An Inquiry into the nature of the Soul

Spirituality
#41

was followed by an enumeration of physical objects. There is a great danger of confusing the perception and the apperception of an object with the object itself. We cannot know by the means of our five senses what is there outside of us. We can only know that we have perceptions and these perceptions are then given names, classified and judged: apperception. So the perceptions and apperceptions are the objects of our knowledge. If there are physical objects that correspond to these perceptions is part of the unknowable. As Kant puts it, we can know a phenomenon, but not the corresponding noumenon. Nietzsche concludes there are no noumena and there is no objective reality.

I understand what you are saying, however, we have not yet completed our inquiry, so we have yet not come to any ultimate conclusion. We can only declare an ultimate conclusion when we get there, otherwise doubt will remain. So far we have been able to show that there is a self(I, observer, knower, doubter, seer etc) and that there is a field of objects of knowledge. We have been able to recognise that there are two divisions to this field that form the objects of our knowledge. There is the field of the 5 senses which correspond to physical objects which come in contact with our 5 senses. Then there is the field of the 6th sense which corresponds to mental objects such as thoughts, numbers, space, time.

We have also found through our inquiry that between the subject and object is a third entity that meditates between it. If this entity is not present, our senses will still be receiving the data and perception will still be taking place, but knowledge will not take place. This knowledge only takes place when this instrument of knowledge is in contact with the senses.

It is fair to call this instrument of knowledge the mind because we find that thoughts that take place only take place after the contact of the mind with the object(posterior) I only come to know of Valentines day if I first encounter it in the empriical world. However, there are some concepts I come up know that are not empirical objects, such as numbers(a priori) which are imposed on the empirical world by the mind.

In the Indian tradition the mind is subdivided into four aspects: manas, ahamkara, buddhi and chitta. First data is received by our senses and sent to the manas and the manas then considers it, organises it. This data is then personalized by the ahamkara(literally: I-maker) and passed through our prism of self-identity. Then a judgement is formed by the buddhi and sent to the chitta and then perception takes place. Then it becomes lodged in our memory as an impression(samskara). The reverse then happens when a samskara stored in the memory filters down from the buddhi, ahamkara to the manas. These are what are called habit patterns. Today we say they are in the unconscious mind.

So the mind is not just a one way traffic where we are just receiving data all the time, but data is travelling back and forth between the subject(consciousness) and the object(empirical world) Such that the final act of perception is the resultant of that interaction. Therefore this means that the reality that we apprehend is either phenomenal or noumenal. If reality is phenomenal, then like Neitzche says, there is no noumenon and whatever see is actual and absolute.

Yet we find that our view of reality changes with the state of our consciousness. If we take drugs, then the reality we see is completely different. In meditation, NDE and OBES we see a completely different reality. If we look at it at the atomic or even the subatomic level we find a completely different reality. Which then is actual and which is apparent?

Now we are going to have to ask ourselves a cosmological question which reality comes first and which is last. Is our apparent view of reality the first or the last? There are two major ways we can answer this question.

  1. Causal argument: It is clear to us that something never comes out of nothing. That if things come into existence, they aggregate from subtle and minute to gross and massive. A building does not just materialise into existence, it is gradually built from foundation to summit. Likewise, a solid does not materialise into existence, it gradually comes into being from a vapour state, to a liquid state and finally into solid state. Similarly, matter does not just materialise, it starts from subatomic, then becomes atomic and molecular and then highly solidified. Therefore reality begins from the most subtle and minute and aggregates into the most gross and massive. Then apparent reality which we see as massive has to the last in the chain of evenets. Therefore the cosmological origin cannot be matter, it has to be mind.

The proof that matter and mind are the transformations of the same substance can be observed in nature. It is found that matter and mind always behave together. If you think something, you feels sensation on your body. If you breath, your thought activity reduced or increases. You find that mind can be used to control the body and in higher states of meditation so-called involuntary bodily processes can be controlled. It is also found that psychosomatic disorders can form. The reverse is true as well neurobiological changes can change mental states. Matter and mind are in constant interaction because they are the same substance. Else, they would not be able to contact one another.

If one goes beyond matter and mind in our current categories that are known to exist then we arrive at the subject - the self. Thus it follows that the ultimate substance out of which both both mind and matter arise is the self. First there is the self, and then from that self arises both mind and matter.

  1. Observer argument: It is clear that the self exists. But, whenever one tries to directly see the self they find no-self. They find a bundle of changing sense impressions, sensations, thoughts, attiudes but nothing that could be said to be an enduring self. Every moment a new “self” arises and then is destroyed. Yet, despite this, there is always the I-am awareness that watches these various selves rise and fall. Therefore it follows that our reality is only apparent and everything we know in this reality is all phenomenal, including our self-identity.

Both arguments have lead us to exactly the same conclusion: the primacy of the self. We have discovered that the self is beyond mind and matter and beyond our personal identity. Now that we know this(if you doubts, please let them be known, as we must be free of all doubts) what can we say about the self if it is beyond mind and matter and beyond personal identity.

#42

Thanks for mentioning this book. I just downloaded it and I'll take the time to read it. By briefly scanning through it, it seems a very valuable work indeed. At least now I know the source of your type of argumentation. Before commenting further in too much detail and although I may agree with the ultimate conclusions of your reasoning, there are some points which will need further clarification. The line of thought that matter comes from mind and not vice versa is not a water-tight reasoning. The advances in artificial intelligence and the construction of artificial minds in digital environments should not be underestimated (Ben Goertzel in "Creating Internet Intelligence"). Manas, Citta, Buddhi are still instruments; they are not the same as what Isvarkrisna called "Spirit" and what you refer to as "Self". I have an old bet with a friend of mine: it is about the extent to which the processes in the mind can be reduced to computational processes. I intend to show him that Manas, Citta and Buddhi are a mere set of algorithms.
Secondly, recent advances in science based on experimental data are putting the second law of thermodynamics to the test. This may have severe consequences on the "cause and effect" type of reasoning.

Finally, you as an adherent of Samkhya, can you explain me why it is said that Samkhya denies the notion of Brahman? From what I have just seen in the Samkhyakarika, I don't see the difference between what is mentioned there as "Spirit" and the notion of "Brahman".

#43

The line of thought that matter comes from mind and not vice versa is not a water-tight reasoning. The advances in artificial intelligence and the construction of artificial minds in digital environments should not be underestimated (Ben Goertzel in “Creating Internet Intelligence”). Manas, Citta, Buddhi are still instruments; they are not the same as what Isvarkrisna called “Spirit” and what you refer to as “Self”. I have an old bet with a friend of mine: it is about the extent to which the processes in the mind can be reduced to computational processes. I intend to show him that Manas, Citta and Buddhi are a mere set of algorithms.

You are correct Manas, Buddhi and Chitta are unconscious, they are not the self. This conclusion was arrived at through our inquiry as well, that the self is something beyond mind and matter. There is a self and the self has objects of knowledge. The objects of knowledge occurr in two fields 1) The 5 sense empirical world and 2) 6th sense mental world. The objects of the 5 sense empirical world are public, extended, measurable. The objects of the 6th sense mental world are private, non-extended and immeasurable. However, we also know that both of these fields are in constant interaction. For example when I get a thought, simultaneously there is activity in the brain.
However, thoughts can never be seen, only brainactivity can be seen. This is because they are not identical. If they were identical than both would possess the same properties as per the law of indiscernability of identicals: if x is y then x has the same properties as y. This is not true, a thought is not the same as a brain state.

If you take the reasoning further you will find that there another dimension of reality beyond the empirical world where minds are suspended. This is known as the principle of non-locality today. The Vedic people called it the manomaya kosha(the mind level of reality)

Nonetheless, what is common to both physical objects like brains and mental objects like thoughts is the characteristic that are both objects of the self, they possess the characteristic of change from moment to momemt. Now our inquiry is getting to an advanced stage, for we are defining the propeties now of what exists. It is found that anything that has the characteristic of becoming(production) it is an event which takes place in time and space. The self which watches these changes from moment to moment does not itself change. If the self too was changing, then perception would be impossible, because there is no substance to hold a perception. Like a bottomless glass cannot hold water. That fundamental “I am” awareness is everpresent. It is the pure observer that watches your body and watches your mind.

If we meet face to face, then both of our respective consciousness will be aware of both my body and your body and my consciousness will be aware of your body and my body. In other words consciousness is itself not embodied but it is the common observer of everybody. It is aware of different mental content, sensations, beliefs, ideas, experiences, but by the very virtue that it is aware of them, it cannot be them. Consciousness is thus completely unconditioned and pure.

It has been demomstrated that self which has the propery of pure consciousness is itself not in the world time and space, neither in the 5 sense field of the senses and neither in the 6th sense world of the mind and that it is everpresent from moment to moment. Therefore consciousness is spaceless and timeless - eternal and infinite. It is everywhere and in everytime. This is the property of being or existence. The very being of reality is consciousness.

This will be found to be true because all events that take place take place in the field of consciousness. All events I witness whether they be my changing body or your changing body, my changing thoughts, the changing physical objects out there are all taking place within the field of consciousness. Space is consciousness.

We are now arriving at the ultimate truth declared in Vedanta that Brahman is satchitananda. Truth that is ultimate being, infinite and eternal. Pure consciousness. Also pure bliss because it does nothing it just remains ever still and present. In Buddhism this same state is known as Nirvana because of its quality of stillness.

#44

I covered the subject of artificial intelligence in my dissertation. Artificial intelligence can simulate the external behaviour of a person, for you can theoretically create a robot that can walk, talk and even look like a human - but will this robot have self-awareness? Is awareness something that you can produce by any set of processes? As we have found with our inquiry above the self is beyond both mind and matter and it is the very being of reality. It never becomes. It just always is. Therefore it is logically impossible to take one unconscious thing(say a silicon chip) and another unconscious thing(more silicon chips) and then get a conscious thing. Just as it is impossible to get an apple from an orange seed. Moreover, as conscousness is not a produced entity, it can never be produced.

So our reason shows us that logically it is impossible for AI to be self-aware. However, can an A.I have a mind? Here too, we will find that the answer is negative. The mind is not something empirical. It is immeasurable, nonextended, indivisible and private. AI on the other hand is made out of empirical parts which are measurable, extended, divisible and public. If I wanted to find the memories the AI collected I could look into its memory chip and project it on a screen. If I want to find the memories of a human being, I cannot just split open its brain and find them lodged there. In fact now new empirical evidence shows that memory is completely non-local. It is not there in the physical brain itself.

The argument that matter is coming from mind is in fact watertight. Unless you can show through any observation that a building materialises into being, a solid is solid before it is a liquid or a gas. A molecule is a molecule before it is an atom. An atom is an atom before it is subatomic particles. It is logical that things do not just materialise into being, but evolve into being gradually. Evolution is a fact of nature. Nothing just happens all of a sudden in nature, it evolves into being from minute and subtle level of manifestation to massive and gross level of manifestation.

Now logically it does not make any sense that mind would come after matter because mind is infinitely more subtle and minute - invisible in fact - than matter. An aggregate of matter can only produce more gross and massive matter. You can’t get a rock and another rock and from that produce a rock with a mind. If you proceed to read the Samkhyakarika you see the arguments within it to show clearly the priority of mind over matter:

  1. All effects have causes. Things do not just come into being out of nothing, but have causes. If things did come into being out of nothing than a barren women could conceive and things would happen randomly all the time. Such as mustard seeds would produce oranges, orange seeds would produce mustard etc. Things would materialise out of thin air all the time. Paintings would paint themselves. Buildings would build themselves.

  2. All effects are the transformation of the cause. The effect is nothing more than the gross form of the cause. The orange seed can only give an orange tree not an apple tree and the apple seed can only give an apple tree and not an orange tree.

  3. All ultimate causes are invisible. The ultimate cause of something can never itself be seen because they are invisible. All we see are effects. Even our own perception is an effect, therefore what underlies our perception can not be seen, but can only be inferred using reasoning.

  4. All effects evolve into being from the cause from absolutely potential, to minute and subtle, to gross and massive. Nothing has the characteristics of mass in the beginning, initially is is not massive but just potential. Then it gradually comes into being. Physically first as a wave, then a force, then energy, then subatomic particles and then solid atoms. Then aggregates further and becomes more gross and solid(molecular, cells, bone marrow, bones and so on)

Thus based on Samkhya axiom 4 it is impossible for mind to come later in the chain it has to come early in the chain. The actual stages are as follows: Causal(chitta), intellectual(buddhi) mental(manas) sensory(tanmatras) and then begins the physical aggegates starting from quantum(akasha) via which waves travel and then become increasingly more gross and solid.

Meditation is the process whereby you reverse this cosmological sequence within yourself so that you go to primordial reality and finally realise the self.

#45

[QUOTE=Awwware;44244]
Finally, you as an adherent of Samkhya, can you explain me why it is said that Samkhya denies the notion of Brahman? From what I have just seen in the Samkhyakarika, I don’t see the difference between what is mentioned there as “Spirit” and the notion of “Brahman”.[/QUOTE]

Allow me to answer this. The reasoning is contained in the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram, Book1.

  1. (There can be) no production of what did not exist before,as a man’s horn.
  2. Because there must be some determinate material cause for every product.
  3. Because all things are not produced in all places, at all times.
  4. Because the production of what is possible can be only from what is competent to cause such production.
  5. And also because the effect possesses the same nature as the cause.

This is known as the Theory of Existent Effects. In a nutshell, on the basis of this theory, matter cannot be produced from spirit, because spirit is not a substance that is competent to produce it.

If you are interested in Samkhya, I recommend [U]The Samkhya Philosophy[/U], by Nandalal Sinha. It contains English translations of most of the major works on Samkhya, and an annotated table of contents.

#46

I second that recommendation. It includes not just the Samkhyakarika, but other major works in the Samkhya tradition. The translation is also accurate. Other translations tend to leave a lot to be desired. You can download it here: http://openlibrary.org/works/OL254288W/The_samkhya_philosophy

Samkhya is basically Indian Philosophy. It is the oldest philosophical tradition of India, and the oldest works extant that describe it are the Ayurvedic texts. It is also found described in rudimentary form in the Upanishads. It is also described in the Bhagavat Gita and it is the theory behind Yoga. All other developments such as Vedanta and Bhakti are all relatively recent. It is interesting to note that Samkhya is purely a technical tradition and has no mystical or religious jargon. It is, according to myself and some scholars, a monument of human reasoning. How human reasoning can be used to penetrate the ultimate truths of reality by a step by step reasoning process(this is why it is called Samkhya - meaning enumeration/counting)

It is Samkhya which is behind the doctrines of dharma, karma and reincarnation, the cosmology of the different planes of reality and the methodology of Yoga. It will also be found that theory is backed up by practice. The reason meditation works to get to self-realization is because the observer is always distinct from its objects of observation, and when you observe something directly you realise this is not you. Therefore is you suspend yourself in a state of detached observation, gradually everything that you are not is negated and you penetrate deeper into your psycho-physical structure. First you just witness your thoughts and sensations in your body, after a while you go deeper and witness your deep-seated memories, after a while you lose complete sense of time and space and bodily awareness and become aware of your subtle body. And so on and so forth.

Samkhya is also consistent with modern science which has found that matter is not massive and solid initially, it is first a wavicle and this wavicle is collapsed by observation which causes it to become a particle. Likewise Samkhya says that matter is collapsed out of its dormant state by the observer. It then aggregates gradually from particle, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules to gross matter. The stage prior to that which modern science is now discovering, but does not understand, Is the akasha. The Akasha is the the quantum field, which corresponds to the energy body or pranamaya kosha. The energy body is a system of energy exchange and is plugged into the wider energy system of the universe(prana). You can become aware of this part of your body by doing a body scan starting from the top of your head and going downwards, you will feel the movement of energy in your body and also become aware of blockages(tensions in the body) Still prior to that is the emotional and mental body(manomaya kosha) this is the mental universe which is made up of our thoughts. Whatever we think, manifests as reality here. If the state of mind is unbalanced, negative then our thought forms take on the forms of demons, hells, unpleasent things. If the state of mind is balanced and positive than our thought forms take on the forms of angels, heavens, pleasent things. This is proven through NDE and drug-induced altered states.

Modern consciousness researchers have verified all these different bodies(levels) exist and you enter them based on how focussed your mind is. The researcher Robert Monroe has developed a map known as focus levels. Focus 10 is mind awake/body asleep, Focus 15 is the loss of spatial awareness and Focus 20+ is the entrance into the so-called astral planes.

This shows that our reasoning has actually given us reliable, valid and scientific knowledge. This knowledge is testable. The current physicists and scientists are verifying it(I use verify now because it not a theory that is being verified, but a predicate) and consciousness researchers today and in ancient times have verified them over and over again.

#47

[QUOTE=Asuri;44253]Allow me to answer this. The reasoning is contained in the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram, Book1…If you are interested in Samkhya, I recommend [U]The Samkhya Philosophy[/U], by Nandalal Sinha. It contains English translations of most of the major works on Samkhya, and an annotated table of contents.[/QUOTE]
If I find the time I’ll investigate these Samkhya notions. I must honestyl say that from the above quotation I still don’t get the difference between Spirit and Brahman. Do you mean that Samkhya is fundamentally dualist and that the notion Brahman belongs to a monist view?
A small funny anecdote as regards the “man with horns”: they do in fact exist: it is a disease called “cornu cutaneum”, you can type it in a search engine and see what aberrations occur in nature…:evil: (I do not mean evil with the siley, but the “horned man”…practical joke)

#48

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44252]I covered the subject of artificial intelligence in my dissertation.[/QUOTE]
Highly interesting. I am presently working on exactly that question of artificial awarness in computers. Could you send me a copy? in pdf or so?

#49

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44260]
The researcher Robert Monroe has developed a map known as focus levels. Focus 10 is mind awake/body asleep, Focus 15 is the loss of spatial awareness and Focus 20+ is the entrance into the so-called astral planes.
[/QUOTE] I just had a look at these focus levels. Now talking about fantasy! Above level 22 it sounds highly fantastical. Beyond Taimni…Can you comment on the credibility of this man?

#50

My dissertation will be not of much help to you as the main subject matter I am addressing is Indian rationality, how it contrasts with Western rationality and how the findings in modern science which contradict Western rationality, are completely consistent with Indian rationality. I begin by deconstructing hypotheical reasoning and showing it is invalid means of knowledge. Then deconstructing the Cartesian assumption and showing that its dualism is a false dualism. Then I introduce Samkhya and show its consistency with modern science, and how science can only proceed now by including the observer. Then I bring in Yoga to show how its phenomenology can be used to go beyond the quantum barrier. But I ultimately find Samkhya dualism problematic, because the Purusha of Samkhya is passive, it never does anything, it just observes and responds to material changes. Thus perhaps consciousness is nothing more than a ghost in the machine and then I bring in some recent developments in AI research. Finally, I find that Vedanta can resolve the contradictions by redefining reality as not a material field but a consciousness field. Space is consciousness.

An analogy is given in the Upanishads to understand this notion that space is consciousness. Suppose you have a series of glass tumbers and you turn them upside down. Now, suppose they each develop I-awareness. It will appear to them that the space inside the tumbler belongs to them and space outside the tumber is different and the space inside other tumbers is different. But if the glass tumbers were to shatter it would be found that the space inside and outside were always the same. Likewise, we believe that our bodies have consciousness and the space outside of is not conscious. We believe that each of us possess bodies that we call “my body” and each of us possess an individual consciousness. However, if we investigate into our self we find no such thing as an individual self. There is no individual possessor. We also find that consciousness of everybody is pure, presuppositionless and beyond time and space. Therefore, it folllows that this consciousness is all pervading and everpresent. The fundamental I am awareness is the same in everybody. All of space is just consciousness.

Samkhya traditionally is taken to be dualist, but its dualism is only relative. There is a dualism between cause and effect(seed and tree) but when the effect is not existent then all there is, is cause. Thus dualism only exists when reality manifests from the ultimate cause, but when reality is unmanifest, then only the ultimate cause remains.
Now some Samkhya traditions say there are two causes: a material cause(prakriti) and a spiritual cause(purusha) All matter(including mind, mind is subtle matter) comes from the material cause. However, if one critically analyses the evolutes and their sequence from chitta, buddhi, ahamkara to manas one will find the first evolutes have more affinity with consciousness than they do matter. I call this the argument of affinity.

Moreover, at one point matter does not exist. It exists only in a potential state(moolaprakriti, root and unmanfiest matter) and all that exists is consciousness. It is fair to say then to posit that there is one material cause and one spiitual cause is unreasonable, because material does not exist initially. All there is, is consciousness(spirit as you call it) and therefore if that is the ultimate cause than all things come out from consciousness - the self - and not from an imaginary matter.

But if the self is the cause of reality, then the effect should be like the cause. But this is not true. The self is pure consciousness, unchanging, spaceless and timeless and the world is unconscious, changing and in space and time. It therefore follows that the effect is not actually real but imaginary or holographic(maya - illusion) Surely enough, if one critically investigates into this thing we call matter we will find it has no being. It is always becoming. We cannot say at any point in time and say “Here is being” because the moment we say it, it has changed. We also cannot say it is momentary because of the impossibility of defining a moment. If I say a second is a moment, then I can divide it further and get a microsecond, and I can divide that further ad infinitum. So this thing that we call “matter” is the real ghost. It is not consciousness that is the ghost in the machine, it is matter that is the ghost within consciousness. Your body is the ghost, your mind is the ghost, this world is the ghost. Maybe that is why they call it the “holy ghost” This is now being shown by modern science as well that there is no such thing as mass or objects. In meditation you too will find that you reach certain states where your entire body will appear to have vanished and it will be replaced with just pure vibrations. The Buddhists call this the state of “Bhanga” means total dissolution.

If we are entirely honest about this thing we call matter we will find that it completely contingent on our awareness. If I am in waking state, I see the objective world of massive objects. If I am in the dream state, I see the mental wold of thoughts, imagination, archetypes, numbers. If I am in deep sleep I see nothing. Whatever I see chairs, tables, trees, cows, humans are all forms that I isolate in the field of consciousness. If I am taught to recognise a chair then I see the chair, otherwise I see a structure. My mind is conditioned to seeing reality like this(ahamkara is the prism via which reality gets filtered and personalized) However, if you suspend your awareness on an object such as a chair you will after a while notice the form begins to shift and change.

It is now known in Neuroscience that our entire reality as wee see it is constructed within our brains(there are prior stages which science will eventually discover) whatever impressions we receive by the senses are organized and then represented forming our view of reality. This is why neuroscience calls this “virtual reality” Thus the fundamental stuff that makes up our reality is a mind-stuff, not a physical stuff. We see solidity and mass, when in actuality there is no solidity and mass. There is no such thing as matter.

The Vedantists call this avidya(ignorance) stating that our view of reality is a perceptual error. We can correct this error by completely negating the mind and the modifications which produce the various levels we see. When we do, we will see reality in its absolute and true form. This is self-reallization.

#51

[QUOTE=Awwware;44268]I just had a look at these focus levels. Now talking about fantasy! Above level 22 it sounds highly fantastical. Beyond Taimni…Can you comment on the credibility of this man?[/QUOTE]

Yes, he has done considerable research in exploring conscousness using the scientific methodology. He also contributed immensely to brain entrainment technology which when listened to regularly will induce certain brain states. The study of the correspondence of phenomenological states and physical states using EEG devices is also one of his contributions.

In a way Monroe is very much Jung, who was a pioneer in consciousness research in the West, but his methods were not particularly scientific. Monroe, on the other hand developed a scientific technique that if everybody practices will get similar results - called the Monroe method. His results have been verified by many researchers after him such as Robert Bruce, Ken Wilber. This field of science is known as transpersonal psychology(the scientific study of higher states of conscousness) We also find tons of phenomenological data collected from people which verify these reality levels exist, such as in NDE and OBE research. As well as tons of anecdotal evidence from orinary people. I have many friends who have had OBES.

Meditation is a phenomenological science and thus it collects phenomenological data. It uses a standard form of practice(object meditation) and stable posture and stable breathing, in order to examine the psycho-physical structure. The data collected by modern consciousness researchers in the West and the data collected by ancient conscousness researchers like Patanjali is the same.

I myself have left my body a few times so I know for a fact(not though fantasy, and not even through reasoning) that I am not this body, but I havwe a soul. Note we said earlier that there is a third entity between subject and object we called mind(mind and soul are the same thing. In Sanskrit we use the word suble body in order to differentiate it from the supreme soul or atman) This is the part of you that if present you get knowledge, if it not present you do not get knowledge. When we sit daydreaming somebody says to us “Where have you gone” - Who is it that is not there in the body at the time? Similarly, when we sleep we are not present to our body, we are elsewhere. This is what is called the mental plane. When I have no body, I exist as a disembodied mind within the mental plane.

Again for me I am in no need of any further proof because I have directly experinced the mental plane many rimes.

#52

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44269]My dissertation … There is no such thing as matter.

The Vedantists call this avidya(ignorance) stating that our view of reality is a perceptual error. We can correct this error by completely negating the mind and the modifications which produce the various levels we see. When we do, we will see reality in its absolute and true form. This is self-reallization.[/QUOTE]
So we end up with the monist view of the Siva Samhita: All there is, is jnana. That view I share. The self is not in the world, the world is a(n illusory) manifestation in the self. It is a notion that I also understood when I read the ramayana at the age of 19. Notwithstanding, as long as we’re trapped in this illusion, concepts like energy, matter, mind etc. are practical definitions for our daily life. Understanding of the above notion of ultimate reality does not equal attaining self-realisation. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here. The intellectual understanding does not suffice to break the illusory bonds. Is it the attachment to the relative phenomenons that keeps us here? An indulgence in stupidity?

#53

The intellectual understanding does not suffice to break the illusory bonds. Is it the attachment to the relative phenomenons that keeps us here? An indulgence in stupidity?

Yes, reasoning will only answer the questions, “Who am I, What is my purpose, Where am I going, and how will I get there” These are the most important questions, every other question, “What is the world made of”, “Is there a god”, “Did the chicken or the egg come first” are irrelavant. Ultimately, if the question is not do with our self, it is just intellectual curiosity(Greek Philosophy focussed more on this area) Indian philosophy does not indulge in pointless intellectual pursuits, it is asks practical questions via which we can gain liberation.

The answers we have found at the end of our inquiry are: I am the the Self, the infinite and eternal being, that is truth and knowledge, pure consciousness and bliss. I have lost touch with that true self and have mistaken myself to be this psycho-physical structure, and because of this I suffer. I am fundamentally at odds with my true nature. I must reverse this ignorance and come to direct knowledge of my true self, by realising I am conscousness and abiding in my state of “I am” Then gradually I will gain direct knowledge of everything that I am not and regress back to the primordial reality.

This is as far as Samkhya will take you. Next you need Yoga:-

In order to abide in I am-ness I must follow a path which will connect me to it. I realise there are many limitations when I try to remain in the state of I am-ness. In the real world I find I suffer from egoic desires like greed, lust, vanity, hatred, envy which disturb my practice. When I sit for meditation I get pains and aches in my body; I get irregular breathing and my mind is very noisy. If I get past this, I suddenly get bombarded with really unpleasent memories and traumas.

Patanjali has the antidote to your problems. Live your life by following the yamas and niyamas to deal with the 5 vices. Practice asanas and pranayama in order to deal with the pains and aches in the body and the irregular breathing. Pratice pratyhara and dharana in order to improve the concentration of your mind(there are particular yogic exercises known as tratika which improve concentration) Practice dhayana(meditation) in order to develop detachment to the contents of your mind.

This path prescribed by Patanajali is all you need to get to self-realization. It is the original path that the Vedic Aryan people followed. It is non secetarian, it prescribes no devotion or karma rituals, no gods or goddesses. It is a technology of consciousness. Samkhya is the science and Yoga is the technology

#54

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44275]
This path prescribed by Patanajali is all you need to get to self-realization. It is the original path that the Vedic Aryan people followed. It is non secetarian, it prescribes no devotion or karma rituals, no gods or goddesses. It is a technology of consciousness. Samkhya is the science and Yoga is the technology[/QUOTE]
I have been practising the eightfold yoga as explained by Patanjali since 1996, and although I cannot deny that I have progressed over the years, something blocks the final stage; the samadhi. This I have not been able to reach. What about the remark that the path of Patanjali does not describe devotion to gods or godesses. What is then meant with the niyama isvara-pranidhana? (which I have always translated and understood as “surrender to god”). Perhaps this is trhe very thing blocking my progress…:wink:

#55

Your results are directly proportional to how much effort you put in. If you spend 10 days meditating 10 hours a day, you will get quicker results than you will if you meditate 1 hour a day for 10 days. This path requires dedication and whether you will get self-realization in this life or not is based on how dedicated you are. Patanjali says the goal is not far for those who practice intensely.

You should include in your daily program asanas practice, pranayama and tratika exercises in addition to your meditation. This will give you a boost. Unfortunately, the householder life has a lot of responsibilities, that one struggles to even find 2 hours for meditation. So how will they also find time for asana, pranayama and tratika. This is why it is recommended that one renounce the householder stage and go to an ashram or monestary and dedicate themselves to the goal of self-realization. Remember, people like Buddha who was already a highly developed soul, also spent 10 years of total dedication to self-realization before they got it. He would have been meditating for hours on end a day.

Those who want to build the ideal body have to invest time, energy and effort in it and it takes up all your time. When I go the the gym and I see those guys with washboard abs, bulging biceps, perfectly defined pecs and body, I see them go to the gym at least 5 times a week and spend hours in there. They also do not drink, smoke and they watch what they eat. It is a total lifestyle they have adopted in order to attain the ideal body.
Similarly, to attain the ideal mind that is clear, sharp, concentrated requires adopting an entire lifestyle.

Surrender to Ishvara in this context means simply surrender to the divine self. Not to this god or that god, this saint or that saint. One must incalcate in their life the truth that the divine self is the ultimate reality and the most beloved. I call this self, “Baba” which means the most beloved. I was taught a mantra in my previous tantra Yoga tradition, “Baba Naam Kevalam” - only the name of the most beloved. Surely, my self is most beloved. Repeat affirmations to yourself(the path of affirmation in Vedanta) That you are the absolute, eternal, infinite, truth, pure consciousness, pure bliss, pure being. Remind yourself over and over again that you are that. This seed will alone begin to bear fruit. Say it with faith, conviction, love. This is the secret of the great sages, they recognised their true reality and recognised that everything else was mithya(unreal)

#56

Surely, my self is most beloved.

We know, Surya…we know. This may be a little off topic, but actually I think it was exactly this preoccupation with the self that the Buddha rejected in favor of the concept of bodhicitta or bodhisattva, that is, that one must begin to see others as more important than himself.

#57

[QUOTE=Awwware;44265] I must honestly say that from the above quotation I still don’t get the difference between Spirit and Brahman. Do you mean that Samkhya is fundamentally dualist and that the notion Brahman belongs to a monist view?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is exactly the case. Certainly many people have used the term “Spirit” as a synonym for Brahman, but I think that a discussion of Hindu philosophies requires a more precise terminology. The debate is about the relation of brahman to purusa and prakriti. The monist would argue that Brahman is the underlying unity of purusa and prakriti. The dualist would say that there is no evidence of any underlying unity, purusa and prakriti are eternally distinct, yet (not) inextricably intertwined.

#58

Others are not more important than me. If we are honest, everything we do is for ourselves. Even acts of charity, alturistic acts done for others, is not for the other, but one oneself. One feels good by helping others, so they help some more. Most people do it because they want to win the grace of god or gain good karma.

If you get pleasure, whether that be the mundane pleasure of great orgasmic sex, the thrill of an adventure, astral delight, contacts by masters and angels, visions of the divine or indeed enlightenment - then it is you getting it. Not me. It is no good to me if you get it, but I don’t. So obviously me getting those is more important.

Ask yourself very honestly and you will find that if somebody tells you of their achivements whether that be scoring with a hot babe, getting a Phd or first class degree, getting some award, or some great realization in meditation, do you not think, “What about me, why don’t I get it” You feel a pang of jealousy. This is actually a good thing but jealousy then gives us the impetus to strive to get our own.

People like Buddha to me are saints, but not gods. I respect and revere Buddha, but I would not stand in awe of him. I would stand in awe of Krishna, like Arjuna stood in awe of him. Krishna speaks like a god, Buddha speaks like a saint. There is a huge difference.

One who has realised god-consciousness behaves like god. God can reward but he can also punish. He does not treat everybody in the same way. He is not a saint.

#59

Regarding my objections to the original post, lately I’ve been thinking that aggregation is not necessarily the same as transformation. The concept of transformation of prakriti can be explained by a fruit tree, that takes light, and water, and earth, and air, and transforms them into a piece of fruit. I’m not sure that your idea of aggregation really involves transformation.

In thinking about aggregation, our own bodies are the best example, being composed of many specialized organs. These in turn are composed of different types of specialized cells, each of which is a living entity, operating independent of our control. Yet we think of our “self” or “soul” as a single individual controller type entity. In Samkhya, the controller or agent is considered to be not the self, it is the Ahamkara, or ego.

Still, even if you accept the idea of aggregation, there is still a problem with the monist view. If Brahman is present in everything, inanimate as well as animate objects, how do you explain why some parts of Brahman develop into living aggregates and others don’t?

#60

There is no aggregation or transformation. It is an illusion. If Prakriti transforms gradually from one aggregate to the other, then it should be the case that the previous aggregate should be destroyed and replaced by the new aggregate. This is not true for both mind and matter still exist. If we look at a molecule under a powerful miscope we will find that its atoms are still there, and beyond the atoms with a more powerful miscrocope we could see the subatomic particles. This is because aggregation and transformation are only apparent, they are not real. Surely enough, if one investigates either mind or matter they do not find a real substance, but a flux. There is no real substance.

In the Rig Veda there is a concept of Hiryanagarbh(the womb of light) In this all creations and dissolutions happen. Creations and dissolutions are not actual, but apparent. It is only appears the universe has been created, there is no actual creation. It is a giant hologram. This is why we access other levels of this holographic when our avidya is weakened. In deep sleep the entire universe ceases to exist. When we go beyond waking reality into dream reality we find there is no such thing as objective existence and we find we can go back and forth in time and anywhere in space. When we go beyond dream reality into deep sleep then nothing alone remains. There is no object and no perceiver. It is non-duality. Krishna says that enlightenment is about entering into the deep sleep state fully conscious.

It is not true that every cell has a living entity operating independently of our control and this certainly not a Samkhya concept. If each cell had its own purusha then each cell would have its own awareness and do its own things. My right thumb would be fighting with my left thumb, my brain will be fighting with my heart. This is not true, for the entire body is coordinated by one unified intelligence and every part of my body functions as a coordinated unit. This is because there is only one intelligence and one controller. This is indeed one of the arguments Samkhya philosophers give for the existence of the Purusha. If there was no Purusha, then the entire body would just decompose into chaos. Something is holding it together. When that something is no longer in contact with the body it decomposes immediately. This intelligence however is not just limited to the body, but it is outside the body as well. The body is not just a stand alone unit but it is a part of the entire universe and is attuned with the rest of the world. The eyes are attuned to the light outside. The tongue to the rasas(essences in food) and the nose to the particles in the air. The body is to sensitive to changed outside that it can pick up even the most minute signal. This has been confirmed by quantum mechanics which shows how no objects exists independently, everything is just a mutual relationship.

At the level of prana which is basically the modern quantum level everything is just energy and is plugged into a wider energy system which encompasses the entire universe. Even events talking place several light years away have a subtle effect in our psycho-physical structure. Some animals are sensitive to tectonic acitivity and experience them as very subtle vibrations. The more sensitive our psycho-physical stucture becomes to subtle vibrations the more we are able to sense.

Still, even if you accept the idea of aggregation, there is still a problem with the monist view. If Brahman is present in everything, inanimate as well as animate objects, how do you explain why some parts of Brahman develop into living aggregates and others don’t?

This is because as soon as Prakriti becomes manifest then everything comes into evolution according to the laws of prakriti. As prakriti operates in a random way, then things that come into being happen randomly. Until, by the process of natural selection, more fit for survival structures form such as self-replicating DNA, then single celled organisms, then insects and so on and so forth. So not eveything evolves, some parts remain as inert and animate matter, and some become living matter. When matter takes on the form of the human organism then the purusha can get liberation.