Keywords: Self-consciousness, Self-reflections, Atman, Brahman, Pure Consciousness, Saccidananda, Adhyasā, Māyā, Transcendental Mind.

Transcription

1 Lecture 6 The Concept of Mind in Upanisads About the Lecture: The Vedas and the Upanisads were fundamental sources of philosophical knowledge. The concept of transcendental consciousness/ the mind is the central theme of Upanisads. The Upanisads maintain that consciousness is ontologically real and fundamental. The ontology of consciousness is studied from the point of the epistemological point of view. Keywords: Self-consciousness, Self-reflections, Atman, Brahman, Pure Consciousness, Saccidananda, Adhyasā, Māyā, Transcendental Mind. The Vedas and the Upanisads were fundamental sources of philosophical knowledge. And, philosophy is defined as darsana. The word darsana is derived from the route verb dŗs (to see) in Sanskrit. A philosopher is a person having ability to see and know the nature of reality. A philosopher is not only a seeker of knowledge but also seer of truth known as dŗstā. The method of articulating philosophical knowledge in the Indian context is contemplative/ meditative rather than demonstrative. Contemplation signifies self-reflection. Thus, in the Upanisadic context philsophizing has been meditative. The intellectuals of Upanisads have studied several fundamental questions pertaining to human life and the world. The concept of self and self-knowledge occupies central points of discourse in the Upanisadic text as well as in Indian philosophical systems. For instance, Who I am? The search for self-knowledge/ the identity of the being has been the major concern for the Indian philosophers. The answer to the above question is aham brahmasmin, - I am the manifestation of Brahman. The Brahman is potentially dwelling in me. It is pure consciousness. The ātman is the individual soul or the self is a part of Brahman. The Brahman is illustrated as saccidananda swarup, which includes existence, consciousness and bliss. The highest form of Brahman is ānanda the eternal bliss, whereas the lowest form is about the existence of the body. Human beings are not merely the bodily beings, rather conscious beings. They possess the soul which is otherwise known as ātman. The individual self as an embodied being could be significantly described with reference to the body as well as the soul. Human beings as living organism 1

2 perform certain physical movements and also undertake certain actions voluntarily or intentionally. The being undergoes with various kind of experiences while performing both voluntary and involuntary actions, and also sometime due to malfunction of the organic system. The individual s engagement with the world results in experiencing pain and pleasure (happiness). That is to say, dukha and sukha are very much part of life. Unless one transcends the worldly engagements, there is no realization of bliss ānanda. The concept of ānanda is not merely happiness or pleasure that comes and disappears from the everyday life; rather it is state of experiencing the eternal happiness. This transcendence is possible only walking in the paths of sādhana and tapasyā, articulated by reason, action and love, i.e., jñana, karma and bhakti respectively. The individual self suffers, as it lives in the state of ignorance. Ignorance is the cause of suffering. It is because; ignorance creates all kinds of differences in the very process of knowing the reality. Nevertheless, māyā is the power of Brahman creates diverse forms. Like The self of embodied being, which though one exists in all beings, is seen as one or many like the moon s reflections on water. 1 The ignorant person is already dwelling in the realm of māyā, hence there is a kind of superimposition adhyāsā in the very form of knowing things. Hence ignorance is the cause of initiating differences. Brahman is the ruler of māyā. Brahman is consciousness. And, the universe in its essence is consciousness. The worldliness of all embodied beings has but ignorance as its root. To realize the true nature of the reality is to know the truth. The Brahman is soundless, touchless, colourless, undiminishing, (Katha Upanisad) It is the space for the manifestation of the name and form. The Brahman is without prior and posterior, without interior or extension. This self, the perceiver (as sāksin) of everything, is Brahman. That is the realization of the Brahman. Aham brahmasmin I am Brahman. This knowledge/ realization come only when the self transcends the realm of dualism. The self gets liberation. One who knows him becomes immortal transcends death and birth. Badarāyana argues that 2 1 Gambhirananda, S. Śvetāśvatara Upanişad: with commentary of śankarācārya, (Kolkata: Advita Ashram, 2003), p.40 2 Gambhirananda, S. Katha Upanisad: with the commentary of Śankaracārya, (Kolkata: Advita Ashram, 2008, p.37 2

3 liberation results from knowledge. Knowledge alone is the cause of realizing the highest goal. Knowledge is absolutely independent as it eliminates all kinds of superimpositions. The knower perceives the truth/ recognizes the truth. The knower of the self has thus transcended the sorrow and has no fear anymore/ anywhere (including the fear of death). A yogi frees himself/ herself from all kinds of delusions. The one who transcends all kind of differences, and transcends the very form of embodiment realizes the higher consciousness. In brief, the Upanisadic notion of mind address to the issue of the very conception of realization of one s own identity (selfknowledge) as part of epistemic activities of life. The realization of the self as pure consciousness or Brahman is a revelation. It is because the Brahman is prakash swarup. It has no form otherwise. Rather, it is beyond any forms. Thus, it can be conceptualized with the theoretical framework of transcendental mind. The ātman as a transcendental being is part of the universal metaphysical principle Brahman. The ātman does not belong to the world as the objects and facts are. Rather it is free from the spatiotemporal order of the universe. The ātman conscious mind is immortal, eternal and infinite. It is immortal in the sense that it neither decays nor takes birth; rather it is eternal to be conceived beyond the causal order of the universe. The changes that occur in objects and facts in the world are causally explainable. The origin of things in the world and their end make them finite. Since the Brahman is atemporal is not bound by time. The knowledge about the world is sense experiential where as the knowledge about the atman is not derived through any sense experience, rather it is immediate knowledge. Nevertheless there must be a desire to know (jiñāsa) who am I? Unless there is any inclination to know its true nature, it does not ever reveal its true nature. The revealed knowledge is tat tvam asi - thou art that. In other words, the true nature of being is referred to one s identity with the universal consciousness. The individual ātman is associated with the body, but ātman as consciousness can transcend the body. To talk about the self-knowledge is to show that there is a harmony between the existences of the living beings with the existence of ultimate being. There is no difference, and the whole epistemic exercise is to recognize the true identity between the ātman and the Brahman. To conceptualize the self-knowledge in the form of the self-reflective consciousness is a complex and subtle exercise. There are several analogies to explain this. One of them appears in the 3

4 Bhagavat Gitā, where Krishna refers to two important aspects of the reality, divided into Ksétŗa (the field) and ksétŗajña (the knower of the field). As a knower there is this jiñāsa to be engaged in the activity of knowing and realizing the content of whole exercise. The entire world (jagat) including the given individual body is the field (Ksétŗa) and the knower is the ksétŗajña. As the jagat is the manifestation Brahman, the realized soul knows that he/she is the Ksétŗa (the field) as well as ksétŗajña (the knower of the field), there is no difference. In fact this very knowledge ceases all sorts of differences. The self-knowledge reveals the fact that jiva/ ātman is not a finite being, rather infinite being. I am amŗtasya putŗah. The Upanisadas maintain a harmony between ātman (soul), manas (mind) and śarira (the body). The jiva, the individual represents the whole of these. The Indŗiyas (sense organs) are coordinated by the mind. There are gross and subtle sense organs. Thinking, experiencing, remembering and knowing all are performed by the subtle sense organs, sukhma indriyas. The mind or the manas is one of the finest sukhma indriyas. One need to understand the true nature of these indriyas. As indiryas, sense organs are efficient to produce some consequences; the sense of differences could easily follow. The sense organs being part of the body are not merely instruments of experiencing pleasure and lust, rather to be used as a field of spiritual realization. So, the whole sādhana (practice) is to control and overcome the basic nature of the mind and other indriyas. The activities of the mind are being witnessed. The soul or the atman in this connection is described as the sāksin the witness consciousness. The ātman is an onlooker not affected by the activities of the body and the mind. The mind which is in close proximity with the soul the ātman, it can be only controlled and coordinated by the atman. The finite mind is capable of receiving the experiences but cannot conceptualize them without the soul which is the seat of thinking and the other creative activities. 3 The soul has the power of transforming the nature of the mind. This transformation is coordinated highlighting the harmony between the soul and the mind, which is explained through the allegory of Chariot in Kaţhopanisad. In famous allegory of the chariot, the soul is the owner of the chariot, the intellect the charioteer, the mind the reins, the sense organs the horse and the body the chariot. 4 3 R. C. Pradhan, Language and Mind in the Upanisads, Language and Mind: The Classical Indian Perspective, ed. K. S. Prasad, Hyderabad Studies in Philosophy no. 5, New Delhi: Decent Books, 2008, p.54 4 Ibid., p.56 4

5 The Upanisadic concept of mind differs from a mere spiritualistic interpretation as it has been the case with Descartes and other immaterialist philosophers. The mind is subtle sense organ and is construed as part of Here the mind is a subtle organ of the physical type and is the subtle body (sûkşma śarira). The soul is categorically different from body and the mind. The nature of soul is consciousness (prajnanam Brahman) The mind is proximate to the soul but it cannot be identified with the soul. Therefore, the mind must remain within its physical limits, though it can aspire to get closer to the soul. 5 The proximity has been well illustrated with the help of the notion of kosas (seaths). The consciousness as principle of life has many layers of manifestations. These seaths are of five types Panchakosas. They are annamaya Kosa (the bodily sheath), prānamaya Kosa (the sheath of life), manomaya Kosa (the mental sheath), vijñānamaya Kosa (the sheath of consciousness) and ānandamaya Kosa (the sheath of bliss) This coordinated relation in the form of evolution is seen in the Taittirya Upanisad, part II. (Pradhan 2008: 56-57) From the body life evolves, from life the mind, from mind consciousness, from consciousness the supra-consciousness state of bliss ānanda. In this scheme of things neither the body, nor the mind, nor the ātman can be dissociated from one another. 6 (Pradhan 2008: 57) References: Gambhirananda, S. Śvetāśvatara Upanişad: with commentary of śankarācārya, (Kolkata: Advita Ashrama, 2003., Katha Upanisad: with the commentary of Śankaracārya, Kolkata: Advita Ashram, Pradhan, R. C. Language and Mind in the Upanisads, Language and Mind: The Classical Indian Perspective, ed. K. S. Prasad, Hyderabad Studies in Philosophy no. 5, New Delhi: Decent Books, 2008, pp Ibid., p.56 6 Ibid., p.57 5