The question, "Who am I?" has intrigued many a philosopher and spiritualist. The path towards answering this question is often referred to as one towards "self-realization" - a tautological noun with respect to the question. Clearly, if and when I realize my "self," I would have answered the question, "Who am I?" There are any number of labels that tell me who I am - including various forms of my identity (name, social security number, ...) and characteristics. Since no amount of my description will allow me to answer the "Who am I?" question, I declare this question to be axiomatically intractable, and ask the question, "What am I?" Though the latter question may semantically look no different from the former, I find that it lends itself to a deeper insight into myself.
The distinction between body and soul is frequently discussed in this context - a theory about the impermanence of the body, and the permanence of the soul. I find this theory escapist, at best - one that addresses the fear of death with the consolation that your soul will live on. I don't find death mystical, and so I don't need to be emotionally prepared, or consoled in advance for it. The soul is no different from the level of organization that makes the body (or its parts) function. At one time, I had 20/20 eyesight. I now need glasses - first unifocal, now bi-focal! The "soul" of my eyes has deteriorated (physiologists will note this as a decrement of a brain function) and I have had to supplement it with external means. Thus, the soul can be more effective or less, manifesting in the performance of the body. Death is a deterioration of the soul beyond a threshold of recovery. Thus, what dies is the soul, and not the body!
Mind and Thought. The proven ability of some (?) living beings to think has aroused the question of what is thought and what is mind?
These are both linguistic labels to an abstract, intrinsic process. We are conditioned to believe that "something happens somewhere." Thus, "thinking" must happen somewhere - let us call such a place the "mind."
Let me define "thinking." Simplistically, it is the ability to find patterns between events - to be able to segregate them into causes and effects based on temporal precedence, and be able to predict an effect the next time a combination of causal events is observed - we may also call this "inductive logic." Thinking also allows us to see patterns between events in one context, and apply the same principles in a different context - we may call this "deductive logic." How thinking happens is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say for the time being that it is an experiential process.
The incessant growth of experiences allows us to do a quick processing of the relevant information without the apparent rigor of detailed analysis. I call this "intuition" or "gut feel" or "judgment." The profusion of information in us can come together in deliberate ways or random ways. The former is voluntary thought, the latter is a delusion. Depending on the intensity of the delusion, we may call it a dream (or, nightmare), or a hallucination. Sleep may be one inducer of such delusions; externally ingested chemicals may be another. Involuntary thought can be a detriment to ones emotional health. We seek ways to control this - meditation may be one way to do so.
That said, I return to the question, "Who/what am I?".
And, I answer it thus: I am defined, undoubtedly, with all the obvious labels. I am how I voluntarily (and, involuntarily!) think. What I am is an evolving process. I use these criteria to define my bounds in time - my birth as my beginning, and my death (ie, the death of my soul) as my end.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
3 comments:
Aseem,
If the principle of conservation of energy is true, what remains after 'you' die (what you call the faded fraction of an original quantified soul) is the true soul. When one says 'I' die, it de facto means that whatever this fraction of energy had mobilised ceases to be pervaded with that energy and therefore, it is this energy-less part - the body, that dies. If only the mass of the body could spontaneously convert into energy to sustain what remains (and diminishes continuously), we would live till what I call Limit of soul's existence with the body mass tending to zero. Such a process does not exist. So what remains escapes the body (the process is perhaps undefinable at the boundary when it leaves. That is the process of death of the body. After all, the epical phrase 'anant me, anaadi me, avadhya me' defines the soul.
I find the statement 'what dies is the soul, not the body' very cotroversial. The body deteriorates and goes out of functional use. It is the soul which may have the power of thinking. It makes us do the judgemental acceptances one way or the other.
@Sulabha, Thanks for your comment. Existence precedes Essence is an existentialist paradigm that I subscribe to. With manufactured objects, the idea, the design, the production precedes the coming into being of the object. In humans, the existence occurs first (birth) and the individual builds his/her essence.
Post a Comment