Editing Mind in Indian Tradition (section)

==== 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.