Subjective Evolution of Consciousness

Bhagavad-Gītā Chapter 13

Subjective Evolution, Artist's conception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Jellyfish "conscious?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being and Nonbeing: subjective or objective realities?

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

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

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

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

Quantum worlds

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

In Subjective Evolution of Consciousness, B. R. Sridhar explains, "Consciousness comes first and then matter. The basis of all things material is consciousness, which is spiritual.

"Consciousness can contact consciousness directly. When consciousness comes into the stage of matter, the "material conception," we experience a kind of vague consciousness; first there is "hazy consciousness" and then "material consciousness." But everything has its spiritual side.

Everything has its spiritual side.

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

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

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

“This hazy stage of consciousness or cidābhāsa  is something like mind.

"Suppose consciousness comes to feel matter. When consciousness is coming to the material world to know the material world it has to pass through a kind of "material consciousness," and then it can feel what is matter.

"According to Darwin's theory, matter gradually produces consciousness, but before producing consciousness it must produce some hazy consciousness, then mind, and then the soul. But in reality, it is just the opposite."

"So subjective evolution parallels objective or material evolution. But in the evolution of consciousness, the super subject is first, then the individual soul or jiva subject is next. Then from the subjective consciousness of the jivas, matter is produced.

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

But consciousness must penetrate hazy consciousness to perceive matter.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahavishnu

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

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

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

Paramātmā

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

Paramātmā

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

"The imperfect must be dependent upon the perfect, the ultimate reality. And the imperfect may be so arranged by them in order to prove his perfection. To prove the perfection of the absolute, there is conditioned and unconditioned, finite and infinite reality. This defective world therefore hasn't in direct relation to the truth.
"However consciousness cannot jump at once into the conception of matter; it must pass through a process to come to material consciousness.

"From the marginal position, from the verge of the higher eternal potency, evolution and dissolution of this material world began. Evolution and dissolution concern only the degradation of the sorrowful spirit to the gross material platform and his evolution towards perfection.

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

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

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

Path of Devotion

नारायणं नमस्कृत्य नरं चैव नरोत्तमम्

 देवीं सरस्वतीं चैव ततो जयम् उदीरयेत्

महाभारत

Mahābhārata

As retold by

Michael Dolan, B.V. Mahāyogi

Bhagavad-gītā 

Summary: Chapter 12

Chapter 12

The Path of Devotion

The nature of faith is flexible: while firm one moment, it may become weakened the next. Arjuna is now firmly convinced about Kṛṣṇa’s position. And yet he still has some doubts. We have heard so much about liberation from the material world; which is better, liberation or dedication?

Arjuna questions the Lord not from weakness, but from strength. At this point Arjuna is a surrendered soul, but he still wants practical advice on the nature of bhakti. How can he engage himself with all his energy in the service of the Lord? In this chapter we again explore the different processes for self realization. Here we see the value of the rapid efficacy of bhakti in attaining deliverance from birth and death and even going beyond, to the highest planes of divine love in the spiritual world. We learn more about the practice of bhakti.

According to Ramanuja’s version and commentary, here Kṛṣṇa directs the beginner in self-realization towards a deeper understanding  ātma-jñāna. He describes further the nature of the “modes” of material nature, the gunas  or primary influences on the conscious being in the world of perception.  And finally, the excellence of bhakti is described.

Looking back on what we have seen so far, we can summarize the 1^st Chapter of the Bhagavad-Gītā as expounding Arjuna’s crisis of conscience.  Arjuna appeals to dharma, duty, and concludes that it cannot possibly be to his benefit to fight.

In the 2nd Chapter Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna his conception of dharma is relative. When considering society consciousness versus spiritual consciousness, the absolute consideration takes precedence over the relative.  the Lord explains that a living entity is not the material body but is a spiritual spark, a part of the Absolute Truth. Real dharma is more concerned with God consciousness than with societal duty. But how to realize God consciousness?

While in of the 2^nd Chapter, Kṛṣṇa explains that work should be done without attachment to the results, the 3rd Chapter introduces the idea of “work-in-sacrifice” or karma-yoga, which is flawed when one is still attached to results of action. Arjuna should sacrifice his own benefit for the higher good. Sacrifice is better than selfishness. On the path to God realization, karma-yoga  is a valuable step.  But karma-yoga  alone is imcomplete.

The Fourth Chapter recommends a deeper understanding of reality: jñāna-yoga. Transcendental knowledge may be understood from a bona fide spiritual master who represents the line of self-realization. A more complete approach towards enlightenment should involve knowledge. Action performed with knowledge will take one higher than mere sacrifice alone.

The 5th chapter develops this theme. It couples the karma-yoga  idea of “work-in-sacrifice” with jñāna-yoga or transcendental knowledge. When work is done as sacrifice with knowledge of the Supreme, it gradually transforms into dedication. Complete dedication to God coupled with an understanding of His nature gradually becomes bhakti, the path of devotion. This is recommended highly as the best path of perfection.

The 6th chapter dwells on the eightfold yoga path, but while various kinds of yoga are discussed throughout,  at the end of the 6^th  Chapter the Lord says that out of all the yogis, he who thinks of Kṛṣṇa within himself in divine meditation is considered to he the most perfect. The conclusion of the 1^st 6 Chapters of the Bhagavad-Gītā is found in devotional service, or bhakti.

The 7^th Chapter,  discusses the exact knowledge of God, defining ontological and cosmological terms, expanding the explanation of metaphysics that sustains the Gītā.  He describes the divisions of devotees and the superiority of the selfless devotees. Here, God  speaks of the living entity as part and parcel of the supreme whole and recommends that he transfer his attention fully to the whole through bhakti.

The Eighth Chapter, the “Hindu Book of the Dead,” explains the different destinations that await the spirit soul at the time of death and sustains that whoever thinks of Kṛṣṇa at the moment of death is at once transferred to the spiritual sky, Kṛṣṇa 's abode.

The 9^th Chapter explains that bhakti  is the superior form of karma-yoga.  When sacrificial action is infused with transcendental knowledge, and faith it may grow into bhakti,  devotion. This is the best means of approaching the divine.

The 10^th Chapter demonstrates the opulences of God and gives the central argument of the  Gītā, where  personal devotion to Kṛṣṇa is recommended as the highest form of spiritual realization.

In the 11^th Chapter, when Arjuna wants a vision of divine reality, not only for his own personal edification but for the sake of generations of faithful readers of the Bhagavad-Gītā, Kṛṣṇa reveals himself, first in his Cosmic Form, then in his Four-Handed form as God Himself, and finally in his Two-Handed Form as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Throughout the Bhagavad-Gītā, personal devotion to a personal monotheistic divinity is recommended by Kṛṣṇa.  According to the version of  the author of Mahābharata, Vedavyāsa, the narrator, Kṛṣṇa is God Himself. This version is confirmed also by Vaishampayana Rishi, the speaker of the Mahābharata, as by Suta Goswāmī who repeats this version before the 10,000 sages at the sacrifice of Naimisharanya.

Kṛṣṇa describes his divinity personally. He explains that from time to time God Himself takes human form to right wrongs and set dharma  on the correct path.

When Arjuna doubts His Divinity, Kṛṣṇa gives him a personal demonstration of his miracles. From beginning to end the Bhagavad-Gītā reaffirms the supremacy of Kṛṣṇa as Godhead, and bhakti or divine love as both the means and the ends in the path of spiritual perfection.

And yet there are those who are still attracted to Kṛṣṇa’s impersonal brahmajyoti effulgence, which is the all-pervasive aspect of the Absolute Truth and which is unmanifest and beyond the reach of the senses. Many consider that Kṛṣṇa is just another form of  divinity. Just as so many other forms, he too will disappear in the moment of divine realization. Many transcendentalists seek the path of dissolution in the Supreme and find justification for their views in their own interpretation of Bhagavad-Gītā. They think that when Kṛṣṇa says “I” or “Me,” He is referring to a Universal Me.

So, here at the beginning of the 12^th Chapter, Arjuna would like to know which of these two types of transcendentalists is more perfect in knowledge: the personalists or the impersonalists.

Arjuna wants Kṛṣṇa to make this point clear for future generations, since he accepts the worship of the personal form of Kṛṣṇa.  Arjuna is not interested in realization of cosmic spirtuality.

Arjuna is uncomfortable with an impersonal force as God.  Here he’s asking "Why waste time with this form of meditation? What value could it have?" Arjuna has already had a divine revelation in the Eleventh Chapter.  His epiphany is that to be attached to the personal form of Kṛsṇa. is best. But still, he wants to clarify the distinction between the impersonal and personal conceptions of the Absolute Truth.

Kṛṣṇa answers Arjuna by reiterating the importance of bhakti.  A few concessions are made to the other yoga systems in the 12th Chapter. Kṛṣṇa reminds Arjuna that when bhakti-yoga is impossible, then one may try jñāna-yoga, and if that is too difficult one may try karma-yoga, and if that also unfeasable, even ordinary works of charity will help elevate one in the search for liberation from the world of birth and death, since good works are after all good karma. And yet, the path of devotion or divine love is considered the best.

 The Blessed Lord said: “He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect. Others who meditate on the unmanifested, the transcendant, the all-pervading, unknown, impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth-by sense control and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, achieve Me in My impersonal aspect.  And yet, For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

Bhaktivedānta Swāmī comments,

“The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jniina-yogis, and persons who are in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogis. Now, here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jnāna-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body. Therefore, the bhakti-yogi accepts the Deity of Kṛṣṇa as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind, which can thus be applied.”

Kṛṣṇa continues:

“For one who worships Me, giving up all his activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, who has fixed his mind upon Me, O son of Prtha, for him I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.”

“Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt. My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulated principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way you will develop a desire to attain to Me.  

“He who follows this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engages himself with faith, making Me the supreme goal, is very, very dear to Me.”

Bhaktivedānta Swāmī concludes, “In this chapter the religion of eternal engagement, the explanation of the process of transcendental service for approaching the Supreme Lord, is given. This process is very dear to the Lord, and He accepts a person who is engaged in such a process. The question who is better-one who is en­ gaged in the path of impersonal Brahman or one who is engaged in the personal service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead-was raised by Arjuna, and the Lord replied to him so explicitly that there is no doubt that devotional service to the Personality of Godhead is the best of all processes of spiritual realization. In other words, in this chapter it is decided that through good association, one develops attachment for pure devotional service and thereby accepts a bona fide spiritual master and from him begins to hear and chant and observe the regulative principles of devotional service with faith, attachment and devotion and thus becomes engaged in the transcendental service of the Lord. This path is recommended in this chapter; therefore there is no doubt that devotional service is the only absolute path for self-realization, for the attainment of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The impersonal conception of the Supreme Absolute Truth, as described in this chapter, is recommended only up to the time one surrenders himself for self-realization. In other words, as long as one does not have the chance to associate with a pure devotee, the impersonal conception may be beneficial. In the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth one works without fruitive result, meditates and cultivates knowledge to understand spirit and matter. This is necessary as long as one is not in the association of a pure devotee. Fortunately, if one develops directly a desire to engage in Kṛṣṇa con­sciousness in pure devotional service, he does not need to undergo step by step improvements in spiritual realization. Devotional service, as described in the middle six chapters of Bhagavad-Gītā, is more congenial. One need not bother about materials to keep body and soul together because by the grace of the Lord everything is carried out automatically.”