Gaining Control Over and Mastery of One’s Mind and Thoughts
As each stage of the evolution of consciousness develops, it brings a greater power of knowledge and action than the prior stage. Inevitably, there is an impact on those prior stages. Life effectuated changes in Matter. Mind effectuates changes in Life and Matter. Although the power is not absolute, and there is an interchange, a conservative resistance to transformational change, eventually the new power has its impacts.
What is not so frequently described, however, is that with this new power come also new forces that make adaptation at the current level of manifestation harder. Thus, while the mind is able to change matter, and even control the vital forces of life to a great degree, it has a hard time seeing and changing things on the mental plane.
The principle involved is that as long as one is immersed in a particular framework, he cannot see that framework. What he cannot see he cannot consciously change. It is thus necessary to find a way to step back from, to shift outside the framework, to have a real power of transformation.
When we apply this to our mental activities, we can see that the shift to the witness standpoint, and receptivity to the next power of consciousness which is in the process of manifesting, represent the methods needed to gain control and mastery over the action of the mind itself.
Sri Aurobindo writes:
“To reject doubts means control of one’s thoughts — very certainly so. But the control of one’s thoughts is as necessary as the control of one’s vital desires and passions or the control of the movements of one’s body — for the Yoga, and not for the Yoga only. One cannot be a fully developed mental being even, if one has not a control of the thoughts, is not their observer, judge, master, — the mental Purusha, manomaya purusha, sakshi, anumanta, ishvara. It is no more proper for the mental being to be the tennis-ball of unruly and uncontrollable thoughts than to be a rudderless ship in the storm of the desires and passions or a slave of either the inertia or the impulses of the body. I know it is more difficult because man being primarily a creature of mental Prakriti identifies himself with the movements of his mind and cannot at once dissociate himself and stand free from the swirl and eddies of the mind whirlpool. It is comparatively easy for him to put a control on his body, at least on a certain part of its movements; it is less easy but still very possible after a struggle to put a mental control on his vital impulsions and desires; but to sit like the Tantric Yogi on the river, above the whirlpool of his thoughts, is less facile. Nevertheless, it can be done; all developed mental men, those who get beyond the average, have in one way or other or at least at certain times and for certain purposes to separate the two parts of the mind, the active part which is a factory of thoughts and the quiet masterful part which is at once a Witness and a Will, observing them, judging, rejecting, eliminating, accepting, ordering corrections and changes, the Master in the House of Mind, capable of self-empire, samrajya.
“The Yogi goes still farther; he is not only a master there, but even while in mind in a way, he gets out of it as it were, and stands above or quite back from it and free. For him the image of the factory of thoughts is no longer quite valid; for he sees that thoughts come from outside, from the universal Mind or universal Nature, sometimes formed and distinct, sometimes unformed and then they are given shape somewhere in us. The principal business of our mind is either a response of acceptance or a refusal to these thought-waves (as also vital waves, subtle physical energy waves) or this giving personal-mental form to thought-stuff (or vital movements) from the environing Nature-Force. …
“… the possibilities of the mental being are not limited, it can be the free Witness and Master in its own house. A progressive freedom and mastery over one’s mind is perfectly within the possibilities of anyone who has faith and will to undertake it.”
Sri Aurobindo, Bases of Yoga, Chapter 1, Calm — Peace — Equality, pp. 5-6
Thank you🙏
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a lot packed in this sentence " for the Yoga, and not for the Yoga only. One cannot be a fully developed mental being even, if one has not a control of the thoughts, is not their observer, judge, master, — the mental Purusha, manomaya purusha, sakshi, anumanta, ishvara. "
ReplyDeleteI believe Sri Aurobindo is referring to his meditation method of 'intropection' or witness - consciousness as it is generally known. The place from which this observation is made must be somewhere beyond the mind.
He seems to be suggesting a few possibilities here manomaya purusha being one and ishvara could be the highest level from which everything can be observed.
Is there a possibility of observing from the psychic level itself(?), rather than the true mental.
Santosh or anybody who can shed light on this would be appreciated.
Great question Bahman, one I explored a great deal over the years, as both Mother and Sir Aurobindo have described this in many ways.
DeleteIn the quote you referred to, Sri Aurobindo later makes a distinction between the common introspective standpoint within the mind, and distinguishes that from the impersonal Self, which is characterized most of all by quiet, impersonal equanimity. It FEELS very different from observing from within the mind, which almost always sees from a standpoint of "me" as a separate individual and with a certain level of judgment.
On the other hand, both Mother and Sri AUrobindo have referred to "witnessing" from the psychic ("the "great Psychic Witness" if I recall the phrase correctly, though that may not be it) as being radically different from ordinary mental introspection, in that you are one with what you see, because to the extent the psychic is fully awake, the vision of Oneness and Unity prevails. A bare hint of this can be found in experiences of flow (as defined by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi) in which you feel at "one" with the basketball, or piano, or artist's brush, etc.
I think in practice, though we can use words to distinguish these things, it is all quite mixed together.
Here's an example:
I used to teach attention to pain, which at times resulted in radical reductions in physical pain, even when medications and surgery had previously been tried. I noticed early on that people tended to attend to pain as an object, with a host of mental, emotional and instinctive projections. So I taught them (using simple, non yogic language, of course) to distinguish the mental, emotional and instinctive reactions. I almost inevitably found that the more they became absorbed in the experience, with a lessening of the split between observer and observed, the more the pain was reduced. To some extent, one could almost say what was experience as "pain" WAS the separation, the introspection that related to the pain as something alien, separate.
It was a fascinating process to learn how to convey these yogic terms and experiences in a regular clinical setting!
Thanks for this response- the first part of the answer "psychic witness" may be close to what I'm asking. It would be good if there is a reference I could look up.
DeleteWhat I know is that witnessing from the 'mind' is basically witnessing from egoic-consciousness- which is part of the mental ego trying to see the entire stream of consciousness- there is an inherent shortcoming in this method.
The Mother has said that you cannot see the ego unless you are able to step outside of it ( which is very difficult ), so I am trying to get more clarity about the possibilities for the observation point. It seems that Sri Aurobindo mentions at least two possibilities: manomayapurusha and Ishwara- so my question is whether there is a possibility of observation from the psychic center itself.
The practice you mention seems to me to be what is known as unification of subject and object ( dhyana or absorption ). In that case one basically exits the object ( pain) if done successfully. This is more like samadhi, where you altogether exit phenomenal consciousness. There are several levels of absorption, so I am talking about the highest level.
I think in witness consciousness from beyond the mind there is still a separation- not absorption- you are outside of ego-consciousness and can see it in entirety without the limitations of observing from the top of the ego.
Any leads to source quotation by Sri Aurobindo and/or the Mother about psychic witnessing would be much appreciated.
(don here)
DeleteI don't have those quotes, but that's an interesting comment about separation vs absorption.
Dr. Les Fehmi produced a template of attention which actually did more to clarify this - in experience - than much of what I read in IY texts.
He speaks of narrow vs wide focus, and immersed vs detached. The issue that's come up for years in various groups and texts is the idea that "stepping back" into the vast open awareness underlying all our experience is somehow a kind of "separation" and different from absorption.
I had to find a "test" for absorption when I did research on mindfulness and pain reduction, and the most famous one, Tellegen's Absorption Questionnaire, is full of confusion about this.
I have found both in teaching and in my own experience, when the defining words are released, those categories begin to fall apart:
** I am captured by the beauty of a flower. My mind begins to quiet and then verbal thought stops altogether. The sense of "me" identified with a specific location in time and space, and a particular mind and body may fade away, and there is simply Consciousness (or Awareness) appearing as flower and body and environment.
How do you put that into words? What is being separated from what? There's a point where precise definitions, at least to me, start to fall apart and you start using words as pointers and then in close dialog with someone exploring this experientially, you find unique words for each situation. At least, that's been my experience working with people over the years on this.
Hi Don,
DeleteThe separation that I am talking about is that of subject and object of consciousness. In the Theravada tradition that I studied with Burmese teachers 'mindfulness meditation' consists of two types: Samatha and Satipathana Vippasana.
You start with Samatha focusing on breathing or another object of consciousness. If this pregresses properly then you reach one-pointedness and then you can go into absorptions or dhyana ( Jhana in Pali). This can happen at 4 levels and in all of those you reach non-dual ( no subject/object separation) states.The other one, Satipathana Vipassana is also known as witness-consciousness. Here you have separation between point of observation and contents of consciousness ( 5 skandhas: feeling, perception, mental formation, body and citta)
Sri Aurobindo of course talks about samatha, but for witness-consciousness he uses the word 'introspection'. The heart of my question is whether he observes from egoic consciousness or not- and the answer form this passage seems to be Manaomayapurusha-
I have suspected that this might be the same as witnessing from the psychic being as the True Mental is a component of the inner being right around the psychic center.
this topic is also related to his four ways of knowing, but that gets more complicated, suffice it to say that two of those could be observing from the ego and two from a deeper center such as Manomayapurusha and Ishwara.
As for the role of language, it certainly disappears in absorption, but not necessarily in witness-consciousness as the styream of consciousness can include language.
Bahman
Hi Bahman: this is REALLY the kind of thing that might take considerably less time and effort if we were talking in real time. It would be fun to explore this on Zoom at some point, but for now, I took quite a bit of time to write this to you. Anuradha, maybe I'll turn it into an article!
DeleteOk, here goes:
Let me see if I can summarize and bring together all you are saying, and then see if I can connect that with experience.
WAKING DREAMING SLEEP
1. We may identify with the ordinary waking mental egoic consciousness. Say, for example, my lower back is hurting. I observe it. Here, “I” am a certain set of ideas, memories, associations, feelings, instinctive movements, etc. so basically, within the surface, waking mental egoic consciousness, there is mostly a mechanical movement of separation. I – the subject, feel separate from the object, though actually, this is an illusion, as it just involves the same mental movements seemingly separating but really enmeshed. So, what usually happens when one “observes” the pain, the observation is so much bound up in the pain, that the observation tends to increase it.
This is what Sri Aurobindo refers to as “separative knowledge,” yes?
2. Let’s see what happens as we lie down to sleep. First, as the body relaxes, and the fixity of the ordinary mental waking state softens, the boundaries of the pain begin to lessen. I may experience a greater connection with the sensations in the back, and as the pain continues to decrease, the sense of “me” here as an entirely separate subject may lessen. There is still a distinction – “Me” the subject observing the object of pain, but now there is a more intimate relationship.
MOVING CONSCIOUSLY INTO THE DREAM STATE
3. As relaxation continues, the boundaried sense of the body starts to dissolve, and the usual clear, linear processing of thoughts starts to shift into a more ‘dreamy, disconnected state. The sense of the waking “me” – the apparent subject – may completely dissolve as awareness remains rather than falling into unconsciousness, and the whole solidity of the body, the waking mental egoic subject, and the waking world, all dissolve.
4. Now I may find myself in a conscious (lucid) dream. There are a number of different ways the subject and object relate. This appears to be the realm of the “inner” mind Sri Aurobindo speaks of, and another separation takes place – between the “I” in the dream and the dream world. But here it’s not so much experienced as separation but an intimate relationship> I may even notice the objects of the environment shift in harmony with my inner state. But here there is still a distinct individual subject.
5. Sometimes in conscious dreams, there is no identification with a separate body or individual but one IS the dream entirely. This seems much more characteristic of the way the manomayapurusha observes. I don’t find the word “introspection” very helpful here as it tends to be used in the waking state, in the ordinary separative state of the subject and object. Sometimes the dream may be a kind of disconnected flow of subconscious states, but sometimes it is a vivid, larger than life affair – Jung calls this a “big” dream. Both Sri Aurobindo and my Sufi teacher, Llewellyn Vaughan lee, refer to the distinction between “experiences” (that is, entering into real, objective subtle realms) and dreams (personal subconscious dreams). In these larger than life experiences, there is a deep intimacy between subject and object and a sense of everything flowing together.
SLEEP, Consciously
6. If there is a choice (“choosing” here is not the same separate subject “choosing’ that occurs in the waking state – it is really a kind of alignment with the shifting of the whole) to dissolve the dream world but not return to ordinary waking, one may enter consious sleep, in which there is a kind of knowledge by identity. One recognizes oneself AS an unbounded ocean of Light, pregnant with infinite possibilities.
(part 2)
Delete******
Ok, that’s one way of hinting at differences in the relationship between subject and object. The Buddhist stages of the path (which in my experience are remarkably in line with Sri Aurobindo’s distinction of quiet, calm, peace and Silence) are another.
Here’s the way Alan Wallace has taught the path of Samatha (following the 10 stages of Buddhaghosa and Kamasila) for past 15 years. I did a workshop with him about 30 years ago, and have found his brief, “The Attention Revolution” a summary of these stages – enormously helpful.
STAGES 1-4: At stage 4, one can attend to the breath unbroken for at least 24 minutes. There is still a very dualistic separation, but as the quiet deepens, there is a slowly growing intimacy.
STAGES 5-7. Here the thoughts settle into a deeper state of quiet.
STAGE 8: Here, one can sit for hours with almost no thoughts arising. It is not longe rmerely quiet or calm, but a deep, profound state of all pervading peacelasts.
STAGES 9-10: IN these final stages, one begins to shift identity to the awareness within which experience of the universe takes place. This is starting to break down the dualistic separation. Silence pevades not only sitting, but throughout the day, one may simply shift into the background Silence and recognize it pervading and even constituting everything. There is still a very subtle duality, but one may more readily speak of a subject-object experience rather than a separate subject “observing” silence or dynamic change.
At this final stage of Samatha, for both Buddhaghosa and Kamasila, Vipassana/insight begins. As Alan put it simply, one “turns around” and “looks” at what is looking (this sounds like a separation of subject and object but the words are misleading; it’s really a shift of identity so one “Becomes” that which is looking.
At this point, a shift into knowledge by identity may occur; for some years, intermittently, then gradually more and more stable.
In my understanding, when this shift stabilizes, when it is characterized by a sense of all pervading Love and Mother’s Presence everywhere, guiding, pouring Light and Love and Power into the mind, heart, life and body, it is what Sri Aurobindo and Mother refer to as “bringing the psychic forward” or the psychic realization.
When the shift stabilizes accompanied by a sense of vast, unbounded spacious impersonal Consciuosness, without a sense of a separate “me” observing an objective universe, it is the Self being realized.
But our minds make these distinctions, and in my experience – the glimpse of the psychic and the Self – have never been separate. My first spontaneous opening, some 56 years ago, simply recognized “God” everywhere and in everything and as everything, with no real separate object and subject anywhere. It was both vastly peaceful and filled with love and delight. What was that?
And over the years, these openings seem to have almost an infinite variety of flavors. I have found it immensely helpful over the years to occasionaly stop and look at what is happening according to certain frameworks, but I have found it even more important, far more important, to let go of the frameworks. Because whatever happens is inevitably greater than whatever previous framework I had!
Still, I’ll conclude by saying, I don’t use Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s various frameworks and terminology because I simply want to “promote” the Integral Yoga. I’ve explored many Tibetan Buddhist, Theravadin, Zen, Sufi, Christian contemplative, Tantric and Vedantic “maps’ and instructions and frameworks over more than half a century and just haven’t found anything even close to the clarity and helpfulness of their language. But then, when you let go altogether of the language, the revelations are so infinitely more than anything that could possibly be put into words – at least, it seems that way to me. Maybe that’s why these days I’m playing more music than writing:>)))
***
Part 3:
DeleteThis is a nice excerpt from “The Eternal and the Individual” in the Life Divine, which Jan and I were reading with the Boston Sri Aurobindo group this evening. It speaks both to the value of these kinds of distinctions and the need to let them go:
Sri Aurobindo begins by observing that it’s the nature of the mind to create endless opppositions. He then goes on to say:
This is the weakness not only of our scientific divisions and metaphysical distinctions, but of our exclusive spiritual realisations which are only exclusive because to arrive at them we have to start from our limiting and dividing mental consciousness. We have to make the metaphysical distinctions in order to help our intelligence towards a truth which exceeds it, because it is only so that it can escape from the confusions of our first undistinguishing mental view of things; but if we bind ourselves by them to the end, we make chains of what should only have been first helps.
Sri Aurobindo. The Life Divine (pp. 400-401).
Hope that was helpful, Bahman, and I didn't use miss what you were writing about. let me know if a real time conversation might be more fruitful. And Anuradha, let me know if it might be worthwhile to shape these comments into a post for SAIEN.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, Don. Thanks a lot.
DeleteBahman, I just came across this in the book, 'Indra Sen's Correspondence With the Mother." The question is from Dr. Sen, the answer from the Mother. It struck me that he was trying to connect the witnessing of the psychic being with the philosophic ideas of Sankhya, and She gave an interesting response. Relating this to what I wrote last night, in one person, the psychic may seem separate, like a witness, in another, the luminous consciousness of the Soul embraces and spreads through the Universe, in intimate union with the Mother -
ReplyDelete7 March 1947
Dr. Sen: I would like to know whether the psychic being is not absolutely a witness like the Purusha of the Sankhya system. It is relatively inactive when it is not developed, isn't it? All this is not very clear to me.
The Mother: It is not at all a question of theory, and the traditional notions of philosophy do not apply to something as true and living as the psychic being. Just as two physical existences do not resemble each other, two psychic existences do not resemble each other either—there are as many different psychic lives as there are beings. But in most human beings who are not conscious of their psychic being and whose actions are not guided by it, the psychic presence is like that of a witness, more or less conscious, more or less awake, which does not intervene in the course of outer events.
7 March 1947