Kunti-Devi Dasi
Jan 2001 – n.406
Does anyone exhaust in one, or many, lifetime(s) the whole gamut of possible experiences humans are destined to? And even regardless or beyond material limitations, is anyone able to tell what Krishna may come up with at any given moment? There is a place for faith and there is a place for belief and presupposition in a person’s life experience. Let’s venture into human topography.
Preparing for the journey “The map is not the territory.î This is a presupposition I agree with. I don’t know who said it first, though. No conceptual system is a 1:1 replica of the reality it refers to. (For more details see section on driver below.) Narada, for example, says in the Bhagavatam (1.5.11) that words and slokas referring to spiritual matters may be abaddhavat — imperfectly composed from a grammatical or poetic perspective or even meaningless. Nevertheless analytical categories, if applied wisely, may help us increase self-awareness and expand our consciousness. Not that I am wise. As a learning strategy, however, one may sometimes try to model other people.
I see and use concepts as ideal Gestalten (intellectual constructs, analytical categories). Historical individuals or groups resemble, or diverge from, the ideal Gestalt to some degree or other. Since both the person and the cosmos do not appear to be flat or two dimensional, one appropriate analytical tool is the polarity deep vs. surface structure. A structure, deep or surface, is the internal organization or the heuristic, cognitive model of a system. A deep structure is found in a system that is more organized, more subtle, more stable, more independent, more complex, more influential than the system of a surface structure. The map is a surface structure; the territory is a deep structure. Talking about persons, the soul is the ultimate deep structure whereas the physical body, or the molecule, is the ultimate surface structure. In between those two poles, any deep structure may become surface structure for a different deep structure, and vice versa.
It would appear that the analytical part of the intellect (buddhi) works best with logical systems and metonymy (contiguity, part-and-whole relations within one structure). On the other hand, dhi (structural insight, intuitive imaging) would work best with analogy and metaphor (analogy between a deep and a surface structure), and also with metonymy. When I discuss faith from the perspective of the person as a system, the heart is a metaphor — an analogy between a part of a deep structure (the psychical body) and a part of a surface structure (the physical body). The heart is also a metonymy in that it is the physical locus of the deep mind (faith, values, deep emotions), of the sense of identity, of the soul. In this case, both bodies are seen as parts of one structure: the person, the embodied soul. When I speak of beliefs and presuppositions, the head is, similarly, both a metaphor and a metonymy. The whole subtle body, furthermore, is deep structure for the whole gross body. “The map is not the territory” is an assumption of realistic (sattvic) epistemology. A metaphor is a metaphor (bheda-abheda); it is not identicalness (abheda).
Analytical trip: Some people confuse faith and belief. They get their heart and head mixed up. For some people, it is a firm belief that faith can only be blind faith; period. Based on my own experience, I do not agree with those assumptions. Thus both experience and disagreement have led me to seek help from divine sources, the soul’s deep structure. Lord Caitanya told Sanatana Gosvami that faith, sraddha, is visvasa (CC Madhya). For one thing, the word srad-dha is a variant form of hrd-dha, placing in the heart. Then vi-svasa literally means expanding, radiating breath. And you know how close the heart and the lungs are; you know how you breath when your heart is resting on strong, realistic faith. Brahman, the spiritual principle — the One (tad ekam) who appears as many, as stated in the Rg Veda — is literally unlimited expansion. And faith (vi-svasa) effects expansive breathing, the flow of prana to intensify radiating life. As is Brahman so is atman — tat tvam asi: you are a spirit soul (Upanisads). Then we have that line in the tarko ‘pratistha verse (dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam): the essential reality or basic nature of everyone and everything is hidden in a cave, in a secluded place, in the heart (Mahabharata). And the heart is the place of faith (srad-dha, hrd-dha). The word atman (the self), depending on context, may be used to denote the soul, the psyche, or the body. Literally, however, atman means breath. So the self (atman) expands as faith (visvasa), just as Brahman is everlasting expansion. And the self rests on faith (sraddha). Cultivating one’s faith by living it, even if unconsciously, amounts to placing the self in someone else’s heart, or placing someone or something in the self’s heart.
Analytically, faith is of three varieties, which I have labeled as blind, utilitarian, realistic faith. Krishna says, “One’s faith can be of three kinds — in goodness, in passion, or in ignorance” (Bg. 17.2) In tamo-guna, the relationship between the faithful and the (person or group or thing) object of the faith is based on ignorance. One gives one’s heart to someone on no realistic grounds. Blind faith. It leads to madness (Bg 14.8-9). In rajas, the relationship between the faithful and the object or repository of faith is based on convenience. Utilitarian faith. It leads to longing and effort (Bg 14.7, 9). In sattva, the faithful is factually aware of the actual nature of the two parties involved, namely the faithful and the repository of faith. Realistic faith. It leads to happiness and awareness (Bg 14.6, 9). At different points in time, one or another mode becomes more prominent in a person’s consciousness (Bg 14.10) and thus faith changes in quantity and quality.
Beliefs and presuppositions are brain-based functions; faith, states of consciousness, and the sense of identity are heart-based functions. While beliefs are the assumptions of the analytical, linear intellect, presuppositions are the assumptions of the structural intellect (intuitive imaging). Faith is a state of being, whereas a belief or presupposition is a statement about being. Faith, a state of the deep mind, is also different from polarized surface feelings — attraction-repulsion, happiness-distress, desire-hatred, craving-satiation, etc.
To re-present the journey, here is one slide All I said so far was at first hard to understand as I had not yet disclosed one key presupposition. While speaking about faith I keep in my dhi (structural intellect, intuitive imaging) the visual image, from the Upanisads, of a chariot with a passenger, a driver, two horses. And there is, besides, an analytical assumption, a belief in the usefulness of a systemic and structural approach to knowledge and communication (which I not always practice, I admit).
So here is the chariot metaphor as I see it.
Passenger is the soul. Passenger has sat in other chariots before. Spiritual faith, spiritual values, spiritual emotions and a sense of spiritual identity are inside passenger (deep structure — nihitam guhayam, hidden in a cave). If passenger is dressed in an astronaut kind of outfit, however, those spiritual features are not visible to the untrained eye. Temporary mental states (faith, values, deep-structure emotions), a sense of identity (ahamkara), and states of consciousness are what passenger is directly covered with (skin, clothes). They also radiate from passenger throughout the whole chariot system all the way to the various layers of aura surrounding the vehicle — and beyond.
Driver is the intellect (surface structure, when compared to deeper mind — tarko ‘pratistha, reasoning has no solid foundation). Driver is supposed to know/see the destination and strive to keep the chariot on track. Driver has two eyes: buddhi (linear, analytical thinking) and jnana/dhi (structural insight, intuitive imaging), of which dhi is in closer contact with passenger’s deep mind. Driver has two hands: two alternative journey plans to decide upon (spiritual or material, bhagavata or varnasrama, etc.). Driver’s reins consist of two halves to better command polarized surface feelings.
Horses are the surface mind, which is deep structure for the body. This surface-structure mind, distinguishable from the deep-structure mind, coordinates the senses and is also the locus of polarized feelings.
Chariot is the body, which includes the knowledge acquiring and the acting senses plus the five elements, the seats of the cakras, and a whole variety of organs and channels.
As you may recall, I wrote before: faith is a state of being, whereas beliefs and presuppositions are statements about being. (Remember “the map is not the territory”.) Now you can easily see that faith radiates from passenger, whereas beliefs and presuppositions are functions of driver. The intellect is reflective. Driver looks and sees the road, sees the horses, sees the chariot, sees the landscape around. Driver has a vision of the destination, or is confused about it. Driver may also turn around and look at passenger sitting there. Driver subsequently makes statements (using language) about the road, the horses, the chariot, the landscape, the destination, the passenger, etc. Driver keeps those statements in memory for future reference — as visual images, auditory signs, or kinesthetic sensations: the baggage in the chariot’s trunk. Driver may also share records and exchange notes with colleagues.
The soul is sat-cit-ananda. And, honestly, this is beyond my depth. All I can say for now is that I sense faith to be closer to the ananda part, states of consciousness to be closer to the cit part, and the sense of identity to be closer to the sat part.
Post view 339 times
Leave a Reply