Editing Mind in Indian Tradition (section)

=== SEEDS AND BROAD CONTOURS OF INDIAN PSYCHOLOGY ===

==== VEDIC LITERATURE ====
Rigveda, though primarily a collection of ritualistic and inspired hymns devoted to deities like Indra, Varuna, Soma and Agni, is punctuated with poignant philosophical musings. Here, we encounter the embryonic form of subsequent, more articulate insights into the nature of mind and self. The world was viewed as a duality of ‘yat’ and ‘sthtiam’- the moving world of undying forces and the stagnant world of mortal matter. In the early Upanishads this duality was extended to the ‘person’ who was understood as a conglomerate of material form (Rupa) and immaterial name (Nama). This distinction, between name and form, ‘underlines the difference between conception and perception, between the abstraction and sensation’ and the ‘essence of meaning consists in the former, while the latter is a mere instrument.’ It was ‘nama’ that was pursued by the Indian teachers. Rhys David has brought to attention the concept of ‘more’ (bhuyas) within ‘nama’, that preoccupied the authors of Upanishadic verses. In Chhandogya Upanishad, 7,1, Sanat-Kumar, answering his curious disciple Narada, provides a list of things that constitute this ‘more’. Speech is more than nama, mind (manas) more than speech, purpose more than mind, thought than purpose, musing (dhyana) than thought, and ‘awareness-in-surviving’ (‘vijnana’ - elsewhere translated as consciousness) more than musing.  The hierarchy leading from gross material to subtler aspects and ultimately the pure consciousness or ‘true self’ thus developed, where mind was given a position of mediator.

In Rigveda, we also find references to mind as a rational entity invoked to exercise control over heart (hrd) – the psychological faculty responsible for emotions. Role of mind is likened to winnowing of barley through the sieve, suggesting selective reception (Rg Veda, 10.10.6). Ramchandra Rao cites the episode of Pururavas, when his wife Urvasi turns indignantly away from him, he begs her to ‘stay with mind.’ Mind is truthful, unruffled, mature, firm and sharp as against heart which represents the ‘stirred up state of individual.’ The subsequent conceptualization of ‘Viveka’ as a rational plus ethical entity, often invoked in Bhagwat-Gita, has its root in the restraining function ascribed to mind in Rigvedic verses. These verses also, to an extent, anticipate the Yogic theory of ‘vritti’ and ‘Purusha’, explained by Vivekananda through the imagery of ripples in the water and surface of the lake: the former is the unstable, stirred up dimension that clogs or conceals the real self. 

It is however, noteworthy, that in Aitareya Upanishad 1,1,4, we find the precedence of heart and consequent creation of mind- “A heart was separated out; from the heart, mind (manas), from the mind, moon.” Further, “that which is heart and mind”, says verse 3,5,2 of the same, implying that the seat of mind is in the heart. Could it be that heart was being conceived of as the psychic faculty responsible for ‘intuition’ which was now given a higher epistemological status than rational enquiry? S Channakeshavan has adopted a different tangent. According to her, ‘the bodily functions such as movement and sensation are dependent on the working of both heart and mind.’ It is owing to this interdependent relationship that ‘the Upanishads maintain that the heart and the mind are fundamentally one.’ 

==== THE DUAL ROLE OF MIND ====
The Upanishads ascribe to mind a position of mediator between the external world and the inner self. In the Rigveda itself, we find “What thing I truly am I know not clearly; mysterious, fettered in my mind I wander” (Rg Veda, 1.164.37). Mind here is a ‘fetter’ holding the seeker back from fuller knowledge of his real self. In Upanishads, the view is expressed more articulately: 

‘The mind, in truth, is for mankind

The means of bondage and release 

For bondage, if to objects bound; 

From objects free—that’s called release.’

The mind is seen as a means, of both bondage (implying suffering) and liberation. In its former function, it is the tool of external knowledge. In Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, we find – ‘People say my mind was elsewhere; I did not see. My mind was elsewhere, I did not hear. It is with the mind, truly that one sees. It is with the mind that one hears…’ Mind thus, connects the self, the knower and the enjoyer, to the outside world. But, if limited to this sole function, mind inevitably becomes a means of bondage. It longs for permanence, stability and continuity but the tangible world is impermanent by its very nature. Ramakrishna Rao has captured this existential dilemma in following words: 

‘Craving for permanence causes the search for identity and self-sameness. Then attachment follows. Desires and disappointments, stress and distress do not lag far behind. Existential anxiety is the result;

One common, but ‘ineffective’ strategy is to identify the ego sense with the ‘unchanging self-sameness of the consciousness’. However, it is only after orienting itself inward, towards the exploration of ‘consciousness’, that mind can tap into the second function of liberation. In its first role, mind is ‘transactional’; in second, ‘transcendental.’ In the former capacity, as the Upanishads put it, it is ‘bound to objects’, and in second, a tool for ‘release’. This notion is based on the ‘permanence’ and ‘immutability’ of consciousness. Nothing in the tangible world can fulfil the ‘craving for permanence’ but only the realization of or ‘sakshatkar’ with the Atman. The idea of salvation (moksha) is thus, closely related to the Upanishadic conception of origin of suffering and its resolution. It finds its distinct echoes in the preaching of Gautama Buddha as well. 

Some crucial insights of Bhagwat-Gita stem from the premises laid down in Upanishads. For instance, in describing the characteristics of sthitprajna, it says:

“When a man dwells in his mind on the objects of sense, attachment to them is produced. From attachment springs desire and from desire comes anger. From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; and from loss of memory, the destruction of intelligence; and from destruction of intelligence, he perishes. But a man of disciplined mind, who moves among the objects of sense, with the senses under control and free from attachment and aversion, he attains purity of spirit.” 

The conception of mind as prone to attachment and attachment as a reason for perversion of mental and spiritual life is fundamentally an Upanishadic insight, taken forward in different ways, by almost all schools of Indian philosophy. As for the latter function of liberation, interpretations have varied. Whilst some make a case for meditative and physiological practices in order to attain salvation, like Yoga Darshana, others have emphasized the need for Bhakti, devoted surrender to one deity whose grace shall lift the devotee from the world of suffering, transience and death (mrityu-lok) to a state of blissful consciousness. Others still have ascribed primary significance to knowledge. The central argument however, remains the same. The salvation, an essential subset of which is a peaceful mental life, can result from a withdrawal of mind from external objects and its orientation towards a transcendent reality. 

==== THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF MIND ====
Is mind material? Or is its nature opposed to that of matter? Mind is something that ‘goes out afar’. Uddalaka, teaching Svetaketu, tells him that the mind is like a bird that is tied up to the soul. It wanders about hither and thither, not finding any rest in its flight, comes back and settles down on its resting place. It cannot be a physical sense organ, for then, its movement within and ‘out afar’ would be impossible. It also cannot be the soul or Self for the same reason, because then, the bodily functions would cease. Mind has also been conceptualized as travelling through the senses, carrying their word back to the Self and vice versa. It is also a determinative, analyzing and volitional agent. What is its status then? 

In Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, we find a series of progression from senses to the real self. Channakeshavan explains it thus: 

The senses are gross and they are derived from the subtle elements. Hence these subtle substances are higher than the senses for they are the causes of the senses. Then mind with original non-perceptual qualities such as will and desire is more subtle, hence more valuable. Even greater or subtler than this is the intellect, for it is that which determines. Greater than that is Hiranyagarbha, the central self of all existence. 

Mind is not opposed to material, but is itself composed of matter, however that of a subtle nature. It is superior to senses because it reflects the pure intelligence of Atman, and connects it with the world. The chariot parable, oft-repeated in different Indian texts which situates the senses as the horses, mind as the driver (saarthi) and Self as rider or the enjoyer (swamin) is very illuminating in this regard. In the Chhandogya, Uddalaka instructing Svetaketu in the lore of Brahman tells him that when food is eaten, the finest part of it becomes manas. Therefore, mind is composed of ‘subtle’ but still material constituents. 

The concept of mind in Vedic literature can be summarized thus: ‘mind is non-conscious (achetana) and it is in some respects physical and qualitatively different from consciousness as such.’ Simultaneously however, it is also a psychic faculty and therefore conscious (through the reflection of intelligence [prajna] of Atman). Further, ‘mind is seen as consisting of three dimensions— (1) cognitive, (2) emotive, and (3) volitional. Different terms are used to refer to mind and these have come to be seen as different levels of functioning of the mind.’ Given the dual role of mind as a means of both attachment and liberation, it became central to human quest for salvation and perfection and therefore, was devoted immense attention since the beginning of Indian philosophical and psychological thought. Quite rightly, ‘the Vedic ideas were the seeds that sprouted during the Sūtra period and grown later in the commentaries on the sūtras of different philosophical systems.’