Mind-field as ocean and universe

[Prerequisite: read and have some understanding of PYS 1.2 citta vṛtti nirodhaḥ]

The term citta in the PYS is often translated as consciousness. In Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, consciousness or consciousness-force is citi-śakti [1]. A better and more precise translation of citta is the English word or phrase - mind-field [1]. Citta is usually understood as limited to a specific individual, possibly localised to the volume of space that is their body. What if this localisation is natural but unnecessarily limiting?

Imagine an ocean. Imagine a whirlpool near an island in the ocean. The whirlpool comes alive as the waters in the area form a spiral and dies with tides, currents, etc. going down - merging into and becoming indistinguishable from the waters around it. If you further imagine it to be a mindful entity, it might think of itself as localised to the area near the island. If its mind spans its coming alive and dying - or waking up and falling asleep - would it still think itself restricted to that area? Perhaps the mind-field would be that of all the waters around the island and the whirlpool would be one of the funkier parts that bubble up and down in a weird way!

Imagine all the connected water on Earth's surface - the oceans - as a single entity. There may be thousands or even millions of whirlpools, big and small, coming alive and dying every day, or waking up and sleeping daily. Imagine the mind-field of that entity like the motion of all the oceans.

Now imagine the enormity of shutting down or pacifying all the vṛttis, the whirlpools, of the oceans.

Samkhya-Yoga psychology or philosophy goes even further and considers the entire universe to have - or be - a single mind-field. Now consider pacifying or shutting down an entire universe of vṛttis!

(This is what each yogi is striving to do, most unknowingly, and a rare few, knowingly. Since this pacification is probably unnatural, there is another, subtler, interpretation of the word nirodhaḥ. Instead of shutting down, the mind-field vṛttis devolve into their subtler causes, successively, until the completely balanced and unmanifest cause is reached for individual areas of the overall mind-field.)

Science starts from individual bodies, conglomerates of matter, developing consciousness and frantically striving to connect and communicate externally. Vedanta philosophy starts from consciousness inherent in the Absolute - the source of all manifestation - and posits an interface - between that Absolute and the manifested physical bodies - called the mind-field, and the various physical bodies. This mind-field may be restricted to an individual body, or more elegantly, may span the entire manifestation at subtler levels and restrict itself to a single body at grosser levels.

A limited analogy might help. Consider icy water flowing on the ceiling of a cave in a cold climate. As water freezes, stalactites form. Water keeps flowing down stalactites, lengthening them. The ice at the tip of a stalactite is separate from the ice at the tip of the others. But ice at the root of one stalactite can be understood as part of a single ice sheet, and is the same at the roots of all the stalactites. And the subtler cause, the water inflow, from which the ice manifested, is even more obviously the same.

NOTES

[1] Sw. Veda Bharati. 1986. Patanjali Yoga Sutras of Patanjali with the Exposition of Vyasa..., Glossary. pp. 452. Himalayan Institute, India.

Om kham brahma - Space and Brahman

Think of a rectangular box.

Fill it with marbles. 

There will be some space left over, in between the marbles, and between the sides of the box and the marbles.

The space occupied by all the marbles put together - think of it as immanent space. The space of the entire box - of all the marbles and the spaces outside them - think of it as transcendent space.

Now let the box and the marbles dissolve into mere outlines. The box-space and the marbles-space are unaffected and they can still be traced.

Now let them dissolve completely. Both spaces are now indistinguishable from each other or the surrounding space.

Imagine, if possible, physical space dissolving into the idea of space.

NOTES

1. This is an analogy of laya yoga progression, from sthūla to kāraṇa śarīra.
   
2. These are also some implications of "om kham brahma" - "Om space [is] Brahma[n]" (Br.Up. khila kāṇḍa V.1.i) when space is used as an analogy for Brahman as consciousness.

A universal prayer and I

Prayer generally involves two, oneself and another superior or higher self.

Then there is the aspect of for what one prays. One generally prays to get something or for the well-being of someone (which could also be oneself).

Then there are prayers at higher levels, for the well-being of every living being in the universe. One such prayer, very popular from the Sivananda Yoga classes, called a loka kalyāṇa or loka kṣema prayer [1], goes like this:

sarveṣām svastiḥ bhavatu [2]

sarveṣām shantiḥ bhavatu

sarveṣām pūrṇam bhavatu

sarveṣām mangalam bhavatu

Translated roughly as:

[May] well-being be everywhere {or ,May all be well}

[May] Peace be everywhere {or, May all be at peace}

[May] auspiciousness be everywhere {or, May things happen as expected, may everything occur naturally}

[May] fullness be everywhere {or, May all be content, may all lack nothing}

This prayer may be chanted with the idea that the outside world and everything/everybody there should become as prayed for. But, another, subtler, meaning is about one's attitude. How do I regard everything and everybody else - starting from one's immediate surroundings and one's family, to the entirety of one's species, to all living and non-living things?

By wishing positivity and a natural life (peaceful, contented, full, lacking nothing, natural changes and events) for everybody and everything else, my attitude and way of thinking changes by way of reduced biases, groupism/tribalism, envy, jealousy, and vengefulness. At least for the nonce, I have expanded my scope of tribe or group to the highest or largest conceivable possible.

Put differently, the state of my "I" has changed from immanent to transcendent. One way to gauge spiritual progress, therefore, is how easily one makes this change and how natural is one's attitude in such situations.

Notes

[1] A nice article on possible sources and variants of this prayer

[2] Pronounced normally as: sarveShaam-svastir-bhavatu. The ending 'ḥ' + beginning 'b' becomes 'rb' in Sanskrit. Much as two vowels, one ending a word and the other starting a word, are separated by an 'r' in English (law-r-and-order)

Ahamkara paradox - "I" needed to lose the I

Consider:

• I practise
• I realise
• My goal is liberation
  
• I want to be a better/spiritual person
• Babuji said, "Forget the I," not "Understand thyself."
• Spiritual practice is also about releasing/ignoring I (self-arrogating) thoughts
• Surrender to situations, don't respond selfishly
• Traditional Indian spiritualists rail against the "I" unremittingly
  

What are the characteristics of the I?

• self-arrogation
• self-image
• self-consciousness (c.f., shyness, introversion)
• a set of self-created, artificial, illusory thoughts

What if there is no paradox?

Assume that there are (at least) two stages in spirituality.

In the first, lower, stage, the I is actively needed. Why?

• immanent stage
• individual perspective
• sense of self needed to evolve consciously
• comparison of my self with other selves
• comparison of my self with itself at different times and contexts
• simplify or integrate many relative, context-dependent selves into a single coherent, consistent self
• be the same inside and outside
• be natural - don't think something and say something else
• yet - satyam bruyāt, priyam bruyāt
  (speak [the] truth, affectionately speak [it])
• actively work on becoming a more ethical and moral person
• accept the current situation as it is, but act positively to create different future situations
• acceptance presumes an "acceptor", and 
• choosing positive actions a "chooser"

In the second and higher, stage, the "I" is not needed actively. Why not?
 

• transcendent stage
• universal perspective
• jivanmukti (freedom from separate individuality)
• the divine inside and outside oneself drives one's evolution
• "I surrender" is not surrender
• Kabir's "prem galI" doha:
  
• Love's lane [is] very narrow; in it two cannot be.
• When "I" was, He was not; now He is, "I" am not.
• complete expansion and freeing of consciousness occur only if there is no self-image or self-consciousness
• the only freedom is the freedom is to do the right - Babuji
• no choice, hence no chooser necessary

The two stages need not be, and are generally not, sequential in time.
They may occur many times, and for differing periods, until the seeker reaches a particular level of purity, simplicity, and lightness. A seeker may have to deliberately shift down to the immanent stage regularly for some activities [1].
This may confuse the spiritual seeker.

Finally, a minimal I is still needed to use one's body and mind while alive: 

• I scratch my arm.
• That book is for me.
• I booked a flight to Chennai to reach in a few hours.
  

Notes

[1] Practice of maxim 10 (and maxim 9) requires self-examination at the individual level