Analysis of the Mind-2

[Guest guest]

2. Mind and Matter

 

Is mind a matter, or is it separate from matter, or

does it matter in our pursuit of happiness? Such

questions troubled philosophers as well as

psychologists from time immemorial. Western

philosophers give credit to Rene Descartes (17th

Century) for proposing that mind is not a physical

matter, since it has no spatial (or physical)

dimensions, and it is identified with consciousness

and self-awareness. Even though it is not a physical

matter, it closely interacts with the physical matter,

particularly with the physical body. For, it is noted

that the ‘mental moods’ of passions such as love,

hate, jealousy, fear, happiness, sorrow, etc., and

some times even strong emotionally rooted beliefs, can

have notable and significant interactions at body

level. Mental depressions can affect physical health.

Psychosomatic diseases are common. Addictions and

drugs can affect mental imbalance and vice versa, that

is, strong mental disturbances can generate poisonous

chemicals in the body. Thus mind and matter duality

appears to be interconnected, since each affects the

other. What exactly is the relation between the two is

not know although many theories have been proposed.

There is a theory called ‘Substance Dualism’ that

states that mind is an independently existing

substance separate from the physical matter

constituting the body (the brain), but its substantive

is not known. There is another theory called ‘Property

Dualism’ which states that substance of the mind is

not different from physical matter but its properties

are different. There is also a theory called ‘Monism’

that states that body and mind are ontologically the

same. Thus many -isms have been proposed each

postulating the relation between the mind and matter.

From clinical side, it is evident that mind can be

affected by certain chemicals; and addiction to drugs

has become a world-wide problem. In the dualistic

models, starting from that of Descartes, mind is

considered as ‘consciousness’ or ‘self-awareness’ or

at least ‘some-how’ related to consciousness. Hence

mind-matter duality is ultimately reduced to

consciousness-matter duality. The current western

thinking is consciousness ‘some-how’ arises in matter;

just the same way as the mind operates in physical

body. Many of these concepts are really not new and

are borrowed from age-old philosophies, but presented

in an acceptable form to be marketable as new

theories.

 

From Vedantic (philosophical truths discussed in the

end part of the Vedas called Upanishats) perspective,

mind is considered as subtle matter different from

gross physical matter. The subtle part of the gross

food that we eat subsist the mind. Hence the food

that we eat can also affect the mind. For example,

mind can be made be aggressive, passive or lethargic,

etc, depending on the type of food we eat. To enhance

the contemplativeness of the mind certain foods,

called saatvic, are recommended, while certain others,

rajasic and tamasic are to be avoided. Similarly, for

the mind to be active or aggressive like for worriers,

rajasic foods are recommended. Thus it was recognized

that gross matter does affect the subtle mind and its

properties.

 

Consciousness and mind are considered separate by some

philosophers while others consider conscious mind,

where the mind is conscious of objects, as in the

waking state, is equated to consciousness. It is

recognized, therefore, that there is an interrelation

between (or among) consciousness, mind and matter.

‘What exactly is the relation between the two or the

three?’ is not known, although there are many theories

and postulates. A person can be made unconscious by

chloroform or to different degrees of unconscious by

addictive drugs like morphine, etc. Is consciousness

a special property of matter that arises when certain

conditions are met, or is it the other way, that is,

does matter arise in consciousness? The former is more

acceptable for physical or material scientists, while

latter may be closure to the truth.

 

Is there really matter separate from the

conscious-mind? There is a theory called ‘Theory of

Idealism’, which maintains that the mind is all that

exists, and the external world is either mental

projection or an illusion created by the mind. (This

theory of Idealism, which is somewhat similar to

Vijnaanavaadins of Buddhism, is different from Advaita

Vedanta, although they are some who vehemently argue

that they are the same.) For the mind to exist, there

has to be locus for its existence, which has to be the

body made of matter. This will reduce to a circular

argument, if according the Theory of Idealism the

matter is a projection of the mind, since mind depends

on the matter and matter is projection of the mind.

 

Another important question is whether consciousness of

‘an object’ or of ‘the world’ different from

self-consciousness, that is awareness of one’s own

self (where subject itself is an object of

consciousness, i.e. I am conscious of myself). Some

Vedantins (particularly vishiShTaadvaita) argue that

there are two types of consciousness; one is

self-consciousness and the other is

object-consciousness; they are called dharmi jnaanam

and dharma bhuuta jnaanam, respectively. The

fundamental to this classification is the subject,

‘I’, is different from object, ‘this’. The

self-consciousness (dharmi jnaanam) is always present,

since it is intrinsic to oneself, while the

object-consciousness manifests under conducive

environment, when there is an object present that one

wants to be conscious of. A question arises at this

juncture is whether I can be conscious of myself, that

is self-awareness that I am as ‘I am’, without having

object of consciousness, ‘this’. When I am conscious

of an object ‘this’, I am conscious of ‘I’ know ‘this’

where subject thought ‘I’ and the object thought

‘this’ are present simultaneously in the mind. This

subject-object duality forms essential ingredient of

the mind. Can I have awareness of the subject ‘I’

without the associated object awareness of ‘this’ in

the mind? That is, can I have just the ‘I’ thought

without having ‘this’, ‘this’ thoughts, ‘this’

standing for objects? – If there are no ‘this’

thoughts, would the mind still called mind? These are

some fundamental philosophical questions in trying to

understand the structure of the mind.

 

The above question boils down to, can the mind operate

having just subject consciousness or

self-consciousness, without having simultaneously the

object consciousness. That is, does the mind always

operate in the subject-object dualistic mode or can it

have just subject alone without an object. Can there

be a thinker (subject) alone without having thoughts

(of objects) or does the thinker ceases to exist

without the thoughts of the objects? Rene Descartes

stated that ‘I think, therefore I am’ implying first

that ‘I am’ is associated with thinking faculty. Can

the conscious entity that ‘I am’ exist without having

to think? Since the subject-object relation arises

with the mind or in the mind, ontological status of

each or both of them is a philosophical question that

is closely related to the analysis of the mind.

 

It is taken for granted that everybody knows who they

are. Most of them have high opinion of themselves

(superiority complex) and some have low opinion of

themselves (inferiority complex), but everyone has

some opinion about himself. Since everybody knows who

they are or at least they think they know who they

are, no educational system offers courses to learn who

they are. All the educational systems are only trying

to teach us about ‘this’, this being any of the

objectifiable sciences, such as chemistry, physics,

psychology, medicine, how to do?, etc. It sounds

ridiculous if we say that ‘We can become experts in

all about ‘this’ without knowing much about our

selves’. The funny thing is we misunderstand ourselves

about ourselves, while complaining most of the time

that others do not understand us.

 

In one of the Upanishats a student gives a huge list

of his expertise in many fields (in our terminology

more than 60 Ph.D. s), yet repents that he is still

restless and does not have peace of mind. The teacher

says you know everything except yourself. Essentially,

knowledge of ‘who am I?’ is not for academic interest

like knowledge of any of ‘this’, the teacher says, it

is the very foundation of life itself. Without knowing

yourself, it is impossible to have proper contact or

relationship with the world. All mental suffering

(suffering is mental only) results from this lack of

understanding. Hence Vedanta says ignorance of one’s

own true nature is the root cause of human suffering.

 

If we ask any body – ‘who are you?’ – we get a big

account of who he is. Some people have pages and pages

of their bio-data, in response to the above question.

If we examine any bio-data, including our own, all it

tells is – I am ‘this’, I am ‘that’, etc, starting

from physical dimensions to intellectual

accomplishments – all pages and pages of information

about ‘this and that’, but nothing about ourself.

Subject ‘I’ is different from object ‘this’ – and our

fundamental confusion arises by identifying the

subject ‘I’ with the object ‘this’. Analyzing this

problem, Vedanta says, when I do not know myself who I

am (self-ignorance), I take myself what I am not – as

I am ‘this or I am ‘that’. Subject consciousness or

self-awareness is intermixed with

object-consciousness, awareness of this. This

confusion arises due to lack correct knowledge of ‘Who

I am?’. Now the question is, does this confusion arise

because of the subject consciousness and object

consciousness cannot be easily separated in the mind?

Is this inherent in the structure of the mind? If

someone says, after reading this, that he definitely

knows who he is, then Vedanta says, that only means he

does not know who he is. This is because, he is only

conceptualizing or objectifying who he is and in the

very objectification, he misses the subject, himself.

Then how does one ever know who he is? Vedanta

provides definite clues by which one can evaluate his

self-knowledge. These clues are for self-evaluation

and not for others to evaluate him about his

self-knowledge.

 

In the western theories stating form Rene Descartes to

Sigmund Freud, conscious mind is identified with

‘ego’ or notional ‘I’ which is nothing but notion that

‘I am this’ – this being whatever I think I am at that

time. Hence the famous statement of Descartes, ‘I

think, therefore I am. Hence we posed the question

before – Can I ever be conscious of myself without

simultaneously having objective consciousness – that

is, without the duality present in the form I and this

– as ‘I know this’ and ultimately ‘I am this’. Related

to this is, can the mind operate in the realm where

there is subject consciousness alone without

simultaneous object consciousness. ‘I am’.. ‘I am’..

‘I am’..period, without any ‘I am this’.. ‘I am

this’.. ‘I am this’.., etc.

 

This identification or equation of the subject ‘I’

with object ‘this’ forms the fundamental conditioning

of the mind discussed in the introduction, where

‘this’ that I identify with depends on the

conditioning of my mind. Thus I am an Indian, I am an

American, I am theist or atheist, Hindu, Christian,

Muslim, dvaitin, advaitin, Vedantin, believer or

non-believer, etc – identification with concepts,

traditions, theologies, beliefs, etc. Deconditioning

therefore involves declutching or removing this

confused understanding about myself. How to do the

deconditioning without reconditioning myself with

different notions is the secret of Vedanta – therefore

Vedanta is not another religion or path but it is like

a mirror which shows who you are in contrast to who

you think you are. This is not a fanatical statement

but statement born of experiences of many sages, since

time immemorial. The beauty is the solution is not up

there in heaven or after the death etc, but right here

and right now, since the truth that is infinite has to

be eternal that includes here and now. Hence Vedanta

is the means of knowledge (pramaaNa) to know the truth

of oneself, since any other means of knowledge

including all scientific investigations relay on

objective analysis or analysis of ‘this’ and therefore

not valid for the analysis of the subject ‘I’. Science

can never prove or disprove the truth about myself,

since its field of enquiry is limited to objective

analysis or analysis of ‘this’ and not about the

subject, I. This also establishes that western method

of analysis of even the mind as object of

investigation will never give the total picture of the

mind, since it can deal with ‘this’ aspect of the mind

which is inert part and not the consciousness aspect

of the mind that deal with self-consciousness and

object-consciousness.

 

As it is clear from the perpetuation of many theories

and postulates about the nature of the mind that it is

not easily amenable for grosser objectification and

analysis by conventional scientific tools. The

inherent problem is we are using the mind to

investigate the mind. So called tools that normally

used in scientific experimentation are not fully

useful in the inquiry of the mind other than at

grosser or clinical level. There is also confusion in

terms of mapping of the brain is equated to mapping of

the mind – it is like investigation of the hard ware

to find out about the problems in the soft ware.

Experience of pleasures and pains, emotions of love,

compassion, fear, anxiety, hatred, etc are also not

easily quantifiable to determine cause-effect

relations as they are subjective. Understanding of

the mind would help us to have a control of our mind

or redirect the workings of the mind, instead mind

controlling us. This is more important to maximize

the efficacy of the mind than trying to change the

‘set-up’ or the world at large to improve the standard

of living. Pressures of the modern society are

contributing to more and more of mental problems; man

may be more comfortable with modern gadgets but they

make him only comfortably unhappy. Absolute eternal

happiness is the goal of every being and the key to

accomplish that lies in understanding and utilizing

the mind properly. In the following we present various

classifications of the mind based on its functions and

utilities, since understanding of the working of the

mind is the first step in controlling it and

redirecting it properly.

------------------------------

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda