In the previous post, I discussed attempts to examine psychological phenomena using the outer mind. This mind generally employs what Sri Aurobindo refers to as “separative knowledge.”  It is a way of knowing in which the subject or knower is thought to be separate from the object, or the “known.” (note that the words “knower” and “known” themselves point to a unified reality, a unity which escapes many if not most materialistically inclined scientists).

Here I offer a brief look at some of the attempts of scientists to conduct what is sometimes called “first person” research.  Unfortunately, most attempts at “inner research” still employ separative means of knowing, or at best, vague hints of what Sri Aurobindo calls “knowledge by direct contact.’  In Part III, we’ll look at some truly “inner” ways of knowing, and touch on “intuition”, or “knowledge by identity.”

*************

Knowledge by Direct Contact: Research Using the Inner Mind and Inner Senses

Recognizing the limits of conventional approaches, some scientists suggest that introspection would provide a more direct approach to the study of consciousness. In an interesting instance of the interaction between theory and practice, psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz gained new insight into the mind-brain relationship as a result of teaching his patients to incorporate introspection as part of their treatment. He has developed a comprehensive program using mindfulness meditation – a form of introspection – for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. His treatment involves teaching patients to maintain a calm, non-judgmental stance while passively observing arising thoughts and impulses. In his research, Schwartz found that the simple act of focusing attention brings about specific and substantial changes in brain functioning that correlate with a substantial reduction of symptoms in his patients.

This use of introspection involves a more direct approach to the study of consciousness than other methods used by cognitive scientists. However, it differs from a yogic approach in three fundamental ways: 1) the focus of the subject’s (or patient’s) attention does not penetrate beyond the ordinary waking consciousness; 2) the researcher, in his analysis of results, relies on the limited, separative knowledge of the outer thinking mind; and 3) in a yogic approach to the study of consciousness, researcher and subject would be co-participants, both making use of the inner consciousness, through which they could gain direct, unmediated knowledge of whatever “object” they seek to understand.

How might a researcher use his inner consciousness to conduct one of the experiments described earlier?  With the inner consciousness it is possible to become directly aware of the interaction of the physical, vital and mental consciousness in things. Consider, for example, research being conducted on mutations in bacteria. Currently, even with the compelling evidence amassed by such individuals as John Cairns, Barry Hall and Asher Ben-Jacob, the assumption that intelligence is involved in the process of mutation is not based on direct inner awareness, but rather, indirect speculation. An individual who had sufficiently developed his inner consciousness could carry out similar experiments and perceive directly the role of the physical, vital and mental consciousness in the process of mutation. Furthermore, given the greater intuitive capacity of the inner mind, he could understand the meaning and purpose of each step of the process in the context of the larger ecosystem and the entire cosmos, perceiving all as one interconnected physical-vital-mental whole. Such perceptions could be verified by having a number of yogic researchers observe the same phenomena, and checking for commonalities in their perceptions.

Developing the capacity for knowledge by direct contact, native to the inner consciousness, is only an intermediate step between the separative knowledge of the surface consciousness and the true knowledge by identity which characterizes the supramental consciousness. However, it is still such an immense change from our ordinary way of knowing, and still so subject to egoic distortion, that many safeguards would be needed to assure the validity of knowledge so acquired. Safeguards currently employed would continue to be useful:  complex physical instruments to check for physical correlates of non-physical perceptions, rigorous and refined experimental designs, statistical analyses, submission of results to the community of fellow scientists, etc. However, another critical factor arises when the primary instrument of research is one’s own consciousness.

Imagine if each time you looked through a microscope or telescope, the lens changed in wildly unpredictable ways. This is analogous to the way our minds function most of the time. There is, however, an important difference. Repairing a faulty physical instrument may require a great deal of work, but it does not call for a fundamental change in the person using it. On the other hand, when the instrument for looking is the mind of the researcher, the “repair” of the instrument calls for the involvement of the whole person. In other words, ethical considerations become paramount. With current methodologies, an individual scientist may very well be a highly ethical person, but that is not a requirement of the particular method he uses. By contrast, a scientist who employs inner or intuitive ways of knowing, must live his life in a such a way that anger, craving, anxiety and hatred do not prevent the mind from attaining an exquisitely refined and balanced level of attention. This has significant implications for the education of such scientists as it will require they become highly trained, well-practiced contemplatives.

The research methodology suggested here may sound similar to psychologist Charles Tart’s proposal for the development of “state-specific sciences.” Tart has observed that the “data” obtained in altered states of consciousness (e.g., the dream state) is often not only different from that obtained in the ordinary waking state, but difficult or even impossible to comprehend when not in the same altered state oneself. He therefore proposed that a complete science would require investigators to enter “altered states” in order to obtain the fullest understanding of data that was obtained in an altered state.

What is being described here is distinct from Tart’s proposal in that it does not directly relate to a particular “state” of consciousness (i.e., waking or dream state). It may seem to do so because yogis have used the same terms (“waking state” and “dream state”) to describe particular ways of knowing. In yogic terminology, the dream “state” (swapna in Sanskrit) refers to the way of knowing native to the inner consciousness, one in which we are in direct contact with that which we seek to understand. By contrast, the waking “state” (jagrat) refers primarily to the way of knowing characteristic of the surface or outer awareness, one in which we take ourselves to be separate from what we know. It is possible to employ knowledge by direct contact not only in what is commonly called the dream state, but in the waking state as well. Similarly, it is possible to employ separative knowledge both in the dream and waking states.