The mind is a subtle material element, which can, among other things, gather impressions of objects beyond the normal range of perception and manipulate ordinary matter in paranormal ways. But mind does not itself provide the human organism with conscious experience. consciousness has another source, called, in Sanskrit, the atma, or self. The self, according to the Sanskrit vedic literature, is a small particle of spirit that illuminates the body and mind with consciousness. Although we cannot see the atma directly, we can detect its presence through its symptom, consciousness. This conscious self can exist apart from the body and mind. We will now review scientific evidence for the existence of such a conscious self. As in the case of the mind element, I shall confine myself to evidence from the time period paralleling that of the modern evolution science, i.e., from the middle of the nineteenth century up to the present. I shall also confine myself to evidence suggesting that there is at this moment within the body a conscious self that is not a product of mind or matter. I shall consider evidence for the survival of this self after the death of the body in chapter 8.
William James on Consciousness
William James noted that “arrests of brain development occasion imbecility, that blows on the head abolish memory or consciousness, and that brain-stimulants and poisons change the quality of our ideas” (Murphy and Ballou 1960, p. 284). The totality of such observations led many scientists of his day to conclude that consciousness was produced by the brain and continually dependent upon the brain for its existence. When the brain ceased to function, the individual consciousness associated with it ceased to exist.
There was, however, no generally accepted explanation of exactly how consciousness is produced by the brain (and neither is there one today). furthermore, any such theory of consciousness production would have to account for the production of millions of episodes of consciousness in an individual’s daily life. This caused James to say, “The theory of production is therefore not a jot more simple or credible in itself than any other conceivable theory. It is only a little more popular” (Murphy and Ballou 1960, p. 294).
James (Murphy and Ballou 1960, p. 290) thought the brain might have a transmissive rather than productive relationship to consciousness. A prism has a transmissive function relative to light. It does not produce light. When light passes through a prism, the prism modifies it. According to this conception, the brain would transmit or obstruct consciousness to various degrees. James said: “According to the state in which the brain finds itself, the barrier of its obstructiveness may also be supposed to rise or fall. It sinks so low, when the brain is in full activity, that a comparative flood of spiritual energy pours over. At other times, only such occassional waves of thought as heavy sleep permits get by. And when finally a brain stops acting altogether, or decays, that special stream of consciousness which it subserved will vanish entirely from this natural world. But the sphere of being that supplied the consciousness would still be intact; and in that more real world with which, even whilst here, it was continuous, the consciousness might, in ways unknown to us, continue still” (Murphy and Ballou 1960, p. 292). James seems to prefer the image of a living stream of consciousness to that of a particulate conscious soul, but either way, consciousness exists apart from matter.
In connection with the idea that the brain simply transmits preexisting consciousness, James cited the following statement by British philosopher f. c. S. Schiller (1891):“Matter is an admirably calculated machinery for regulating, limiting, and restraining the consciousness which it encases. . . . If the material encasement be coarse and simple, as in the lower organisms, it permits only a little intelligence to permeate through; if it is delicate and complex, it leaves more pores and exists, as it were, for the manifestations of consciousness” (Murphy and Ballou 1960, p. 300).
Out-of-Body experiences
Near death and out-of-body experiences (variously abbreviated as ndEs, OBEs, OOBEs) provide evidence demonstrating that consciousness may have an existence entirely apart from gross matter (the body) and subtle matter (the mind). Throughout history, people around the world have reported these experiences. In a cross-cultural study, dean Sheils (1978, p. 697) stated: “data from nearly 70 non-Western cultures were used to explore beliefs in out-of-the-body experiences (OOBEs).The data reveal that OOBE beliefs appear in about 95 per cent of the world’s cultures and that they are striking in their uniformity even though the cultures are diverse in structure and location. Three conventional explanations of OOBE beliefs—social control, crisis, and the dream theories—were tested and found to be inadequate as explanations. Hence, it is possible that the specificity and generality of OOBE beliefs is simply a response to a genuine event; i.e., the actual occurrence of OOBE.” By demonstrating that there is a conscious self that can experience sensations apart from the gross physical body, the OBE provides a foundation for the further conclusion that there is a conscious self that survives the death of the gross physical body. As Sheils himself says (1978, p. 700), “Before we can consider the issue of survival we are forced to establish that there is in fact ‘something’ that can survive.” Apart from anecdotal cross-cultural evidence, there is medical and scientific research that supports the idea that there is a conscious self that can exist apart from the mind and body.
Some of the most systematic investigations into the near death experience (ndE) were carried out by Kenneth Ring. The popular books of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and Raymond Moody on ndEs attracted the attention of Ring. Although he agreed with their conclusions, he felt the topic required a more scientific approach (Ring 1980, p. 19).
Ring assembled subjects, at least eighteen years old, who had been close to death either through illness, accident, or attempted suicide. Some subjects were enlisted through referrals from hospitals and psychiatrists, some responded to newspaper ads, and others, who had through various means learned of the survey, offered themselves as volunteers. In none of the attempts to enlist subjects was the topic of out-of-body experiences mentioned and none of the subjects were paid. A total of 102 subjects were enlisted. Subjects were first encouraged to give a “free narrative” of their near death episode. Then they were carefully questioned in order to determine “the presence or absence of the various components of the core experience as described by Moody” (Ring 1980, p. 28).
The subjects were told their identities would not be given in the final report. They were allowed to question the purpose of the study, but only after completing their interviews. The interviews were conducted between May 1977 and May 1978. Ring (1980, p. 29) stated: “A total of 102 persons recounting 104 near-death incidents were interviewed. Of these, 52 nearly died as a result of a serious illness; 26 from a serious accident; and 24 as a result of a suicide attempt.” About half were male, half female, and all except 7 were white. Almost all were religious. The median age at the time of the reported near death incidents was about 38 years. One third of the subjects were interviewed within a year after their experience, sixty percent within two years.
Ring analyzed the interview reports in terms of a weighted list of features of the core near death experience derived from Moody’s book life after life. The features and relative weights were (Ring 1980, pp. 32–33): a sense of being dead (1 point); feelings of pleasant peacefulness (2 or 4 points, depending on the strength of the feeling); a sense of separating from one’s body (2 or 4 points, depending on the distinctness of the description); entrance into a dark region (2 or 4 points, depending on the presence of movement); hearing a voice or feeling the presence of someone (3 points); reviewing one’s life (3 points); seeing light (2 points); seeing beautiful colors (1 point); entering the light (4 points); encountering visible spirit beings (3 points). Scores could thus range from 0 to 29 points. Three judges had to agree on a subject’s score for each item. Subjects with scores of less than six were deemed not to have had a Moody type ndE. Scores of from 6 to 9 points indicated a moderate ndE, and scores of 10 and over indicated a deep ndE. Ring found that 49 of his subjects (48 percent) reported experiences corresponding to Moody’s description of the “core experience” (Ring 1980, p. 32). Of these, 27 persons (26 percent) had a deep ndE, and 22 (22 percent) had a moderate ndE.