December 2006 Final - Advaita Ashrama · the Vedas are repositories of knowledge.’ ... damental...

Traditional WisdomCAITANYA: CONSCIOUSNESS

v{t;& ôbhtrb †r= mkôVwUh=tÀb;úJk mråaÀmwFk vhbnkmdr;k ;whegbT >

gÀôJËlstdhmwMwË;bJir; rlÀgk ;=Tc{Ñ rl˜fUjbnk l a Cq;mkD& >>

At dawn I remember the Atman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, the transcendent abode ofthe wise, shining in the heart. The eternal witness of the states of wakefulness, dream, anddeep sleep, that impartite Brahman am I, and not this conglomerate of elements.(Pratah-smaranam, 1)

blâÌtwht=urJobwút¥& ôJgk gtu blâÌtwht=ubolâÌtwhtr=& >

blâÌtwht=uhdög ôJÁv& m rlÀgtuvjrçÆtôJÁvtu~nbtÀbt >>

That which, though itself free of (organs like) the mind and the senses, is the Mind ofthe mind and Eye of eye; whose essence is inaccessible to the mind and the eye; thateternal witnessing self am I. (Hastamalaka Samvadah, 6)

btmtç=gwdfUÖvuMw d;tdögu˜JlufUÆtt > ltu=ur; ltô;buÀgufUt mkrJ=uMt ôJgkv{Ct >>

Through the many months, years, ages, and world cycles, those that are past and thoseyet to come, the one Consciousness remains the same, neither setting nor rising, for(unlike the sun) it is self-luminous. (Panchadashi, 1.7)

YM ytÀbt ôJgkßgtu;e hrJmtubtrÉlJtGw g& > gt;u˜Jô;k =]NiJtô;u Ctmgkrâútaur˜x;bT >>

This Atman, the self-luminous light, continues to exist as the power of seeing, revealingthe activities of the mind, even when (the lights of) the sun, moon, fire, and speechhave set. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya Vartika, 4.3.112)

I find sometimes that living beings are like so many pills made of Indivisible Con-sciousness. … At one place I ran to the meadow to see how living beings are sustained.I saw ants crawling there. It appeared to me that every place was filled with Conscious-ness. (Sri Ramakrishna)

11 PB - DECEMBER 2006

Vol. 111 DECEMBER 2006 No. 12

PRABUDDHA

BHARATA

Arise! Awake! And stop not till the goal is reached!

Wrút²;

std{;

ŒtËg

JhtrªtctuÆt; >

� This Month �

Discussions on consciousness, mentality,and related themes bring science and spiritu-ality face-to-face. But do they also form acommon meeting ground? The articles in thisnumber should set you thinking. Science andSpirituality: Where Do They Meet? is oureditorial opinion.

Prabuddha Bharata—100 Years Ago takes aleaf out of Sister Nivedita’s memorable workThe Master as I Saw Him.

Artificial intelligence, brain sciences, andpsychology of mind are closely allied disci-plines. And they deal with a subject in whichVedanta has a stake too: the structure andfunction of the mind. The insights into themind provided by these disciplines is reviewedby Swami Sarvottamananda, Dean of Re-search, Ramakrishna Mission VivekanandaEducational and Research Institute (RKMVERI) in On Mind, Brain, and Computers.

In Consciousness Revisited, Dr LekshmiRamakrishnaiyer takes a close look at meth-odological problems in the study of con-sciousness, the objective theories and ap-proaches to consciousness, and how Yogaprovides fundamental insights into the natureof consciousness as well as its objective corre-lates. The author is Lecturer, Department ofPhilosophy, University of Kerala, Thiru-vananthapuram.

Our perceptual world is mediated by oursenses—their structural idiosyncrasies, func-tional limitations, and the specific ways inwhich sense data are presented to them. The‘objective’ world may well be ‘unknown andunknowable’—something of which we areusually unaware. Dr Rebanta Bandyo-padhyay, Director, Discovery Research, Dr

Reddy’s Laboratories, Hyderabad, reminds usof this in Fallacy of Perception.

Vidya and Avidya is a lucid review of theUpanishadic concepts of wisdom and igno-rance, of mediate knowledge and the immedi-acy of transcendence. Swami Vipashananda,the author, is a monastic member of theRamakrishna Mission Sevashrama, Kankhal.

The ego is the source of desire, the causeof human bondage. But it is also a sure toolfor unhinging our desires. These dynamicsform the subject of Ego and Desire by Dr DNirmala Devi, Reader, School of GandhianThought and Development Studies, Ma-hatma Gandhi University, Kottayam.

In the second part of his article, Lead,Kindly Light, Dr Vijaya Kumar Murty, Pro-fessor of Mathematics, University of Toronto,takes a look at some of the conditions that al-low for the flowering of the light of the Spirit.

Dr Beatrice Bruteau concludes her studyof the Dancing Shiva and the Self-creatingWorld by examining how the awareness ofdivine creativity can transform human rela-tions, property dealings, and ultimately, thesocial order. The author is a member of theVedanta Centre of Atlanta and an adjunctprofessor at the Divinity School, Wake For-est University, Winston-Salem.

Perchance to Dream: Sleep and SpiritualLife is a charming account of the deeper, thedarker, and the lighter sides of brain researchby Hiranyagarbha, a member of the VedantaSociety of Southern California, Hollywood.

Thrown Out by Allah provides a glimpse ofa little-known fakir by an anonymous monk.

PB - DECEMBER 2006 12

Science and Spirituality: Where Do They Meet?EDITORIAL

Any discussion on mind or consciousnessmust, of necessity, be marginal—at themargins of science, philosophy, psy-

chology, and spirituality; and there are a host ofother disciplines willing to pitch in. This is so,not because mind and consciousness are mar-ginal to our preoccupations—there would notbe any preoccupation without mind or con-sciousness—but because both consciousnessand mind, though impinging on virtually everydomain of human concern, continue to bepoorly understood.

Margins are interesting because they serveas meeting places for domains with discreteboundaries. They also challenge us to look overour fences and confront different world-views.Entities or events taken for granted as facts inone domain often turn out to be less certainwhen viewed from another. Such contradic-tions frequently turn meetings at the marginsinto confrontations. And if the margin happensto be a crossroads, one may end up bewilderedby the confusion of viewpoints. Science andspirituality form two such domains—domainsthat are usually snug in their own belief systems,that choose to meet each other only occasion-ally, and less commonly, find themselves atcrossroads, challenging their own smug notions.

The Scientific and Spiritual Domains

The process of science is guided by reason,realism, and realistic reappraisals of its own po-sition. The epitome of deductive reasoning is,of course, mathematical logic. By providing rig-orous mathematical models for physical events,mathematics has often fostered the illusion thatthe method of the physical sciences is rationaltoo. But the latter is essentially dependent onobservation and experimentation followed bygeneralizations based on inductive logic. This is

undoubtedly a thoroughly realistic process, butit gets linked to rationality when mathematicalor logical models are used to explain observedphenomena, generate hypotheses, and predictevents. That the link between reason and thephysical world is not a necessary or straightfor-ward one is evidenced by the need to regularlyupdate scientific theories based on observa-tional or experimental evidence. These reap-praisals become ‘revolutionary’ when a well-es-tablished theory is overturned or counter-intu-itive theories get entrenched. The revolutionsbrought about by relativity and quantummechanics are well-known examples.

The scientific method is essentially natural-istic, as it seeks explanations from within ob-served sense data and the realm of reason. Itsdomain is therefore distinctly different fromthe religious or spiritual, for the latter claims toexplore and speak about supersensory or super-natural facts and events. A definition of theVedas goes thus: ‘Pratyakøeîánumityá váyastépáyo na budhyate, enaó vidanti vedenatasmád-vedasya vedatá; That method which isnot known through direct perception or infer-ence is made known by the Vedas; it is thus thatthe Vedas are repositories of knowledge.’Acharya Shankara is equally categorical in hisassertion of the domain of the Vedas: ‘The va-lidity of the Vedas lies in revealing what is be-yond direct perception. … even a hundred Ve-dic texts cannot become valid if they assert thatfire is cold or non-luminous!’

With such clear-cut territories, science andspirituality (or religion) should have little to ar-gue about, much less quarrel over. But thesupersensory realm often appears to impinge onthe sensory, if not give birth to it (as is claimedby religion). So proponents of spirituality feelthe need to explain the sense-world in terms of


their own paradigms. People of science respondto this intrusion in two ways: either they ignoreit, and continue with their descriptions of theworld as if the supersensory did not exist, orthey try to debunk such spiritual claims in andthrough their theories and observations, oftenforgetting that these theories are not formu-lated to handle such claims.

Another, and a more friendly, response isto see one’s claims verified in the propositionsand findings of the other. Thus some sciencewriters see the holism of Eastern religions re-flected in the behaviour of matter at the quan-tum level, while some Eastern spiritual thinkerstreat the relativity and quantum theories asmodern illustrations of the theory of maya.Such assertions fail to carry much weight be-cause they have little to do with the ingredientsthat give both science and spirituality theirpower: the ability to generate useful technology(the spiritual domain too has its technicalsophistications) and make valid predictions. Itwould therefore be useful to examine the fun-damental sources of scientific and spiritualpower.

The Scientific Discipline

In his book Inevitable Grace, Piero Ferruccihas succinctly captured the dilemma of the spir-itual person confronting the scientific world:‘What value is there … in knowing how the sci-entific mind works and what it aims to accom-plish? What does this path have to teach tosomeone who sees science as an alien, perhapseven frightening, universe?’ He then proceedsto answer these very questions: ‘It offers scopefor new, fertile attitudes and mental habitswhich are not limited to scientific practice butare the birthright of all intelligent minds: thehonesty inherent in confronting facts, the disci-pline of precision and focus, the resolve never totake anything for granted, the ability to see hid-den resemblances, a feeling for conceptual ele-gance, the art of thinking in a coherent way,wonder in the face of mystery.’

All this sounds very nice, and most of us

would like to imagine ourselves fulfilling allthese criteria and being scientists in our ownright. But we would do well to remember whatthe famous physicist, Richard Feynman, saidduring a lecture at a university in Brazil severaldecades ago (and he could well have said thesame thing in India): ‘The main purpose of mytalk is to demonstrate to you that no science isbeing taught in Brazil!’ observed Feynman, andthis is what he had to say about what followed:‘I can see them stir, thinking, “What? No sci-ence? This is absolutely crazy! We have all theseclasses.”

‘So I tell them that one of the first things tostrike me when I came to Brazil was to see ele-mentary school kids in bookstores, buyingphysics books. There are so many kids learningphysics in Brazil, beginning much earlier thankids do in the United States, that it’s amazingyou don’t find many physicists in Brazil—whyis that? …

‘Then I held up the elementary physicstextbook they were using. “There are no experi-mental results mentioned anywhere in thisbook, except in one place where there is a ball,rolling down an inclined plane, in which it sayshow far the ball got after one second, two sec-onds, three seconds, and so on. The numbershave ‘errors’ in them—that is, if you look atthem, you think you’re looking at experimentalresults, because the numbers are a little above,or a little below, the theoretical values. Thebook even talks about having to correct the ex-perimental errors—very fine. The trouble is,when you calculate the value of the accelerationconstant from these values, you get the right an-swer. But a ball rolling down an inclined plane,if it is actually done, has an inertia to get it toturn, and will, if you do the experiment, producefive-sevenths of the right answer, because of theextra energy needed to go into the rotation ofthe ball. Therefore this single example of exper-imental ‘results’ is obtained from a fake experi-ment. Nobody had rolled such a ball, or theywould never have gotten those results!’

Feynman’s opinion was confirmed by his

630 Prabuddha Bharata


experience with the students in Brazil: At oneexamination ‘one of the students was absolutelysuper: He answered everything nifty! The ex-aminers asked him what diamagnetism was,and he answered it perfectly. Then they asked,“When light comes at an angle through a sheetof material with a certain thickness, and a cer-tain index N, what happens to the light?” “It co-mes out parallel to itself, sir—displaced.” “Andhow much is it displaced?” “I don’t know, sir,but I can figure it out.” So he figured it out. Hewas very good. But I had, by this time, my sus-picions. … The first question I ask is, “Can yougive me some example of a diamagnetic sub-stance?” “No.” Then I asked, ‘If this book wasmade of glass, and I was looking at somethingon the table through it, what would happen tothe image if I tilted the glass?” “It would be de-flected, sir, by twice the angle that you’veturned the book.” I said, “You haven’t got itmixed up with a mirror have you?” “No, sir!”

‘He had just told me in the examinationthat the light [image]would be displaced, paral-lel to itself, and therefore the image would moveover to one side, but would not be turned byany angle. He even had figured out how much itwould be displaced, but he didn’t realize that apiece of glass is a material with an index, andthat his calculation had applied to myquestion.’

Science is about observation and experi-mentation, not about learning theories and for-mulae. It is about actually developing the atti-tudes Ferrucci mentions, not about being ableto speak or write wonderfully about them. Andthis demands discipline.

The Spiritual Adhikára

If the non-specialist speaking about science

can cut a sorry figure, holding forth on spiritualissues without a grounding in the subject can beequally naive. Vedanta is not so much aboutBrahman, Atman, and maya as about the adhi-kára or qualification to pursue the subject. Thisqualification involves a four-fold discipline,sádhana catuøôaya: discrimination (viveka), de-tachment (vairágya), the six spiritually-favour-able mental attributes (ùamádi øaô sampatti) andyearning for spiritual freedom (mumukøutva).Mental tranquility (ùama), self- control (dama),withdrawal from sensual thoughts (uparati),forbearance (titikøá), faith (ùraddhá), and men-tal concentration (samádhána) make up the sixspiritually-favourable mental attributes.

These qualifications have been studied andexpounded at great length. For our purposehere it would suffice to see the parallels thatthese have with the scientific attitude outlinedby Ferrucci: discrimination is analogous to ‘theart of thinking in a coherent way’; detachmentto ‘the honesty inherent in confronting facts’and ‘the resolve never to take anything forgranted’; the six mental attributes make for ‘thediscipline of precision and focus’ in spirituallife, and ùraddhá is ‘wonder (rather than skepti-cism) in the face of mystery’. The desire for spir-itual freedom is nothing but the desire to getover one’s ignorance and is therefore shared bythe scientist.

It is only when these qualifications are met(and rarely otherwise) that one gets a feel of thespiritual world—of its ‘laws’ and workings, ofthe ‘hidden resemblances’ and the ‘conceptualelegance’ that lie therein. Both the scientificand spiritual paths call for discipline and prac-tice. A dialogue between these disciplineswould have to begin with these basics if it is tobe coherent and mutually comprehensible. �

Science and Spirituality: Where Do They Meet? 631


The Scientific Attitude: Encouraged by the magnificent example of Pasteur, I have made it a

rule to adopt the method of ignorance in my investigations of the instincts. I read very little.

Instead of turning over the leaves of books, an expensive method which is not within my means,

instead of consulting others, I set myself obstinately face to face with my subject until I contrive

to make it speak. I know nothing. So much the better; my interrogation will be all the freer.

—Jean-Henri Fabre

Prabuddha Bharata—100 Years AgoDecember 1906

The Master as I Saw Him

The summer of 1898 stands out in my memory as a series of pictures, painted like old altar-

pieces against a golden background of religious ardour and simplicity and all alike glorified by

the presence of one who, to us in his immediate circle, formed their central point. …

It would be easy to lose oneself here in the beauties of our journeys, in descriptions of moun-

tain-forests on the road to Almora, or of cathedral rocks and corn-embosomed villages in the Jhelum

Pass. For as one returns upon that time its record is found in a constant succession of scenes of

loveliness. Not least of these pictures is the memory of the handsome old woman wearing the crim-

son coronet and white veil of Kashmiri peasants, who sat at her spinning-wheel under a great

chenaar-tree in a farm-yard, surrounded by her daughters-in-law, when we passed that way, and

stopped to visit her. It was the Swami’s second call on her. He had received some small kindness at

her hands the year before, and had never afterwards tired of telling how after this, when he had

asked, before saying farewell, “—And, mother, of what religion are you?” her whole face had lighted

up with pride and joy, and her old voice had rung out in triumph as she answered loudly and clearly, “I

thank our God, by the mercy of the Lord, I am a Mussulmân!”

Or I might tell of the avenue of lofty Lombardy poplars outside Srinagar, so like the well-known

picture by Hobbema, where we listened to discourse after discourse on India and the Faith.

Or I might linger over the harvest merriment of the villagers playing in reaped fields on moonlit

evenings or talk of the red bronze of amaranth crops, or the green of young rice under tall poplars at

Islamabad. Forget-me-nots of a brilliant blue form the commonest wild flower of the Kashmiri summer,

but in autumn and spring the fields and river banks are violet-tinged with small purple irises, and one

walk amongst their spear-like leaves as if they were grass. How infinitely tender are the suggestions

of those little iris-covered hillocks rounding off the rise of some road-side against the sky, that mark

the burial places of the Mussulmân dead!

Here and there, too, amidst grass and irises, one comes on groups of gnarled apple-trees, or

pear, or plum, the remains of the village orchards which the State once upon a time supplied to all its

subjects free of cost. Walking here once at twilight along the high banks of the river, I watched a party

of Mussulmân herdsmen, crooks in hand, driving a small flock of long-haired goats before them to

their village. And then, as they came to a knot of apple-trees, they stopped awhile, and spreading a

blanket for praying-carpet, they proceeded to offer their evening worship in the deepening dusk. Ver-

ily, says my heart, there is no end of beauty, there is no end.

But in good sooth it is not of these things that I am attempting, in the course of the present

pages, to speak. Mine is the broken and faltering witness of one who is fain to tell—not of geography

nor of politics, nor yet of the ways and customs of interesting peoples and unknown races, but rather

of the glimpses vouchsafed to her of a great religious life of the ancient order living itself out amidst

the full and torturing consciousness of all the anomalies and perplexities of the Modern Transition. …

I see in him the heir to the spiritual discoveries and religious struggles of innumerable teachers and

saints in the past of India and the world, and at the same time the pioneer and prophet of a new and

future order of development. … And I pray only to give always true witness, without added interpola-

tion or falsifying colour. —Sister Nivedita


On Mind, Brain, and ComputersSWAMI SARVOTTAMANANDA

From the very dawn of thought, humanshave had a deep desire to solve the mys-tery of the mind. The mind is said to be

the agent of thought. It is therefore but naturaland fit that it should itself become the subject ofinquiry.

Humans wish to grasp their own nature,their essence: that which makes them differentfrom other entities—both sentient and insen-tient—from beings, from automatons, fromother machines. What is it that really makes forthe difference? It is the ability to think con-sciously and reason deliberately that distin-guishes humans from other forms of existence.This is what makes them unique.

That human beings are rational is a truism;the ability to reason formally and in an abstractmanner seems to be completely lacking in allother living beings. There are certainly manyother human capabilities, but the ability whichmost marks an individual out as truly human isthis ability to think, deliberate upon, analyseand categorize facts, formulate ideas, anddecide on a course of action. These are truly theresults of a developed mind.

Before the advent of modern science therewas a clear demarcation between the mind andthe brain. This distinction has become blurredwith the passage of time. But the study of thebrain as a neural machine and the developmentof computers as automata have enabled us tomake equally bold statements about both—about what could possibly be done by them andwhat limits are impossible for them to overstep.In the present article, we shall discuss the natureof mind vis-a-vis the brain and computers.Such a comparison presumes a general equiva-lence of brains and computers and models thebrain as a huge biological computer, with per-haps consciousness added.

On Mind

What Is Mind?

Although the singular ability to think isgenerally attributed to the human mind—thisis what is meant when we say that mind is theagent of thought—there is a lot of debate in thecognitive sciences on the nature of this term:does a separate entity termed ‘mind’ exist, or isthis just a linguistic convenience, some brainfunctions being traditionally confused withmind? Though divided in its opinion, the sci-entific community generally prefers to thinkthat mind may not exist as a separate entity.There are two reasons for this thinking: one, theprinciple of simplicity makes the mind a redun-dant entity if brain function can explain it, andtwo, there is no definite sensory proof for theexistence of mind; we have instead only certainbeliefs and mundane evidence that is circum-stantial at best.

Vedanta, in its psychology, accepts the ex-istence of mind as a separate material entity.Western philosophers and theologians, in con-trast, believe that the mind, if it exists, is non-material. According to them, all that is materialbelongs to the physical body. The mind, on theother hand, is considered to be part and parcelof the soul, or even to be the soul itself; and itdefinitely has a non-material existence. But ifwe agree to this view of mind being non-mate-rial, then several problems crop up.

Why Mind Cannot Be Non-material

One problem, traceable to Greek psychol-ogy, science, and theatre is that of deus ex ma-china, God playing the machine, whereby a su-pernatural intervention saves a hopeless situa-tion. But in the ultimate analysis only a ma-chine can work on another machine. Thus, if


the mind is not itself a physical machine in oneway or another, then it cannot in any way workon the body, which is undoubtedly a machine,to get sensible results.

Take, for instance, the mundane desire tostand up or sit down. When this desire arises inthe mind, it can have no way to get transformedinto a suitable action. How can a mind that isnon-material, that is not physically linked tothe body, drive it in any way to make it eitherstand up or sit down? By what means could it betied to the body so as to be able to exercise itspull or push?

The second problem with mind being non-material is that it cannot then store anything ofthe nature of information. In nature, whereverany information is stored, it is always stored intwo ways: as different states of physical entities,or as variations in their arrangement or spatialorder. Now, if mind does not have any matterin it, then it naturally follows that it cannotcontain any information of the nature of sam-skaras (past impressions), as it will always be inthe same state, and there is no possible arrange-ment of matter or energy that one can think ofin an immaterial object.

The third objection, which is raised byVedanta, is that any non-material thing is with-out form. This makes a non-material mind ei-ther infinite in dimension or merely a singlepoint. Both possibilities give rise to serious con-ceptual problems. There are very few ‘reallyreal’ entities in the world which are either infi-nite or mere points. I can only think of two:time and space. There might be a few othersuch entities, but mind surely does not seem tobe one of them.

What if Mind Is Material?

If mind is material, then we have a host ofother related questions to answer. Can themind have an existence separate from the body?How does it function? How is it formed? Ofwhat material is it made? Why is it not observedwhen it comes out of the body? In which part ofthe body does it reside? How is it connected

with the brain, that is, how do thoughts trans-late into actions? To answer each of these ques-tions, earnest and sincere scientific and philo-sophical inquiry is required. I very much doubtif there is even a semblance of unanimity onthese issues as yet, even after several millennia ofunbroken discussion.

Another extreme position is taken by em-pirical scientists. They are of the view that mindis just a function of the brain, that it does nothave a separate existence, and that dies its igno-ble death with the death of the body. Needlessto say, Vedanta does not subscribe to this view,even though neither the hypothesis nor its con-verse has been proved in any scientific fashion.We shall touch upon this topic again in anothersection below.

Capabilities of Mind

Vedantic thinkers classify mental functioninto four basic categories: saókalpa-vikalpa(cogitation, in the mode of manas), niùcaya (as-certainment or determination, in the buddhimode), ahaókára (ego), and smìti (memory ascitta). Thus, apart from the faculty of thought,the mind is supposed to have a sense of identity,an ego or I-sense. Furthermore, it has the capac-ity for introspection, which computers are saidnot to have. In the case of the brain it is difficultto say whether it is able to introspect or not.

It is the contention of the artificial-intelli-gence community that the ability of one part ofthe brain to observe the thought processes ofthe rest can be termed introspection. Moreover,at most times, this ability manifests itself not astrue self-observation from a detached (or out-sider’s) standpoint but as a sort of recollectionof the past or as planning for the future.

Mind is also said to be a reservoir ofsamskaras, a technical term for inherent ten-dencies, which define human character, one’sfate or destiny. According to Vedanta, the mindcomes to possess these samskaras as a result ofevery good or evil action performed throughthe innumerable births that transmigrating liv-ing beings undergo. Sometimes the mind is also



said to be the sum total of all samskaras. When aperson dies, the mind, as part of subtle body,takes these samskaras away with it in order tocreate a new body with the character of the orig-inal person at a suitable time. The fact that themind is separated from the body at the time ofdeath also makes the mind, along with the sub-tle body, an almost autonomous entity. It canhave an existence independent of the body.

On Brain

What Is Brain?

Brain, in contrast to mind, is easier to ex-plain. It is a living mass of neurons, intercon-nected by its many dendrites, passing signalsfrom one nerve to the other all the time. Ofcourse, believers in holistic science argue thatthe brain when taken as a ‘whole’ becomessomething else, that it is more than the sum to-tal of its neurons.

Interestingly, and this is just to counter na-ive holism, Sri Ramakrishna advocated judi-cious reductionism. One may recall his obser-vations regarding how to have detachmentthrough a reductionist analysis of the nature ofsense objects. The Sankhya philosophy also re-futes the possibility of sat, existence, emergingfrom asat, non-existence. Nothing extra comesout of a combination. This is in contrast to theCharvaka position where quantitative changescan have qualitative effects.

Capabilities of the Brain

The brain is exceptionally good at vision,audition, pattern matching, and speech recog-nition. It is also skilled at making run-of-the-mill generalizations. It is very curious that eventhough it is well known that any inductive in-ference based on a finite number of facts in anon-finite logical system (such as second-orderformal logic) is surely no deductive logic, yetpeople are known to generalize on as much as asingle fact!

Nevertheless, human brains are also excep-tionally brilliant when it comes to constructing

models of reality. These models are obviouslymuch more systematic than the world outside,which is but a jumble of objects and places, iso-lated facts, and unrelated incidents. The out-side world is interpreted in the light of one’sown model, which, for the brain that con-structed it, corresponds to the outside world inits details.

It is to be understood that this model, sinceit is constructed by the brain, is not static. It is adynamic model, and whenever a jarring eventwhich cannot be explained by the existingmodel occurs in the external world, the model issystematically modified by the brain in such away as to agree with the new (contradictory)fact.

In more than one way, brain process is sim-ilar to the trichotomy of ùabda (the word), artha(the referent), and jñána (knowledge). Themodel in the brain corresponds to the word, theexternal world to referent objects, and knowl-edge to the many interpretations of the model,or in other words, to the relation between themodel and the objective world. It is worth not-ing that this is not a one-to-one relationship.This is why each person has his or her own per-sonal model of the world and his or her own pri-vate interpretations of the events therein, noone model or interpretation being identical toanother.

As a logical consequence of the discussionabove, one question naturally arises. Are allbrains equal in their capabilities? Do the brainsof lower species have similar capabilities asthose of Homo sapiens? Surprisingly, any brainis theoretically capable of doing as much as anyother brain, only the brains of lower species donot have the necessary tools at their disposal.Their situation is similar to the case of a men-tally challenged person who has neither a fineaesthetic sense nor the disposition to master thesciences.

Are Mind and Brain the Same?

According to Vedanta, anything other thanthe Self, which is considered real, is made of

On Mind, Brain, and Computers 635


matter, however subtle. In making this state-ment (and in all matters concerning matter), li-cense must be provided to wave-particle dualityand matter-energy conversion. Hence, mind,which is non-Self, is also made of matter. Andas a matter of general agreement this material ofthe mind is taken to be subtle matter. Thebrain, on the other hand, is made of gross mat-ter and is a part of the body. This is the chief dif-ference between mind and brain.

Further, if the mind were just a function ofthe body, then we cannot explain with any clar-ity the four different states of mind: jágrat,svapna, suøupti, and turæya—the waking state,dream, deep sleep, and superconsciousness. Forexample, if the ego is the primary by-product ofthe workings of the brain, then what happens toit during deep sleep (when the brain is stillworking but the ego appears to be dissolved),and how does it suddenly resurface when onewakes up?

Interaction between Mind and Brain

A further problem is raised by the scien-tific-minded. Any stimulus requires that someenergy be expended. Thus, for thinking, themind requires some energy. Where does thisenergy come from? The mind must have someenergy source of its own for its multifarious ac-tivities. If that be so, then there must also betransfer of energy from mind to brain all thetime. This energy must surely be enough to ex-cite at least one neuron, if not more. This makesthe mind not so subtle after all.

Nevertheless, this natural interaction be-tween the subtle and the gross does not createany difficulty for staunchly non-dualist Vedan-tins. The domain of maya is not always amena-ble to deductive logic, and moreover, no scien-tific system has been able to explain all knownphenomena. According to Vedantins, the phe-nomenal world is a superimposition on the Self,and so does not affect the intrinsic nature of thelatter. As a matter of fact, if in the future com-puters are shown to have intelligence, thatwould not detract from the Vedantic position,

for the mind, being material, is at par with anyother material object in its potential.

Let us now make a bold leap into the sym-biotic world of computers and brains. A fewquestions need to be articulated at the very be-ginning: Can a computer be intelligent? Is it ca-pable of thought? Can it have emotions? Can itbe moral or could it have a conscience? Can it beself-conscious?

On Computers

What Is a Computer?

The formal model of a computer is a Tu-ring machine: ‘a mathematical model of a hy-pothetical computing machine which can use apredefined set of rules to determine a resultfrom a set of input variables’. It is provable thatall computers presently known can be modelledon Turing machines. This is equivalent to say-ing, loosely, that given enough time and space aTuring machine can do anything that any pres-ent day computer can possibly do.

A Turing machine as a formal construct isvery simple to understand. It can be depicted bya reading and writing tape-head moving on abeginningless and endless tape made of discretecells which are either blank or have one of a fi-nite set of symbols printed within. The head iscontrolled by a program which tells it to readeach cell, rewrite its content and move to an ad-jacent cell, depending on the entry in thescanned cell and the internal state of the ma-chine, which itself can be changed based on thedata on the tape. Every part of the Turing ma-chine is finite; it is the potentially unlimitedamount of tape that gives it an unboundedstorage space.

Clearly, a Turing machine models humancomputing ability in several ways. Our brain isfinite, just as the control program for the head isfinite. The processing, the program, and the in-formation of states all have correspondencewith the various aspects of human memory andthought process. Furthermore, in doing arith-metic one does not have to do the whole com-



putation in the mind. One can use paper andpen to note down the intermediate steps; andthere is obviously no theoretical limit to theamount of paper and ink one can use. This cor-responds to the beginningless and endless tapethat the Turing machine uses.

The Universal Turing Machine

Now there is an interesting corollary. Thetape can also be thought of as some kind ofmemory. So the program controlling the headcan also be written on the tape itself. Thismakes possible the construction of what iscalled the ‘universal Turing machine’. Thisconceptual automaton need have only one pro-gram, which is capable of modifying itself tosuit the needs of the problem under consider-ation. These problems can then be presented asother programs written as coded instructionson the tape. It can be shown mathematicallythat such a machine with only a single versatileprogram is capable of computing in exactly thesame way as the earlier Turing machine. Thisleads to the important conclusion that all com-puters are inherently equal. Here we have a se-ries of automata, constructed in a single pat-tern, but which can do a wide variety of tasksand have as varied a behaviour as possible.

What Is Artificial Intelligence?

Alan Turing (1912-54), who formalizedmathematical computation, thus laying thefoundation of modern computer science, was ofthe opinion that before the turn of the twenti-eth century computers would be able to think ashumans think. But how can we know if a com-puter is thinking? Turing suggested a very sim-ple test (called the Turing test) to ascertain ifcomputers have ‘real intelligence’: Place thecomputer which is to be tested for intelligencein a closed room and place a person in anothersimilar closed room. Now allow a tester, whodoes not know which room contains what, toask questions of both and receive answers. Thisexchange, however, must be through a neutraltransmission medium. The interrogator should

not get a clue to the identity of the replier fromthe medium of interaction (the person answer-ing through a microphone and the computer

through a terminal, for instance). The humanreplier is expected to try to convince the judgethrough the answers given that he or she is reallyhuman, whereas the computer is to be so pro-grammed that the judge cannot discern it to bea machine. To make matters more compli-cated, the computer is ‘allowed’ to give wronganswers similar to humans, feign ignorance,and also give delayed answers, giving the im-pression that it is thinking.

Turing himself suggested several objectionsthat could be raised against this test; but all theseobjections can be adequately addressed. As mat-ters stand, no computer till date has passed theTuring test satisfactorily, although there was aninstance when a computer was able to success-fully fool three judges out of a panel of five bywrongly answering some questions.



‘How far is it?’Human Turing Machine—Miles to go…

Capabilities of ComputersComputers are good at repetitive tasks.

This is both their strength as well as their weak-ness. If you ask a computer to do a tediouslymonotonous task over and over again, it willkeep on doing it without tiring or without everfollowing the ‘human’ way and doing things onits own. It does not undertake ‘meta-thinking’,that is, thinking as an outside observer or as awitness, as the mind does. Nor is it able to gen-eralize and find out the general pattern of thetask assigned to it as the brain readily does.However, computers are good at specializedtasks. If you give a computer a general rule andask it to work out all the complex details, it willhappily apply the rule to each and every specialcircumstance and get the required results.

Not surprisingly, as a result of their inabil-ity to generalize, computers are notoriously badat pattern-matching. Within the time con-straints allowed to them they can only do verybasic analysis of speech and visual images. Theycan synthesize speech or images without muchdifficulty, but when it comes to analyzingspeech and vision they have a very hard time do-ing it. On the other hand, computers can doarithmetic as no human can. A typical com-puter can add or multiply numbers consistingof tens of digits, at a rate of around a million op-erations per second. Moreover, computers cankeep time with great accuracy. All their opera-tions can be accomplished through a number ofvery accurately defined steps. Hence it is possi-ble to ask computers to perform periodical taskswith great accuracy. A human being, in con-trast, is forgetful and has to depend on externaltimepieces to know the time. It is very strangethat despite its intricacy the brain has only arudimentary sense of space and time.

Essential Differences betweenComputers and the Brain

The brain is a biological structure made oforganic molecules, whereas computer chips areinorganic objects manufactured by etching cir-cuits on the surface of silica chips. Thus the hu-

man brain, occupying volume, is a volumetricentity whereas a computer, as electronic cir-cuitry on the surface of a silica chip, is an arealentity. This explains the vast processing powerand exceptional capacities of the human brain.

Even though the human brain has got bil-lions of neurons, each neuron has only a verybasic processing power. Thus a brain can bethought of as a multiprocessor parallel com-puter where each processor is only capable of afew rudimentary operations, like checking ifsome signal is received or not. An average com-puter, on the other hand, consists of a single butpowerful processing unit capable of doing hun-dreds of thousands of arithmetic computationsin a fraction of second.

Is the Brain a Computer?

We have noted the architectural similari-ties between brains and computers. So is therereally no difference between them? Are thesetwo similar in all respects? Is the brain just a nat-ural computer and a computer just an artificialbrain?

Alan Turing is the co-proponent of an-other controversial thesis, the Church-Turingthesis, which states that anything that can possi-bly be computable physically, can be computedby a Turing machine. This has the far-reachingimplication that the human brain may also bemodelled on the Turing machine. Fortunatelyor unfortunately—depending on one’s stand-point—no one has proved (or disproved) thishypothesis as yet. But it is a tribute to Churchand Turing’s genius that we have no bettermodel for computation than a Turing machinetill date.

It is true that, as a consequence of Godel’sfamous ‘incompleteness theorem’, there existtrue statements which cannot be proven eithertrue or false in any logical system. It is also true,from Turing’s equally famous ‘halting prob-lem’, that there exist problems which cannot besolved by any algorithm (program) used by Tu-ring machines. But the same can be said for thebrain too, human or otherwise. There is not a



single theorem ever proved by any mathemati-cian which is not potentially provable by aTuring Machine.

We might be tempted to say that it is hu-mans who have proved the incompleteness oflogical systems and are therefore superior tothese systems. Detractors would argue that onesystem of logic can also prove the incomplete-ness of another logical system. Only if a braincan prove its own consistency after formalizingitself or handle infinite calculations in finitetime can it be said to be superior to Turingmachines, not otherwise.

Uniqueness of Consciousness

According to Vedanta, mind has an exis-tence separate from the body. But we must becareful to note that it may not have any specialabilities which pertain only to itself and whichare not materially replicable. In fact, MotherNature regularly replicates the mind-machinein one form or another. The only special orunique (vilakøaîa) entity posited by Vedanta isthe Atman or Self, which is existence, knowl-edge, and bliss absolute. And this is unique tothe Atman.

If one were to contend that the light of theAtman is shining behind the mind then it canalso be said that the same light is present behindcomputers. For the Upanishads say: ‘Tameva

bhántam-anubháti sarvaó, tasya bhásá sarvam-idaó vibháti; That shining, everything elseshines; by that Light is lit up this objectiveworld in its entirety.’ If we say that there is a dif-ference in the intensity, that there is greater ex-pression of this light in the mind than in grossmatter, then this is exactly the point, there isonly a difference in degree but not in kind.

Vedantic theory will not be challenged if infuture computers come up with real intelli-gence, originality, or ‘brilliance’. Only a fewyears back it was thought that computers couldnot play chess, and now computers have deci-sively proved this wrong. The Vedantic modelof the mind would however be shaken if evi-dence can be brought to show that the mind isbut a shadow of brain function and that there isno transmigration of the mental apparatus.

Even though the mind is in all likelihoodseparate from the brain, it still seems logical toassume that it may not be in a position intrinsi-cally superior to computers. This assertion, inall frankness, is open-ended. In all probability itis superior, but we may discover in the futurethat it is not quite so. For instance, it might bepossible in future for computers to show practi-cal intelligence and even to effectively simulatea personal identity or human emotions.

But does that in any way decrease the gloryof the Atman that shines behind the mind? Notat all, for the Atman is ever the witness, ever thesubject, transcending thought, intelligence,and emotions, and is consciousness itself.Thought, intelligence, and emotions are in therealm of maya and therefore within the purviewof matter. If computers are material, so is themind. Theoretically, there is nothing to stopcomputers from taking a quantum leap and de-veloping themselves into something which is atpar with the mental aspect of living beings. Ifthe mind, despite being material, is capable ofthought, as well as moral and aesthetic appreci-ation, then so could be computers in some fore-seeable future. This much could be said forsure, given the lack of conclusive evidence tothe contrary. �



‘…but it insists on drawing portraits! ’

Consciousness RevisitedDR LEKSHMI RAMAKRISHNAIYER

Human consciousness is just about thelast surviving mystery.1

With the unceasing march of scienceand technology, human vistas ofknowledge appear to have no visible

boundaries. It makes the scientifically-mindedfeel that there hardly exists a problem that maybe termed a mystery. But consciousness is anentity that still remains a mystery to contempo-rary philosophers, psychologists, neurophysio-logists, and cognitive scientists. Today, anyonewho wishes to do some serious thinking on fun-damental human issues is prompted to revisitthis ‘new’ (and yet, age-old) mystery.

What Is the Problem?

Imagine yourself enjoying the pleasantsmell drifting from the gorgeous vase of rosesplaced on your table. The experience, of course,is something that is likely to remain etched inyour memory. But what is this experience? Onemay not even be able to describe it to oneself,for this is an extremely private phenomenonand has a subjective quality all its own. These‘private qualities’ are termed qualia. Our con-scious experience consists of qualia. So theproblem of consciousness can be formulatedthus: how are qualia related to the physicalworld, or how does the objective physical brainmanage to produce subjective qualia?

The problem of consciousness is a decid-edly tricky problem. It seems to be presentingperpetually new and divergent facets to philos-ophers, psychologists, and cognitive scientists.Part of the problem is that in common usagethe term consciousness is used very ambiguously.It is often contrasted with what is unconscious oris used as a synonym for ‘attending to some-thing’. But the problem of consciousness does

not fundamentally pertain to any of these. It isprimarily about personal experience or subjec-tivity, or possibly a state transcending subjectiv-ity, if such a state does exist.

What makes the problem of consciousnesssomewhat different from other mind-bodyproblems? Consciousness is not synonymouswith mind, which has its own distinctive mean-ing and functions. At the same time, conscious-ness is viewed by many as a by-product of thebrain; and today our knowledge about thefunctioning of the brain, about neurotrans-mitters, neuromodulators, and the like, is in-creasing by leaps and bounds. We might haveexpected all this knowledge to have clarified thenature of consciousness, but it has not reallydone so. Not that we are ill-equipped to under-stand the ways and functions of the humanbrain—it may be that consciousness is some-thing not amenable to brain science. This mayactually suggest alternate modes of approachingthe problem through first-person methods andspiritual techniques. This is what Husserl wassuggesting when he wrote in 1929: ‘If I reflectproperly on my states of consciousness, I will belearning thus what is the nature of the psychicaland comprehending the being of the soul, andwhen I follow this procedure to the very end, Iam face to face at last with the ultimate struc-ture of consciousness.’2 We could call theabove-mentioned two views the objective andsubjective accounts respectively. We must seehow consciousness is discussed by the advocatesof these two approaches.

Third-person Approaches

Most contemporary philosophers, psy-chologists, and neuroscientists have taken thethird-person approach towards consciousness.In their explorations, consciousness has come


to be divided into categories like phenomenalconsciousness and access consciousness. TheAmerican philosopher Thomas Nagel has in-troduced a useful expression to describe whatphenomenal consciousness is: an experience isphenomenally conscious if there is somethingthat it is like to have that experience.3 In the ex-ample of the roses cited above, there is some-thing that it is like to experience the smell ofroses. Phenomenally conscious experienceshave the special properties called qualia. An-other variety of consciousness discussed bymodern thinkers is access consciousness. A mentalstate is access conscious if it is available for therational control of speech and behaviour andcan play a role in reasoning (163). For instance,someone may not be able to answer the ques-tion ‘Which city is the capital of Portugal?’ butnevertheless be able to answer the question ‘IsLisbon the capital of Portugal?’ In this case, theinformation about the capital of Portugal is saidto be accessible.

It is important to note that the concept ofaccess consciousness is quite distinct from thatof phenomenal consciousness. Let me illustratethis point: Imagine a robot. It might believethat it is about to be attacked, and that beliefmight rationally control its actions, its speech,and such other programmed functions. Thismeans that it might be access conscious of beingunder attack—but it may not be phenomenallyconscious. Though we can develop hypothesesabout how access consciousness is achieved,when it comes to phenomenal consciousness,we have very few ideas. In fact, we have no ideahow the brain generates phenomenal con-sciousness. David Chalmers, a contemporaryAustralian philosopher, has called the challengeof explaining how the brain gives rise to phe-nomenal consciousness the hard problem: ‘If anyproblem qualifies as the problem of conscious-ness, it is this one. … even when we have ex-plained the performance of all the cognitive andbehavioural functions in the vicinity of experi-ence—perceptual discrimination, categoriza-tion, internal access, verbal report, there may

still remain a further unanswered question; whyis the performance of these functions accompa-nied by experience …? Why doesn’t all this in-formation processing go on in the dark, free ofany inner feel?’4

Broadly speaking, phenomenal conscious-ness challenges physicalism in two ways. First, itpresents a metaphysical challenge: Can qualiabe accounted for in purely physical terms? Sec-ond, it presents an epistemological challenge:Even if we accept that qualia are, in fact, physi-cal, can we understand how the brain generatesphenomenally conscious experiences? This dis-tinction was explicitly stated for the first timeby the American philosopher Joseph Levine.

The ‘Mary thought experiment’ suggestedby the philosopher Frank Jackson is an argu-ment to press the metaphysical challenge ofqualia.5 Mary is a super-scientist who has beenraised from birth in a black-and-white room. Inthe room she learns all the physical facts of rele-vance to human colour vision. One day she islet out of the room and sees a ripe tomato ingood light. ‘Wow!’ she says, ‘Now, I know whatred looks like!’ It is only now that Mary has ex-perienced the quale of redness. This knowledgeis something fundamentally new: what red islike. No amount of knowledge about physicalfacts could have prepared her for the raw feel ofwhat it is like to see red. Mary knew how thebrain discriminated stimuli, integrated infor-mation, and produced verbal reports. She alsoknew that colours were names for specific wave-lengths in the spectrum of light. All these arethe easy problems of consciousness. Yet she didnot know what colours actually looked like.Thus it follows that ‘there are facts about con-scious experience that cannot be deduced fromphysical facts about the functioning of thebrain’. Jackson is a property dualist as far asqualia are concerned. To him qualia are thenon-physical properties of the brain.

Then there is the epistemological side ofthe problem. Think about a painful experience.Brain scientists would equate this with therapid firing of neurons in a certain part of the

Consciousness Revisited 641


brain. But this does not explain ‘painfulness’.Philosophers like Thomas Nagel and JosephLevine have argued that there is an explanatorygap between the neuronal firing and the experi-ence of painfulness. According to Levine, phe-nomenal properties like painfulness (a quale)are simple in that they have no structure. Hegoes on to assert that the lack of structure exhib-ited by qualia generates the explanatory gap.

Having reviewed the hard problem and theexplanatory gap, let us now take a look at the al-ternate approaches to consciousness.

First-person Approaches

First-person approaches to consciousnessare inextricably bound up with the concept ofself. The notion of self gains importance in theproblem of consciousness because it seems logi-cal that there be someone who is having the ex-perience, that there cannot be experiences with-out an experiencer. Our experiencing self seemsto be at the centre of our personal world, isself-aware at any given time, and continues tobe so from one moment to the next. In otherwords, it seems to have both unity and continu-ity. But the problem starts when one asks whatkind of entity this experiencer might be.

In ordinary parlance, the self is the subjectof our experiences, an inner agent that makesdecisions and carries out actions, a unique per-sonality. There are, broadly speaking, two typesof theories about the nature of self: the ego the-ories and the bundle theories (98). The formerhold that underlying the ever-changing experi-ences of our lives there is an inner self that expe-riences all these different phenomena. All egotheories are unanimous in their acceptance ofthe self as a continuous entity that is the subjectof a person’s experiences and the author of hisor her actions and decisions. Ego theories in-clude the Hindu theories of transmigrating im-mortal souls, Descartes’ dualism, and mostmodern personality theories. According tobundle theories, the feeling that each of us is acontinuous unified self is an illusion. There isno such self but only a series of experiences

linked together in various ways. There are expe-riences but there is no one entity which hasthem. Bundle theories include the Buddhistnotion of anatta, Hume’s ‘bundle of sensa-tions’, and Dennet’s ‘no audience in the Carte-sian theatre’.

Regardless of which theory of self wechoose, we are confronted with the followingproblem: how does the brain generate phenom-enally conscious experiences called qualia?

Yoga and Consciousness

What is needed for solving the above prob-lem is a theory that can account for the real be-ing of humans: a first-person account of humanphysical and non-physical ways of being. Thephilosophy of Yoga is one such clear account ofthe spiritual as well as psychosomatic being ofhumans.

Unlike other sciences which view humansas primarily psycho-physical entities, Yogaviews them as fundamentally the Self encased inthe psycho-physical system. So, in this system,consciousness is not taken as a by-product ofmatter, nor is the Self identified with ego. InYoga, consciousness, which is identified withthe Self (Purusha), is considered a fundamentalprinciple constituting humans. The yogic con-cept of the human being can be explained interms of the koshas or sheaths that have beenelaborated in the Upanishads. Pure Conscious-ness (Self) is encased in the material vehicle ofthe five sheaths, the panchakoshas: annamayakosha (the physical sheath), pranamaya kosha(the vital or energy sheath), manomaya kosha(the mental sheath), vijnanamaya kosha (the in-tellectual sheath) and anandamaya kosha (thesheath of bliss).

According to Yoga, our states of conscious-ness can be resolved into two ‘parts’—perma-nent and changing.6 The permanent part is thatpure Consciousness by virtue of which we havethe notion of self reflected in our consciousnessand are able to examine our own mental activi-ties as witness. The changing part is that form ofconsciousness which is constantly varying ac-



cording to the constant change of its contents.A fundamental characteristic of consciousnessis that it undergoes changes of state within it-self. We cannot distinguish states of conscious-ness from consciousness itself, for conscious-ness is not something separate from its states; itexists in them, passes away with their passing,and is submerged when they are submerged. Ithas been suggested that an invariable relationexists between matter and consciousness: ‘achange in consciousness corresponds to thechange in the vibration of matter (change instate and not change of place) and vice versa.’7Thus the self (consciousness) becomes identi-fied with whichever sheath is most active at anygiven moment.

Understanding Qualia in the Light of Yoga

For a better understanding of phenom-enally conscious experiences (qualia) in hu-mans, it is necessary to go through the yogictheories of knowing. Two elements, Purusha(Self) and Mahat (Intelligence), play key rolesin the process of cognition. But neither, by it-self, can serve as the subject or experiencer, forPurusha is external to phenomenal experiencesand Mahat, being derived from material Pra-kriti, is incapable of any conscious experience.So the Sankhya philosophers suggest that con-scious experience is elicited by them jointly.

The details of the process of cognition canbe put in the following way: The object firstmakes an impress upon one or another of thesenses, either directly or in a mediate fashion. 8

Perception is effected by means of a psychicsign—an image or idea of the object in ques-tion. Mahat itself assumes the form of the ob-ject. The Purusha illumines the Mahat or is re-flected in it; and the latter, though material, isfine enough to receive this reflection. Thus illu-minated, Mahat serves as the conscious subject.Therefore, Mahat may be viewed as the physicalmedium for the manifestation of Spirit. In thissense, we may call their union the empirical self,as distinguished from the transcendental Self orpure Consciousness. Every cognition or phe-

nomenally conscious experience (quale) is aresult of this blend.

The yogic theory of cognition seems to fillin the explanatory gap. But the yogi, unlike theneuroscientist, has visited consciousnessthrough a different route. One needs to followthe spiritual path and practise meditation towalk this way. Of course, this is also a sure pathto truth. Moreover, it also helps one understandwhat the real problem of consciousness is. Con-sciousness is no more viewed as a non-physicalproduct of the brain but as the ontological prin-ciple that makes for human beings. Pure Con-sciousness, in fact, is not an empirical principlebut the eternal, transcendent, and cosmic Self.

Towards a Broader Knowledge

The study of consciousness is unique.There have been arguments over whether con-sciousness can be studied from the objectivethird-person approach or from a subjectivefirst-person approach alone. What appears togive these arguments their peculiar twist is thefact that in the study of consciousness the innerlife itself is the phenomenon to be explored.Many important contemporary thinkers likeChalmers, Searle, Nagel, Levine, Pinker, andMcGinn hold that consciousness has essentiallya first-person or subjective ontology and so can-not be reduced to anything that has a third-per-son or objective ontology. Revisiting the ‘new’mystery makes philosophers, psychologists,and scientists re-think the substantive claims ofphysical science and fosters the admission of al-ternate ways of enquiry in widening the domainof human knowledge. �

References

1. D C Dennet, cited in Susan Blackmore, Con-sciousness: An Introduction (New York: Oxford,2004), 8.

2. Edmund Husserl, cited in Roderick M Chis-holm, Realism and the Background of Phenom-enology (New York: Free Press, 1960), 119.

3. Ian Ravenscroft, Philosophy of Mind (NewYork: Oxford, 2005), 160.

Consciousness Revisited 643


4. D J Chalmers, cited in Consciousness: An Intro-duction, 20–1.

5. Consciousness: An Introduction, 278.6. Surendranath Dasgupta, Yoga as Philosophy

and Religion (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1978), 20.

7. Annie Besant, Introduction to Yoga (Chennai:Theosophical Publishing, 2002), 34.

8. M Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy(New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1993),284–5.



The Brain Of A Poet

As you know, dear friends, with poetry I’ve always beenobsessed,

But none of you have read my lines; you’ve humoured me,at best.

I went to a doctor yesterday to ask about my verse.I asked ‘Is it bad?’ He said ‘My friend, I’m sorry to say

it’s worse.’

After he scanned my tired brain, he sadly shook his pate.‘Your thoughts are “apoetical” and carry too much

weight.’He put a finger to his lips, closed the office doors,And softly said, ‘A cure’s been found for boring thoughts

like yours.

‘To make up now for all the fame and glory that you’vemissed,

A transplant brain is just the thing; you must get on thelist.’

But how could poor aesthetic me afford this new greymatter?

‘Find someone less poetic who will pay you for yourblather.’

That’s never worked before, so I went to a poet I knew.‘Be kind to me, O Great One, and let me learn from you.’‘You’re wasting your time and mine,’ he said ‘trying to

pick my brain.I haven’t had an original thought since Gandhi stopped a

train.’

I made my way to the shop of brains on the other side oftown

With its vast display of learned skulls from geniuses ondown.

Some brains were counting mango leaves, others wereplotting war,

And some were shouting ‘hip-hurrah’ while watching thehome team score.

Some brains belonged to heads of state, and some fromchurches hailed;

A bargain bin held brains of politicians who’d been jailed.Romantic heads there were, who had no need for any

brain,Their thoughts arising elsewhere, with every passing dame.

Brains were lying on the sill, and some were by the door;As soon as one was sold, they brought in dozens more.But one was guarded in a case that bore the following

blurb:‘Here Lies A Famous Poet’s Brain. Please Do Not Disturb.’

‘Tell me, Sir,’ I begged the clerk, ‘is this a poetical head?A brain that’s Muse-inspired, on poetic matter fed?I’ll bet it’s got a hundred verses etched in every crease,Ghazals learned from hoary Persia, strophes from ancient

Greece.’

‘O sell it to me now,’ I cried, ‘I’ve waited far too long.’‘Go home and save your breath,’ said he. ‘It costs more

than a song.’Had he hiked the price way up, to trade upon my pain?What on earth is so important about a poet’s brain?

And then the clerk pronounced some words that burnedinto my soul.

‘Like politician hearts,’ he said, ‘poet brains are gold.You can’t afford a prize like this—so look, but do not

touch.Poet brains are very dear, not having been used that

much.’

—Hiranyagarbhaafter Saghir Khayyami, ‘Magz-e-shayar’

Fallacy of PerceptionDR REBANTA BANDYOPADHYAY

Now and then, I like to visit a websiterun by the Ramakrishna Vedanta So-ciety of Boston: www.vivekananda

.org. The adages quoted from various lecturesand writings of Vivekananda serve as extraordi-narily refreshing nourishment amidst the dailyroutine of life. The carefully selected excerptscall for reflection and thought. It was on one ofthese routine visits that I ventured a page fur-ther, wandered through the archives of lecturesfrom the swami, and stumbled upon a few dis-courses on Jnana Yoga, delivered by SwamiVivekananda in London on 21 June 1896:

Great is the tenacity with which man clings tothe senses. Yet, however substantial he maythink the external world in which he lives andmoves, there comes a time in the lives of individ-uals and of races when, involuntarily, they ask,‘Is this real?’ To the person who never finds amoment to question the credentials of his senses,whose every moment is occupied with some sortof sense-enjoyment—even to him death comes,and he also is compelled to ask, ‘Is this real?’ …So long as there is death, the question must comeagain and again, ‘Is death the end of all thesethings to which we are clinging, as if they werethe most real of all realities, the most substantialof all substances?’ The world vanishes in a mo-ment and is gone.It is indeed fascinating to ponder over the

experience that is life and question the reality ofour existence. Not so long ago, a very dear col-league—a well acclaimed scientist in his ownright—expressed his willingness to accept onlythat which has been proven by ‘science’. It isnot uncommon to come across others who sub-scribe to such extreme views, swayed by eitherblind faith or the strictest practice of science.While blind faith robs one of the joys of creativeexploration, it is unfortunate that ‘scientificproof ’ is severely constrained by the boundaries

of science itself. Science, as we practise it, is lim-ited by the tools and means of the practitioner,just as expression of feeling is limited by the lin-guistic skills of the one expressing it. Emotionsseen in expressive faces can rarely be put intowords—as the saying goes, a picture is worth athousand words. And there again, the picturesare only as good as the resolution of the projec-tion, photograph, computer monitor, or eye-sight of the observer, whichever the case maybe. A magnified look can easily expose the dis-tinct spots making up the image. But this viewblurs the nuances of the whole. The stars andplanets in the sky appear tiny to the eye, but wehave come to know that they are not so! Trees ata distance, and hills and mountains that appearto be molehills, are larger than the eye wouldlead us to believe. In fact, whatever we see,touch, hear, taste, and smell—everything thatwe experience in our lives—is ‘cooked’, ‘gar-nished’, and served just right by (and for) oursenses. For people like me, the senses are thetools to interact with the world outside. Thesights that we see, the music that we hear, thefood we taste, the cool refreshing breeze thatsoothes us in summer, are all experiences ‘pre-sented’ to us. They ‘appear’ real but could wellbe otherwise.

Can you imagine losing your ability to tastesweetness? Delicious rasgullas would taste likebland spongy balls of cheese. Yet, we cannot at-tribute the quality of ‘sweetness’ to the rasgullaalone. Sweet taste is a culmination of the inter-action between the syrup in the rasgulla and thetaste buds on the tongue. If one of these is miss-ing, there will not be any sweet rasgulla. Like-wise, an animal whose eyes are capable of re-ceiving and responding only to X-rays, and notto the frequencies of light visible to most of us,would see the rest of the animal kingdom as


walking skeletons that have come alive by somestrange magic. Before the invention of micro-scopes, the existence of microscopic unicellularorganisms could not be verified with certainty.Yet, suppose some perceiv-ers were only capable of see-ing at an atomic resolution:they would barely notice theordered teams of atoms thatwe call molecules. Mole-cules again combine tofunction as tissues and or-gans of an almost infinitely larger organism: thebillions and trillions of molecules that flock to-gether as gases, liquids, and solid bodies of mat-ter, and that respond to stimuli like light, elec-tricity, and magnetism, would be but figmentsof the imagination for such perceivers .

Hence, this world as we experience it isonly as much real as our senses allow it to be.The truth, as we experience it through oursenses, is but the truth contained within thenarrow boundaries that are defined by thesevery same senses. A green outside is real to thekid wearing glasses with green lenses, while it isequally unreal to those that observe with theirbare eyes. The creation, this life, and all that weexperience in it are but something ‘outside’,seen through coloured lenses. It presents itselfin as many colours as you could make lenses: amultidimensional puzzle, a medley of ‘real illu-sions’ viewed with multi-coloured lenses!

As we start to come to terms with the falla-cies of perception, our views about life tend tochange. All attributes, relationships, bound-aries are shaken to their foundations and beginto melt away. Blood relations are meaninglesswithout the concept of blood. Beautiful sceneryis meaningless if there is no scene to consider.Right and wrong are sundered perspectives ofone and the same thing. Alas—for most of usthe senses are still the limits of perception. It isnot inconceivable that the limits of perceptioncould be stretched by rejuvenating a dormantsense organ, at least by the few who appear tounderstand more than the rest of us about such

things. The five senses are, unfortunately, de-signed to function in such a way that only rela-tive differences in stimuli can be perceived.Take the case of touch. We tend not to realize

that our body is constantlyin touch with a gaseous at-mosphere till there is a‘change’ in air pres-sure—the wind blows, andwe feel the breeze. The sameapplies to vision, smell,taste, and sound. It is only

the relative difference in stimuli that can be per-ceived. An absolute homogenous infinite that ischangeless would not be perceived by thesesenses. In fact, the dimension of time, which isno more than an index for change, would ceaseto exist where there is no change.

The presence of an absolute is not implicitin our discussions about the relative and thebounded. We cannot, of course, deny it either.If attributes, boundaries, constraints that de-fine distinct phases of matter exist and are trueonly because of perception, then one could pre-sume that an absolute homogeneity exists be-yond perception. Since, by definition, the per-ception (or measurement and detection) of theabsolute cannot be undertaken in relativeterms, most human beings are incapable of per-ceiving the absolute. To perceive any timeless,changeless, homogenous absolute one has toreach beyond the set of tools available to the av-erage human. In fact, the only way to verify thepresence of the absolute is by identifying one-self with the absolute. In absolute terms, wheredifferences cease to exist, there can be no subjectand object. It is all one and the same. Ahamasmi.

Reason, perhaps, will have to stop here.Such cut-and-dry observations of the world andcontemplation of what is beyond do not neces-sarily invoke the concept of a loving, caring Ab-solute. Neither do they provide for the exis-tence of a benevolent benefactor, a leader, theoverseer of this creation—a God, as most of uswish Him (or Her or It) to be. �



O, in me, the limitless ocean,the wind of the mind

raises forthwiththe waves that are the world.

—Ashtavakra

Vidya and AvidyaSWAMI VIPASHANANDA

The terms vidya and avidya represent op-posites. Vidya refers to knowledge,learning, and to the different sciences—

ancient and modern. So avidya would mean theopposite—ignorance, absence of learning, andilliteracy. Mahendranath Gupta (M), the re-corder of the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, was agraduate of the Calcutta University and servedas headmaster in several Calcutta schools. Onhis second visit to Dakshineswar, Sri Rama-krishna asked him, ‘Tell me, now, what kind ofperson is your wife? Has she spiritual attributes[vidya shakti], or is she under the power ofavidyá?’ M replied. ‘She is all right. But I amafraid she is ignorant.’1 That was a reply typicalof his times. He took vidya, as we still do, tomean formal education. Later on M came tounderstand from Sri Ramakrishna that ‘toknow God is vidya and not to know Him,avidya’. To know about the world and worldlythings falls within the domain of avidya. Thissame interpretation is provided by theUpanishads too.

Para and Apara Vidya

In the Mundaka Upanishad, a student rev-erentially questions a rishi about Truth: ‘Re-vered Sir, what is that by knowing which every-thing (in this universe) becomes known?’2 Therishi begins his reply by classifying knowledgeor vidya into two categories: pará (higher) andapará (lower). Apara vidya refers to the fourVedas and the six accessories of Vedic knowl-edge (the vedáïgas): phonetics, the ritual code,grammar, etymology, prosody, and astrology.The compass is clearly very wide: the process ofcreation, the nature of gods and goddesses andtheir relation to creation, the nature of the souland of God, the rituals that procure worldlyand heavenly enjoyments, and the way of re-

lease from the series of birth and death; in short,religious or scriptural knowledge and the waysof living prescribed by different religions are allsubsumed under apara vidya. Para vidya, therishi informs his student, is that ‘by which theimmutable Brahman (akøara) is attained’. ThisBrahman is imperceptible, eternal, omnipres-ent, imperishable, and the source of all beings.Scriptural study is apara vidya, secondaryknowledge. To know Brahman (or God) di-rectly and in a non-mediate fashion is the pri-mary aim of life, and is therefore termed paravidya.

If the scriptures tell us about life, then whatabout the other sciences—physical science andtechnology, and the social and political sci-ences? They do play a very valuable role in ourlives, and are classed as apara vidya. But they aresecular sciences. What do we get through secu-lar knowledge? Wealth, power, luxury, andpleasure, but not the bliss that results from spir-itual knowledge. The apara vidya that com-prises scriptural knowledge helps us know thatthis world is not the only world, that there areother divine worlds accessible to human beings.The keeping of religious injunctions and per-formance of scriptural activities are prescribedas means for attaining enjoyment in thesehigher divine worlds. But these gains are tran-sient and ephemeral. However, if the obligatoryduties prescribed by one’s faith are performedwith the aim of cultivating love of God and loveof people of all faiths, the performer gets his orher mind and heart purified, and can attain therealization of that immutable Brahman whichsecures eternal bliss.

The Upanishads remind people with dog-matic and fanatic tendencies that scriptural in-junctions also lie in the domain of ‘lowerknowledge’. The Mundaka Upanishad says that


people devoted to mere scriptural ritualism are‘deluded fools’: ‘dwelling in darkness, but wisein their own conceit and puffed up with vainscholarship, [they] wander about, being af-flicted by many ills, like blind men led by theblind’. They think of their way as the best anddelude themselves into believing that they haveattained fulfilment, and so continue to sufferthe ills of life (1.2.8–10).

Ritual, Knowledge, and Wisdom

The Isha Upanishad makes the enigmaticstatement: ‘Into a blind darkness they enterwho are devoted to avidya (rituals); but into agreater darkness they enter who engage inknowledge alone.’3 Here avidya refers to scrip-tural rituals. But the term vidya is open to sev-eral interpretations. It could mean mere theo-retical knowledge of the scriptures or medita-tion on various deities, which too has limitedresults. Even the highest forms of meditationdetract from the knowledge that is para vidya,direct and immediate. A subsequent verse (11)points out that harmonizing rituals with medi-tation leads to the attainment of greatergood—the relative immortality consequentupon identification with a deity.

Which then is the best way to wisdom? Thesecond mantra of the same Upanishad an-nounces: ‘If a person wishes to live a hundredyears on this earth, he should live performingaction. For a man such as you (who wants to livethus), there is no other way than this, wherebywork may not cling to you.’ As an illustration ofthis principle of work one may cite the diversemethods used by Sri Ramakrishna to guide hisdisciples with varying constitutions. He askedhis disciple Girish to do whatever he was doingbut to surrender everything to the divine Will.He instructed Narendranath on the non-dualReality, knowing him to be a fit subject for suchinstruction. In reality, it is not work that bindsbut the mental attachment to work and itsfruits, the notion of doership and of enjoyment.Hence selfless action, done in a spirit of service,is prescribed by scriptures as sure means to the

highest good.What is the best way to work and yet be free

in this very life? This is the subject of the firstmantra of the Isha Upanishad: ‘Æùá vásyam-idaósarvaó yat-kiðca jagatyáó jagat; tena tyaktenabhuñjæthá má gìdhaë kasyasvid-dhanam; Allthis—whatsoever moves on earth—should becovered by the Lord. Protect (the Self) throughdetachment (which arises from this covering).Do not covet anyone’s wealth.’ The Shruti ex-pressly states: ‘all this’. Our usual notions about‘I’ and ‘the world’ (that both are real) are incor-rect, because these notions are changing contin-uously. Everything in nature, including our-selves, is subject to death and destruction. Eventhis earth, the stars, and galaxies are constantlyundergoing destruction and rebirth. This is anundeniable fact. So this changing universe, andthe ‘I’ therein, is to be covered with the idea ofdivine permanence (that is, Brahman). Withthis awareness that everything—I and the ob-served universe—is nothing but Brahman, de-tached action becomes easier and more natural.Enjoyment, which presupposes duality, is natu-rally renounced if we become established in thisidea. That is the assertion of the rishis who haverealized absolute Truth. Not only do we thenbecome unattached, but we actually love thisworld as a manifestation of God. We then doour duties to protect the world and do not covetanybody’s wealth, for this wealth too is God’s.

Ignorance and the Self

Sri Ramakrishna says, ‘The world consistsof the illusory duality of knowledge and igno-rance. It contains knowledge and devotion, andalso attachment to “woman and gold”; right-eousness and unrighteousness; good and evil.But Brahman is unattached to these. Good andevil apply to the jæva, the individual soul, as dorighteousness and unrighteousness; but Brah-man is not at all affected by them.’4 The catego-rization of ‘woman and gold’ as avidya raises theinevitable question (from a Brahmo devotee):‘Who is really bad, man or woman?’ SriRamakrishna answers, ‘As there are women en-



dowed with vidyáùakti, so also there are womenwith avidyáùakti. A woman endowed with spiri-tual attributes leads a man to God, but a womanwho is the embodiment of delusion makes himforget God and drowns him in the ocean ofworldliness. This universe is created by theMahámáyá [the inscrutable Power of Illusion]of God. Mahámáyá contains both vidyámáyá,the illusion of knowledge, and avidyámáyá, theillusion of ignorance.’

How does one overcome avidyamaya?Through vidyamaya, for ‘through the help ofvidyámáyá one cultivates such virtues as thetaste for holy company, knowledge, devotion,love, and renunciation.’ Sri Ramakrishna fur-ther explicates the nature of avidyamaya:‘Avidyámáyá consists of the five elements andthe objects of the five senses—form, flavour,smell, touch, and sound. These make one forgetGod’ (216).

Both vidya and avidya are aspects of maya,the cosmic power of Brahman. This power doesnot however affect Brahman (or Ishvara) itself.For maya is under the control of Ishvara. But itis by maya that human spiritual knowledge iscovered. Again, it is the vidya component ofmaya that is responsible for the generation ofspiritual knowledge, while avidya, even as itcovers spiritual knowledge, is the source of allsecular knowledge and human discoveries.

So avidya is nothing but human ignoranceabout God’s nature, by which one is perpetu-ally deluded into doing the rounds of samsara,the cycle of transmigration. This avidya again isnothing but misidentification of real knowl-edge, which is one’s real nature. Therefore, reli-gious scriptures ask humans to purify theirheart, mind, intellect, and ego. Real human na-ture is pure and divine; each soul is potentiallydivine. Maya personifies our illusory percep-tion. This phenomenal world is the longestdream come out of cosmic mind, of which theindividual is a part.

‘According to the Advaita philosophy,’ saysSwami Vivekananda, ‘there is only one thingreal in the universe, which it calls Brahman; ev-

erything else is unreal, manifested and manu-factured out of Brahman by the power of Maya.To reach back to that Brahman is our goal. Weare, each one of us, that Brahman, that Reality,plus this Maya. If we can get rid of this Maya orignorance, then we become what we really are.’5While lecturing on ‘The Real Nature of Man’Swamiji dwelt upon the nature of ignorance,avidya:

Ignorance is the great mother of all misery, andthe fundamental ignorance is to think that theInfinite weeps and cries, that He is finite. This isthe basis of all ignorance that we, the immortal,the ever pure, the perfect Spirit, think that we arelittle minds, that we are little bodies; it is themother of all selfishness. As soon as I think that Iam a little body, I want to preserve it, to protectit, to keep it nice, at the expense of other bodies;then you and I become separate. As soon as thisidea of separation comes, it opens the door to allmischief and leads to all misery (2.83).Swamiji also makes a distinction between

objective knowledge that is in the domain ofavidya, and para vidya, which is our very Self:‘Knowledge is a limitation, knowledge is object-ifying. He [the Atman, the Self ] is the eternalsubject of everything, the eternal witness in thisuniverse, your own Self. Knowledge is, as it were,a lower step, a degeneration. We are that eternalsubject already; how can we know it? It is the realnature of every man’ (2.82).

Transcending Maya

From the above discussion it is apparentthat both avidya and vidya are forces, the twocurrents of one powerful Shakti, multipliedinto many currents. This fundamental energy,or Shakti, is called maya, and is termed inscru-table because it is impossible to characterize itin definitive terms. The epistemological catego-ries of knowledge and ignorance, as well as af-fective attachment, are its components. Maya isBrahman as power. The whole universe in itscausal, subtle, and gross aspects, and as per-ceived by the senses, is maya.

Avidya does not always mean absence ofvidya or knowledge. It also has creative or pro-

Vidya and Avidya 649


jective components that make for the cosmicabstractions of illusion, delusion, and confu-sion. In classical Vedantic terminology avidyahas two forces: ávaraîa ùakti or the power of ob-structing knowledge or consciousness, andvikøepa ùakti, the projection of individuality orego. Similarly, vidya does not refer merely toepistemologically valid knowledge—percep-tion, inference, scriptural testimony, and thelike—but also to spiritual knowledge derivedfrom intuition.

Avidya refers to a state of confusion, delu-sion, and illusion: no rational being would liketo remain in such a state. Every human beingwould surely like to transcend this state. True.But how? One cannot transcend it by a merewish. Attempting to rid oneself of maya whilestill in it is kin to trying to lift oneself by one’sown bootstraps. Therefore, Sri Krishna tellsArjuna in the Bhagvadgita: ‘This divine mayaof mine, consisting of the guîas, is hard to over-come. Those who take refuge in me alone crossover this maya.’6 Here submission to the divineimplies not only devotion to the transcendentReality, but also surrender of the ego, the keycomponent of avidya. Sri Krishna says further:‘Ishvara resides in the hearts of all beings, caus-ing them to move like puppets through maya.Take refuge in Him alone with all your soul, OBharata; by His grace will you gain supremepeace and the everlasting abode’ (18.61–2).

As noted earlier, vidya has two compo-nents: apara and para. The former consists of

words, sentences, and their meaning. There-fore, it is essentially word-power. It urges thehuman mind to activity. It functions not onlyon mental and intellectual levels, but also on thespiritual level. On the latter plane it comprisesthe spiritual power of persons who have experi-enced spiritual truths: such persons are calledrishis, seers. That is how the scriptures of all re-ligions retain the potential for transmission ofspirituality. When a person utters, ‘Blessed arethe pure in heart, for they shall see God’ or‘tat-tvam-asi; That thou art’ or ‘ahaóbrahmásmi; I am Brahman’, these sentences actto remove the ignorance covering the spiritualinsight of the receptive heart. On the otherhand, it is also through the power of apara vidyathat people start riots, crusades, and wars in thename of religion. Therefore, true religion lies inthe transcendence of apara vidya. That is thegoal of human life. �

References

1. M, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, trans.Swami Nikhilananda (Chennai: RamakrishnaMath, 2002), 79–80.

2. Mundaka Upanishad, 1.1.3.3. Isha Upanishad, 9.4. Gospel, 101–2.5. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 9

vols. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1–8, 1989;9, 1997), 2.254.

6. Bhagavadgita, 7.14.



An illusory bulge

AK

IYO

SH

IK

ITA

OK

A

Illusory Perceptions

Horizontal lines are parallel

Ego and DesireDR D NIRMALA DEVI

One of the special features of the Indianphilosophical heritage is its unflinch-ing faith in the primacy of the Spirit.

All systems of Indian thought, theistic or atheis-tic, monistic or pluralistic, with the solitary ex-ception of the Charvaka, accept that the goal orend of life is self-realization or moksha. If thesesystems were to assume that we have no free-dom to break the shackles of karma, then therecould be no hope of attaining moksha. Henceall philosophical systems except the Charvakaaccept freedom as the very nature of our being.

The soul or Atman is ever-free and never inbondage. It is beyond such conceptual catego-ries as existence and non-existence, affirmationand negation, identity and difference, one andmany, purity and impurity, and is not subjectto changes like production and destruction orincrease and decrease. It is therefore beyond thegrasp of the intellect, beyond knowledge and ig-norance.1

The seeker after truth needs to always re-member the detached nature of the Self andgive up all identification with the ego. It is theego that brings the Self back repeatedly into theworld of ignorance. It is from the ego that de-sires originate. When desires increase, activitiesalso increase. And when there is an increase inactivity, there is also an increase in desires. Thusdesires and activities move in a vicious circle,and human imprisonment in the body is neverending. The destruction of desires has been de-scribed as liberation, and the person free fromdesires is called a jivanmukta, one liberated inlife.2

Philosophers have pointed out that the egocan be characterized neither as real, nor as un-real—nor as both real and unreal. It is illusoryin this sense. Liberation, therefore, is only thedestruction of this illusion—the ignorance

about one’s true nature. Vedanta tells us thatbondage is really a delusion created by igno-rance or avidya. This delusion is effectedthrough the senses and the mind. The mind isperpetually active, and, being the seat of aware-ness, is also the mediator of all karma, yoga, andmeditation (141). Hence, the first step in one’sjourney towards moksha is to tame one’s mind,which is the master of all the senses. If the mindis brought under control then the senses can besubdued. Unless we achieve the capacity to con-trol the mind, we remain in bondage.

The Nature of Bondage

All actions belong to nature; as such theyare neither sinful nor meritorious. They onlyappear to be so when the ego thinks that the ac-tions belong to itself. All the worlds posited inthe scriptural texts are only diverse manifesta-tions of the one Atman or Brahman. One needonly shed one’s narrow identity as an individualand see oneself as the Atman, and life becomesfree of problems: ‘While actions are being doneentirely by the modes of Nature (the gunas),one who is deluded by egotism thinks, “I am thedoer.” But one who knows the true facts aboutthe varieties of the gunas and of actions does notbecome attached, knowing that “it is the organsthat are acting on their objects”.’3

There are two levels of consciousness, twostandpoints for viewing action—that of thesoul caught in the web of its egotistic nature,and that of the individual working with the ideaof the freedom of the Self. It is really the ego,not the true Self, which is subject to nature.When the self-awareness in one’s consciousnessidentifies itself with the ego, it creates the ap-pearance of an ego-self, as Sri Aurobindo says.4

Through the activity of the ego-self or theego-mind, Prakriti (Nature) gets Purusha



(Spirit) to identify with all its workings. Thusthe impure natural or objective consciousnessclouds the pure consciousness of the Spirit. Theresult is that ego, desire, and ignorance come togovern the self, making it the natural being weall know.

Even after the truth has been known, thereoften remains the strong and stubborn notionthat one is the doer of action and the exper-iencer of its results. his notion has to be care-fully removed by living in a state of constantcommunion with the Self. Only thus may oneexperience the bliss of liberation even whileliving in the body. The seeker must not beinadvertent about his or her steadfastness toSelf- knowledge. Inadvertence is death. Inad-vertence, delusion, egotism, bondage, and suf-fering are successive links in the chain ofworldly life. If the mind ever so slightly straysfrom the inner Self and moves into the outerworld it goes down and down, just as a ball,carelessly dropped from the top of a staircase,bounces from step to step and does not stop un-til it reaches the bottom. Knowledge of the Selfis extremely subtle and cannot be reached by adistracted mind. It is realized only by noblesouls of pure mind, and even by them onlythrough extraordinary concentration.

Mastery over Ego

The Bhagavadgita points out that even ajnani (person of knowledge) is under the con-trol of nature, for the very association with themind, body, and senses entails participation innature. So humans in general have to functionwithin the web of their own egos. Through theego one can enjoy a certain degree of freedom.But that freedom is very limited. It is this free-dom of choice that we use when we decide forone thing over another. This freedom is gov-erned by our samskaras (innate tendencies).

So, first of all, we have to get control overour mind. That will naturally lead us to gainingcontrol over our desires, and then the senses,and finally the nature of the ego will be revealedtoo. We have to utilize the limited freedom

available to our egos. One can utilize the free-dom of the ego in a reverse manner also. This isemphasized by Sri Krishna in the sixth chapterof the Gita: ‘One should raise oneself by one’sself, not lower oneself; for one’s self is verilyone’s own friend, one’s self one’s own enemy.The self is a friend to one who has conquered(the lower) self through (the higher) self; but forone who has not mastered the self, it acts like anenemy.’5

Our goal is to realize the Atman, and ourstarting point is the senses. Above the sense or-gans is the mind, and the mind is controlled bythe buddhi (intellect). The buddhi in turn is di-rected by ahamkara (the ego), which is nothingbut ‘I’-ness. This ahamkara enables humans totake responsibility for their actions. In thewords of Sri Ramakrishna, a mature or ripe ‘I’leads one to non-attachment or freedom, whilean immature or unripe ‘I’ aggravates bondage.

Transcendence of the Gunas

All objects of the world—from the intellectdown to ordinary objects of perception—arefound to possess characteristics capable of pro-ducing pleasure, pain, or indifference. TheSamkhya system of philosophy calls these thethree gunas: sattva, rajas, and tamas respec-tively. These are constitutive of both Prakriti,the ultimate Substance or Nature, and the ordi-nary objects of the world. The gunas themselvesare subtle and imperceptible.6 Their existence isinferred from their effects. Sattva has the func-


Aman may keep his ego even after attain-

ing samadhi. Such a man feels either

that he is a servant of God or that he is a lover

of God. Shankaracharya retained the ‘ego of

Knowledge’ to teach men spiritual life. The

‘servant ego’, the ‘Knowledge ego’ or the

‘devotee ego’ may be called the ‘ripe ego’. It

is different from the ‘unripe ego’, which

makes one feel: ‘I am the doer. I am the son of

a wealthy man. I am learned. I am rich. How

dare anyone slight me? —Sri Ramakrishna

tion of illumination (prakasha) and is responsi-ble for knowledge. Rajas is responsible for activ-ity (pravritti). It is the cause of all painful expe-riences and is itself of the nature of pain. Tamasis the principle of passivity and negativity. It isresponsible for sloth, inadvertence, and delu-sion. Sattva binds us as much as the other gunasdo through its effect on the ego and its desires.

The Gita suggests the path of nishkamakarma (selfless action) as a means to freedom.Character plays an important role in this pro-cess. Humans are born with many vasanas (in-stinctual traits). Desires sprout in tune withthese instincts. One then works hard to satiatethese desires. But, paradoxically, desires in-crease in proportion to the degree that they aresatiated. This is termed raga or attachment.Obstructed desires lead to dvesha or hatred,which in turn provokes fresh scheming.

The cause of raga and dvesha is greed. Bud-dhist philosophers advise us to practise trishnanirodha (avoidance of greed) to weaken thebondage of desire. In the Gita, kama representsthis trishna. Sri Krishna tells Arjuna: ‘Kama isyour enemy, born of rajas; you should kill thisenemy.’7 If kama ceases to exist in the mind,then feelings like raga and dvesha will subsidetoo.

Patanjali advises us to practise yoga toachieve this. Yoga here refers to chitta-vritti-nirodha, the control of all mental modifica-tions. These modifications include the negativetendencies of kama (desire), krodha (anger),lobha (greed), moha (delusion), mada (pride),and matsarya (envy). The person free of thesetendencies is termed sthitaprajna, one of steadywisdom.

Paurusha: The Well-directed Ego

Our samskaras determine our desires andpersonality traits. That is why we need to un-derstand the dynamics of the samskaras. Yoga is

the introspective method which helps in thisprocess. Sri Krishna recommends the methodof yoga to Arjuna for raising himself. Yoga in-volves exercise of will (paurusha). If a person

does not make proper use of the freedom of willor paurusa, then the ego will function as a hin-drance to freedom. Such a person loses his orher freedom of action, because samskaras be-come more dominant than freedom of will.The freedom of the Self does not necessarily im-ply freedom of the will to act. True freedom ofthe Self is realized only through the exercise ofthe freedom of will, which is nothing but thefreedom of the ego-self. Freedom of choice isthe intrinsic property of the ego-self. By utiliz-ing this limited freedom available to us we cangive our egos a new direction, the directionleading to liberation from the bondage of de-sires.

The Indian rishis have given much impor-tance to transcendence of samskaras. Accordingto them, individual nature is moulded by in-nate tendencies, and tendencies are derivedfrom the gunas evolved from Prakriti. There-fore, being subject to nature and being subjectto the modes of Prakriti is one and the samething. This subjection has been differently de-scribed as subjection to time, to actions, and tocausality. So long as the ego does not actualizeits potential to realize the true nature of the Selfit remains a concealer. But when it transcendsthe bondage of karma by utilizing its freedom itworks as a revealer, revealing the Self as essen-tially and eternally free. �

References

1. See Chandradhar Sharma, A Critical Survey ofIndian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1991), 20.

2. See Atmabodha: Self-knowledge, trans. SwamiNikhilananda (Madras: Ramakrishna Math,1978), 121.

3. Bhagavadgita, 3.27–8.4. Sri Aurobindo, Essays on the Gita (Pondi-

cherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1993), 205–6.5. Gita, 6.5–6.6. See S C Chatterjee and D M Datta, An Intro-

duction to Indian Philosophy (University of Cal-cutta, 1984), 290.

7. Gita, 3.37, 41.

Ego and Desire 653


Lead, Kindly LightPROF. VIJAYA KUMAR MURTY

(Continued from the previous issue)

Spiritual Light Is Reflectedin Varying Intensities

Both internally and externally, light mani-fests in different intensities. Both the sunand the firefly give light. Both the moon

and the gem give light. But they are lights of dif-ferent intensities. Just as external light is of dif-ferent intensities, so is the light in the mind. Alittle light helps one to cognize but not to un-derstand. More and more light gives one deeperand deeper understanding. And based on thatunderstanding, we guide ourselves.

A small amount of light merely makes usaware of the encircling darkness. The fireflylights up a tiny sphere, but reveals the vastnessof the darkness around it. The Isha Upanishadstates that while ignorance puts us in darkness, alittle knowledge puts us in greater darkness, as itwere. Pandit Vidyasagar asked Sri Ramakrishnaif God had given different power to differentpeople. Sri Ramakrishna was amazed at his na-ivety.

Though it is spiritual light that manifests asperceived light, the two are incomparable, bothqualitatively and quantitatively. Sri Ramakri-shna says, ‘One ray of light from the Goddess ofWisdom stuns a thousand scholars’. Again, hesays, ‘Getting a ray of light from the goddess oflearning, a man becomes so powerful that be-fore him big scholars seem mere earthworms.’19

Scholarship sometimes obscures our un-derstanding rather than clarifying it. One can-not see the forest for the trees, as it were. Theobvious is missed. Both Christ and Sri Rama-krishna, as children, resolved issues which con-founded scholars. With the light of wisdom,they were able to cut through the accretions de-posited by intellectual arrogance. The Buddha

was also able to resolve scholarly disputes withhis simple solutions. The following incidentfrom Sri Ramakrishna’s life illustrates howgreat teachers use this light of wisdom. Once,the priest of the Radhakanta temple at Dak-shineswar fell while carrying the image ofKrishna, and one of the legs of the image broke.Temple rituals are governed by many rules andregulations, and normally one consults certainshastras for these rules. But in unusual cases,when the written accounts do not offer any ad-vice, scholars are consulted. Thus, a meeting ofscholars was convened to determine whatshould be done. The scholars all agreed that theimage should be discarded and a new one made.But being attached to the image, Mathur Babuand Rani Rasmani did not immediately act onthis advice; they asked Sri Ramakrishna for hisopinion as well; not because he was a scholar,but because they felt he had spiritual insight.

Sri Ramakrishna’s answer surprised every-one with its non-traditional but utterly reason-able approach. He asked, ‘If any one of theRani’s sons-in-law were to break a leg, wouldshe forsake him and put someone else in hisplace? Wouldn’t she rather have him treated bya doctor? Let it be the same in this case. Mendthe image and worship it as before. Why shouldthe image be discarded?’20 This was so obvi-ously correct that everyone wondered why noone had thought of it before. This is the effect ofone ray of light from the goddess of learning.

We find another such example in the life ofSwami Vivekananda. At the Parliament of Reli-gions, as others gave big speeches, he sat therequietly, observing the proceedings. When herose to speak, he did not expound big theoriesor doctrines. He simply told the story of the


frog in the well to illustrate why people dis-agreed with one another. The striking simplic-ity and relevance of this story was not lost onthe audience.

Mahatma Gandhi writes, ‘Knowledge co-mes spontaneously to a bhakta. He does nothave to wade through big volumes. But he whobelieves that he will acquire knowledge firstand cultivate bhakti afterwards will fail misera-bly in his aim. No one can acquire knowledgein that way. Such knowledge breeds, if any-thing, pride. But he who lovingly cultivates de-votion for the Lord and constantly thinks ofHim gets knowledge without any special effortto that end.’21 Mahatma Gandhi did not justsay this; he also followed it. That is why hisideas were so simple and effective, confoundingtraditional thinkers. Consider, for example, hisidea of the salt march. Who would havethought that ‘a pinch of salt’ could mobilizemillions of people?

Knowledge in the usual sense of the term isendless, for there are countless things to know.Therefore, mere accumulation of facts is a fruit-less exercise. According to Sri Ramakrishna,even the great sages are like big ants. From a pileof sugar, when most can take barely one grain,they get perhaps eight or ten grains. But thehuge pile is more or less intact. Just imagine, ifgreat sages are big ants, then where are we? Byour own ability, we can hardly know anything.

Sri Ramakrishna tells the story of the man-go orchard. Some are ‘leaf counters’ while oth-ers enjoy the mangos. This is not to decry thepursuit of knowledge. Rather it is to focus ourattention on the purpose of such a pursuit. It isnot the amount of knowledge that is important,but the depth of understanding. It is thereforebetter to understand well a few things than togo on learning superficially many things.

Spiritual Discipline Revealsthe Light of Spirit

One can become aware of the light of theSpirit through spiritual disciplines. One mustlight the lamp of knowledge in one’s heart.

How? By the practice of prayer, contemplation,study, and unselfish action. Be silent andwatchful. Be alert and still. Then deeper secretsare revealed. There is a time to think, to reason,to analyse. One must follow this with silentmeditation.

The unchanging inner light is easy to medi-tate on and easy to focus the mind on. In hisvesper hymn to Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vi-vekananda says, ‘Jyotira jyoti ujala-hridi-kandara, tumi tamo-bhanjana har; Light of alllights, shining in the heart, you destroyer ofdarkness (please destroy the darkness of ourhearts).’ This kind of prayer is answered. AsChrist said, ‘Ask, and it shall be given to you.Knock, and it shall be opened. Seek, and yeshall find.’22 He also said that if you ask God forbread, he will not give you stone. And SriRamakrishna says that if you take one step to-wards God, then God takes ten steps towardsyou. Swami Vivekananda adds, ‘Light comesgently, slowly, but surely it comes.’ He also saysemphatically, ‘Light must come.’23

This is not something that happens in a day.One should not be discouraged or lose faith. SriRamakrishna says that one cannot see stars in thesky during the daytime, and yet they are there.Astronomers say that in the year 1250, a super-nova explosion took place in a galaxy not very farfrom us. They came to this conclusion by analys-

Lead, Kindly Light 655


VIV

EK

AN

AN

DA

ILLA

M,C

HEN

NA

I

ing light energy that is measurable today. A su-pernova burst is a catastrophic event, and sincethis galaxy is not far from us (in astronomicalterms), it should have been an extraordinarilybright phenomenon, and yet the astronomicalrecords of that era do not speak of it. Astrono-mers have suggested that perhaps this supernovawas invisible, in the sense that its radiation wasmainly in the form of X-rays. This illustrateshow a major event can take place just in front ofus but remain unperceived: because we don’thave the eyes to see, we will not see. We have tobe capable of registering that light. We have to betuned to that light. At this very spot, all radiochannels are available. But we need the right in-strument— namely, a radio—and to tune it cor-rectly, in order to hear them.

We noted earlier that we tend to seek guid-ance. Who will guide us? First, we should con-sult the teachings of illumined souls. Second,we should contemplate their words, look with-in, and discover the light for ourselves. Wemust retreat within to discover the underlyingunity. We cannot do that without contempla-tion. Contemplation is the backbone of ourspiritual life.

For contemplation, we need not go to anyspecial place. Sri Ramakrishna said ‘mone, bone,kone’— it can be done in the mind, in the forest,or in the corner of a room. It is not where weare, but where our mind is that is important. SriRamakrishna likens contemplation to the mak-ing of butter. First, one has to boil milk and letit sit undisturbed so that it can set into curd.Then one churns the curd and extracts the but-ter. If the milk were poured into water, the twowould mix and we would not be able to extractone from the other. But if the butter is set in wa-ter, it will float. Contemplation makes us inte-grated and whole so that the disintegrating in-fluences of the world do not blow us aroundlike leaves in a gale.

What do we discover when we contem-plate? We discover that there is an inner light,the light of Being, which has been guiding us,and which is guiding us even now. In the

Bhagavadgita, Sri Krishna gives the followingassurance: ‘Tesám-evánukampártham-aham-ajñánajaó tamaë, náùayámy-átmabhávasthojñánadæpena bhásvatá; For those who are strug-gling and who are attracted to the goal, I destroythe darkness born of ignorance with the shininglamp of wisdom.’24

How and when the inner light is revealed isa mystery. Sri Ramakrishna says, ‘Suppose aman is in a dark room. He goes on rubbing amatch against a match-box and all of a suddenlight comes. Likewise, if God gives us this flashof divine light, all our doubts are destroyed.’ Healso said, ‘When light enters a room that hasbeen kept dark a thousand years, does it removethe thousand years’ darkness little by little, orinstantly? Of course, at the mere touch of lightall the darkness disappears.’25

Spiritual disciplines become fruitful whenthey are undertaken with interest and attention.First, we must want the light. Second, we mustdirect our mind towards the light. This is whatChrist meant when he said ‘Ask and it shall begiven …’ Notice that we need both interest andattention. Interest alone is not sufficient. In theKena Upanishad, a student who is interestedrises and asks the teacher ‘Sir, please teach us theUpanishad’. But he did this after the sage hadgone through an extensive discourse. Thiscould mean that the student was not listening.He was interested but not paying attention.Similarly, it is not sufficient to pay attentionbut to have no interest. Many students try tomemorize information so that they can satisfythe formal requirements of a programme.However, as they have not cultivated a real in-terest in the subject, their understanding is notdeep, and they tend to forget the material oncethe pressure to remember it is removed. Weneed both interest and attention. Interestbrings us to the water, and attention helps us todrink from it; the two together help us to be re-freshed by it. It is said that lamps have to be keptclean and ready. Otherwise, even though thewick is good, there is plenty of oil, and the lampis lit, the light will not come through. In us, the



light of spirit is always lit. By directing our in-terest and attention to it, we will discover it andmake it possible for the light to come through.

This process of discovery is usually gradual,though it may be sudden. We are all strugglingto discover that light. We make mistakes: itdoesn’t take an Einstein or a Plato to tell us ourmistakes. But interest and attention to the spiri-tual goal keep us going. Moreover, every effortthat we make in this direction brings the goalcloser to us.

Lead, Kindly Light

John Henry Newman was a Christian min-ister in nineteenth-century England. Duringthe summer of 1833, when he was thirty-twoyears old, he was travelling on a ship in theMediterranean Sea. For one week, this ship wasstranded between Corsica and Sardinia, unableto move because of dense fog. There, ponderinghis past and his future, he penned the followinghymn:

Lead, kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom,Lead thou me on!The night is dark, and I am far from home—Lead thou me on!Keep thou my feet; I do not ask to seeThe distant scene—one step enough for me.I was not ever thus, nor prayed that thouShouldst lead me on;I loved to choose and see my path; but now,Lead thou me on!I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.So long thy power hath blest me, sure it stillWill lead me on,O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, tillThe night is gone;And with the morn those angel faces smileWhich I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

This hymn represents the spiritual struggle. Westart with enthusiasm. But the way is long. Itchallenges some of our cherished views and as-sumptions. It challenges the way we live. Manyget disappointed; many become frustrated andgive up. Mahatma Gandhi sets a good example

of how not to give up. This hymn was a favour-ite of his. He was not born a saint or a mahatma.He did not seem to have any special gifts; but hehad a love for truth. Through that love, he wasable to struggle and lift himself to the extentthat, even though he was engaged in one of themost important political and social struggles ofthe millennium, he considered himself a devo-tee, and others considered him a saint.

We will get light: but when we will get it is amystery. We do not know. While waiting, per-haps our enthusiasm dims; we may even growsceptical. We may also have a kind of conceitthat we don’t need any spiritual guidance. Wemay think that we are very rational people, veryqualified in terms of our physical and intellec-tual abilities. But consider the process of life.We are born as children, helpless and depend-ent on others even to keep us alive. In youth, werebel and try to assert our independence. But inold age, once again we are helpless and depend-ent on others. If we think over this whole pro-cess, we should become humble in the truesense of the word. This is not a kind of humilitythat makes us think we are incapable. Rather,this humility gives us faith in ourselves but alsomakes us prayerful and contemplative. Andthen we pray, ‘Lead, kindly light’. I am ready tofollow.

All of us need guidance and light. Ulti-mately, we need to discover that we are of thesame nature as the Light that we seek guidancefrom. That all of us make that blessed discoveryis my heartfelt prayer, now and always. �

References

19. Gospel, 393; 465–6.20. Swami Saradananda, Sri Ramakrishna and His

Divine Play, trans. Swami Chetanananda (StLouis: Vedanta Society of St Louis, 2003), 498.

21. Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagavad Gita (Delhi, Ori-ent Paperbacks), 216.

22. Matthew, 7.7.23. Complete Works, 2.403; 4.127.24. Gita, 10.11.25. Gospel, 734; 616.

Lead, Kindly Light 657


Dancing Shiva and the Self-creating WorldDR BEATRICE BRUTEAU

(Continued from the previous issue)

Let us now shift to Bhakti Yoga. Whatdoes the heart make of what the mind hasseen? It feels great relief, safety, freedom,

and answering delight. Peace, confidence,at-home-ness, happiness. And since the ‘voice’is addressing all of us, the feelings of peace,safety, and love extend to all those others. Theheart ‘feels’ to its very bottom that it is loved byGod and therefore it also loves God in return.Furthermore, it feels sufficiently safe to love allthat God loves in order to be emotionally/in-tentionally united with the God of Love. It per-ceives ‘heartwise’ that God is essentially creativeand generous, and it feels itself promised thepower to be the same, to have and to exercisethis same nature. It believes in itself as the child ofGod, and feels sureness and joy. And it under-stands heartwise that the more we create andshare, the more we are like God, which is thesame as being ourselves, our true selves.

We may say that the first conclusion to bedrawn from the idea that we are all ‘belovedchildren of God’ is that we are all equal. As per-sons we are social equals. And this in itself re-quires a great shift in social consciousness, be-cause most societies of living beings (not justhumans) have some form of social ranking,with leadership and privileges. If we are to ac-cept this word that we are all essentially ‘off-spring’ of the Absolute Ground, then bhaktiyoga will urge that we have feelings of honour,respect, and love toward one another. We willbe motivated to see the Divine Image in every-one. The same self that is in me is in everyoneelse, and the same acceptance and respect that Iwant and expect, I must accord every other.

And this can be done if the bhakti aspect ofmy consciousness has sufficiently felt the secu-

rity of this insight. I will have no felt need to seemyself as either superior or inferior to anyother. Indeed, if I have deeply experienced be-ing ‘beloved’, I will be relieved of the necessityof protecting and advancing my social statusand thus I will have free energy (shakti) withwhich to love my companions. And knowingmy own deep reality, I will recognize any otherperson as a ‘companion’. I will feel kin to theirinner selves and want them to experience andexpress the Divine Reality in the way that isright for them.

The second conclusion—a sort of corollaryto the first—is that in any society or commu-nity that lives in these terms there will be no def-erence behaviours, no asymmetrical marks ofrespect, not in naming, conversation behav-iours, gestures, privileges, or any other way ofshowing social ranking. Each person is to be ac-corded the highest respect, so there is no roomfor giving some ‘more than’ others.

These strong feelings of positive regard forall others will then translate into Karma Yoga,and the karma yoga effort will take account ofsecular concerns and include economics andpolitics. Social justice, social welfare, freedomand opportunity for all people will become partof our spiritual practice.

The Fig Tree and the Shared Supper

In the Hebrew tradition people realizedthat the real and truthful attitude to take to-ward the ground of their Being was that theyought to love God with ‘all their heart and alltheir soul and all their m’hodecha’. This last is abroad word, usually translated ‘might’, or‘strength’, or ‘resources’. Perhaps it meanssomething like ‘everything you’ve got’. When


Jesus pointed out that there is a second naturalcommandment that is ‘like unto’ this first,‘Love your neighbour as yourself ’, perhaps hisinsight was that we ought to love our neigh-bours/companions/all other people with ‘allour heart, soul, and m’hodecha’. What mightthis look like as an actual social program?

It has to come out of the basic view that weare the expression of God and that God is essen-tially creative and generous. So we are to be cre-ative and generous. In fact, we have to be cre-ative before we can be generous. We have tomake something before we can share it or give itaway. So our first question is how to encourageourselves to be creative.

In the Hebrew tradition the ideal social or-der is called ‘the Messianic Age’. When the evo-lution of consciousness reaches a certain pointin the expressive gestures of the Dancer, whenthe critical-shift time has come, when the phasetransition begins, then descriptions of this idealera crop up. It is to be a time of peace and pros-perity, when men ‘beat their swords intoploughshares and their spears into pruninghooks’, when nations shall be united in theways of God, and ‘they shall sit every one underthat one’s own vine and own fig tree, and noneshall make them afraid’ (Micah, 4.3–4; 1 Kings,4.25).

Do we have here a clue to the shape the nextstep in the ‘divine dance’ might take? Whatdoes it mean to be safe under your own fig tree?My suggestion is that this is a model for a shar-ing and cooperating community and that itrests on a foundation of—of all things!—pri-vate property.7 It sounds so contradictory. Butthere is a reason for it, and it lies in the nature ofconsciousness.

I proposed that minimal consciousness isresponsiveness to the environment, the signifi-cant environment for the responding entity. Soconsciousness is a kind of conversation, an on-going sharing of information, between the en-tity and its environment. The point is that forthat entity to act and react in a way meaningfulto itself and to its environment, it must have

very prompt and useful in-formation about the ef-fects of its behaviour. Itneeds, in fact, continu-ous feedback. Any ef-fective agency does.How can anythingthat acts usefullyplace its next actuntil it gets some feedback on the effect of itsprevious action?

And here we can take account of the formthis feedback takes and its relation to the sub-jective experience of the agent, the one acting.The feedback has to include specific data aboutthe state of affairs as a result of the previous act,but besides that its report must necessarily in-clude a kind of ‘judgment’ on the agent’s behav-iour. The agent begins to experience what wewill later—when we’re talking about morecomplex beings than protons—call ‘pleasure’and ‘pain’—a subjective experience of whetherthe act was successful, good for, the agent. Thisis a kind of shorthand for ‘do it again’ or ‘don’t’:efficient guidance for the agent. (Note the util-ity of pain in passing, but I won’t discuss that.)

It’s the ‘privacy’ of this feedback that I wantto consider. The feedback, both as objectivedata and as subjective judgment, has to comeback to the agent in a tight loop if that agent isto be able to perform continuously and effec-tively and creatively—getting better at what-ever it is doing. The agent has to be able to ‘con-trol’ its behaviour. Even the lowly proton willmove toward or away from another particle onthe basis of new information about the natureof the relation between them. It needs to be incontrol of the way it produces its behaviour. So

Dancing Shiva and the Self-creating World 659


it needs to receive the feedback/judgment on itsbehaviour. In our economy this is called an ‘in-centive’ and is usually interpreted as a rewardfor successful action. The incentive-reward-feedback needs to come back to the same agentwho placed the act to which the reward/feed-back is the response. This is not necessarily agreediness motive. It’s aninformation necessity forsuccessful action.

Therefore I propose todefine ‘private property’ thisway: ‘Creative control overthe means of production ofwhatever the agent produces.’The control that is needed iscontrol over the creation ofthe next action. In complexsituations of numerous alter-natives it means freedom, right, and ability tochoose the action. The action that producessomething uses some means, so the agent needsto have control over that means, whatever it is.For a musician, for instance, it could be timeand place to practise. This creative control is thereal issue in ‘ownership’. The reason you wantto have your ‘own’ means of production is sothat you can readily control the production.When the agent has this creative control of themeans of production and receives promptly thefeedback—in data and ‘reward’—then theagent is able to perform properly. When theseconditions are missing or impaired, when theworker cannot control the means of productionand does not receive directly the reward thatfluctuates with the quality of the product, thenthe productivity itself suffers. It sounds strangeto say it, but the argument seems to lead to theconclusion that the image of God in the finiteagent is inhibited if these conditions are lack-ing. So that’s why it’s important to have yourown fig tree. It enables you to be properly ‘cre-ative’ like God.

Successful productivity almost alwaysbuilds up a surplus. In the case of agriculture, forinstance, for every germinating seed you plant,

you get back maybe a hundred. So you havemore than you can consume, you have some toshare. Thus we come to the metaphor of the‘shared supper’ and the building of communitybonds. The various producers come together,each bringing their own surplus of whateverkinds of ‘figs’ they’ve produced, and they ex-

change these goods by somesuitable method. The ex-changing creates communitybonds of interdependenceand of friendship when thesharing is done, as we are hy-pothesizing here, with deeprespect and care for the otherparty.

When the exchanging/sharing economic commu-nity becomes large, it will

need, for its convenience and ability to operatethe exchange successfully, some organizedmethod and agreed upon rules. And thus wecome to laws and political organization. Andhere again the basic insight into the reality of fi-nite beings as children of God, as dance gesturesof the Infinite deserving of incomparable re-spect, will govern the way the laws are drawnand practised. Legal protection of this ‘privateproperty’, including the right to sell it, is a firstmove; then regulations on how the exchangingis to be handled fairly.

At this point, we note the possibility of aproblem: Because of the nature of surplus,which is the foundation of sharing, we also havethe appearance of positive feedback leading toaccumulation. If Nature returns you a hun-dredfold on your effort, then in the next roundyou can ‘plant’ a hundred instead of one, andreap enormously. The more you have, the fur-ther you can gain. That’s called ‘positive feed-back’, making you do the same thing again. Sonow you really have extra, more than enoughfor exchanging. And at this point you can imagethe divine Ground by being generous as well ascreative. Both creative and generous, as theGround itself is. There will likely be some



‘Beating the system’ bydeceit and trickery is away to be creative forpeople deprived of thesatisfaction of beingcreative in other ways.

agents who for one reason or another have notbeen able to work or have not been successful.The God-imaging community corrects this bygenerously giving these persons what theyneed—what they need to live, what they needto be as creative as they can be in their circum-stances.

Won’t some people take advantage of thisand pretend to be in need when they could beworking? Under the hypothesis that the wholecommunity has realized its status as ‘children ofGod’, together with the derivative conclusions,no, no one will do that. No one would have anyreason to want to do that. Freed from insecurityabout meaningfulness and love, every personnaturally wants to be creative. It’s built intoone’s nature: children of the Creator wantabove all to be creative. They even want to begenerous, that’s natural too. ‘Beating the sys-tem’ by deceit and trickery is a way to be cre-ative for people deprived of the satisfaction ofbeing creative in other ways. But if they are notso deprived, they will not prefer that way toways that are more personally satisfying andallow larger scope for creative action.

But if the community is still in transi-tion—a much more likely hypothesis—thenthose who have realized more freedom will helpthose who haven’t by showing respect and posi-tive regard, by offering education and trainingand opportunity, supported by legal protec-tions and rewards. And the political arrange-ments of a community well enough along in thetransition will provide for this. It is difficultsometimes for people to believe that they areloved, let alone that they are ‘children of God’.So a lot of patience in trying to bring about thisphase transition is required. And also a lot of ex-perimentation to find good ways of advancingthe transition. It can be expected to take a longwhile. We have been up and down, back andforth, with these ideals for a few millennia al-ready. But the ideals persist, and we have madea bit of progress. We have some vision of whatour great community could possibly be. Andthat fact alone is ground for strong hope.

The New Wholeness: What Shall We Be?In the shared supper we are practising

neighbour-love, involving the heart, the soul,and all our m’hodecha. Recalling that each timethe entities of a given level share their characteris-tic energies they form a new, next-higher, whole,we will certainly ask whether the same patternapplies to us. If human beings interact in termsof positive-regard feelings and intellectual un-derstanding of our natural unity, and if we actu-ally share our various kinds of wealth, will we be-gin to constitute a new-level whole? The discus-sion so far implies that we will. It would seemfrom past cosmic experience, that it is the Cre-ator’s intention to persevere with the method ofachieving new kinds of beings by uniting the be-ings of the previous level of organization. But wealso know that one of the marks of this type ofcreation is that you cannot predict what the un-ion of existing wholes will be.

We are in the position of Second Isaiah’scommunity when the prophet announces tothem that prediction was to some degree possi-ble in the past—God told the people whatwould happen before it happened. But nowGod is taking a new tack: ‘From this time for-ward I make you hear new things, hiddenthings that you have not known. They are cre-ated now, not long ago; before today you havenever heard of them, so that you could say, “I al-ready knew them.” You have never heard, youhave never known, from of old your ear has notbeen opened’ (Isaiah, 48.6–8). All we know isthe creative union which enormously increasesthe types of activities and the consciousness ofthe new whole. But each time there is a hugesurprise. And this time the elements to beunited are already self-conscious and alreadynovelty-producers, themselves. And since eachtime the surprise gets much bigger, how can wekeep from wondering?

Novelty: It is a fascinating thing to reflecton. Why is our world so full of novelty? Onenew thing after another, ever since the planetfirst gave birth to life, indeed ever since the ‘cos-mic fluctuation of the Void’. We may say it is



the expression in finite terms of the infinitudeof the Ground. The Ground is not limited. Ithas no particularities, no description. Is unlim-ited production of new descriptive beings a wayto express the unlimited reality of the Ground?And we, the offspring of the ‘unlimited noveltyproducer’, can also produce endless novelties. Itis the true source of ourwealth, of our m’ho-decha, the proof of theabundance of the worldand the falseness of ourbelief in scarcity,8 foun-dation of our fears andour hurtful behaviours.

Whatever is newtruly comes ‘out of noth-ing’. To be new meansnot to have been before.The new thing is embod-ied in previously existingmaterials, of course, butthe newness of it is in noway ‘previous’. There was no such thing as a liv-ing cell before those cooperating and sharingmolecules formed it. When the new thing firstappears, it is unique. Then its level of organiza-tion gradually spreads. Eventually that level isextant everywhere in its appropriate environ-ments. Then another new thing arises and theprocess starts over again. The spreading of thenew kind of thing acts as an energy-driver. Itre-organizes the previously existing entities,gives them a new form. The act of organizing isanti-entropic. The local ‘system’ into whichthis newness is injected is not ‘closed’.

The material things organized will comeapart again and scatter into disorganized ran-domness, entropy. But as long as creativity is stillexpressing, these scattered beings can be re-orga-nized. Creativity is like fresh energy being in-jected into the universe—like the original injec-tion of energy from the fluctuation of the Void.Where does the newness come from? Could it becoming from consciousness? And if consciousnessis truly an independent primitive as the real-

ity-dimension of relation, then may we questionwhether the universe as a whole is a ‘closed sys-tem’? The physical energy of any universe maybe set by the measure of the original fluctuation,but perhaps the consciousness dimension is in-dependent of that and can continue to injectnewness into the world— at least as long as the

physical energies have notreached their maximalentropy state.

In any case, we, asconscious creators of no-velty now, can apply our-selves to enlivening therelation-bonds amongus. The planet is nowunified in terms of com-munication and thesharing of goods and in-formation as it has neverbeen before. TheInternet enables conver-sation with most parts of

the world, and the global market is interchang-ing all sorts of products. Although terribledominations are still being practised, some ofthem now by means of the globalization itself,an infrastructure for human unity is neverthe-less gradually growing. We are closer to ac-knowledging and respecting those of differentethnic origin and different language and cus-toms than we used to be. We actually have insti-tutions for promoting respectful interactions,such as the United Nations and any number ofinternational aid programs founded on recog-nition of our common humanity and our obli-gation to succour human need wherever it isfound. When we apply ourselves to undermin-ing the economic, political, and personal causesof human suffering—as distinguished fromtreating some of the wounds after the inju-ries—we will take the most important step to-wards the new era. Understanding how fardown into the human psyche those causes goand just what their roots are is part of the workof bringing about this critical shift in conscious-



When we apply ourselves toundermining the economic,political, and personal causesof human suffering—asdistinguished from treatingsome of the wounds after theinjuries—we will take themost important step towardsthe new era.


ness that leads us into thenext phase of the Self-

creating world.To know our-

selves as Shiva’sgestures, as ex-pressive wordsof the divineGround, as be-

loved childrenof God who in-

herit the powers of cre-ativity and generosity, isthe fundamental step,without which we willonly continue to abuseone another in ourfear-filled struggle to se-

cure ourselves. But just as fast as we come to un-derstand and appreciate this basic reality, wecan begin to practise the mutual respect andmutual support that it implies.

The felt sense of the personal presence ofother people all over the world, a growing abil-ity to be aware of the interpersonal en-ergy-bonds that connect us into a gigantic or-ganism of differentiated and shared functionswithin the new level unity—this begins to char-acterize our mentality, our imagination, ourfeelings, our intentionality, our will. We beginto sense the others in a way that makes together-ness a new reality. Symbiosis, the life-sharing in-tegration that makes the new thing, is at workamong us. We are separately aware of ourselvesbut we are also beginning to be aware of our-selves as the Whole. My neighbour is a symbi-otic member of this great Self. Thus my neigh-

bour’s life is precious to me as being my ownlife. If we are individually gestures of Shiva’sdance, we are, all together, Shiva’s dancingbody. Can we each feel the wholeness of thewhole body? And simultaneously know that itis the body of the Absolute? This is the turn inthe development of the self-creating worldfrom the era of the outgoing, and severalizing,to the era of the ingoing, of re-integration. Butall this is a cycle, and is one Being. All of this isalways present, always real. �

References

7. For a detailed explanation, with examples, ofwhy legally protected private property is essen-tial to prosperity of families, democratic gov-ernment, and care of the planet, see TomBethell, The Noblest Triumph: Property andProsperity Through the Ages (New York: St Mar-tin’s, 1998).

8. For an argument that the current economics ofscarcity is mistaken and should be replaced byan economics of abundance, based on the hu-man talent for creating novelty, and how tech-nological inventions breed further inventions,increasing wealth with each generation, andhow one of the best ways to create wealth andsuccess is by giving away a new method or pro-cess so that it spreads rapidly and sparks newuses for itself, see Paul Zane Pilzer, God WantsYou to Be Rich (New York: Simon & Schuster,1995). Consult index under ‘scarcity’ and‘technology’. This economic view opposes theidea that some become rich at the expense ofothers. It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum. Be-cause of human talent all can prosper.


ySyaeNme;inme;a_ya< jgt> àlyaedyaE, t< zi´c³ivÉvàÉv< z<kr< Stum>.yÇ iSwtimd< sv¡ kay¡ ySma½ ingRtm!, tSyanav&têpTvaÚ inraexae=iSt k…Çict!.We sing the glory of Shankara, by the mere opening and closing of whose eyelids is accom-

plished the appearance and dissolution of the world, and who is the source of the glorious web

of Power (Shakti).

He in whom this world rests, and from whom it has come forth, is disaffirmed nowhere, for

His essence can never be concealed. —Spanda Karika, 1, 2

Perchance to Dream: Sleep and Spiritual LifeHIRANYAGARBHA

Iwas leafing through an old magazine inthe library the other day when anarticle called ‘Dreams and

Deep Sleep’1 almost woke mefrom my reverie. The authorwas outlining the stages of sleep.In deep sleep, which occurs mainlyin the first three or four hours, thebody recovers from physical fa-tigue. There are also other stages of sleep, in-cluding REM (rapid eye movement, indicativeof dreams) sleep, which we need in order to re-cover from mental fatigue and stress. Howmuch stress we accrue while awake determineshow much we need to dream. Theoretically, nostress means no need to recover and thus an ex-emption from dreaming, and no need for anysleep beyond the first few hours. Meditationand other spiritual practices might mitigate theneed for dreams by dismantling the conditionsfor stress. Ramakrishna, who loved the songabout ‘putting sleep to sleep’, seems to havebeen a living proof of this theory. Likewise, hisdisciple, Swami Brahmananda, called sleepingmore than five hours ‘a disease’. A learned arti-cle on an intriguing subject, but that’s not whyit caught my eye.

I Can’t Pay the Rent

When I was in college, I didn’t know howto pay my rent one month. The month before, Ihad sold the new guitar my dad had given me.Two months before, I had been waterproofingthe inner hull of a pleasure boat in the marina,advancing on all fours through an airless crawl-space that would have made a rat back out,pushing in front of me a pail of varnish and alantern that gave off an evil hiss every time adrop of the noxious stuff dropped on it. Icouldn’t see the owner, but I could hear him

standing on the dock, cheering me on, urg-ing me deeper into the bowels of his boat. I

didn’t know whom to speak toabout selling my soul—I had runout of ideas.

In the nick of time, a familyfriend mentioned a research study

being conducted across campus atUCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute. Would

I like to be paid as an experimental subject?‘What would I have to do?’ I asked.‘Sleep’, she said.

You Must Pay the Rent

At nineteen, you don’t say no to a job that’sperfectly aligned with your skills and that youdon’t have to remain conscious for. Twenty-four hours later five subjects met three scientistsand various technicians and attendants in a lab.Without preliminaries, we were each hookedup to our own tangle of electrodes whose cableswent madly off in all directions before disap-pearing into a blinking bank of equipment.Each of us got a pill to swallow. Then the lightswere snapped out and we lay there, wiresbranching out of us, machines pulsing dimly inthe background. We all had different histories,different hopes and different dreams, but we allhoped that sleep would come.

Eight hours later our dreams were inter-rupted not by our mothers reminding us to goto school, but by a couple of underpaid lab at-tendants yanking electrodes from our faces. Wewere herded into an improvised canteen for or-ange juice and doughnuts (to boost our bloodsugar, not silence our hunger) and then givencolumns of figures to add for half an hour.Then we were free to go.

We were told nothing about the study. Ithought it might have something to do with the


effect of fried dough on computational skills,which was positive. But I didn’t care about thescience part; my waking hours were my ownand the rent was going to be paid.

The Second Day

That night our little crew gathered again,same time, same place. There was plenty of ca-maraderie. After all, we were being paid tosleep—a dream job. But on the second morn-ing, one of us was in a dark mood.

‘I know what you’re doing’, Frank an-nounced at breakfast. We asked him what hemeant.

‘For example, you took some of my orangejuice just now, when I was opening the win-dow.’ No one had actually seen him open a win-dow, but Rob—glancing around—offeredFrank some of his own juice, and we all thoughtthat would be the end of it. That night, Frankwouldn’t speak to any of us.

The next morning and evening went bywithout incident. On the third day Frankstarted cursing before getting out of bed, insist-ing that we were all plotting against him andthat he had been assigned the bed near thewindow because there was a plan for him toget pneumonia. That night he sobbed softlyfor awhile, then stood up and slammed thedoor twice, then lay down again. Each ofus, alone in our separate corners,tried to remember why we hadthought it a good idea tosleep in a room withfour strangers.Gradually,over thecourse ofthe twenty-seven-daystudy,Frank’s mooddarkened until itwas obvious even tothe English major amongus that he was going mad.

Sleepers, AwakeWe found out later that the study was for

NASA, who wanted to know the effects of cer-tain sleeping pills they were formulating for as-tronauts. Unbeknownst to us, the team of in-vestigators monitoring our brainwaves andarithmetic had been systematically wakingFrank up every couple of hours, as soon as heentered REM sleep. Then he would go back tosleep, never realizing that he had woken up, butnever having a dream either. Other nights, theywould not have to wake him up because thepills were having the same effect, keeping himfrom entering the REM stage of sleep. Whywere they doing all this? They were investigat-ing the risks associated with deprivation ofREM sleep and the absence of dreams. Frankwasn’t told what was happening, but by the endof the study he had to be restrained at the sightof the researchers, who he was sure were con-trolling his thoughts and sabotaging his life.

I Can Dream, Can’t I?

It was a graphic demonstration: If you

Perchance to Dream: Sleep and Spiritual Life 665


DRAWINGS BY EUGENE SALANDRA

think you can put sleep to sleep without practis-ing meditation or otherwise finding a way ofdealing with the inner tensions with whichyou’ve polluted your waking consciousness,you’re dreaming. You will dream anyway, butyou’ll do it while walking around in the worldinstead of safely under the covers.

It raises some disturbing side questions.How much of our accusations and troubles areonly a little more reasonable than Frank’s? If

you had fewer unre-solved issues in your

mind, would Frankstop reminding

you of yourself ?It’s easy to see

squabblingover or-

ange juice asunreasonable.But what aboutour own squab-

bles?I hope Frank

cashed his paycheckafter the study and

headed home for a goodnight’s sleep, and that his en-

emies are all back in his subcon-scious where they belong. Or who

knows? Maybe by now he is ameditator, enjoying a dose of hard-

won, wide-awake, stress- free, super-rational joy.When the study was published, I found out

that because I was the youngest of the group Ihad been given only placebos and dreamedquite a lot, so my own irrationality remains un-der investigation. �

Reference

1 Swami Satyaswarupananda, ‘Dreams andDeep Sleep – II’, Vedanta Kesari 91/7 (July2004), 258–265.



Would You Like to Contribute?

Does this story ring a bell? You too would have had in-teresting life-experiences that you might like toshare with our readers: anecdotes that are instruc-tive, insightful, or just plain funny. Or you may

have a knack for seeing the lighter side of things, ora flair for art that provokes thinking or tickles the funnybone. If so, then send us your writing or artwork for possiblepublication. You too may strike a sympathetic cord!

Thrown Out by AllahA MONK

Caught up in a jam, the old car was slowlyinching its way through the busy bazaarwhich crowded the pavements and en-

croached upon the narrow and winding lane.Sitting on a rear seat, I looked lazily at the bus-tling crowd dominated by men with longbeards in sherwanis and embroidered caps. Onecould see the minarets of the local mosquewhere the muezzin was preparing to call for thenamaz-e-maghrib. The entire scene appeared asfamiliar to me as it was thirty years back when Iused to roam these streets before I moved out—only the crowd had increased considerably.

Musing over the events that had occurredmany years ago on these very streets, I was re-minded of the blind Muslim fakir who used tosit outside the cotton store near the mosque. Hewas reputed to have special spiritual powers,and several of us young friends had once gone tohim to see the matter for ourselves. He was inhis early middle age then, and we had foundhim squatting by the roadside under the eavesof the local cotton store. He had a black coat onand a begging bowl in front of him. He wasconstantly swaying back and forth, and wouldoccasionally murmur to himself, but refused tobe drawn into conversation, however much wetried.

He obviously disliked inquisitive crowdsintruding into his privacy. So I decided to visithim alone another day. That day, he was in amore forthcoming mood, and we soon built upa rapport. He was born blind, he said in reply tomy query. As soon as he was old enough, his fa-ther—who used to eke out a living by stitchingused gunny bags—decided to have him beg toaugment the family income. Every day hewould bring him over to this place outside thecotton shop and leave him there till evening,when he would again take him back home.

‘One day,’ the fakir continued, ‘my father justdidn’t come to take me back, and I have beenhere ever since.’

Did he never try to find a better shelter, Iinquired. ‘Yes, I did,’ he replied. ‘Some peopleasked me why I didn’t move over to the nearbymosque at night and sleep in the courtyardthere as many other poor people did. Hearingtheir advice, I crawled up to the mosque onenight and found my way in. Unfortunately,someone picked me up with his hands andthrew me out of the mosque. The throw was soviolent that I landed in the nearby cemetery,badly bruised. After recovering from the shockof the fall, I managed to summon some courageand crawled back to the mosque, only to meetwith the same fate again. This time I was quitebadly hurt, and I cried out in pain, “I don’tknow who you are, but you are obviously apowerful person. But I have never harmed any-one. I survive on whatever alms I get, and I prayto Allah; why then should you ill-treat me likethis?” A voice replied, “Why do you come to mymosque with an impure mind? Purify yourselffirst, and then come to sleep in my mosque.”“Are you then Allah? How else could you knowabout the state of my mind? You obviously havethe power to see into my mind. Then why doyou not remove the dirt from my mind and pu-rify me? But please do not make me suffer likethis.” “Alright,” the voice replied, “Every day,after you have finished begging, take a bath,come to the mosque, say your namaz, and thengo to sleep.” I have followed these instructionsever since.’

The disarming simplicity of his narrativeand the uncommon charm that he exuded at-tracted me profoundly, and I used to visit himoff and on till I left home and became a monk.

Now I felt a deep desire to go and see if the


fakir was still alive. I was bound to draw peo-ple’s attention, being in ochre robes, but I couldnot resist. I asked the car to stop, stepped out,and walked to the mosque. Sure enough, the fa-kir was there in the very place I had seen himthirty years ago, in his black coat, swaying backand forth. His grey hair was the sole evidence ofthe passage of all these intervening years.

‘Hello! How are you?’ I asked, as I stood infront of him. ‘Savyasachin, you!’ the fakir re-sponded without a moment’s hesitation,

‘Where have you been all these days? I thoughtyou had found a job and had moved out some-where.’

I then described the events of my life since Ilast met him, telling him about my monasticlife. ‘That was bound to happen; to happen forsure,’ he nodded. ‘That’s very good.’

We talked for some time, and then I tookleave. ‘Keep well,’ I said. ‘You keep well too,’ hereplied, and fell back into his reverie. �



Ravana abducting Sita : A Rajamahendri Ramayana painting


� Reviews �

For review in PRABUDDHA BHARATApublishers need to send two copies of their latest publications.

Swami Ramakrishnananda: A Portrait inPictures. Ramakrishna Math, Mylapore,Chennai 600 005. E-mail: [email protected]. 2006. viii + 120 pp. Rs 125.

The thunderous cataracts of bhakti, jnana,karma, and yoga, commingling and getting har-

nessed to transform a parched spiritual landscapeand spiritualize innumerable empty lives: this is thesaga of Swami Ramakrishnananda. At the urgent re-quest of his Madras disciples and admirers, SwamiVivekananda had promised: ‘I shall send you onewho is more orthodox than the most orthodox Brah-mins of the South and who is at the same time in-comparable in performing worship, scripturalknowledge, and meditation on God.’ This wasSwami Ramakrishnananda, Sri Ramakrishna’s apos-tle to the South. Thus unfolded the second part ofthe great swami’s divine life, a life moulded by hisservice to Sri Ramakrishna. And it enfolded scores ofpeople who felt the living God in their midst, en-gaged in their welfare.

Swami Vivekananda had wanted the nameRamakrishnananda for himself, but having wit-nessed Sashi Bhushan Chakravarty’s exemplaryone-pointed devotion to Bhagavan Sri Ramakri-shna, he conferred this name on the latter duringtheir ordination as monks. This in itself speaks vol-umes for Swami Ramakrishnananda’s character andspiritual orientation.

This photo-biography of Swami Ramakrishna-nanda, published on his 144th birth anniversary,traces his life and works from humble but devout be-ginnings to the towering heights of spiritualrealization, and chronicles his immense contribu-tion to the Ramakrishna Order and to the country,especially South India. The book is full of rare pho-tographs strung together by an engaging narrative.Sashi Maharaj, as he was popularly called, met andinspired many people and visited a great manyplaces. In this book one gets a glimpse of a giganticpersonality etching itself indelibly on the religiousand spiritual history of India. A whole panorama of

people and places connected with him has beenreproduced in this volume.

Printed on glossy art paper in demy quarto, thishard-bound volume is a valuable addition to thegrowing Ramakrishna–Sarada Devi–Vivekanandaliterature, and is bound to receive an enthusiastic re-ception.

Swami SatyamayanandaAdvaita Ashrama, Kolkata

Rajamahendri Ramayana Paintings. SistlaSrinivas. Drusya Kala Deepika, 4-61-7,Lawson’s Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam 530017. E-mail: [email protected]. 2005.xxviii + 200 pp. Rs 395.

This is a research work on Indian art, especiallythe Ramayana paintings of Rajamahendri, from

Sistla Srinivas, an assistant professor in art historyand aesthetics at Andhra University. The author hasdug deeply into the subject and has brought out in-numerable shining diamonds for us to view.

Painting is one of the major fine arts, at par withsculpture, dance, music, and literature. Sri Srinivas’supbringing imbued him with love for Indian cultureas depicted in the classical works—Ramayana,Mahabharata, and Bhagavata—in Sanskrit and Tel-ugu. His native village Manchalla in Guntur as wellas the surrounding villages are famous for their tem-ples, and this has obviously fuelled his interest fur-ther.

The paintings under discussion are the works oftwo painters: Nandigam Nagesam and KamaroutuVenkatesam. Like Indian sculptors of yore, they didnot sign their names to any of their paintings. ButKolapelli Buchenna, who wrote a Telugu commen-tary on each of the folios, gives their names, as alsothe date of his work: Thursday, 14 September 1758.

The paintings are in two sets: one on the sixcantos of the Ramayana (33 paintings), and theother on holy sites or kshetras (53 paintings). Afurther 11 paintings by the same artists were sold



to anonymous buyers in London in 1972 and1975. Information about these paintings wasmade available by Jagdish Mittal and Stella Kram-risch, and these have been briefly discussed in thisbook.

Buchenna’s commentary is a simple descriptiveprose in colloquial Telugu; this is precisely the stylepreferred by modern art critics like Srinivas himself,whose writing reveals a mastery of the Telugu idiom.

The book under review is in two parts. The first,with eight chapters, deals with the universality andcontemporaneity of the Ramayana, the Sanskrit andTelugu versions of the epic (along with visual repre-sentations), works on Ramayana paintings in Northand South India, and facts and observations aboutthe Rajamahendri paintings. The study includescomparisons of the depictions of the Rajamahendripainters with the texts of the Adhyatma Ramayana,Ranganatha Ramayana, and Molla Ramayana. TheIslamic (both Mughal and Deccan) and Europeaninfluences are also analysed. The Rajamahendrischool of painting and the commentary on the idealsdepicted in the Rajamahendri paintings have beencarefully dealt with.

The second half of the book deals with the paint-ings themselves. The Ramayana paintings start withthe Putrakámeøti Yajna of King Dasharatha andconclude with the coronation of Sri Rama. Thoughthe reproductions are not in colour, they are a feastto the eye and mind for their craftsmanship and ar-tistic talent. Srinivas’s decriptions are equally de-tailed. Consider this:

‘After drawing seven circles around Sita,Laxmana left the place in search of Rama. Ravanacame in disguise as a mendicant and asked Sita togive alms. When Sita brought alms, he revealed histrue self to her which was similar to the personalityof him shown in the chariot. He caught the terrifiedSita by her hand, dragged her into the chariot andtook her away to Lanka.

‘At the bottom [of the painting] is Ravana in dis-guise as a mendicant, gripping Sita’s hand. Behindthem are the circles drawn by Laxmana. Close tothese circles is a tree. On the top is Ravana in a char-iot, with ten heads, twenty hands, and thirty-sixweapons. Behind him, placing her finger on her chinin sadness, is Sita.’

The work is suitably named NayanábhirámaAnusælana, a study of the one that is pleasing to theeye. And a feast to the eye it indeed is. The author’stalent shows in every page of this pleasing volume.

The readers may expect similar works from SistlaSrinivas in the future.

Sahitya Brahma Dr V V L Narasimha RaoHyderabad

Faith and Devotion in Theraváda Bud-dhism. V V S Saibaba. D K Printworld, ‘SriKunj’, F-52 Bali Nagar, New Delhi 110015, E-mail: [email protected]. 2005.xxix + 231 pp. Rs 480.

This is a deeply researched and well-representeddocumentation of early Buddhism—Thera-

vada (Pali) or Sthaviravada (Sanskrit)—and its viewson God, its concept of faith, and its development to-wards devotion with the passage of time and ad-vancement of Buddhist ideas.

By the time Buddhism started gaining ground,the Vedic tradition had already developed to a veryhigh pitch, with lofty ideas, and concepts of Brah-man, cosmic evolution, transmigration, and sacri-fice. The six schools of Indian philosophy were theculmination of this theistic Vedic philosophy.

Buddhism originated and developed during the6th century BCE against the backdrop of all thesephilosophical developments as a sort of protestantphilosophical thought which got institutionalizedduring the very lifetime of the Buddha and went onconsolidating itself during the following centuries.

The Buddha apparently adopted an atheistic at-titude, denying the existence and role of an unseenBrahmá, or Creator, or any such omnipresent andomnipotent entity dispensing justice according tothe good or bad deeds of earthly beings. Instead, heemphasized morality and ethics, and felt more con-cerned with the miseries of life and the way out ofthem. The Buddha’s stance on questions of meta-physics has not been fully and satisfactorily ad-dressed in Buddhism. This makes Buddhism moreethical than metaphysical.

Buddhism accepted the deities of the Hindupantheon, but with a difference. Brahmá Sahám-pati—the Lord of sahá (the present world), IndraMaghavá, Varuîa, Yama, Kubera, and the like havebeen referred to variously in the Pali Tripitaka andpost-Tripitaka literature. There is a common ten-dency in religious texts to show one’s own founder asthe most respected, most powerful, most knowl-edgeable, and most compassionate, and deities ofother faiths as much inferior or subject to the for-


mer. Buddhism too is not free from this tendency.Therein even Brahmá has been depicted as lackingomniscience and as being ignorant of his own poten-tial. So far as Hinduism is concerned, Brahmá is be-lieved to have taken birth out of the navel of Viøîu,but is accorded the highest place at par with Viøîuand Ùiva as part of the Trinity.

Regarding the Buddha’s place in the Hindu pan-theon, it is a common belief that he is the ninth in-carnation of Viøîu, who takes upon himself the gov-ernance of the universe and guards living beingsfrom evil forces by being born in this world fromtime to time. Accordingly, when evil forces creptinto the Vedic system itself, Viøîu incarnated him-self as the Buddha and, taking recourse to atheism,criticized the Vedas and Vedic rituals, prescribing intheir stead a simple and straightforward moral pathof purification based on non-violence, love, andcompassion, and leading to nirvana.

Faith is essential not only in religious and spiri-tual life but also in day-to-day worldly affairs. Bud-dha considered it the seed for spiritual farming andmental culture. He was perhaps the first historicalpersonality who talked about ‘rationality’ in faith inplace of ‘blind faith’ and advised his disciples to fol-low even his words only after analysing themthrough proper reasoning. Naturally, this appealedto both the common masses and the intelligentsia,and became one of the forceful reasons for Bud-dhism’s great popularity and wide spread not only indifferent regions of India but even beyond its boun-daries; this appeal continues unabated.

Buddhism talks of the ‘law of dependent origi-nation’, a chain of twelve dependent processes—be-ginning with ignorance and ending with old age anddeath—that makes for samsara. But it does not pro-vide a conclusive answer on the cause or origin of ig-norance, whether it is dependent on old age anddeath or on something else.

Regarding the Buddha’s status, Dr Saibaba men-tions different types of supernatural powers attrib-uted to him—human, demonic, as well as godly,which themselves make him a supernatural deity.Further, three kinds of parinibbána, namely, kilesaparinibbána, khandha parinibbána and dhátu pari-nibbána, make the Buddha immortal. It is worthnoting that the Buddha did not get annihilated afterhis parinibbána (187), and his spiritual presence inhis relics made way for their veneration (188).

Saddhá, described as reasoned faith (ákáravatæ)and as accompanied by understanding (paññámayæ),

plays a vital role in spiritual life. Citing various origi-nal Pali texts like Suttanipáta, Dhammapada, Já-takas, Cullaniddesa, Puggalapaññatti, and Milinda-pañha, the author has very beautifully sketched thegradual development of saddhá to thavana (stavana)and thoma (stoma, a hymn of praise), which furtherdeepened into bhatti (bhakti).

Deepening of faith resulted in the generation ofdevotion, which was of importance in the develop-ment of Mahayana. Therein we find that the histori-cal personality of the Buddha was gradually over-shadowed by, and got assimilated into, his ‘adored’personality, and this resulted in the enhancement ofhis image as a supernatural being. The concept oftrikáya (dharmakáya, sambhogakáya and nirmáîa-káya or répakáya) sounds much like Hindu meta-physics. His celestial body (sambhogakáya) enableshis interaction with other deities and the nirmáîa-káya reminds one of the Hindu avataras. ThusMahayana Buddhism got trapped in the same webof ‘eternalism’ against which Theravada Buddhismhad started out as a revolt.

The author has presented the Theravada Bud-dhist perspectives on faith and devotion in a schol-arly and yet lucid manner, and therefore deserves ap-preciation and sádhuváda.

Dr Baidyanath LabhReader, Department of Buddhist Studies

University of Jammu, Jammu

Universal Values: As Reflected in Litera-ture. Dr Santikumar Ghosh. RamakrishnaMission Institute of Culture, Gol Park,Kolkata 700 029. E-mail: [email protected]. viii + 128 pp. Rs 50.

U niversal Values is a condensation of lecturesthat were delivered by the author at the Rama-

krishna Mission Institute of Culture, Kolkata, over aperiod of eight years (1996-2004). Apart from beinga professor of economics, the author is also a well-known Bengali poet and a connoisseur of ancient In-dian literature. He has extracted universal valuesfrom the mass of Indian literature that he studied,and has condensed and rearranged the material inthe present book for the convenience of those whoare new to the subject.

The text has twelve chapters spread over ancient,medieval, and modern periods. The author has pro-vided a bird’s-eye view of the literature and religious

Reviews 671



movements of these periods. But it is the modern pe-riod that he has dwelt upon in greater detail. He nar-rates the cause of the downfall of the Mughal empireand the rise of British power. There is also a chapteron the Ramakrishna Movement.

Dr Ghosh refers to the revival of Sanskrit studiesin the late eighteenth century through the efforts ofWestern scholars and East India Company officialswho appreciated the treasures in Sanskrit literature.He also dwells on the process of integration of Indiainto a single entity and the grafting of Western ideason the Indian mind through English literature andhistory. While this process modernized the Indianmind, the most important impact of Western cul-ture, in the author’s view, was the replacement ofblind faith—characteristic of the medieval age—bya spirit of rationalism, which seeks to enquire and ar-gue before accepting anything.

Three important chapters are devoted to Rabin-dranath Tagore, Sri Aurobindo, and Mahatma Gan-dhi, whom the author studies against the culturalbackground of the land. Each of these great men haspassed on to us a legacy of universal values that is asource of nourishment for all.

The book, short as it is, is a capsule for universalcultural health and is targeted at the Indian youth.For this the author and the publisher deserve to becongratulated. The book deserves a place in all per-sonal and public libraries.

Dr N B PatilHonorary Director, Dr P V Kane Institute

for Postgraduate Research and StudiesAsiatic Society, Mumbai.

The Three Jewels of Vedanta. SwamiHarshananda. Ramakrishna Math, BullTemple Road, Bangalore 560 019. E-mail:[email protected]. 2004. iv + 40 pp.Rs 15.

This is a booklet on the lives and teachings of SriShankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, and Sri

Madhvacharya—the founders of the monistic, qual-ified monistic, and dualistic schools of Vedanta.They appeared on the Indian scene at crucial junc-tures to set the national life-current on the high roadto true spirituality. The sublime influence of theirlives and teachings on the collective Indian psychehas been an unseen yet mighty bulwark against themoral and spiritual ravages caused by foreign inva-

sions during medieval times. That kept the flicker-ing lamp of knowledge and spirituality burningagainst the backdrop of the political and social tur-moil of the last millennium. The Indian socio-reli-gious scenario today would have been different butfor them and the myriads of saints their respectiveschools of thought produced all over India. ‘Each isgreat in his own place.’ In this valuable booklet, thelearned author presents a brief picture of their in-spiring lives, teachings, and works to help the readerlearn about their priceless contributions towards thepreservation of Vedic culture, and thus develop anequal reverence for all of them.

Swami ShuddhidanandaAdvaita Ashrama, Kolkata

Effective Life Management. Swami Amartya-nanda. Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama,Ramakrishna Avenue, Patna 800 004.E-mail: [email protected]. 2005.x + 88 pp. Rs 30.

Management is the current buzzword. And withthe shift in focus from the management of

capital assets to human resources, the market is flushwith bestsellers on self-development and on manag-ing interpersonal relations.

This small book, though in the same genre, takesthe lives and teachings of Sri Sarada Devi and SwamiVivekanada as guideposts for personal development.It provides practical hints on undertaking effectiveintrospection to manage our thoughts and curb neg-ative traits like anger and jealousy. The key elementsof this process are summed up in the acronym SDM(satsanga or holy company, discipline, and medita-tion). Directed at the youth, this book providesgood food for thought, introspection, and healthyliving.

PB

Book Received

Sri Sri Ram Thakur. Comp. and ed. Prof.Bidhu Bhushan Chakraborty. Sri Sri ThakurRamchandra Dev Association, Sri SriSatyanarayan Mandir, Tigri, M B Road,New Delhi 110 062. 2005. 113 pp.

A brief survey of the life and teachings of Sri RamThakur (1860-1949), the Vaishnava saint of Bengal.

ReportsNew Trustees of the Ramakrishna Order

Four monks of the Ramakrishna Or derhave been ap pointed as trust ees of the Rama -krishna Math and mem bers of the gov ern ingbody of the Ramakrishna Mis sion. The newtrust ees are Swa mis Bodhasaranandaji, Divya -nandaji, Girishanan daji, and Suviranan daji, re -spec tive heads of Advai ta Ashrama, Maya vati;Ramakrishna Math and Rama kri shna Mis -sion Ashrama, Mal da; Ramakrishna Mis sionSaradapitha, Belur; and Rama krishna Mis sion Vidya pith, Deoghar.

New Names

Ramakrishna Mis sion Vivekananda Ed u -ca tional and Re search In sti tute (RKMVERI),Deemed University, has been re named Rama -kri sh na Mis sion Vivekananda Uni ver sity (es -tab lished un der Sec tion 3 of UGC Act, 1956),in ac cor dance with a no ti fi ca tion by the Uni -ver sity Grants Commission.

Vivekananda Poly clinic, which is ad min is -tered by the Ramakrishna Mis sion Sevashra -ma, Lucknow, has been re named VivekanandaPoly clinic and In sti tute of Med i cal Sci ences.

Durga Puja Celebrated

Durga Puja, the au tum nal wor ship of the

Di vine Mother, was cel e brated at thirty-fourcen tres of the Ramakrishna Math and Rama -krishna Mis sion from 29 Sep tem ber to 2 Oc to -ber. At Belur Math, puja was per formed withgreat so lem nity and joy. Ig nor ing the oc ca -sional show ers, thou sands of dev o tees at tendedthe puja on all four days. Kumari Puja, the wor -ship of the Di vine Mother in a young girl, wasper formed on 30 Sep tem ber and drew hugecrowds. Sandhi Puja, the spe cial wor ship per -formed dur ing the tran si tion from the Ashtamito the Navami day, took place in the earlymorn ing of 1 Oc to ber, and was also at tendedby many dev o tees. Kolkata Door dar shanbroad cast parts of the puja live on all four days.In all, cooked prasad was served to about79,000 dev o tees.

Ramakrishna Math and RamakrishnaMis sion, Dhaka, ob served the Durga Puja in apandal near the ashrama’s tem ple. Large crowds were drawn to the ashrama, es pe cially dur ingthe Kumari Puja, when 25,000 dev o tees of allfaiths gath ered. About 20,000 dev o tees wereserved cooked prasad—khichri—on theAshtami day, and about 5,000 on other days.The en tire cel e bra tion was com pleted peace -fully.


Durga Homa at Belur Math

Kumari Puja at Ramakrishna Math, Dhaka

AchievementsNishant Prabhakar, a stu dent of Ramakri -

shna Mis sion Vidya pith, Deoghar, stood firstin the Na tional Level Sci ence Sem i nar on Con -ser va tion of Biodiversity: Pros pects and Con cernsheld at Visvesarayya In dus trial and Tech no log -i cal Mu seum, Bangalore, on 6 Oc to ber.

The col lege team of Ramakrishna Mis sionVidyamandira, Saradapitha, Belur, was placed sec ond at the State Level Inter-Col lege YouthPar lia ment Com pe ti tion or ga nized by the De -part ment of Par lia men tary Af fairs, Gov ern -ment of West Ben gal.

Ramakrishna Math and RamakrishnaMis sion, Viveknagar’s school team was ad -judged out stand ing at the Tripura State LevelChil dren’s Sci ence Con gress in Oc to ber.

News from Branch Centres

Ramakrishna Mis sion Vidyapith, Chen -nai, as a part of its di a mond ju bi lee cel e bra -tions, or ga nized a two-day ex hi bi tion on 6 and7 Oc to ber, high light ing the ac tiv i ties of thecen tres of the Ramakrishna Math and Rama -kri shna Mis sion, the teach ings of Sri Rama -krishna, Sri Sarada Devi, and Swami Vivek a -nan da, and re cent de vel op ments in sci ence,com merce, and hu man i ties. Nearly 1,500 stu -dents vis ited the ex hi bi tion.

Ramakrishna Ashrama, My sore, con -ducted a writ ten quiz com pe ti tion on Sri Ra -ma krishna’s life and mes sage in which 91,000stu dents from 715 schools in 24 dis tricts ofKarnataka par tic i pated.

Relief

Ramakrishna Mis sion cen tres con tin ued re -lief op er a tions in flood-af fected ar eas of Andh raPradesh, Gujarat, Orissa, and West Ben gal. De -tails of re lief ma te ri als dis trib uted are as fol lows:

Ramakrishna Math and RamakrishnaMis sion, Rajahmundry: 1,246 blan kets, 623sa ris and an equal num ber of lun gis, mats andtrunks to 623 fam i lies of Inavilli and Mummi -divaram Mandals in East Godavari dis trict.

Ramakrishna Ashrama, Rajkot: 5,000 kg

rice and dal, 12,500 kg wheat flour, 625 kg ed -ible oil, 375 kg spices, 1,250 sa ris, and 1,250chaddars to flood-af fected people of Ahmeda -bad, Anand, and Kheda dis tricts.

Ramakrishna Math and RamakrishnaMis sion, Bhubaneswar: 1,301 tar pau lins to1,301 fam i lies in Kendrapara dis trict.

Ramakrishna Math, Puri: 9,608 kg chiraand 720 kg sugar to 15,013 per sons of 34 vil -lages in Puri dis trict.

Ramakrishna Math, Antpur: 10,506plates of cooked food and 12,550 kg chira topeo ple of Jaynagar and Balaichak areas.

Ramakrishna Mis sion Cal cutta Stu dents’Home, Belgharia: 4,760 kg chira, 476 kgsugar, 18,080 pack ets of bis cuits and 1,12,300wa ter-pu ri fy ing halazone tab lets to 4,760flood-af fected per sons of Paschim Mayapur,Chaitanya school, Malopara, and Basakpara ar -eas of Nava dwip in Nadia dis trict.

Ramakrishna Math, Ichapur: 81,450 kgchira, 8,200 kg sugar, 625 kg bleach ing pow -der, and two lakh halazone tab lets to 25,875fam i lies of 106 vil lages of Khanakul I and IIblocks in Hooghly dis trict.

Ramakrishna Mis sion Ashrama, Sargach -hi: 23,900 plates of cooked food, 80 kg bis cuits, 25,000 kg chira, and 4,600 kg sugar to 30,524per sons of 29 vil lages of Berhampore and Kandi blocks in Murshidabad dis trict; and med i cal re -lief to 2,647 per sons of 3 vil lages in Berham -pore block.

Dis tress Relief : The fol low ing cen tres dis -trib uted var i ous items to poor and needy per -sons of nearby ar eas: Ramakrishna Mis sion,Agartala: 284 sa ris, 216 dho tis, and 411 chil -dren’s gar ments. Ramakrishna Math, CoochBehar: 100 sa ris, 135 dho tis, 50 mos quito-nets, and 60 wool len chaddars. Ramakrishna Ash ra -ma and Ramakrishna Mis sion, Dinaj pur: 290dho tis, 680 sa ris, 100 chaddars, and 500 kgrice. Ramakrishna Math and Ra ma krishnaMis sion Seva Samiti, Karim ganj: 65 dho tisand 250 sa ris. Ramakrishna Math, Puri: 1,000blan kets, 107 sa ris, 140 school uni forms, 197shirts, and 28 as sorted gar ments. ~



December 2006 Final - Advaita Ashrama · the Vedas are repositories of knowledge.’ ... damental...

Documents

Transcript of December 2006 Final - Advaita Ashrama · the Vedas are repositories of knowledge.’ ... damental...