Evolution is, by human standards an extremely slow process. Infinitesimal changes over millions, perhaps billions of years have transformed tiny, simple organisms into the complex, extraordinary creatures we call human beings. With the relatively recent development of intellectual ability in our human species we have advanced rapidly from small communities of hunters and gatherers into an urban, technologically based society of brain-workers who have managed to put a man on the moon. Of course, this is an over-generalization since vast numbers of humans still live in small, rural villages and lack even the most basic technologies, such as telephones, electricity, tractors and clean water systems. Nevertheless, the relentless progress of technology combined with an ever-accelerating pace of innovation indicates the direction in which our train is headed. Even more significant, the vast majority of our species dearly want the comforts, pleasures and advantages of technology. They are not happy with a simple, rudimentary way of living once they get a glimpse or taste of the possibilities to be found in the world's great urban centers.
This more recent evolutionary thrust has not been primarily physiological, but rather intellectual in nature. Nevertheless, the dramatic transformation in our modes of living resulting from our intellectual activity has also accelerated the process of biological change in our species. Our physiology, as a species is being forced to adapt rapidly to a changing environment that we ourselves have created through our own thought processes. No one really knows where all this is leading. Will we survive our own intellectual prowess? More concretely, will our physiology be able to adapt to the dramatic changes in our environment which are being fostered on our bodies by our brains? People worry about environmental disasters or nuclear warfare or terrorists with deadly toxins, and understandably. But what about our own complex, delicate and ancient bodies and their capacity to adapt to a self-created environment which is stressing our physiology at the most fundamental levels: molecular, cellular and energetic? Health care costs are soaring as the population becomes sicker, largely due to an unhealthy environment that we ourselves have created. We the people are responsible this. As the cartoon character Pogo famously said: 'We have found the enemy and it is us." Is our drive for progress a one way ticket to hell?
Human beings have enormous talent and innovative ability, far superior to any known species. What motivates human beings, however, is something much more primitive -- something which is common to all life forms. It is this primitive instinct which serves as the engine driving our innovative capacity and keeps it in high gear as we rapidly approach an unknown horizon. This primitive instinct is the urge to happiness. In its most rudimentary form, the urge to happiness manifests as the tendency to avoid pain and pursue pleasure. This basic polarity operates in all organic beings: mammals, birds, fish, insects, plants -- all the way down the food chain to the very cells of our bodies. At a more refined level -- at the level of happiness versus suffering -- pain and pleasure is often more mental than physical. We recognize that it is possible to have a great deal of physical pleasure, while at the same time suffer from mental and emotional pain. The quest for happiness is what lies at the root of our intellectual and material progress. We seek happiness because we feel its lack. We suffer, so we work hard to create a better life. We are not happy with the way things are, so we work to change things. Our unconscious mantra is, 'more-better-different, more-better-different....'. But is this mantra bringing us fulfillment?
Happiness: the primal quest
People work for one thing and one thing only: happiness. A mother works hard to feed and educate her children because it makes her happy to see them prosper. If it didn't make her happy, she wouldn't do it or she would do only the bare minimum. Preachers preach because it makes them happy to share their spiritual and moral values with others. Mountain climbers put their lives at risk because the challenge of making it to the top makes them happy. No one would put their life at risk for a challenge that didn't inspire them. People put their lives at risk for others in crisis situations not out of obligation, but because of the joy it gives to save a life. The urge to happiness goes beyond the primitive pleasure/pain reaction of the body. But as easy as it is to grasp the pleasure/pain principle, the motives underlying the happiness principle are much less obvious. For example, people are often willing, even eager to suffer physical pain and discomfort for a cause they believe in or a goal they are eager to attain. They will participate in demonstrations in countries where they risk being beaten, imprisoned, subjected to water cannons, tear gas and even bullets. Boxers take excruciating blows and risk serious head injuries to win championship titles. Clearly, the idea of happiness transcends immediate physical gratification and pain-avoidance. But just as pleasure and pain follow close on the heels of each other, so do the experiences of happiness and suffering. In the phenomenal world of cause and effect all human beings are guaranteed a roller coaster ride. Any person who believes that he or she will achieve stable, long-term happiness in a cause and effect world will surely arrive at old-age disillusioned and in deep despair. Such is the paradox of human life.
Is deep and lasting happiness achievable? Definitely not at the level of the human body and its subjection to the law of cause and effect. Whatever we gain we will eventually lose and whatever we attain we must ultimately give up. Death guarantees it. But so also does senility, disease, serious accident, etc. This inescapable reality is itself the source of so much despair in our world. We need only read world literature to grasp how universally profound is the problem of despair. The external world moves before our eyes like a motion picture in which we play a character. Through our physical senses we reach out into this world in search of happiness. And, similar to the characters in a movie, we fluctuate between hope and despair, gain and loss, success and failure. If we premise our inner happiness on our external situation we are guaranteed to fail.
The fundamental error we make in our quest for happiness is to look for it in the movie that is continually unfolding before our eyes. The phenomenal world cannot bring us abiding happiness. It is impossible because this world is governed by the law of polarity. Whatever rises, falls, whatever goes up must come down....if not immediately, then eventually. Since we, as physical beings are living and breathing in a world of opposites, if we fix our hopes on the events unfolding here we will invariably bounce back and forth between happiness and despair. In this scenario there is no other alternative.
Does this mean that abiding happiness is impossible? Yes, if we consider the self to be a material entity in a cause and effect world. Our bodies are revealed to us as physical entities in a material world. So long as we believe and behave as though our self is identical with or dependent upon the body, then we will live a yo-yo existence of winning and losing, ending inevitably in death. This is the bad news. But is our self dependent on the body? If the self has a relationship of dependency with the material body, then the self must too be material. Matter/energy interacts with matter/energy, not with empty space. As we discussed in a previous essay, the self we think we are is really a conceptual locus invented by the intellect in order to create a meaningful picture of the world. Although the concept -- as a thought-form -- demands energy in order to exist, its content or 'meaning' is immaterial. Our ego-self is a bundle of meanings which we call 'Robert' or 'Marie', etc. These meanings have no substance and on occasion they may have virtually no correspondence with the mass of matter we call our body. When such is blatantly the case, we say that the person who carries a particular self-concept is delusional -- i.e, that their self-concept bears little or no relation to what is perceived by others. Thus, the self that we think we are is not a substantial self, either in a material sense or, as in the case of self-delusion, in the sense of an accurate self-representation.
So, when the body dies, what happens to the self? Undoubtedly the insubstantial, sometimes delusional self-concept which relies on the body's energy in order to appear, disappears. Then what are we? Do we really exist? If the self, as something actual is neither the gross body nor its subtle self-concept, then what is it? The answer to this must be: nothing. The self is merely a mental creation that comes and goes with waking and sleeping, and changes over time according to circumstance and nature. It is no more real - or less real -- that any other thought. In fact, the true self is what's left over when the thought of the self -- the 'I'-thought -- disappears. The true self, or Self is not a thought or concept. Nor is it the body, which is neither more nor less than an appearance. The Self, then, is consciousness or, more accurately 'being-consciousness'. Consciousness exists not as a thought or a form of energy, but as a principle. Principles, like the laws of mathematics and logic, exist but not in any material or energetic sense. They exist, therefore they have being. The principle of consciousness exists, therefore it is 'being-consciousness'. However, there is more to the principle of consciousness than the abstractions arrived at by the intellect. Intellectual abstractions may be true, but they have no life. The principle of consciousness, however, is life itself, as we shall see.
'Being-consciousness': the ground of all experience
To restate, 'being-consciousness' (Self) is neither matter nor energy and therefore not subject to the vagaries of a cause and effect universe. This Self underlies all phenomenal experience and functions as the ground upon which the world-picture appears. Not being a 'thing', substance or energy, it stands aloof from the realm of cause, effect and polarity. The Self is the witness, the invisible light of consciousness by which physical light is seen. Without it there can be no thought and without thought there can be no world, no technology, no progress. The Self is not this world, yet without it this world -- i.e., our world, could not exist for us.
This Self is the true Subject (the 'I-am-that-I-am') behind the empirical subject (the 'I am') that functions as the locus of our universe. It is also the true Object behind the specific objects observed by the empirical self. Why? Because the objective phenomena we perceive are an appearance on the screen of consciousness. We think we are seeing the objects of the external world, when in reality what we are seeing is an appearance appearing on the screen of consciousness. Just as when sitting in a movie theatre we get caught up in the story and forget that what we are really looking at is a screen, similarly when we look at the world around us, we forget that what we are really seeing is 'being-consciousness' -- the screen upon which all appearances are projected. Does this mean that there is really no such thing as an 'external world'? Maybe....maybe not. It may be that there is some 'thing' the appearance is revealing. But is this 'something' anything like the appearance? For example, visual appearances are produced by the brain. But does the landscape revealed to us look anything like our brain? Of course not. Yet, the appearance is processed through the brain, which means it is influenced by the brain. So the thing as it is and the thing as it appears via the eyes and the brain may be widely divergent. The most we can say is that there is likely something external to our nervous system which serves as the 'material' base for the appearance, but more than this we cannot claim. Our visual representation of a landscape may no more reflect the actual landscape than the word 'apple' reflects the actual thing called 'apple'. If we remove the empirical subject -- the 'I'-thought -- and its perceived objects, then the distinction Subject (perceiving consciousness) and Object (screen of consciousness) collapses into simple 'being-consciousness' (Self).
The Self, therefore is the true ground of all experience. Even in the absence of experience the Self persists as Being. This is what allows us to enter an insentient state of deep sleep and then reawaken in tact. Our being-ness continues although our conscious mind is 'turned off' during sleep. When the mind is 'turned on' again upon awakening, the world we know re-appears. There is a continuity of being-ness, as well as latent consciousness that will reemerge under the right conditions of awakening. Does this mean that consciousness is discontinuous or 'extinct' during sleep? The answer is a firm 'no'. If someone shakes us while sleeping we will awaken. If there was a complete extinction of consciousness, the body would not be able to respond. The shaking causes something to be felt and 'feeling' demands consciousness. It would be more accurate to say that consciousness goes into latency during sleep, which means that it is not reflecting any perceptual/thinking process, other than what arises intermittently in the form of dreams. During sleep the body's sensory and intellectual functions are temporarily 'turned off' in order to give the organism time to rest and rejuvenate. The mind, which is normally filled with objects, thoughts, feelings and sensations becomes insentient. However, the insentience of the mind does not equate with the extinction of consciousness. This is why even the most exhausted person can be roused from sleep in an emergency. A vigorous physical shaking is 'felt' sufficiently to awaken the insentient mind -- i.e., to activate the senses and intellect. It is as if the body has a 'dimmer switch' which will turn down or turn up the intensity of consciousness according to the body's needs. The principle of consciousness is always in tact, it simply moves in and out of latency as the need arises. Does the principle of consciousness survive the death of the body? The answer is 'yes' and 'no'. Certainly with the death of the body 'ordinary' consciousness disappears. Similarly, when the filament of a light bulb wears out, the light it emits disappears. Does this mean that the electricity the bulb converts into light has ceased to exist? Answer: 'No'. And does the extinction of 'ordinary' consciousness which occurs at death mean that the principle of consciousness which underlies it has also ceased to exist? Answer: 'Only if consciousness is an epiphenomenon or by-product of the body and its processes.' But is it?
Death and happiness
Abiding happiness is impossible so long as we feel that our only true guarantee in life is the inevitability of our extinction. We are no better off than a man on death row, the only difference being that he knows exactly when he will die whereas we don't. Even the most hardened materialist must blanch, at least privately at the thought that his body, mind and consciousness will one day be annihilated.
Seeking a better life is fine. Why shouldn't we want our sojourn here to be as enjoyable as possible? We are happier when we are working at something we love and having some success with it. We are happier when have loving, supportive relationships. A strong, healthy body also makes our life more enjoyable. All these things are good, but they don't lift the cloud of knowing that it all will be lost when we take our last breath. So, then what are we to do? The human body is not immortal nor will it ever be. There are people who believe in the possibility of physical immortality and they point to instances of yogis who have lived, reputedly, extremely long lives. It may be true that some adepts have extended their lives for very long periods. However, the body lives in time and is subject to the vagaries of cause and effect. What lives in time must, by definition have a beginning and an end. If it does not, it's timeless. But timelessness does not exist in time. Even if someone had maintained a body since the Big Bang itself, we have no guarantee that they will continue to maintain that body in the future. We'll see when we get there, but no one has gotten there yet. Thus, the most we can say is that extending the length of life is a possibility. We cannot claim more. Even those yogis who have been able to live a very long life will have to give up their particular body at some point.
Is there then no hope? Is death an absolute that no one can escape? Yes, the death of the body is guaranteed. But then who are we? Are we the body or are we something other. And do we die with the death of the body? If we do not die with the death of the body, how can this be validated? The truth is, it cannot be validated empirically. Psychics who assert they can communicate with the dead may be sincere in their claims, but their claims -- which are subjectively based -- are not verifiable through scientific method. What the psychic affirms to be the spirit of a dead person may be something quite other and there is no way, at least at the present moment, of verifying their claim objectively. The fact is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that we do not know and the notion of an afterlife is simply a hypothesis.
'Being consciousness' and immortality
The continuity of being-consciousness after the death of the body, on the other hand presents an interesting possibility. For one thing, being-consciousness is neither matter nor energy. Or, it may be that pure consciousness is latent or potential energy while the 'consciousness-of' aspect -- i.e., objective-consciousness, is kinetic energy. If there is validity in this, the question that naturally follows is: 'Is consciousness, as potential energy, an epiphenomenon of the body or is it independent of the body?' If it is independent and if our essential Self is consciousness, then we do not die with the death of the body. Alternatively, if it is merely an epiphenomenon then we die when the body dies.
Indian philosophy asserts the independence of consciousness. David Godman, editor of the book 'Padamalai'* gives a condensed description in his explanatory notes:
'....the world-appearance [is] explained in terms of Sivam and sakti. In Sivam, the pure consciousness that is Siva's [God's] true nature, there is no creation at all, not even as a false appearance. However, when sakti, the dynamic and creative aspect of Sivam, arises, all manifestation appears. This sakti, which is regarded as being the presence of Siva [God], is the energy that enables the projection of the world appearance to take place.' [Godman, page 281, Padamalai]
Further: 'Siva himself remains actionless and motionless, abiding as the still centre of consciousness' [Godman, page 42, Padamalai]
Quoting Ramana Maharshi: '.....the jiva (the individual self).....is in reality the pure Self', 'The jiva itself is Siva; Siva himself is the jiva.' [page 107, Padamalai]
Quoting an ancient Saiva text: 'Siva (pure consciousness) gives birth to sakti (energy, power), and sakti gives birth to Siva. The two join together with delight, giving birth to the world and all beings.' [Sivajnana Siddyar, 2:77, page 282, Padamalai]
Essentially what these quotes from 'Padamalai' teach is the following:
• God's (Siva's) essential nature is pure consciousness.
• Inherent in this divine pure consciousness is the power of manifestation (sakti): sakti is the energy of Siva (pure consciousness).
• The real nature of the individual self is the Self
• The Self is identical with Siva (pure conciousness).
• The Self is pure consciousness.
• Pure consciousness (Siva) gives birth to energy (sakti).
• Energy (sakti) gives birth to pure consciousness (Siva/ Self).
• Together they give birth to the world and all beings.
• Their conjoined nature is delight.
In this view, consciousness is not reducible to energy (sakti), but contains within itself this power. This power, manifest, appears as the universe. Thus the universe arises out of and has its being in Siva (pure consciousness). Sakti, in its unmanifest state appears to be potential energy hidden within pure consciousness (Siva). When sakti emerges as kinetic energy, assuming various forms, it becomes visible. It is 'born', so to speak. Siva, however remains what it is, 'actionless and motionless, abiding as the still centre of consciousness'. Siva -- in its inmost nature identical to the Self -- is 'realized' through the apparent efforts of an individual self seeking to understand its own true nature. The 'efforts' of the individual self are sakti in its active state. Even though sakti has as its source the Self, it is through sakti that the Self is re-discovered, as if for the first time. This discovery is like a 'birth', hence the line: 'Siva gives birth to sakti, and sakti gives birth to Siva. The two join together with delight, giving birth to the world and all beings.'
The argument running through the above quotations is that the Self 'is' -- i.e., exists, whether its inherent energy as sakti is active or latent. Latent energy is not visible, which does not mean that it does not exist. It does exist as potential. If it had no potential, then we could say that it is non-existent since under no condition could it manifest. If we apply this reasoning to the question of whether our 'being-consciousness' persists after the death of the body, we see a valid argument in favour of the continued existence of the Self. The Self, as pure consciousness, is manifest as the body through its inherent sakti. With the death of the body, the inherent sakti returns to latency. The Self, however, continues to be what it always is, pure being-consciousness. In Vedanta this is known as the ajata doctrine: the Self can never die because it was never born. As for the empirical ego-self, it is a thought form that rises and falls through the power of sakti, without in any sense adding to or subtracting from the Self. The Self of Vedanta, therefore is not under the sway of time, space or causality. It is here, now and motionless. It contains within itself the unmanifest sakti, so in its nature it is vibrant, not inert or lifeless.
The root of suffering
This Self is the consciousness underlying the individual self which in turn appears to be conscious of objects and events. In fact, however, there are not two consciousness'; the latter individual consciousness is merely borrowed from the Self. The individual self is a thought-form masquerading as a conscious being. In truth, the individual is merely one of a countless number of objects appearing in consciousness. It is a subtle object -- the 'I'-thought -- which the intellect associates with the gross body. The 'I'-thought is not itself conscious although it appearsto be. This is the grand illusion which lies at the heart of human suffering. What creates the sense of a plurality of consciousness' -- i.e., my consciousness, your consciousness, his/her consciousness, is our thinking. It's the mind which assumes that my consciousness is limited to my body and your consciousness is limited to yours, etc. In fact, consciousness is not limited to any body and only appears to be due to the false identification of the true Self with the fleeting human form. The Buddha knew exactly what he was speaking of when he stated that:
• life is suffering
• suffering originates in the mind
• the mind suffers due to attachment to transient things
• the body is a transient thing that the mind falsely
identifies with the self
• suffering can be ended by removing its cause
When the individual self is seen for what it really is (i.e., a thought-form) a door opens. This opening signals an awakening to our true nature as 'being-consciousness': the Self. When we realize -- not as a concept but as our direct experience -- our true nature as the Self we lose the feeling of being a separate, isolated 'I'. How does this happen? Our perception shifts. Whereas formerly we saw the world and its people as something external to us, now we see the world, its people and our own body/mind as coexisting elements in a space of consciousness which is our true Self. We do not know the Universe 'in itself'; we know it as it appears to us. The same is true for all of its constituent parts (including our individual self); we know them as they appear to us. To what or within what is all of this appearing? To consciousness. Whose consciousness? No one's or everyone's. Either way, we are not what we think we are. We are not separate little selves struggling to survive in a predatory world. We are that consciousness within which these ideas and perceptions appear. The consciousness that we are is not localized and bound by time and space. The consciousness that we are is not a thing or a field of energy. There may be energy (shakti) associated with consciousness -- our bodies, intellects or auric fields, for instance -- but the pure witnessing consciousness is something other. Earlier we described it as a principle. This term is accurate but also easily misleading. We tend to think of 'principle' as a fundamental truth or proposition, which implies something conceptual. However, in this context the term 'principle' means an existent reality which is not accessible to measurement in the way energy and matter may be. Terms such as 'recognition', 'cognition', 'experience', 'perceiving', 'being aware of', etc., all imply an illuminating factor which is not itself measurable or perceivable. This factor, which is termed 'consciousness' is impossible to objectify. It cannot be turned into something perceivable and yet remain itself. And what makes consciousness so tantalizing is the certain knowledge that although it is not perceivable yet without it nothing will be perceived!
'The Self, the true consciousness....shines as my very existence, beyond the reach of objective knowledge.' [Muruganar, page 359, Padamalai]
'First one sees the Self as objects, then one sees the Self as a void, then one sees the Self as Self; only in this last state there is no seeing because seeing is being.' [Ramana Maharshi, page 273, Padamalai]
As long as we are under the illusion that we are 'separate little selves struggling to survive in a predatory world' we will suffer. It is true that our bodies are subject to adversity, accident and even attack. What turns these setbacks into intense suffering is the wrong identification of the Self with the body. The thought, 'This pain may happen/will happen/is happening to me!' amplifies the discomfort. Even the anticipation of pain causes great suffering. Fear of pain, resistance to it when it is being experienced plus the actual sensation of pain, creates a much greater intensity than the sensation of pain by itself. The mind is a big player in this, and can transform the mild discomfort of some dental work into a horrific episode of unendurable pain. As the poet, John Milton wrote in 'Paradise Lost': 'The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.' The Buddha would have agreed.
Happiness is knowing our true nature
Abiding happiness is unattainable so long as we are ignorant of our true nature. Since the beginning every society has had its sages, each one of whom has stated, in one way or another that we will not find happiness in the external world. Each one has emphasized that we must look within for the fulfillment we seek. Yet, in spite of the perennial presence of these illumined beings, the vast majority stay caught in the illusion that what we are looking for is somehow 'out there', apart from ourselves. Very few are willing to engage in serious introspection. For many, the constant pressures of daily living are the problem. Spouses and children have needs, income must continue flowing in, things must be repaired, replaced or cleaned. People are distracted with anxiety about their future and they feel pressured. Sitting in meditation for 30 or 40 minutes a day looks like a self-indulgent luxury that will have to put off until retirement. It's understandable. People work and sacrifice for a future security that always seems to elude them. By the time they retire -- if they are able to retire -- they are exhausted. Now it's their fears of old age and illness that loom large, disturbing their sleep, giving them nightmares. Who will take care of them when they are no longer able to take care of themselves? Will their children abandon them? Will they end up in some depressing institution, alone and bitter? Will they even be able to afford institutional care? Will they have enough money to maintain a healthy diet. And will dying itself be easy and painless, with loved ones present? Or will it be a long, drawn-out nightmarish affair? Even if their situation is a good one, they will undoubtedly worry. 'What if (fill in the blank) happens?', and then their fears fill in the blanks. Like a hypochondriac, the insecure, restless mind will see, even feel a host of illusory problems as very real threats.
There is a simple method, known as 'self-enquiry' which is a direct and flexible means for overcoming fear and accessing a profound inner feeling of peace and stability. By asking the question 'Who am I?' and fixing our attention on the feeling of 'I am', we pierce through the layers of negative conditioning and find the Real. This Real is not the body, the mind or the world, but rather the Self, the pure 'being-consciousness' that is the background underlying everything. Self-enquiry does not require sitting in meditation or adopting a different life-style or set of beliefs. Rather, it is an actual enquiry into our true nature. It's an investigation in which we make our own discoveries. It's not an indoctrination into a school of thought, a religion or a creed. It is truly a journey of discovery that we may do for ourselves. Others have done it before us and we can read about their experiences and realizations. However, like discovering the taste of an apple for oneself, others may describe it but we can only know it by taking a bite and having our own direct experience.
For a fuller explanation about the practice of self-enquiry read the essay entitled 'Self-Enquiry: The Direct Path'.
No comments:
Post a Comment