finally in spiritual joy and bliss (ānanda). Metacognition alone is insufficient to arrive at the highest evolution of consciousness which is attainable only through dedication (bhakti). So, buddhi, or intelligence, may be useful as a metacognitive tool, but ultimately must be guided by divine love in order to reach the highest ecstasy available to the living soul.

A meditation on the relationship between sense, mind, intelligence, ego and self may lead us to self-discovery through a study of the heirarchy of consciousness.

Through careful analysis we find that the primitive layers of consciousness are involved in a hard struggle for existence. Without activation of a higher level of consciousness through reverence, living beings deluded by a false sense of self-interest are involved almost exclusively in a hard struggle for existence and a life of exploitation.

This is seen especially at the animal level of consciousness where attention to eating, sleeping, mating, and defense is total. Of course, sometimes we see more subtle emotions in animals, especially in cows, elephants, dolphins, chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and other domestic species. And yet, animal consciousness tends almost exclusively to exploitation, especially in wild animals and predators like wolves and sharks.

Human beings who have little understanding of their inner lives, who are completely guided by the need for survival and who lack reverence and compassion are also engaged in a hard struggle for existence.

Forgetfulness of one’s true spiritual self-interest is especially seen when one’s consciousness has been driven down to the animal level by harsh living conditions such as poverty, or by addictions to drugs and alcohol. We see that when reverence is lacking from life’s activities, the result is cruelty, violence and loneliness.

The physical arena is a magnificent learning environment. It is a school within which, through experimentation, we come to understand what causes us to expand and what causes us to contract, what causes us to grow and what causes us to shrivel, what nourishes our souls and what depletes them, what works and what does not. A close scientific study of material nature will lead to a higher understanding of the self, ultimately.

But,when the physical environment is seen only from point of view of the five senses, physical survival appears to be the fundamental criterion of evolution because no other kind of evolution is detectable.

It is from this point of view that “survival of the fittest” appears to be synonymous with evolution, and physical dominance appears to characterize advanced evolution.

When perception of the physical world is limited to the five-sensory modality, the basis of life in the physical arena becomes fear. Power to control the environment, and those within the environment appears to be essential. The need for physical dominance produces a type of competition that affects every aspect of our lives.

This obsession with the five senses and their objects develops into an exploiting tendency that colors all our relationships, from family to community, from sex and love to politics and war.

For this reason, the most basic of Vedic teachings is sacrifice.

Bhagavad-Gita recapitulates the Vedic and Upanishadic teachings by walking us through the development in conscious evolution offered there. In the beginning there is Sacrifice. Sacrifice and work become proper action, or karma-yoga. Sacrifice and a clear understanding of the eternal nature of the self develop into jñāna-yoga. Higher intelligence (buddhi-yoga) is informed by reverence and devotion. The highest form of yoga and meditation combines proper action, knowledge and reverence for the divine, in dedication, or bhakti-yoga. Through dedication to the Personal Godhead,(Krishna)one overcomes the tendency towards the exploitation of the sense objects.

For this reason, Bhakti-yoga has been considered as the strongest and most powerful of the different paths towards the evolution of divine consciousness.

I am not the Supreme Self. Milton’s Satan says it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven. This is our position: as individual jivas charmed by the misconception of exploiting material reality we want to play God, we want to rule in our hell of māya. But his is a false reality. I am not the Supreme. It is artificial for me to try to rule material nature. Supreme self is God. Oneness is a misconception. I am not one with God. Nor am I one with material nature. The subject is not equal to the object. Duality exists. Duality means God is different from me. He is supreme. I am subordinate. He is great, I am small. He is infinite, I am infinitesimal. This is the relationship between the Supreme infinite consciousnes and the individual unit of consciousness as explained in the Upanishads.

So because we are infinitesimal, we should concentrate our mind to the infinite, supreme Self.

Whenever we analyse the question, “Who am I?” we must come to the conclusion “I am not alone.” There exists a power greater than myself. This brings one to the natural basis of the Vedic version: sacrifice. If there is some power greater than myself, I must have a role to play in a higher design. This is the basis of all theistic thought and philosophy. Sacrifice is at the core of every religious system contemplated throughout human civilization.

Of course, it may be argued that all this talk about so-called “consciousness” is simply word jugglery. If atheists like Richard Dawkins are right, then “consciousness” is a coverall term that explains nothing. It stands for an interaction of electronic impulses at the neural level within the brain that creates “mind,” and may be a problem for micro-biology, but science will settle these questions once and for all without the need for “Soul,” or “God,” or any such 19th century ideas.

In The Brothers Karamazov, the last and most complex of Fyodor Dostoevsky's philosophical novels, we find the riveting aphorism, "If there is no God -then everything is permitted."

With the twentieth century behind us, many would now contend that these words ascribed to Ivan Karamazov reveal a penetrating truth not to be dismissed.

For Dostoevsky personally - and as a writer and thinker - there was one tormenting question: that of the existence of God. All of his great characters are driven, if not obsessed, by this burning question and its solution.

If God does not exist, if the self does not exist, then everything is meaningless.

All of our values and morals simply become an illusion of the human experience. the only truth to reality is matter and energy, even our concept of truth become illusory. given that our existence has no grounding in an objective being, our understanding of reality is shaped by blind chance.

As Stephen Hawking frames the question, "there is no such thing as truth, only useful truths."

Hawking’s aphorism frames truth in terms of “useful truths,” or in other words, truth is useful when it helps us to control, manipulate and exploit the physical world. Truths that do not aid us in the exploitation of matter have no use, and so are not “useful truths.” But any science based exclusively on exploitation will lead only to the degradation of the human spirit.

Any science that discards truth when it is not “useful” betrays the utilitarian philosophy that underlies it. And science which proceeds from a bias towards utilitarianism is not science at all, but mere technological investigation geared toward exploitation. The consequence of such “science” is not a deeper understanding of the truth, but the development of such monstrous achievements as nuclear arms, weaponized smallpox, genetic engineering and killer drones powered by artificial intelligence. If these are the “useful truths” offered by contemporary science, one must return to Dostoyevsky’s formula: “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted.”

In and through his unforgettable characters, Dostoevsky demonstrates how one's free choice in believing in or rejecting God will have profound consequences of a moral and ethical nature. Thus, the cycle of his famous novels - Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons, and The Brothers Karamazov - is an endless exploration of the consequences of the existence or nonexistence of God. This deepening transformation of the realistic novel of the nineteenth century into an artistic field of religio‑philosophical enquiry gives his rather topical novels a distinctively timeless quality. All lovers of great literature, and those who are keenly interested in precisely these ultimate questions of God, the meaning of life, salvation, and human destiny, will be richly rewarded for spending time and energy on one of his major works.

Dostoyevsky’s work may be seen as a reaction to the times in which he lived. And yet the questions raised over a hundred years ago are still with us.

After all, the nineteenth century witnessed the rise of social, political, scientific, and ideological systems that were implicitly or explicitly atheistic and that have provided the intellectual fuel for generations of thinkers, ending with Dawkins and Hawkings. With a kind of prophetic insight, Dostoevsky envisioned the logical consequences of these systems that ignored or rejected God and the self.

In his time, it was openly stated by the intellectuals of Europe that God, and belief in Him, were relics of the past. Religious faith was a sign of mankind's immaturity, at best a preparatory stage in mankind's progressive liberation from dependence on supernatural assistance. And 19th century Russia was determined to modernize, to leave behind the superstitions of Old Russia.

And so it was that the atheistic humanism of Western Europe enticed and obsessed the Russian intelligentsia. In all of this, Christ was seen in the romantic garb of a humanitarian teacher of moral truths - or a dangerous dreamer.

Marx's famous dictum that religion was the "opium of the people" seemed to capture this revolt against God in a convincing manner. Later in the century, Nietzsche declared that "God is dead." The theories of Darwin and Freud - natural selection and psychoanalysis - further reduced the human person to a product, if not a plaything, of the environment, or to inner impulses and desires.

These theories both fascinated Dostoevsky and filled him with terror. He was convinced that the godless world envisioned by these ideas would eventually become an inhuman world wherein "everything is permitted" against flesh-and-blood human beings not "in step" with the reigning ideas or the reigning party. Dostoevsky saw that the worth of a human being is grounded in the will and love of God, who has created each and every human person in His image and likeness. In the dialectics of Dostoevsky's artistic vision, the human person, once robbed of this spiritual likeness to God, is eventually enslaved by mankind's “liberators.” As the socialist theoretician Shigalev said in Demons: "I started with total freedom and ended up with total enslavement."

So, how do these ideas play out? The consequence of Marx’s ideas as expressed through Leninism and Stalinism led not to enlightenment, but to the total enslavement of the Russian people for more than a generation.

Denial of the self, far from leading to freedom, leads to slavery: the slavery of the senses.

The self that refuses the journey of self-discovery that is the subjective evolution of consciousness is mired in a swamp of sensual illusion, a self-enclosed hell of estrangement from both God and self. The philosophy of “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted,” leads us down a dark path towards forgetfulness of our own true self-interest.

A society which is based on the denial of the soul must be based on exploitation as seen not only in the darkest days of Stalinism with its soul-denying atheism but also in the horrifying exploitation and wars generated by the capitalism of a Trump.

In this demonic view of evolution, “only the strong survive,” and “survival of the fittest” is the law of the jungle.

Our cities resemble jungles, where “might makes right.” This sort of anarchic, bestial public life has been predicted by Thomas Hobbes:

"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man...To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.”

"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Where there is no understanding of the self, of the subjective evolution of consciousness, human beings descend further into ignorance, ignoring their own self-interest. This condition is not evolution but corruption.

Therefore the Greeks coined the aphorism, “Know thyself.” Self-examination is essential for spiritual upliftment. But dedication to a higher power is even more important than knowledge of the eternal self.

A transcendentalist should always try to concentrate his mind on the supreme self. Supreme self means Bhagavan Śrī Krsna. The Upanishads say, nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam. He is the supreme eternal conscious being, the supreme living entity. We are individual conscious beings. There is a relationship between the Absolute Supreme Consciousness which is eternal, and the individual conscious unit, which is also eternal.

The whole yoga system is based on the premise of concentrating one’s mind on the Supreme Self and leaving aside the fascination for the objects of the senses.