Science of Consciousness: A Synthesis of Vedanta and Buddhist Philosophy

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

The synthesis between Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy has been attempted in this study on the ground that the former is the philosophy of "being", whereas the latter happens to be the philosophy of becoming. The being and becoming, both are important for proper understanding of the Absolute Reality and its manifestation. In synthesizing, it has concentrated on consciousness because of two reasons: (i) in consciousness, both being and becoming are involved and (ii) pure consciousness happens to be the essence of human nature.

In Buddhist philosophy the concepts like cittanirvana, bhavangacitta and alayavijnana having a bearing on pure-consciousness, which happens to be the Upanisadic atman and the Vedantic Brahman. Since these concepts represent the essence of human beings, the similarities among the Upanisads, Vedanta and Buddhism have been established. However, the differences between Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy (Yogacara Vijnanavada) on several issues like momentariness, changing reality will continue because these are merely modes of manifestations or appearances.

It has also been shown that the concepts like One and Many, Time and Space of Buddhist philosophy and Vedanta have scientific support. Time and Space have no independent existence in Buddhist philosophy and Vedanta. In fact, both being the manifestations of consciousness, become the objects of consciousness. It means that Buddhist philosophy and Vedanta have treated Time and Space in relative framework. So is the case with science.

V.N. Misra, PhD retired from Indian Economic Service, has worked as Economic Advisor in the ministries such as Agriculture, Rural Development and Finance, Government of India. He also has several consultancy assignments with Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila; Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome; World Bank, Washington; and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington. Dr Misra has also to his credit more than forty research articles published in reputed journals in the field of agricultural policy and development, labour, employment, rural poverty, etc. He has also co-authored (with V.S. Vyas and D.S. Tyagi) a book, Significance of New Technology for Small Farmers.

Of late, he developed keen interest in philosophy and has authored more than half a dozen books. Some of his important publications are: Phenomenal Consciousness and Mind-Body Problem: In East-West Perspective (2019); Samsara and Nirvana: A Unifying Vision (2020); and Thinker, Thought and Knowledge in East-West Perspective (2021).

SIDDHARTHA Gautama became the Buddha upon attaining the state of such enlightenment as would result in explaining the basic structure of existence in the world. The enlightenment that had resulted in the a priori assertion that existence, in its diverse forms and shapes, is characterized by the illness of pain. As to why this illness of pain exists is because of desire for things that basically are insubstantial and so evidently impermanent. There is suffering because of clinging for that which is impermanent and this doctrine of impermanence got as stretched out as to terminate in the assertion that there is nothing in the world that could be termed as being permanent. It is this viewpoint of not-self and impermanence that forms the heart of the Buddha's enlightenment.

For the Buddha, it is Becoming that is real. Insofar as the reality of Being is concerned, it simply does not exist. The doctrine of becoming was so interpreted by the early Buddhists as would lead to the establishment of the view that everything is in flux. Since nothing lasts more than a moment, so accordingly there would be no abiding principle like the self that could be seen such an agent who knows and acts. It is this doctrine of not-self which ultimately terminated in the rise of Sunyavada of Nagarjuna. For him, everything is identical with sunya. It is in the context of this extreme form of nihilism of Nagarjuna that there arose the school of Vijnanavada, which accepted the reality of consciousness as being real. Even though accepting the reality of consciousness, yet the Vijnanavadins subscribed to the view that consciousness, though luminous in nature, is subject to continuous becoming.

It is impossible to accept the Buddhist contention of the non-existence of the self in the context of knowledge and action. If everything is momentary and impermanent, then there would be no possibility for knowledge to occur, which would mean that we will have no cognition of anything, because it will not be possible to integrate awareness and the object into one identical relation. Even though our ideas may be changing with reference to the changing objects, there remains the fact that we do not change. All this proves the fact that, in the midst of change, we remain constantly connected with the changing objects. Thus, the existence of such an entity as the self is established on the basis of the experience that we all have, which is that there persists within us a permanent entity through all the changing states of consciousness. It is this very persisting principle within us that remembers the object we had previously cognized. The Buddhists would say that the cognition of the previously perceived object is due to the impressions in the subconscious mind. This assertion of the Buddhists is unacceptable in the context of their view of mind being momentary. If the mind exists momentarily, it would mean that it could not receive as well as store the impressions. Also the impressions themselves are as momentary as would neither be received nor stored. In such a scenario, there is no possibility for cognition to occur. Thus, the only logical way is to postulate the existence of such self that is permanent and due to which knowledge and action become possible.

The present work - Science of Consciousness by Dr V.N. Misra -has competently dealt with such complex issues as, for example, the existence and non-existence of the self and the areas where Buddhism and Vedanta share a common ground for truth. It is expected that the publication of this treatise will prove to be illuminating to those who seek truth.

THIS study is prompted by three recent observations:

1. Citta is one precondition of religious experience in Indian thinking and as such, it is the meeting point for Upanisadic and Buddhist soteriology (Ergardt 1986: 2);

2. the knowledge of transcendental consciousness enables us to face the mystery of death. The survival of consciousness after death is the greatest challenge to science and the greatest support to religion (Bhajananda 2009: 99); and

3. human life is a product of the interaction of consciousness and matter (Taimni 1987a: 406).

The above observations are examined with a view to establish the similarity among the Upanisads, Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy. Specifically, the study attempts:

i. To examine the meeting points amongst the Upanisads, Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy. This aspect is examined on the basis of real nature of human being, which has self-consciousness.

ii. To know whether the observations of Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy are in conformity with the findings of the scientists.

iii. To examine how the interaction between consciousness and matter has been established in the dualistic philosophy of Descartes in the West and the Indian philosophy of Samkhya-Yoga.

It may be stated at the outset that this study is an attempt to review evidences from various sources that have a direct bearing on the subjects that are discussed in different chapters. The study does not claim to have originality, although some criticisms/views which seem to be inappropriate on certain issues have been reconciled. Further, the references based on the religious discourses, which are beyond time and space have been avoided as for the human mind it is rather difficult to comprehend any phenomenon beyond time and space. However, time and space seem to be two concepts, but the fact remains that both are one in the sense that "one Conscious-Being viewing itself in extension subjectively as Time and objectively as Space" (Aurobindo 2001: 144). It is reassuringly to be told by another study in different words, that: "Time and space are one. One cannot be without other" (Hanh 2008: 201). Further, time and space have no independent existence, because they are known by self-consciousness of the human observer. In fact, both are manifestations of consciousness (ibid.: 180). In other words, time and space both become the object of consciousness. Time, space and the four great elements - earth, water, fire and air - are all displays of consciousness. "All have the nature of inter-being: if we look deeply into one, we find the other five. Looking into space, we see time and other elements as well" (ibid.: 182). Keeping these observations in mind, this study has concentrated mainly on consciousness because it happens to be the theory of everything, in the sense that it perceives human being internally as well as externally, i.e. the entire universe.

However, the dhamma is compared with the Brahman of Upanisads. This comparison, however, does not seem to be appropriate for two reasons: (i) Brahman is pure consciousness itself, and (ii) dhamma (object) and self (subject) are mere transformations of consciousness according to the Yogacara-Vijnanavada school of Buddhist philosophy. Therefore, dhamma is treated merely as a false construction. This shows that the concept of dhamma has been completely changed; for the Buddha, dhamma was truth, now it has become false construction. Therefore, cittadhamma may not be an appropriate concept in the present context for comparison with cidatman of the Upanisads.

The main reason for establishing the similarity between Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy is that the former is a philosophy of being, whereas the latter happens to be the philosophy of becoming. In terms of conscious episode, being is self-consciousness, whereas becoming happens to be differentiated consciousness. In the knowledge approach, being is an internal perception and becoming would be an external perception. So long as both, being and becoming are given due importance in a balanced approach, it would provide better understanding of not only reality but also its appearances. The problem becomes difficult when the isolated approach is adopted. This is evident from recent observation that "becoming (in the psychological sense) is the central principle of fragmentation in the individual, and also the cause of all divisions within the society" (Agarwal 1991: 4). The fact, however, remains that without being, becoming is not possible at all and without becoming, being has no meaning in the sense that one cannot gain the experience without becoming. Therefore, both, being and becoming, are important aspects for proper understanding of the Absolute Reality and its manifestation.