Are the views of two of the 20th century's most distinctive 'integrative' spiritual teachers complementary or contrasting?
4
The witness consciousness is a state in which one stands back as an observer of one's thoughts and feelings. Such a state of consciousness is in contrast to the ordinary state in which one is more or less completely identified with one's mental and other inner movements. Speaking to students, the Mother observed:
Do not believe that it [observing one's mind] is such an easy thing, for to observe your thoughts, you must first of all separate yourself from them. In the ordinary state, the ordinary man does not distinguish himself from his thoughts. He does not even know what he thinks. He thinks by habit. And if he is asked all of a sudden, "What are you thinking of?" he knows nothing about it. That is to say, ninety-five times out of a hundred he will answer, "I do not know." There is a complete identification between the movement of thought and the consciousness of the being.'1
Page 67
Sri Aurobindo describes the state in which one is identified with the mind as a state of involvement of consciousness, and distinguishes it from the state of detachment or no identification.
It [consciousness] is not by its nature detached from the mental and other activities. It can be detached, it can be involved. In the human consciousness it is as a rule always involved, but it has developed the power of detaching itself—a thing which the lower creation seems unable to do. As the consciousness develops, this power of detachment also develops.2
The witness consciousness implies some degree of detachment from mental and other inner activities. All those in whom some growth of an inner life has taken place have developed to a smaller or greater extent the ability to detach oneself and to stand back as observer of one's thoughts and feelings. They are said to have a witness consciousness.
The concept of the witness consciousness has been perhaps most thoroughly developed by Sankhya, one of the six traditional systems of Indian philosophy.
It may be stated in passing that the six systems of Indian philosophy are called Darshanas—Darshan means "seeing"—because they are not producers of the intellect but of spiritual realizarions.
Sankhya views Existence as made up of two principles— Purusha (Soul or Conscious Being) and Prakriti (Nature). Explaining these two principles of existence in terms of yogic experience, Sri Aurobindo states:
When we come to look in at our selves instead of out at the world and begin to analyze our subjective experience, we find that there are two parts of our being which can be, to all appearance, entirely separated from each other, one a consciousness which is still and passive and supports, and the other a consciousness which is busy and creative and is supported. The passive and fundamental consciousness
Page 68
is the Soul, the Purusha, Witness or sākṣī, the active and superstrucrural consciousness is Nature, Prakriti, processive or creative energy of the sākṣī.3
The Purusha is the true being, but in the ordinary consciousness it is identified with Prakriti. Therefore, in the ordinary consciousness, one loses the sense of being the witness, Purusha, and thinks of oneself as the active Prakriti—the doer instead of the witness. The illusory sense of being the doer of all actions, which is one of the innate characteristics of the egoic consciousness, is due to the identification of the witness consciousness of the Purusha with the active consciousness of Prakriti. When the Purusha is identified with and covered up by Prakriti, it "remains behind as the unseen Witness supporting the play of the Ignorance. ... When it emerges, you feel it as a consciousness behind, calm, central, unidentified with the play which depends upon it. It may be covered over; but it is always there."4
Two well-known processes taught in the traditional Indian schools of yoga for achieving liberation by overcoming the identification of the true self with the ego are those of the Advaita (monistic Vedanta) and Sankhya. Explaining the two processes, Sri Aurobindo writes:
There is the Adwaita process of the way of knowledge—one rejects from oneself the identification with the mind, vital, body, saying continually "I am not the mind", I am not the viral", I am not the body", seeing these things as separate from one's real self—and after a time one feels all the mental, vital, physical processes and the very sense of mind, vital, body becoming externalized, an outer action, while within and detached from them there grows the sense of a separate self-existent being which opens into the realization of the cosmic and transcendent spirit. There is also the method—a very powerful method—of the Sankhyas, the separarion of
Page 69
the Purusha and the Prakriti. One enforces on the mind the position of the Witness—all action of mind, vital, physical becomes an outer play which is not myself or mine, but belongs to Nature and has been enforced on an outer me. I am the witness Purusha; I am silent, detached, not bound by any of these things. There grows up in consequence a division in the being; the sadhak5 feels within him the growth of a calm silent separate consciousness which feels itself quite apart from the surface play of the mind and the vital and physical Nature.6
Implied in the passage just quoted is the yogic psychological concept of two centers or parts of consciousness at each level of our being— physical, vital, mental. One part, the Purusha, is a witness; the other, Prakriti, is the active part. The separation of the witness consciousness of the Purusha from the active consciousness of Prakriti is more difficult with regard to the mind than it is in relation to the vital and physical parts of the being because the human being is most identified with the mind. As Sri Aurobindo states:
... man being primarily a creature of mental Prakriti identifies himself with the movements of his mind and cannot at once dissociate himself and stand free from the swirl and eddies of the mind whirlpool. It is comparatively easy for him to put a control on his body, at least on a certain part of its movements; it is less easy but still very possible after a struggle to put a mental control on his impulsions and desires; but to sit like the Tantric yogi on the river, above the whirlpool of his thoughts, is less facile. Nevertheless, it can be done; all developed mental men, those who get beyond the average, have in one way or other or at least at certain times and for certain purposes to separate the two parts of the mind, the active part which is a factory of thoughts and the quiet
Page 70
masterful part which is at once a Witness and a Will, observing them, judging, rejecting, eliminating, accepting, ordering corrections and changes, the Master in the House of Mind, capable of self-empire...7
When consciousness is relatively undeveloped in a human being, one is unable not only to separate the witness part from the active part of the consciousness but also to distinguish among different kinds of consciousness—physical, vital, mental, etc. All of consciousness is experienced simply as mental consciousness. In Sri Aurobindo's words:
For human beings who have not got deeper into themselves, mind and consciousness are synonymous. Only when one becomes more aware of oneself by a growing consciousness, then one can see different degrees, kinds, powers of consciousness, mental, vital, physical, psychic,8 spiritual.9
Separating the witness consciousness from the active consciousness is less difficult than distinguishing different kinds of consciousness. Therefore, even when one is yet unable to distinguish in oneself a difference between physical, vital, and mental consciousness, one can, with some practice, succeed in separating one's consciousness from one's thoughts and be their observer. As Sri Aurobindo states:
The Divine has been described as Being, Consciousness, Ananda, even as a Consciousness (Chaitanya), as putting out a force or energy, Shakti that creates world. The mind is a modified consciousness that puts forth a mental energy.
Page 71
But the Divine can stand back from his energy and observe it at its work, it can be the Witness Purusha watching the works of Prakriti. Even the mind can do that—a man can stand back in his mind-consciousness and watch the mental energy doing things, thinking, planning, etc.; all introspection is based upon the fact that one can so divide oneself into a consciousness that observes and an energy that acts. These are quite elementary things supposed to be known to everybody. Anybody can do that merely by a little practice; anybody who observes his own thoughts, feelings, actions, has begun doing it already. In yoga we make the division complete, that is all.10
The division, just spoken of, between the Witness Purusha and the active Prakriti takes place progressively with the growth of consciousness. Initially, in the state of total ignorance and bondage, Purusha, the Soul, is royally identified with Prakriti, the outer Nature. In this state
... the Purusha is passive and allows Nature to act, accepting all she imposes on him, giving a constant automatic sanction ... the soul in mind, life, body, the mental, vital, physical being in us, becomes subject to our nature, ruled by its formation, driven by its activities; that is the normal state of our ignorance."11
This state in which the Purusha is driven by the modes of Prakriti, giving them an unconscious and therefore automatic sanction, is the state of bondage. The first step towards liberation of the Purusha from the bondage of Prakriti is the emergence of a consciousness in which the Purusha is no longer only a silent Witness behind, as it is ordinarily, but a felt Witness in the front of consciousness.
Page 72
If the Purusha in us becomes aware of itself as the Witness and stands back from Nature, that is the first step to the soul's freedom; for it becomes detached, and it is possible then to know Nature and her processes and in all independence, since we are no longer involved in her works, to accept or not to accept, to make the sanction no longer automatic but free and effective; we can choose what she shall do or not do in us, or we can stand back altogether from her works and withdraw easily into the Self s spiritual silence, or we can reject her present formations and rise to a spiritual level of existence and from there recreate our existence. The Purusha can cease to be subject, anīśa12 and become lord of its nature, iśvara.13
The attitude of the witness consciousness within ... is a very necessary stage in the progress. It helps the liberation from the lower Prakriti—not getting involved in the ordinary nature movements; it helps the establishment of a perfect calm and peace within, for there is then one part of the being which remains detached and sees without being disturbed by the perturbations of the surface14. ...
Becoming the Witness, however, is only the first step to liberation. To be effectively liberated from bondage to the unconscious state of identification with the physical, vital, and mental nature of Prakriti, the Purusha must emerge as not only as Sakshi, the Witness, but also as Anumanta, the conscious Sanctioner. Thus Sri Aurobindo states:
The Purusha above is not only a Witness, he is the giver (or withholder) of the sanction; if he persistently refuses the sanction to a movement of Prakriti, keeping himself detached, then, even if it goes on for a time by its past momentum, it usually loses its hold after a rime, becomes more
Page 73
feeble, less persistent, less concrete and in the end fades away. If you take the Purusha consciousness, it should be not only as the Witness but as the Anumanta, refusing sanction to the disturbing movements, sanctioning only peace, calm, purity and whatever else is part of the divine nature. This refusal of sanction need not mean a struggle with the lower Prakriti; it should be a quiet, persistent, detached refusal leaving unsupported, unassented to, without meaning or justification, the contrary action of the narure.15
It is only after the Purusha has emerged as both a Witness and a Sanctioner that the Soul, the Conscious Being, can progressively become the Master. Sri Aurobindo speaks of these three stages in the liberation of the Purusha from the Prakriti thus:
... the Conscious Being standing back detached from all the movements of Nature and observing them as witness and knower and finally as the giver (or refuse) of the sanction and at the highest stage of the development, the Ishwara, the pure will, master of the whole Nature.16
In summary, in the initial state of ignorance, Purusha the Soul is only a silent witness, giving an automatic sanction to the movements of physical, vital, and mental nature. The Soul is said to be Anisha (nor-lord), subject; it is master only in theory. Much effort of austeriry is needed by way of refusing sanction to the unconscious movements of Nature before the Soul can become, in truth, Ishwara, master and lord of Nature. In Sri Aurobindo's words:
The soul is the witness, upholder, experiencer, but it is master only in theory, in fact it is postmaster, anīśa, so long as it consents to the Ignorance. For that is a general consent which implies that the Prakriti gambols about with the Purusha
Page 74
and does pretty well what she likes with him. When he wants to get back to his mastery, make the theoretical practical, he needs a lot of tapasya17 to do it.18
The process of the Purusha emerging as master of Nature is therefore necessarily a slow one. Explaining this in a letter to a disciple, Sri Aurobindo writes:
The emergence of the Purusha is the beginning of liberation. But it can also become slowly the Master—slowly because the whole habit of the ego and the play of the lower forces is against that. Still it can dictate what higher play is to replace the lower movement and then there is the process of that replacement. You say rightly that the offering to the Divine shortens the whole thing and is more effective, but usually it cannot be done completely at once owing to the past habit and the two methods"19 continue together until the complete surrender is possible.20
Sri Aurobindo's teachings on the witness consciousness previously stated differ in two respects from Eckhart Tulle's perspecrive. First, Eckhart regards mental consciousness as a state of unconsciousness. To be identified with mind is to be in a state of unconsciousness; therefore, if the witnessing Presence is to arise, one must step out of mind. Sri Aurobindo, on the other hand, distinguishes two dimensions of the mind—the ordinary mind that is part of Prakriti or Nature, which is an active and involved consciousness, and an inner mind that is part of Purusha, the inner being, which is a detached and observing or witness Consciousness. Secondly, Eckhart teaches that, for the transformation of the ordinary consciousness, one
Page 75
has simply to choose the witnessing Presence and allow Presence to transform the consciousness. There is no doing, but simply allowing. In Sri Aurobindo's reaching, on the other hand, becoming an impartial Witness is only the first step towards liberation. To change the ordinary consciousness, the Purusha must become not only a conscious Witness but also a Sanctioner who sanctions the right movements and refuses the wrong movements of the ordinary consciousness. This requires much Tapasya, personal effort, says Sri Aurobindo.
These points will be dealt with further in the next chapter.
Page 76
Home
Disciples
Dr A S Dalal
Books
Share your feedback. Help us improve. Or ask a question.