Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Analysis of the Mind-3

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

3. Classification of the Mind

 

‘Mind’ is a general term used to designate the

thinking aspect involved. In the computer terminology

it can be thought of as software in contrast to the

hardware, the brain. In Vedanta, mind is considered

as ‘flow of thoughts’ (vRitti dhaara) or more

correctly the basis on which the thoughts flow, rather

than the flow itself. Like flow of water is called

river, flow of thoughts is the mind. We can have

stagnant water but we cannot have stagnant thought,

since thought it self involves a movement, although we

could have regurgitated thoughts or a whirlpool of

thoughts, when we are intensely attached to a

particular theme. Mind can only think one thought at a

time, but it can jump from one thought to the next

like a monkey jumping from one branch to the other,

without coming down to the basis or ground. These are

interconnected thoughts. Interestingly the very

sequence of thoughts defines the time and occurs in

time. Thus time becomes part of the embedded system in

the definition of the mind, since flow of thoughts

involves flow of time. Dr. Ananda Wood (an author of

an advaita text and a moderator of the internet

Advaitin list) thinks that since simultaneously two

thoughts are not perceived in the mind, ‘space’ that

is based on simultaneity is more an imagination by the

mind than ‘time’. However, according to Vedanta

‘space’ is the first ‘subtle element’ in the sequence

of creation, although sequence itself implies a

time-factor. The fact is ‘space and time’ are

inseparably interrelated, as movement in space defines

time and movement in time defines space; and this is

recognized by modern science as space-time continuum.

The point of our concern here is both are intimately

connected with the operation of the mind. Thus

subjectivity through the mind enters in the perception

of ‘time and space’. We will address this issue more

later when we discuss the perception of spatiotemporal

objects and thus the world through the mind.

 

Mind has been classified depending on its function and

field of operation. Understanding of this helps to

identify its role in each operation. We will present

some aspects of it to unravel the mysteries of the

mind.

 

Freudian Classification: Sigmund Freud (early 20th

Century) provided a topographical view of the mind in

terms of (a) the perceptual aspect of the mind, called

conscious mind, (b) autonomous functional mind called

‘subconscious mind’ and © ‘unconscious mind’, a

storehouse of suppressed or oppressed thoughts and

memories from the conscious level that may still

influence the conscious mind. Conscious mind

constitutes the ‘ego’ which plays the role of a

deliberate agent in all our actions and enjoyments.

The unconscious mind is involved in instinctive or

impulsive desires and reactions. Conscious,

subconscious and unconscious minds form hierarchical

architecture, wherein actively repressed thoughts from

the conscious mind form the contents of the

unconscious. These can be tapped by psychoanalysts or

under hypnotic states or through what are known as

‘Freudian slips’. The most important constituent of

the mind is the ‘ego’, but according to the Freudian

analysis, it constitutes only a peripheral conscious

state, in the waking state. The unconscious mind

plays a more dominant role in the dream state. Freud

recognized that prior thoughts, desires, suppressive

and oppressive thoughts in the past can leave behind

subtle impressions buried deep in the mind, which he

calls as unconscious (meaning one is not keenly

conscious) and they could find expressions in

conscious mind when one is not vigilantly aware –

which a psychoanalysts call as ‘slips’. In comparison

to the Vedantic analysis of the mind, as we shall see

below, these classifications sound very elementary,

nevertheless are given a prominence in the western

psychology, particularly in relation to mental

disorders.

 

Four components of the mind: Vedanta provides a

different classification for the mind, which is the

basis for the flow of thoughts. It is divided into

four components based on their functions: a) mind

(manas), b) intellect (buddhi), c) ego (ahankaara) and

d) memory (chitta). All four components together

generally referred to as just ‘the mind’. The four

components of the mind along with five faculties of

senses (that is the power of seeing, power of

smelling, etc – that give rise to knowledge), five

faculties of action (motor driving faculties related

to hands, legs, speech, two excretory organs – that

produce results) and five physiological functions

called 5-praaNas (power of breathing, digestion,

circulation, etc – that sustain life), all together we

have nineteen entities (4+5+5+5 =19) constituting what

is called ‘subtle body’ (suukshma shariira). This is

in contrast to gross physical or material body

(sthuula shariira) consisting of skin, flesh, bones,

fat, blood, etc., along with all the physical organs

of the body, including the brain. Thus subtle body is

considered to have 19 gateways through which it

interacts with the gross body and through the gross

body with the external world. Thus mind is considered

as locus for all faculties for physiological

functions.

 

Death is defined as the separation of this subtle body

from the gross body. The process of death involves

mind collecting all its 19 physiological functional

group and existing the body. In the common language,

we say ‘He is dead and gone’ – implying that someone

residing in the body has left the body. Thus gross

body, which is product of food, sustained by food and

it will eventually go back into food (for insects), is

left behind when the subtle body leaves stopping all

associated physiological functions. Doctors cannot

define what life is, but can only know if a person is

alive or dead by expressions of life through the

physiological functions. According to Vedanta, death

occurs when this subtle body finds the gross body no

more conducive for its residence. Hence, in simple

terms, death is described as changing worn out clothes

by the subtle body or shifting its residence, since we

say ‘he is dead and gone’. Worn out does not

necessarily mean that the body is dilapidated and

hence not useful. It could be any body that is no more

conducive for the subtle body to express itself for

one reason or the other. Extending this argument,

then, the birth is the subtle body entering with its

package at the conception. Parents give birth only to

the physical body and not to subtle body; the subtle

body enters taking its new residence. As the new body

matures, the faculties get expressed more and more

vividly to yoke out experiences with the external

world. Biologically, one can only account for the

physical body in terms of chromosomes and genetic

codes, but expression of life through the mind,

physiological functions, and individuality comes with

its own inherent traits that differ from one child to

other, even born of the same parents. Even if one

clones and creates an offspring duplicating the

mother, the individuality of the child is different

from that of the mother and they even can compete with

each other for their survival. Hence genetically they

may be the same, but subtle bodies are different.

 

Subtle body is considered made up of subtle matter,

which is not perceptible to the sense organs. Even

the existence of mind cannot be established by direct

perceptual or empirical means. It has to be inferred

since it is subtle. But we all accept that we have a

mind of our own and we can theorize its nature based

on its functions and working; but none of the theories

can be validated by any objective scientific means.

The tools of validation that we normally use in the

field of objective sciences are inadequate to handle

the subtle matter. Validity or invalidity, therefore,

cannot be established by objective means. Hence one

can only infer based on the individual behavior to the

external stimulus, just as a physician uses external

stimulus to infer the working of the physiological

functions. In fact, according to some idealists,

existence of the objects and the world ‘out there’

also cannot be established independent of the mind.

‘Can the world be established independent of the

mind?’ and conversely ‘Can the mind be established

independent of the world?’ are questions that

concerned many philosophers. Here, we only recognize

that there is interdependency of the world and the

mind and it appears that one cannot be establish

independent of the other.

 

Of the four components that were defined, mind,

intellect, ego and memory, each has its field of

operation. The mind in the above is locus of

emotional thoughts –classified as nine moods or

feelings of expression (nava rasas) consisting of

love, passion, anger, jealousy, etc. In addition, the

mind is also a clearing house for input from the

senses and output through organs of action, thus can

be thought of as receiving and dispatching clerk.

Furthermore, it is also a ‘doubting Thomas’,

entertaining all the doubts and the associated

worries, and indecisions. Some people cannot make up

their minds easily, because they are dominated by this

part of the mind, which is indecisive. This emotional

component of the mind is where intense attachments and

emotions play a major role, many times overpowering

logic and reason. Some constantly doubt themselves

about their capabilities, doubting and worrying at

every step - whether something will materialize or

not, whether the house is locked or not, whether stove

is off or not, whether he is going to be successful or

not, etc. with constant worries, nostalgia and nervous

break down occurring at this level. At the same time

it is also a center of beautiful expressions of love,

admiration, compassion, etc. In general, nature

appears to maximize this component more in women,

perhaps for the protection of the offspring. I am

reminded of the song by the professor in ‘My Fair

Lady’ – ‘Why cannot the women be like men or like me?’

 

The second level of the mind is the ‘intellect’

(buddhi) which is the locus of discriminative

thoughts, right from wrong, thoughts of decisive

character, field for logic, reason, judgment, etc. In

contrast to the lower mind, the intellect can be

considered as officer in charge, analytical and

synthetic, objective and can hop from the known to the

unknown to gain knowledge. Those that are

predominately intellectual (where this component of

the mind is well developed) are less emotional, more

analytical, decisive, logical, reasonable and

determined with ‘will’ to proceed and a goal to reach,

with attachments governing less in their actions.

 

The third component is the ego. In Sanskrit it is

called ahankaara. It is may be defined as – ‘aham,

aham, aham, iti karoti, ahankaara’ – the one who

claims as ‘I am – I am – I am’ in all our transactions

involving, of course, our mind. In our discussions of

‘who am I?’ it is this ‘ahankaara’ that responds with

the answer. In the western psychology, it is this

‘ego’ that is considered as the conscious mind.

However, according to Vedanta, ego is just a pattern

of thoughts of ‘I-ness’ that arise in the mind, that

tries to identify with a set of thoughts as ‘I am

this’ and with another set of thoughts as ‘this is

mine’ (mamakaara) as ownership of thoughts. Thus ego

involves two aspects – ‘I am this’ (ahankaara) and

‘that is mine’ (mamakaara) or simply ‘I and mine’. In

the identification of ‘I am this’, there is an

inclusiveness of ‘this’ as part of I. In this very

inclusion, there is also exclusion involved as ‘this’

is separate from ‘that’ as ‘I am not that’, thus

differentiating ‘this’ from ‘that’, and similarly

‘mine’ from ‘not mine’. By inclusiveness and by its

mirror part, exclusiveness, ego tries to define or

crystallize itself differentiating I vs. you, he, she,

it, or they, etc., and mine vs. yours, his, etc.

According to Vedanta, this ego is a fake or false ‘I’,

since, as we discussed before, it involves

identification of ‘I am’, the subject, with an object

‘this’, with ‘this’ keep changing from body, mind to

intellect. Thus the meaning of ‘I’ that I associate

with keeps shifting when I say ‘I am six feet tall or

I am black or white or brown’ – where identification

is at the gross body level - or ‘I love her’, ‘I am

envious of him’ or ‘I hate this’, - where

identification is at emotional component of the mind -

or ‘I am an engineer’, a doctor, scientist, etc.,

where the identification is at the intellect level.

The locus where ‘I’ is placed shifts form gross body

level to emotional mind level to intellect level. The

essence of ego is identification of ‘I’ with ‘this’; I

being an invariable, while ‘this’ being a variable, I

being a conscious entity while ‘this’ being an inert

entity.

 

In the statement of Descartes that ‘I think, therefore

I am’, my existence is ascertained by thinking process

which was criticized later by Immanuel Kant (18th

Century), whose arguments were no better either.

According to Kant, self-consciousness or subject

consciousness, ‘I am’ is established by the

consciousness of objects – ‘this is’. Thus, ‘this is’

is required to establish ‘I am’ since mind can operate

only in the subject- object duality. The problem here

is not the duality par sec but what is considered as

an independent variable and what is the dependent

variable. That is, is consciousness of ‘this is’ is

required to establish ‘I am’ or is it the other way

around?. At the ego level, we do operate without

being keenly aware of it, when we say ‘I am this’.

Without ‘this’ to identify with, I do not seem to have

any other existence. No body stops their introductions

saying ‘I am’ without any object ‘this’ attached to

it.

 

Hence Kant’s conclusion that self-consciousness

appears to arise only with the object consciousness

seems to be justified. However, we just now noted

that locus of ‘I am’ keeps shifting from body level to

mind level to intellect level, with adjectives that

are added keep changing with the changing bio-data.

That there is a changing part and a changeless part in

this duality of ‘I am’ and ‘this is’ in the equation

of ‘I am this’. It is obvious from this analysis that

‘I am’ seems to be more substantial than ‘this is’

since ‘this is’ keep changing without the changing ‘I

am’. In the dependent and independent variables, the

one that is changeless is independent and the one that

is changing is dependent. Hence Kant’s conclusion is

wrong. In fact, Descartes statement ‘I think,

therefore I am’, ‘I’ is there before the action verb

‘think’. Hence by implication the subject ‘I’ should

be there independent of what ‘I think’ since what I

think keeps changing or dependent variable while

thinker I appears to be be constant and thus

independent. Additional implication of Descartes

statement is the requirement that I need to keep

thinking to ascertain myself that ‘I am’. Thus there

are two aspects involved based on the above

discussion- ‘I am this’ and ‘I think, therefore I am’.

Vedanta rejects both these assertions on the basis

that ‘I am’ is independent of ‘this’ and ‘I am’ is

present before I can think (thinking is locussed on

‘I’, than ‘I am’ locussed on thinking). Vedanta

arrives at ‘who that I am’ is by rejecting any

assertion with ‘I am not this’ ‘neti, neti, not this,

not this’. Thus according to Vedanta, ego is a false

‘I’ where subject is confused with an object ‘this’,

in the ‘I am this’ identification. Vedanta does not

say you are ‘some thing’ else than ‘this’, since any

‘something’ is another object ‘this’. Only way to

arrive at my real nature of ‘I’ is by intuition by

rejecting any thing that can be objectified as not I

am – as ‘I am not this’. I can reject anything and

everything as not ‘I’ but I cannot reject ‘I- itself

since I have to be there to reject. This process of

sublation or negation is called meditation where I

drop the false I, to ascertain my real nature. That is

true conscious entity, ‘I am’- without any this or

that attached to it – as in the biblical statement ‘I

am that I am’. This is concerning the first

statement ‘I am this’.

 

Relating to the second statement, ‘I think, therefore

I am’ Vedanta ascertains that ‘I’ exists in deep sleep

state without any thinking, since ‘I am’ there in the

deep sleep enjoying the sleep, where there is the

absence of any ‘this’ and ‘that’ that I can identify

with. Hence I get up from sleep, saying that ‘I slept

very well’, implying that I was there very much in

deep sleep, sleeping very well. Vedanta points out

that if ‘I’ really ceases to exist in deep-sleep, then

no body would like to go to sleep. However, everybody

longs for a good night sleep, after tiring oneself

like a rat, racing for ‘this’ and ‘that’. People are

ready to take pills to get sleep. Hence deep sleep

experience points out, according to Vedanta, that one

can exist as pure ‘I’ without any identification with

an object I. Only problem in the deep sleep is I am

also not conscious of myself in that state. Since all

problems cease in deep sleep state, where everybody is

happy and no body complains (they may complain is they

do not get sleep), whether it is a king or a pauper on

the street. All subject-object ( I and this) duality

ceases in the deep sleep state, with I alone remaining

without any inclusions or exclusions, since there is

no ‘this’ and ‘that’ that I can perceive. Vedanta says

cessation of identification of ‘I’ with any ‘this’ is

the key to happiness. This can be done by removing all

‘this’ as in deep sleep state. However that is only a

temporary since once I am awake, all ‘this’ and ‘that’

will also arise. I am back to the miserable state of

false identification as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’,

suffering the limitations of ‘this’ and ‘that’. The

point is the deep sleep experience points out that

there is a possibility of existing as pure I, as

consciousness and existence, without any

identification with this or that. Vedanta says this

cessation of identification with this and that can be

accomplished in the waking state itself, in spite of

existence ‘this’ and ‘that’. ‘I am’ is self-conscious

and self-existent entity, independent of any ‘this’

and ‘that’ or independent of the external world.

Hence Kantian statement that self-consciousness

depends on the object consciousness is to ascribe

reality to the false I, the ego. Vedanta says, the

fact is the other way; the object consciousness

depends on ‘I am’. Thus the ‘ego’ or ahankaara, is a

component of the mind with a false notion that ‘I am

this’. This ‘ego’ component, ahankaara, is called

notional mind, since identification ‘I am this’ is

only a notion in the mind. When I realize my true

nature, these false identifications or notions drop,

or more correctly the reality that I assign to the

notions is withdrawn. Then, I will be ‘as though’

operating as pure self, without any false

identification, treating the mind as just a subtle

body that I can use to transact with the world,

through the 19 gates discussed earlier. We will

address this aspect again when we discuss our true

nature and the nature of the world that we transact

with.

 

Going back to our classification, the last component

of the mind to be discussed is memory, chitta. All

objective knowledge that is gained is stored in the

memory, which forms the basis for all re-cognitions.

We can build up our memory bank by gaining the

knowledge, storing the information and retrieving it

whenever it is needed for communication and

transactions. New knowledge is build based on the

past knowledge stored in the memory. There are two

aspects involved, capacity to store and the capacity

to retrieve that knowledge. Retrieval and restorage

keep the knowledge fresh in the memory and those that

are retrieved less and less will get buried in the

memory and retrieval also becomes increasingly

difficult. With age, the capacity of hardware

degrades and therefore memory fails, retaining mostly

the long time memory, while loosing the short time

memory. As we get old, we remember all our childhood

experiences and declaring to every listener how things

were great in those days, while forgetting where we

put our keys or check book an hour back. Thus we have

four components of the mind that are involved whenever

we transact with the world, ‘out there’ – mind,

intellect, ego and memory.

 

The working of the mind can be classified in various

other ways, and these will be discussed next.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...