Mind/body duality?

[gurio]

Namaste friends,

Here are some thoughts I've had on the matter of the mind/body distinction, consciousness as soul, and reincarnation. I submit them for your consideration humbly and not in the attitude that I have arrived at any 'right' answers. I would be interested to hear (read) other people's viewpoints.

The Upanishads teach us that all is one, that all is Brahman, and that our individual consciousnesses are threads in the great tapestry, or sparks in the great fire, or tiny pieces of the great whole, or whatever analogy you'd like to employ. Now, it seems to me that our bodies cannot be separated from our minds, that the two function as one unit, and that the organs of our brains give rise to our consciousnesses, rather than our consciousnesses existing elsewhere and inhabiting our minds.

We can hold this view and still accept reincarnation. However, instead of viewing our consciousnesses (what is usually called soul) as traveling from body to body, we can instead view both our consciousnesses and bodies as being single essences, and the effects of the karma we acquire in this life will of course have their results in the next, but this will occur as this current mind-body essence dissolving as one unit and then rising as one unit again in a different form.

Such a view would appear to have implications for our final release from this cycle (moksha, if I'm not mistaken in the terminology), but in fact it would not. This is because we are already part of the divine fullness, as we and all and all-not must be. Although our mind-body essences may be single units, our union in a purer form would remain unaffected by currently being linked to a body. If all is part of the whole, then whatever form a part of the whole currently takes does not by necessity affect later forms.

I think that it is clear to most here, if not to all, that living properly (whether with the intention of attaining a higher rebirth or not) is the best way to make one's life smoother, happier, and more fulfilled, and so I would submit that even taking the view of singularity suggested here one should keep one's focus on living the best one can here and now, honouring neighbours, the gods, and oneself. Although every cause has its effect and the wheels of karma will always spin, one cannot of course guarantee one's next birth and it would be misguided to attempt to do so.

Many thanks for your kind attention to my ideas. I look forward to what others may have to add, contest, or comment on.

[Omkara]

Perhaps you should try Buddhism.
Hindus very strongly disagree with such udeas,and have refuted these notions quite comprehensively.
In fact,holding on to such views was the main reasin for Buddhism's ultimate defeat in India.Buddhist scholars repeatedly lost debates century after century to Hindu scholars who pointed out the logical flaws in this position.The soul is independent of the body.

[wundermonk]

In general, in Hindu philosophies, the mind-body dualism/problem is mostly non-existent. The reason is that the mind itself is considered an object and it is naturalistically made up of various elements of prakriti just as how a stone is likewise composed of different elements of prakriti.

So, the mind itself is an object.

Now, what is it an object of?

All schools of Hinduism believe that the mind is an object of the self. The self is pure undifferentiated consciousness itself (Advaita/Samkya) OR consciousness is an adventitious property of the self (Nyaya/Mimamsa).

This thread may be of relevance.

[gurio]

Namaste Omkara,

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps you would also be so good as to tell me, preferably in your own words, what the logical flaws involved are?

Perhaps you should try Buddhism.
Hindus very strongly disagree with such udeas,and have refuted these notions quite comprehensively.
In fact,holding on to such views was the main reasin for Buddhism's ultimate defeat in India.Buddhist scholars repeatedly lost debates century after century to Hindu scholars who pointed out the logical flaws in this position.The soul is independent of the body.

[gurio]

Namaste wundermonk,

Thank you for this and also for the link to your thread on this issue. I found the presentation of Samkhya as a dualistic but not Cartesian-dualistic argument an interesting and enlightening one.

Regarding your post here, seeing the mind itself as a natural object seems to me to be part of the position I outlined in my opening post. I think the important distinction that you are pointing out is that consciousness is, however, not naturally occurring as it is Brahman or the Self or a property of the Self (depending on the school). In such a view consciousness inhabits a body for a period of time and then moves on. (And please correct me if I'm mistaken here.) How then, if all is one - and I think we can agree on that, can we not? - is the link obtained between a specific point of undifferentiated consciousness and a particular physical form?

I'm looking forward to your teaching on this matter.

In general, in Hindu philosophies, the mind-body dualism/problem is mostly non-existent. The reason is that the mind itself is considered an object and it is naturalistically made up of various elements of prakriti just as how a stone is likewise composed of different elements of prakriti.

So, the mind itself is an object.

Now, what is it an object of?

All schools of Hinduism believe that the mind is an object of the self. The self is pure undifferentiated consciousness itself (Advaita/Samkya) OR consciousness is an adventitious property of the self (Nyaya/Mimamsa).

This thread may be of relevance.

[Omkara]

Any body soul complex would involve bringing in matter as a component of the self.This causes many problems,two of which are outlined below.Consider that the material part of your body soul complex is constanly in a state of flux,and is not composed of the same atoms at any two instants.

If there is indeed no enduring being, if the being who experiences the reaction of karma is, in principle, a different being from the one who caused the initial action thus creating the karma, then is it not the case that an innocent being is suffering for the crimes of another? To hold that a person is nothing more than a successive chain of disparate and temporary entities, randomly brought together and then rent asunder, only to be replaced by a new complex set of elements, all in the blink of any eye, means that a being is not the same volitional entity it was at point b now that it finds itself in point c. Consequently, to state that being c should have to suffer the punishment for crimes performed by being b, even though they are in actuality two separate beings, is the equivalent of saying that I should suffer a punishment for a crime performed by my ancestor.

In memory, there is the presupposition of the continual identity and persistence of the individual doing the remembering. There is only one individual who experiences the events, persons, objects and thoughts of a particular life. We do not remember the memories of some other living being, but our own experiences. Thus there is a continuity of the experiencer. There is only one continuous experiencer, not many extending back in a randomly assembled causal chain.That experiencer is the Self.Thoughts,feelings,emotions are psycho-physical processes that arise out of matter.

[Omkara]

These might be helpful
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antahkarana#_
http://www.swamij.com/mind-map.htm

[wundermonk]

In such a view consciousness inhabits a body for a period of time and then moves on. (And please correct me if I'm mistaken here.) How then, if all is one - and I think we can agree on that, can we not? - is the link obtained between a specific point of undifferentiated consciousness and a particular physical form?

I'm looking forward to your teaching on this matter.

Hello gurio,

This is a great question. Please do not elevate me to the position of a teacher! I am only a learner who tries to understand Indian philosophy in my spare time away from caring for my family, dealing with colleagues at work, etc. So, what follows is my understanding of the issue.

The difference between Samkhya and Advaita is subtle but their ontological difference is profound.

Both Samkhya and Advaita believe in an actionless, attributeless, homogeneous Purusha or the self. For both Samkhya and Advaita, Purusha is pure undifferentiated consciousness (as opposed to consciousness being an adventitious property/attribute of the self as held by the Nyaya).

As you correctly point out, Samkhya is dualistic. i.e. there is Purusha, the subject. And then there is Prakriti which is the object. The mind, ego, outside world/objects are all Prakriti. Prakriti and Purusha are irreducible to each other. Now, the difference between Samkhya and Advaita. While Samkhya holds that each Purusha is distinct and different from other Purushas, Advaita holds that there is only one universal Purusha.

The reasons advanced by Advaita in support of this position are that pure undifferentiated consciousness is attributeless. i.e. it is not qualified by any object of knowledge/consciousness. It is knowledge itself. So, whether it is gurio or whether it is wundermonk, the "witnessing" aspect of our consciousness is exactly the same. Where gurio and wundermonk differ are in the objects presented to gurio and wundermonk. The objects are Prakriti and considered transcendentally unreal.

Being attributeless, there is no way to differentiate one pure consciousness from another. Without this differentiation, it is superfluous to posit multiple purushas, as based on occam's razor/principle of economy, it is sufficient to postulate one universal consciousness itself.

Does this seem okay?

Also, the role of consciousness is like that of a light. It simply shines. It is the nature of the mind/ego/intellect to abrogate to themselves the belief that it is they who are the doer/actor/enjoyer/sufferer, etc.

As regards to why this universal consciousness gets entangled and individuated to a particular mind-ego (gurio or wundermonk, etc.) there are three typical Advaitic responses.

(1)There is a temporal infinite regress of jiva (universal consciousness individuated to a particular mind-ego) - avidya (maya/delusion) - jiva - avidya - ad infinitum.

(2)Despite this, in its purest essence, the jiva is non-different from Brahman. So, even though it appears as if consciousness is always intentional (of an object), this is a false notion. The jiva, qua Brahman, is forever untouched and untainted. Standard analogies of this are that even though space may be constrained in different pots, all space within and outside the pots are one, eternal and universal. A single sun may be reflected in puddles of water. Some of these puddles clean while the others are not. Despite these puddles of water (limiting adjuncts - technically called upadhis), the sun is single, universal and untainted.

(3)Soteriologically, Advaita also believes that this state of universal consciousness can be reached as a jivanmukta (liberated while alive itself). We have the traditional testimony of many Advaitic teachers who attest to this experience. So, this argument would have to be taken on faith/self-experience.

[devotee]

Commendable post, WM !

OM

[Omkara]

All of WM's posts are outstanding!

Do keep up your regular posts on the shad darshanas!