Author Topic: Analysis of Mind: Introduction Part 1  (Read 1621 times)

Dr. Sadananda

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Analysis of Mind: Introduction Part 1
« on: February 17, 2010, 11:39:00 PM »
Analysis of Mind: Introduction Part 1

Mind has been the subject of analysis both by psychologists as well as philosophers. There are books and books dealing with the mind, trying to unravel the mysteries of the mind. Here I present my understanding, examining the mind from various angles along with how Vedanta looks at the mind.

Those who have been exposed to J. krishnamurti's lectures will be familiar with his statement that one's mind is ‘conditioned’ by one's culture, tradition, religion, up-bringing or, so to say parental or society's 'brain-washing'. One is a believer or non-believer, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other denomination, one is a dvaitin, advaitin, or vishiShTAdvaitin, either by default or by choice, all due to one's mental conditionings brought out by where, when or to whom he is born, and the environment or surroundings in which he grew up. There is no truth in any of these conditionings, since they are conditionings that take one away from the truth. The mind gets cocooned in a shell or moves from one shell to another. Even if one makes a choice of selecting a path or system to follow, say advaita philosophy, even that choice is influenced by the value system that has grown out of some conditioning. Subjectivity gets involved in and through conditioning. My beliefs or my conditionings become an integral part of 'i', the individual. All systems of philosophies that essentially rely on 'belief' systems will eventually lead to reconditioning of the mind. The biggest problem that arises as a result of conditioning is that pure knowledge cannot takes place in a conditioned state of mind - mind is not free to learn. Mind can learn only when it surrenders all its beliefs.

The essence of this teaching is that 'any process used to uncondition the mind, itself conditions the mind', since there cannot be any 'process' that is free from conditioning. Hence krishnamurti declares 'truth is a path-less land'. Truth is not a belief; it is a fact. Hence his famous statement: 'truth is not an understanding as an understanding as thought, but an understanding as an understanding as a fact'. In other words, 'truth' is not conceptualization as a thought, but needs to be assimilated as a fact. Let me illustrate this by a simple example. If I say 'I am man and not a dog or horse or a floor mat to step on' - is this a thought or a concept or an 'idea' that I have to repeat many times until it sinks into my belief system? It is the truth, whether I belief it or not, is it not? That is the understanding as a fact and not a thought. Once understood, there will never be a confusion regarding my identity as a man, even if a hundred theories try to disprove that I am not a man! That firm abidance in the knowledge of the truth happens since it is the truth.

Science deals with facts or truths and therefore does not rely on 'beliefs', even if it questions the basis for beliefs. It is purely objective and therefore independent of whether one believes it or not. No physics teacher needs to come or will come to my house on Sunday mornings, like some of religious fanatics do, to say that I should belief in Newton’s laws of motion, otherwise I will go to eternal hell. Scientific facts are revealed though deductive or inductive reasoning based on observed experimental data. Here we are dealing with objectifiable facts that are distinct from the subject, who is investigating. Scientific truths are verifiable by controlled experimentation.

However, philosophies as well as religions are concerned with the ultimate truth that cannot be objectively verifiable. For example, the existence of heaven or hell. Questions such as: ‘is there life after death or life before the birth?’, ‘is there a God who is the ruler of this world?’ etc, cannot be established by objective experimentation. Objective scientific investigation that relies on perception and inference as the basis for establishing scientific truths, cannot be relied upon to establish the ultimate truth. In addition, it is also understandable that any truth that is established based on conditioned mind cannot necessarily be true. How then can we discover this ultimate truth, using the mind that is free from any conditioning? That 'how' question itself becomes invalid, if one is seeking a methodology to discover that truth that is pathless.

That ‘the truth is pathless land' can be true only if that truth is absolute and infinite and not relative. There cannot be any path for the infinite. Infinite includes all paths and cannot be reached by any path. Hence Vedanta calls the truth 'agrAhyam(incomprehensible), adRRiShTam (imperceptible), avyapadeshyam (indescribable), avyavahAryam (non-transactable), achintyam (unthinkable), aparameyam (unknowable), etc'.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 08:53:43 PM by Sunil »