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!

Unravelling Indian thought: Dvaita and Advaita

One of the most recurring frustrations I have faced while growing up in my cultural network, has been the pervasive emphasis on faith and submission (bhakti as it is called), and de-emphasis on asking difficult questions or critical inquiry. We were told to "just do" what is told and that "one day, you will understand everything." 

In addition to this, there is also a pervasive sense of smug conviction and contempt towards those who ask questions or those who try to explain their thoughts. It is quite the norm in this network, for people to laugh at others behind their backs-- especially if the other person has opened up in the hopes of gaining clarity. An adolescent experiencing unfamiliar emotions of a heartbreak for instance, will be rewarded with laughter and stern judgment from immediate family, rather than validation of their emotions. It is quite common to see younger generation enjoy life, take risks and embrace failure when they alone-- but not in front of their families. 

How did these self-defeating cultural practices come about? It is fashionable to blame British colonial administration for the all pervasive "slave mentality" in our society today. But despite 70 years of independence, these self-defeating practices remain, and the fault lines are as strong as ever. 

Recently, I was listening to this talk by Swami Sarvapriyananda on the differences between Advaita and Dvaita philosophies. Some of the explanations he gave about these two philosophical schools, suddenly brought a lot of clarity. In this talk, he not only explains the philosophical differences, but also the methodologies used by the respective camps and the resultant cultures they created. 

Both Advaita Vedanta propounded by Adi Shankara in the 9th century CE, as well as the Dvaita Vedanta propounded by Madhvacharya in the 16th century CE, are commentaries on the Upanishadic texts called the Brahma Sutras. The Upanishads are one of the earliest and most comprehensive texts (which are themselves just a part of the Vedas), that address topics like consciousness and the nature of reality. The Upanishads comprises of several texts that were written over different time periods ranging from 4000 to 2500 years ago. The German philosopher Schopenhauer was known for his advocacy of the Upanishads, whose writings in turn, went on to influence a number of Western philosophers and scientists. The American philosopher William Irwin Thompson is said to have stated that the Upanishads have had such a profound influence on human thought, that we ought to divide historical eras into "Before Upanishads" and "After Upanishads" eras, rather than the current common era. 

As with all influential texts, their influence waxes and wanes over time. Starting from around the 3rd century BCE, by the 9th century CE, Vedic cultures in the Indian subcontinent had already fragmented into several schools-- the orthodox astikas like the Vaishnavas, the sceptics or the nastikas like the Caravakas, the empiricists or the Sramanics like Buddhists, Jains, etc. These times were also witness to vibrant debates between the different schools, and the development of an elaborate science of argumentation, called VadaVidya. 

In this context, came Adi Shankara from present-day Kerala, who wrote great commentaries on the Brahma Sutras, to develop a school of thought, called the Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta posits a "non-dual" nature of reality by saying that everything in this universe is just the only thing there is-- which is called the universal consciousness or Brahman. What we experience in the physical universe is called Maya, that "veils" our experience of Brahman-- while Maya is itself nothing but Brahman! The existential reality of physical names and forms created by Maya, can "reflect" the universal consciousness to different extents. Some "well polished" elements of existence can reflect Brahman much better than other not so well-polished elements. Yet, all the while, reality is just Brahman looking at itself-- somewhat like the illustration below. 

Advaita says that the only barrier to us realising this universal reality, is Avidya-- which is often translated as "ignorance," but more accurately means "delusion." It is when we are deluded by existence and its names and forms, and believe that to be real, we are occluded from the ultimate reality. Advaita also proposes several techniques by which, we can systematically detach ourselves from existential reality to experience ourselves as the entire universe-- which then again includes all of existence and all that we were attached to! The Advaitic technique first develops a mechanism for "Asangha" which means detachment from our thoughts, emotions, objects, etc, and ends with "Dvaitavarjita" or experience of oneness of everything including all the objects that we had detached from. The result of such a realisation in a human, Advaita says, is the emergence of Nishkama karma, or dispassionate actions without vested interests or desires. 

Advaita had a radical and profound influence on thinkers of those times-- much like quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity were to do in later times. Advaita inspired several innovations in different walks of life including science, administration, medicine and well-being, etc. Even today for instance, in our lab, we are inspired by Advaita for proposing new models of ethics in AI, and understanding sustainable development. 

*~*~*~*~*

By the time Madhvacharya was born in the 16th century CE in present day Karnataka, it was already 700 years since Adi Shankara, and Advaita still was still the most widely discussed and adopted philosophy! But much had changed in the socio-political reality of India by that time. 

The northern parts of India were reeling from immense bloodshed and genocides from foreign invaders. The biggest university in the world-- Nalanda-- had been completely destroyed. Countless cities and monuments were destroyed. People were killed by the hundreds of thousands in single days! The medieval genocide of Hindus remains one of the bloodiest eras in world history, that is still actively downplayed for various reasons. 

These times also saw the emergence of one more social movement called the Bhakti movement. Bhakti is a concept from Vedic thought, which means devotion or commitment to an idea. Bhakti is seen as a means of spiritual realisation, by enabling us to discover ourselves through our lifelong commitment to an idea. Bhakti movement in these times, that were practiced syncretically across multiple religions, went beyond advocating dispassionate commitment to an idea, to advocating passionate surrender and submission to the divine. 

Bhakti was also widely popular among administrators and thought leaders who sought to bring peace from bloodshed. Bhakti enables bringing about order in society, by enabling people to discover their favourite ideas, and commit themselves to realising themselves through their devotion, rather than give in to aggression over others. 

Advaita by itself does not promote bhakti-- nor does it reject it, either. Bhakti is a good thing to have, according to Advaita, but it would not be of any use, if it is practiced with Avidya. Advaita advocates for pursuit of knowledge and elimination of Avidya first, to become aware of one's true nature, and anything else, including bhakti, next. This quote below, explains Advaita's stance about bhakti and other orthodox cultures: 

Several thought leaders tried to combine bhakti with Advaita in different ways. For instance, Ramanujacharya in the 11th century CE, proposed a philosophy called Visishtadvaita, that proposed existence as a "distinguishable part of" reality-- much like the relationship between a finger and the rest of the body. Advaita simply says, "existence is reality" or reality is the only thing there is. 

Madhvacharya in the 16th century CE, takes an even more intense stance, and develops a philosophy called Dvaita-- which posits a duality, or a clear barrier (called bheda) between existence and reality, which can be breached only in certain specific ways. This is much like how a wall separates the inside and outside of a house, but can be breached through the door. 

One of the motivations for proposing this barrier was to bring the emphasis back on existential issues. When the northern parts of the country were reeling under immense bloodshed, thought leaders in the southern part still argued that existence is Maya or "illusion" or "unreal" and Brahman alone is real, and that all walls and barriers are meant to be broken. 

Madhvacharya argued that Maya and its barriers is as real as Brahman. The reality of Brahman does not negate the reality of Maya, and it is important to recognise the reality of Maya, he argued. Barriers are meant to protect what is inside-- and not exclude what is outside, he argued. He also argued however, that while Maya is very much real, its existence is dependent on Brahman (called paratantra). Maya cannot exist on its own. Hence its existence depends on its being able to find the door and breach the barrier between itself and Brahman through Bhakti and Sadhana (sustained effort). And in contrast to dispassionate action (Nishkama karma), Dvaita advocated Sakama karma or passionate action towards protecting and preserving boundaries, so that interaction with Brahman happens only through specific channels. 

Dvaita philosophy proposed the existence of five kinds of barriers (called panchabheda)-- between jiva and jagat (individual sentience and Brahman), jada and jagat (non-sentient existence and Brahman), jiva and jada, jiva and jiva; and jada and jada. 

Essentially, it argued that each barrier we see in existence is real, and there is a reason why it is there. If boundaries are not important, why then it argued, do we stay in walled houses, why then do we need clothes to cover ourselves? The individuality of each individual, and the existence of each object and concept, is real and significant, it argued. 

In this sense, Dvaita is somewhat similar to (but not the same as) Analytic Philosophy of the West, while Advaita is somewhat similar to (but not the same as) British Idealism from the 20th and 19th century CE, respectively. 

In order to drive home the reality of existence, Dvaita proponents developed methods that are in some ways similar to evangelical Christianity. For instance, it argued for faith first and knowledge next (bhakti tatho jnanam), quite in contrast to Advaita, which argued for knowledge first and Bhakti next. Proponents of Dvaita argued for Dvaita not just as a darshana (perspective) but as the only correct interpretation! 

This is very similar to how evangelical religions work. Except that Dvaita did not actively seek to proselytise and convert (or eliminate) "non-believers." It also had no notions of blasphemy or apostasy. Philosophical perspectives (darshanas) in ancient India thankfully were hardly ever pursued as violent ideologies. But even then, this intense stance taken by Dvaita (perhaps in response to the socio-political situation and increasing desperation of Hindus in those times), the culture that resulted from this philosophy seems to have become very acerbic in nature, with contempt, conviction, derision, scorn, smugness and a judgmental attitude occupying central positions in one's worldview. 

I know I am probably going to get a lot of contempt, scorn and derision for saying the above. But I think it is important to understand the underlying philosophy and not hold on to the methodologies adopted that were perhaps relevant in one time, but not anymore.