What then the toys of men?
We have classified and categorized,
We move faster than the lions,
Cut through the skies above,
Dive so deeply in the ocean,
But we have forgotten how to love.
What then the dreams of men?
Planning and negotiating,
We have built the tallest buildings,
Sent out missions to the stars,
Everyone tries to be a success,
But we have forgotten who we are.
What then the works of men?
Building up and breaking down,
We created all the boundaries,
Yet we wonder where peace has gone,
We cannot see the destination,
We have forgotten where we are from.
What then the words of men?
Ancient volumes and sacred texts,
Mountains of information.
What then the lives of men?
It’s the love-link that’s missing.
The bridges had been breached,
Sure we’d crawled across our history,
Scrambling orphans in the dust,
Tired and trembling and broken down,
We’d forgotten Who to trust.
SOUL – The Strangest Truth
You, the eternal, imperishable soul read these words,
Through eye-windows you gaze,
From the bones and flesh.
Matter has placed on you.
Things, made of matter are not for their ownselves
Mind and intellect are not products or evolutes of gross or subtle Matter, they are different from the body-system, including the brain and its functions.
Mind and intellect are the names of the abilities and functions of thinking, imagining, understanding, judging, feeling etc. and these pertain to the soul.
Actions done by the soul leave impressions on it and these form the tendencies, traits, proclivities, outlook, attitudes, urges, impulses or resolves, i.e. Sanskars of the soul and go with it when the soul leaves one body and takes another. No doubt the genes have, coded in them, the blue-print of the growth and development of the body and the personality or what is called the hereditary traits yet what kind and quality of genes a person will inherit is determined by the soul’s actions and works and the resulting traits and tendencies, i.e. Sanskars, formed in its previous life or lives.
The instruments are always meant for a conscient user
It is a matter of everyday observance that all inanimate things, e.g., instruments and machines are not meant for their ownselves but for a conscient user. For instance, the telephone does not exist for its own sake but is there to be of use to men. He who speaks or hears by means of the instrument, called the telephone, is a human being, apart from the instrument itself. Similarly, man’s ears, mouth and other organs are not for their own selves, but for use by the soul whose own existence is distinct from that of the ears or the mouth.
Similarly, a house is not meant for its own sake, but is built for use by a living being. And, the chairs and the tables in that house are also for the purpose and use of conscient beings. So, if there is no conscient entity, distinct from the body, the latter cannot be proved to have any utility or purpose. Then we may ask: “Is the body there only for its own sake?” No, that cannot be. Just as the existence of the house or the tables and chairs therein is a conclusive proof of the existence of a conscient person who lives in that house and uses the said chairs, is a different entity, apart from the house or those chairs, so does the existence of the body prove that the entity that uses or rests in the body is a conscient person, entirely different and apart from what is known as the body.
A house is cleaned and fans and lights are put on and arrangement for cold drinking water is made- all this is done to meet the purpose of a living and thinking being. Exactly, in the same manner, there are, for the sake of the living being in body, anyone or more or all of the processes going on in the body, e.g. the respiratory and digestive processes, the coursing of blood, and other activities going on in this ‘house’ which is the tabernacle of the conscient being. That entity is called: ‘the soul’. When it leaves the body, all the bodily processes are ended simply because the one for whom these processes went on is no longer there in the body. When there is no one living in the house, for whom should the fan be working or the fire be lit or the rooms be lighted? Even so, when the soul has left the body, all its activities come to an end.
We may put this in another way. When a house tumbles down or when there is no proper and convenient means of ventilation, lighting etc. man simply leaves this house. So isthe case with the body. When the body’s condition is such that the soul’s essential activities do not go on in the right manner, and the soul feels inconvenience or pain, the soul quits it.
The objects experienced are different from the Experiencer
Consider the question of the existence of soul in another way. The world is replete with numberless things for man’s enjoyment. Fruits, flowers, vegetables, grains etc. make a long list of these things. Are those for their own sake? Never does a fruit eat itself nor water does bathe in itself to feel refreshed. In all cases, it is something conscient that finds its purpose served by these things. Just as other material things are meant for use of conscient beings, so also the body, that is made of Matter for the purpose of the sentient beings. Hence it is that a conscient entity experiences joy or sorrow which comes through the agency of the body. Not the body but the soul is that experiences delight arising from enjoyment of material things of various things. In short, the body is the object or the means while the soul is the subject, the experiencer. So the soul and the body are two distinct entities.
Further, we should know that these material things cannot think either about their own future or their past- what they were in the past and what form they would take in future. Again these material things do not have an inherent ability to view things from all points-of-view and to deduce underlying springs of action. They have to be programmed for a special purpose by a conscient being. The Tape-recorder or the computer cannot understand bliss, much less realise and experience it. ‘Love’, ‘self-sacrifice’, ‘renunciation’, ‘dedication’, or ‘surrender to God’ have no meaning and no practical utility for a computer nor a dvd nor computer does ever think of getting liberated as some souls make efforts for getting liberated from the body and the brain. Nor does a computer ever feel weightlessness, enlightenment or separation from the body as the souls do by means of practice of Raj Yoga or Spiritual Meditation.
Also, the machine may not understand the ideas behind an action. We will make the above point clear by another example. When a hand is laid on one of the pans of a weighing scale, it will show that the pan is heavy with a load, but it cannot express or indicate that the hand was laid on it by chance or with a purpose or because of some other consideration. But whatever is conscient reveals this. For instance, when someone from behind lays his hand over one’s head, the latter begins to think why the former put his hand over his head. He can judge or guess whether this hand was laid on his head to bless him, to press his head with the hand to give him ease, or with a view to insulting him. Not only can it judge the other man’s action in this manner but it can also feel the motive of blessing etc. of the other man.
Hence, it is plain that the ability of experiencing is not in the brain. The soul it is that thinks and feels. It is distinct from the body and the brain. It is eternal and the word ‘I’ stands for the soul.
Mental and Emotional Disturbances
But one may ask: “Why do physical and mental ailments sometimes cause emotional disturbances like fear, suspicion, irritation, etc. ? Is it the soul or the brain that suffers these?
The physical body, the brain, the genes, the chromosomes, blood and other constituents of the body are the medium through which the soul expresses its will. A disturbance in the medium disturbs the expression, just in the same manner as a defective radio-receiving-set disturbs the reception of the voice and brings out a jarring sound or an interrupted sound instead of a really nice song. So it should be borne in mind that emotional and psychological impressions pertain to the soul and not to the body but the brain cells and certain glands and nerves get affected because of soul’s emotions, and in turn, affect the soul’s expression of its emotions.
In short, it should be clearly understood that there are two eternal entities the Matter and the Soul-(Mind being only a faculty of the soul). Matter or Prakriti lends its services to the soul, i.e. Purusha. Matter is not capable of visualising the future or planning for it nor is it capable of brooding over the past because it lacks in the ability to think and in the angle of vision and in extracting the pro found good out of any action, nor can it feel the effects. Mind or Intellect are not any subtle, internal, material organs but are various names of the faculties of the soul as the following analogy will explain.
Mind and Intellect are not internal organs but faculties of the Soul
All of us know that electricity is a kind of energy. When it is used in a kitchen to cook food, we call this electricity as ‘Heat’. This very electrical energy serves to cool when used in refrigirator and it gives light through a bulb. When it works or moves our machines, we call it as ‘power’. Welll, it is the same energy in all these cases, but because of being put to different uses or to works of different nature, it has been differently named as Power, Light, Coolness and Heat. Exactly in the same manner, when the spiritual energy that the soul is i.e. when the power of consciousness that the soul is, expresses itself in the form of a Wish, Volition, Will, Attention, Feeling or Thought, we say that our Mind is working. When it expresses itself in the form of understanding, reasoning or judgement we say that our Intellect is working and when it appears n the form of memory, we say that our Chitta is at work. So they are only different manifestations of ‘consciousness’ of the soul.
Truth about the mind and the intellect
On the basis of the knowledge, imparted to us by God and on grounds explained in the previous pages, we can say confidently that the mind and the intellect are not entities separate from the soul nor are thse material adjuncts of the soul nor another name for any physical and subtle sheath but they are the soul’s abilities to perceive, to experience, to attend, to be aware and to think. And the brain, the nervous system the biochemical changes are only instrumental in the manifestation of these. Mind, Intellect etc. are the names given to these forms or expressions of the soul’s own consciousness.
The soul that resides in the body is a self-luminous point, minuter than the minutest, without beginning in time, and is eternal, and the Mind and the Buddhi are there, for they are the very sentience of a soul. Taking Mind and Intellect as distinct from the soul and as forms of Matter, is to deny the existence of the soul, because without sentience or consciousness as its nature, an entity cannot be called ‘soul’. In reality, in this minute point-the soul-all the thoughts, feelings and impressions of all the existences of the soul so far, comprehended to become, as it were, a part of it, and yet invisible and unmanifest. This is the starngest truth which the Supreme Soul Shiva has made us understand through the mouth of Prajapita Brahma.
Incidents of Re-birth Prove the Existence of the Soul
Biologists, neurologists, and psychologists, who believe that there is no soul or non-material Mind but only brain, are unable to explain the stories of re-birth, which can be verified by anyone. These lead one to believe that there is an eternal entity, called soul which does not die when the body dies. This entity is not physical or material in its nature but is superphysical, metaphysical, or spiritual. We cannot understand the order of the universe and the purpose of life unless and until we understand and believe that soul exists.
Out-Of-The Body Experience
Brahma Baba, the founding father of Brahma Kumaris institution, had, at one time, before he founded the great Institution, a vision of a human soul, moving out of the body at a tremendous speed and disappearing from the psychic vision in a split second. This was the soul that, in the embodied state, was known to people as Kaka Mool Chand, the maternal uncle of Dada Lekhraj-as erstwhile Baba was known. ( Ek Adbhut Jewan Kahani, Brahma Kumaris, Mt. Abu) Kaka Mool Chand was a philanthropist and a dealer in articles, made of ivory, and passed away when Dada was out of the town. Dada saw this vision in a distant city. This vision supported Dada’s belief, held by him earlier, that the soul is eternal and immortal.
We have also heard Brahma Baba explaining personally how he left his own gross body and, becoming discarnate, attained the holy, angelic, clairvoyant stage after facing briefly his physical indisposition. And now, he comes among us and, along with Shiv Baba, he imparts to us nectarian knowledge of high virtues and excellence of manners.
These instances of becoming discarnate, besides many others of like nature, prove, beyond an iota of doubt, the fundamental truth of soul’s existence in the body, its after-life and out-of-body existence. One such event was reported by Sir Auckland Geddes (Dr. Geddes was knighted in 1977 and was elevated to the peerage in 1942) before the Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh on February 26, 1937. We will reproduce here-below an excerpt from it. This speaks of the experience of a man who passed through the gateway of death but, sometime later, came back to life. Medical Treatment might have been one of the tactors that brought him back to his body. The record of the experience of this man was taken down in shorthand by a proficient secretary as the soul was rehabilitating itself in the body. Here is the excerpt:-
On Saturday, November 9th, a few minutes after midnight, I began to feel very ill, and by 2 O’ clock, was definitely suffering from acute gastro-enteritis, which kept me vomiting and purging until about 8 O’ clock… By 10 O’ clock, I had developed all the symptoms of very acute poisoning; intense gastro-intestinal pain, diarrhoea; pulse and respirations becoming quite impossible to count. I wanted to ring for assistance, but found I could not, and so quite placidly gave up the attempt. I realised I was ill and very quickly realised my whole economic position : thereafter, at no time did my consciousness appear to me to be in any way dimmed, but I suddenly realized that my consciousness was seperating from another consciousness, which was also me. Foe purposes of description, we could call them ‘A’ and ‘B’ consciousness, and throughout what follows, the ego attached itself to the ‘A’ consciousness. The ‘B’ personality, I recognized as belonging to the body, and as my physical condition grew worse and heart was fibrillating rather than beating, I realised that the ‘B’ consciousness, belonging to the body, was beginning to show the signs of being composite, that is built up of “consciousness” from the head, the heart, and viscera etc. These components became more individual and the ‘B’ consciousness began to disintegrate, and the ‘A’ consciousness which was nom me, seemed to be altogether outside my body, which I could see.
Gradually, I realised that I could see not only my body and the bed in which it was, but everything in the house and garden, and then I realised that I was seeing not only things at home but in London, in Scotland, infact wherever my attention was directed it seemed to me;…… I next realised that my vision not only included “things” in the ordinary three-dimensional world, but also things in these four or more dimensional places that I was in….
Just as I began to grasp all these, I saw “A” enter my bedroom; I realized she got a terrible shock, and I saw her hurry to the telephone; I saw my doctor leave his patients and come very quickly; and heard him quite clearly speaking to me on the bed, but I was not in touch with the body and could not answer him. I was really cross when he took a syringe and rapidly injected my body with something which afterwards I learnt was camphor. As the heart began to beat more strongly, I was drawn back, and I was intensely annoyed, because I was so interested and just beginning to understand where I was and I was “seeing”. I came back into the body really angry at being pulled back, and once I was back, all the clarity of vision of anything and everything disappeared, and I was just possessed of a glimmer of consciousness which was suffused with pain.” (The Scotsman, Feb 26, 1937)
1. The above report shows that consciousness can function outside the body. The patient has narrated that he saw his body as distinct from himself. He also saw “things” at home and, miles away, in Scotland and in London and wherever his attention was directed. This means that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon. It is neither a biochemical product nor it is a result of the work of brain. Not only can one think and feel but also ‘see’ and ‘hear’ outside the body for the report says that the patient heard the doctor saying: “He is nearly gone”. This evidence indicates that the reticular activating system (RAC) is only an instrument for receiving the external stimuli and sending the messages to the brain in the form of coded electrical impulses but, otherwise, it is this conscious person which really takes cognizance of the impulses and this person is called soul.
2. Highest mentation when there is lowest cerebration.
Another important thing worth noting is that because of an arhythmic condition of the heart, called Fibrillation, the heart could not maintain the normal circulation of blood throughout the body and, under this condition, brain anaemia naturally occurs. And finally, the brain ceases to function normally. In other words, cerebration either stops or is at its lowest ebb. So, if consciousness were a brain function, it should now have been at its lowest ebb or should have extremely dimmed, but on the contrary, we find, from the report that as cerebration lessened consciousness so increased that the patient could see and hear from a great distance. This, therefore, clearly establishes that consciousness is the inherent attribute of an entity that is separate from the brain and can exist in discarnate form with higher stage of awareness.
3. Consciousness is limited by the brain
Since the patient has reported that the clarity of his vision and audience etc. dimmed when the discarnate conscient person was sucked back into the body, due to its having been revived, by means of an injection, it shows that the brain limits the consciousness when the soul functions through it. The brain enables it to have experience of only three-dimensional objects, whereas the objects outside the body, the soul can have multi-dimensional experience and can also have clairvoyance.
4. Thought and Volition are functions of the Soul
Since the patient could see, hear and feel angry while he was discarnate, i.e. outside the body, the fact is established that thought, perception, feeling, volition, memory etc. are non-cerebral functions. It is not the brain that thinks and wills.
Further, the fact that the patient was unwilling to return to the body, shows that volition, or ‘will’ pertains to the entity that can exist outside the body and is conscient.
5. The soul takes with it the past impressions
Since the patient had the memories of the past, such as how he had vomitted and purged and felt pain etc., and also he was angry when the doctor injected camphor and he was ‘sucked back’ into the body, it shows that the soul takes with it the impressions (Sanskars) of its thoughts, feelings, and acts which may be dormant-as they do in most cases-or become manifest.
Though all these facts are very clear, yet when people of medical profession, or those who are well-versed in psychology, are confronted with such reports, they are unable to arrive at the conclusion that, besides the body, there is another entity, in which inheres the consciousness which manifests in the form of Will, Thought, Emotion, Memory etc. But they have no material to deny the truth. If, however, one considers the cases, as the one reported above, without any bias, one will find that no other hypothesis but only the existence of soul can explain such cases of discarnate consciousness and clairvoyance adequately and consistently.
Some, however, raise the objection that the travelling clairvoyance, etc. are hallucinations. In other words, the patient in the above case was not outside the body but his consciousness had separated temporarily from his habitation. This objection, however, is unsustainable because, in hallucination, one does not become clairvoyant.
It is the Eternal Soul which attains Knowledge
In order to judge whether there is a soul, we have to see whether there is a conscient or sentient entity that has its existence apart from the body. One of the ways of enquiring into this can be to see whether the person, who perceives, observes, understands or learns is an eternal being. If there is an eternal being, then the existence of the soul would, at least theoretically, be a proved fact, because the body is mortal. Now in order to examine whether, in principle, the existence of an eternal being is necessary to our life as we live it, we may examine, for instance, how we learn, for learning is an important act of conscient being.
So, let us consider, for a moment, how we acquire knowledge. The view commonly held is that knowledge originates from observation. But, in fact, this is only partly true for, in actual practice, knowledge is always a modification of or addition to our earlier knowledge, however crude, rudimentary, elementary or full of gaps our previous knowledge might be. If there were no earlier knowledge, an observation, by itself, would not lead to any new knowledge. In fact, without previous knowledge, observations in the usual sense of the term, would not even exist, for, without earlier knowledge, one would not have the wherewithal to understand or interpret what one observes.
Now, if our this view about acquisition of knowledge is correct, as in fact it is, then it evidently leads to infinite regress, for our present knowledge is due to modification of or addition to our previous knowledge and our previous knowledge was, in its turn, due to modification of or addition to still previous knowledge so on ad infinitum. Thus, in final analysis, our knowledge ultimately goes back to some in-born basic knowledge-potential. Considered thus, we arrive at the conclusion that, besides the brain, there is some unborn, primeval, self-conscient, knowledgeable eternal entity, called soul.
Let us consider a concrete example. A boy goes to a zoo. When he reaches a particular cell and observes the animal therein, his guide tells him: ‘this is a camel’. Now since the boy has earlier knowledge of other animais-a horse, a dog, a buffalo for instance-he acquires the knowledge of what a camel looks like, by applying some modifications or additions to his previous knowledge of other animals. This process of acquisition of knowledge has been going on since early childhood so that one would have to admit of some previous knowledge-potential even at that age and pre-natal stage or the stage before birth.
This leads us to the conclusion that there is an eternal conscient entity, called ‘The soul’.
Propensities or tendencies exist as eternal nature or Sanskars of the Soul
That the souls are eternal, can be proved by means of another premise also. Since every person is born in a family different from that of the other, and has different idiosyncracy, mental constitution, complexion and form of body, and is born in different environments and to parents having different monetary conditions etc. as compared to others, his differences must be explicable on the basis of certain spiritual laws.
The Gita explains that the manifestation or descent of a soul in a particular body, family and environment depends upon the soul’s earlier impressions or pre-dispositions, resulting from the past birth. According to the Gita, the next life of a being is determined by what resolves he has at the time of its death. Thus, each birth can be explained on the basis of the understanding that the same soul has taken several births in the past. Therefore, if we go on considering births in continual regression, the series will extend to infinity. For, this birth is due to some pre-dispositions resulting from the past births which again are each due to certain pre-dispositions and so on ad infinitum. Our consideration of the cause, underlying each birth, will lead us, at last, to the time when the soul first descended from its unmanifest abode (Brahm), called the Soul-World.
But the Gita points out that even the first birth also was according to the soul’s nature or Swa-bhava (Propensities peculiar to the self). For, though at the end of one World Cycle (Kalpa), the souls get emancipation from their past vicious actions and abide in the Soul World in a state characterised by ‘stillness’ or tranquility of mind, yet the Swa-bhava (nature) of each individual soul persists to be, however in the latent form.
Therefore, it should be remembered that the individual nature, impressions, inclinations, tendencies, etc. are the eternal bearing of the soul. From the time a soul descends on this World Drama Stage, its latent thoughts or desires and ideas or idola begin manifesting. Since then, there continues to be a constant transflux of thoughts or volition so that, by the end of the World Cycle or Kalpa the whole chain of the merged Sankalpas (thoughts) having been completed or fully transmitted and manifested in the creative play of this Field-of-Action, the soul starts again, in the next kalpa, from the chain of its merged thoughts began manifesting in the Previous Kalpa-the World Cycle. Thus the repetition goes on endlessly in cycles.
As such, the thoughts or volitions (Sankalpas) and inclinations are eternally the part and parcel of every soul and, in this sense, every thought or act of the soul is reflexive. This also shows that the souls are eternal so that they do not start learning from a zero level.
Instincts prove that Soul is Eternal
The concepts of instincts of curiosity, gregariousness, self-preparation etc. which many psychologists have discussed, can also be properly understood if the soul is considered as eternal, for these instincts cannot be considered to have origin. McDonald and others who have discussed the subject in detail, have expressed the opinion that one cannot trace when the instincts are born; they are inherent though, sometimes, latent. Considering all these factors, one comes to the conclusion that souls are eternal and plural or many, and each has its own latent potentialities.
Having understood, in this way, that the self is an eternal entity, different from the body, one should be soul-conscious, for body-consciousness is based on ignorance and therefore is the root of all sufferings. One should have this consciousness: I am eternal and immortal. I am non-physical and am a self-luminous entity. I am a point of conscious light who can elevate myself by attaining righteous knowledge.
Body and Mind or Consciousness
There has been an age old controversy about whether the body and mind are two separate entities or Mind is the epiphenomenon of the body, its nervous system and the brain. In the east, the sages pondered over this question deeply, and on various counts, came to the conclusion that there is, in every living body, a conscient being or personality or experient which continues to exist even after the body is cremated. They called it: Aatma, Purusha, or Kshetrajna i.e; the self or the indwelling soul. In the west also, many philosophers have discussed the question threadbare and have given weighty arguments to establish the reality of existence of a conscious person, apart from the body. Since the question of the existence of the metaphysical entity, called Mind or Soul, is very important, it would be beneficial to consider it once again in the light of modern science.
In the Light of Modern Science
Physiology tells us that bodies are made up of cells which, in turn, are constituted of molecules. It further states that the cells of our body are constantly changing so that, in a period of about seven years, the old cells change so enormously that, at the end of that period, one can say that all those cells have been ‘replaced’ by new ones. There is now not a single cell in one’s body which there was seven years ago. (Annie Besant, Psychology, 2nd Edition, Los Angles, California: Theosophical Publishing House, 1919) Thus, body is not the same as it was seven, fourteen or twenty years ago. For example, at my physical age of 50 years, my body has undergone atleast seven ‘renovations’. During this period, there have been enormous changes in my brain cells also. But, as far as my consciousness (implied by the words, I am) is concerned, I feel the same person as I am seven, fourteen or twenty years ago. I remember the friends when my body was 7 years old or the books I read when the body was 14 years of age, and this evidently, implies that one same conscient entity (which I am) has continued to exist throughout this period. This therefore, shows that ‘Consciousness’ and ‘Body’ are two different entities and that while the latter changes, grows or decays with age, the former maintains its continuity. Contrariwise, if a person be considered as a mere body (brain included), the fact of his continuous identity and continuous consciousness cannot be explained, for the cells of his brain and body have changed tremendously after every seven years.
Furthermore, one can clearly observe that body and consciousness are two entirely different realities, for, while the body tires, the consciousness does not, it may however get bored only. The body may get exhausted of physical energy whereas the Mind or consciousness may feel inexhaustibleness of physical, meta-physical or spiritual energy and may, in fact, grow with the years. While the body ages with years, the Mind gets only wiser or more experienced. The heart, which is the part of the body, may grow weaker with age, but the consciousness or Mind may grow in its power to love or hate. Thus, the two are different entities; whereas the body is cellular and molecular, i.e. physical and is subject to laws of chemistry and physics and physiology, the Mind, Consciousness or Soul is psychic, spiritual or metaphysical.
Medical and Clinical Evidence supports this truth
Some people believe that consciousness is a product of the brain, but if we study clinical and medical cases of patients who suffered brain injuries, or disease, we come to the conclusion that the medical evidence also supports the fact that consciousness is a separate entity. Vincent H. Gaddis, in his article, entitled ‘With the Brain Destroyed, They Live and Think’, in an issue of the Fate magazine, has given many examples of persons, who, with their brains either partially or fully destroyed, continued to think and live normally.
Mr. Phineas Gage, a rail road foreman, who, while charging a hole with powder, preparatory to blasting, suffered the accident of having a three-and-a-half feet long tamping bar driven completely through his skull. Mr Gaddis says that the bar “passed through the left anterior lobe of the cerebrum and made its exit at the junction of coronal and sagital surtures, fracturing the parietal and frontal bones and breaking up considerable portion of the brain.” When the bar was removed, it left behind it a hole, three-and-a-half inches in diameter and yet Mr Phineas Gage, the rail road worker did not lose his consciousness. On the contrary, he walked a considerable distance for obtaining medical aid. It is recorded that he remained sensible and rational until recovery and remained normally afterwards, for many years. To-day, the original bar, together with a cast of the skull of Mr Phineas Gage, is on exhibition in the Harvard University Medical Museum.
Prof. G. W. Surya reported the case of a man who had been insane for many years but who suddenly became normal a little before his death. Prof. Surya says that “The autopsy revealed that there was practically nothing of the brain left in his brain pan. A pathological process had gradually destroyed its substance, but the mystery of his return to his normalcy remained unexplained.” (Quoted by Vincet H. Gaddis)
In Dr. Gustave Geley’s book, “From Unconscious to the Conscious”, is mentioned the case of a young boy who died in full possession of mental faculties, although, due to an active abcess, involving the entire cerebellum, this encephalic mass was completely detached from the bulb- which is a condition equivalent to literal decapitation. Dr. Gustave has given many such cases in his books which leads one to infer that there is conscient entity apart from the brain and that brain is only an instrument or a mere switch board.
The clincher proof which can settle the controversy at rest and can clearly establish that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of brain is the example of Amoeba. Amoeba has no brain nor does it have any special organ for remembering. But, it is a known fact that, in its own way it has memory wherefore it can learn it cn learn, though after several repetitions, to approach its food and avoid irritants. Mast and Pusch in their work ‘Modification of Response in the Amoeba’ have stated that Amoeba learns wherefore it gets used to certain stimulations. Thus it is clear that the soul can think, feel, remember and learn even without a brain though brain is a useful instrument for better manifestation through the body. It would, therefore, be wrong to say that consciousness is a product or an epiphenomenon of the brain. Consciousness, in truth, is an attribute or manifestation of soul.
The Thought and The Thinker
The existence of Thoughts, Ideas and Consciousness is an indubitable fact of human experience. Every human being thinks and every living being has consciousness and, therefore, the existence of Consciousness and Thoughts is a well-established and irrefutable fact of life. Every human being has atleast some knowledge, and knowledge can be stated, in simple terms, as a system of ideas, concepts, thoughts and experience. So, the existence of knowledge implies and proves the existence of ideas, concepts, thoughts and experience.
But, Thoughts and Ideas, or Concepts and Knowledge, or Experience and Perceptions are not physical things. Their existence is not like the existence of a chair or a motor car. Chair and car occupy space but Thoughts and Ideas are spaceless. Chair and car deteriorate with the passage of time; they get worn out and, ultimately, get destroyed. But ideas and concepts may not necessarily get destroyed or emaciated by Time. Instead they may get more currency and may become more known in course of time.
Again, a chair or a car may be destroyed by means of fire, or by being hammered into bits and pieces, but ideas are such subtle and non-physical entities that they cannot thus be destroyed. Infact, if a person tries to destroy an idea, a concept, or a system of Thought and Knowledge by opposing, refuting, criticising, resisting, ridiculing or contesting it, it is likely that it gets more publicity and will spread more widely and gets deeper and firmer roots. If we don’t make any attempt to wreck the car or the chair, it is likely to stay intact but silence, non-action, oblivion, over-look or non-discussion of an idea may kill and may wreck it. Thus, the existence of Thoughts and Ideas, or Concepts and Knowledge of Perceptions and experience is unlike the physical existence. It is metaphysical in its nature. Thoughts and Ideas are relatively more permanent and lasting. One may destroy a chair but one cannot easily destroy the idea of a chair. That is why one is heard saying: “You can kill me but you cannoy kill my beliefs”.
Let us give some more points of contrast between the nature of existence of these two entities so as to make the matter more clear:
If I think a thought again and again, it gets well set. If I use an idea again and again, it gets more mature. But the more I use a chair or a car, the more is the wear and tear. Physical things get more emasculated by more use whereas Thoughts and Ideas get more clear, deep and strenghend by more and better usage.
Secondly, if I give away my chair or my car to someone, it no longer remains with me. But, if I think loudly unto others or if I pass on my knowledge to other people, my knowledge remains undiminished. If I spend money, I am left with that much less but if I spend my knowledge, I do not lose even a small fraction of it. Rather, I should say that knowledge increases by expenditure. More and more people to possess knowledge without my losing even a small bit. Evidently Thoughts and Ideas, or Knowledge and Experience are metaphysical entities. So, they are not and cannot be the by-products of either the brain or the body.
Thoughts and Ideas are not by-products of the Brain
But there are people who say that thought is an epiphenomenon of the brain or a by-product of some processes in the brain-tissue. For example, Carl Vogt has said that Thoughts are the secretions of the brain as bile is a secretion of the liver! Obviously, people who have this belief, fail to appreciate the fact that brain is a physical entity which operates according to the laws of physics and chemistry whereas Thoughts and Ideas are nonphysical or metaphysical realities and, therefore, the brain cannot produce the Thoughts because of this great incompatibility of their very nature. If thoughts and ideas were physical entities, we should expect them to conform to physio-chemical laws but they do not because they do not have physical existence. There is another of understanding this truth.
Those who believe in the cerebrocentric theory i.e. those who hold the view that ideas are production of the brain, say that every Idea, Thought or Experience corresponds to some synaptic connection in the brain. In other words, for every Idea, Thought or Experience there should be some related synapse in the brain. But Thoughts, Ideas, Perceptions and Experiences are infinite. Does one have infinite synaptic connections in the brain? No.
There is no doubt that the neurological capacities in the human brain are almost astronomical. The Physiologists say that every one of us possesses around ten billion brain cells and that every one of these can be in relationship with as many as 25,000 others. Thus the number of possible associations is of the order of ten billion raised to the power- twenty five thousand- a quantity which, according to Physics, is larger than the number of atoms in the Universe, but it is not infinite as the number of Thoughts, Ideas etc. is. For example, the Mind can count to ten raised to the power of infinity but there aren’t as many corresponding synapses.
This is, however, not to deny that the function of thinking is connected with the brain but the ‘connection’ does not mean that it is the brain which produces the Thoughts even as the connection of light in a flourescent tube does not mean that it is the flourescent tube that produces light, or the connection of the movements of the wheels of a cycle with its pedals, flywheel and chain does not mean that it is the pedal or the flywheel or the chain that produces the movement. In the former case, we all know that, it is the Power House or the Electric Generator from which the electric current comes through it manifests in and through the medium of the florescent tube whereas, in the latter case, it is the rider who pedals the cycle. Likewise Thoughts, Ideas, Perceptions and Experiences manifest through the medium of the brain, the nervous system and the body but their source is the metaphysical soul.
Ouspensky has given another simile to explain this connection of Thoughts, Ideas, and Experience with the brain. He says that the brain is a sort of a prism and Thoughts, Ideas etc. are broken white light or psychic or spiritual energy, passing through it. (P.D. Ouspensky, Tertium Organnum, The Third Cannon of Thought, A Key to the Enigmas of the World, Third American Edition, New York) Ofcourse, this light or spiritual energy comes from the metaphysical entity, the soul.
Sir Charles Sherrington, in one of his lectures at Oxford University explained this connection by means of another beautiful simile. Says he: “….grown up with the animal, the brain fits the motor mechanism of the animal, as a key fits its lock.” (Vincent H. Gaddis has quoted this in ”With Brain Destroyed, They Live and Think”!)In this simile, it is, obviously, the Mind or the Soul which turns the key.
While this makes the relation between Thought and Brain amply clear, there are those who either assert that “Thought or Consciousness is but another name for subvocal speech” or a product of the molecular processes in the brain tissue or that ‘ideas are mere sensation’. We will first take up the former view.
Thoughts are not a product of Molecular Processes
It seems that those who consider Thought as subvocal speech or as a product of the molecular processes of the brain, perhaps, confuse the electrical impulse in the brain tissue as synonymous with the Thought or they identify Thought with those molecular processes which generate electrical impulses that are set up by the sensations. If these people keep in mind the difference between the physical and the meta-physical, they would fairly well appreciate that Thoughts are non-physical things and can, by no strtch of imagination, be identified with the electrical brain-impulses or molecular processes. Let us explain the difference by means of an analogy.
The musical notes from a guitar are produced by means of vibrating strings of the Guitar. But one should not forget that these are being produced by the Musician-the person who is playing the instrument. It would evidently wrong to say that the music is a product of the vibrating strings and that there is no producer apart from the Guitar. Likewise, the molecular processes and the electric brain-impulses are merely the vibrations whereas it is the soul which, like a musician, uses the brain as an instrument to produce, to interpret and to appreciate the Thought. To consider the Thought as the by-product of molecular processes or as sub-vocal speech in the form of electrical brain-impulses would be, as Mr. Paulsen says, merely tampering with language. We quote Paulsen more elaborately from C.J. Ducasse’s book. Ducasse has strongly refuted the view that Consciousness is the by-product of molecular processes. Here he quotes Paulsen:
“…no evidence ever is or can be offered to support the assertion, because it is infact but a disguised proposal to make the words ‘thoughts’, ‘feelings’, ‘sensations’, ‘desires’ and so on, denotes facts quite different from those which these words are commonly employed to denote. To say that those words are but other names for certain chemical or behavioral events is as grossly arbitrary as it would be to say that wood is but another name for glass, or potato but another name for cabbage. What thought, desire, sensation and other mental states are like, each of us can observe directly by introspection; and what introspection reveals is that they do not in the least become muscular contraction, or grandular secretion, or any other known bodily events. No tampering with language can alter the observable fact that thinking is one thing and muttering quite another; that the feeling called anger has no resemblance to the bodily behavior which goes with it; or that an act of will is not in the least like anything we find when we open the skull and examine the brain. Certain mental events are doubtless connected in some way with some bodily events but they are not those bodily events themselves; the connection is not identity.” (C.J. Ducasse: “The Emperical Case for Personal Survival, in Body, Mind and Death, New York, Cromwell Publishing Co)
Thoughts and Ideas are not Sensations
Now let us discuss the view of those who say that thoughts are nothing but sensations or sensory stimulations. Who can deny that even when our senses are not in contact with their objects and when there are no sense stimuli, we can and we do create mental images, make plans and have ideas? All our Thoughts and Ideas are not the result of stimulation of sensory messages or sensations. No doubt, sensations provide, i most cases, the raw material for thinking. But, Mind, Consciousness, or Soul has the power as well as the ability to reconstitute them into ideas. Or, Ideas may even suddenly flash on our Mind. Or, as we say, our Mind may hit upon an idea, formulate a concept, think deeply upon a sensation and may interpret a sensory message and yet decide to defer action on it. Thus, Thoughts and Ideas are a different order of existence; they are metaphysical in nature and, even though they are connected with sensations, they are not another name for sensations.
The difference will become more clear if we ponder over this question: “What sensations correspond to space, time and number? What sensation is the mathematical number 1 or 2 or 5?” Obviously, these and such other concepts, ideas or thoughts are not sensations. Man thinks, he is a thinker. It would be wrong to say that he merely senses. It is the soul which interprets, understands, appreciates and acts on the sensory messages or sensations.
This known fact is note-worthy that the cerebrum itself registers no sensation. It cannot sense and feel. For example, it cannot feel pain. No sensations can be aroused in the cerebrum. It would, therefore, be wrong to say that ideas are centrally aroused sensations. Well, even if they be, the question is who transforms these sensations into ideas? The answer would be that Mind, Psyche, Consciousness or Soul does it. So, Soul is an entity, different from the brain.
Is man a bundle of thoughts or an epiphenomenon of Brain?
Every human being thinks and is capable of thinking. Of this truth there can be no refutation. But the question is: “What is the relationship between the thought and the being?” In other words: “Is this being a thinker or he is merely an observer of Thought?” By understanding the relation between the Thought and the Being, we will be able to understand the nature of the Being or the Self.
Am I a Thinker or a Thought, a Perceiver or a Perception?
Descartes, a German Philosopher believed it is the being or the self that thinks. He thus proved the very existence of the soul on the premise that thought exists. He said: “cognito ergo sum”-”I think, therefore I am”.
However, David Hume, a famous British Philosopher refuted the above argument. Referring to Descartes and to other philosophers of his line of thinking, Hume says: There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its identity and simplicity… For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or the other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception and never can observe anything but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, so long I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions removed by death, and I could neither think nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate, after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor can I conceive what is further necessary to make me a perfect non-entity. If anyone, upon superior and unprejudiced reflections, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I am no longer be with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and we are essentially different in this particular. He may perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me. Setting aside some meta-physicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succed each other with inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. (Treatise of Human Nature, B.K. 1, Part 4)
So, to Hume, man is nothing but a bundle of different perceptions and thoughts.
Hume further says: “The man is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance, pass, repass, glide away and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one point, no identity… The comparison of the theatre must not mislead us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitute the mind; nor have we the most distant notion of the place where these scenes are represented, or of the materials of which it is composed.”
Thus, according to Hume, man is a kind of a theatre where perceptions of heat or cold, love or hatred, pain or pleasure pass, repass, glide away and conglomerate and yet Mind is not a place; it is constituted of successive perceptions only!
The Flaw in Hume’s Argument
It should not be difficult to understand where Hume, the philosopher, has erred. The basic flaw in his arguments is that he has made no distinction between the perceptions and the perceiver or the thoughts and the thinker. Hume wrongly considers the perceptions as the self or the mind whereas the truth remains that the mind or the self is the Perceiver or the Thinker. Perceptions or Thoughts are the manifestation of the Consciousness or awareness of the Self. Without a self-aware Mind, thoughts or perceptions cannot occur. Thoughts and perceptions are, so to say, the pulsations, vibrations, expressions, gesticulations of consciousness or the self, or they are the reception, registration or catchment of vibrations and stimuli. The difference between the Self (Thinker) and thought is as between a river and its waves or between the designer and a design or the doer and a deed, though this difference, is not to be understood in any gross sense. If Hume had not cast this difference away, under the influence of an impulse, as it were, he would have, like the meta physicians he has criticised, believed that there is a self or soul underlying all perceptions. Let us examine Hume’s statement.
The Self is also the Observer of Perceptions
Observe this statement of Hume: “I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but a perception.” This means that I am an observer of perceptions, or I am always with (i.e. never without) a perception. Evidently, it implies that I have my entity separate from the perceptions, for one who observes is different from that which is observed. Similarly, one who is himself with something is different from that something. The self is never without a perception because, perception is the ability of the conscient self but the self is not the perception even as good smell is a quality of a rose but rose is not the same thing as its smell.
If Hume had kept this in mind, he would not have stated that, during sound sleep the self may be said not to exist for, infact, the self is there but only perceptions, which are a function of the self, have ceased, or the self has ceased to observe perceptions. If a carpenter ceases to make furniture, it would not mean that carpenter has ceased to exist.
Further, who says: “I am certain there is no such principle in me.” To be certain, after observing many perceptions means that I am an observer of perceptions and, having observed, I think and formulate a conclusion. Evidently, this one who observes, applies rational sense and arrives at a decision, is not a perception but a perceiver and is also an observer of perceptions and is a thinker. When he is in sound sleep, he ceases to observe perceptions and to formulate conclusions but, nevertheless, he continues to exist, and can start from where he had left before sleep.
A Bundle or Collection of Perceptions is not Possible without the Self
In his statement, Hume asserts that the self is nothing but a bundle or collection of perceptions. But the question is: “If there is no permanent self to experience thoughts and perceptions and to notice the order or sequence in which one thought follows another, then who is it that comprehends the thoughts as a ‘collection’ or as a ‘bundle’ which terms imply more than one thought. Who is it that notices and says: “This thought had come to me previously also aand keeps coming to my mind again and again?”
Again, think on this statement of Hume: “When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, as long I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist.” The question may be asked: “If on falling asleep, one ceases to exist, who is it that, on waking up, says, for instance, before he went to sleep he had been thinking of writing an essay on the ‘Nature of Mind’? In other words, who is it that remembers what has been going on before sleep and who also states that he had a sound sleep? Evidently, there is a permanent self, who existed before the sleep and exists after the sleep and who has memory of the past events and has the ability to link that to the present, so that there is a contituity of thought process and there is also a personality, an individuality and the identity of being.
Hume tries to explain this continuity by saying that different perceptions succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity and are in a perpetual flux or movement. He gives the example of a theatre where scenes succeed with such rapidity that there seems to be continuity of the movement. Drops of water in a river also are divisible and separate but they seem unified because of flow. Thus, according to Hume, a steady flow creates the illusion of continuity. But the question is: “If the unity or continuity that is observed in all mental images is no more than the sum total of changing thoughts, then who suffers this illusion? Or who understands that this is an illusion? Moreover, who understands that continuity is due to rapid flow or succession of perceptions? Hume does not answer these questions.
Infact, there is a great inconsistency in his views. On the one hand, he says that each perception is independent of the other and that the continuity is a mere illusion, and on the other hand, he says that the self is a bundle of perceptions! He thus contradicts his own assertions.
Further, if one reads the above statements of Hume, substituting the words “a bundle or collection of different perceptions” for the words ‘I’ and ‘myself’ wherever these have been used, one will find that the statement becomes amusing. For instance, read the following:
“….When the bundle of perceptions enter most intimately into what the bundle of perceptions calls the bundle of perceptions, the bundle of perceptions always stumbles on some particular perception or other of heat or cold, light or shade… The bundle of perceptions can catch bundle of perceptions at any time without a perception. When bundle of perceptions are removed for anytime, as by sound sleep, so long bundle of perceptions is insensible of bundle of perceptions and may truly be said not to exist…”
We have replaced the words ‘I’ and ‘my’ in Hume’s statements with the words ’bundle of perceptions’ in consonance with Hume’s own conviction that the self or ‘I’ is a bundle of perceptions. Now this makes it clear that the existence of the self as an entity cannot be brushed aside without endangering the very meaningfulness of one’s statements or the validity of knowledge. The belief in the existence of soul is indispensable, for, without it, all statements would become redundant and ridiculous.
Memory cannot be explained in the absence of a permanent Self
We all know well that, besides the perceptions, every human being has memory. If there is only a rapid succession of perceptions then who has the memory or the faculty of recollection? Let us explain the question by means of an example.
Suppose that I saw a boy twenty years ago. There was a perception of his form and figure. Now, after this long period, during which millions of other perceptions have taken place, I see him again. The boy has grown up to be a man in the meanwhile. There is a perception of this man now. The question is who compares and matches the two perceptions and notices the similarities and the changes? If there have only been perceptions and there was no permanent perceiver, then who links up the past and the present perception, choosing it out of millions of other perceptions. If one ceases to exist during sleep each night and comes into existence as a perception or as a bundle of perceptions each morning, who was it that recollected a perception that is now twenty years old. Physically, I am not today, what I was yesterday or, say twenty years ago. Considered as a perception also my existence is not what it was twenty years ago. But the knowledge is vouchsafed only to that person who has observed the boy today and also twenty years earlier. This therefore, proves that there is a permanent self who perceives and recollects.
It is really a wonder that Hume should have failed to experience the presence of self. He himself states that when he looks into himself, he finds thoughts coming and going, but he conveniently forgets that this ‘himself’ constitutes the self, the thinker, the perceiver, the knower, or the one who remembers and recollects.
Hume’s theory cannot explain the process of knowing and storing of knowledge
One can appreciate this fact on the basis of one’s daily experience that the process of knowing involves:
perceptions or receiving the impact of a thought, stimulus or information
classification of this information or experience
associating it or comparing and contrasting it with other information
assimilation or retention and
improvement or refinement, development or growth.
But these subtle processes can occur only if there is some permanent psychological or conscient entity which has the will or motivation to accept knowledge, the ability to appreciate or evaluate, to understand and comprehend it, the ability to retain and make use of it. It not only stores and learns but experiences and applies knowledge to practical situations o as to avoid the feeling of pain and to have the result in the form of happiness. This entity which, to say in one word, has consciousness, is the soul or mind. If one reads and reads again the statement of Hume, one would find that it is, infact, this permanent self which has found expression in the words ‘I’, ‘myself’, ‘me’ etc. Otherwise, who says: “I am certain…”, “I may venture to affirm… etc. Is it the bundle of perceptions which is certain or which ventures to affirm? No. It is the permanent self, the conscient being, which says this and which also uses the phrases as “I must confess…”, “All I can allow him….” etc. as have been used in Hume’s above statements. And, the reader should know that because of the opposition to the reality of his own existence, Hume is not at peace with himself as will be evidenced by his own statements.
A Philosophy that denies the existence of soul, leads to peacelessness
It should be noted, in this connection that, Hume has himself stated in his writings that, because of his disbelief in the existence of the soul and also because of his this philosophy, he was in deep melancholy and delirium. He says, in his book: “Most fortunately it happens that, since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation and lively impression of my senses which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends, and when, after three or four hours of amusements, I return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strained and ridiculous, that I cannot find, in my heart, to enter into them any further.” (Hume’s Treatise to Human Nature)
Thus, Hume himself has confessed that his philosophy gives to man’s mind a state of melancholy and delirium. He has called his philosophy as ‘speculations, cold and strained and ridiculous or Chimeras’. He has said that he does not want to enter into these speculations any further. But, it is a pity that many lay men who have not gone fully into the views of Hume, and do not know that Hume himself confessed about his melancholic and delirious state of mind and that he calls his these speculations as chimerical and ridiculous, follow his ‘philosophy’ and take to his line of thought for refuting the belief in the existence of the soul!
Others say that Mind or Thought is only an epiphenomenon of brain. Though many of them are neither neurologists, nor brain scientists, yet they say it with so much conviction as if they had opened a man’s cranium and had seen thoughts emerging from the brain as smoke emerges from the fire. They should know that, in medical history, doctors have given instances in which a patient had little or no brain and yet he felt and thought and worked.
Mind is not an Epiphenomenon of the Brain
Dr. Gould and Dr. Pyle reported a case who suffered from a cerebral tumour that ultimately caused his death. Autopsy revealed a five inch long cavity in the brain of this man. The patient, nevertheless, had his sense and locomotor muscles in perfect control upto the moment of death. Until two weeks before his death, this man had also been memorizing poems which showed that this memory worked even though the tumour had destroyed much part of his brain.
Dr. Hufeland of Germany reported the case of a man whose skull was found to contain nothing but a little water. However, his mental faculties had remained pretty normal until his death.
Vincent, H.Gaddis, has reported in Fate Magazine Vol1, No2, 1948, the case of a male infant, born at St. Vincent’s hospital, New York City, in 1935. The infant had lived for 27 days without a brain and yet reacted to stimuli, defying all orthodox concepts of psychology which say that it is the brain which thinks.
The object of this writing is not to deny the importance of the brain or to say that the brain has nothing to do with thought and perception but to establish that the conscient entity is different from the brain, and to say in the light of what has been discussed above, that the soul exists and that the brain and the body are merely the instruments for the perception, action and feeling.
