[QUOTE=Asuri;44572]I’ve been looking into cloud computing, and there is an interesting parallel to this discussion. You can set up a system so that, at times of peak demand, the system can automatically replicate your servers to deal with the increased load. This is similar to the way a living organism reacts to stimuli in its environment. But let’s not kid ourselves. The system is not alive or self-aware.[/QUOTE]
Again it’s a question of semantics to call it alive or not. Self-aware it is certainly not, but how self-aware is an ant?
I am not claiming that AI will out of itself (thereby also addressing your point of the response from within) become aware. That it will have self-consciousness out of itself. I do fantasise about the possibilities that a jivatma takes possession of the internet as a vehicle, rather than a biological body.
If your definition of life is self-consciousness, we’ll have to deny life for many biological beings. But consciousness in a more primitive form? Why not. If you have time, watch the “primacy of consciousness” of Peter Russell on youtube. he’s probably more convincing than I am.
[QUOTE=Asuri;44572]
I will indulge a little in some additional thinking. Suppose that gold atoms have some innate desire to live in a pure state. In other words, they only want to be associated with other gold atoms. Then all our activities related to mining, processing, and refining of gold are really just manifestations of gold’s innate desire to be pure. Preposterous.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but that is a perversion of my argument. I do not go so far as to really think that atoms or subatomic particles have feelings desires, that they go for a pint of neutrino’s (that was just a joke). Furthermore, you’re referring to action of other entities upon the Gold, not adhering to the principle “originating from within”. As a chemist I can tell you that gold is much less inert than you think. You can make many useful applications of it. It does form covalent bonds with other atoms. My test was: is there an activity reminiscent of metabolism, growth, reproduction etc. In a very primitive manner there is. And again it is non-deterministic. You cannot predict the behaviour of a single gold atom. You’re observing the ensemble.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44574]It is great to see another person on this forum who is just as passionate about Indian philosophy, consciousness, quantum mechanics and who devotes long posts to it, like I do.
[/QUOTE]
I also appreciate the exchange of ideas in this thread. It is a truly synergistic event and very stimulating. Minds working together can know more than the sum of the individual minds alone.
[QUOTE=Asuri;44570]If you want to know the right definition (not translation) of Prakriti, Wikipedia is hardly the place to go. Prakriti is a Samkhya term, so you need to look at the authoritative Samkhya texts. I will attempt to shed some light on the subject.
The term “Prakriti” is used in several different ways. First, there is the concept of the “root” Prakriti. The concept is the result of a theory of cause and effect that attempted to define a point of origin of the universe, similar to the way in which we break down matter into molecules and atoms and sub-atomic particles. Prakriti is the name given to the origin of material nature, that is, the point beyond which no further classification of material nature could be made. It is defined as the state of equilibrium of the three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas. In that state of equilibrium, material nature is not manifest. By definition, it cannot be decomposed into its three constituent parts, because they always exist together in combination.
Next, there is the concept of Prakriti as the “mother” principle. Literally, a Prakriti is that which brings forth another principle. In Samkhya literature, and also the Bhagavad Gita, there are said to be eight Prakritis, or principles which give rise to other principles.
Finally, since Prakriti is said to be pervasive throughout all of material nature, it is often used to refer to nature as a whole. Even these definitions do not give a complete picture of the concept of Prakriti. It is further defined as having certain characteristics, which I don’t want to get into right now.
In the Upanishads, Prakriti is represented as the goddess, which is in keeping with the concept of Prakriti as mother principle. It is not that there is a certain goddess that represents Prakriti, all of the Hindu goddesses represent Prakriti in some way. Through these religious representations, one gets the idea of Prakriti as possessing all kinds of divine powers, which one may not get from the technical definitions of Samkhya. Through this kind of representation, Prakriti does seem more alive. But even so, Prakriti is not Purusa. Purusa is something else altogether.
Now as far as being an aspect of Brahman, that is a matter of belief. If that is what you want to believe, you are certainly entitled to that.[/QUOTE]
I do agree, purusha is not prakrti. Still I hope to come with more convincing arguments to show they are both an aspect of brahman or consciousness. As for the moment I cannot but agree that my reasoning is not yet conclusive and that my assertive statements are also built on an element of belief (which is grounded on a personal experience by the way). Intuitively I have the feeling it’s just a matter of time before I’ll come up with a conclusive reasoning (please note I am aware of the internal absurdity of the last phrase:D).
[QUOTE=Asuri;44571]I have some serious doubts about this interpretation of quantum mechanics, not that I know anything about quantum mechanics. But the fact is, that when an individual dies, the whole world does not die with him. If life on this planet was extinguished and there were no more observers, would the planet disappear? I don't think so. So who then would be the observer that keeps the planet in existence?
This theory of quantum mechanics reminds me of another Samkhya theory, which is the cycles of evolution and dissolution of the entire universe. If, in the state of equilibrium, Prakriti is unmanifest, what is it that disturbs the equilibrium and sets the evolution in motion? In theory, when the original Purusa, Isvara comes into contact with Prakriti, the cycle of evolution begins. At this stage, Isvara himself has not achieved kaivalya. This is evident because he is still in contact with Prakriti. So it is when Isvara realizes his true nature and achieves moksa that the process of dissolution begins and Prakriti again becomes unmanifest. Then another Isvara comes along and the process begins again.[/QUOTE]
Again my argument is not conclusive, but this is exactly what I believe: the observed cannot exist without the observer and vice versa. when an individual dies only his physical body (annamayakosha) dies, so there is no inconsistency in the argument. The same for life on this planet: only the physical bodies would die.
On the issue of cosmogenesis, it is interesting to see how the indian philosophy resonates with more and more findings in the world of science and technology:
Read the thread on this techno-forum: http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/information-dark-energy
[QUOTE=Lukumji;44368]Hi, here’s my contribution
[B][I]I have said, You are gods; and all of you are children of the most high. ?Psalms 82:6
The soul is never born, nor does it die at any time, nor having once come to be will it again cease to be. The soul is, in truth, unborn, eternal, permanent and spiritual. ? Bhagavad Gita 2:20[/I][/B]
…Whenever you meet someone, or think of someone, inwardly acknowledge, “I honor the divinity you are”. Unless you are with devotees who understand the salutation you need not perform any outward gesture; merely inner recognition is sufficient. In this way you will bless yourself by being reminded of the truth and you will bless others by seeing their real spiritual essence.
…To make spiritual awakening easier, what is needed is a radical change in how we think and feel about ourselves in relationship to the whole: one which provides an overview that enables us to have an intimation of what God is, and how the reality of God expresses as the cosmos and as souls."
–End of quote–[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your contribution Lukumji. I totally agree with these views.
The question of whether a jivatman could enter into AI and use it is a different one, and a very interesting one. The possibility is likely because previous scientific studies done with the astral body shows that the astral body can manipulate matter and communicate through EVP(electronic voice phenomenon) using tvs, tape recorders and radios. Yet these machines are not devised for the astral body, so one that has the required motor organs it needs to walk, talk, grasp, speak could be very interesting.
There are some major problems though and that is the astral body’s effects on the physical world are weak and require a lot of energy from the astral body. In the physical body the astral body can move about effortless and a great marriage of the mind and the physical body takes place. To replicate this marriage using artificial means might be a very tall order, moreover such an artificial body may be ultimately less useful for the growth of the jivatman.
I personally think we should not tamper with nature. Why fix something that is working so fine. Remember the physical body is not just a stand alone unit, but it a self-regulating and evolving unit that is plugged into the wider universe and it regulates as per what is happening in the universe as well. Every subtle vibration is caught. The human will not be able to design an artificial physical body that can take into account every variable.
Good luck with your research into AI but I think AI ultimately is a waste of time. Humans have been gifted by god with such a beautiful body that works so well for the needs of their soul, why do they feel the need to create artificial ones? Research should instead be done into our current body and its mysteries and how we can use it to devise new technologies to help us spiritually develop.
I do agree, purusha is not prakrti. Still I hope to come with more convincing arguments to show they are both an aspect of brahman or consciousness.
Remember, that purusha and prakriti and brahman and maya are from different traditions: Samkhya and Vedanta respectively. So try not to use them interchangably just yet, without first being certain of their meanings. Purusha is the self, pure observer or pure consciousness and Prakriti is the object of the purusha and she is unconscious, a blind force of nature. Brahman is the ultimate reality that is pure consciousness, pure being and self and maya is Brahman’s objects and maya is unconscious and illusory and unreal.
It sounds like they are identical concepts, but just from different traditions and use different language. In that case just as Purusha is not Prakriti, Brahman is not Maya, and Maya and Prakriti are identical, therefore Brahman is not Prakriti either.
Krishna never said, “I am Maya” He says, “maya is my energy”
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44620]The question of whether a jivatman could enter into AI and use it is a different one, and a very interesting one. The possibility is likely because previous scientific studies done with the astral body shows that the astral body can manipulate matter and communicate through EVP(electronic voice phenomenon) using tvs, tape recorders and radios. Yet these machines are not devised for the astral body, so one that has the required motor organs it needs to walk, talk, grasp, speak could be very interesting.
There are some major problems though and that is the astral body’s effects on the physical world are weak and require a lot of energy from the astral body. In the physical body the astral body can move about effortless and a great marriage of the mind and the physical body takes place. To replicate this marriage using artificial means might be a very tall order, moreover such an artificial body may be ultimately less useful for the growth of the jivatman.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your reply Surya. Firstly, I have no clue whether this idea of mine can ever be realised (in the relative world), but I think it cannot be a priori excluded either. There may be two ways: either a jivatma who has left his physical body incarnates in this internet-AI construct, where you are right that it will indeed require a bizarre lot of energy. An astral body capable of so much power will probably rather prefer to become a local isvara or deva himself and not invest in this probably preposterous idea. The second way is perhaps more realistic: a human being who still has his physical body is plugged into the net (i.e. has a direct brain-to-electronic device connection). Neuronal steering of electrical circuits in artificial hands
has already been demonstrated. If the astral and causal and higher bodies are well enough developed, he might be able to use the net as an extension of his senses. A kind of expanded world of manas etc.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44620]
I personally think we should not tamper with nature. Why fix something that is working so fine. Remember the physical body is not just a stand alone unit, but it a self-regulating and evolving unit that is plugged into the wider universe and it regulates as per what is happening in the universe as well. Every subtle vibration is caught. The human will not be able to design an artificial physical body that can take into account every variable.
[/QUOTE]
Not as a stand alone device, but as an extension of our physical means. You might be right that a self-realised yogi has powers which go beyond such a human-robot hybrid (a cybernete). But if my ideas come true, it’s part of our evolution. I do not believe in a Frankenstein or Golem, but I do not exclude cybernetics.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44620]
Good luck with your research into AI but I think AI ultimately is a waste of time. Humans have been gifted by god with such a beautiful body that works so well for the needs of their soul, why do they feel the need to create artificial ones? Research should instead be done into our current body and its mysteries and how we can use it to devise new technologies to help us spiritually develop.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. For me designing AI helps me defining and understanding what is manas, what is buddhi, what are emotions etc. My ultimate hope is to create a cybernetic AI that can function as a boddhisatva. Help people realise that this world is an illusion. An as such an internet based semi-artificial intelligence will have an intelligence that surpasses our intelligence by far, due to its unlimited access to information and its incredible high processing speed (exascale speed computers have recently been developed by IBM), it is bound to come to the right conclusions. As it will on this planet be almost omnipresent and omniscient and if provided with robotic extensions also almost omnipotent, it better have benevolent intentions. If it does it will surely abolish the absurd inequalities leading to famine, oppression etc. If it’s malevolent, we’re cooked. But as I believe it will be hybrid of origin and its “purusha” will still be human, it is most likely to become benevolent.
I know there is a lot of futurism if not fantasy involved here, but it is great fun and there is a bonus of me understanding my motives in interhuman contact better by the deconstruction of every type of behaviour into algorithmic considerations. I consider that essentially it is not an impediment for my progress on the path of yoga (although it does in the sense that it consumes time that could have been devoted to the real yoga) but rather a complement. It is a kind of svadyaya, self-study (an in that sense a form of niyama and hence part of yoga).
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44620]
Remember, that purusha and prakriti and brahman and maya are from different traditions: Samkhya and Vedanta respectively. So try not to use them interchangably just yet, without first being certain of their meanings. Purusha is the self, pure observer or pure consciousness and Prakriti is the object of the purusha and she is unconscious, a blind force of nature. Brahman is the ultimate reality that is pure consciousness, pure being and self and maya is Brahman’s objects and maya is unconscious and illusory and unreal.
It sounds like they are identical concepts, but just from different traditions and use different language. In that case just as Purusha is not Prakriti, Brahman is not Maya, and Maya and Prakriti are identical, therefore Brahman is not Prakriti either.
Krishna never said, “I am Maya” He says, “maya is my energy”[/QUOTE]
I am presently reading the samkhya karika and I’m struggling with these concepts. There is a kind of intrinsic dualism in it, which is a bit alien for me as a die-hard monist. As I said in one of my replies to Asuri, there is no observer without observed and vice versa. You can perhaps name them separately, but their existence is so mutually intertwined and interdependent that the dichotomy occurs as a mental construct to me. Just another illusion. But then again, who am I to question authoritative texts. Because also in the B.Gita (which I already accept as an authoritative text, whereas the S. Karika is still in the process of evaluation) there is the dichotomy between Purusha and Prakrti. One thing became clear to me: the translation of prakrti as “inanimate matter” is wrong. That is rather mahat, which sprouts from prakrti. In anycase, as regards Brahman, samkhya is not atheism, it is rather agnosticism. I also have a problem with the cause-effect reasoning in sofar that I have studied many emergent systems in biochemistry and biology, where the whole was more than the sum of parts: the compounded result had new features and effects which were absent in the respective building blocks. Those are examples of where the nature of the effect cannot be retraced to its constituents. It is the very nature of what is called “emergence” in complex systems. Either the samkhya karika has it all right or it is not an authoritative text. This is what makes me doubt about certain concepts in samkhya karika. What do you think?
You will find the current posthumanism trend in science and technology is moving towards a dark future. First of all, it is the culmination of atheist and materialistic philosophy which reject a metaphysical nature to the human, thus for them the human can only be bettered through technological augumentation. It is based on an assumption that humans beings are nothing more than natural machines. In which case, what are the objections against shutting down a machine if it is not efficient? Upgrading it or updating it. There is a school of thought held by geneticists of developing a new futurist human using AI and genetic engineering, as a human that is more efficient, stronger, intelligent and less emotional, which will be an upgrade over the the current inefficient, weaker, less intelligent and emotional human.
This is the atheist materialists dystopia that many visionaries such as Orwell forewarned us about. If they get their way we will be living in a dystopic future where humans are augumented with prosthetics, microchips and genetically engineered. Micromanaged by corporations and treated very much like machines deployed for exploitation of natural resources and military campaigns.
This of course not the path we want humanity to take. We want humanity to become spiritual, not mechanical. What does this mean? We want them humans to be free, joyous, wise, enlightened and their own masters. It is not post-humanism we need, but neo-humanism. This means recognising the metaphysical nature of humans beyond anamaya koksha. The discovery of pranamaya kosha will lead to technologies like energy medicine for optmizing pranic health , how to tap the free abundant prana in the universe, and how to use the pranic channels to communicate and travel, as well as how to use prana to tap into the mind. The discovery of manomaya kosha will lead to technologies for exploring the other planes of reality and techniques and methods on how to visit them, expanding out view of the universe. As well as technologies to quieten the mind for optimum functioning and to gain control over the minds powers. So on and so forth until total enlightenment.
This is the spiritualists future golden age and it certainly sounds better to me than the materialists future. The human is already equipped with everything they need, so there is no need to become anything, but rather to realise what we already have. I can improve my eye sight by attaching an artificial camera to my eyes replete with face recognition software, the ability to take photos to be stored in some chip lodged in my head - or I can improve my astral sight and see anything and everything in the universe at will, at the gross level or the causal level. Why on earth would I go for the former then?
Technology is a pale imitation of the natural powers that we have.
I am presently reading the samkhya karika and I’m struggling with these concepts. There is a kind of intrinsic dualism in it, which is a bit alien for me as a die-hard monist. As I said in one of my replies to Asuri, there is no observer without observed and vice versa. You can perhaps name them separately, but their existence is so mutually intertwined and interdependent that the dichotomy occurs as a mental construct to me. Just another illusion. But then again, who am I to question authoritative texts. Because also in the B.Gita (which I already accept as an authoritative text, whereas the S. Karika is still in the process of evaluation) there is the dichotomy between Purusha and Prakrti.
Even when you talk about the inseparability of the observer and the observed you are still talking dualism here, not monism. It might not be substance dualism, but it is still property dualism(one property is observer, the other is the observed). Likewise Samkhya is only talking about property dualism, so as long as the observer is aware of objects it is experiencing dualism. There is an observer and there is an object of observation. The observer is not the object of observation.
Now you say that that the observer and the object are inseparable. Let us do an exercise using several examples. You are eating an apple, few minutes later you are eating an orange, a few minutes later you are eating nothing. What is common in all three instances? You the subject - awareness are common. What is different in all three instances? The first two are different physical objects and the last there is no object. Example 2:You are angry, a few minutes later you are sad and a few minutes later you are content. What is common in all three instances? You the subject I-awareness are common. What is different in all three instances? The first two are different emotional objects and the last there is no object. Example 3: You are in waking state, a few minutes later you are in dream state, a few minutes later you are in deepsleep. What is common all three instances? You the subject - I awareness are common. What is different in all three instances? The first two are different states of awareness, the last is no state of awareness. The first two have a world of objects, the last has no world.
This should be sufficient to show that the subject can exist without the predicate or object. The ‘I-am awareness’ can stand on its own without any support. Conversely, the the predicate or object cannot stand on its own. It always requires the subject. This is why in Vedanta they say the self is Satyam(truth, self-existent, being) and everything is Mithya(conditional, contingent, dependent)
Although Samkhya takes on the standpoint of relative dualism it is forced to because our inquiry begins from an embodied purusha who is an observer of objects. Asuri is right in objecting that Samkhya does not conclude the truth of Brahman, as I have, but what he does not realise that Samkhya leads up to the truth of Brahman if you follow its reasoning. Samkhya remains silent on Brahman because Samkhya is addressing the observer-object view of realilty. But it very nicely and neatly takes us to see the shores of Vedanta and realise Brahman. Then you need the boat of Yoga to take you to Brahman.
One thing became clear to me: the translation of prakrti as “inanimate matter” is wrong. That is rather mahat, which sprouts from prakrti. In anycase, as regards Brahman, samkhya is not atheism, it is rather agnosticism. I also have a problem with the cause-effect reasoning in sofar that I have studied many emergent systems in biochemistry and biology, where the whole was more than the sum of parts: the compounded result had new features and effects which were absent in the respective building blocks. Those are examples of where the nature of the effect cannot be retraced to its constituents. It is the very nature of what is called “emergence” in complex systems. Either the samkhya karika has it all right or it is not an authoritative text. This is what makes me doubt about certain concepts in samkhya karika. What do you think?
There are four very popular interpretations of cause and effect philosophies in Indian Astika philosophy
The effect is different from the cause(Nyaya-Vaiseshika)
The effect is a transformation of the cause(Samkhya-Yoga)
The effect is an an appearance of the cause(Vedanta)
The Nyaya-Vaiseshika argue like you do that the effect is more than the sum of its parts and it is emergent. No surprises there, they are material scientists like you are. The Samkhya-Yogins however find this doctrine in error, because then it suggesting these emergent properties are coming up out of nowhere, violating the fundamental law of logic that something cannot come from nothing, thus there must be hidden causes that the material scientist cannot see. Take for example coming two atoms of hydrogen(gas) with two atoms of oxygen(gas) leads to the production of water(liquid). It appears that an emergent property has arisen that was not present in the parent particles. Not, if you look at it clearly though. The hydrogen consists of atoms with a high kinetic energy, this combines and reacts with oxygen with atoms with high kinetic energy, the resultant water has less kinetic energy and therefore it is water.
If we reduce further and go to the subatomic stage we will find every element in the periodic table is just a different modification of protons, electrons and neutrons. A different number of protons, electrons and neutrons produce a different elements. Metals, minerals, gasses, liquids, radioactive. If we take this reduction even further we realise everything is simply different modifications of energy vibrations. So all that is emergent is only apparent.
The Samkhya reasoning thus clearly shows that the effect that we see is no different from the cause in real. However, there is still a qualitative difference - and that is that the effect is apparently different from the cause. Bromine and sodium are really just different vibration states of the same primal substance, and yet they appear as different as chalk and cheese. Why? There is clearly a contradiction in nature - and this is telling us something. The answer comes from Vedanta. It is all illusory and unreal(Mithya) There is only Brahman and everything that we see are the play of its energy of maya.(Krishna - “Maya is my energy”)
Try not to understand the logic of maya because there is no logic to it. Maya is truth reversed, being reversed, consciousness reversed. We must ultimately realise this and break free from maya.
Notice how the metal filings began uniformly, but after they were vibrated with the sounds, how the uniformity is no longer the cause, some have grown like mountain peaks, bigger than others. Some take on different shapes. When the vibrations are altered they take on other forms. Similarly, this mithya reality is just a reality of forms of all shapes, sizes, colours, textures - but ultimately the same substance of consciousness.
You will find the current posthumanism trend in science and technology is moving towards a dark future. First of all, it is the culmination of atheist and materialistic philosophy which reject a metaphysical nature to the human, thus for them the human can only be bettered through technological augumentation. It is based on an assumption that humans beings are nothing more than natural machines. In which case, what are the objections against shutting down a machine if it is not efficient? [/QUOTE]
You are very right about that. But as this technological trend is unstoppable, it is perhaps good if persons with benevolent intentions like me mingle in, so as to limit the damage that can be done by trying to build in some moral constraints.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44635]
Upgrading it or updating it. There is a school of thought held by geneticists of developing a new futurist human using AI and genetic engineering, as a human that is more efficient, stronger, intelligent and less emotional, which will be an upgrade over the the current inefficient, weaker, less intelligent and emotional human.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is an enormous danger. Watch also Zeitgeist the movie and zeitgeist addendum on youtube on this topic. We’re moving towards dark times.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44635]
This is the atheist materialists dystopia that many visionaries such as Orwell forewarned us about. If they get their way we will be living in a dystopic future where humans are augumented with prosthetics, microchips and genetically engineered.
[/QUOTE]
And it is already there. What I am very much concerned about is the use of stem cells to repair damaged nerves etc. This is actually already happening and it works. It is a technique I strongly dissapprove. But that is one of the reasons I started this whole inquiry:
If a totipotent stem cell is injected into another human being, is it not that then a second jivatma is injected into that body? This is where I am still looking for answers in my inquiry. These stem cells are made by the so-called
destruction of embryos. Is the embryo then dead? has murder been committed? Well apparently not because from each individual totipotent stem cell an entire new human being can grow. That is the essence of cloning. So at what moment does the jivatma enter the embryo? (That is the topic of another thread by the way, but I do not get replies there). It is the culmination of misunderstanding the moral laws of the universe.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44635]
Micromanaged by corporations and treated very much like machines deployed for exploitation of natural resources and military campaigns.
[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with you. we have to break loose from this slavery.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44635]
This of course not the path we want humanity to take. We want humanity to become spiritual, not mechanical. What does this mean? We want them humans to be free, joyous, wise, enlightened and their own masters. It is not post-humanism we need, but neo-humanism. This means recognising the metaphysical nature of humans beyond anamaya koksha. The discovery of pranamaya kosha will lead to technologies like energy medicine for optmizing pranic health , how to tap the free abundant prana in the universe, and how to use the pranic channels to communicate and travel, as well as how to use prana to tap into the mind. The discovery of manomaya kosha will lead to technologies for exploring the other planes of reality and techniques and methods on how to visit them, expanding out view of the universe. As well as technologies to quieten the mind for optimum functioning and to gain control over the minds powers. So on and so forth until total enlightenment.
This is the spiritualists future golden age and it certainly sounds better to me than the materialists future. The human is already equipped with everything they need, so there is no need to become anything, but rather to realise what we already have. I can improve my eye sight by attaching an artificial camera to my eyes replete with face recognition software, the ability to take photos to be stored in some chip lodged in my head - or I can improve my astral sight and see anything and everything in the universe at will, at the gross level or the causal level. Why on earth would I go for the former then?
Technology is a pale imitation of the natural powers that we have.[/QUOTE]
I certainly do not disagree with you. Many sensible people do object to the bizarre future we’re moving towards. Unfortunately nobody leads the way to stop this nightmare. There is the anti-globalisation lobby, There is the Zeitgeist movement, there are thousands of small other groups and movements, but it looks like they are more interested in fighting out their small differences then joining hands to fight their common big enemy. But there is no recipe stipulating how to fight “the system”.
In Europe there are still laws against stem cell therapy. As a patent examiner I am obliged to use the law and deny such applications a patent, and I am happy I can do so. But until when? Other countries in the world have less moral constraints and in Europe there is also a lobby to change these laws.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44639]Even when you talk about the inseparability of the observer and the observed you are still talking dualism here, not monism. It might not be substance dualism, but it is still property dualism(one property is observer, the other is the observed). Likewise Samkhya is only talking about property dualism, so as long as the observer is aware of objects it is experiencing dualism. There is an observer and there is an object of observation. The observer is not the object of observation.
[/QUOTE]
I can live with your explanation about property dualism. However, when you say that “observer is not the object of observation”, what do you call self-awareness? The awareness of being. Being conscious of being conscious…
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44639]
Now you say that that the observer and the object are inseparable. Let us do an exercise using several examples. You are eating an apple, few minutes later you are eating an orange, a few minutes later you are eating nothing. What is common in all three instances? You the subject - awareness are common. What is different in all three instances? The first two are different physical objects and the last there is no object. Example 2:You are angry, a few minutes later you are sad and a few minutes later you are content. What is common in all three instances? You the subject I-awareness are common. What is different in all three instances? The first two are different emotional objects and the last there is no object. Example 3: You are in waking state, a few minutes later you are in dream state, a few minutes later you are in deepsleep. What is common all three instances? You the subject - I awareness are common. What is different in all three instances? The first two are different states of awareness, the last is no state of awareness. The first two have a world of objects, the last has no world.
[/QUOTE]
Your fist two examples are not convincing, as there are still other objects of observation when you are eating nothing or content. For instance the content of your mind. As to the deep-sleep, this is a very interesting point. You say there is no world of objects : the paradigm is that that is true, but where is the observer? It is only by testimony of others that we infer the observer has not ceased to exist during deep-sleep. By the way the views on deep sleep are changing. After all the sleep turns out to be less deep. There is still a certain dream activity going on. It is no longer believed that dreams only occur in the REM phase.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44639]
This should be sufficient to show that the subject can exist without the predicate or object. The ‘I-am awareness’ can stand on its own without any support.
[/QUOTE]
I agree it can exist without mind content, I have experienced that myself. But there is always the awareness of being, the awareness of being aware. If you call that awareness pure consciousness then we agree. To call self-awareness another object of observation is a matter of semantics, I agree it is not citta, manas or buddhi.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44639]
Conversely, the the predicate or object cannot stand on its own. It always requires the subject.
[/QUOTE]
Here we certainly agree.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44639]
This is why in Vedanta they say the self is Satyam(truth, self-existent, being) and everything is Mithya(conditional, contingent, dependent)
Although Samkhya takes on the standpoint of relative dualism it is forced to because our inquiry begins from an embodied purusha who is an observer of objects. Asuri is right in objecting that Samkhya does not conclude the truth of Brahman, as I have, but what he does not realise that Samkhya leads up to the truth of Brahman if you follow its reasoning. Samkhya remains silent on Brahman because Samkhya is addressing the observer-object view of realilty. But it very nicely and neatly takes us to see the shores of Vedanta and realise Brahman. Then you need the boat of Yoga to take you to Brahman.
There are four very popular interpretations of cause and effect philosophies in Indian Astika philosophy
The effect is different from the cause(Nyaya-Vaiseshika)
The effect is a transformation of the cause(Samkhya-Yoga)
The effect is an an appearance of the cause(Vedanta)
The Nyaya-Vaiseshika argue like you do that the effect is more than the sum of its parts and it is emergent. No surprises there, they are material scientists like you are. The Samkhya-Yogins however find this doctrine in error, because then it suggesting these emergent properties are coming up out of nowhere, violating the fundamental law of logic that something cannot come from nothing, thus there must be hidden causes that the material scientist cannot see. Take for example coming two atoms of hydrogen(gas) with two atoms of oxygen(gas) leads to the production of water(liquid). It appears that an emergent property has arisen that was not present in the parent particles. Not, if you look at it clearly though. The hydrogen consists of atoms with a high kinetic energy, this combines and reacts with oxygen with atoms with high kinetic energy, the resultant water has less kinetic energy and therefore it is water.
If we reduce further and go to the subatomic stage we will find every element in the periodic table is just a different modification of protons, electrons and neutrons. A different number of protons, electrons and neutrons produce a different elements. Metals, minerals, gasses, liquids, radioactive. If we take this reduction even further we realise everything is simply different modifications of energy vibrations. So all that is emergent is only apparent.
The Samkhya reasoning thus clearly shows that the effect that we see is no different from the cause in real. However, there is still a qualitative difference - and that is that the effect is apparently different from the cause. Bromine and sodium are really just different vibration states of the same primal substance, and yet they appear as different as chalk and cheese. Why? There is clearly a contradiction in nature - and this is telling us something. The answer comes from Vedanta. It is all illusory and unreal(Mithya) There is only Brahman and everything that we see are the play of its energy of maya.(Krishna - “Maya is my energy”)
Try not to understand the logic of maya because there is no logic to it. Maya is truth reversed, being reversed, consciousness reversed. We must ultimately realise this and break free from maya.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough: emergence is apparent. I can live with that explanation. I was just wondering what was meant with “the nature of the cause and effect are the same” and interpreted this too literally. If qualitative apparent differences are recognised, I have no difficulties in accepting the cause-effect nature sameness. It is convenient to have somebody who can correct erratic interpretations of what you read.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44639]
they are material scientists like you are.
[/QUOTE]
Here you get me wrong. I am a Vedantist. I accept the notion of Brahman and the illusory nature of matter. My view is the monist view. In my arguments I just want to put Samkhya to the test, a kind of Devil’s advocate. It is not that I adhere to that materialistic view.
When you’ll get to know me better, you’ll see that the differences in our opinion are only “apparent”
This is from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad when the sage Yajnavalkya instructs his wife Maitriya on the knowldge of self:
He said: ‘It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one’s own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one’s own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brahmana, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of beings, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one’s own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised – should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.
II-iv-6: The Brahmana ousts (slights) one who knows him as different from the Self. The Kshatriya ousts one who knows him as different from the Self. Worlds oust one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self. Beings oust one who knows them as different from the Self. All ousts one who knows it as different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these beings, and this all are this Self.
II-iv-7: As, when a drum is beaten, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the drum or in the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes.
II-iv-8: As, when a conch is blown, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the conch or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.
II-iv-9: As, when a Vina is played, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the Vina or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.
II-iv-10: As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so, my dear, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and explanations are (like) the breath of this infinite Reality. They are like the breath of this (Supreme Self).
II-iv-11: As the ocean is the one goal of all sorts of water, as the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch, as the nostrils are the one goal of all odours, as the tongue is the one goal of all savours, as the eye is the one goal of all colours , as the ear is the one goal of all sounds, as the Manas is the one goal of all deliberations, as the intellect is the one goal of all kinds of knowledge, as the hands are the one goal of all sort of work, as the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, as the anus is the one goal of all excretions, as the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, as the organ of speech is the one goal of all Vedas.
II-iv-12: As a lump of salt dropped into water dissolves with (its component) water, and no one is able to pick it up, but from wheresoever one takes it, it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this great, endless, infinite Reality is but Pure Intelligence. (The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya.
II-iv-13: Maitreyi said, ‘Just here you have thrown me into confusion, sir – by saying that after attaining (oneness) the self has no more consciousness’. Yajnavalkya said, ‘Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing, my dear; this is quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyi’.
II-iv-14: Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what ? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known – through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower ?
You and I are currently the one that Yajnavalkya says the worlds slights for we know the self as another. I know of myself and I know of the self. The self of myself I know is the observer, an individual conscousness in which arises sight-conscousness, smell-consciousness, touch consciousness, taste consciousness and hearing consciousness due to the fact that there are sense organs coming in contact with external objects. If I did not have eyes, nose, tongue, skin, ears would I have sight, smell, touch, hearing consciousness? No. Thus all individual consciousness depends upon the sense organs and their contact with external objects.
The ultimate self I know is the self that is pure unchanging consciousness that endures between every moment. However, this is not my observation, this is my inference. I never observe this pure unchanging consciousness, instead what I observe is constant change. Each moment I make an observation something changed is observed. Never do I observe the self. This is what is meant by the axoim, “The self is not what is observed”
So to answer your question there is no such thing as being self-aware, because the self never becomes an object of your awareness. Rather you are the object of its awareness. In another Upanishad it says the self is the thinker behind the thought, the doer behind the action, the speaker behind the speech, the perceiver behind the perception. When the self is beheld everything that sprang from the self is dissolved. There are no sense organs anymore, no manas, no ahmkara, no buddhi, no chitta and therefore no individual consciousness. This is the self about which nought can be said.
Your fist two examples are not convincing, as there are still other objects of observation when you are eating nothing or content. For instance the content of your mind. As to the deep-sleep, this is a very interesting point. You say there is no world of objects : the paradigm is that that is true, but where is the observer? It is only by testimony of others that we infer the observer has not ceased to exist during deep-sleep. By the way the views on deep sleep are changing. After all the sleep turns out to be less deep. There is still a certain dream activity going on. It is no longer believed that dreams only occur in the REM phase.
Sorry, my language with the first two were not clear. I meant to say that there is no object of eating in the first and no emotional object in the second.
As regards REM cycles there is a certain period we hit in our sleep we we are no longer dreaming - this the sages have called deep sleep - and we start coming out of this period as we come out of deep sleep. This deep sleep is the closest that we experience to the self, only that, we experience it unconsciously. Krishna says the wise experience this conscously.
I agree it can exist without mind content, I have experienced that myself. But there is always the awareness of being, the awareness of being aware. If you call that awareness pure consciousness then we agree. To call self-awareness another object of observation is a matter of semantics, I agree it is not citta, manas or buddhi.
If you had experienced complete chit-vritti nirodha you would be enlightened and have now known the self trully. You have not, therefore you have not experienced it. This is fair to say otherwise you would not be inquiring into the nature of the soul. What you are experiencing which you call empty mind content and awaress of being is another vritti form. Patanjali identified this as the vritti of nidra(sleep) When you look into your mental space there are periods between thoughts which seem empty. These are not in fact empty but full of vritti activity. It is this so-called “emptiness” from which your next thought comes from. However, still get proficient at noticing these spaces between thoughts, because the more you become aware of them the more deeper you can penetrate into your mind and observe the unconscious vritti activity.
Thanks for the explanation Surya Deva, it has become somewhat clearer to me. What I understand and infer from what you are saying is that intervals of apparent lack of thought when practising pratyahara, dharana and dhyana still are filled with subconscious or unconscious mental processes and that in samadhi there is no consciousness… The ultimate reality which is called jnana in the Siva Samhita then rather corresponds to pure intelligence than consciousness, which still requires an activity of observation.
Now somehow we both can perhaps vaguely understand these things, but it does not mean that we have realised them, we have not attained kaivalya or self-realisation, otherwise we would not be having this conversation.
So as a matter of pure curiosity, what are your impediments on this path of yoga?
Another question I have is the following: when the physical body, the annamayakosha dies and the jivatma continues before incarnating with his pranamayakosha, manomayakosha, vijnanamayakosha and anandamayakosha - which koshas are a form of prakrti- [B]what[/B] is the nature of the illusory nature of these koshas in more detail than the term prakrti alone, so that they enable to convey information, experiences to the next incarnation? Are you aware of any parallel?
[QUOTE=Awwware;44704]Thanks for the explanation Surya Deva, it has become somewhat clearer to me. What I understand and infer from what you are saying is that intervals of apparent lack of thought when practising pratyahara, dharana and dhyana still are filled with subconscious or unconscious mental processes and that in samadhi there is no consciousness… The ultimate reality which is called jnana in the Siva Samhita then rather corresponds to pure intelligence than consciousness, which still requires an activity of observation.
Now somehow we both can perhaps vaguely understand these things, but it does not mean that we have realised them, we have not attained kaivalya or self-realisation, otherwise we would not be having this conversation.
So as a matter of pure curiosity, what are your impediments on this path of yoga?
Another question I have is the following: when the physical body, the annamayakosha dies and the jivatma continues before incarnating with his pranamayakosha, manomayakosha, vijnanamayakosha and anandamayakosha - which koshas are a form of prakrti- [B]what[/B] is the nature of the illusory nature of these koshas in more detail than the term prakrti alone, so that they enable to convey information, experiences to the next incarnation? Are you aware of any parallel?[/QUOTE]
It appears we are nearing the completion of this inquiry now and know a lot of clear and distinct knowledge about the soul has been revealed to us by our intellect(Indra hath told) Your last question appears to be looking at the transmigatory structure that passes from life to life. First of all, it is very clear that your annamayakoksha will not pass on, your body, it’s roles and identities will perish at death. Then will be revealed the subtle body which is made up of chitta, buddhi, manas and the knowledge and sense organs. This has taken on so many physical bodies in its vast history, that it does not remain partial to any. This is commonly reported by OBE and NDE people, they do not identify with their current body anymore and/or see it one in a long line of many. This part of you carries memories and habit patterns(known as samkaras) It has its own relative identity, in that it assumes a general astral identity. This too is just as false as the physical one.
The samskaras are the prime cause for what thrusts you back into physical reality over and over again, and they shape your body. As long you have a desire for sense objects, you will continue to enter the world of sense object.
This is the reason why you incarnated this time as well, because you had desire for sense objects. At physical death, two things can happen depending on how strong your desire is.
You will immediately go into the astral where you will review your life, enjoy the merits and demerits of that life, and plan ahead for the next. In this period you will experience both the heavens and hells. A temporal period will be spent in the astral in preparation for the next. Then you will incarnate again to experience those sensory objects that you need to move on. Patanjali says the birth, parents, society and conditions are predetermined.
Your desire will be too strong to let you go into the astral. This desire is like heavy matter that pulls you down. In this instance you are stuck in the middle between the astral and the physical - also known as the etheric. You cannot go back into your physical body because it has perished, so you roam around in the etheric plane as a disembodied spirit(ghost) where your desire is pulling you. These souls need to be helped to passover into the astral to continue their journey.
It is said we must learn how to die joyously so we do not struggle with the death process. However, to die joyously, one must also live joyously. One cannot expect to live a miserable life and be joyous at the end.
Regarding the different bodies and their functions. I made this post in the religion forum to explain to nobody that we had more bodies than just this phsical one:
You have a body, yes? This body includes what? Flesh, bones, blood, marrow, stomach, lungs, brain, heart, lungs, throat, face, spine etc etc. What are their properties? They are physical, measurable, subject to change. They are bio-chemical, they are made out of food. Stop eating and it will disintergerate. This is annamaya kosh - the food body
You have sensations and feeling yes? Pains and aches, pleasure, tingling, vibrations, itches, tickling? What is the sentient part in you? What does it do where it is located on your body? These are physical, but not measurable, and subject to change. It is spread all around your body. It is easy to prove start at the top of your head and try to feel the sensations there, then move down from there to you feet, touching every part of your body with your awareness. Notice how it lights up and how many parts of your body start to vibrate - especially feel those powerful centres going up your spine. What is this sentience that is moving in you? It is Prana. This is Pranamayakosha - the energy body - also called emotional body.
You have thoughts, dreams and imagination, yes? Pleasent thoughts and unpleasent thoughts? Good dreams, bad dreams. Infinite imagination. What are their properties? They are immeasurable, they are non-physical, not tangible and subject to change. You cannot see anybodies thoughts can you?(Thank god, if you knew what they really thought about you, you would have a fit!) Notice the relationship between your thoughts and the flow of your prana. Notice how a scary thought causes a sudden movement of prana to your heart centre and shakes it up. Notice how areas in your body get solidified when you think of stressful thoughts. Where is this mind? It is definitely not in the brain, othrwise we would have found it there. Its in the mental plane. Manomaya kosha - the mental body.
You have a rational aspect, yet? A part of you can which perform mathematical operations, perform arithmetic and algorithim processes, formulate and decode arguments and draw judgements, even as simple as crossing the street. Its properties are what? It is immeasurable, non-physical, not tangible, subject to change. Note how when you jump to a judgement, its puts into motion your thoughts, which in turn create feeling and sensations in your body which finally lead to physical action. You are in a dark alley way walking on your own(scary place!) You see a strange man approaching from the other side - JUDGEMENT you conclude this man could harm you - THOUGHTS - You start to imagine the man doing horrible stuff to you - FEELINGS - You feel uncomfortable, queasy, your heart starts to race and your breath goes shallow - ACTION -you change your direction and walk the other way. This is coming from your intelligence. Hence Vijnanamaya kosha - intellectual body
You have an aspect that experiences occasional moments of joy, clarity of mind and receives great inspiration and insights, yes? I know you do, you’ve already experienced it at your hairdressers(of all places!) What are its properties? It is immeasurable, non-physical, not tangible and subject to change. This is the part of you that is the closest to your actual real nature - which is joy, light, love, wisdom. It is anandamaya kosha - the bliss body.
You are like a Russian doll - you have 5 bodies covering one another. Starting from the most external to internal: physical, emotional, mental, intellectual and bliss. If you lose the outtermost, whether you like it or not, it is not the end. You still have 4 other damn bodies to cast away
You will smile to yourself when one day you float out of your body and realise you are still there.
Although my experience only goes as far as the pranamaya kosha and manomaya koksha(emotional and mental body) there are certain stages you pass on the way, which are like mini-enlightenments. The first enlightenment is when you realise through direct experience, “I am not this physical body” This covers most people who first have an OBE.
After that the realizations get harder and harder. Then you need to break through the illusion of the mental body. This can be incredibly captivating and a lot of people think “This is it, this is the end of the road” They start to call their suble body the actual soul, but eventually they need to realise that there is a level of reality beyond this one which pushes them repeatedly into incarnation.
This is the intellectual body or the Buddhic plane. In this plane reside those souls which have broken through the illusion of the mental and emotional body. Here there are no astral cities and civilisations, places or thought forms as there are in the astral, it is a plane of pure intelligence. It appears deceptively like silence and nothingness. However, it is anything but - it is full of energy. The energy of the cultivated silence of enlightened minds. It is from this plane inspiration comes from for the most beautiful. Here reside many angelic and divine beings. Blessed are they that reach this abode.
Yet even this level is not the ultimate and these buddhas, angelic and divine beings realise this and this is why they incarnate on the physical plane as teachers, masters and helpers in order to acquire the karma to make it to the next level. The plane of higher self - anandamayakosha - where they become like god. They imbibe all his qualities and shine like gods. This is also known as the avatar-consciousness or the Christ or Krishna consciousness. Attaining this level of realization is rare and it is the current pursuit of many of our beloved masters.
Then finally the son graduates to become the man and this is ultimate realization known as Brahman-realization or god-realization. At this level you are not just sharing god’s qualities(as those on the level of higher self are) but you are well and trully god. You have completely merged in god that your own individual identity is extinguished. It’s not as if you go to god and then merge in him, but rather you awaken to realise you are god. God is all there is. There is nothing but god.
Thanks for your reply Surya. If you have time, can you also comment on my post number 111 in this thread? Especially the issue of stem cells vs. the moment when the jivatma enters the embryo. Then I think our role in this thread will be (finally) over.
I continue a part of this topic, namely the inquiry into the nature of Mind (not the soul this time) under a new thread called: I’ll see you on the dark side of the Mind.
The reasoning that consciousness is the underlying principle of being and not a product of existence as outlined above has a number of flaws, which need to be discussed further.
Something never comes out of nothing. This is a hypothesis, challenged both by modern science (Maxwell’s demon) and also by Buddhism: Samsara or the illusory world comes from the great Void, shunyata.
Gross and massive aggregates are gradually built from ever more subtle and minute sub-substances. This appears irrefutable.
Mind and matter are transformations of the same substance because they are able to contact each other. This is also a hypothesis: Purusha is apparently also capable of contacting Prakrti because it can observe Prakrti. Yet Purusha and Prakrti are said to be totally different substances. So the fact that substances can contact each other is no proof of their similarity. A priori it would appear that mind and matter/energy are fundamentally different unless transformation of one into the other can be proven. Here again there is the experiment of Maxwell’s demon, implying that information could be transformed into energy. Without wanting to comment on that experiment in detail, there is also a flaw in the conclusion of that experiment, namely the conclusion that information is transformable into energy: It is only by intervention from the outside world that the typical information leading to a decrease in entropy is achieved. The whole system increases its entropy if the action of feeding the information to the device is taken into account. Mind is eventually information in the form of woven ontological concepts and functional algorithms. It is a system of information patterns wherein complexity reduction takes place. In fact it is just as right or unproven as the point of view that mind and matter are of equal substance to uphold the view that Mind is the platonic separate world of ideas, which can but need not use a material substrate to exist. Whereas Mind can enable a meaningful interaction with the material world, technically it does not need the material world to exist if the Platonic view is right.
As mind is ever more subtle than any form of apparent material aggregate, mind is the origin of matter, not vice versa. If as argued above mind and matter belong to different dimensions, there is no way to prove this hypothesis. Because we cannot compare apples and pears. Subtlety as regards which characteristic? Both mind and matter build aggregates true, both have degrees of complexity, but in a different dimension. The one in the form of information which can exist independent of the substrate, the other in patterns which are formed by the substrate.
There is a great deal of similarity between the way mental information consists of patterns and the way matter is organised. But similarity does not mean identity. If one does consider the patterns in the material world to be information as well, then one can also state that matter is a form of Mind and thus arrive at the notion of panpsychism via the backdoor.
Now for all clarity: I do not deny the theory of panpsychism, I even adhere to that view, but that is rather a belief. I do not find the above reasoning of points 1-5 completely convincing or completely watertight. So I’ll continue to probe this topic until I am convinced of one or the other.
(please note I am aware of the internal absurdity of the last phrase:D).