I'll see you on the dark side of the Mind

Spirituality
#9

[QUOTE=panoramix;45664]
From the mantra aspect of this process, mind, energy and matter aren’t but sound/vibration at different levels of subtlety. Thought becomes word and word becomes object. Hence the artha/shabda couple. Everything is sound/vibration (nada/spanda), and the cause are the gunas, karmic trends with no beginning or end.[/QUOTE]

If you think about this in a real sense, what you have said here is not quite right. Thoughts and words do not become objects directly. In a discussion of cause and effects, material objects can have two types of causes, a material cause, which is the actual physical substance that makes up the object, and an instrumental cause or causes, which are the conditions and actions that allow the object to come into being. To really make any sense, you have to differentiate between material causes and instrumental causes. Thoughts and words may be instrumental causes of an object, but not the material cause.

Now in re-reading your post I notice that you specifically refer to the[I] mantra aspect[/I]. It occurs to me that you may be referring to the belief that the use of mantras can actually bring substances into being. In that case I think the sound/vibration is believed to be the actual material cause of an object or objects. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

#10

Samkhya and Vedanta are not really philosophy. They are darsanas: views of reality. Let us not forget this crucial difference between Indian philosophy and Western philosophy.
Western philosophy is speculation, thus it is not the absolute truth. Indian philosophy is not speculation, but scientific views on reality and uses an actual scientific method. True philosophy Plato once said was real science. Indian philosophy is science.

No matter which school of Indian philosophy you look at(Except for skepticism) they all accept the pramana method of epistemology. Even Charvaka(materialists) which only accepts perception as its means of knowledge, comes to a completely rational conclusion based thereof that nothing exists except matter. All that exists is matter and there is no such thing as mind/consciousness/supernatural. Therefore you only get one life and all life is about is fulfilling material desires. Hence why they said life is all about pleasure.

So Asuri is just patently wrong that consciousness is observed in nature. Which faculty do you observe consciousness with may I ask? The eyes? The nose? The skin? The tongue? The ears? Explain.

But… As soon as you accept another means of means knowledge other than perception, such as inference, then you have to come to conclusions that are contadictory to common perception. For example my eyes observe that the sun and stars are moving and thus I must conclude that the sun and stars move. But when I come to learn of another observation that the sun I observed was moving in one direction, and simultaneously for another observer it was moving in another direction. I have to use my faculty of inference to conclude that it is not the sun that is moving, but the earth which is moving which must be a spherical shape in order to explain these facts. I therefore come to a complete opposite conclusion to perception.

This knowledge is certainly absolute that planet earth is a sphere. Therefore inference is a valid means of arriving at actual knowledge. This means if I reason correctly I can arrive at actual scientific knowledge. This is exactly what Samkhya has done in ennumerating the 25 tattvas that exist - based purely one just one fact: an observable effect in nature.

  1. Effect means there is a cause
  2. Cause is an effect of another cause
  3. There is an ultimate cause of all effects, else there would be an infinite regression
  4. The ultimate cause is unmanifest
  5. An efficient cause is required to collapse the unmanifest cause
  6. The efficient cause must be the opposite of the nature of the unmanifest cause
  7. The unmanifest cause is possesed of the properties of change, unconscious, unintelligent. It is the material cause.
  8. Therefore the efficient cause is possessed of the properties of unchanging, consciousness and intelligence
  9. Therefore the ‘I’ is the efficient cause itself
  10. Therefore ‘I’ is not the material cause
  11. If the ‘I’ is not the material cause then my identification with material is false
  12. Therefore, I must cease identification with the material cause by remaining a pure witness of the material
  13. Then the identification will reverse and I will be revealed in my pure state

Now go out there and meditate :smiley:

#11

I’d like to go back a bit more to the exact nature of the mind; the aforementioned discussion on purusha and prakrti etc. can be continued in the other thread, the Inquiry into the nature of the Soul.
There is something strange about minds. Although I can follow the reasoning that physical matter gross and aggregate comes out of mind which is a more subtle form of matter, I still believe that the concept of Mind can be codified to a great extent. Read well what I say, I am not claiming that consciousness, self awareness or “pure intelligence” can be codified, but Mindstuff can. You should not underestimate the advances in AI; I have witnessed some very impressive results in the development of so-called sentient AI in Robots.
The processes of how we think, how we use intelligence follow patterns, that can be mimicked. If Mind only existed in a 5th dimension, there would be no need for a brain. However, we do have a brain, where those patterns of electromagnetic activity take place. I do not deny that they might originate in another dimensional realm, but the signals from perception to mind and from mind to motor organs are processed in the brain. These processes can be codified and be expressed in a material substrate (as we know it), for instance in silico or via nanophotonics. Now the real question here is what part of the mind can be codified and what part cannot i.e. only exists at another level. This is my present obsession: to figure out how my mind works, which processes there are, which motives I have, why I have these motives etc. This is in fact part of the yama-niyama: the constant moral touchstone. Only once I have mastered yama-niyama my blockades in meditation will dissappear, so in fact for the moment trying to meditate is a rather idle activity.
So perhaps we can redirect this discussion more to some practical aspects of the Mind and its structures. What are the roots of anger, lies, greed, lust etc. How can you practice ahimsa, when you’re boiling with anger etc.?

#12

There is no concept of dimensions in Samkhya. I am only using that modern concept to explain the levels of prakriti to you as described in Samkhya. The Samkhya talk of “levels” and not “dimensions” However, they are roughly the same thing if you understand the physical world as 3D, and then count up from there as per the Samkhya levels(kosas) As per this scheme the mind is in the 5th dimension. However, according to Samkhya all 25 tattvas get reproduced in each dimension(understand that I mean level) So there is a level of buddhi, ahamkara, jnana and karma indriyas, manas, tanmatras and mahabhutas. In our 3D physical level the brain has in it the buddhi, manas, ahamkara and the body has in it the jnana and karma indriyas(sense and motor organs) and the world has the tanmatras and mahabhutas.

So the answer is yes you can create a robot that mimics the functions of the mind exactly. You can make it sentient(i.e., it can sense things) you can make it perform cogntiive functions and motor functions. In fact you can make it do pretty much everything a human body can do. What you can’t make it do is live. It will have no awareness. It will have no soul so it could not enter the higher planes of reality and reincarnate. It will be nothing more than a sophisticated machine that outwardly will look human and inside will be dead.

#13

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45700]There is no concept of dimensions in Samkhya. I am only using that modern concept to explain the levels of prakriti to you as described in Samkhya. The Samkhya talk of “levels” and not “dimensions” However, they are roughly the same thing if you understand the physical world as 3D, and then count up from there as per the Samkhya levels(kosas) As per this scheme the mind is in the 5th dimension. However, according to Samkhya all 25 tattvas get reproduced in each dimension(understand that I mean level) So there is a level of buddhi, ahamkara, jnana and karma indriyas, manas, tanmatras and mahabhutas. In our 3D physical level the brain has in it the buddhi, manas, ahamkara and the body has in it the jnana and karma indriyas(sense and motor organs) and the world has the tanmatras and mahabhutas.

So the answer is yes you can create a robot that mimics the functions of the mind exactly. You can make it sentient(i.e., it can sense things) you can make it perform cogntiive functions and motor functions. In fact you can make it do pretty much everybody a human body can do. What you can’t make it do is live. It will have no awareness. It will have no soul so it could not enter the higher planes of reality and reincarnate. It will be nothing more than a sophisticated machine that outwardly will look human and inside will be dead.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But these robots are not useless. In places where we cannot breathe (outer space, mines, under water) they can perform many useful tasks for us.

#14

I agree the robots are not useless. However, I think our focus should be on developing ourselves, because we can outdo any technology once we have tapped the power of the mind.

So perhaps we can redirect this discussion more to some practical aspects of the Mind and its structures. What are the roots of anger, lies, greed, lust etc. How can you practice ahimsa, when you’re boiling with anger etc.?

The roots are attachments to objects. In order to dissolve an attachment you simply observe it without identification. Next time you are boiling with anger, just observe it and be with it. It will go.

#15

[quote=Asuri;45674]If you think about this in a real sense, what you have said here is not quite right. Thoughts and words do not become objects directly. In a discussion of cause and effects, material objects can have two types of causes, a material cause, which is the actual physical substance that makes up the object, and an instrumental cause or causes, which are the conditions and actions that allow the object to come into being. To really make any sense, you have to differentiate between material causes and instrumental causes. Thoughts and words may be instrumental causes of an object, but not the material cause.

Now in re-reading your post I notice that you specifically refer to the[I] mantra aspect[/I]. It occurs to me that you may be referring to the belief that the use of mantras can actually bring substances into being. In that case I think the sound/vibration is believed to be the actual material cause of an object or objects. Please correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

Well, that’s what Tantra Shastras say: At the time of creation, the material world was created out of “words”. Isn’t it what bible says? Thoughts and words were the material cause of matter. They also say that if you achieve enough purity or development, you can do the same as well, you can materialize things. As matter is vibration, and mind is so (at least for tantra), you may create one out of the other, provided you are evolved enough.

#16

At the time of creation, the material world was created out of “words”. Isn’t it what bible says?

Not exactly. I think it’s the Gospel of John that says “In the beginning was the Word”, referring to Christ as “The Word”. That’s a little different, but intriguing and worthy of contemplation nonetheless.

#17

[QUOTE=Asuri;45710]Not exactly. I think it’s the Gospel of John that says “In the beginning was the Word”, referring to Christ as “The Word”. That’s a little different, but intriguing and worthy of contemplation nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t there also a passage in an ancient Indian text, that the whole Universe was comprised in the name Krsna?

#18

Probably.

#19

It was said that mind is but a subtle form of matter. If so, it must be observable; measurable.
Again I’ll provoke the reader with some fantasies to give him food for thought. Are the links of the manomayakosha the beams of light between the stars? (The stars themselves not being real, but holographic)? The pattern of planets and stars functioning as a grid, through which an interference pattern of energy is generated? Or is it at a level which we cannot measure or probe? In the absolute sense that cannot be if our conclusion is right that mind is but a subtle form of matter. If so, it must be observable; measurable. Our instruments may not be sufficiently developed for this purpose, but the must be some level of prakrti, not gross particulate matter, but a level of energy, which is more subtle, which forms the connections of our minds.

First, a little background: The sanskrit word that is used to describe the various functional parts of our bodies and minds is [I]indriya[/I]. Indriya is sometimes translated a “sense”, as in our five senses, but that is too narrow a definition. The right translation is “instrument”. We are said to have ten indriyas, which fall into two categories, the instruments of cognition (the senses), and the instruments of action (arms, legs, etc.). They are instruments in the sense that a microphone is an instrument, a lens is an instrument, a temperature sensor is an instrument, etc. For each of the sense instruments, there is a corresponding tan matra, sort of a potential. So we have a certain type of potential, say light, and a corresponding instrument that perceives light.

There are also said to be three internal indriyas, manas or lower mind, ahamkara, the “I” sense, and buddhi, the instrument of discrimination. It would stand to reason that if these three are instruments, there must be some corresponding potential that they perceive. Inexplicably though, Samkhya does not define these potentials as separate from the instruments that perceive them.

#20

Didn’t ancient Greeks speak about something similar, something they called “Logos”?

#21

The right translation is “instrument”.

This is generally correct. The etymology is the word Indriya comes from Indh which means power. The indriyas are the instruments that are coordinated by a natural power that controls them.

We are said to have ten indriyas

The manas is included amongst the indriyas so they are said to be 11 indriyas(5 jnanaindriyas, 5 karmaindriyas and 1 manas)

There are also said to be three internal indriyas, manas or lower mind, ahamkara, the “I” sense, and buddhi, the instrument of discrimination. It would stand to reason that if these three are instruments, there must be some corresponding potential that they perceive. Inexplicably though, Samkhya does not define these potentials as separate from the instruments that perceive them.

These are not called indriyas. These are rather the powers behind the indriyas and control the indriyas. The part that controls it is the ahamkara(the self-reference faculty) which gives the sense of personal identity, which is turn is made out of the discrimination faculty. This is like an executive program which receives information organized and sorted by the manas, personalises it through personal identity filters and then makes a judgement and acts on it through controlling the indriyas.

Didn’t ancient Greeks speak about something similar, something they called “Logos”?

Yes, they in turn got their logos concept from the notion of shabda-Brahman in the Vedas and is represented as the sound of OM. In the beginning there is a vibration which sets the world into motion and causes it to evolve into being. In Kashmir Shivaism this is known as spanda. In Samkhya this is explained as the the breaking of of the balance of the gunas in the beginning. In the Rig Veda it is described in the Nasadiya sukta as in the beginning the divine will arose which causes manifest beingness.

#22

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45763]
These are not called indriyas.
[/QUOTE]

You know, it would be very easy to prove that what I wrote is correct. But I do not answer to some annoying little schoolmarm with bug up her rear end.

#23

[QUOTE=Asuri;45780]You know, it would be very easy to prove that what I wrote is correct. But I do not answer to some annoying little schoolmarm with bug up her rear end.[/QUOTE]

Adhominems will not prove your argument. Proof will. So far all Samkhya texts I have read distinguish between the 11 instruments, the ego and the intellect. Thee ego and intellect are not called instructed as well.

Here is a quote from the commentary on the Samkhyakarika 15 by Gaudapada

The mergent mahat and the rest are finite and the specfic effects of nature. The intellect is one, ego is one, the subtle elements are 5, the organs are 11 and gross elements are 5

You have to stop being arrogant and claiming you know Samkhya, when it is clear you have misread many of core concepts in Samkhya. You still do not understand that purusha and prakriti are inferred entities, which every Samkhya text says. Your arrogance only causes you to lose credibility in matters of Samkhya.

#24

Surya Deva, you should have realized by now that I have nothing but contempt for you. While you have tried to establish yourself as some kind of authority, the effect has been the opposite. As far as I’m concerned, your credibility is less than zero. I have very little interest in anything that you have to say, unless it concerns me directly, and often not even then. I do not intend to engage in any pretext of civil discourse with you. You can avoid the unpleasantness by simply not provoking any more confrontations with me, especially when I’m trying to have a discussion with someone else.

You’ve been trying to discredit me since the first time you posted here, so I must be doing something right. Don’t try to tell me what I do or do not understand. I don’t have to prove anything to you, and I don’t care what you think, so just bug off. I’ve always approached Samkhya as a student, whereas it is you who claims to be the master, but you are no master. If I were to accept a teacher in these matters, it definitely would not be you.

#25

Again adhominems will not prove your arguments. They will say a lot about your character though and trust me, it’s not saying good things :wink:

I have so far disproven everything you have said about Samkhya with direct citations from the core Samkhya texts. You resent me, because I have shown you up. However, what do you expect, when you go around telling people wrong Samkhya concepts.

Most recently, you claimed budhhi and ahamkara are instruments. Previously you claimed purusha and prakriti were observed entities. On both occasions I have directly cited references from the Samkhya works which have said contrary to what you have said. Rather than admitting you are wrong and revising your wrong ideas, you react by spitting venom.

Your ego has been injured. It is very obvious. Incidentally, I was only politely pointing out that buddhi and ahamkara are not instruments. Your reacted with
outright abusing which was completely unnecessary. You obviously cannot abide the fact that I have more knowledge on Samkhya and Indian philosophy than
you do.

#26

Asuri, Surya, dudes, I appreciate the decent tone of your clash. I have been around on other forums and can assure you that discussions very easily degrade into completely uncivilised calling names.
Both of you still show a level of ahimsa, which is worthy of the aspiring yogi. I had my clash with Surya as well in the other thread, but since I put straight that the tone in a yoga forum should always be friendly, no matter how sharp the reason is and great progress has been made.
You know in the end all this philosophy is not the real thing. It is yama and niyama. If we get to master that, we’ll master everything. Let’s put behind us mutual contempt if any and get this thread running again.
Awwware, the knight of morality;)

#27

Awwware,

I’ve just recalled a book I read this summer: “The Psychology of the Child”.
A brief overview about Jean Piaget’s work. An indispensable book to learn about the genesis of the mind in the child.

We can say that one of the functions of the mind is representational, mind represents elements belonging to the physical world, as mental images, and operates with these mental images, giving birth to a form of thought.

The stages the child follows are:

  1. Deferred imitation: Imitation of the model after its disappearance.

  2. Symbolic play: Or the game of pretending. The deferred signifier is an imitative gesture, though accompanied with objects which are becoming symbolic. Through it the child assimilates adults’ world.

  3. Drawing: An intermediate stage between play and mental image.

  4. Mental image: Nothing but an internalized imitation. Mind can now evoke the model without the support of a physical object.

  5. Verbal evocation. Now the model can be evoked in another mind.

We can say then that a function of the mind consists in transferring to consciousness a material reality that is no longer present, in other words, transferring without the agency of the senses.

From now on I speculate, as cosmological issues are involved.

If one of the individual mind’s functions is re-creating in a subjective,limited fashion, what was created in an objective,unlimited fashion by an universal,almighty mind, we could say the following:

Individual minds, as sparks or rays of an universal mind, create as a result of an aggregate of all their minds, the material or physical reality. For example, if all intelligent beings in universe simultaneously visualized a bottle of “Grange 1951” wine, it would instantly materialize, and Nick Rockefeller would drink it.

Or inversely, as white light splits into color lights when passing through a prism, material reality splits into mental realities when “passing through” the prism of Maya Shakti and the five Kanchukas (constrictors):
K?la: sequential experiencing, Niyati: spatial ordering, Raga: attachment to objects, Kal?: limited action, Vidy?: limited knowledge.

Perhaps both would occur simultaneously, or aren’t but two sides of the same phenomena.

We could state then that matter and mind are equivalent, but from different angle or context: Individual vs. Universal. It’s the power in which the phenomena is experienced what marks the difference. Brahman is allmighty and can create a material universe. But the souls it is made of are miserable, and can create just a mental,subjective universe. The result of overlapping all those mental,subjective universes is the material one.

One could say:

"Ok, but what about the period when there was no conscious individual mind experiencing matter? "

And i would reply:

“Is it of any use considering a system that cannot be observed?”

And I would refer him to quantum mechanics and the collapse of the wave function.

I’m sure more flaws might be found, but i hope i’ve thrown some inspiration on your thoughts.

We’ll talk latter, time to sleep.

Bye!

#28

A correction:
Niyati: spatial arrangement.