I Am This Body

You must have heard and read many spiritualists and spiritual teachers assert "You are not your body".  Holy scriptures from India claim similarly.  In Bhagwad Gita, Krishna even advises Arjun to not feel bad about murdering someone because he is "only" killing the body, while the soul is eternal.

Yesterday I had a conversation with a spiritualist in which he claimed that he felt a sense of oneness while doing his spiritual practices.  When I asked him what that meant, he kindly elaborated that while in the normal state of affairs, we think of ourselves as having a boundary (usually at the limit of our skin), in his state he did not experience this boundary.  That while in our conversation (for example), I felt that "I" was speaking to "him", such distinctions disappeared in his felt state.  It was illuminating to listen to him.

Then I asked him: But there is a clear way in which we can ascertain this boundary.  You may feel a oneness, but the fact remains that you have the power, and you can will, to move your hand, but not mine.  He said in that state, such analytical considerations did not enter the picture.  Or rather, that he was too blissed out in that state to be asking any questions about it.

Well, that is just too bad.  That confirms my oft-repeated statement that spiritual bliss is a regression to an infantile state.  In that state, the analytical/thinking parts of the brain are undeveloped or in abeyance, and feeling states reign supreme.  The infant develops a sense of "me" and "not me" only at a certain stage of brain development.  And that seems important for survival.  If a predator comes lurching at "you", it would be quite a mistake to not run away to save your "self".

The question "Who am I", despite being a favorite of many spiritualists, is a loaded question.  A more neutral question is "What am I".  An even more neutral question is: "What is this feeling of I-ness" or "What is this sense of being me".

The statement "You are not your body" is equally loaded and misleading.  It assumes a "your body" phrasing which assumes a separate entity.  And spiritualists are very fond of pointing at this loaded-ness of commonly-used phrases "my body", "my mind" as proof (sic) that you are different from them.  A much more neutral, but therefore more easily seen to be flawed, statement is: "You are not the body."

The linguistic argument is very flawed, as I have pointed out elsewhere.  In simpler terms, saying "my arm is in pain" or "my mind is whirling" is a linguistic tool to avoid confusion when speaking to someone, lest they be confused which arm or mind is being spoken of.  Saying on the phone, or to someone in another room, "This mind is whirling", or "An arm is in pain" might elicit further queries.  "Whose mind?", "Whose arm?"  Answer: MINE.  "And who are YOU", he may ask?  [The right answer to him is: "your dad".  :-)]

Another favorite spiritualist statement is: "You are identified with your body." This commits the error of being a loaded statement not once but thrice.  The question is then, naturally, "who is identified" and then donations to the guru are not too far into the future.  But better questions to ask when hearing such assertions are:

"What do you mean by identification?"
"Are you assuming that there is a 'me' apart from the body?"
"What is the basis for your assertion?"

In the old days, an investigation into the psyche and feelings of selfhood was undertaken without the benefit of understanding evolution, the social aspects of mammalian behavior, and developmental psychology.  Many of the fields related to studying brain and its emergent phenomena are still in their infancy, but some clear statements can be made.

- There is a continuity to this body.  It is born, it grows up, and gets older, and dies.  There is no confusion about the body being, so to speak, continuing as a cohesive unit through time.  The old parable/paradox of the "Ship of Theseus" was an instructive one at the time, but with our understanding of DNA and cellular science, there are many ways to resolve it now.

- The brain has direct connections to the parts of the body, as compared to, with an outside object.  The brain can will the arm to move in a way that is quite different from a human being able to drive a car.  In the former, the connectivity is, so to speak, organic.  The body forms a cohesive whole with the brain as one of the organs.  There is two-way connectivity between the brain and the limbs.  It is interesting to consider various mechanical prosthetic limbs, or a future implant in a brain being able to control a car just by thinking of it.

- The sense of "I" has many components: memory, patterns of thought and behavior, "linkages" (relations to other entities and objects) and "imprints" (others remember me as "me"), social and legal abstractions (citizenship, credit history, etc.), etc.  It is natural to consider it therefore a mostly brain-related phenomenon.  The sense of "I" probably does not suffer as much at the cutting of a limb as at a severe trauma to the brain leading to loss of memory.

The sense of oneness experienced by my friend is a feeling.  You may feel like you are one with the tree, but, that's just a feeling.  It is likely a temporary shutdown of certain brain functions which are responsible for a sense of "I"ness, and that may be quite pleasurable for various reasons.  Suddenly the whole burden of taking care of "me", my worries and desires and fears and concerns and social perceptions, might disappear.  Leading to an intense feeling of freedom, bliss and euphoria.

Deep Sleep, continued

Earlier article: The Advaita-Vedanta fascination with Deep Sleep

The four states in traditional Vedanta are: Waking, Dreaming, Deep Sleep, and the Fourth state (Turiya).  They are talked about in various Upanishads.

From the Wikipedia entry on Turiya

Turiya is discussed in Verse 7 of the Mandukya Upanishad; however, the idea is found in the oldest Upanishads. For example, Chapters 8.7 through 8.12 of Chandogya Upanishad discuss the "four states of consciousness" as awake, dream-filled sleep, deep sleep, and beyond deep sleep.  Similarly, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in chapter 5.14 discusses Turiya state, as does Maitri Upanishad in sections 6.19 and 7.11. 

Verse VII of the Mandukya Upanishad describes Turiya:

Not inwardly cognitive, nor outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive,
not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive,
unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no distinctive mark,
non-thinkable, that cannot be designated, the essence of assurance,
of which is the state of being one with the Self
the cessation of development, tranquil, benign, without a second,
such they think is the fourth. He is the Self (Atman). He should be discerned.

Not content with asserting the state of Turiya, some minor Upanishads talk about a fifth state, Turiyatita (the state beyond Turiya):

II.4. There are five AvasthA-s (states): jAgrat (waking), svapna (dreaming), suShupti (dreamless sleeping), the turIya (fourth) and turyatita (that beyond the fourth)...

II.5. The Yogin is one that has realised Brahman that is all-full beyond turIya.

(Mandala Brahmana Upanishad, Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar)

Search the texts and the internet, talk to the sages and the gurus, discuss it with Vedantin monks or seekers,  and here is what you will find.

What to talk of the fourth and the state beyond the fourth, only a rare few have so much as experienced some consciousness during deep sleep (though they might tell you about vivid dreaming, and awareness during light sleep, and awareness of when they fall asleep).  The states of Turiya and the even more transcendent state of Turiyatita are seemingly just fanciful concepts, having absolutely no counterpart in human experience.

One has to just read some of the things people say about "awareness during deep sleep" to see what tosh it all is, in their conception of it as a spiritual or mystical phenomenon:

In fact, even the apparent fact that deep sleep lasts for a period of time, say for four hours, is a superimposition in the mind’s own terms onto something called ‘deep sleep,’ in which, by definition, time is not present. Therefore, deep sleep does not last in time.

As scientists continue to study sleep and brain rhythms, there is some initial fringe research which is now questioning whether some form of consciousness can still persist even in what traditionally is dreamless sleep:

The third category is a "selfless" state of sleep. The researchers said that this state not only involves dreamless sleep, but also a certain amount of conscious awareness on the part of the person that he or she is sleeping. This state may be similar to the experiences of Indian and Tibetan meditators, the researchers said. They suggested that people who are skilled at meditation are more likely to experience this third state, but more research is needed before scientists can tell whether or not this is true. 

Calling it "selfless" is disingenuous.  Of course if the person is aware that "he or she is sleeping" that it is not really a disembodied awareness, but one that is firmly rooted in the body.  One might be totally oblivious to sense experiences, but still somewhat aware internally and have a very, very mild and soft-spoken inward dialog.

But more pertinently, there is nothing "spiritual" about this awareness.  Of course the brain is not dead during sleep, so some minor waves might still exist which can, perhaps in a suitably trained individual, make him or her somewhat aware of even dreamless sleep.  What is so mystical about it?  How can someone say that "time is not present".  Just because oneself is not totally aware of what is going on, does not mean that the outside world is no more.

Signs of Inner Growth

As you go through life, it is a fair question to ask yourself if you are becoming any wiser.

Consider a man who is enamored of some sportsman or celebrity in his teens, becomes passionate about a political cause in his twenties, and starts following a self-help practice in his thirties.  As time goes on, he exchanges one self-help practice for another, starts reading Zen Buddhism instead of Stephen Covey and talks of oneness and things "beyond the mind".  A few more years pass, and the man is now disillusioned with the usual self-proclaimed "roshi"s of Zen Buddhism, and becomes more of an adherent of orthodox Buddhism.  After going through a meditation retreat or twenty, the man declares that he has developed discrimination and inner wisdom.

What is a way to test yourself, and to test someone else, for a claim of inner growth and wisdom?  It is an important question.  After all, every day one is bombarded with wisdom by all kinds of wise men.  They claim a superior moral status or insight into the world, and feel entitled to tell you how to live your life.  I need not list some of the popular ones, in India or elsewhere.

Here are ten questions that you can put to yourself, or to such a man:

1. Do you now acknowledge and understand some of your shortcomings and limitations?  What are they?

Do you now know your own desires and fears?

2. Have you become less prone to judging people as good or evil, and more prone to seeing them as complex and contradictory bundles of thoughts and influences?  Do you get less angry at people in your interactions?

If a friend of yours is accused of an embezzlement and dismissed from work, do you blacklist that person from your social circle or do you continue to engage with him, perhaps a bit less than before, and seek to understand him?

3. Do you now have fewer answers to world's problems than before?  While earlier you might have had some quick knee-jerk formulae to solve poverty or crime or corruption, do you now understand the complexity of the problem in a way that makes you hesitant to offer short and simple answers?

Do you engage less in wishful tyranny?  "Can't we just hang all these anti-nationals?"

4. As the years have gone by, have you studied more about the world and about our understanding of it (via interactions, experimentation, scientific journals, history books, reflection)?  Before forming an opinion on a matter, do you now try to study something from various angles?

Are you now more aware of your region's history?  Are you now more informed about a particular lifestyle disease and how to avoid it, not just depending on newspaper columns?

5. Do you now have less or fewer esoteric assumptions about phenomena, and can explain more and more of life and the universe without recourse to faith or mystical notions?

Do you reject, or at least regard as mere useful fictions, notions of heaven and hell, nirvana or reincarnation, divine justice, etc.?

6. Do you have more insight and experience about the various experiences and struggles that humans go through, whether they be feelings of love, or obsession, or joy, or depression, or distress and trauma, or stress, or addiction?  Have you seen both your better angels and your "dark side"?

As an example, have you been through both love and heartbreak?  Have you experienced the terminal illness or death of a loved one?  Have you struggled with a bad habit?

7. Do you now have a better discrimination as to how you make or accept a claim?  Does that better discrimination now result in fewer disappointments at being gullible?

As an example, do you now refuse to believe in levitation or psychic abilities?

8.  Do you now have a better grounding in language, logic, the philosophy of science, the various biases and fallacies?

As an example, do you now understand the notion of "Correlation is not causation."

9. Do you now have less of a desire to argue with everybody to convert them to your point of view, and are you more accepting that people might think differently from you?

10. Can you love and admire people knowing that they are flawed?  And conversely, do you now no longer have a need to consider a particular individual as perfect, god-like, and who can say or do no wrong?

Ten Questions for a Pure-Observer-ist

Many spiritualists believe in a "pure observer" that exists independent of the body, the brain, and is "untouched" by the interactions of the body and the brain with the rest of the universe.

This pure observer (also called "drishta" in Hindi) is however, a very hazy notion that quickly falls apart when subjected to some very basic questions.

This belief in a pure observer is quite common in non-dualist Hinduism (Advaita-Vedanta), many strains of Buddhism, and is often an unspoken assumption in those who preach mindfulness and "choiceless awareness".

What follows is a list of ten simple questions for anyone who professes this belief.  Thinking hard and trying to respond to these questions will, I hope, be instructive for the believer.  And who knows, it might even convince the non-believers that there is some sense to the notion.

Unless there is a more clarifying definition, I take the pure observer to mean the following:

Pure Observer: An entity which is able to observe human experiences (both inner, as in pain, and outer, as in visual), but is neither a part nor an effect of the body or the brain.  It almost goes without saying that it is not a man-made device like a camera or an EEG.

Now, the questions:

1.  What is the basis of your claim that the pure observer exists?

2.  A sense experience is an interaction of matter/energy/waves.  If you claim that the pure observer is able to observe sensate experiences, then it must be that the pure observer is reachable by matter/energy/waves.  If so, it should be detectable, modifiable and even be prone to destruction by a suitably harsh damage.  What is your explanation about the communication from senses/brain to the pure observer?

3. In deep sleep and in coma, the brain is oblivious to sense experiences.  What happens to the pure observer in those states?

4. Does the pure observer have a memory?  Where are the memories stored?  How can it have memories and still be "untouched"?

5. What is the role of the pure observer, if at all, in affecting your thoughts and behavior?  How does it communicate in the reverse direction (to your body and brain)?

6.  How does your brain know of this pure observer.  As one example, your brain is right now responding to these queries and stating things about the pure observer.  Is your brain able to "observe" this pure observer?  How does that work?

7. What happens to the pure observer when you (as in, the body) are dead, or not yet born?  How did you come to that finding?

8. If the pure observer is not part/effect of your body/brain, why are its experiences restricted to your experiences only.  Why doesn't this pure observer know things that your body/brain can't perceive?  Does it, for example, know what is happening right now on the moons of Jupiter?  Have you met anyone who can show extra-sensory perception decisively and repeatedly?

9.  Does the pure observer have any morality or sense of justice?  Does it judge and use that judgment to some effect, say for example, doling out divine justice or assigning a new body at the time of reincarnation?

10. Perhaps you would agree that the pure observer theory has lots of arcane and at-present-unverifiable assumptions.  We should generally avoid needless assumptions.  Is there any phenomenon that is better explained by this theory than by the current scientific understanding?  Is there anything that this theory predicts which can be verified?

The Advaita-Vedanta fascination with Deep Sleep

Advaita Vedanta (Nondualist Hinduism) has a special fascination for the state of deep sleep.  That is because nondualist Hinduism holds that the observed (reality) is only created due to the observer.  Since in deep sleep, nothing is being observed, it is claimed that deep sleep is a spiritually higher state pointing to the "pure" observer.

Some quotations will illustrate:

Question: Sushupti [deep sleep] is often characterised as the state of ignorance. 

Bhagavan (Ramana Mahrishi): No, it is the pure state. There is full awareness in it and total ignorance in the waking state. It is said to be ajnana [ignorance] only in relation to the false jnana prevalent in jagrat [the waking state]. Really speaking jagrat [the waking state] is ajnana [ignorance] and sushupti [the sleep state] prajnana [wisdom]. If sushupti is not the real state where does the intense peace come from to the sleeper? It is everybody’s experience that nothing in jagrat can compare with the bliss and well-being derived from deep sleep, when the mind and the senses are absent. What does it all mean? It means that bliss comes only from inside ourselves and that it is most intense when we are free from thoughts and perceptions, which create the world and the body, that is, when we are in our pure being, which is Brahman, the Self. In other words, the being alone is bliss and the mental superimpositions are ignorance and, therefore, the cause of misery. That is why samadhi is also described as sushupti in jagrat [sleep in the waking state]; the blissful pure being which prevails in deep sleep is experienced in jagrat, when the mind and the senses are fully alert but inactive. (Guru Ramana, pp. 112-13)

...

Sushupti is the natural state.  Immutability is the true condition of things, for that is independent of external forces. Modification is not the true state, as it is dependent on external causes. . . . The perception in waking and dreaming moments is a modification of the original state. That state of a thing which is independent of external causes is its true condition, and that state of a thing which is dependent upon external causes is not its true condition ; for this state cannot subsist in the absence of the external cause. Therefore, sushupti being the natural condition, there is no modification there, as in waking or dreaming’ (Sankara's Commentary on Taittiriya Upanishad 11.8.1.) 

...

When it {the individual soul) becomes fast asleep—when it does not know anything—it comes back along the 72000 nerves called Hita, which extend from the heart to the pericardium, and remains in the pericardium. As a baby, or an Emperor, or a noble Brahmin lives, having attained the acme of bliss, so does it remain. (Brihadaranyaka. 2.1.19) 

...

(The teacher Prajapati said) ‘ That which is in deep sleep, at perfect rest, seeing no dreams,—that is the Self, that is the Immortal, the Fearless, that is Brahman.(The pupil) Indra went away satisfied in his heart, but before he reached the Devas (i.e. his home) he saw this difficulty. He thought “ In truth he does not rightly know himself as ‘ this is I ’, nor does he know these beings. Therefore he has reached utter annihilation, and I see no good in this. (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.1.) 

...

This state of profound sleep is not a complete non-being or negative, for such a hypothesis conflicts with the later recollections of a happy repose of sleep. The self continues to exist, though it is bereft of all experiences. The consciousness is continuous. You feel you have existed even during sleep as soon as you are awake. You feel that you exist always. Vedantins build their philosophy around this Sushupti Avastha. This stage gives them the clue to the non-dual state (Advaitic state). A careful study of the three states-Jagrat, Svapna and Sushupti (waking, dreaming and deep sleep)-is of immense practical use for the clear understanding of the Vedanta. (Swami Sivananda)

Let's start from the last excerpt.  Swami Sivananda claims that "The consciousness is continuous." even during deep sleep. That is just factually wrong.  So he can be summarily dismissed.

A lot of mental activity is absent in deep sleep (as evidenced by electrical activity maps by MRI and PET), including the kind of consciousness during our waking state, or even dreaming, that we all understand.  Nondualists claim that that attribute-less state (no objects of consciousness) means that the so-called "pure consciousness" existing during that time is evidence of the Self (with a capital S), the atman.  What they probably mean is that during deep sleep, the "spiritual" consciousness is untied (or dis-identified) from body/brain.

That is just hokum.  By definition, there is no awareness in deep sleep - otherwise it is not "deep" enough.  There is no "pure consciousness" in deep sleep.  There is just oblivion.

Many vedantins who want to challenge this sense of oblivion claim that you do say when you wake up that you had a sound sleep.  And according to them, it is evidence that you were aware that you were in deep sleep.  That is also not true.  When someone claims he had a restful night, he is remarking about an absence of restlessness and the sensations of refreshed-ness when he has just woken up.  It is not a comment about having been aware, it is a comment about having slept so soundly that one was UN-aware.  Deep sleep is known to induce greater restfulness to the brain and the body.  A cursory survey of the scientific literature about REM sleep vs non-REM sleep and its neurochemistry will be instructive for anyone curious.

Sankara is stating that the "true" state of something is that which does not undergo change.  Waking and dreaming consciousness goes through moods and different perceptions, so according to Sankara, the "true" consciousness is that which is not externally directed, or even directed to be aware of the mind.  That is, the experiencer is waking and dreaming states is intermingled due to identification, but the experiencer devoid of experiencing anything but itself (in deep sleep) is the true self.  That could be an interesting philosophical position, if only Sankara could tell us how and why he assumes there is an experiencer in deep sleep.  This is also what yogis term as "nirvikalpa samadhi" (attribute-less union/bliss). 

But it is just an abstract notion.  There is no such thing from all that we know and understand about consciousness.

And at least one man (take his words with a big grain of salt, as he doesn't explain what he experienced and is not very rigorous) who claims to have experienced this condition says that this is no different than deep sleep and oblivion and that it is entirely useless in fostering any understanding.