Thursday, June 24, 2010

Ardhanareeswar – The Bilateral Human Brain

Ardhanareeswar – The Bilateral Human Brain


The half-man half-woman Ardhanareeswar represents the union of Shiva and Shakti, the basic tenets of creation, the unchanging Consciousness and Drive that gives motility. The cosmic dance of Ardhanareeswar symbolizes the beginningless cycle of origination and dissolution of the world. Traditionally the feminine Shakti is shown to be the left half of the body and the right half is Shiva.

A story in Shiv Purana says that Brahma, the Creator, was not happy with the way the development of human beings was going on. So he prayed to Shiva. Shiva released his Shakti part and instructed her to be born as the daughter of Daksha, thus creating an active role for her in the world. The classical Indian picturization of Ardhanareeswar stops with the body and does not tell anything of the brain in the head.

We are now well aware that our brain consists of two distinct units (left and right hemispheres) interconnected by a bundle of 300 million axonal fibers. The right brain controls the left half of the body (including the left part of the face) and the left brain controls the right half of the body.

Characteristically the right hemisphere oversees a set of qualities which are typically associated with feminine traits and the left hemisphere oversees the masculine traits. The ancient Indians depicted correctly the left half of the human body to show Shakti (female quality) and the right half as Shiva (male)! This does clearly indicate their awareness of the human anatomy.

The work distribution between the left and right brains is broadly as given below:

Left Brain Functions:

1. Language Skills; 2. Numerical counting; 3. Reason/Logic; 4. Analytical and Scientific Skills and 5. Control of the right side of the body.

The left brain works like a serial processor, one task at a time in a sequential manner and is reductionist in approach, classifying things into clear yes/no boxes. It is truthful to the details. It is uncomfortable with uncertainty and looks for logical closure of issues.

Right Brain Functions:

1. Insight; 2. 3-D Visualisation; 3. Art/Music; 4. Imagination; and 5 Control of the left side of the body.

The right hemisphere specializes in reacting to emergencies, organizing items spatially, recognizing faces and processing emotions. It works more like a parallel processor, taking in many aspects at one time and giving a comprehensive holistic picture. It can live with esoteric and fuzzy ideas.

"The great pleasure and feeling in my right brain is more than my left brain can find the words to tell you", said the Nobel Laureate, Dr. Roger Sperry.

The divergent response in the way the right and left brains function is famously illustrated in the twitch in the smile of Bill Clinton when he was grilled on the Lewinsky affair. When he tried to cover up the truth in answering a question, the right side of the face (governed by the left brain) had half a smile on the lips (delivering calculated words) whereas the left side was twitching with uncontrolled gestures!

Left Brain and Right Brain Personalities:

All of us use both the brain hemispheres all the time. Still, we tend to be dominated by the characteristics of one or the other hemispheres.

In case the connectivity of the two hemispheres is ruptured (either because of an accident or surgically disconnected for pathological reasons), the behavioral response of the individual looks as though he is being instructed by two independent control centers in the brain. Scientists have been able to learn much about the way brain functions from these split brain studies.


Prof. R. Wiseman, Neuropsychologist and Magician, suggests easy and entertaining ways to discover whether you are left-brained or right-brained. One way is to clasp your hands casually and see whether right or left thumb is positioned on the top (see the picture). If the left thumb comes on top, you are right brained and artistic, adventurous and accommodative. If the right thumb is on the top, you are analytical, fluent with words and conservative.
You would hardly get a prize to guess which way Dr. Albert Einstein, the greatest of all Scientists, would clasp his hands!

                                                             







Here is Rupert Spira, the Non-dual philosopher, clasping his hands and see which thumb is positioned on the top.




Where is “self”?

Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, Neuroscientist and anatomist, describes in a fascinating detail how a blood vessel exploded in her left brain hemisphere in late 1996 and as a result how the left part of her brain completely deteriorated in its ability to process information. “On the morning of the hemorrhage I could not walk, talk, read, write or recall any of my life,” she said. With her right brain only functioning she felt, “I am an energy being connected to the energy all around me through the consciousness of my right hemisphere. We are energy beings connected to one another through the consciousness of our right hemispheres as one human family. And in this moment we are perfect. We are whole. And we are beautiful.”

The experience of Dr. Taylor gives the impression that our little self, the “me” (which gives me the feel of a 'separate' person) is located in the left part of the brain. That is not true. Subsequent research by others showed that the “self” could be on the right side. But actually it now looks that there is no identifiable “I”-spot in the brain representing a 'me'. The “self” is perhaps a gateway of a set of neuronal networks that act as a node at that point of time for “me” related information depending on which set of neuronal networks are called to action at that specific time.

The Advaitic teaching on the origination of “I”-consciousness matches well with the above neurological model. Brain constantly goes on sensing the environment. As long as just the sensations happen no harm is done. For example, “When you look at a glass in front of you on the desk, it sets off a lot of reactions in your brain. Part of your brain categorizes it: "That's a glass!" Another part of the brain thinks about the glass's shape and size, its exact location, and what you would have to do with your hand and arm if you were going to reach out and grab it. All that activity goes on even if you just look at the glass.”

But if a claim of “me or mine” is made on what is sensed (the sensed object need not be a physical thing; it can be a thought in mind, a bodily sensation, or a thing perceived out there), “I”-consciousness pops up. The particular neural network node cognizing and identifying the object with a ‘name and form’ will be then the “I” at that particular moment. Depending on the ‘object’ sensed, the neural network node may be shifting in the brain.

Evolutionary Origins of the Right and Left Brain:

There is an evolutionary reason for the origin of two brain hemispheres. I shall present here a few extracts from the paper of Prof. P.F. MacNeilage, Prof. L.J. Rogers and Prof. G. Vallortigara published in Scientific American in July 2009.

Peter F. MacNeilage is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. He authored the Book The Origin of Speech published by Oxford University Press in 2008. Lesley J. Rogers is an emeritus professor of neuroscience and animal behavior at the University of New England in Australia. Giorgio Vallortigara is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Center for Mind/Brain Sciences and in the department of cognitive sciences at the University of Trento in Italy.

Excerpts:

The division of labor by the two cerebral hemispheres—once thought to be uniquely human—predates us by half a billion years. Speech, right-handedness, facial recognition and the processing of spatial relations can be traced to brain asymmetries in early vertebrates.

The specialization of each hemisphere in the human brain was already present in its basic form when vertebrates emerged about 500 million years ago. The more recent specializations of the brain hemispheres, including those of humans, evolved from the original ones by the Darwinian process of descent with modification.

The left hemisphere of the vertebrate brain was originally specialized for the control of well-established patterns of behavior under ordinary and familiar circumstances. In contrast, the right hemisphere, the primary seat of emotional arousal, was at first specialized for detecting and responding to unexpected stimuli in the environment.

The left hemisphere became the seat of self-motivated behavior, sometimes called top-down control. (We stress that self-motivated behavior need not be innate; in fact, it is often learned.) The right hemisphere became the seat of environmentally motivated behavior, or bottom-up control. The processing that directs more specialized behaviors—language, tool-making, spatial interrelations, facial recognition, and the like—evolved from those two basic controls.

Sheep can recognize the faces of other sheep (and of people) from memory and that the right hemisphere is preferentially involved. Similar behavior is also observed in monkeys.

In humans neuroscientists have recently recognized that the right hemisphere specializes in face recognition. Prosopagnosia, a neurological disorder that impairs that ability, is more often a result of damage to the right hemisphere than to the left.

Memories stored by the right hemisphere tend to be organized and recalled as overall patterns rather than as a series of single items. In contrast, the left hemisphere tends to focus on local aspects of its environment.

The uneven proportion of left- and right-type individuals in many populations thus indicates that the imbalance must be so valuable that it persists despite the increased vulnerability to predators. Rogers and Vallortigara have suggested that, among social animals, the advantage of conformity may lie in knowing what to expect from others of one’s own species.

What are the relative roles of the left and right hemispheres in having self-awareness, consciousness, empathy or the capacity to have flashes of insight? Little is known about those issues. But the findings we have detailed suggest that these functions—like the other human phenomena discussed here—will be best understood in terms of the descent with modification of pre-human capabilities.

MacNeilage has proposed that the making of syllabic utterances is an evolutionary modification of routine chewing behavior, which first evolved in mammals 200 million years ago.

[Please see the comments for some interesting latest scientific research results.]

Added on 25 Oct 2011:
Video of about 11 minutes:
"How have our two hemispheres evolved to relate -- and how did their relationship create our consciousness, our culture, and our ability to understand our own brains?"
http://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2011-10-25&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

Added on 22 Dec 2011:
About left-brain/right-brain differences: 
"The scientists found that signals coming from the left hippocampus led to a strengthening of long-term electrical connections between neurons. This strengthening of connections is a widely accepted model of learning and memory in the brain. It is thought to be associated with how we lay down new memories.In contrast, there were no such changes with signals coming from the right hippocampus.There was a striking difference. It suggests that the left and right hippocampus in the mouse have distinct functions in learning and memory processes."
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-left.html

Added on 09 Jan 2012:  
How does our brain know what is a face:
"On the left side of the brain, the fusiform gyrus — an area long associated with face recognition — carefully calculates how "facelike" an image is. The right fusiform gyrus then appears to use that information to make a quick, categorical decision of whether the object is, indeed, a face.
This distribution of labor is one of the first known examples of the left and right sides of the brain taking on different roles in high-level visual-processing tasks,  although hemispheric differences have been seen in other brain functions, most notably language and spatial perception."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/miot-mhd010912.php

Added on 02 Mar 2012:
When one side does not know about the other one
"Whenever we are doing something, one of our brain hemispheres is more active than the other one. However, some tasks are only solvable with both sides working together. Based on a pigeon-model, they are proving for the first time in an experimental way, that the ability to combine complex impressions from both hemispheres, depends on environmental factors in the embryonic stage."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/rb-wos030112.php


Added on 19 Mar 2012:
The split brain studies: 

"Through studies of this group, neuroscientists now know that the healthy brain can look like two markedly different machines, cabled together and exchanging a torrent of data. But when the primary cable is severed, information — a word, an object, a picture — presented to one hemisphere goes unnoticed in the other. The brain isn't like a computer, with specific sections of hardware charged with specific tasks. It's more like a network of computers connected by very big, busy broadband cables. The connectivity between active brain regions is turning out to be just as important, if not more so, than the operation of the distinct parts. The left-brain interpreter, Gazzaniga says, is what everyone uses to seek explanations for events, triage the barrage of incoming information and construct narratives that help to make sense of the world."
http://www.nature.com/news/the-split-brain-a-tale-of-two-halves-1.10213?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120315

Added on 21 Apr 2012:
Your left side (of face) is your best side:
"Your best side may be your left cheek, according to a new study by Kelsey Blackburn and James Schirillo from Wake Forest University in the US. Their work shows that images of the left side of the face are perceived and rated as more pleasant than pictures of the right side of the face, possibly due to the fact that we present a greater intensity of emotion on the left side of our face."
 http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-left-side.html

Added on 06 June 2012:
Are emotions and feelings the domain of the right hemisphere only?
"Ours is the first study from patients with dementia to show that language-based areas of the brain, primarily on the left, are important for extracting emotional meaning from music. Our findings suggest that the brain considers melodies and speech to be similar and that overlapping parts of the brain are required for both."
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-06-musical-long-held-view-left-brain-right.html

Added on 03 Nov 2012:
'New beginning' in split-brain research:
"Split-brain research has been conducted for decades, and scientists have long ago shown that language processing is largely located in the left side of the brain. When words appear only in the left visual field –– an area processed by the right side of the brain –– the right brain must transfer that information to the left brain, in order to interpret it. The new study at UCSB shows that healthy test subjects respond less accurately when information is shown only to the right brain. While hemispheric specialization is considered accurate, the new study sheds light on the highly complex interplay  –– with neurons firing back and forth between distinct areas in each half of the brain.This study shows that the strength of communication across the brain changes dynamically, when information is exchanged between the right and left hemispheres via the corpus callosum, which connects both sides of the brain."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/uoc--us110112.php



Added in Nov 2012:
Uncommon features of Einstein's brain might explain his remarkable cognitive abilities:
Portions of Albert Einstein's brain have been found to be unlike those of most people and could be related to his extraordinary cognitive abilities, according to a new study led by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk.
Falk, along with colleagues Frederick E. Lepore of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Adrianne Noe, director of the National Museum of Health and Medicine, describe for the first time the entire cerebral cortex of Einstein's brain from an examination of 14 recently discovered photographs. The researchers compared Einstein's brain to 85 "normal"  and, in light of current functional imaging studies, interpreted its unusual features.
"Although the overall size and asymmetrical shape of Einstein's brain were normal, the prefrontal, somatosensory, primary motor, parietal, temporal and occipital  were extraordinary," said Falk, the Hale G. Smith Professor of Anthropology at Florida State. "These may have provided the neurological underpinnings for some of his visuospatial and mathematical abilities, for instance."
Added on 4 Oct 2013:
Well-connected hemispheres of Einstein's brain sparked brilliance?:
"The left and right hemispheres of Albert Einstein's brain were unusually well connected to each other and may have contributed to his brilliance, according to a new study conducted in part by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk.


"This study, more than any other to date, really gets at the 'inside' of Einstein's," Falk said. "It provides new information that helps make sense of what is known about the surface of Einstein's brain."

The study, "The Corpus Callosum of Albert Einstein's Brain: Another Clue to His High Intelligence," was published in the journal Brain. Lead author Wei wei Men of East China Normal University's Department of Physics developed a new technique to conduct the study, which is the first to detail Einstein's corpus callosum, the brain's largest bundle of fibers that connects the two cerebral hemispheres and facilitates inter-hemispheric communication.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-well-connected-hemispheres-einstein-brain-brilliance.html

Added on 23 Oct 2013: 
Right brained? Left brained?  A 30 sec test:
http://sommer-sommer.com/braintest/

Added on 22 Nov 2013:  
Different gene expression in male and female brains:
UCL scientists have shown that there are widespread differences in how genes, the basic building blocks of the human body, are expressed in men and women's brains.
Based on post-mortem adult human brain and spinal cord samples from over 100 individuals, scientists at the UCL Institute of Neurology were able to study the expression of every gene in 12 brain regions. The results are published today in Nature Communications.
They found that the way that the genes are expressed in the brains of men and women were different in all major brain regions and these differences involved 2.5% of all the genes expressed in the brain.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Quantum Mechanics and the Brain

Quantum Mechanics and the Brain -- A NeuroQuantologic Perspective by Sultan Tarlaci, M.D.

[Dr. S. Tarlaci (www.neuroquantology.com) is a practicing Neurologist of Turkiye spearheading the new branch of science he calls NeuroQuantology. It is a marriage between (Cognitive) Neuroscience and Quantum Mechanics.


Dr. Tarlaci has been kind to let me highlight a few selected paragraphs from one of his latest articles (over 10,000 words) titled “A Historical View of the Relation Between Quantum Mechanics and the Brain: A NeuroQuantologic Perspective” published in the June 2010 issue of the peer reviewed Journal NeuroQuantology recently made available online. (http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/index). -- ramesam]

Quantum Mechanics and the Brain: A NeuroQuantologic Perspective
By Sultan Tarlaci, M.D.

ABSTRAT: Over the past decade, discussions of the roles that quantum mechanics might or might not play in the theory of consciousness/mind have become increasingly sharp. One side of this debate stand conventional neuroscientists who assert that brain science must look to the neuron for understanding, and on the other side are certain physicists, suggesting that the rules of quantum theory might influence the dynamics of consciousness/mind. However, consciousness and mind are not separate from matter. Submicroscopic world of the human brain give rise to consciousness and mind. We are never able to make a sharp separation between mind and matter. Thus, ultimately there is no “mind” that can be separated from “matter” and no “matter” that can be separated from “mind”. The brain as a mixed physical system composed of the macroscopic neuron system and an additional microscopic system. The former consists of pathway conduction of neural impulses. The latter is assumed to be a quantum mechanical many-body system interacting with the macroscopic neuron system.
***
[Select Paras from the article are reproduced below}

We do not know what the glue is that binds neural activity to sub-cellular molecular mechanisms, and the mind as a whole to the brain, but at the same time, in physics we more or less know the nature of gluons, which hold matter together.

Neurobiologists treat the brain and its parts as classical objects, and when they progress to smaller scales, give no importance to quantum mechanical effects. In this way, classical physics remains without mind or consciousness.

With the rise of quantum mechanics in the 1900s, the search in physics for a place for “something else” alongside matter began, and unfortunately, the searchers were physicists and not neuroscientists. Consciousness, which at first entered into the philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, was eventually incorporated into the equations. Classical physics contradicts the idea of free will, and connections were sought with quantum mechanics, which made random choices.

In 1963 computer scientist James Culbertson, in line with a long tradition of “panpsychism”, proposed that consciousness is an aspect of space-time, and all objects are to some extent conscious. According to relativity, our lives are in a region of space-time. Our brains show us a film of matter changing in time. All space-time events are consciousness and are in the consciousness of other space-time events.

Evan Harris Walker presented a model of synaptic tunneling between nerve cells [in] 1970.

[B]rain surgeon and researcher Karl Pribram (Pribram, 1971) and physicist David Bohm proposed that the brain worked like a hologram.
In 1977, the neuroscientist John C. Eccles suggested that the regions between the nerve cells of the cortex might operate in a quantum mechanical fashion.

According to Eccles, the interaction between mind and brain “is not by energy, but as if in a flow of information.”

[Penrose, 1989] claims that consciousness is created by quantum mechanical operations carried out in the brain cells by means of objective reduction. According to Penrose, the place in the brain where quantum mechanical operations take place is the microtubules found in concentration in the brain cells.

Hameroff devoted a large part of the next ten years to understanding how the microtubules could act like a computer network inside the brain cells (2001).

Penrose-Hameroff theory became one of the main foundations of the quantum mechanical theory of consciousness.

[I]t was postulated that conventional synaptic activity influences and is influenced by quantum state activity in the microtubules. This part of the process is referred to as 'orchestration' hence the theory is called Orchestrated Objective Reduction.

Stapp’s [1995] quantum model of consciousness has three bases. 1. The Schrödinger process, which is mechanical and deterministic, and predicts the state of the system; 2. Heisenberg’s process, which is a choice made consciously. According to the theory of quantum mechanics, we know a thing when we ask a question of nature. We affect the universe with the question. 3. The Dirac process is that an answer must be given to the question which we asked. The answer is totally random.

Yasue tried to prove that quantum mechanical effects had a function in recording memory, and that consciousness arose from an electromagnetic field interacting with the electric dipole field of water and protein molecules.

Physical Brain does Operate Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics however turns man from an automaton into a personality with a mind that has an active role to play in wave function collapse.
Quantum mechanics must be brought into the working of the brain and human behaviour because they are related to ionic nerve transmitters and atomic operations. For example, when neural electrical stimuli reach a junction between nerve cells, calcium ions enter the cell and cause the release of neurotransmitters. Ions and ion channels have very small dimensions. The opening of the channels and the movement of ions, as with other movements of ionic atoms, is a quantum mechanical event. Thus, the ions that enter may or may not cause the release of neurotransmitters from the vesicles in the nerve cells. The released neurotransmitters may or may not affect the sensors. This behaviour can only be described in terms of quantum probabilities. Such a quantum effect at a single nerve ending may not be important, but when this happens in a brain with 1015 synapses between nerve cells, classical physics is incapable of explaining it.

For today, rather than hoping to find new molecules and brain structures to explain the working of the brain and consciousness, we need new ideas on the interaction of molecules that will help us more. In this sense, the quantum mechanical approach may open up new avenues.

If we can define the oscillation of neurotransmitters in the synapses as being quantum mechanical, the sum total of synaptic activity in the brain may give an integrated brain wave function. At any moment in time, the potential state of observed events may be subject to superposition. That is, in the brain all alternative choices exist together at any one time, which Gordon Globus called a “plenum of possibilia.”

Physical Brain does not Operate Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics and the word “quantum” have been added to many money-making enterprises.

Quantum mechanics is necessary to understand the atoms of the brain, it is needed to understand the atoms of a stone in just the same way, but there is no need to make inferences using quantum mechanics about a stone’s consciousness.

The idea underlying these statements is that ‘inexplicable’ events are somehow connected to ‘inexplicable’ quantum mechanics.
Today, materialism has been replaced by psychology, and reductionism by a holistic view.

[Q]uantum mechanics works without involving consciousness; it fits in with all observations and all the principles of physics (Song, 2008). However, this is unfortunately ignored in the popular press, because it does not support their preference for mystical nonsense.

Quantum events according to the Schrödinger equation are linear. The nervous system however shows non-linear events at all levels.

The brain is not a closed system containing energy and information, it is an open system relating to meaning and thought.

The bottom line is that consciousness has been inserted into quantum mechanics, and this is an unnecessary complication. But it doesn’t end there. Afterwards, the place of consciousness becomes assured by creating answers to the wrong questions, whereas in fact quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the relationship between consciousness and matter.
The new quantum holism feeds our obsessions and tells us we are a part of the non-living cosmic mind. In this way, traditional religions are being modernized. A mystical physics is basically a wrong understanding of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states would decohere too quickly to be relevant to neural processing. Possibly the scientist most often-quoted in relation to this criticism is Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function (Tegmark, 2000).

Since 2003, neuroscience and quantum physics have been growing together by examining two main topics. One of these is the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics. The measurement problem has brought many other still unanswered questions in its train. The other main topic of NeuroQuantology is quantum neurobiology:

NeuroQuantology provides the motivation to break down this resistance and open a new door to quantum neurobiology (Tarlaci, 2010).

Any new information that we have gained about consciousness and the brain will open up even bigger questions. If there is one thing we have learned from the course of science up until today, it is that in understanding completely our brain and consciousness, we cannot jump over our own shadows.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Bhakti Yoga

Essay By Dr. K. Sadananda

[Dr. K. Sadananda (http://www.advaitaforum.org/) is a research scientist specialized in material science. He worked with the USA Naval Labs until his recent retirement. Starting from a VisishTadvaita environment, he shifted to J. Krishanmurti and later moved on to traditional Advaita under the tutelage of Swami Chinmayananda. He has been teaching Vedanta for over two decades and has been conferred with the title of “Acharya” by the Chinmaya Mission. His easy style of narration laced with wit and unerring focus on the essence of Vedanta earned him a large following on and off the internet.


I am deeply obliged to Dr. Sadananda for readily consenting to post the following interesting write up by him on Devotion.  -- ramesam]

On Bhakti Yoga

By Dr. K. Sadananda

Krishna talks of only two paths in Bhagavad-Gita (Ch. III-3) – one is karma yoga for those whose mind is set in yoga of action and the other is jnaana yoga for those whose mind is in yoga of knowledge. Bhakti yoga is not specifically mentioned. The reason is very simple – both have common theme and that is yoga. Yoga means one’s mind is yoked to the higher nature of reality. That demands commitment towards the higher, that is Bhakti or unwavering devotion towards the goal. Hence karma yoga is Bhakti through action and jnaana yoga is Bhakti through knowledge. Thus, Lord Krishna does not consider Bhakti as a separate yoga since it is the bottom line for both karma and jnaana. Nevertheless, Bhakti is emphasized throughout Gita. For example,

samoham sarva bhuuteShu na me dveShyosti na priyaH|
ye bhajantitu maam bhaktyaa mayi te teShu caapyahaM||

“I maintain equanimity to all – I do not favor or disfavor anybody. However, those who worship me with devotion, they are in me and I am in them” -- BG. IX-29.

Karma yoga involves Iswaraarpita buddhi that is offering action as the prayer to the Lord. When action itself becomes a prayer, then we have to make sure what we offer is the best that we can; therefore, dexterity in action is essential for a karma yogi – yogaH karmasu koushalam -says Krishna.

The whole of 12th chapter is called Bhaktiyoga with the emphasis on –

etu sarvaaNi karmaani mayi sanyasya matparaaH|
ananye naiva yogena maam dhyaayhanta upaasate||
teShaamaham samudharthaa mRityusamsaara saagaraat|
bhavaami na ciraatpArthaa mayyaaveshita cetasaam|

“Those who surrender all their actions in me, and meditate on me without any other thoughts, and those who have surrendered everything and whose minds are fully abiding in me, I shall ere long uplift them from the thralldom of the cycle of birth and deaths.”

Shankara defines Bhakti in VivekachuudaamaNi as –

moksha kaaraNa samaargryaam bhaktiH eva gareeyasii|
swaswaruupanusandhaanam bhaktirtyabhidIyate|
swaatmatatvaanusandhaanam bhaktirityaparE jaguH||

“Of all the paths for liberation Bhakti is the supreme. Bhakti is continuous contemplation on one’s own essential nature. Others say that continuous contemplation of the truth of one’s own Atma is Bhakti.”

Atma jnaana vicaara is therefore supreme Bhakti as per Shankara. Krishna classifies devotees into four groups as ArthaH (who thinks of me when in despair), arthaarthii (who prays for prosperity, artha), jignaasu (who desires to know Me) and jnaani (who knows Me), and says jnaani is the highest bhakta since “he loves me the most and I love him the most.”

Hence Bhakti is not a choice here but is the essence in all saadhanas. We shall examine what is involved in Bhakti or devotion in order to understand how a karma yogi perceives bhakti in relation to jnaana yogi, and why Krishna says jnaani is the highest Bhakta.

There is a difference between devotion and love (a word used in common parlance). Love towards a higher is devotion. Love towards lower is actually lust but mistakenly called love. Hence one rises in devotion while one falls in love!

Now what is higher and what is lower? Higher is that wherein the mind becomes calm, quiet and dissolves itself. Dissolving implies all mental agitations are sublimated at the altar of love. This is also called prapatti – a term which has a special significance in VishiShTaadvaita. In Gita we find that until Arjuna surrendered, Krishna did not start teaching – shiShyatvoham saadhimaam tvam prapannam – I am your disciple (prapanna) and I am ready to subject myself to your discipline. That should be the attitude of a student as Krishna himself enumerates that one should approach a teacher with that attitude of surrender – tat viddhi praNipaatena praripraShNena sevayaa – That is devotion towards the teacher and the teaching is essential for knowledge– Only in that attitude of devotion the mind becomes free from agitations and ready to learn. In contrast, lower is that wherein the mind gets more and more agitated – one cannot sleep or eat or do anything constructively since mind is always pre-occupied – that is what happens when one is falling in love.

Love or devotion can be classified into three types: 1) Means Love 2) End-Love and 3) Self-Love. Means love is love of the means to achieve some goal in mind – that is the path to reach the goal. Some are so obsessed with the means that they forget the goal and fanatically fight for the means. We can remind ourselves the story in Gulliver’s travels where the two Lilliputian countries fight among themselves – the issue is how to break the egg – One country says Egg should be broken from the fat end while the other insists on breaking from the thin end. The Means became more important than the end. Religions try to survive by arguing that theirs is the only means to reach the goal and declaring that all other means will lead to eternal hell. Some are ready to kill others in support of their cause to save life of the unborn babies. Since I love the end or the goal so much that I tend to love the means too. That is one kind of love. But some love the means only to get to the goal they want. Once the goal is reached there is no more love for the means since the mission is accomplished. I love my uncle so much since I like to have the wealth that he has; but once I got that wealth, uncle is of no importance; in fact he is considered a nuisance.

How is this related to Bhakti? For the most of the people, God’s love is only a means-love. That is God is considered as a means to achieve some goal in mind. What I love is actually the goal that I want, and means is only a way to get what I want. Everybody has lots of desires – for self and also for family (spouse, children, grand children, etc.) and ‘this’ includes health, wealth, position, power, etc. which are projected as the goals of life. I want to be on the good side of God, since I have learned that He is the one who is the giver. Hence I go from temple to temple, one holy place to another, of course with a big list of what I want from Him. I will make sure I do not forget to prostrate to all the gods in the temple (nowadays there are many in each temple) to make sure that I am not blacklisted by any one of the Gods there.

Whenever we go to a temple, the priest asks during sankalpa that involves informing the God who we are and why we are praying the Lord, - our gotram and our star, etc, so that when God sends the goodies he has the right address. Pujari has a standard wish list for all; he repeats it for everybody without even asking what we really want. Thank God, Krishna lists us also as one of his Bhaktas under the category of artha arthiis – that is all those who are always with begging bowls, however much he has already given. That is called Means-Love.

The second one is called End-Love, not end of love. God itself is the end not the goodies that he gives. I do not care for the goodies, what I love is God. This kind of love is rather rare and is what is really emphasized in most of the devotional paths. The nine modes of Love are the modes of expressing this love towards God. He is the master and I am the servant is the one that is mostly emphasized in VishiShTAdviata. The service according to them involves serving the forms of God – through daily puja and idol worship etc. This Bhakti is exemplified by the twelve Alwars in the vishiShTAdviata tradition. Their Bhakti includes not only serving God but also serving the Bhaktas of the Lord. It is easier to serve the Lord than serve the bhakta of the Lord. In Mukundamaala Kulashekhara Alwar says – tat bRitya bRitya paricaaraka bRitya bRityasya iti maam – I am the servant of the servant of the servant.. .

There is an interesting communication between an advaitin and vishiShTaadvaita. Advaitin signed his letter as so2ham meaning He is me – the mahaavaakya. Obviously the vishiShTaadvaitin did not like that. He put da- in front making it as daaso2ham (I am (His) servant). When advaitin saw the letter he put another –sa- in front making it sadaa so2ham – (eternal identity of He and ‘me’). Of course the vishiShTaadvaitin put another da in front of it making it daasa daaso2ham – servant of the servant. The extended communication is still going on!

The third type of love is the Self-love that Shankara emphasized in the above quoted sloka from VivekacUDAmaNi. This is considered as the supreme love. How can Self love be the supreme love? Yajnavalkya says to his wife Maitreyi in Br. Up. – aatmanastu kaamaaya sarvam priyam bhavati – essentially we love everything or anything else only because we love our selves. I love this – this can be anything (means-love) or even God (end-love) – not for the sake of this but for my sake. I love ‘this’ only because ‘this’ that I love gives me happiness. Hence whether it is means-love or end-love the real love is only self-love. What I love is actually the happiness that I hope to get more than the thing itself. Hence even God lovers do not love God for God’s sake. What they really love is self-contentment or fulfillment. They want to be complete without any inadequacies since full and contented mind is a happy mind. Shree Vidyaaranya says in pancadasi – the love for oneself is the supreme and expresses as – maanabhuuvamhibhuuyaasam – Let me not cease to exist or Let Me Be All the Time. I love myself so much that I want to live eternally. Lakshmiidhara Kavi also makes the same statement in Advaita Makaranda – ahamasmi sadaabhaami kadaachinnaahapariyaH – I am not only existent and conscious but also ananda swaruupa since never I dislike myself.


A jnaani is the one who loves himself – since he revels by himself in himself – atmanyeva aatmanaa tuShTaH, and he has no desire for anything else including God since he has discovered that the God he loves is nothing but his own essence. I am in everyone’s heart; and heart in Vedanta means the very core of one’s individuality. Hence Krishna says jnaani is he who realizes - sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanicha aatmani –that he is the self in all and all are in himself – he is jnaani and that jnaani is the one Krishna says is the supreme bhakta. The self realization is also God realization as Krishna himself in the very next sloka says– yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvan ca mayi pasyati – those who see Me everywhere and everything in Me.

Hence pure Bhakti should culminate in jnaanam. Therefore, Self-love is God-love – not a God separate from him – it is the culmination of Bhakti where lover and loved have become one - that is advaita. In advaita, Bhakti reaches its pinnacle – and that is moksha or liberation. That is the culmination of Bhakti yoga – same as culmination of jnaana yoga. Hence, Shankara’s definition of Bhakti – swaswaruupa anusandhaanam bhaktirityabhidiiyate.

(The above write up is inspired by a talk given by Swami Paramarthanandaji).

***

DEVOTION
By Rupert Spira


My nephew Dr. Chandra alerted me about a short write up by Rupert on Devotion. Rupert kindly permitted me to reproduce it here.

Question: Is there a place for bhakti or devotion in this [Advaita] approach?

Rupert: To be truly devoted means to give our whole self to the object of our devotion at all times. Therefore, the only object worthy or even available for such devotion or love must be something that is always present, for we cannot give ourselves completely to something that is intermittent.

There are no true objects of devotion because all objects are intermittent. Only Consciousness is ever-present and therefore, only Consciousness merits true devotion. And what could give Consciousness this devotion? Obviously an intermittent object such as a body or a mind cannot render devotion to something that is present when it is not. Therefore only Consciousness is able to impart this devotion to itself.

So, it is only Consciousness that can be truly loved and it is only Consciousness that can truly love. However, Consciousness does not love and is not loved. It is love.

So, the highest form of love or devotion is simply to abide as Consciousness, knowingly.

Any other sort of devotion would be the devotion of any imagined entity towards an imagined object.

However, the imagined entity that looks for a direction in which to turn and for something to turn towards, does not realise that the ‘attention’ it is ‘using’ for this purpose is already the Consciousness that it seeks. It is like a current of water searching the ocean for water.

Every object or direction which appears as a possible recipient of the mind’s devotion is an object that it has created within itself and cannot therefore be the true object of its devotion. Any object is simply more mind.

As the mind searches for a direction in which to turn, it is, without knowing it to begin with, tracing itself back to its source.

Finally, having explored all directions, it comes to a dead end. It comes to the knowledge that there is no known direction in which it can turn nor is there an object worthy of true devotion. In short, the mind cannot know what devotion is.

With this understanding the mind falls silent, which means it dissolves and what is revealed is devotion.

Devotion is what we are, not something we do.
* * *
The investigation within the mind for the true object of devotion is sometimes known as self-enquiry or higher reasoning. It is a concession to the mind that thinks it has the capacity to direct its attention at will towards an object.

However, this is not a process of the mind going towards its source, although it may appear to be so to begin with. It is rather, the dissolution of the apparent mind in its source.

[Note: Only something that is not the source could dissolve in its source, so the idea of the dissolution of the mind in its source is part and parcel of the mind’s belief that it is something other than its source. In other words, the idea of a source from which something emerges is a dualitic idea which itself ‘dissolves’ upon understanding that there is no independent entity, mind or object.]

How could a mind go towards Consciousness? In what direction would it go?

It is rather the source itself, Consciousness, that gradually reclaims the mind.

In taking the shape of mind, Consciousness seems to become something other than itself. It seems to become separate, other and outside. At the end of every perception, Consciousness folds the mind back up within Itself and, as a result, ceases to seemingly veil itself with its own creativity.

However, even that formulation is not quite right: the mind has no other substance other than Consciousness so there is nothing there to be dissolved.

When an image that seems to veil the [TV] screen fades, leaving only the screen in view, did the image really dissolve?

The image was only made of screen. However, by seeming to become something other than itself (the landscape on the screen) the screen seemed to become hidden by taking the shape of the landscape and the subsequent fading of the image seemed to reveal the screen.

Likewise, the mind is an appearance within Consciousness, made only of Consciousness, but has the capacity to seem to veil the Consciousness out of which it is made.

In self-enquiry or higher reasoning the mind fades like the image on the screen, leaving only the background of Consciousness in plain view.

It is not the mind that undertakes this process, any more than it is the image in the landscape that is responsible for its own dissolution. The mind does nothing. The mind is not an independent entity with the capacity to do or not to do anything.

In fact, it was always only Consciousness that was in plain view, simultaneously the background and the foreground.

[Note: One of our esteemed members of this Blog, Cathy has a different take on "Devotion" at her Blog .]

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

QUANTUM PHYSICS AND JAZZ MUSIC SPEAK ADVAITA

Excerpts from an Essay by Paula Marvelly

[Paula Marvelly is a young trained Web-designer, playwright and author in search of the Ultimate Truth for over two decades. As a seeker, she carved out a unique path for herself interviewing over fifteen living Advaita teachers from India, Europe and USA and studying the lives of over twenty enlightened women. Her two books published in 2003 and 2005 received rave reviews, describing her conversations with Advaita masters as “intense and energy-filled” and “touching and deeply personal in a way” and her work on the women of wisdom as “meticulously researched and erudite.”


Paula is now helping a charitable trust, The Advaita Academy in the U.K. My thanks to her for the ready consent to present here excerpts from her essay published here. --  ramesam]

QUANTUM PHYSICS AND JAZZ MUSIC SPEAK ADVAITA
By Paula Marvelly


It was Einstein’s protégé, David Bohm, who put together a fascinating model of reality in a theory, which he called Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

Bohm postulates that the phenomenal world as we know it, consisting of time and space and causality, is the ‘unfolded’ or explicate order of the universe; supporting this unfoldment is the ‘enfolded’ or implicate order, a substratum of information, if you will, within which the archetypal templates of reality are contained.

So, tying this up with the observations made in quantum mechanics and wave/particle complementarity – the implicate order consists of waves; the explicate order represents collapse or unfoldment into particles.
Bohm then goes on to say that underlying both orders is what he calls the holomovement, an undivided wholeness in flowing movement, where all parts of the universe, whether they be at the microscopic or macroscopic levels, are united in one indefinable and immeasurable totality.

***

Two eminent living scientists, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, have proposed their own theory suggesting that ‘moments’ of conscious experience are orchestrated by gamma wave synchrony, which are mediated by microtubules present in brain tissue and which are used as instruments of information processing.

Indeed, EEG experiments performed on Tibetan monks chosen by the Dalai Lama found that levels of gamma synchrony were the highest ever recorded in terms of amplitude, frequency and degree of coherence (as compared to a control group of college students).

***

So what, ultimately, has science to do with advaita? On one level, ultimately nothing. And yet, what contemporary scientific theory is pointing to is that at the fundamental level of existence, the universe is essentially one, from which all manifest phenomena are born. Indeed, when consciousness is taken as a priori, the mind/matter problem, the classical/quantum dilemma, no longer appear to exist. The universe is now perceived as a hierarchical structure, with every level of the physical word – macroscopic, molecular, atomic, nuclear, sub nuclear – having has own inner logic, its own inherent truths, and yet all the while sustained by an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent source.

Indeed, rather than being an epiphenomenonal process, consciousness is fundamental to the universe, pervading all levels of nature and giving rise to conscious experience. Everything in the universe – planets, trees, human beings, thoughts – are a manifestation of consciousness, are a celebration of That.

And out of this dynamic subjectivity, the universal all-pervading Self, we as human beings individualise our consciousness through the filter of our nervous systems, our body-minds, giving rise to the experience of ‘I’, and the apparent divisions between knower and known, observer and observed. Knowing this fundamental paradoxical premise – that diversity is inherent in unity and unity is inherent in diversity – is called self-knowledge and is the inherent message of advaita Vedanta philosophy.

The literary critic, Terry Eagleton, in his book, The Meaning of Life, also uses the analogy of music to conclude his philosophical analysis of the value of human existence in terms of individuality manifesting in the collective whole:

Take as an image of the good life, a jazz group. A jazz group, which is improvising obviously differs from a symphony orchestra, since to a large extent each member is free to express herself as she likes. But she does so with a receptive sensitivity to the self-expressive performances of the other musicians. The complex harmony they fashion comes not from playing from a collective score, but from the free musical expression of each member acting as the basis for the free expression of the others. As each player grows more musically eloquent, the others draw inspiration from this and are spurred to greater heights… There is self-realisation, but only through a loss of self in the music as a whole… There is pleasure to be reaped from this artistry, and – since there is a free fulfilment or realisation of powers – there is also happiness in the sense of flourishing. Because this flourishing is reciprocal, we can even speak, remotely and analogically, of a kind of love… that when we act in this way, we realise our natures at their finest.

[Note: Jerry Katz in his NDhighlights # 3844 reported the 23 March 2010 Article "Quantum Science Proving Mysticism" by Philip. F. Harris. Philip's essay is based on two recent findings in the field of Quantum Physics. His artilce is available here.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

JIVANMUKTI AND VIDEHAMUKTI

Extracts from the works of Shri S.N. Sastri
[How often does one come across a Computer savvy eighty seven year old Sanskrit Scholar and Vedic pundit well versed in all the major Upansihads as well as the commentaries of Revered Sankara? This rare genius is Shri S.N. Sastri, a retired Senior Finacial Officer of the Indian Government and author of several acclaimed works like Commentaries on Narayaniyam, Hastamalakiyam etc. His agile mind gets reflected in his writings through the lucid, balanced and comprehensive assessment of all the intricate issues of Advaita . Shri Sastri’s articles are available at:
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/s_n_sastri/s_n_sastri.htm
and also at: http://www.celextel.org/
I am grateful to Shri S.N. Sastri for his ready consent to publish excerpts from his essays at this Blog on the subject of Liberation right in this Life (Jivanmukti) and Liberation without body (Videhamukti) -- ramesam.]

JIVANMUKTI AND VIDEHAMUKTI

(i) Extract taken from “Introduction to Advaita Vedanta”:

“The world has no reality apart from Brahman, just as the illusory snake has no reality apart from the rope. When the knowledge of Brahman arises, the world is seen as a mere appearance of Brahman. The illusory snake arose from the rope, was sustained by the rope and ultimately merged into the rope.

"Similarly, the world arises from Brahman, is sustained by Brahman and merges into Brahman on the attainment of knowledge. Another example is also given to explain this. Ornaments of different sizes and shapes are made out of one gold bar. Their appearance and the use for which they are meant vary, but the fact that they are all really nothing but gold, in spite of their different appearances and uses, cannot be denied. The appearance may change, a bangle may be converted into rings, but the gold always remains as gold. When we begin to look upon the bangles, rings, etc., as nothing but gold in essence, the differences between bangle and ring, ring and chain, etc., cease to count though they continue to retain their different shapes.

"[O]n the dawn of the knowledge of Brahman (which is the same as the Self), though the different forms continue to be seen by the j~nAni, the realised soul, he sees them all only as appearances of the one Brahman. Thus the perception of difference between one person and another, or one thing and another, and the consequences of such perception, such as looking upon some as favourable and others as the opposite, and the consequent efforts to retain or get what is favourable and to get rid of or avoid what is not favourable, come to an end. This is the state of liberation even while living, which is known as jIvanmukti.

* * *

"[L]iberation is not the attainment of some new state in some other world after the end of the present life. It is only the realisation, in this life itself, of what one has always been, namely Brahman, by the removal of the wrong notion that one is the body-mind complex. The illusory snake never existed. What existed even when the snake was seen was only the rope. Similarly, bondage has no real existence at all. Even when we are ignorant of Brahman and think of ourselves as limited by the body, we are really none other than the infinite Brahman. Liberation is thus only the removal of the wrong identification with the body, mind and senses."

(ii) Extract taken from a Summary (by Shri Sastri) of Jivanmuktiviveka of Swami Vidyaranya:

Jivanmukti and Videhamukti are distinguished only by the presence and absence of the body and the sense-organs. The awareness of duality is absent in both of them.

The Jivanmukta is one for whom this phenomenal world, in which he moves and acts, has ceased to exist. In the case of an ordinary person, his mind reacts to the various forms in the world and gives him knowledge of their variety and their differences from one another. But the mind of the Jivanmukta does not get so transformed and so he does not see differences, but sees all forms only as Brahman.

"In deep sleep the mind does not undergo any transformation, but the seed for transformation remains. So sleep cannot be equated with the state of Jivanmukti. The Jivanmukta remains unaffected by both pleasure and pain. He is not elated by something good happening, nor is he depressed when a calamity occurs. He does not crave for anything, but subsists on whatever comes of its own accord.

"Though his senses function and can experience everything, his mind is absolutely calm and does not react to anything. Though his eyes see everything before him, his mind does not judge them as good or bad, favourable or unfavourable and so he is free from agitation and attachment or aversion. The senses themselves do not cause any harm. It is the mind which judges what is experienced by the senses and develops likes and dislikes in the case of an ordinary person. Since the mind of the Jivanmukta does not make any such judgment, he is free from all attachment and aversion."

Videhamukti:

When the body of the Jivanmukta falls, he becomes a Videhamukta, freed from his empirical existence and attains his real nature, like air resuming its tranquillity when the wind stops blowing. His subtle body is dissolved here itself. He cannot be described as 'sat', that is to say, he cannot be called 'praajna' conditioned by avidya or 'Isvara' conditioned by maayaa. He cannot be called 'asat', or made up of mere matter. He does not experience the gross objects of sense. He is neither Virat, nor Hiranyagarbha nor Isvara. Nor is he Visva, Taijasa or Praajna. Thus he does not come under the category of microcosm (vyashti) or of macrocosm (samashti).

Characteristics of the Jivanmukta:

(iii) Extract taken from a Summary (by Shri Sastri) of Jivanmuktiviveka of Swami Vidyaranya:

"Because of the absence of transformation of the mind, the Jivanmukta is free from Vasanas. His mind always remains pure. He never looks upon himself as a doer of actions since he does not identify himself with the body-mind complex which alone performs all actions. Consequently he is neither elated nor depressed by the good or bad results of the actions. Others do not have any reason to fear him, because he never insults or harms others in any way. He is also not afraid of any one. He remains unaffected even if some wicked man insults or harasses him. He does not distinguish people as friend or foe. Though full of learning, he never exhibits it. His mind is absolutely free from worldly thoughts and is always fixed on contemplation of the Self.

"[A Jivanmukta] remains cool even in matters concerning himself, just as a man attending a marriage or other ceremony in another's house remains unaffected by the gain or loss of that other person. This coolness is due not only to his freedom from worry, but also to his awareness of the fullness of his own Self. These are the characteristics of the Jivanmukta."


(iv) Extract taken from Vedanta Saara:

"When a Jivanmukta is not in samaadhi, he experiences sense-objects as well as hunger, thirst, etc, but does not consider them to be real and is therefore not at all affected by them. He is like a man witnessing a magical performance, being fully aware that what he sees is not real.

“He who does not see anything in the waking state as in sound sleep; who, though seeing duality, does not really see it as he sees only the Absolute; who, though engaged in action (for the good of the world), is in reality inactive (being totally free from the idea of agency); he, and none other, is the knower of the Self. This is the truth.” (Sankara’s Upades’asaahasrii,10.13).

“Such qualities as freedom from hatred are natural to one who has attained Self-knowledge. They have not to be cultivated with effort (as in the case of an aspirant for liberation)”--- Naishkarmyasiddhi,4.69."


Some of the Relevant Scriptural Sources for the above Material:

Mundaka Upanishad – 2.2.8
Sankara’s Upadesa saahasri – 10.13
Naishkarmya siddhi – 4.69
Sankara’s Vakya vrittis – verses 52, 53
Sankara Bhashya On Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad – 3.2.11; 4.4.6
Sankara Bhashya on Bhagavad Gita - II.51, V.24, VI.27

Sunday, January 24, 2010

SCRIPTURES

Extract From "The Book of One" (Second Edition) by Dennis Waite

[Dennis Waite hardly needs an introduction in the Advaita circles. He is very well known through the multitude of his books promoting and spreading the ancient Indian Thought of Non-Dualism. His encyclopedic Website is a highly reliable source of authentic Advaitic material. In addition, he encourages a catholic approach to the subject by publishing articles on Non-Dualism by diverse teachers and writers at his Website. The site is fast becoming a de facto "standard" in the compilation and presentation of Advaita philosophy.
I am very happy to open this Blog with his Essay titled "Scriptures" as the first Post in the year 2010. I thank him for readily consenting to contribute this Post in spite of pressing demands on his time. -- ramesam]


SCRIPTURES
By Dennis Waite


I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo Galilei

Gods, then, do not have any ultimate reality and religions may sometimes be misguided. Both of them have their utility, however, as a means of mental preparation and for helping to quell the demands of the ego and point us in the right direction, away from the material and external and toward the truth within. These limitations need to be appreciated. But what of the scriptures upon which religions are based? Whichever religion might be under consideration, it has to be acknowledged that writers of major scriptural texts have attempted to record important information for posterity. There are many reasons why such attempts might seem to fail. The historical context in which they were written is now often poorly understood. Truths are often couched in obscure terms or hidden in the depths of seeming irrelevancies (which were probably not irrelevant to the culture which originated them). Vague or ambiguous presentation may have been used because writers at that time were persecuted for attempting to communicate ideas considered heretical by the prevailing society. Translations, too, inevitably lose something in the process – often their essential meaning! And stories written down only after many generations have communicated them verbally, with varying degrees of artistic license, may not be altogether factual.

The Hindu Vedas, with their philosophical Upanishads, are said not to suffer from these problems. They are supposed to have been passed on verbatim from generation to generation since their original observation by realized Sages. Strictly speaking, they are said to be unauthored – apauruSheya in Sanskrit, literally ‘not coming from men’. The idea here is that the knowledge was given to man by God at the time of creation and passed down thereafter. But such statements need not confound us. The truths expressed in the Upanishads have been validated time and time again by successive Sages and they are there only to provide guidance and to act as an incentive for us to discover those same truths for ourselves – and in this lifetime, not the next! It is essential to know where we are trying to get to and it is always valuable to have some understanding of the processes by which we might reach that destination.

(I have to say that my preferred (reasonable) interpretation of the adjective ‘unauthored’ is that the words were originated by self-realized sages and subsequently passed on by word of mouth until such time as written materials became common. These sages, being self-realized, no longer identified themselves as body-minds, as named individuals, so they had no wish whatsoever to have their bodily-assigned names attached. They knew that what they were conveying was non-personal, eternal truth that has nothing to do with personality. The sole purpose was to pass on this knowledge so that other minds, initially believing in separation, might be enlightened. Such absolute truth is beyond authorship and hence is reasonably construed as ‘unauthored’).

A useful metaphor for understanding how the scriptures operate is that of a mirror. We are totally unable to see our own face without the aid of a mirror, no matter how good our eyes may be. In an analogous manner, no matter how clever and perceptive the mind might be, we can have no knowledge of our true self. We are always the witness, never the witnessed.

In order to find out about this Self, we need the equivalent of a mirror. Scriptures (and the guru who interprets them for us) provide this mirror.

Neither God nor Being nor any other word can define or explain the ineffable reality behind the word, so the only important question is whether the word is a help or a hindrance in enabling you to experience That toward which it points. -- Eckhart Tolle (Ref. 93)

As already mentioned, in Advaita, the scriptures (mainly Upanishads, together with the Bhagavad Gita) constitute one of the six pramANa-s or sources of knowledge – it was referred to as ‘testimony’. And we will see in the chapter on ‘The Limits of Knowledge’ that reality is defined as that which cannot be sublated by any new experience. (The word ‘sublate’ will be explained, too, if you haven’t encountered it before’.) Furthermore, any cognition is said to be valid if its content can never be sublated. As we know from experience, and will be discussed in the third section of the book, perception, inference etc. are all subject to later correction or modification as additional information comes to light. John Grimes, in his excellent book ‘Perspective on Language’ (Ref.140) summarizes this and concludes that scriptural knowledge is the only source that does not suffer in this way:

“Perception and all the other pramANa-s, except words as knowledge, produce cognitions which ultimately suffer sublation. Brahman, which is the content of the cognition produced by religious discourse, remains unsublated. Because Brahman is eternal, there is no possibility of Its sublation at some later time. Thus, the cognition which religious discourse gives rise to is valid.”

[Note: The above extract is from the extensively revised second edition of ‘The Book of One’ by Dennis Waite. It will be published in April 2010 by O-Books, ISBN 978-1846943478.

Visit http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/thebook/thebook.htm for further details and to read more extracts. The Book is available for advanced purchase from Amazon.]

Saturday, December 26, 2009

CONVERSATIONS WITH A LIVING GAUDAPADA

[FIRST A WELCOME: Trey, Neil and Juhana and a FaceBook user are the new members to our Blog. A VERY HAPPY WELCOME TO ALL OF THEM. Trey has been kind to introduce the Blog at the FaceBook; I am grateful to him for this -- ramesam.]


CONVERSATIONS WITH A LIVING GAUDAPADA:

As we end the year 2009 to snuggle cozily into the welcoming arms of 2010, thoughts on the Past, Present and Future do hover in our minds. We accumulate our experiences as memory. Our brains decipher certain inviolable patterns in those experiences. The patterns and their recurrence go to reinforce and solidify our belief in the reality of our experience.

Ancient Indian scriptures talk of three levels of ‘reality’ – (i) Absolute; (ii) Transactional and (iii) Dream. The Absolute Reality is the ultimate, unchanging Truth. Transactional reality is what we live with in our daily life. The ephemeral reality is the one we experience in a dream world.

Vedanta shouts from roof-tops: The dream and transactional experiences are equally FALSE and UNREAL. There is nothing like a past and future of things happening. Everything just happens in the NOW. There is NO thing other than Nowness, the Aliveness, the very Beingness. It is Alone. No second one is there. And that is Advaita.

That is the view from the Absolute Reality that Gaudapada gives us.

Venerable Gaudapada was a Great Sage of the 8th Century. He expounded the above philosophy of Ajativada (nothing is ever born), the true gist of Vedanta, in his classic Karika (commentary in verses) on Mandukya Upanishad. The Second Chapter of the Karika discusses the illusory nature of the world that we experience and the non-difference of dream and awake states of man. The Mandukya Upanishad and Karika hold these two states to be mere 'arisings' in the deep sleep state.

Quoting Gaudapada Karika:

A question arises then: who cognizes the illusory objects of dream and wakeful states, if the objects cognized in both the states are unreal? (Karika II – 11).

The 12th verse of the Chapter II goes to answer (Swami Nikhilananda’s translation, Advaita Ashrama, 1995):

“Atman, the self-luminous, through the power of his own Maya, imagines in himself by himself (all the objects that the subject experiences within or without). He alone is the cognizer of the objects (so created). That is the decision of the Vedanta.”

Gaudapada further explains that internally conceived things like thoughts, ideas etc. are no different from objects seen ‘out there’. He says in the 14th verse:

"Those that are cognized within only as long as the thought of them lasts, as well as those that are perceived by the senses and that conform to two points of time, are all mere imaginations. There is no other ground for differentiating the one from the other."

Swami Nikhilananda amplifying on the word “imaginations” writes as follows:

“That a thing exists independently of the perceiving mind is also an idea. …. Past, present and future are nothing but ideas present in the mind at the moment.”

Peter Dziuban provides us, like Gaudapada, the worldview from the stance of and as Absolute Reality. His teachings echo Gaudapada’s Ajativada.

We are fortunate that he explains with great clarity, irrefutable logic and inimitable expression our questions at his Blog: Reality Check.

I posed him the following question:

Though we seem to understand intellectually the non-dualism, how is it that a sense of ‘lack’ continues to haunt us?

I want to get to the root of this 'lack' - a lack not for any objective 'thing' but that gut feeling of "not satisficing".

One way is to see the 'lack' to be "ALL", the very Being. However, this looks to be a mere explanation.


Peter’s response is available at his Post of 23rd Dec 2009.

What Peter said, in brief (as I understood in my words) was:

1. Notice that "something" has cognised that sense of 'lack'.

2. Be that very "Cogniser" rather than claiming ownership for that sense of 'lack'.

3. The sense or gut feeling of 'lack' is time dependent (hence transitory) and therefore, sure to 'dissolve'.

4. The sense of 'lack' has its origin because of an 'assumed add-on' i.e. some unspelt 'expectations' of a person in 'me' looking for 'object-oriented experience'.

Later Peter answered in three Posts of 25th Dec 2009, the following question of mine:

I do not find anywhere, either in the ancient Indian lore or in the modern non-dualism teachings, anybody explaining the emergence of the wakeful state with all the phenomenal 'world' and its goings on.

Words like 'Maya', 'Leela' (play), 'Freedom', [Vibhuti, Karma, Cyclicity] etc. are used to explain how from that Immutable Oneness the first 'I-thought' is engendered to manifest later as the variegated manifold. But these are admittedly just explanatory fictions. Such explanations take all the mathematical precision and scientific regularity in the phenomenal 'world' as 'given'. They accept the inevitability of inexorable natural laws and never provide any clue as to why a law is the way it is.

[.....,] we see a 'signature' of dream state in a dreaming brain (REM sleep). How do you think the brain state would be when one is "abiding" as ALL, One, Consciousness, Brahman.


I would like to draw the attention of the readers of this Blog to the excellent Posts of Peter in reply to my query, a befitting way to end the year 2009.

[The possible state of the brain of a “realized” man (Jivanmukta) is obviously something he cannot comment. It would fall under Neuroscience. However, his surmise is that there would be no thinking activity, and little or no experience of sensations — so he speculates that those apparent related areas of brain activity would be greatly reduced or inactive. Meanwhile, in such states the body usually still appears to breathe, pump blood, etc. so it would seem that whatever brain activity is involved in these apparent functions would continue.

This topic can be a good study for Barrow Neurological Institute, Arizona, U.S.A. One of their Directors attended the Oct 2009 'Science and Non-dualism Conference' in San Rafael, California.

As no thinking can happen without stored information, it will also be interesting to see how memory will behave in a Jivanmukta. Our ancient scriptures say that vasana-s (past stored impressions) will become ineffective like burnt out seeds. Memory is still an active on going research topic in Neuroscience.

Information we have from Neuroscince on retention, loss or erasure of memory, abnormal memory of a savant brain and related issues will form the subject of a future Blog Post.]

WITH BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR