Mind as an instrument?

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

In your 5th October message "Re: What is an obect?", you wrote: "The mind is a

necessary

instrument and should be used accordingly."

 

For me, this raises a question that might help me to be clearer about your

'idealist'

approach. For what is mind needed? Yes, it is needed to make objects appear, by

taking

attention out to them from consciousness. And it is needed to interpret the

appearances

and to assimilate their meaning back into consciousness. But these needs are

only for

objects and for persons that the mind conceives. Thus far, the mind is needed

only for its

own conceptions, of world and personality.

 

But is the mind needed any further, by consciousness itself? Is consciousness

completely

independent of the mind and of all world and personality that mind conceives?

 

As I understand advaita, its answer to these questions is a whole-hearted yes,

unreservedly. So it views all ideas as dependent on a fictitious world and

fictitious

personality that mind fictitiously conceives. In advaita, where consciousness is

rightly

realized, its experience is unmediated and direct, with not the slightest trace

of

conceived ideas or mind's activity remaining there. No world, no personality, no

creation,

no expression can at all have any relevance to it. Can idealists accept such a

total

annihilation of conception and ideas, when it comes to reality? And if they

accept it, how

can they remain 'idealists'?

 

The same kind of reasoning applies to advaita, of course. Where advaita is

accepted, no

'advaitins' can remain. As Shri Shankara pointed out, where freedom is attained,

it is

realized that no one has been bound and no one freed.

 

In short, I'd be interested to know whether you think idealism can extend beyond

ideas, to

their total dissolution in a direct consciousness whose very being -- in each

individual -- must annihilate their last remaining ideation?

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ananda,

 

Since you asked me a direct question, I will surely respond, to the

best of my ability. Let us see if I can be concise (for once).

 

 

ANANDA:

In your 5th October message "Re: What is an obect?", you wrote: "The

mind is a necessary instrument and should be used accordingly."

 

For me, this raises a question that might help me to be clearer about

your 'idealist' approach. For what is mind needed? Yes, it is needed

to make objects appear, by taking attention out to them from

consciousness. And it is needed to interpret the appearances and to

assimilate their meaning back into consciousness. But these needs are

only for objects and for persons that the mind conceives. Thus far,

the mind is needed only for its own conceptions, of world and

personality.

 

MY REPLY:

First of all, I want to reiterate that I am not trying to shove

Western philosophical ideas down anybody's throat. I just feel that

a certain kind of 'idealism' makes Advaita comprehensible and hence

palatable to a rationally-minded skeptic. In particular, it makes

nondual spirituality accessible to the scientist (and lover of

science), who tends to veer towards materialism and the denial of any

'metaphysical' or 'theological' notions. Those seekers who are not

troubled by such issues can ignore idealism.

 

I agree with what you just said about how mind functions. So far so good...

 

 

 

ANANDA:

But is the mind needed any further, by consciousness itself? Is

consciousness completely independent of the mind and of all world and

personality that mind conceives?

 

As I understand advaita, its answer to these questions is a

whole-hearted yes, unreservedly. So it views all ideas as dependent

on a fictitious world and fictitious personality that mind

fictitiously conceives. In advaita, where consciousness is rightly

realized, its experience is unmediated and direct, with not the

slightest trace of conceived ideas or mind's activity remaining

there. No world, no personality, no creation, no expression can at

all have any relevance to it. Can idealists accept such a total

annihilation of conception and ideas, when it comes to reality? And

if they accept it, how can they remain 'idealists'?

 

MY REPLY:

All I meant to say about mind is that it can serve as a kind of

compass to help us navigate the world of form. The world of form

arises like a dream, and is no more than a dream, but this dream

obeys patterns and causes (or more precisely 'causal sequences' as in

Hume). In particular, vasanas and karma are part of the causal

structure. So we have to first engage with causation to be liberated

from it.

 

For example, I have practiced a form of breathing meditation, in

which I simply remain calmly aware of the breath. I learned this

from Buddhism. Perhaps my practice is naive and elementary, but it

has done me a lot of good, helping to eliminate many negative

thoughts and emotions which used to plague me. It cleans out the

subconscious, which is also a part of the mind, and this is a good

thing, especially for those, like myself, who appreciate happiness

and dislike unhappiness. There is no shame in this!

 

But at a more practical level, I was simply saying that we need the

mind to brush our teeth and drive a car, which I am sure you agree

with.

 

As for the purpose and limitations of idealism, as I see it, I hope

that becomes clearer in the following. Please realize that my use of

the word 'idealism' is my own concoction, even if I borrow many

elements from famous Western philosophers such as Berkeley and Hume.

 

 

 

ANANDA:

The same kind of reasoning applies to advaita, of course. Where

advaita is accepted, no 'advaitins' can remain. As Shri Shankara

pointed out, where freedom is attained, it is realized that no one

has been bound and no one freed.

 

In short, I'd be interested to know whether you think idealism can

extend beyond ideas, to their total dissolution in a direct

consciousness whose very being -- in each individual -- must

annihilate their last remaining ideation?

 

MY REPLY:

Yes, I do wholeheartedly agree that the purgation of the sense of

personality and identity from the mind purifies the consciousness and

permits it to shine in its natural light. I have verified this

myself on many occasions. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable talking

about 'eliminating the ego', since it seems that I am sanctimoniously

preaching about morality, which is annoying to anyone with any spirit

and wit. I am no better than anyone else and hardly an example to

follow.

 

But the whole point is that this purification of consciousness

happens in degrees and is not some kind of reward for being good, as

moralists might have it. It is scientific. The ego is a vast

complex of powerful subconscious predispositions that weigh down the

mind and darken consciousness. It is rooted in a sense of identity,

which is a creation of the mind. And simply abandoning this sense of

identity leads to an immediate expansion and purification of

consciousness. This is a practical matter that can be verified by

experience, and I consider that a large part of my sadhana is simply

observing the changes in my consciousness in reaction to my thoughts

and feelings (or lack thereof).

 

Even when we behave badly, we should simply observe our mind and

consciousness in a detached way, instead of getting wound up in

feelings of guilt or self-justification, which only increase the

sense of ego. Such detached awareness will shine a light on the

workings of the mind, which will lead to freedom from that mind. It

is like clothes being bleached by the sun. Guilt, on the other hand,

is highly rajasic and emotional, and it simply makes us more troubled

and insecure, which leads to an increase in dark, subconscious

currents which are hardly conducive to an enlightened state of mind.

Sometimes guilt can even erupt in anger and make us worse than

before. In my opinion, this appreciation of the wisdom of detached

awareness is one area where Hinduism and Buddhism have a distinct

advantage over the guilt-based approach of traditional Christianity

and Islam. It is much healthier.

 

So above all, we should relinquish the sense of identity, and the

purification of consciousness will automatically follow, as it

reverts to its natural, pure and calm state, like vast space.

 

In that state, all is seen as a dream, since consciousness is

recognized to be the only reality. Indeed, this gives me the

opportunity to say WHY it should be so important to 'see all as

consciousness', which is a question we should really address.

 

My view is that the recognition of objects is inextricably bound with

the ego sense. They are two sides of the same coin, or they are like

Newton's law of action and reaction. To eliminate the ego sense and

to eliminate the perception of objects is all part of the same

spiritual work or project. When one goes, so does the other.

 

Furthermore, the view that 'all is consciousness' is closely related

to one of my favorite pleasures ... yes pleasure ... which could be

summed up in the magic word 'inspiration'. I believe that almost all

of our behavior is based on consciously or subconsciously grasping

for this. It explains why people seek love, women, children,

friends, wealth, knowledge, power, fame and even food. In my

opinion, it even explains, to some extent, war, crime, drugs and the

other sordid preoccupations of humanity.

 

You might argue that I am simply using the word 'inspiration' to

stand for 'pleasure' or 'happiness'. Yes, but the word inspiration

brings out the essential quality, namely, a feeling of liberation and

elation and even ecstasy. These feelings are fundamentally

spiritual; they are what naturally occurs when consciousness is

allowed to 'expand' to its natural and pure state, like space. The

desire for inspiration is a deep urge within all of us, which

constantly motivates our behavior, so that even those pursuing

'sordid' pleasures are really seeking for inspiration or elation, but

are ignorant of its true nature and source. They seek it in the

secondary and impure reflections. The pleasure in consuming any

'object' is not in the object but in the trickle of inspiration that

is released.

 

And the essential message of Advaita and Buddhism, in my opinion, is

that this inspiration or happiness is intrinsic to our nature as

spiritual beings. It is not truly found in the imaginary objects; it

only appears that way due to the delusion of the mind.

 

So realizing that 'ananda' is intrinsic to the very nature of

consciousness provides a powerful motivation for 'seeing all as

consciousness', which is how I define idealism. In some sense, the

mind's superposition of the illusions ego and objects obscures the

true manifestation of consciousness as light and bliss. But this can

only be realized when consciousness is purged of these obscurations.

And simply obtaining an intellectual understanding of consciousness

and of the workings of the mind is an important first step. Then

this understanding must be deepened into an immediate and intuitive

realization of the nature of consciousness, in which we gradually

dissolve like salt into the ocean.

 

At any rate, this is how I understand those spiritual paths that I am

interested in, such as Advaita and Buddhism. It certainly makes a

lot more sense to me than, say, crucifixions and gods dying for my

sins, and it is also more uplifting and inspiring. I know that some

Christians will take offense at this. I do recognize that the

melodrama of the crucifixion can work for some people and make them

better than they might otherwise have been. However, in my opinion,

those Christians who have truly received inspiration from 'finding

Christ' have really found some kind of Advaita, but in a coded and

symbolic form.

 

Well, I guess that wasn't as concise as I had wished, but my vasanas

are still very strong! I hope I answered your question.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

Thanks for your patient reply to my question and for your comment on 'background

knowledge' (both on 7th Oct).

 

About the idea of 'background knowledge', I agree wholeheartedly that it is

overly

'circuitous and obscure', as you rightly put it. Of course Shri 'Atmananda's

direct and

streamlined view of things' is greatly preferable. The whole point of advaita is

that

direct seeing is direct reality.

 

If there is any difference between idealism and advaita, I would say it's only

in the

question of how to streamline mind's constructions, so as to improve their

directness and

their accuracy. Idealism is inclined to attempt its streamlining through a

cultivation or

development of mind and its ideas. Advaita says that's not enough. Such

cultivation or

development can only be a personal preparation. All mind and ideas must be

utterly

dissolved, by questioning them fully back to a subjective source where no

personality

remains.

 

It strikes me that you put the idealist position rather well, in the following

passage

from your reply:

 

"All I meant to say about mind is that it can serve as a kind of

compass to help us navigate the world of form. The world of form

arises like a dream, and is no more than a dream, but this dream

obeys patterns and causes (or more precisely 'causal sequences' as in

Hume). In particular, vasanas and karma are part of the causal

structure. So we have to first engage with causation to be liberated

from it."

 

Thank you for this clear and concise description. To me, it shows quite fairly

how the

mind is used by many Buddhist and western idealists. Its use is like a compass,

to help

direct our navigation in the world of perceived forms. But the mind is a

strangely

convoluting kind of compass. What it directs is the travel of its own attention,

in a

world that is constructed from this very travelling. The mind is a compass that

constructs

the very world in which it assumes that it is pointing. All its descriptions and

its

pointing are constructed on the basis of assumptions that keep on getting

reconstructed,

in a never-ending cycle of past assumptions further convoluted into the

construction of

new assumptions that maintain the confusing and obscuring convolution.

 

Advaita focuses upon a different use of mind. That use is not to cultivate

ideas, nor to

develop them in systems of constructed thought. Instead of pointing through

ideas to forms

that they describe, the mind is used to point back in, beneath its own

construction of

assumptions. As you say, the world of form arises as a dream that's governed by

its causal

sequencing of vasanas and karmas. So reasoning within the dream appears engaged

in logical

causation, as mind starts to investigate the truth of its own ideas. But when

mind reasons

skeptically, reflecting back beneath its founding assumptions, that reasoning

points in

the opposite direction from all structured forms and all causal sequencing.

 

Advaita's basic use of mind is just that turned-back reasoning, carried out

relentlessly,

beyond all compromise with mind-constructed forms and processes. It is quite

different

from any yogic meditation targeted at mystic states, or from any psychoanalytic

introspection of hidden thoughts and wishes, or from any ethical training meant

to develop

purity of character. It seeks no change or transformation of the world or

personality, but

only an unchanging truth beneath all changes of physical and mental perspective.

Viewed

from the mind, truth is attained through a change of perspective; but when that

truth is

found, it turns out that all changes of perspective are unreal -- that all

perspectives

always have and always do and always will show only one, unchanged reality.

 

In this sense, it could be said that advaita starts from an idealist position

(that an

object comes into existence with knowledge), and from there presents a

challenge. The

challenge is for each idealist to carry fully through the inherent consequence

of her or

his idealism. If the objective world does not exist outside the mind, then what

is our

knowledge of this mind-constructed world? If mind's constructions don't show

outside

objects, what truth do they really show, from their different points of view? At

this

point, should one take it that there is no real truth, that all so-called

knowledge is a

mind-constructed game? From what I've heard, Hume seems to have done just that,

retiring

to frequent games of backgammon as a consolation.

 

Having understood that objects don't in fact exist, the challenge for an

idealist is to go

on asking for a truth that must accordingly be objectless. In the end, that

asking is

exactly the enquiry that advaita makes, nothing more or less. But the

questioning is

useless when applied to someone else's ideas, assumptions or beliefs. Then it is

merely

theoretical, and just stays stuck in intellectual tit-for-tat. It's only when

one's own

ideas are up for question that the reasoning gets genuine and directly

practical. It's

only thus that a subjective truth can rise and take one back to it -- in

response to a

questioning that seeks its direct presence in one's own experience. Only then

can dead

ideas give way to living truth -- no matter how approached, from systems that

may call

themselves 'idealist' or 'advaitic' or whatever.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ananda Woodji.

 

Your reply # 19258 to Benji.

Your clarity dumbfounds me!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair