Editing Mind in Indian Tradition (section)

=== ADVAITA-VEDANTA: COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES ===
The Sankhya-Yoga has been hailed as most systematic synthesis of Indian psychology. It should be clear by now that these systems diverge only on the matters of detail from the previously set broader Upanishadic framework. While the metaphysical aspects of Sankhya-Yoga and Upanishads might differ, psychologically speaking, Atman and Purusha or manas and Buddhi serve almost the same roles. Sankhya provided a more comprehensive structure to Upanishadic psychology, and Yoga supplied it with a practical therapeutic dimension. One remarkable evidence for psychological integrity of divergent philosophies is that the conception of mind in Sankar’s Advaita theory is almost identical with that of the Sankhya-Yoga system, despite the fact that Sankar was the most articulate critic of the latter. 

Advaitic conception of mind, consciousness and self was more or less identical with the Upanishadic framework described in the first section. The key function of mind is defined through Samkalpa and Vikalpa, i.e., integration and differentiation that make perception possible. Borrowing from Yoga, the concept of manovrittis, synonymous with Citta-vrittis of Patanjali, became the formative component of psychological states in Advaita-Vedanta. The functional classification of mental faculties into Buddhi, Ahamkara and Manas was also adopted, collectively called Antahkarana (internal organ). In Advaita, the process of perception involves ‘going out’ or ‘flowing out’ of the mind. However, given that mind is considered a non-local entity, its literal ‘going out’ of the body is inconceivable. Instead, it might imply that what is primary in the process of perception is the person and not the object. The person voluntarily enters into a relationship with the perceived object, and therefore, also has the capability to break that connection and orient itself elsewhere. Advaita further distinguishes between perception of the object and perception of the object ‘as the object.’ The former involves identity of cognitive and object consciousness (pramana and vishaya Chaitanya) while the latter, in addition, also involves appropriation of the object by the jiva.    

In dwelling on the concept of Jiva, Gaudapada and later Sankar, developed a comprehensive ‘theory of personality’ that describes the person, her motivations, behaviour and thinking in a holistic manner. Ahamkara or ego holds a special place in this theory. Sankara expanded the pre-existing Sankhya-Yoga notion of ego-sense and incorporated not merely the identification of body with the self but also the name and form of the body as well as the position one is assigned in family and society. ‘More specifically, it involves identification of one's self as a doer (karta) or agent of one's actions, and as enjoyer (bhokta) of the fruits of one's actions (Sankara, d, 106)’. It is by transcending this sense of self by entering into the Turiya state that the individuals can rise above the petty notions of success and failures. The ‘nishkama-karmayoga’ of Bhagwat-Gita that appealed for dutiful action without attaching oneself to the fruits of that particular doing relates to the same principle. It is by shedding the identification of ego-sense with the self that one can achieve the ‘nishkama’ state. Interestingly, Sankara and father of modern psychoanalysis- Freud both regarded Ego as obstructive. However: 

The Freudian ego becomes obstructive when it represses id impulses under pressure from the superego guided by ideals that are commonly of religious origin. Sankara, too, views the role of ahamkara as obstructive, but the obstruction is in preventing the experience of the true Self in higher states of consciousness, and not in fulfilling desires for pleasure.

One key difference between the two schools- Sankhya-Yoga and Advaita- is that while the former holds mind to be real, proponents of Advaita consider mind a part of illusory world, and therefore unreal. While on the pragmatic level (vyavaharikta), mind remains essential for perception, rationalisation, decision and determination; in the Turiya (fourth) state of consciousness, when the true self is revealed as pure consciousness, mind dissolves. The constant fluctuations of mind – manovrittis - along with its ultimate dissolution imply its transience and anything that is transient and therefore not immutable and unchanging, is considered to be unreal in Advaita. The pure consciousness, that illuminates the Buddhi, and through the Buddhi, manas, and through manas, the senses, is held to be the sole reality. The differences between Sankhya-Yoga and Advaita are thus, more ontological (relating to definitions of reality) rather than psychological.