A Course in Consciousness

This is a course in questioning and in

seeing, not in believing.
Question everything (but not
necessarily in class)!
Believe nothing!
See directly!

Why are we dissatisfied with life?

We feel separate from
our thoughts, feelings,
and body sensations.
We think they should
not be the way they
are
so we resist them
or try to change them.
The more we resist
them or try to change
them, the more
separate from them
we feel.

We feel separate from the world

and others
We think they
should not be the
way they are
so we resist them
or try to change
them.
The more we resist
them or try to
change them, the
more separate from
them we feel.

We feel separate from Reality

What is Reality,
anyway?
We yearn and
yearn to know it.
Yet, the more we
yearn for it, the
farther we seem to
be from it.

Who/what is this me that is trying

so hard?
Maybe me is what we should investigate!
But, that seems too hard and it might
make our heads hurt. (Well do that later.)
Lets start with something easy, like
philosophy and physics.
That might give us some answers
and maybe it will help us answer the
hard questions!

The concept of objective reality

Objective reality is assumed to exist whether or
not it is being observed.
The existence of separate objects is assumed to
be verifiable by observation, at least in principle.
The predominant feature of all objects is that
they are by definition separate from each
other.
This means that separation is a basic
assumption
so the observer-object is assumed to be
separate from the observed-object.
We will see later that these are all nothing but
assumptions!

Objective reality (cont.)

In addition to the assumption of
separation, objective reality has three
other components:
1) Observation of an object or its absence.
2) Communication of the observation to
others.
3) Agreement with others on the existence or
nonexistence of the object.

Still more on objective reality

Agreement is required because
1) Agreement is required to define the object.
2) The existence or nonexistence of the
object must be confirmed by at least one
other observer. If it is not confirmed, the
existence or nonexistence of the object is
indeterminate.
3) The object exists only for those who agree
that it exists. For those who disagree, it
doesnt exist!

But, what is it that is being

observed?
All of our observations consist of sense
impressions and/or thoughts.
In themselves, sense impressions do
not convey a sense of separation.
For example, the tactile sense senses
only pressures and textures, not
boundaries.
The visual sense senses only colors
and shapes, not boundaries.

Similarly for the other senses

The hearing sense senses only quality
and character of sound, such as tone,
intensity, modulation, etc., not
boundaries.
The taste and smell senses also sense
only quality and character, not
boundaries.
The internal senses also sense quality
and character such as pain and
pleasure, not boundaries.

So, what is an object?

Since sensing itself does not include separation,
an object is not sensed. It is thought.
An object is a thought that includes an identifier,
which is a name or pointer.
Thus, if something is thought to be separate
from something else, and if we refer to it by a
name or pointer, it is an object. (A name may be
simply a pronoun, like you, me, him, her,
this, that, they, it).
Example: I (as an object) might think I am
separate from you (as an object).

An object is the thought of it

Remember that the definition of objective
existence requires only separation,
observation, communication, and agreement.
Observation need not require sensing of it. It
might mean merely thinking of it.
Likewise, with communication and
agreement.
Thus, objective reality requires only thought,
not sensing.

Other examples of objects

Mathematical objects, verbal objects,
visualized objects, imagined objects,
remembered objects, fantasized objects,
and hallucinated objects.
In these case, sense impressions, such as
the felt senses of emotions, feelings, and
intuition might also be present but they are
not necessary for the object to exist.

What is it that is aware of an

object?
What is aware cannot itself be an object
because what would be aware of that object?
If what is aware is not an object, it cannot be
separate.
We can call it Consciousness or Awareness
(note the capitalization).
By definition, Consciousness, or Awareness,
has no limits or boundaries to make it
separate.

The philosophy of materialism

(pure objectivity)
(Earliest materialists: Atomists Leucippus, Democritus, and
Epicurus: 460-270 BC)

Everything is assumed to be matter (or, at least, it is

governed by physical law).
Space and time are assumed to be objectivethey
are assumed to exist whether or not there is an
observer.
Matter is assumed to be objectiveit is assumed to
exist whether or not there is an observer.
If consciousness exists, it is assumed to be an
epiphenomenon of matter with no independent
existence of its own.

Personalized statement of
materialism
I am a body.
Do you agree with this statement? If so,
are you all of the body or just parts of it?
Which parts are you? Which parts are you
not?
Where in the body are you?
What is this I that is a body?
Is it material?
Is it conscious?

Other questions about materialism

Which, if any, of the following are
conscious, and what is the evidence for it?
Cats and dogs?
Plants?
Microbes?
Self-reproducing protein molecules
(e.g., prions)?
Inanimate objects (e.g., rocks)?

The philosophy of Cartesian dualism

(objectivity plus subjectivity)
(Ren Descartes, 1596-1650)

Descartes proposed that mind and matter are

two fundamental, independent substances.
He proposed that a mind is an indivisible,
conscious, thinking entity without physical
size or spatial location.
He proposed that a body is a divisible object
that has physical size, i.e., it occupies space.
He proposed that mind and body can interact
with each other.

Personalized statement of
Cartesian dualism:
I am a mind and I have a body.
This implies that I am subjective but the body
is objective.
(Note that the complementary statement, I am a
body and I have a mind, is a personalized
statement of materialism.)
Do you agree with this statement of Cartesian
dualism? If so, are you all of the mind or just
parts of it?
Which parts are you? Which parts are you not?
Where in the mind are you?

Other questions about Cartesian

dualism
Similar questions as for materialism:
Which objects are conscious and which
are not:
Animals?
Plants?
Microbes?
Prions?
Rocks?

The philosophy of idealism

(pure subjectivity)
Plato (380 BC), Berkeley (1710), Kant (1781)

Berkeleys subjective idealism states that:

There are no material objects.
Objects exist only as perceptions in the
minds of finite spirits.
God is infinite spirit that is the source of all
perceptions.
This is similar but not identical to the
teaching of nonduality (next slide).

The teaching of nonduality

Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950), Nisargadatta Maharaj
(1887-1981), Ramesh Balsekar (1917-2009), Francis
Lucille (1944-), Greg Goode (1943-)

Awareness is all there is.

Awareness does not exist in space. Space is a
thought in Awareness.
Since space is only a thought in Awareness,
objects, which supposedly occupy space and
are separate in space, are also nothing but
thoughts in Awareness.
Therefore, separation is also only a thought in
Awareness.

The mind in nonduality

A mind is a collection of thoughts, feelings,
sensations, and perceptions that is
commonly thought to be separate from
other minds.
My mind is the collection of my
thoughts, feelings, sensations, and
perceptions.
Your mind is the collection of your
thoughts, feelings, sensations, and
perceptions.

However.
If space is only a thought, can there really
be separation between minds?
If there is no separation between minds,
why am I not aware of your thoughts?
If there is no separation between minds,
why is communication necessary between
them?
The ultimate questions: Who are the I
and the you?

Classical physics
Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
Classical physics was
assumed to be both
materialistic and objective.
Consciousness was not part of
the theory.
Classical objects were
assumed to have separate,
independent existences
whether or not they were being
observed.
They were assumed to have
definite properties, such as
position, velocity, and
orientation whether or not
these were being observed.
These properties were
assumed to have no intrinsic
uncertainties.

Classical physics (cont.)

Classical objects were assumed to be acted
upon by classical forces such as
electromagnetism and gravity.
The laws of classical physics were
deterministic. This means that the state of
the universe in the future is assumed to be
completely determined by the state of the
universe in the present, which is assumed
to be determined by the state of the
universe in the past.

Questions about classical physics

How might our lives be different if there were no
external objective reality but we did not know it?
What if we did know it?
How might our lives be different if the world were
deterministic but we did not know it?
What if we did know it?
Suppose we really accepted the principle of
determinism as truth. How would we feel about
our own feelings, decisions, and actions?
About other peoples feelings, decisions, and
actions?

In the late 1800s, problems arose

with classical physics
It could not explain certain experiments (e.g.,
blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and
line spectra of atoms).
After 3 decades of trying to make classical
theory work, physicists replaced it with quantum
theory in the 1920s. (Why did it take so long?)
In order to get a theory that successfully
explained the experiments, physicists had to
abandon the basic assumption that objective
reality consisted of separate, independently
existing, observable objects!

The development of quantum

theory
Like classical theory, quantum theory was formulated to
describe only measurements on objective processes.
At first, it was intended to describe only measurements
on microscopic processes, but now it is assumed to
describe measurements on all physical processes, from
those of elementary particles to those of the entire
universe.
It is the only physical theory we have at the present time.
(Classical physics is a good approximation for
macroscopic masses.) If it is incorrect, we have as yet
no other theory to replace it.
In every direct and indirect experimental test of quantum
theory so far, the basic principles have never been
shown to be invalid.

What does quantum theory describe?

Quantum theory is a theory of observation.
Most physicists accept that quantum theory correctly
predicts the probability that an observation will yield a
specific result (e.g., the probability that a position
measurement will yield a specific position). This is called
the statistical interpretation.
But, both predictions and observations can be made without
requiring preexisting objects. For example, consider the
following three cases:
Case #1: If we are not observing an object, how can we
assume that it exists?
Case #2: If we are making an observation, how would we
know we are making an observation on a preexisting object?
An observation need not refer to a preexisting object (e.g., a
thought, feeling, fantasy, imagination, dream).
Case #3: If we assume that a preexisting object exists, how
can we verify its existence? The only possible way is to make
an observation.but see Case #2.

Does quantum theory say anything

about objective reality?
Classical physics was the study of the properties of what
were assumed to be preexisting objects.
Objects were assumed to be preexisting because it was
thought that they could be perceived directly with the
human senses, and the mind told us that the objects
existed even when we did not perceive them.
However, quantum theory predicts microscopic
phenomena, i.e., those that cannot be perceived directly
with the human senses
and it is not obvious how to relate the predictions to
the behavior of preexisting objects, if there are any.
An interpretation is needed for this
but the interpretation is not self-evident.

In fact
there are many interpretations of
quantum theory, almost as many as there
are those who interpret it.
We still dont know if there is a correct
one
and, if there is, we dont know what it is!

Are there any quantum objects here?

Measured probabilities of
locations of iron atoms
forming a circular ring of
peaks surrounding
probabilities of locations
of electrons forming
continuous circular rings.
The surfaces are
densely packed point
measurements. But, only
positions were
measured, not objects!

Richard Feynman (1918-1988)

(Brilliant, creative, iconic theoretical physicist, and
bongo drummer)
I think I can safely
say that nobody
understands quantum
mechanics. The
Character of Physical
Law (1960).

There are three general types of

interpretations of quantum theory
Interpretation in terms of purely
objective reality (objective
interpretation).
Interpretation in terms of Cartesian
dualism (objectivity plus subjectivity).
Interpretation in terms of purely
subjective reality (subjective
interpretation).

The Copenhagen interpretation

Born, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, Bohr (1925-1927)

Even though the Copenhagen

interpretation is supposed to be the
orthodox interpretation, there is
widespread disagreement on it.
Some physicists think it is purely objective.
Some physicists think it is partly objective
and partly subjective.
And a few (very few) think it is purely
subjective.

In the Copenhagen interpretation

Space and time are assumed to be
objectively real.
The universe is assumed to consist of a
quantum wave that exists over all space
plus a macroscopic observer or
measurement device.

Elementary description of a
physical wave
A physical wave is a
traveling oscillation.
Physical waves carry
energy and momentum.
Examples: Water waves
and electromagnetic
waves. Simulation at:
http://www.surendranath.org/Applets.html

However, the quantum

wave is not a physical
wave! It is a purely
mathematical wave!

Big paradox: The quantum wave is

purely mathematical, but is assumed to
be objectively real!
The quantum wave is assumed to exist whether
or not there are observations.
It represents the probability (not the certainty)
that a specific result (e.g., a position) will be
obtained if a specific type of observation (e.g., of
position) is made.
It describes all of the possible results (e.g., all of
the possible positions) that could be obtained ,
but cannot predict which result will actually
be obtained.

Quantum wave collapse

At the moment of observation, the quantum
wave is assumed to change irreversibly from
a description of all of the possibilities (e.g., of
position) that could be observed to a
description of only the result that is observed.
This is called quantum wave reduction, or
quantum wave collapse.

Locality and nonlocality

Locality: No physical effects can travel
faster than the velocity of light.
Nonlocality: Some physical effects may
travel faster than the velocity of light.
In classical theory, there are no nonlocal
effects.
Quantum wave collapse is assumed to
occur over all space simultaneously,
hence it is nonlocal.

The next observation

After an observation and quantum wave
collapse, a new quantum wave emerges.
It represents all of the possibilities that are
allowed by the previous observation.
Another observation results in another quantum
wave collapse, etc.
In this interpretation, a sequence of
observations results from a sequence of
quantum wave collapses.
Without quantum wave collapse, there are no
observations.

After 85 years, quantum wave

collapse is still not understood
It could be a result of conscious observation (not
explainable by physics). This implies that
consciousness is nonlocal.
It could be a result of the quantum wave of the
system interacting with the quantum wave of the
measuring device and environment (called
decoherencethis results in the many-worlds
interpretation). Decoherence cannot explain
nonlocality.
It could be a result of a modification of the
Schrdinger equation, the basic equation of
quantum physics (called objective collapsethis
also cannot explain nonlocality).

Daring prediction!
Quantum wave collapse will never be
understood objectively because it
starts with an impossible assumption,
that the quantum wave is objective
when every physicist knows that it is
just a mathematical formula!

Hidden-variables interpretation (A
purely objective interpretation)
David Bohm (1917-1992)
Particles are assumed to
exist as classical particles
whether or not they are
observed.
They are assumed to be
acted on by the classical
forces, such as
electromagnetism and
gravity.
In addition, the particles
are assumed to be acted
on by a quantum force,
which is derived from the
quantum wave.

No collapse in hidden-variables
theory, however, it is nonlocal
In hidden variables theory, classical particles
(real particles) are always present, so no wave
collapse is necessary.
However, hidden variables theory is intrinsically
nonlocal because the quantum force acts at all
points in space simultaneously.

Many-worlds interpretation
(Hugh Everett, 1930-1982)

Many-worlds is a partly
objective and partly subjective
interpretation.
The entire universe is described
by a single quantum wave.
The quantum wave is assumed to
exist as the only reality from the
moment of the big bang.
Since there can be no observer or
observation that is separate from
the universe, the quantum wave
never collapses.
At any moment that I (as part of
the universe) make an
observation, the wave branches to
manifest the world that I observe
with a probability given by the
wave. There is no wave collapse,
but there is a manifestation of
my world.

Problems with the many-worlds

interpretation
At the moment of a branching, my observation
manifests my world.
All of the other possibilities given by the quantum wave
are manifested as other worlds. There is a me in every
one of them.
The different worlds cannot communicate with each
other.
Since there is no wave collapse, the quantum wave of
the universe continues forever.
A world becomes manifest over all of its own space
simultaneously, thus, many-worlds is nonlocal.
There is no explanation for how observation manifests
the different worlds.

Second daring prediction!

Nobody will ever figure out how branching
occurs because it is assumed to start from
a quantum wave (which every physicist
knows is nothing but a mathematical
formula) and ends up with a physical
world!

Mark Everett (1963-), son of Hugh

Everett and founder of Eels
My father never, ever said anything to me about his
theories. I was in the same house with him for at least 18
years but he was a total stranger to me. He was in his
own parallel universe. He was a physical presence, like
the furniture, sitting there jotting down crazy notations at
the dining room table night after night. I think he was
deeply disappointed that he knew he was a genius but
the rest of the world didnt know it.
Marks father, Hugh died of a heart attack at age 51. His
sister committed suicide at age 39 and his mother died
two years later. His cousin and her husband were flight
attendants who died in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Bells theorem
(John Stewart Bell, 1928-1990)
Bell devised a way to
determine experimentally
whether reality could be
described by local, real
theories (i.e., local, hidden
variable theories) by
deriving an inequality that
was valid only if local, real
theories were valid.
The inequality depended
only on experimentally
measured quantities, hence
it was independent of any
specific theory. Any
violation of the inequality
would prove that reality
cannot be both local and
real.

Many experiments have shown that

reality violates Bells inequality
Thus, reality cannot be both local and real.
Furthermore, using Bells inequality, Aspect, et
al. (1981-82) showed that reality is nonlocal.
Then, Grblacher, et al. (2007) showed that, if
hidden variables describes reality, reality must
be bizarre and counterintuitive.
However, even before these experiments had
been done, physicists had largely abandoned
the assumption of real particles. Thus, they had
abandoned the assumption that particles exist if
they are not observed.

A purely subjective interpretation of

quantum theory
Currently, only the statistical interpretation, which
states that quantum theory correctly predicts the
probability that an observation will yield a specific
result (e.g., the probability that a position
measurement will yield a specific position), can be
purely subjective.
It is purely subjective provided there is no objective
wavefunction and provided both the prediction and
the observation are subjective.
If it is purely subjective, there are no problems of
collapse, branching, and nonlocality because they all
result from the assumption that the wavefunction is
objective.

A third daring prediction!

Both the Copenhagen and many-worlds
interpretations will eventually either be
abandoned or will be made purely
subjective by assuming that the
wavefunction is a tool for calculating
subjective probabilities, instead of being
objectively real.

The experiments of Benjamin Libet,

et al. (1973)

Subject is told to lift a finger whenever he/she

chooses.
The EEG of subject is measured simultaneously
with the EMG from the finger.

The results

The subject associates his/her awareness of the urge to act with his/her
observations of the time on a clock. No separate muscle action is required.
This process is repeated many thousands of times and the results are
averaged.
Result: The average EEG signal begins 0.3 s before the subjective
awareness of an impulse to lift the finger.
Thus: The brain begins to process a muscle act prior to the subjective
awareness of the urge to act!

The experiments of Soon, Brass,

Heinze, and Haynes (2008)

Functional MRI (blood oxygen level dependent) measurements of

the brain showed that the brain begins to process pushing either the
left button (dark voxels) or the right button (light voxels) up to 10 s
before any awareness of the subjective urge to push a button.
(Instead of watching a clock, the subject watched letters being
flashed on a screen every 0.5 s in random order. The randomness
guaranteed that the subject could not anticipate the letters.)

Generalization of these
experiments
Any mental or sensory event (as measured by
brain waves or scans) happens before our
awareness of it (as measured by subjective
response) because the brain requires time to
process the event before we can become aware
of it .
Thus, all subjective experiences happen after
the corresponding objective events. This
applies to volitional experiences as well as
nonvolitional ones.

Example: Free will

Free will assumes that we can choose our
thoughts.
If we can choose our thoughts, why do we have
thoughts that we dont want?
Free will assumes that we can choose our
feelings.
If we can choose our feelings, why do we have
feelings that we dont want?
Free will assumes that we can choose our
actions.
If we can choose our actions, why do we do
things that we dont want to do?

Exercises on free will

To choose means to have control over choice.
Try to stop thinking for 30 seconds. Were you
successful?
Try to stop feeling for 30 seconds. Were you
successful?
Try to stop sensing for 30 seconds. Were you
successful?
Try to stop all muscle action for 30 seconds.
Were you successful?
If we cant control our thoughts, feelings,
sensations, and actions, what can we control?

Can we control anything?

We experience thoughts, feelings,
sensations, and actions but we can
see directly that we cannot control
them.
We experience will but we can see
directly that it is not free.
If we think we should have control
but dont, we suffer.

The cause of suffering

Suffering is a result of identification with a me.
Identification with a me results in the belief that
we have control.
The belief that we have control results in
judging, clinging, and resisting.
We judge our thoughts, feelings, sensations,
and actions to be good/bad, right/wrong,
virtuous/evil, etc., and
we cling to the good ones and resist the
bad ones.
It is judging, clinging, and resisting that comprise
suffering, not the thoughts, feelings, sensations,
and actions in themselves.

Examples of judging, resisting, and

clinging
I should not have these thoughts (I
should have only pure thoughts).
I should not have these feelings (I should
have only pleasant feelings).
I should not have these emotions (I
should have only loving emotions).
I should not have these sensations (I
should have only pleasant sensations).
I should not act the way I do (I should
always act compassionately).

If we really do have control, why is

clinging to it necessary?
Perhaps we cling to the idea of having
control because we are afraid not to.
In fact, at some level, perhaps we know
that we have no control but are afraid to
know it!
But, is control necessary?
Perhaps we would be just fine without it!

The end of suffering

When the me is investigated, it
cannot be found.
When it is clearly seen that there is
no me, and that no me is needed,
suffering ends.
This might have to be repeated many
times.

Nonduality
Nonduality is the teaching that Consciousness is
all there is.
This is a pointer to Reality, not a description of It.
Symbolically, Consciousness is both the circle
(Awareness) and everything inside it (arisings in
Awareness).

Duality
Consciousness is always
whole and unsplit.
However, Consciousness
seems to be split into
separate parts with
names (e.g., yin and
yang).
Anything that is
thought to be separate
from anything else is
nothing but a concept.
For example, yin and
yang are nothing but
concepts.

YANG
YIN

YIN

The basic split

Consciousness seems to be split into I/me
and not-I/me.
However, nondualistically, there are no separate
persons
so there is no you that is separate from "me".
You and I are only concepts in Awareness.
However, the illusion of separation is extremely
persistent.
All spiritual practices have the aim of seeing
through it.
Clearly seeing through this illusion is called
disidentification, enlightenment, awakening,
or nirvana.

If I am not a concept, what am

I?
Nondualistically, I am pure Awareness
without any separation from anything.
I am the circle, the yin, and the yang.
That is my true nature
and I have never been anything
else.

Spiritual practice
Spiritual practice helps us to see that I am
not separate from anything else.
It helps us see that there is no I that can
do anything or control anything.
The paradox of spiritual practice: We have
to do it in order to see that we are not
doing it!
There are many spiritual practices, almost
as many as there are teachers.

Meditation
Meditation is best learned from an
experienced teacher.
You may have to try out several teachers and
several forms of meditation to find one that
will help you to realize your true nature as
pure Awareness.
A widely taught form of Buddhist meditation is
called Vipassana and consists of two
aspects:
Concentration
Mindfulness

Concentration
Concentration enables mindfulness (next slide).
We start by relaxing and resting easily for a few
moments.
From a state of relaxation, we gently bring the
attention to the breath by feeling it from the inside.
Our attention will wander and we will become lost in
thought.
Whenever we notice that we have been lost, we
gently bring the attention back to the breath.
We do this several million times.
Each time we become aware of having been lost, it
is another awakening!
We stay relaxed the whole time. The more effort we
put into it, the less likely it is that it will helpful.

Mindfulness
We can practice mindfulness while sitting or
in activity.
We notice our thoughts, feelings, sensations,
and perceptions as they arise.
We don't ignore them or suppress them, nor
do we analyze or judge them.
We simply notice them nonjudgmentally,
moment by moment, as they arise and fall in
the field of Awareness.
We notice that Awareness is unaffected by
anything that arises in it.

Inquiry: The most common spiritual

practice in Advaita
There are two basic kinds of inquiry:
self-inquiry (lower case), and
Self-inquiry (upper case).
Initially, inquiry is most easily
practiced during meditation.
Later, it can also be practiced during
activity.

self-inquiry (lower case)

self-inquiry is the investigation of the I:
Ask: Who/what is it that is thinking this?
Then, try to find the thinker.
Ask: Who/what is it that is feeling this?
Then, try to find the feeler.
Ask: Who/what is it that is sensing this?
Then, try to find the senser.
Ask: Who/what is it that is doing this?
Then, try to find the doer.

What do you find?

If you find a thinker, feeler, senser, or
doer, who/what is it that finds it?
Are you that which is found or that
which finds it? (That which is found
cannot be that which finds it.)
If you dont find a thinker, feeler,
senser, or doer, can there be one?
In that case, what are you?

Self-inquiry (upper case)

Self-inquiry is the investigation of the true
I.
Ask: What is it that is aware? Then try to
find it.
If you find it, what is it that finds it?
If you cant find it, but you are what
looked, what does that make you?

Resonance (aka transmission)

When we are with a teacher and feel whole,
complete, and full, resonance is occurring.
Nothing passes between the teacher and the
student, but
ignorance (the sense of being separate) in
the student is temporarily lifted.
(No matter what the circumstances are,
wholeness, completeness, and fullness are
experienced whenever there is no sense of
separation.)

Silent meditation during

resonance
During resonance, silent meditation is
effortless.
The teacher instructs: Dont do anything.
The student experiences: I am being
meditated.

Guided meditation during

resonance
There are many kinds of guided meditation.
Some of Francis guided meditations involve
maintaining open awareness while the body
moves.
Others involve visualizing doing something
nonphysical, such as expanding the body to
fill the room, or standing outside of the body.
The purpose is to see directly that we are not
physical.

The four classical spiritual paths

(from the Bhagavad Gita)
Jnana yoga: The path of understanding
(intellect). Advaita is primarily a jnana
path.
Bhakti yoga: The path of devotion (heart).
Karma yoga: The path of selfless service
(action).
Raja yoga: The path of meditation
(common to all of the other three paths).

The three paths according to

Francis (from Jean Klein)
The path of truth (via the intellect)
The path of love (via the heart)
The path of beauty (via the senses)
A good teacher guides the student along all
three paths simultaneously.
Satsang speaks to the intellect, while the heart
and senses are carried along by resonance.
When in resonance, meditation involves all three
paths.