Descriptions (of gunas)

Water: clear, either still or moving

Water: turbulent and agitated

Water: torpid and stagnant

Air: clear, either still or moving

Air: windy, stormy, directionless or quickly changing direction

Air: heavy, foggy, still

Mind: clear and thoughtless or thinking easily - flowing clearly

Mind: distracted, agitated, unsettled

Mind: foggy, torpid, unable to think clearly

Sattva

Rajas

Tamas

Two bodies or what do we really know?

Indian philosophy uses terms like bodies and layers to discuss different categories of concepts. Much like human biology uses "systems" - the nervous system, the skeletal system, the circulatory system, etc. In Vedantic philosophy, after many centuries of discussions, three bodies and five sheaths are defined.

Let us, though, try to start from basics or first principles.

I have a physical body as do all other human beings [1] - I can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear my own physical body, and interact physically with those of others.

Simple.

I also have "something" which is non-physical. Yet it can feel and act. Indirectly, it perceives, and responds, to certain sounds - words in a language, e.g. - and symbols - the English letters of this article on a screen, e.g. Its action is called 'thinking' [2] and it can also cause creation of sounds and symbols. My "something" is called my mind or my mental or subtle body. Even though it is not visible or physically palpable, my mind's activity is obvious. [3]

Thus, human beings have two bodies, one physical, and the other non-physical.

So what?

Well, that takes us to an interesting and ancient philosophical problem. How do I "know" or perceive anything? By physical interaction alone? Or by mental interaction alone? Or both? Is there any other way?

Since we have accepted two bodies, both physical and mental interactions are obviously ways in which we know something.

There is also another way which involves the sensation-percept-concept triad described earlier. My physical senses work with sensations. My mind works with percepts. But, my mind also works with concepts. If I take a set of sensations or percepts and create a conceptual framework based on them, my mind's activity is called "inferring" or "induction". If I then predict physical events outside me or percepts within me based on that framework, I 'deduce" them, or the activity is 'deduction'.

The three bodies and five layers or sheaths described in Vedanta [4] are either one or the other of the two bodies described above. Experiences beyond these two immediately palpable bodies are called 'mystical', 'transcendental', 'revelations', etc. Reports of such experiences form the bases for various religions and spiritual paths.

To answer the question in the Mind sandwich article, on the grosser side of the mind (or the liquid side of the ice block) is the physical body. On the other side is something very like the subtlest level of the mind. Yet, that something is always described as un-graspable by the mind.

Notes

[1] And as do all living things, in fact, in some form or the other.

[2] in general. Cogitating, cognising, analysing, comparing, etc. may all be included in thinking.

[3] The Cārvāka philosophers denied the mind, or mental activity, using, ironically, logical and not physical arguments!

[4] Three bodies (gross, subtle, causal) further sub-divided or categorised into five sheaths (physical, energetic, mental, intellectual, and bliss) are used to discuss philosophical and/or psychological problems and theories.

"Quantum" rant

<rant>

 

There's one fundamental problem with all this quantum stuff.

We human beings don't act at the quantum level, i.e., subatomic scales.

It's a bit like saying a tree has the same stuff as a seed and so a tree should behave like a seed.

Or that I am made up of subatomic particles like electrons and so I should behave like a fuzzy electron cloud.

If I can somehow access a part of me at a subatomic level, would the supra-atomic "I" still work? Would it even "be" there? Is there a subatomic "I" or does my multi-trillion-molecular "I" somehow shrink down to a subatomic one?

Simple test for "creating" one's own universe - walk through a solid wall by moving all one's particles from one side of the wall to the other - an electron can do that, at subatomic distances. So surely humans who believe in quantum tunnelling effects at human scales can too, right?

Emotional "stuff" makes sense, not matter. By changing my attitude towards my life and everything in it, I can rewire my brain, and apparently a large part of my genes. Not my subatomic particles - they literally can't care whether they are in an optimistic or pessimistic brain. They work the same way in both.

A car is made with tyres. Does it normally roll like a tyre? It rolls ON tyres - a big  and comfortable difference. A petrol car has controlled explosions in its engine. Would you want to ride in a car that explodes every second?

Surely it's not difficult to understand that what happens at a very, very minuscule scale of space need not be the same as what happens at the scale of an adult human being.

</rant>

Internal and external focus

In physics, or science, it's easy to understand that going inward, towards greater subtlety, is going towards unity. Differences reduce. E.g., going from ores to molecules to subatomic particles like protons and electrons. At the level of subatomic particles or energy fields, an electron can skip from a hydrogen atom to an iron atom and be completely undistinguishable from any of its other electrons.

 

In spirituality too, the mind that looks outward notices differences and separation. Looking inward makes it realise the commonality and universality at subtler levels.

 

Here's another way of thinking about it. The idea of a house is subtler than a physical house. Two physical houses are different in many ways, not the least of which is their different location in space. Yet, one who understands the idea of houses knows what to expect inside different houses.

 

Understanding commonality and universality makes understanding differences and individuality much easier.

 

The human mind is geared to look for patterns and use those patterns to predict future events. A simple example - noticing the layout of furniture in daytime and expecting the same layout at night. A more complex one - learning pious statements like "Be honest" as a child, and expecting everyone to be honest. Finding commonality, or acceptable commonality, in situations where everyone does not speak honestly according to the child is considered emotional maturity or growing up. Yet, as the mind reaches subtler states, understanding of words or understanding the various meanings of words in different contexts increases. Hence the meaning of truth - as, e.g., the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - can be used to condemn or to accept. Negatively or positively.

 

Turning the mind inward is one description of meditation. Being able to go inward and outward equally easily is one measure of progress.

Simple technique for peaceful, affectionate relationships

Lalaji [1] gave a wonderfully-simple technique [2] for working on relationships with people, especially those you fear or dislike, or vice versa.

• Think of one person.
• Imagine that the person is breathing in.
• With the inhalation, positivity about you goes in.
• Then, the person is breathing out.
• With the exhalation, negativity about you goes out.

Repeat only 2-3 times at a time.

Tips

• it works best if you do it first for that person (you exhale negativity and you inhale positivity about them)
• it must be done in absolute secrecy and anonymity (to prevent any mental reaction or egotism)
• don't modify the steps, keep it simple and general

Notes

[1] Lalaji, Ram Chandra of Fatehgarh, was the first Guru of the Sahaj Marg tradition. He developed and taught simple yet highly effective spiritual and psychological techniques.

[2] A more detailed version, called Seeding Positive Thoughts, is in the Fear Detox chapter of Daaji's Simple Heartfulness Practices.