Mind in Indian Tradition

Authored by Rajat Pratap.

INTRODUCTION

Addressing ‘Society for Psychical Research’ (1913), Bergon once proposed a hypothetical but intriguing prospect – “what would have happened in modern science, if it had started the reverse way: with the considerations of mind (espirit) instead of matter; if Kepler, Galileo, Newton for instance, had been psychologists.” It is common knowledge that Western psychology has its roots in physiological sciences. The alternative evolution, one that Bergson had in mind, took place in India. Rhys David, in her pioneering work on Indian psychology, noted that in India, ‘Analysis of mind apparently preceded that of life in matter.’ The embryonic physiological literature of ‘cataloguing and discussing bodily parts and functions’ in Brahmans and Buddhist works emerged in a culture ‘which was already much preoccupied with analytical treatment of mind.’

The distinct inclination of Indian philosophy towards the ‘inner world’ has been noted by almost every authority on the subject. Musings on body, mind and consciousness that preoccupied particularly the Upanishadic seers have, however, been studied under the wider rubric of discipline of philosophy, despite the fact that they contain very pregnant psychological insights. It was only recently, especially after the publication of Pondicherry Manifesto, that rigorous psychological perspectives on Indian texts begun to emerge, contributing significantly to a pre-existing diverse pool of interpretations. This paper aims at explaining how the mind was understood in Upanishads and the ‘orthodox’ philosophical schools that developed subsequently. The structural integrity of Indian philosophy has been highlighted by underlining the common roots of different interpretations in wider Upanishadic framework. Both primary as well as secondary sources have been consulted and supplemented with subjective interpretations of the author.

SEEDS AND BROAD CONTOURS OF INDIAN PSYCHOLOGY

VEDIC LITERATURE

Rigveda, though primarily a collection of ritualistic and inspired hymns devoted to deities like Indra, Varuna, Soma and Agni, is punctuated with poignant philosophical musings. Here, we encounter the embryonic form of subsequent, more articulate insights into the nature of mind and self. The world was viewed as a duality of ‘yat’ and ‘sthtiam’- the moving world of undying forces and the stagnant world of mortal matter. In the early Upanishads this duality was extended to the ‘person’ who was understood as a conglomerate of material form (Rupa) and immaterial name (Nama). This distinction, between name and form, ‘underlines the difference between conception and perception, between the abstraction and sensation’ and the ‘essence of meaning consists in the former, while the latter is a mere instrument.’ It was ‘nama’ that was pursued by the Indian teachers. Rhys David has brought to attention the concept of ‘more’ (bhuyas) within ‘nama’, that preoccupied the authors of Upanishadic verses. In Chhandogya Upanishad, 7,1, Sanat-Kumar, answering his curious disciple Narada, provides a list of things that constitute this ‘more’. Speech is more than nama, mind (manas) more than speech, purpose more than mind, thought than purpose, musing (dhyana) than thought, and ‘awareness-in-surviving’ (‘vijnana’ - elsewhere translated as consciousness) more than musing.  The hierarchy leading from gross material to subtler aspects and ultimately the pure consciousness or ‘true self’ thus developed, where mind was given a position of mediator.

In Rigveda, we also find references to mind as a rational entity invoked to exercise control over heart (hrd) – the psychological faculty responsible for emotions. Role of mind is likened to winnowing of barley through the sieve, suggesting selective reception (Rg Veda, 10.10.6). Ramchandra Rao cites the episode of Pururavas, when his wife Urvasi turns indignantly away from him, he begs her to ‘stay with mind.’ Mind is truthful, unruffled, mature, firm and sharp as against heart which represents the ‘stirred up state of individual.’ The subsequent conceptualization of ‘Viveka’ as a rational plus ethical entity, often invoked in Bhagwat-Gita, has its root in the restraining function ascribed to mind in Rigvedic verses. These verses also, to an extent, anticipate the Yogic theory of ‘vritti’ and ‘Purusha’, explained by Vivekananda through the imagery of ripples in the water and surface of the lake: the former is the unstable, stirred up dimension that clogs or conceals the real self.

It is however, noteworthy, that in Aitareya Upanishad 1,1,4, we find the precedence of heart and consequent creation of mind- “A heart was separated out; from the heart, mind (manas), from the mind, moon.” Further, “that which is heart and mind”, says verse 3,5,2 of the same, implying that the seat of mind is in the heart. Could it be that heart was being conceived of as the psychic faculty responsible for ‘intuition’ which was now given a higher epistemological status than rational enquiry? S Channakeshavan has adopted a different tangent. According to her, ‘the bodily functions such as movement and sensation are dependent on the working of both heart and mind.’ It is owing to this interdependent relationship that ‘the Upanishads maintain that the heart and the mind are fundamentally one.’

THE DUAL ROLE OF MIND

The Upanishads ascribe to mind a position of mediator between the external world and the inner self. In the Rigveda itself, we find “What thing I truly am I know not clearly; mysterious, fettered in my mind I wander” (Rg Veda, 1.164.37). Mind here is a ‘fetter’ holding the seeker back from fuller knowledge of his real self. In Upanishads, the view is expressed more articulately:

‘The mind, in truth, is for mankind

The means of bondage and release

For bondage, if to objects bound;

From objects free—that’s called release.’

The mind is seen as a means, of both bondage (implying suffering) and liberation. In its former function, it is the tool of external knowledge. In Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, we find – ‘People say my mind was elsewhere; I did not see. My mind was elsewhere, I did not hear. It is with the mind, truly that one sees. It is with the mind that one hears…’ Mind thus, connects the self, the knower and the enjoyer, to the outside world. But, if limited to this sole function, mind inevitably becomes a means of bondage. It longs for permanence, stability and continuity but the tangible world is impermanent by its very nature. Ramakrishna Rao has captured this existential dilemma in following words:

‘Craving for permanence causes the search for identity and self-sameness. Then attachment follows. Desires and disappointments, stress and distress do not lag far behind. Existential anxiety is the result;

One common, but ‘ineffective’ strategy is to identify the ego sense with the ‘unchanging self-sameness of the consciousness’. However, it is only after orienting itself inward, towards the exploration of ‘consciousness’, that mind can tap into the second function of liberation. In its first role, mind is ‘transactional’; in second, ‘transcendental.’ In the former capacity, as the Upanishads put it, it is ‘bound to objects’, and in second, a tool for ‘release’. This notion is based on the ‘permanence’ and ‘immutability’ of consciousness. Nothing in the tangible world can fulfil the ‘craving for permanence’ but only the realization of or ‘sakshatkar’ with the Atman. The idea of salvation (moksha) is thus, closely related to the Upanishadic conception of origin of suffering and its resolution. It finds its distinct echoes in the preaching of Gautama Buddha as well.

Some crucial insights of Bhagwat-Gita stem from the premises laid down in Upanishads. For instance, in describing the characteristics of sthitprajna, it says:

“When a man dwells in his mind on the objects of sense, attachment to them is produced. From attachment springs desire and from desire comes anger. From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; and from loss of memory, the destruction of intelligence; and from destruction of intelligence, he perishes. But a man of disciplined mind, who moves among the objects of sense, with the senses under control and free from attachment and aversion, he attains purity of spirit.”

The conception of mind as prone to attachment and attachment as a reason for perversion of mental and spiritual life is fundamentally an Upanishadic insight, taken forward in different ways, by almost all schools of Indian philosophy. As for the latter function of liberation, interpretations have varied. Whilst some make a case for meditative and physiological practices in order to attain salvation, like Yoga Darshana, others have emphasized the need for Bhakti, devoted surrender to one deity whose grace shall lift the devotee from the world of suffering, transience and death (mrityu-lok) to a state of blissful consciousness. Others still have ascribed primary significance to knowledge. The central argument however, remains the same. The salvation, an essential subset of which is a peaceful mental life, can result from a withdrawal of mind from external objects and its orientation towards a transcendent reality.

THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF MIND

Is mind material? Or is its nature opposed to that of matter? Mind is something that ‘goes out afar’. Uddalaka, teaching Svetaketu, tells him that the mind is like a bird that is tied up to the soul. It wanders about hither and thither, not finding any rest in its flight, comes back and settles down on its resting place. It cannot be a physical sense organ, for then, its movement within and ‘out afar’ would be impossible. It also cannot be the soul or Self for the same reason, because then, the bodily functions would cease. Mind has also been conceptualized as travelling through the senses, carrying their word back to the Self and vice versa. It is also a determinative, analyzing and volitional agent. What is its status then?

In Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, we find a series of progression from senses to the real self. Channakeshavan explains it thus:

The senses are gross and they are derived from the subtle elements. Hence these subtle substances are higher than the senses for they are the causes of the senses. Then mind with original non-perceptual qualities such as will and desire is more subtle, hence more valuable. Even greater or subtler than this is the intellect, for it is that which determines. Greater than that is Hiranyagarbha, the central self of all existence.

Mind is not opposed to material, but is itself composed of matter, however that of a subtle nature. It is superior to senses because it reflects the pure intelligence of Atman, and connects it with the world. The chariot parable, oft-repeated in different Indian texts which situates the senses as the horses, mind as the driver (saarthi) and Self as rider or the enjoyer (swamin) is very illuminating in this regard. In the Chhandogya, Uddalaka instructing Svetaketu in the lore of Brahman tells him that when food is eaten, the finest part of it becomes manas. Therefore, mind is composed of ‘subtle’ but still material constituents.

The concept of mind in Vedic literature can be summarized thus: ‘mind is non-conscious (achetana) and it is in some respects physical and qualitatively different from consciousness as such.’ Simultaneously however, it is also a psychic faculty and therefore conscious (through the reflection of intelligence [prajna] of Atman). Further, ‘mind is seen as consisting of three dimensions— (1) cognitive, (2) emotive, and (3) volitional. Different terms are used to refer to mind and these have come to be seen as different levels of functioning of the mind.’ Given the dual role of mind as a means of both attachment and liberation, it became central to human quest for salvation and perfection and therefore, was devoted immense attention since the beginning of Indian philosophical and psychological thought. Quite rightly, ‘the Vedic ideas were the seeds that sprouted during the Sūtra period and grown later in the commentaries on the sūtras of different philosophical systems.’

MIND AND PSYCHOLOGY IN SANKHYA-YOGA TRADITION

METAPHYSICS

The Sankhya and Yoga systems are in significantly broad agreement about the metaphysical nature of the world, man, mind and ultimate truth and therefore, have been regarded as one category. Similar is the case with Vaisheshika and Nyaya schools. In Sankhya-Yoga tradition, there is one primordial pure consciousness ‘Purusha’ out of which ‘manifests’ Prakriti, the material reality. The entire existential drama is an interplay between Purusha and Prakriti. They are, in a way, the ‘soul and substance of the world’ (Bernard, 1947).  Purusha has no easy English equivalent. The words ‘consciousness-as-such’ or ‘pure-consciousness’ come closest to capture its spiritual as well as psychological connotations. Rao and Paranjpe define it as the principle behind consciousness manifesting in the person. According to them, ‘Purusha refers to both common as well as individualized forms of consciousness. It is the transcendental principle that makes awareness subjectively possible.’ Quoting SankhyaKarika, they note that Purusha is an isolated, indifferent, neutral and inactive spectator (saksin).

In contrast to Purusha- an essentially subjective dimension, Prakriti is the ‘primordial matrix of matter; the material basis of our universe and our physical being.’ Three fundamental characteristics (gunas) are inherent in Prakriti – sattva (essence), rajas (energy) and tamas (mass/inertia). In its primordial conditions, there is a perfect equilibrium between three gunas, the modifications in which lead to the process of evolution. Through the combinations and recombination of essence, energy and mass, Prakriti unfolds from an ‘incoherent, indeterminate, and undifferentiated to a coherent, determinate, and differentiated form.’ The primordial state of Prakriti is elusive, captured best by this mysterious verse taken from the commentary of Vyasa on Yoga-sutras of Patanjali- "that which never is, nor is not, that which exists and does not exist, that in which there is no nonexistence, the unmanifested, without any specific mark, the central background of all" (quoted from Radhakrishnan, 1923/1989, vol. 2. pp. 260-261)⁴. The striking resemblance with the NasadiyaSukta of Rigveda is more than incidental. Moreover, the duality of Prakriti and Purusha is almost identical to the Rigvedic binary of yat and sthitam. It is clear that Rigvedic ideas were shaping the subsequent philosophical discourse- an influence that has hitherto not been given adequate attention. 

META-PSYCHOLOGY

The psychological apparatus conceived within this metaphysical framework is both descriptive as well as remedial. It must be noted that, following the Upanishadic precedent, Sankhya-Yoga also considered mind-stuff (Buddhi and its evolutes) as material in nature. Therefore, their development has been traced from the primordial unfolding of Prakriti. In the process of evolution of Prakriti, the first manifestation was that of Mahat, the ‘cosmic intellect’. As Rao (1999) calls to our attention, Pañchaśikha, quoted in Vyāsa’sSāṁkhya-pravacana-bhāṣya, considers Mahat as “mere ‘I-ness’ (asmīti-mātra); it is the subjective counterpart of the objective ‘mere i-ness’ (tan-mātra) of things” (p. 32). Mahat, when individuated, transformed into Buddhi. The Buddhi has a predominantly sattvic characteristic, making it capable of reflecting pure-consciousness of Purusha. Despite its sattvic nature, buddhi, being an evolute of Prakriti, is incapable of consciousness on its own. It is the reflection of Purusha that renders it conscious. Rao and Paranjpe have attempted to argue that Purusha too is not entirely unaffected in the process. Influenced by Vijnanabhikshu, another Sankhya commentator, they observe that the consciousness of Buddhi is itself ‘superimposed on the Purusha, who gets the notion of an experiencing person by mistaking the modifications of Buddhi as his/her own. Thus, it is the conjunction of the purusha and the buddhi, the reflexive relation between the two, that gives us self-consciousness and the subjective experience we have of the world.’  

While the sattvic part of Buddhi makes self-consciousness possible, the minor Rajas element predisposes it to ‘act’. In the process, the undifferentiated ‘mere I-ness’ becomes differentiated, structured and coherent as an individual, giving rise to Ahamkara or the ego-sense. According to Sankhya, ego is not an entity but a process that gives identity to the psycho-physical framework of the person. Manas and indriyas (sensory motor-processes) are further evolutes of Ahamkara. Manas, in Sankhya-Yoga, symbolises the connecting link between the sensory motor apparatus and the Ahamkara. Buddhi, Ahamkara and Manas together constitute the mind-stuff, called Antahkarana in Sankhya and Citta in Yoga tradition. The modifications in the mind-stuff have been titled ‘vritti’.  The increasing analytical approach is evident in the fact that while Upanishads were content with a single entity- manas, to represent the whole of psychic faculties, a greater differentiation and specification was now preferred. However, the broad framework was still the same- a pure consciousness illuminating the mind thus bestowing it with intelligence and in the process, conferring on it, twin functions of cognition and liberation.

SUFFERING AND SALVATION

The Sankhya-Yoga philosophy of suffering is also an Upanishadic import, albeit in a modified form. Instead of simply tracing the root of suffering to the inherent predisposition of mind towards attachment, the latter two Gunas are held responsible for it.  As was indirectly implied earlier, the third Guna, Tamas is obstructive to the illumination of Purusha and therefore clouds the pure consciousness. The Rajasi and Tamasic attitudes lead one towards ego-dominance, attachment and consequent suffering. The ego-sense or empirical self begins to identify itself with the real consciousness. Suffering therefore, is built into the very fabric of evolution of Prakriti. The only way to escape it is a reversal of this process, an involution or enfoldment instead of evolutionary unfolding. In the words of Ramachandra Rao, “a backward process of attention, closing in, and turning back of the consciousness into an undifferentiated mass (samādhi). The world then becomes a mere ‘is’, the individual a bare ‘am’” (1999, p. 38).   

Cognition, in Yogic understanding, takes place in two directions, outward and inward. The cognitive faculty, called Citta in yoga, comprises of instinctual tendencies derived from actions of previous births and this life (vāsanās and saṁskāras) which taint one’s cognition and predispose them to act in certain ways. The external cognition is a sequenced process where manas first receives information from the senses and determines its character by discrimination and integration. Ahamkara then appropriates the material provided by the manas and gives a frame of reference to perception. Buddhi then reacts to the information in appropriate manner. Manas, Ahamkara and Buddhi are conceived as functional aspects of a single entity- Citta, rather than three separate entities. The inward cognition implies the cognition of consciousness. Consciousness-as-such, the ground of all cognition, however, cannot be directly apprehended as it has no ‘content’. It can solely be intuited. The following observation of Rao and Paranjpe is significant:

It (Consciousness-as-such) manifests in two basic forms: (1) transcendental and (2) empirical. In its transcendental aspect consciousness is apprehended in immediate intuition where there is no distinction between subject and object. In its empirical form it manifests in the cognitions where there is a differentiation between the cognizing subject (grahitr), the object of cognition (grahya) and the process of cognition (grahana).

In day-to-day cognition, the influence of Consciousness can only be rationally inferred. The intuitive experience of it however, occurs only when the mind-stuff has been cleared of modifications and subject has reached the stage of Samadhi or Kaivalya. The significance of Yoga, particularly the synthesis provided by Patanjali in his concise Yoga-sutras, lies in its sequenced demonstration of eight-fold path towards Samadhi and ultimately self-realization. 

The Citta-vrittis, the fleeting states of mind or the modifications produced in mind are of critical importance in Indian psychology and form the basis of Patanjali’s sutras. At the very outset, in second sutra, it is asserted that Yoga is controlling of vrittis. The five vrittis described in Yoga are – pramanas or true cognition, viparyaya or false cognition, vikalpa which is merely an idea with no corresponding material reality, nidra or sleep and finally smriti or memory which involves storage and retrieval. Patanjali also describes five sources of hindrance (klesa) that corrupt the mind and stand in the way of controlling mental fluctuations. They are avidya, asmita, raga, dvesa, and abhinivesha (Yoga-Sutras, II.3). Avidya has been defined as the incapacity to distinguish ‘between good and bad, truth and falsehood, the permanent and the impermanent, and the pure and the impure.’ It furnishes as the ground (khsetram) for all other hindrances (II.4). Asmita is personal identity, the I-ness generated by the wrongful identification of purusha with buddhi. Raga is passion for pleasure. Dvesa is opposite of raga and represents aversion towards objects. Abhinivesa is indicated by the will-to-live and the instinctive fear of death. All these hindrances are responsible for suffering.

Correspondent to these five hindrances are the five attentive stages of mind, of which the initial three- fluctuating level, inactivity (in drowsiness or sleep) and occasional concentration- are commonly experienced. The latter two however, i.e., Ekagrata (one-pointed concentration) and Niruddha - access to consciousness-as-such through complete restraining of all mental-functions, are achieved through Yogic practises of dharana (concentration) and dhyana (meditation). Another profound aspect of Yoga psychology is the inclusion of unconscious impressions like Samskaras on mind. They play a critical role in one’s spiritual progress. These Samskaras are the depositions of Karma (good or bad actions) and thus give Indian psychology its distinctive psycho-ethical characteristic. Samskaras resulting from bad actions produce greater obstructions in the path to self-realization by magnifying Rajasi and Tamasic elements, and hence, perpetuate suffering. The idea of salvation and psychological stability therefore, becomes intricately connected with the ethical concerns at macroscopic level.

ADVAITA-VEDANTA: COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES

The Sankhya-Yoga has been hailed as most systematic synthesis of Indian psychology. It should be clear by now that these systems diverge only on the matters of detail from the previously set broader Upanishadic framework. While the metaphysical aspects of Sankhya-Yoga and Upanishads might differ, psychologically speaking, Atman and Purusha or manas and Buddhi serve almost the same roles. Sankhya provided a more comprehensive structure to Upanishadic psychology, and Yoga supplied it with a practical therapeutic dimension. One remarkable evidence for psychological integrity of divergent philosophies is that the conception of mind in Sankar’s Advaita theory is almost identical with that of the Sankhya-Yoga system, despite the fact that Sankar was the most articulate critic of the latter.

Advaitic conception of mind, consciousness and self was more or less identical with the Upanishadic framework described in the first section. The key function of mind is defined through Samkalpa and Vikalpa, i.e., integration and differentiation that make perception possible. Borrowing from Yoga, the concept of manovrittis, synonymous with Citta-vrittis of Patanjali, became the formative component of psychological states in Advaita-Vedanta. The functional classification of mental faculties into Buddhi, Ahamkara and Manas was also adopted, collectively called Antahkarana (internal organ). In Advaita, the process of perception involves ‘going out’ or ‘flowing out’ of the mind. However, given that mind is considered a non-local entity, its literal ‘going out’ of the body is inconceivable. Instead, it might imply that what is primary in the process of perception is the person and not the object. The person voluntarily enters into a relationship with the perceived object, and therefore, also has the capability to break that connection and orient itself elsewhere. Advaita further distinguishes between perception of the object and perception of the object ‘as the object.’ The former involves identity of cognitive and object consciousness (pramana and vishaya Chaitanya) while the latter, in addition, also involves appropriation of the object by the jiva.   

In dwelling on the concept of Jiva, Gaudapada and later Sankar, developed a comprehensive ‘theory of personality’ that describes the person, her motivations, behaviour and thinking in a holistic manner. Ahamkara or ego holds a special place in this theory. Sankara expanded the pre-existing Sankhya-Yoga notion of ego-sense and incorporated not merely the identification of body with the self but also the name and form of the body as well as the position one is assigned in family and society. ‘More specifically, it involves identification of one's self as a doer (karta) or agent of one's actions, and as enjoyer (bhokta) of the fruits of one's actions (Sankara, d, 106)’. It is by transcending this sense of self by entering into the Turiya state that the individuals can rise above the petty notions of success and failures. The ‘nishkama-karmayoga’ of Bhagwat-Gita that appealed for dutiful action without attaching oneself to the fruits of that particular doing relates to the same principle. It is by shedding the identification of ego-sense with the self that one can achieve the ‘nishkama’ state. Interestingly, Sankara and father of modern psychoanalysis- Freud both regarded Ego as obstructive. However:

The Freudian ego becomes obstructive when it represses id impulses under pressure from the superego guided by ideals that are commonly of religious origin. Sankara, too, views the role of ahamkara as obstructive, but the obstruction is in preventing the experience of the true Self in higher states of consciousness, and not in fulfilling desires for pleasure.

One key difference between the two schools- Sankhya-Yoga and Advaita- is that while the former holds mind to be real, proponents of Advaita consider mind a part of illusory world, and therefore unreal. While on the pragmatic level (vyavaharikta), mind remains essential for perception, rationalisation, decision and determination; in the Turiya (fourth) state of consciousness, when the true self is revealed as pure consciousness, mind dissolves. The constant fluctuations of mind – manovrittis - along with its ultimate dissolution imply its transience and anything that is transient and therefore not immutable and unchanging, is considered to be unreal in Advaita. The pure consciousness, that illuminates the Buddhi, and through the Buddhi, manas, and through manas, the senses, is held to be the sole reality. The differences between Sankhya-Yoga and Advaita are thus, more ontological (relating to definitions of reality) rather than psychological. 

NYAYA-VAISHESHIKA THEORY OF MIND

Although the Sankhya-Yoga and Advaita Vedanta tradition are said to be represent the ‘dominant trend in Indian tradition’, there were other equally important theories regarding the nature of mind and self. Nyaya-Vaisheshika school represents one such thread. Though Nyaya and Vaisheshika sects began as two independent systems, by the 10th century, owing to their shared presumptions and arguments, they came to be regarded as one system. Gautam’s Nyaya Sutra and Kanad’s Vaisheshika Sutra are the foundational texts for both.

Naiyayikas and Vaisheshikas, both consider Atman to be eternal but individualistic. Every individual has a soul but unlike the monistic interpretations of Upanishads, there is no ‘collective’ cosmic self. Further, the mind is also considered ‘eternal.’ In the process of transmigration of souls, it is mind that carries the karma from one body to another. Paradoxically, while the ‘eternity’ of mind implies its disassociation from the physical body, it is still considered to be a sense organ and not a function or a process. But then, what explains the processes of cognition, volition and determination? Can these be attributes of a sense-organ? Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophers argue that cognition is an attribute of the self and not manas. Further, the shared existence of mind and the self makes the functions of volition and determination possible:

All psychological functions such as awareness, emotion, and volition do not belong either to the self or the mind, but manifest when they are together. While there can be no awareness or consciousness without the self (ātman), consciousness itself is not the essence of the self, but arises as an attribute of ātman in its association with the mind.

This togetherness of both is also held to be the reason for the individuality and unique-ness of each person. The ultimate goal of humans is to sever this connection and free the Atman from the bondage of mind. ‘Moksha is the pure state of the self (ātman) devoid of its entanglement with the mind.’ As long as this ‘entanglement’ continues, the self remains bound to the cycle of rebirth. The path to Moksha is a three staged process- moral actions and restraining hedonistic impulses (Dharma), knowing the ultimate truth about the self through study and reflection and finally, meditating on the ultimate truth leading to its realization. The crucial difference between Nyaya-Vaisheshika system and other schools discussed previously is that, the self here is not conceived as consciousness itself. Rather, consciousness is an attribute of the self, and not its substance. The very notion of consciousness in Nyaya is not that of ‘pure consciousness’ of Sankara but the empirical consciousness or ‘intentional awareness.’

To sum up:

It appears that the differences between Nyāya and other orthodox systems in this respect is more conceptual than substantive. Consciousness as-such, Brahman in Advaita and puruṣa in Yoga, is attributed by Nyāya thinkers to the self (ātman). The agentic aspect of ātman comes to the fore and consciousness becomes its essential attribute. Again, the mind (manas) is a somewhat restricted or narrowed Antahkarana or citta in Yoga. Some of the functions of the buddhi in Advaita/Yoga are attributed to the self in Nyāya. Further, whereas the mind is seen in its functional aspects in Advaita as well as Yoga, it is considered a substance, an organ, an entity in Nyāya.

CONCLUSION

From the brief overview of Indian psychological thought that preceded, some fundamental axioms about Indian psychological thought and its divergence from West can be easily gleamed. The debate over mind-body complex that intrigued West for centuries and is still unresolved seems almost absent in India. To the Western mind, the problem was to identify either the mind or the body as the self. ‘If mind is pure body, then the problem of will cannot be solved. If it is pure self, the problem of physical perception remains unsolved.’ Indians ‘avoided this pitfall’ by recognizing Self as something distinct from both Mind and Body. The pure consciousness, in its different variations of Atman or Purusha became the ultimate cognizer. 

This introduction of a more fundamental level of cognition and awareness, deeper than that of ‘intellect’ or ‘mind’, had an indirect consequence as well. It gave mind or manas the secondary treatment that it gets in Indian psychology, relevant only to the extent it is instrumental in realization of Ultimate Self. When the experience of pure-consciousness was an option, rather a goal of human life, the transient, shifting and painful fluctuations in ‘mind-stuff’ were not to be regarded as final. When conflicted with painful emotions or thoughts, or suffering from an externally caused misery (death of a loved one, for instance), Indian mind could remind itself of a higher reality. However, unlike the ‘kingdom of God’ in Abrahamic religious traditions, this higher reality was not to be waited for till the end of temporal existence. Neither was it determined by the ‘grace’ of a super natural deity. The agency of the individual himself in bringing about that state of bliss was kept intact and repeatedly emphasised with the notion of Karma and Sadhna. Even the unconscious aspect, that of Sadhna and Vasanas, i.e., the remnants of previous births regarded as ‘great obstacles to ascetic contemplative life’ were not beyond delimitation and unconditioning. With rightful action and spiritual practises, the psychological stability and detachment as an anti-dote to existential suffering could be attained by anyone. In this inclusivity lies the most important contribution of Indian thought. Indian psychology, therefore, proves to be an avenue with exciting possibilities and immense relevance to the modern world.

REFERENCES

1. Channakeshavan, S. (1960). The concept of mind in Indian philosophy. Asia Publishing House, p. 8

2. Eliade, M. (1969). The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion. The University of Chicago Press.

3. Prasad, J. (1939). Indian Epistemology. Motilal Banarsidas, p. 29

4. Ramakrishna Rao, S. K. (2008). Introducing Indian Psychology. In Ramakrishna Rao, S. K., Paranjape, A. & Dalal, A. K. (Eds) Handbook of Indian Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 7

5. Ramachandra Rao, S. K. (1962). Development of Psychological Thought in India. Mysore Kavyalaya Publishers. https://archive.org/details/DevelopmentOfPsychologicalThoughtInIndiaS.K.RamachandraRao

6. Rhys, D. (1936). The Birth of Indian Psychology and its Development in Buddhism. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.222060