Ego-centric Brain

An Article in NY Times (extract reproduced below) explains how our brain sees the world and
states the reasons for our limited perception.
Our life-experience is a movie created by the brain,
from a selection of current sensory inputs, stored memory and feelings/emotions experienced and
recorded in the past. We see and experience only this limited part that is depicted in the movie.
Each of us writes a different and unique script for this movie, experiencing life differently and uniquely
through the tinted glasses of what our scriptural texts have named as Vasanas. Hindu philosophy
attributes the cause of this limitation to Maya -- an obstacle to our experiencing the Whole (Reality).
We are however, assured that through knowledge, awareness and detachment we can train the
mind to overcome the limitation and have a vision of Reality.
Ramana Maharishi, in his Upadesa Saram, has stated:
Ahaminasa-bhajyahamahamtaya,
sphurati hrt-svayam parama-purna-sat.
Meaning: When the ego is destroyed (falls thro' self-enquiry), the self which is
the Supreme-Whole-Existence shines forth of its own (independently).

What is implied is not the destruction of the Ego-power - a source of energy necessary for great actions.
But the realisation that the ego is not the Self and needs control/guidance by the Self greatly improves
its effectiveness and creates effective Leaders in any sphere - family, society, nation. It is like atomic
energy which can serve us or kill an entire city's population. The scientific study mentioned in the article
suggests that we "see" only partially depending on our choice/inclination but live under the false belief
that we have "seen" all; in that sense, we live under a "grand illusion". The subject-matter has wide
implications and is a very challenging one for discussion in a group.
Ayya-MKK

Extract from the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/science/01angi.html?8br
How does the brain see the world? What is the difference between seeing a scene casually and automatically versus a focused seeing? In both cases the same sensory information, the same photonic stream from the external world, is falling on the retinal tissue of your eyes, but the information is processed very differently from one eyeful to the next. What is that difference? At what stage in the complex circuitry of sight do attentiveness and awareness arise, and what happens to other objects in the visual field once a particular object has been designated worthy of a further despairing stare?
Visual attentiveness is born of limited resources. The basic problem is that far more information lands on your eyes than you can possibly analyze and still end up with a reasonable sized brain; hence the brain has evolved mechanisms for combating data overload, allowing large rivers of data to pass along optical and cortical corridors almost entirely unassimilated, and peeling off selected data for a close, careful view. In deciding what to focus on, the brain essentially shines a spotlight from place to place, a rapid, sweeping search that takes in maybe 30 or 40 objects per second, the survey accompanied by a multitude of body movements of which we are barely aware: the darting of the eyes, the constant tiny twists of the torso and neck.
The mechanisms that succeed in seizing our sightline fall into two basic classes: bottom up and top down. Bottom-up attentiveness originates with the stimulus, with something in our visual field that is the optical equivalent of a shout: a wildly waving hand, a bright red object against a green field. Bottom-up stimuli seem to head straight for the brainstem and are almost impossible to ignore.
Top-down attentiveness, by comparison, is a volitional act, the decision by the viewer that an item, even in the absence of flapping parts or strobe lights, is nonetheless a sight to behold. Volitional attentiveness is much trickier to study than is a simple response to a stimulus.
Recent studies with both macaques and humans indicate that attentiveness crackles through the brain along vast, multifocal, transcortical loops, leaping to life in regions at the back of the brain, in the primary visual cortex that engages with the world, proceeding forward into frontal lobes where higher cognitive analysis occurs, and then doubling back to the primary visual centers. En route, the initial signal is amplified, italicized and annotated, and so persuasively that the boosted signal seems to emanate from the object itself. The enhancer effect explains why, if you've ever looked at a crowd photo and had somebody point out the face of, say, a young Franklin Roosevelt or George Clooney in the throng, the celebrity's image will leap out at you thereafter as though lighted from behind.
Whether lured into attentiveness by a bottom-up or top-down mechanism, scientific studies strongly suggest that the visual system can focus on only one or very few objects at a time, and that anything lying outside a given moment's cone of interest gets short shrift. The brain, it seems, is a master at filling the gaps and making do, of compiling a cohesive portrait of reality based on a flickering view.
Our spotlight of attention is grabbing objects at such a fast rate that introspectively it feels like we are recognizing many things at once, but the reality is that we are only accurately representing the state of one or a few objects at any given moment. The rest of our visual experience may be aptly called 'a grand illusion'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/science/01angi.html?8br

Who is Kirtimukha?

In his book "Myths to Live By", Joseph Campbell narrates this story about Kirtimukha from Hindu mythology (Siva Puranam), that is highly symbolic of the self-destructive nature of the unbridled ego-self in us.

"Let me recount now a really marvellous Hindu legend to this point, from the infinitely rich mythology of the god Shiva and his glorious world-goddess Parvati. The occasion was of a time when there came before this great divinity an audacious demon who had just overthrown the ruling gods of the world and now came to confront the highest of all with a non-negotiable demand, namely, that the god should hand over his goddess to the demon. Well, what Shiva did in reply was simply to open that mystic third eye in the middle of his forehead, and puff! a lightning bolt hit the earth, and there was suddenly there a second demon, even larger than the first. He was a great lean thing with a lion-like head, hair waving to the quarters of the world, and his nature was sheer hunger. He had been brought into being to eat up the first, and was clearly fit to do so. The first thought: "So what do I do now?" and with a very fortunate decision threw himself upon Shiva's mercy. Now it is a well-known theological rule that when you throw yourself on a god's mercy the god cannot refuse to protect you; and so Shiva had now to guard and protect the first demon from the second. Which left the second, however, without meat to quell his hunger and in anguish he asked Shiva, "Whom, then, do I eat?" to which the god replied, "Well, let's see: why not eat yourself?" And with that, no sooner said than begun. Commencing with his feet, teeth chopping away, that grim phenomenon came right on up the line, through his own belly, on up through his chest and neck, until all that remained was a face. And the god, thereupon, was enchanted. For here at last was a perfect image of the monstrous thing that is life, which lives on itself. And to that sun-like mask, which was now all that was left of that lion-like vision of hunger, Shiva said, exulting, "I shall call you Face of Glory, 'Kirttimukha', and you shall shine above the doors to all my temples. No one who refuses to honour and worship you will come ever to knowledge of me." The obvious lesson of all of which is that the first step to the knowledge of the highest divine symbol of the wonder and mystery of life is in the recognition of the monstrous nature of life and its glory in that character: the realization that this is just how it is and that it cannot and will not be changed. Those who think—and their name is legion—that they know how the universe could have been better than it is, how it would have been had they created it, without pain, without sorrow, without time, without life, are unfit for illumination. Or those who think—as do many— "Let me first correct society, then get around to my­self" are barred from even the outer gate of the mansion of God's peace. All societies are evil, sorrowful, inequitable; and so they will always be. So if you really want to help this world, what you will have to teach is how to live in it. And that, no one can do who has not himself learned how to live in it in the joyful sorrow and sorrowful joy of the knowledge of life as it is. That is the meaning of the monstrous Kirtimukha, 'Face of Glory', over the entrances to the sanctuaries of the god of yoga, whose bride is the goddess of life. No one can know this god and goddess who will not bow to that mask in reverence and pass humbly through."

My thoughts on Kirtimukha:

Kirtimukha is represented as a face personifying ferocity with protruding eye-balls, stout horns, wide opened mouth suggesting a roar and canine teeth protruding out of it.. The terrifying face of Kirtimukha stares at us through his fierce protruding eyes everywhere in our temples -- on the ramparts, the Gopurams and even from the center of the arch (prabhai) over the idol that we worship inside the Sanctum Sanctorium (garbha gruha).

The face is perhaps symbolic of our thoughtless pursuit of worldly possessions and pleasures, even at the risk of damaging and destroying ourselves and has been placed prominently in places of worship to remind us: "Until you recognise the existence of this avaricious nature in you and conquer over it, your spiritual quest can not even begin."

First Page - Introduction

The Rig Veda proclaims at the very commencement:
'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti'
There is only one Being; sages describe it in different ways.
Swami Krishnananda observes:
"All the variety[...] is a glorious facet or expression of the Supreme Being who is designated in the very commencement of the Rig Veda as'Ekam Sat'-the One Being, without associating the Being with any cult, creed and religious faith. [...] Ekam Sat-The One Being, One Reality, One Substance, One Existence -that the sages recognise and designate as the manifold. In various ways, they sing of the glories of this One Mighty Being." http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/fest/fest_05.html
"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me, is the deepest root of all evil that is in the world." - Max Born
"Say not, I have found the truth; but rather, I have found a truth." -- Kahlil Gibran