I just finished reading the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (translated of
course). I was captivated by the eloquence and subtlety of the axioms.
While reading it, I was reminded of several Western philosophical
texts; chiefly Descartes' Discourse.
Where Descartes pages and pages of specious reasoning focused on
proving what cannot be proved appalled me, the mere unanswered question
of this author caused me pause. He writes "And if an object known only
to a single mind were not cognized by that mind, would it then exist?"
We have all heard this question asked in various forms from the
simplistic analogy of a tree falling to philosophical treatises touching
all aspects of existence. The phrasing of this question is by far the
most open, the most thought provoking. It is the question asked not of
one who has accepted the material universe for all there life and is now
breaking with the tradition but of one that has no pre-disposition.
Even I, a stringent believer in an objective universe, a man who
dismissed Descartes and Kant as kowtowing to the Church, was intrigued
by the question.
Why was this phrasing so powerful? The first few words are the key:
"...an object known only to a single mind..." This is not pitted
against the collective consciousness of millions, only of one. So, I'll
expand this question. If you forget a dream does it have any presence?
Do the visions of a schizophrenic have any reality to them? Was that
brief glimpse out of the corner of your eye anything that can be
measured, accounted for? When a thought is not expressed to others,
what is it? It can leave a memory, yet it is perceived only by the
mind. If it is forgotten, what happens then? Does it cease to exist?
Is it moved to another area of the consciousness?
The ubiquitous bacteria of our world did exist before we knew of
them, but at the same time, we did see their effects we simply
misinterpreted them. We knew that people were dying of cholera, we
just didn't know why. The structure of an atom was not known to us for
most of our history, but we had evidence of it. Not all alchemical
experiments were failures, just the most desired ones. The did end up
creating gold paint, just not gold. By the way, you can turn lead into
gold, it's just cost prohibitive and dangerous.
Separating the perceivable into those which are congnized by a
single mind and those that are cognized by many as I have above may be a
point of contention, but that is why Patanjali's question struck me as
it did. The existence of an objective universe and the objectiveness of
cognition should be separated at least for purposes of examination. If
we can later blur the line between the two, then we can consider the
objectiveness of the universe in a better light.
Where Western philosophers combine the knower of the thought with
the thought and with the act of knowing and calling the combination of
the three the self, there seems to be a significant division in Eastern
thought. I, of course, need to learn more. One always need to learn
more.
Strange that I've studied so little in this area. There are however
some things that I find a little outside the realm of my world. Just
as I doubt the divine in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, I doubt
the idea of superhuman acts in any world view. I do not believe any
human can walk on water regardless of their level of consciousness.
The unrelenting question I am left with though regards a separation.
Can the consciousness separate from the physical body? Are the two
distinct? Is the great sum of all thought and knowledge contained in
the electric impulses of a million neurons? This seems to be the pith
of the matter. If the consciousness is somehow separate from the
physical body, then nearly anything is possible. There would be then at
least two worlds one objective and one subjective. The consciousness
could be eternal and the great rules that govern the physical universe
would be undermined. Whether or not someone could reach this state is
of secondary concern. The very notion that such a state exists is
worthy of consideration.
It seems to me that many philosophies have taken this separation for
granted. I, unfortunately, have never found popular opinion as an
argument of any worth. If the two can be separated, what keeps them
intertwined?
I thank Patanjali for reminding me that nothing is known for
certain. All theories must be tested and re-tested. Any world view
that becomes dogmatic ceases to be relevant. Oops, that almost sounded
dogmatic. Back to my books.