AI and the uncanny valley

 (This content is not generated by AI-- even if it is boring! 😄) 

I don't know about you, but for me, reading AI generated content, or looking at AI generated art triggers an intense kind of boredom-- the term ennui comes close. It is not the usual boredom, but a mind numbing feeling that is both painful and numbing at the same time-- or, should I say "soul crushing"?. The closest analogy I can give is the feeling of eating cardboard pieces, instead of actual food. 

There is this concept called "uncanny valley" in robotics that tells about the creepy and uncomfortable feeling that we get when robots become increasingly human-like. I think somewhat similar is happening with general AI generated content as well. 

Here is my explanation to what is happening. When we read a book or appreciate a work of art, we are not admiring the output, but we are connecting with the creator of the output. When a book deeply resonates with us, we feel a deep connection-- not with the words, but with the person behind the words. Similarly with a work of art. It is the creator's state of mind and their journey that led them there, which touch us through their writings and art. 

With AI generated content, there is no person behind and there are no travails that we can associate with. 

This is analogous to the difference between outputs and outcomes that I have written in this blog several times. Outputs are what we produce, while outcomes are what we become, as a result. Be it education or economy or raising a family; what we want are outcomes, but what we focus on, are outputs. Much of our grief comes by not bridging the gap between the two.

When we appreciate a work of art or a piece of writing, we are not just appreciating the output or the creation-- but the outcome, or what the creator must have become in order to create this. 

As it happens these days, for most of my deep questions, the best clarity (I would not say "answer") has come from Vedanta. And here too, there is an explanation from Vedanta about why we experience uncanny valley. 

Vedanta and most other Indian philosophies as we know, has one key point of departure from the modern scientific worldview. They posit that consciousness that gives us our first-person experience, cannot be reduced to material causes. Consciousness is not caused by material interactions, but exists on its own. The consciousness that we experience in our waking state (our ego or the sense of self) is essentially "reflected consciousness" (chidaabhasa). 

Mainstream science insists that everything ought to have a material cause, and the question of consciousness is still debated as the "hard problem of consciousness". 

Vedanta goes further to say that the only entity that is real is this entity that is variously called Brahman, Samvid, and many other names, which represents existence-consciousness-bliss. It is this entity because of which we can perceive the existence of something, become aware of something, and express emotions. 

Brahman is not an entity that exists-- it is existence itself. It is not an entity that we can become aware of-- it is awareness itself. (The explanation in the Upanishads go: Brahman is not something that the eyes can see, it is that by which the eyes can see; Brahman is not something that the mind can imagine, it is that by which the mind can imagine, etc.) 

And Brahman is the only entity there is. It is existence itself, and something that is not Brahman is non-existence, which does not exist (duh!).

Based on this hermeneutic, there is this theory of perception by the philosopher Vidyaranya, who lived in present-day Karnataka between 1260 to 1333 CE. He was also instrumental in the establishment of the Vijayanagara Empire and served as a spiritual advisor to its rulers. His guidance helped shape the cultural and religious landscape of south India.

Among his writings is this book called DrgDrishya Viveka (or the wisdom of the "seer" and the "seen"-- subject and object). In this, there is a model of perception in Verse 20, that says: 

अस्ति भाति प्रियं रूपं नाम चेत्यंशपञ्चकम् । आद्यत्रयं ब्रह्मरूपं जगद्रूपं ततो द्वयम् ॥ २० ॥

Transliteration: asti bhāti priyaṃ rūpaṃ nāma cetyaṃśapañcakam | ādyatrayaṃ brahmarūpaṃ jagadrūpaṃ tato dvayam || 20 ||

It says that when we perceive something (interact with the external world)-- five things happen simultaneously, that are called asti, bhāti, priyaṃ, rūpaṃ, and nāma. Asti is our realization of the existence beyond the perception, bhāti is the way the underlying reality affects our awareness, priyaṃ is the emotion that it elicits in us (every perception is said to elicit an emotion in us, however small), rūpaṃ is the class or category of the object that we perceive and nāma is the label we attach to the experience. 

The second part of the verse says that the first three elements and the last two elements are at different levels of cognition. The first three are our experience of the reality that lies behind our transactional reality of space, time, and causation, while the last two (categorization and labelling) are the constructs of our mind. It is the first three that gives us the connection, and results in outcome; while it is the last two that we use to transact intellectually and produce outputs. Unless the first three elements are there in any interaction, there is no connection that we feel. It does not move us. And we end up only trying to organize things intellectually. 

With AI generated content, our experience of asti, bhāti and priyaṃ are greatly attenuated, if not completely absent. There is no reality that we experience behind the perception, since the content is just a creation of an artificial mind that is based on predicting the next word or denoising of a signal. We only experience rūpaṃ, and nāma leaving us with a sense of emptiness and ennui, even feeling creepy-- thinking, what just happened-- was that profound writing or not, does this art move me.. or not?

Dwaita is not the same as Theism!

One of the most wonderful things that the Internet gave me is access to the lectures of Swami Sarvapriyananda, who made the core concepts of Vedanta accessible and understandable to today's generation. 

Growing up, I had always been interested in our core philosophies and was curious to learn more. I have lived most of my life with a vague sense of void-- some strange intuition that something important is missing from my life. However, our mainstream education not only never taught us any core knowledge from Indian thought, but often dismissed and mocked all Indian thought as primitive superstition. Indeed, the only people who seemed to possess this knowledge all seemed to be tightly affiliated to organised religion, and whenever I've tried to approach anyone to learn about Indian thought, all they seemed to be interested to teach me was about "submission" and "surrender". I do not know why we have attributed divinity (in the name of bhakti) to what is essentially slave training. For me, bhakti is about devotion and commitment-- and not submission and surrender. Both are very different. The latter requires blind faith and acceptance without questioning, while the former is about commitment and focus. One can verily be a bhakth of the path of inquiry and questioning. I remember sitting in a class about Upanishads several years ago while I was in college, and all that the speaker was talking about was-- what is the correct way in which we should worship. I had walked out of the class in frustration. 

Anyway, I am ranting. Let me come back to the main point of this post. 

One of the biggest value addition that Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures did, was to make Vedantic thought accessible to the inquiring mind, without passing judgments on our humility or any such thing. And indeed, after I started listening to his talks, the void that I had been feeling all these years, had suddenly begun to clear! 

Indian thought indeed is profound and wholly different from what we learn in our mainstream education. So much so that, I now see mainstream science as overtly mechanistic, focusing only on processes and unable to distinguish between why and how questions. In contrast, for more than 6000 years, Indian thought has been arguing and debating whether consciousness has any material cause. Most schools of thought have rejected any material cause to consciousness, giving us some enormously cool insights-- like the ontology of thing, nothing, and no-thing. 

Swami Sarvapriyananda subscribes to the Advaita philosophy, which argues that consciousness is all there is. The ultimate reality Brahman is the only entity that exists, which is featureless (nirguna) and formless (niraakara). The myriad of features and forms that we see in our existential reality (the Prakriti of Samkhya) is called Maya, which is essentially an "appearance" in Brahman. This is somewhat like how on a television that is showing a movie, all that exists is the screen. All the characters in the movie and its events are just appearances on the screen. The semantics of the movie has no bearing on the screen-- for instance, an explosion in the movie that blows up every entity nearby, does not affect the screen at all. By this definition, Maya is at a lower ontological reality with respect to Brahman, or our consciousness, which is the only reality. 

Advaita is indeed radical in its philosophy (not radical in the organised religion sense!) and offers a perspective on reality that is arguably unique only to Indian thought. It has greatly shaped our civilisation and culture. 

But Advaita still leaves out some questions. If Maya is an appearance, what causes this appearance in Brahman? What is the purpose of this appearance? Advaita also can lead to a sense of nihilism if we (in my opinion, wrongly) interpret the impermanence of Maya to mean that Maya is "unimportant" and its elements like morals, justice, ethics, etc. are not worth pursuing or upholding. Such questions had prompted me to argue in defence of Maya saying that we cannot dismiss existential reality that easily. 

Advaita is not without its detractors, and one of the biggest challenges for Advaita came from Madhwacharya, who was born more than 500 years after Adi Shankaracharya (who was the first to popularise Advaita into a movement). 

Swami Sarvapriyananda defines the Dwaita philosophy of Madhwacharya as dualistic (which is fine), and equates it with theism like Abrahamic religions. Theistic religions argue of a God as an entity separate from the material reality that we live in, and one who is the creator of the material reality. Theism requires its adherents to act within the commandments of God, and propound submission and surrender to God to achieve redemption. 

I had not found this argument convincing. Madhwacharya was an astute philosopher and makes very sharp arguments. It is very unlikely that after learning Advaita in depth and realising reality in a whole new perspective, a thinking mind would come back and argue for theism which is way too primitive in the way it approaches the ultimate question of reality! 

Today, my perspective again changed deeply after I came across this talk by Prof. Prathosh from IISc, who, apart from being a an expert in AI, is also deeply well versed in Dwaita philosophy. 

The core question that Dwaita addresses is whether the ultimate reality is featureless (nirguna) or has features (saguna). If the ultimate reality is featureless, then all features of existential reality, including questions of good and evil, or justice and injustice, are all meaningless. 

Dwaita basically argues that the ultimate reality is not "featureless", but "infinitely featured". It contains all features like knowledge, happiness, existence, etc. to an infinite extent. The limited existence that we live in, is brought about by the "filter" of existence that limits this infinitely featured reality into a finitely featured being. 

As an example, consider white light. This is not a light that has no colour-- indeed, white light has all colours. If we subject white light to one or more filters, we get coloured light, which is but a limitation of the white light. 

The sense in which we are "separate" from the divine in Dwaita philosophy is not that we are the "servant of God" as in theistic religions, but that our material existence entails that we possess these filters that limit the infinite reality into our finite existence. 

This approach to modelling existence removes the nihilism problem of Advaita! It is not that good and evil are both parts of Maya and hence unreal with respect to the ultimate reality of Brahman. It is that what is "good" is that which helps us transcend our existential filters and realise the infinite reality, while what is "bad" is that which adds more filters and limits our existence even more. 

The bhakti of Dwaita is not made of blind submission and surrender and irrational faith towards a divine entity. The bhakti of Dwaita is a path of devotion, focus and commitment, where we become aware of the filters that are limiting us and work towards transcending them. 

This is such great clarity! 

In defense of Maya

Purva paksha: 

When we study Advaita Vedanta, we learn about the impermanent and transient nature of existential reality that is called Maya. Our daily experience of reality comprising of matter and interactions among them are in a continuous state of flux. Vedanta posits that the underlying substrate of all of our experience is an unchanging reality (that is called Brahman), that is the only reality that exists. This substrate is existence itself-- and forms the "is-ness" of everything that is. 

An example that is oft quoted is that of a clay pot. A clay pot is just clay and nothing else. There is nothing called a pot if we remove the clay from a clay pot. The cause of a clay pot is the clay, and the clay itself appears as a pot. The name, form and function that forms a pot is not at the same level of reality as the clay. The clay can exist without the pot, but the pot cannot exist without the clay. 

The transactional reality of our universe comprising of laws of physics and of mathematics, are all existing objects. They are termed to be just different appearances of the same underlying existence. No amount of existential laws can affect the fundamental nature of reality itself. Somewhat like how all the water in a mirage cannot wet a grain of sand of the desert where the mirage appears; or how all the happenings in a movie (like say, an explosion) that is played on a screen cannot affect the screen on which it appears. 

The transactional reality of our physical and even mathematical universe, is at a lower, transient level of existence than reality itself, that is eternal. 

One of the implications of such a philosophical theory is that it is wise to not embroil ourselves in the complexities of existential reality, and instead remain rooted in the ultimate reality that is indeed the true nature of our Self. 

Uttara paksha: 

While the philosophy of Advaita is itself solid and cogent, there are certain implications of such an inquiry that makes us infer that existential reality is somehow "inferior" or "irrelevant" as it is only transient, and does not represent the real nature of our selves. 

Such an interpretation can lead us to a state of nihilism, where all existential issues, including notions of ethics, patriotism, loyalty, human rights, justice, etc. are all considered transient and unreal, and therefore, not worthy of inquiry. 

To be sure, most key philosophers of Advaita were anything but nihilistic-- be it Adi Shankaracharya, Vidyaranya, or Vivekanda-- they were not just philosophers, but also key figures that changed the course of Indian history. There were also however, philosophers like Gaurapada (Shankaracharya's Guru's Guru) who was known to be a complete renunciate, and spent his life as a hermit in the mountains. 

But the question still remains-- if all of existential reality is Maya, and no more an appearance in Brahman, why and how do we motivate or advocate for anything at all? Do concepts like honesty, loyalty, justice, fairness, etc. mean anything at all? Or are they just movies played on the screen of reality?  

Swami Vivekananda grappled with such questions-- given that in his time India was in the grip of oppressive colonial rule, and philosophers struggled to unite against the oppression. In response to such questions, Swami Vivekananda came up with his own philosophy called Integral Advaita, about which, I had written about earlier. 

This post is about the importance of giving due diligence to the considerations of Maya or existential reality, despite the fact that it is "just" an appearance in Brahman, and not our true nature. 

For one, if Maya had not worked in my favour, I would not be sitting here writing this blog post, wondering about the true nature of the universe. 

The core substrate that is my reality is also the very same substrate of the table in front of me or of the dog that is barking outside. Yet, it is me imagining about reality and writing this blog post, and not the table or the dog. 

Similarly, while the screen is the only real entity in a movie being played on TV, it is for the movie that we buy the TV and not just the screen. Suppose I have a broken TV which doesn't work anymore, I cannot possibly sell it to someone saying that they are getting the real thing (the screen), and the movies that play on the screen aren't real anyway! 

The clay may be the only reality of a clay pot, but it is debatable to say that the cause of the clay pot is the clay alone. If the clay alone were to be the cause of the pot, then all clay would turn into pots! Rather than the clay, it is the idea of a pot is the cause of the pot. The idea of a pot has a sound mathematical structure that can be argued to exist even when we remove the clay from a clay pot. The idea of a pot may not have physical properties like size and weight. But it does have mathematical properties like its topology and geometry. 

Hence, despite being "just an appearance" in the reality of Brahman, Maya is the reason that we are all here trying to understand what this is all about. Unlike Brahman that is the nature of eternal existence-consciousness-bliss, Maya is of complex hues and forms and characteristics. It is what that gives us all our existential dilemmas, all ethical quagmires, all philosophical schools, all scientific theories, and all religion and spirituality. 

Despite the reality of the screen in which our movie plays, we are but characters in the movie that we are in, and we better play our roles well. 

Thing, Nothing, and No-thing

In order to truly understand the core of Indian thought, it is important to understand the ontological difference between "Nothing" and "No-thing". 

The idea of a "no-thing" is unique to Indian worldview, and to the best of my knowledge, is found nowhere else in philosophies across the world. 

The "no-thing" refers to the core of our subjective experience, or pure awareness, or consciousness. To understand this better, we need to start with the notion of inquiry-- where, a subject or the inquirer is inquiring about an object, or the inquired. 

All entities that can be objects of inquiry, are "things" and the absence of a thing becomes "nothing". Conventional science today, regards everything as objects, and considers a subject or inquirer, to be just an object when viewed from the vantage point of some other subject. 

However, Indian thought argues that what we see about other inquirers are just some objective shell in which the real inquirer resides, and we can never see the real inquirer. We can only see others' body, and to some extent "see" (or infer) their thoughts, emotions, etc. None of these form the core of their subjective experience, or the inquirer. 

We can see that, we can become aware of our own bodies, thoughts, emotions, and even our sense of person or ego, in pretty much the same way that we become aware of some object outside of us. The philosopher Ashtavakra, describes succinctly thus: 

यथा प्रकाशयाम्येको देहमेनं तथा जगत् ।
अतो मम जगत्सर्वमथवा न च किञ्चन ॥ २ ॥ (Ashtavakra Gita 2.2) 

As I alone give light to (become aware of) this body, so I do to the world, As a result the whole world is mine, or alternatively, nothing is.

Whatever we consider to be the core of who we are-- like our mind, or intellect, or ego, etc.-- we can become aware of it.. meaning that there is an inquirer separate from all of these. Hence, our body, mind, intellect, emotions, ego, etc. are all objects to our subjective experience! They are all things! 

When our mind has several thoughts-- it has a lot of "things" in it, and when our mind is blank, it has "nothing" in it. But the fact that we can discern whether our mind is full of thoughts, or is it blank, means that there exists some other entity that is the core of our subjective experience, that is neither a "thing" nor is it "nothing". 

The property of the core of this subjective experience is that it can never be objectified. The core of our subjective experience is a "no-thing". It is not the absence of a thing-- it is an entity that can never be an object of inquiry. The moment we believe that we have located the core of our subjective experience, we can ask, "who" has located this, and realize that the inquirer is the one who is locating. 

Philosophers in ancient India-- more than 6000 years ago, had postulated that the core of our subjective experience, which is pure awareness, or consciousness, cannot be objectified in our or anybody else's experience. This means that consciousness exists as a separate entity in the universe, and is not something that is produced by material interactions. This kind of formulation is found in the most ancient philosophical schools of thought in India-- like Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, and Yoga. 

Modern science still struggles to understand this, and keeps arguing about what does it take for artificial intelligence (AI) to produce consciousness. 

About 3500 years ago, there was another great leap in our understanding of consciousness, which is now called Vedanta, and recorded in this vast body of literature, called the Upanishads. The Upanishads brought about one small change to our understanding of "no-things" in that, it argues that there is only one instance of "no-thing" in the entire universe! 

This can be illustrated quite easily. All non-physical objects have just one instance. There is just one instance of the number "5" for example. There may be several instances of 5-somethings-- like 5 cows, 5 fingers, etc. But the conceptual object 5 itself, is the same. 

This is illustrated by this joke, where a boy is sitting by the roadside and crying. When asked why he is crying, he says that his father gave him five rupees in his left hand, to buy some milk, and another 5 rupees in his right hand, to buy some vegetables. But, the boy says, he forgot and bought milk with the 5 rupees in his right hand, and vegetables with the 5 rupees in his left hand. And now, the boy cries, his father will be very upset with him! 

We can see that even though there were multiple instances of the currency, their value referred to just one conceptual object. 

The same argument is brought to the core of our subjective inquiry-- by noting that consciousness, even though it exists on its own, is not a physical entity. And because of that, there can be only one instance of it. 

Hence, according to the Upanishads, all of us have the very same core, that forms our subjective experience! We are all literally the same being! We may have different bodies, minds, intellects, egos, etc. but the core of all of us is literally the same no-thing! 

The Upanishads had such a huge impact on humanity that the author Evan Thompson writes in his book "Waking, Dreaming, Being", that: 

“The Upanishads is a watershed in the evolution of consciousness. Instead of being ethnocentric and dividing all global history between B.C. and A.D., we should really divide it between before Upanishads and after Upanishads—B.U. and A.U.—because the sophisticated psychology of consciousness in the Upanishads represents a quantum leap forward in human development.”

But for millennia before the Upanishads, Indian philosophers had postulated the existence of a "no-thing" that is still not realized or acknowledged in modern society. Our no-thing is the core of our subjective experience-- and it is also the source of our sense of agency, freewill, and autonomy. 

The introduction of no-thing into our ontological models, would be somewhat akin to the introduction of zero as a number in its own right into a number system. We know that the introduction of zero into a place-holder number system by Bhaskara, was a watershed event in our understanding of numbers and quantities. 

If we look at an OWL (Web Ontology Language) ontology today, at the root of this ontology lies an entity called "OWL: Thing". Every other class is a subclass of "OWL:Thing" and is considered a "thing". A pizza is a thing, and so is a person. A table is a thing, and so is a dog. 

But we can see that a person or a dog, are more than just things-- unlike a table or a pizza. They have a subjective experience in them, which means that their core is made of the "no-thing". It is because they have a no-thing, they can act on their own, decide on their own, be driven on their own, and their responses to physical stimuli cannot always be predicted by Newtonian models. 

All forms of oppression, territorial wars, colonialism, slavery, etc. can be attributed to the fallacy of treating other peoples as things, and oneself as inquirers with agency and desire-- or no-things. Even today, TV anchors urge the world to be more concerned about the war in Ukraine, because "it is not some war in Syria or Africa, but in Europe"-- meaning that, wars in Syria or Africa happen between "things" while a war in Europe involves real people. 

It is time we introduce "no-thing" as another root entity in our ontological models.

*~*~*~*~

This blog post is a compilation of my thoughts after watching this video: 

The great debate

Indian civilisation is characterised by what might be called "the great debate" that continues to this day. This debate is very relevant to cutting edge science and philosophy today-- but much of science at least, is not looking in this direction. 

This post is a small attempt to introduce this great debate-- from my perspective. 

*~*~*~*~*~*~

Among the top-most scientists and philosophers today, a burning question that is hotly debated is about consciousness. How does consciousness and its complex constructs like identity, desire, morality, etc. develop from material reactions in the brain? 

This question gains even more significance today, with rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) taking over several aspects of our lives. If a human were to act recklessly or irresponsibly, we have several mechanisms to deal with it. We could appeal to their sense of empathy, humanity or conscience to reflect upon their actions; we could "shame" them into regretting their actions; and so on. But when an AI robot acts irresponsibly-- none of these options are available to us. Sure, a form of "shaming" is possible with negative reinforcements, but while this may bring about a behavioural change, it does not lead to self-reflection and a heightened sense of morality in the robot. 

More than 5000 years ago, Indian philosophers had hotly debated about this problem of consciousness, which had resulted in several schools of thought. The Charavakas held on to the currently held notion among scientists-- that consciousness is an emergent property of material interactions in our brains. Just like modern science, for the Charavakas, material reality is all there is. 

However, the Charavakas were just a small minority among the several other schools of thought in this regard. Most other schools of thought argued that consciousness is a "simpliciter" entity-- in that, it exists on its own, and is not derived from any form of material interactions. 

The Samkhya school of thought for instance, proposed a "dualism" model of reality. According to them, reality is made of two kinds of fundamental elements, called the Prakriti and the Purusha. Prakriti refers to material / physical reality and its causal interactions, while Purusha refers to the non-causal realm of reality of the consciousness. Purusha can be interpreted not just as consciousness, but all forms of information objects-- including numbers, concepts, etc. Information objects are not subject to time and space constraints like physical objects. While biological life may exist only on earth, and only since the last few million years, prime numbers for instance, exist everywhere, and have always existed. No physical law can affect the primality (or otherwise) of a number. 

Samkhya was one of the most widely taught subjects in ancient India, along with Vedanta. Buddha is said to have extensively studied Samkhya. 

According to the Samkhya model, there are an infinite numbers of Purusha-Prakriti pairs that make up reality. But, this infinitude of information objects creates several forms of confusion. If the concepts in my head are completely unconnected with the concepts in someone else's head, how is it we can understand one another? It also brings up other strange questions like whether the number 5 on planet Earth is the same number 5 on Mars? And so on. 

The philosophy of Vedanta, which are summarised in this vast body of text called the Upanishads, take another radical step in our understanding of consciousness. The Upanishads heralded such a radical change in human civilisation, that thousands of years later, the American philosopher William Irwing Thompson, who studied the Upanishads extensively, remarked that we ought to divide civilisational epochs as "Before Upanishads" and "After Upanishads" (BU and AU respectively), instead of the current BC and AD: 

“The Upanishads is a watershed in the evolution of consciousness. Instead of being ethnocentric and dividing all global history between B.C. and A.D., we should really divide it between before Upanishads and after Upanishads—B.U. and A.U.—because the sophisticated psychology of consciousness in the Upanishads represents a quantum leap forward in human development.” -- Excerpt from Evan Thompson, "Waking, Dreaming, Being"

The Upanishads argued that there is only one Purusha in the universe! Not only consciousness exists on its own in the universe-- there is only one instance of this universal consciousness! We are not independently conscious-- but we all reflect the same consciousness. 

To give an analogy, consider a set of bowls filled with water kept in the sun outside. Inside each bowl is a reflection of the sun, each of which may be bright enough to offer illumination. But the reflection of each of them is of the same sun up above! 

Similarly, our individualised consciousness is not our own, but our reflection of the universal consciousness. The universal consciousness is called chit, while the individual reflection is called the chidaabhasa. Sentience is defined as our ability to form an image of the universal consciousness. As an analogy, in the daylight, every object reflects light from the sun, but some surfaces like glass, water, etc. also form an image of the sun. Sentience is this ability to form an image of the universal consciousness. Of course, such images can be distorted, or incomplete-- but it is an image nevertheless.

The Vedantic model itself gave rise to several schools of thought-- including some contrarian schools, which rejected the core argument of a single universal consciousness. 

The Advaita or the non-dual school of thought, goes one step further into the Vedantic argument, to not only say that there is just one universal consciousness-- but also that the universal consciousness is all there is! Rather than considering consciousness as a creation of material reality, Advaita argues that material reality is a temporary appearance this universal consciousness! According to Advaita, material reality is basically the universal consciousness trying to look at itself-- somewhat like in the picture below. So, all of the universe-- all our wars, kingdoms, travails, adventures, etc. are essentially about the universal consciousness trying to look at itself from different angles! 

Some other schools of thought-- which are broadly called the Sramanics, of which, Buddhism and Jainism are most well known-- reject the core argument of Vedanta that there is one universal consciousness, and that as individuals, we just sport images of this one, sole consciousness. 

Vedantic thought is so old, that it has gone through multiple phases of degeneration and rejuvenation. During Buddha's time, the orthodox schools of thought had become so degenerate that philosophers and thought leaders spent most of their time trying to realise the oneness of their self with the universal consciousness, when there was rampant suffering all around them. Siddharta Gautama, who later came to be called as the Buddha, argued that it is futile to spend out lives trying to experiences this oneness of reality, when there is so much suffering all around. Instead, it is better to understand how suffering is manifested in our lives and how to remove it. He went on to further argue that the core of our existence is not the universal consciousness, but a void or shunyata. Everything is impermanent, and the core of the universe is just void or nothingness, he argued.

The Buddhists and the Vedantic philosophers are said to have had a thousand-year long debate, during which time, Buddhism spread beyond India to Afghanistan, China and much of south and east Asia. 

The arrival of Adi Shankaracharya around 1200 years ago, heralded a revival of Vedantic thought-- especially Advaita Vedanta. It was once again to become the most dominant worldview in Indian thought for about 700 years. Some very well known Advaita philosophers like Vidyaranya have written several introductory texts about this philosophy that are still taught today. 

But as before, in a few centuries after Shankaracharya, the focus on realising oneness of existence, had started to degenerate into a form of nihilism. When the material reality is considered unreal, with the only reality being the universal consciousness, which is the core of our own being, the motivation to address existential issues like suffering, defending against attacks, etc. is not all that strong. 

By the 12th century CE, foreign invaders had finally managed to enter India. (It is worthwhile to note that several great conquerors like the Greek king Alexander, or the Mongol Genghis Kahn, or the Roman empire, had never been able to conquer Indian kingdoms. While the Kushans are called an Indo-Greek empire, they were not a result of Greek invasion, and there is ample evidence that their kings like Kanishka, were of Indian origin than Greek). 

As foreign conquests started to make its way into India from the north, some kingmakers like Vidyaranya, helped build mighty kingdoms like the Vijayanagar Empire that withstood this onslaught. But a few centuries later, they too crumbled. 

Some philosophers like Madhwacharya, felt that this is due to a fatal flaw in the core of the dominant worldview at that time-- which was Advaita. As a major critic to Advaita philosophy, Madhwa came up with the dualistic Dvaita philosophy. The core of our self, is completely contained in our worldly existence, he argued. No matter how well a bowl of water makes an image of the sun, it can never be the sun itself! Similarly, no matter how well we reflect the universal consciousness, we can never be the universal consciousness itself. We are our limited bodies with our limited existence, and we had better focus on worldly issues that affect our survival. We can at best, practice bhakti or devoted service towards the supreme, in order to reflect the universal consciousness as best as possible. 

Madhwacharya's philosophy also fit in well with the Bhakti movement that was very popular at that time, that advocated devotion, submission and surrender to the divine, as a means for spiritual enlightenment. 

Despite all these philosophical efforts in redefining ourselves, history shows that Indian society succumbed greatly to foreign invasion, followed by colonisation by European powers. 

A few centuries later, during. the freedom struggle against the British, Vedantic thought once again saw a revival through the efforts of Swami Vivekananda. Vivekananda is known for his address in the Chicago Congress of Religions, and to have brought authentic Indian thought directly to the West. Until then, the population in the West were exposed to gross misrepresentations and exotic perversions of Indian thought (something which continues to this day). 

Swami Vivekananda criticised too much emphasis on bhakti, devotion and surrender. He argued that too much of an obsequious conduct may rob us of our sense of ownership and assertion of our rights. But he was also aware of the shortcomings of pure Advaita and the criticisms it had received. 

He formulated his own philosophy called Integral Advaita (which I have explained in detail in another post), that strives to bridge between the non-dual and dualist schools. Vivekananda defined religion as the manifestation of the divine that is already within us, not through renunciation, but through active engagement with society and by addressing its problems. 

*~*~*~*~*~*~

Philosophical debates from India are radically different from their counterparts in the West. Western philosophy and science mostly focuses on the object, and tries hard to remove the subject from the picture. While this gives us very useful constructs like stoicism, Socratic methods, Analytic philosophy, etc, it also brings us to the state where we are in today-- where we effortlessly build machines that can easily destroy us several times over, and struggle to understand human societies beyond their power dynamics. 

Indian philosophy and its debates are more relevant today, than ever before, as we stare at a future, where the lines between truth and falsity are getting blurred.

Our sheaths and states of being

In the Ramayana, once Hanuman asks Lord Rama to suggest some reading material for him to learn about the Vedas. In response, Rama suggests to him just one Upanishad-- the Mandukya Upanishad. It is one of the shortest and most dense of the Upanishads, that is said to go directly to its teachings (unlike other Upanishads that take longer routes like story-telling and examples). 

If you cannot understand the Mandukya, Lord Rama tells Hanuman, then here is a list of 108 bigger Upanishads for you to read. 

~*~*~*~*

The Mandukya talks about our "3+1" states of being which is one of the most fundamental states that define our existence. 

In order to understand this, let us first look into the five-sheaths or the Panchakosha model of us. Our existence is said to be defined in five sheaths or koshas, which are as described below. 

The Annamaya kosha or the gross body, refers to our physical bodies, which subsist on food. The Pranamaya kosha or the "subtle body" refers to all the processes happening in us like breathing, blood circulation, heart beats, digestion, etc. that keep us alive. The third sheath is the Manomaya kosha or the mind, that hosts our thoughts and emotions. The Vijnanamaya kosha or the intellect, forms the fourth sheath, which hosts to our conscious thoughts, knowledge, epistemology, wisdom, etc. 

Beyond these four sheaths is our core being, which is called the Anandamaya kosha or the sheath of bliss. This core sheath is sometimes also called our karana shareera or the "causal body". It is this core being that is said to have given rise to all the four sheaths of our existence. When we are conceived as a human, the first thing that is said to develop is our core being-- from which, all other sheaths emanate. 

Our core being is in turn said to be in "3+1" states of being. Why the 3+1 notation? The first three states of being are something that all of us experience. But the fourth (+1) state of being is much more subtle and requires a lot of practice to experience this state. 

The three states of being are respectively called: Jagrut or waking state, Swapna or dreaming state, and Shushukta or deep sleep state. In each state of being, our personality is so different that these personalities have separate names as well. 

The "person" that is dominant in our waking state is called Vaishnavara, and the "person" that is dominant in our dreaming state is called Taijasa, and in deep sleep, our dominant "person" is called Praajna. 

Vaishnavara is interested in transacting with the external world using logic, expression, conscious thoughts, emotion, etc. The Taijasa is interested in imagination, counterfactual reasoning, and in building alternate hypothetical scenarios. The Taijasa is available in the waking state too, but is dominated by the Vaishnavara. In dreaming state, the Taijasa is dominant and takes over the mind with its vivid imaginations, unconstrained by the physical reality of the Vaishnavara. 

The Praajna is interested in soothing and relaxing our our different sheaths. The Praajna is functional during waking and dreaming states as well, when we often instinctively relax and soothe ourselves. It is dominant in deep sleep where all sheaths are mostly shut down. A state of deep sleep does not represent absence of experience-- it represents an experience of absence! The Praajna is at work during our deep sleep, ensuring that we are well rested-- yet at the same time, listening to input channels like the ears, and waking us up if we hear a loud noise, for example. 

The above three states of being are something that we all experience daily. But, as the Mandukya says, the three states of being can in turn be queried by a fourth state, which is called Turiya (which literally means, "the fourth"). The Turiya is the state of pure awareness or consciousness, unhindered by our physical existence. 

The Turiya is said to be our core, liberated self, that is unhindered by time, space and causality. In this state of being, all the three earlier states, and the five sheaths can appear as objects in our experience-- thus showing us that we are not our body, life forces, mind, intellect or even our physical being. 

In the Turiya state, we can "speak with" each of our persons-- the Vaishnavara, Taijasa and Praajna and curate the way in which we experience our waking, dreaming and deep-sleep states!

The Mandukya itself does not propose any method for reaching the state of Turiya. But several other treatises address this question as to how to reach a state of pure awareness and inquire about and curate the entirety of our physical existence. 

Glimpses of the subject

“We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it.” --Erwin Schrodinger

~*~*~*~*~*

In the way Science is practiced today, and in Analytic Philosophy that underlies most scientific inquiry, the process of inquiry is predominantly objective. Much of scientific studies and Western philosophy (as practiced today) inquires about stuff that are "out there". Indeed, a study is considered scientific, only when the observer is separated from the system being observed, and the process of observation does not interfere with the functioning of the system. 

Recently, I was watching a lecture on Analytic Philosophy, in which the professor defined philosophical inquiry as comprising of three major dimensions-- "what is out there?", "how do I know?", and "what do I do?" The first dimension comprises of different hermeneutic schools and different conceptual models of reality. The second dimension addresses issues of knowledge, cognition, epistemology, and so on. The third dimension addresses issues like imperatives, norms, morality, ethics, rational choice, etc. 

In contrast to the above, one of the predominant questions addressed by Indian philosophical schools is "who am I?" Unlike Western thought that has predominantly focused on the object of inquiry , the focus in Indian schools has been predominantly on the subject or the inquirer. 

It is not that the inquirer does not feature in Western thought. But the depths to which the inquirer has been inquired, is much more in Indian thought. 

Most scientific models today require us to remove the inquirer from theories of reality. The inquirer needs to be a disinterested observer who does not interfere with the system being observed, and should not feature in the models of reality that is the outcome of the inquiry. 

Such a requirement was found to be inadequate when scientific inquiry was focused on the very small and the very large-- quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, respectively-- where it was seen that we cannot discount the observer in our models of reality. Similarly, in social sciences, there is often an argument that a dispassionate observer cannot understand underlying latent worldview and thoughts that drive observable patterns of behaviour of a population being observed, and a real sociological inquiry comes from a lived experience. It is only when we experience the pains, the joys, the insecurities, etc. of the population being observed, can we really understand why they act the way they do. 

~*~*~*~*~*

Why is an inquiry into the inquirer important? 

One of the biggest dreams of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers alike, has been to develop some form of "Grand Unified Theories" of reality. In Western thought, Albert Einstein, David Hilbert, and several others have attempted this immense feat, and have ultimately failed. 

But once we realise that the inquirer is part of reality too, we see that we can never have any form of objective grand unified theory of reality-- without a theory of the inquirer itself!

The inquirer is so fundamental to our experience when we are inquiring about the world out there, that we often completely forget that it exists, and that its existence itself is a mystery! For example, other than on planet Earth, we do not have any evidence of an inquirer or an inquiry happening in any other planet in our solar system or in the known universe! (Of course, notable exceptions are the various satellites, rovers and other gadgets in different parts of the universe that are "inquiring" on our behalf). 

Given that the inquirer is so unique an entity in the universe, it is but an imperative that any unified models of reality should necessarily also address and accommodate the inquirer into such models! 

Once we start inquiring into the inquirer, we see that the usual physical models of reality are inadequate to model the inquirer. The inquirer or the subject, is not only involved in observation of reality, but is also an active, autonomous agent of change! Constructs involving intention, free will, knowledge, belief, reason, morality, ethics, purpose, etc. are all attributed to the inquirer and not the inquired. We cannot meaningfully talk about the "intention" of planet Saturn for sporting rings, nor the "morality" of Jupiter wanting to be the biggest planet in our solar system. But such statements are meaningful when we are talking about subjects. 

~*~*~*~*~*

Indian philosophy has predominantly focused on characterising the inquirer rather than the inquired. There are several schools of thought and models about the inquirer-- each, a fascinating journey in itself. 

One of the major questions that is addressed by Indian thought is to "locate" the locus of of the inquirer. When we say that "I am the inquirer" the question then asks, "Who am I?" or where is the locus of this "I" or self? Does the "I" refer to our body? Our mind? Our "ego" (whatever it means)? Our genetic signature? Or is it somewhere else? 

The quest for the locus of "I" has been so elusive, that there are indeed several schools of thought (most notably, Buddhism) that assert that there is no entity called the self or "I" at all! But then, the concept of "I" is so centrally used in our conversations that it is hard to also accept that the core driver of our inquiry is just a void. 

There is a story about a scientist arguing with Sri Ramakrishna-- a well known 19th century Advaita philosopher-- saying that he has conducted several experiments involving both body and mind, and is convinced that there is no entity called "self" or "I" anywhere. To this, Sri Ramakrishna replied, "Who is convinced that there is no entity called self?" 

The 15th century Advaita philosopher Sage Vidyaranya wrote several books proposing different heuristics, to help the reader understand the problem of self. His treatise called the drg-drisyha viveka (or, the theory of the "seer" and the "seen") is based on the postulate that the subject cannot observe its own locus. Or, whatever that the subject can directly observe, cannot be the locus of the subject, since there is a locus that is doing the observing. For instance, our eyes can see everything else but itself. It can only see an image of itself in the mirror or in a photograph. But it cannot directly observe itself. Similarly, a finger cannot touch itself. 

While the eyes cannot "see" themselves, we can become "aware" of our eyes in our inquiry, and question about its state. For instance, we can become aware that our eyes are irritating, relaxed, dry, etc. In this case, the eyes become the observed, and the locus of our inquiry shifts somewhere deeper within us. Hence, if the eye can be the object of inquiry, it cannot be the locus of our subject. Thus, we can now ask, who is inquiring about the eye? If we say that it is our mind that inquires and it is because of our mind that we exist (according to Descartes who said "Cogito. Ergo, sum"), we can see that the mind itself can become an object of our inquiry! The popular field of "mindfulness" is all about observing our mind and our thoughts as they come and go. So if the mind is not the fundamental inquirer, then who is it that is observing the mind? 

The argument proceeds like that to reach a singularity. We can see that no matter what we think is our locus of inquiry that is part of our physical experience-- can easily become an object of our experience! We can observe our thoughts, our emotions, even our "ego" (we can inquire and understand ourselves as a person and our personality), we can inquire about our innate nature-- thus showing that none of this is the locus of our subject! 

The Samkhya school of philosophy which is more than 4000 years old, posits a "simpliciter" entity (a fundamental entity that exists on its own, and not derived from something else), called the "Purusha" that is termed the fundamental inquirer. Physical reality comprising of all objects that can be inquired about, is called Prakriti. One of the axioms of Purusha is that the Purusha cannot observe itself-- it can only "realise" itself, but never observe itself directly. It is the Purusha that is the source of all subjective constructs like free-will, intention, norms, etc. According to Samkhya, the universe is said to be made up of infinite numbers of Purusha objects and an infinite number of Prakriti objects. 

The infinite cardinality of Purusha objects are disputed by other philosophical schools, which point at certain contradictions that such a formulation creates. For instance, we discover "objective" mathematical truths independently, despite that mathematical processing is completely happening within our minds. Also, despite the large diversity in our population on earth, several linguists have noted remarkable similarities in which language is constructed across the world. This has given rise to theories like the "language instinct" that argues that our ability for language is not something that is imbibed-- but something that is innate! 

This brings us to one of the predominant models of Indian philosophy-- called as the Vedantic school-- which argues that there is only one Purusha or subject in the universe! It is this one same subject that is inquiring through a multitude of channels, which appear as different inquirers in physical reality. The locus of all our inquiry is the same, universal consciousness. The world is not just one family-- we are all the same person!

There is another story of Sri Ramakrishna in this regard. Once, someone asked Sri Ramakrishna on what is the basis of ethics on which we can build a theory of how to treat others. Conventionally, we use several bases like reflection (treat others like how you would like to be treated), virtue (uphold certain virtues in the way you treat others, etc.) But, Sri Ramakrishna had a very different answer. He said, "remember that there are no others"!

~*~*~*~*~*

Even in the Vedantic approach to understanding the subject, there are several sub-schools of thought-- primarily based on whether the core inquirer and the channel used for inquiry (our physical beings) are different or the same. I have written about this debate in other articles, and will not dwell upon this argument here. 

Integral Advaita of Swami Vivekananda

 In some of my previous posts addressing differences between dualism and non-dualism and the idea of Maya, I had been addressing what I believe, to be the core dilemma that has characterised Indian thought over millennia. 

One of the core characteristics of Indian philosophy based on the Vedas and Upanishads is that, unlike Western philosophy that focuses on objects and the universe external to the inquirer, the Upanishads start by focusing on the inquirer itself. This leads to some deep insights and theories about concepts like consciousness, awareness, and self. 

A primary contention of Indian schools of thought is the simpliciter nature of consciousness. That is, it argues that the core of what forms our consciousness, exists by itself-- and is not a consequence of material interactions. Hence, our consciousness does not "emerge" from our brain cells, but rather, our brain cells "tune in" to consciousness that already exists in the universe. In this sense, we never "invent" anything in our minds-- we only discover insights. 

The core debates of Indian thought, comes from trying to reconcile between material reality and the simpliciter consciousness. Material reality is considered as a "mould" through which, consciousness manifests and expresses itself in the material world. But, what is the source and basis of this material reality? 

The Samkhya school argues that material reality is as real and as simpliciter as consciousness. It argues that the universe is inherently a dualism-- comprising of two realms called Prakriti and Purusha corresponding to the material reality and consciousness. Prakriti functions on the basis of physical laws and causality, while Purusha uses Prakriti as a mould for its manifestation and expression. According to Samkhya, there are infinitely many instances of Prakriti and Purusha pairs. 

Other schools of thought, however, argue that an infinite number of Purusha instances leave major questions open-- for instance, what is the source of all these infinite instances, and is there one source or infinitely many sources for these infinite pairs, and so on. Based on such arguments, they contend that the Purusha (also variously called Brahman, Paramatma, Sakshi, or simply "that which is") is unitary. Hence, the universe is simply the one global consciousness, manifesting itself through potentially infinite instances of Prakriti. 

The unification of consciousness, still leaves open, the question of Prakriti or material reality. Is there just one material universe, or are we in a material multiverse? And what is the source of this universal duality? 

The non-dual schools of thought contend that all forms of duality simply leave open questions, and therefore, all the duality that we see-- including the duality of Prakriti and Purusha-- is only apparent duality. The universe is essentially just one, all permeating reality, which is the only entity there is. 

Material reality or Prakriti is argued as being created by this universal consciousness and not the other way around. The material reality we see, is called Maya (often incorrectly translated as "illusion"). Our material sense of self-- namely the ego (which is also called jiva) is manifested in Maya, and sees the multitude nature of material reality. But an awakened self-- the non-dualists argue-- realises that it is nothing but the only thing there is-- Brahman. The core idea of non-dual philosophy is captured by this statement: Brahma satyam, jagat mithyam, jiva Brahmaivanapara. (Brahman alone is real, the material reality is ephemeral, and the ego is none other than Brahman) 

The non-dual argument is the core philosophy of the Upanishads, which give several arguments to drive home this point. The non-dual argument also gave rise to several modes of inquiry that asks how does the existential self come to realise itself as Brahman? The concept of harmonising between our existential agent (ego) and the universal consciousness, is called Yoga. Several different pathways for Yoga are also proposed-- which include the paths of jnana (knowledge), bhakti (devotion), karma (action), shrama (effort), and so on. 

The idea of non-dual reality however, was criticised by several social reformers at different points in history, corresponding to times when the society built on such a philosophy had run its course and started to degenerate. One of the core criticisms of philosophers like Buddha and Mahavira from the second and third century BCE, and later philosophers like Madhwa from the 15th century CE, focused on the "dismissive" nature of non-duality towards issues of material reality. Human problems like suffering, injustice, disease, etc. were all part of Maya, and hence considered ephemeral (and therefore unimportant to address). 

But, it is important to note that none of the non-dualist philosophers themselves have ever argued that issues of material reality are unimportant. One of the most well known non-dualist Adi Shankara, from the 10th century CE, was known to be very dynamic in reviving Vedantic thought all over India and reforming society from degeneration in those days. Before his untimely death at the age of 34, he had already travelled across India on foot-- twice, and setup several centres of learning from Kashmir in the north, to Kanchi in the south. He had taken on several well-known philosophers from those days and defeated them in extensive debates, and urged them towards reforms. 

While the philosophers themselves were anything but apathetic towards material reality, the argument that all aspects of material reality are part of Maya, does not provide a strong implication to help understand how to address existential issues. 

Dualists like Madhwacharya, criticised the core philosophy of Jiva Brahmaivanapara (or the ego is none other than the Brahman), and instead argued that the jiva is completely contained within existential reality or Prakriti. It is too pretentious for our ego to believe that we are the entire universe-- all that our ego can do is to facilitate the universal consciousness to manifest through us, as best as possible. This line of argument, is also strongly entrenched in the Bhakti movement that advocated love, devotion, and surrender to the divine as a means of liberation. 

More modern philosophers like Swami Vivekananda who rose to prominence during the Indian freedom struggle against British colonial rule, have argued that too much of an emphasis on Bhakti, leading to a perennial sense of surrender and submission makes us too obsequious, and impedes our ability for ownership. Ownership of larger issues-- like the safety, welfare and well-being of our family, community and country, are important pre-requisite to help sustain all forms of philosophical inquiry-- be it non-dual or dual. 

Swami Vivekananda was a non-dual philosopher at his core. But he also combined his non-dual philosophy with several forms of social advocacy and reform-- including development of a scientific temper in the population, community welfare and service, focus on courage and bravery, development of patriotism, ownership and participation in issues relating to the country, and so on. Swami Vivekananda's social reforms have played critical roles in shaping the rise of post-colonial India. He had set up several institutions for both mainstream and spiritual education. He also played critical roles in the establishment of major scientific establishments like the Indian Institute of Science. 

Vivekananda's approach to non-dual Vedanta is now called "Integral Advaita" in that, it strives to integrate seemingly breakaway schools of philosophy back into the core non-dual approach that has characterised Indian thought since thousands of years. 

Here is a good introduction to Integral Advaita, by Swami Medhananda: 

Dynamics of identity in Indian thought

 One of the core tenets of Indian philosophy is that the only thing that is real is this all-pervading substratum that is variously called the universal consciousness, Brahman, universal Self, etc. 

One of the primary points of difference between Indian thought and Western science, is the nature of consciousness. As mentioned in some of my earlier posts, in Indian thought, we are said to not "have" consciousness, but "reflect" consciousness. In contrast, in Western science, consciousness is considered as a material outcome, or an emergent characteristic of interacting brain cells. 

In Indian thought, all material existence only reflects consciousness-- much like how all solid objects reflect sunlight. But sentient beings not only reflect the universal consciousness, but can also create an "image" of this universal consciousness-- the all pervading substratum-- to different levels of detail. This is somewhat like how few surfaces, like glass, mirror, polished steel, or water, not only reflect sunlight, but also form an image of the sun. 

The sentience we attribute to ourselves, Indian thought says, is just a reflection of the universal consciousness. Whatever is illuminated by the reflection is essentially the universal consciousness or Brahman, affecting existence through us. 

It is not that, such a theory was completely adopted in Indian thought. Indian philosophy also has a school of philosophy that is based on the material basis of reality-- much like modern science. These were called the nastika or the heterodox school of philosophy, of which the Caravakas are the most prominent. However, the nastikas have not found much support among other schools of Indian thought, all of which agree with the model of the all-pervasive universal consciousness. These were called the astikas or the orthodox school. 

The vast differences between the different astika schools of philosophies lie in the way they argue about where our sense of self or the "I" that makes up who we are, exist. Almost all astikas (except perhaps the Samkhya school of thought) agree that the universal consciousness that we all individually reflect, is just one. This is somewhat like how we can see an image of the sun in several bowls of water placed outside. It does not mean that each bowl of water has its own sun-- the images of the sun in each bowl, are of the same sun. While each image in each bowl may end up reflecting different parts of each of the bowls, it is not the individual images that is illuminating the bowls-- but the one sun that is reflected in all of them. 

Imagine now that each image of the sun in each bowl, thinks of itself as a separate individual-- separate from other suns in other bowls. This individuality we ascribe to ourselves is our "existential self" or ego, or what is called "jiva" or "atma" in Indian thought. 

The different orthodox schools of Indian thought, argue about the nature of our existential self and its relationship with the universal self. 

The Advaita school of thought argues that there is nothing else other than the universal self, and hence, there is nothing called an existential self. Our existential self is just Brahman entangled within Brahman to create a small echo chamber that appears as our existential self, and which primarily reflects Brahman. "Jiva Brahmaivanapara!" or "The jiva is none other than Brahman!" it argues. 

According to Advaita, the only reason that we don't know that we are Brahman is due to this entanglement (called Maya) created by Brahman in which we exist. Once we realise this knowledge, it paves the way to understand our true nature. 

A lot of other schools differ from Advaita in this regard. Some of them argue that the Advaitic argument is almost nihilistic, as it dismisses all forms of existential issues like ethics, morality, duty, etc. all to Maya, and calls them all unreal. 

One of the biggest detractors of Advaita philosophy is the Dvaita philosophy, that argues for a dual nature of reality. One of the earliest dualists are the Samkhya philosophers who argue that reality is made of two realms called the "Purusha" and "Prakriti" or "Reality" and "Existence". Both Purusha and Prakriti exist in their own right (called "simpliciter" in Western philosophy). While Prakriti is the energy or force driven by causality, Purusha is the substratum that forms the contours of reality. Prakriti can exist only as long as its dynamics are consistent with Purusha, and collapses otherwise. 

Samkhya argues that there are infinitely many Purusha and Prakriti duals that make up reality-- a claim that has been refuted by many later philosophers. The primary lacuna in this argument is that, if there are several Purushas, who determines the substratum of reality between their interactions? 

Other dualists, like Madhvacharya who propounded the Dvaita school of thought, argue that while reality (Purusha, Brahman, universal consciousness) is one, there exist infinitely many jivas (existential self). The primary element of Dvaita philosophy is "bheda" or "boundary". Dvaita argues for boundaries that separate jiva and Brahman, jiva and jiva (i.e. any two existential selves), and jiva and jagat (non-sentient existence). They are all different, and all have a unique existence-- it argues. 

Analytic Philosophy of Western thought (of which Bertrand Russell was a major proponent), developed in the late 19th and early 20th century, comes very close to such an argument. It argues that every concept and matter is "simpliciter" or has an existence of its own, independent of its relationships with any other entity. 

According to the dualists, we are not Brahman, but jiva-- or the existential self. The existential self can never be the universal self, much like the glass reflecting the sun can never be the sun. The existential self can however, polish and enrich itself to reflect the universal self much better. This process or struggle by which jiva strives to enrich itself to better reflect Brahman, is called Sadhana. 

The phenomenon of the jiva performing Sadhana to finally "join" or "harmonise" with the universal self, is called "Yoga" (yeah, somewhat different from what this term means today). 

There are different ways in which this Sadhana is performed, which are also called margas or pathways. The bhakti marga for instance, advocates devotion or commitment to a cause or idea by the existential self, as a means for getting better and better at something, and end up eventually reflecting one aspect of the universal self by way of its superlative expertise. 

While the concept of bhakti itself dates back to the Vedic times-- almost 5000 years ago, and primarily meant devotion and commitment, a much more recent phenomenon called the bhakti movement that began in the 12th century CE and lasted for a few centuries, and which had syncretic relationships with Sufi mysticism, also advocated surrender and submission to the divine, as part of its Sadhana. This form of bhakti involves us as the existential self, establishing a child-parent relationship with the divine or the universal self. 

All this while, the Advaita school does not agree with the contention that just because it calls existential self as part of Maya and impermanent, it is nihilistic in its arguments. Quite the contrary-- it argues. According to Advaita, what we need is not Sadhana, but the shedding of Avidya (non-knowledge or delusion) that holds us in bondage. As long as we are deluded into believing that we are the bounded existential self, and keep longing for the divine, we continue to be trapped in our bondage-- it argues. 

Rather than a child-parent relationship between our existential self and the universal self, we need to have a parent-child relationship, it argues. We need to identify not with the existential self, but realise ourselves as the universal self, and then interact with our existential self, as if a parent is interacting with their child. The existential self is a result of entanglement-- it is bounded and unwise, but has a lot of raw energy. Knowing ourselves as the universal self, we need to help the jiva calm down from its existential angst and use its energy wisely, to reflect the universal self. 

This kind of an argument has its parallels in Western thought that came much later. For instance, modern psychotherapy has a concept called "reparenting" that involves talking to our emotional selves as if it were a child, and bring it up in a way that we are the parent to ourselves, whom we never had, while growing up. Similarly, the cognitive scientist Johnathan Haidt has this model called "The elephant and the rider" that explains the relationship between our rational self that can be wise but weak in terms of raw energy, and the emotional self that is impulsive and full of existential angst, but very strong in terms of raw energy. 

*~*~*~*~*~*

The fascinating thing with Indian thought is that, no matter how we wish to see the world, there is a rich and well-developed philosophical school of thought in that direction, that accommodates us. Given my childhood trauma, and my issues with authority figures, the notion of bhakti-- especially practices that involve surrender and submission-- had not appealed to me at all. I would strongly advocate objectivity in our interaction, whenever elders and authority figures trained their guns at their perceived "lack of humility" from my part. Reading our recent history and our struggles with foreign oppression and colonialism, made the idea of surrender and submission even more abhorrent. "How can we advocate something, that kept us enslaved for so many centuries?" I have argued many times. 

For someone who was pained by the arbitrariness of authority and searching for freedom, Indian philosophy offered me Advaita-- that is based on logic and argumentation, to realise the universal nature of our existence. (The argument is pretty simple actually-- based on reasoning about the subject and object in any inquiry. But explaining this is beyond the scope of this post). 

But having understood and imbibed Advaita, my outlook towards bhakti has also changed considerably! I no longer view surrender and submission as abhorrent-- but only as sentiments of longing by jivas who are entangled in their existential contexts. They are like children longing for salvation from their parent-- not realising that the answers that they seek in their surrender to the divine, are essentially to be found within themselves. 

This is summarised by a board with a saying, which I found in the Sannidhi of Sri Raghavendra Swami (a highly acclaimed Dvaita philosopher) in Mantralayam: "Don't come to me expecting me to solve your problems-- instead, come to me to find me within yourselves." 

Dvaitadvaita Samvada

One of the core topics of debate in Indian philosophy is on the nature of reality-- more specifically, the difference between reality and existence. 

It is fairly easy to see that existential reality-- be it the physical universe, or the world of concepts and ideas, is incomplete. No system of representation of existence can explain itself. Mathematicians and philosophers-- both in the East and the West, have discovered this limit in many different ways. 

In Indian thought, reality is thought to be something that pervades all of existence and beyond. It is called by different names-- Brahman, Paramatma, Purusha, etc. that represents the only entity there is, and that is eternal. Existential reality of names and forms and features, is ephemeral, and is described variously as such, with names like Maya, Prakriti, etc. 

When it comes to describing ourselves as well, distinctions are made between the core of our being called Atma or Sakshi (witness), and our existential sense of self, that is variously called Ahamkar or Jivatma (roughly corresponding to the notion of ego). The Ahamkar or the ego is our sense of self that we adopt in our daily lives. We describe ourselves as so-and-so, attribute several characteristics to ourselves, and project one or more persona, depicting how we want others to interpret us. But, as several philosophical schools argue, our true nature is not our ego. We can witness our ego in action as if it were an object external to us-- just as we can witness something that is happening outside, or some thought we are holding in our heads. When we are witnessing our ego-- who is it that is the observer? This observer needs to be necessarily beyond the ego, and definitely beyond our body or thoughts. This observer or witness (called Sakshi-- which means "witness" in Sanskrit) is posited as our true self. 

Because the Sakshi can witness anything that we imagine ourselves to be-- the true nature of our Sakshi is hence posited to be the very reality, which is the only thing there is. 

Our ego often identifies with several entities outside of itself-- in effect, saying "I am that". For instance, we may identify with our family, our gender, our ethnicity, out country, our profession, etc. where, we work for its interests, as if we are working for ourselves. We get personally hurt when our object of identity is criticised. 

But, even when our ego goes about identifying with some entity or the other, we can witness this elastic identity in action-- showing that we are not that which we identify with. 

So why is it our ego goes about identifying with things? When we can witness our ego and say that our true nature is the witness, why does the ego exist separately, and what is its role? 

Such questions have been at the core of the debates among philosophers of Vedanta-- especially the non-dualist (Advaita) philosophers, and several other schools of qualified non-dualist and dualist (Dvaita) philosophers. 

The non-dualist or Advaita philosophy, which is reiterated many times in the Upanishads, argues that our witness is in fact, Brahman, or the only entity there is. We are in fact, the universe, and that is the only thing there is. All existential elements, including our ego is no different from Brahman, as Brahman is the only entity there is. Existence is like the waves and surf in an ocean-- which seems to be constantly at flux, but which is nothing but the water that makes up the ocean. 

Our ego goes about identifying with a lot of entities outside of us, because it does not realise the true nature of its existence. It is like a bubble on the surface of water wanting to establish relationships with other bubbles on the surface, and maybe fight for territory or dominance or whatever. All the while, it is nothing but the water that makes it up, and all the relations it forms are necessarily ephemeral. Once the bubbles burst, they go back to being the water that they always were. 

The realised ego, Advaita argues, does not take existential equations too seriously. The bubble exists, and it has some fun time interacting with other bubbles, forming nice structures and patterns, knowing fully well that it is nothing but the water. The realised ego, Advaita argues performs its worldly activities in a "detached" fashion (nishkama karma), without getting deluded in worldly constructs, and all the while being aware of its true nature. 

*~*~*~*~*~*

However, several philosophers have broken away from this core philosophy of non-dualism, and of dismissing existence as something ephemeral and illusory (mithya). 

Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) for example, criticised Vedic philosophers of his time, of being indifferent to the human suffering around them, in their quest to realise their true nature. When there is so much suffering around us, should we not be doing something to mitigate it, he argued. 

Several other philosophical schools, broadly grouped as Sramanics, have a similar argument. They argue that the algebra of existence is not nihilistic. To say that we are born just to seek liberation from existence just begs the question as to why were we born in the first place-- they argue. 

A somewhat similar stance is also taken by the dualist (Dvaita) philosophers. Dualists argue that existence and reality are two separate entities, and indeed, the universe itself may be described by a dualism or an interplay between existence and reality. 

This is somewhat similar to the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang that depicts reality in terms of two symmetric forces called Yin and Yang, where the seeds of one emerges when the other force becomes dominant. Dvaita is similar but not exactly identical. Dualists agree with the core hypothesis of Advaita of the primacy of reality over existence. Existence cannot exist without the substrate of reality, but reality can remain without existence. (The bubble cannot be formed without water, but water can exist without bubbles). 

The point of departure of dvaita from non-dualism is the argument that, the dynamics of the bubbles that make up existence, is not arbitrary or nihilistic. Our ego acts autonomously, yet it is bound by the consequences of its actions. Notions like ethics, morality, accountability, etc. that pervade our existential universe-- are all important, dvaita argues. Existential constructs and boundaries are important, which impact what the ego can do. It is only when the ego acts and manifests itself in certain specific ways, does it get a glimpse of reality. 

The dvaita argument is also consistent with modern-day scientific inquiry. While scientists use a lot of structures and formal frameworks in their work, there is a realisation that formal frameworks are meant to communicate scientific breakthroughs rather than create such breakthroughs. As Albert Einstein once said: 

The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.

Albert Einstein

Whether reality is dualist or non-dualist, the core contribution of Indian philosophy is the pervasive nature of reality, as exemplified in this Shanti mantra (source: https://www.templepurohit.com/mantras-slokas-stotras/shanti-mantra/om-purnamadah-purnamidam/): 

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnashya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning: 
Aum! That is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite alone.
Aum! Peace! Peace! Peace!

Vedanta and machine consciousness

In a previous post, we had seen how the concept of consciousness differs between Indian philosophy rooted in the Vedas, and modern Western scientific models. Specifically, while Western science models consciousness as an attribute of a being, Indian philosophy models consciousness as the fundamental substance of the universe. Beings are considered to reflect this universal consciousness to various degrees, and not have consciousness themselves. 

To explain this, we had given the analogy of the space just outside of the Sun that appears dark, but which is full of light. We cannot see this light, unless there is something to reflect it. 

Image source: Pinterest

In this post, we will delve into the notion of consciousness further. If all we do is reflect universal consciousness, then what makes us appear conscious, and say a stone, appear unconscious? What kind of beings reflect this universal consciousness, and what beings don't? 

Indian philosophy has an answer to this too. Consider objects around us in broad daylight. All of them reflect sunlight-- much in the same way that all beings (living or non-living) reflect consciousness. However, on a few surfaces like glass, water, polished metal etc. we not only can see sunlight reflected off them, but also an image of the Sun itself-- the source of the light. 

This metaphor helps to explain sentience and non-sentience in systems of being. Sentient beings not only reflect consciousness, they also can-- to different extents-- form an image of the universe itself! 

By this model, when we consciously create something, we are actually channelizing or using the universal consciousness into some creation of ours-- somewhat like the image below. Our creation may collapse eventually, but the universal consciousness remains eternally. 

Image source: Pinterest

Sentience is not seen as a binary attribute-- as in, it is either present or absent. Sentience is a continuum with beings like humans having several orders of magnitude more sentience than say, a rock. Hence, while both rock and human can reflect consciousness, humans can also sometimes offer a glimpse into the very source of this universal consciousness. 

Beings are said to comprise of two kinds of "bodies"-- called the sthula sharira and the sookshma sharira translating roughly to "material body" and "subtle body". In my book called The Theory of Being. I had called this the two "realms" of existence of any being in this universe-- the material realm and the information realm. 

The material body is our physical body that exists in the physical universe. The "subtle body" is variously (and in my opinion, incorrectly) equated with terms like "soul" or "spirit" represents all the information related processing that is part of who we are. 

The subtle body in turn, is said to comprise of three components: pranamaya kosa, manomaya kosa, and vijnanamaya kosa. The pranamaya kosa represents all forms of information constructs that keep our material bodies alive. They contain our emotional dispositions, defence mechanisms, fight or flight responses, internal communication protocols for signalling danger, hunger, pain, etc. The manomaya kosa represents our "mind" that implements our "sense of self" and ego. This aspect of the subtle body encodes a representation of our self image, who we think we are, all the persona of ourselves that we project in social settings, what we desire, what we despise, etc. The vijnanamaya kosa represents our objective knowledge about the universe. It contains our models of reality around us, general knowledge constructs, episodic memory, etc. 

Sentient beings that can reflect an image of consciousness, rather than just scatter consciousness, are said to have highly evolved subtle bodies. A subtle body is (in mechanistic terms) essentially a large body of software that can keep a material body alive, build models of the external world and manage knowledge about it, and have a "sense of self". 

Of these, we already can build machines that can do the first two operations very well. We can build robots that are adaptive and self-configuring in order to keep themselves going. We also can build AI that can build semantic models based on data, which it can then use to perform a variety of intelligent tasks. 

The only missing element in building a full-fledged subtle body for our machines, seems to be a "sense of self". Hmmm.. What does it mean for machines to have a sense of self? What exactly do we mean by a "sense of self"?

A few weeks ago, I had given a talk on this very question, which may be found here: 

Hope you enjoy the presentation!