@panoramix & awwware
Sorry but I have a troublemaker to deal with.
They will say a lot about your character though
Do you want to talk about character, Surya Deva? Let’s find out a little something about [I]your[/I] character. I will be more than happy to show everyone just how wrong you really are, and when I do, I will expect an apology from you. Let me know when you are prepared to be humiliated and your apology is ready.
[QUOTE=panoramix;45845]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
…
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![/QUOTE]
Thanks for the tip, looks like worthwhile reading. I also like the part that physical matter is just Universal mindstuff. As panpsychist i couldn’t agree more.
The next questions I’d like to have an answer about are:
- Where does the Will originate? where does initiative originate? Is it at the level of Buddhi or Ahamkara?
- Is Ahamkara a vehicle for emotions? Our I sense seems most prominent when we feel offended, hurt etc.
The ahamkara is the faculty within us that leads to personalization of things. It is distinguished by its property of “mine-ness” therefore it this part that leads to emotions. If I think that something is mine, then if I lose that something, I feel negative emotional states. If you did not have the faculty of ahamkara at all, nothing would be “mine” and as there is nothing that is mine there is no cause to cause emotional states.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45893]The ahamkara is the faculty within us that leads to personalization of things. It is distinguished by its property of “mine-ness” therefore it this part that leads to emotions. If I think that something is mine, then if I lose that something, I feel negative emotional states. If you did not have the faculty of ahamkara at all, nothing would be “mine” and as there is nothing that is mine there is no cause to cause emotional states.[/QUOTE]
Is it then not fair to conclude that in fact all activity (perhaps with exception of yoga in advanced stage) is an act of appropriation, making things mine?
And if so, is it then not fair to conclude that Will and initiative originate in ahamkara? Please correct me if there is a logic fallacy.
Yep, because all activities requires the faculty of doer. So yes the will and initiative originate within the doer. The doer feels it must do something, such as go and talk to the hottie in the bar. This puts into motion the organs of knowledge and action.
The doer itself relies on another faculty - the faculty of judgement. As the doer is a process it relies on the processing part of the mind. The ahamkara is after all a process really made out of thoughts. These in turn are just guna activity.
According to tantric cosmology, Will or Iccha, is one of the three primary shaktis, originated together with Jnana (knowledge) and Kriya (action) in the three bindus that differentiated in quality from the Para Bindu or Shiva Bindu or Iswara Tattva, the point from which manifest universe springs. Apart from the three shaktis, are also issued the three devas (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva), the three gunas, and the three forms of manifest sound (Pasyanti: undifferentiated, pranava, OM — Madyama: subtle, thought — Vaikhari: gross, uttered speech).
These three bindus, Sun, Moon and Fire, form a triangle, called Akatha, from which the subtle forms of the fifty letters of the sanskrit alphabet are issued. They are called the Matrikas, and are said to be the body of Maha Kundali, the cosmic,universal Kundalini, who remains coiled around the Para Bindu just before the creation, containing into herself in a potential state all creatures and worlds to be created. This Akatha triangle is depicted in a microcosmic level in the Kameswara Chakra, inside the Sahasrara Chakra, in any detailed,worthy chakra scheme. Have a look to Harish Johari’s illustrations.
So Will is a primary force, beyond “mental” tattvas (Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas), and is “originated” in our Kameswara Chakra. Haven’t you noticed during meditation state how first there is a generic,shapeless volition or desire, and then it transforms into concrete thought? Meditation is the art of reverting the evolution of the tattvas, rolling them back to the supreme bindu, the origin of all manifest stuff.
[QUOTE=panoramix;45896]According to tantric cosmology… Have a look to Harish Johari’s illustrations.
So Will is a primary force, beyond “mental” tattvas (Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas), and is “originated” in our Kameswara Chakra. Haven’t you noticed during meditation state how first there is a generic,shapeless volition or desire, and then it transforms into concrete thought? Meditation is the art of reverting the evolution of the tattvas, rolling them back to the supreme bindu, the origin of all manifest stuff.[/QUOTE]
I have two books from Harish Johari and as much as I appreciate the beauty and the richness of its concepts, I have never been able to experience anything the like. So for me it is still a form of Abracadabra (Chakrarara where are you?). When I try to meditate (and for the sake of clarity some semantics, for me meditation is synonymous with samadhi, whereas I refer to dhyana as contemplation, dharana as concentration and pratyahara the retreat from the sensorial input) ( I have never reached samadhi), I essentially focus on isvara pranidhana, surrender to God. When a thought arises, I try to let it go and return to my aforementioned focus. As of yet I have never experienced anything described in johari’s books. Yet I do not despair, as you recommended to me; it may take 777 lives to get there!;).
i find my attempts of meditation rather idle as long as I have not freed myself from disagreable behaviour, anger, irritation etc. First I’ll try to master yama & niyama and then I’ll return to the practice of Kriya yoga I have learnt.
The trouble I have with Tantra is its tendency to mix Samkhya and Vedanta with mysticism, mythology, occultism, symbolism. A lot of this is unnecessary and superfluous.
The beauty of Samkhya-Yoga is it keeps it simple, scientific and rational. No mysticism, no occultism, no, no mythology, no symbolism. It is as technical and precise as modern science is today. Thus it is the most useful to modern science. Tantra simply confuses.
[quote=Surya Deva;45898]The trouble I have with Tantra is its tendency to mix Samkhya and Vedanta with mysticism, mythology, occultism, symbolism. A lot of this is unnecessary and superfluous.
The beauty of Samkhya-Yoga is it keeps it simple, scientific and rational. No mysticism, no occultism, no mysyicism, no mythology, no symbolism. It is as technical and precise as modern science is today. Thus it is the most useful to modern science. Tantra simply confuses.[/quote]
I desagree. I do not know Samkhya or Vedanta, i’ve just studied and practiced Tantra, but believe me, mythology, symbolism and occultism are not superfluous at all, there are archetypal entities awaiting in our collective unconscious whose power can be channelized for spiritual purposes.
Further, we have two brains, left and right, rational and intuitive, and the latter cannot be accessed through reason but through symbols.
That’s what I love about Tantra, it’s both scientific and mystical, oriented to both brains, valid for everybody, regardless of their development stage.
Tantra is Kundalini Yoga, Kriya Yoga, and a great part of Hatha Yoga.
Tantra is philosophy, cosmology, and provides a full-fledged system of practices.
Tantra is an empirical science, systematic and holistic, and it works wonders.
Tantra is confusing for those who don’t know or understand it.
I do not pretend to compete with other systems, as I don’t know them, but you shouldn’t underrate Tantra, believe me.
Namaste Panoramix,
To say that the mythology, symbolism and occultic elements are archetypal entities awaiting in our collective unconsciousness is as good as saying to me that there is a land that has an invisible pink elephant. I cannot test your claim, thus it is useless to me and I have to reject it. The idea of a horse, elephant etc only occurs to me after I experience it(posteriori) not before I experience it. I had no idea what an elephant was or what it looked until I I learned of it from books and television, and I had a much better idea when I saw a real one. I could not dream of an elephant before I saw one. I had no concept of one.
Mythology is the result of combining ideas. Like elephant + human = Ganesha; horse + flying = Pegasus. Human + flying = Superman. Tree + talking = talking tree. These are completely arbitary creations and there are infintie combinations of combining things to form new things. They do not exist where but in the human imagination. To say they already exist in some mysterious ether is begging the question.
I am not downplaying mythology and symbolism, I can see their signifiance as art to explain things in a metaphorical way. However, they are superfluous by definition. They are not mandatory. Much as the mythological tooth fairy and Santa claus is not mandatory in a child’s life.
Just to share an observation on Mahat: Mahat is the first evolute of prakriti and it is from Mahat that buddhi arises later on. Mahat is the same as cosmic intelligence and its function is to keep everything in order. It is a system of universal complexity where everything that exists is kept in relational order. This same structure is repeated on a microcosmic level as the human mind.
Make no mistake about it, the cosmic intelligence is no other than Brahma in Vedic language. The Gita says each universe that arises is administered by a local Brahma. This is only saying each universe is controlled and coordinated by a local cosmic intelligence(Brahma) and then there is super-universal intelligence called Ishvara which governs all universes at once, which Patanjali describes.
The discussion on ahamkara I want to split off from this thread. I started a new one on that topic called “Maybe I’m the Devil in disguise”.
[quote=Surya Deva;45909]Just to share an observation on Mahat: Mahat is the first evolute of prakriti and it is from Mahat that buddhi arises later on. Mahat is the same as cosmic intelligence and its function is to keep everything in order. It is a system of universal complexity where everything that exists is kept in relational order. This same structure is repeated on a microcosmic level as the human mind.
Make no mistake about it, the cosmic intelligence is no other than Brahma in Vedic language. The Gita says each universe that arises is administered by a local Brahma. This is only saying each universe is controlled and coordinated by a local cosmic intelligence(Brahma) and then there is super-universal intelligence called Ishvara which governs all universes at once, which Patanjali describes.[/quote]
Are there pink elephants in Mahat, Surya?
There is the basic stuff that could later develop a pink elephant. Matter when it is potential contains only the potentiality of something. Nothing really exists before it is manifested.
What I wanted to ask you was, why do you dismiss archetypal entities for not having experienced them, but on the other hand you profess such faith for concepts like Prakriti or Mahat.
Deities are powerful symbols of mind transformation. And perhaps something else.
Can the cells in your body even conceive what that they are building is?
Prakriti is an entitiy one can infer logically. The Samkhyakarika is full of arguments on why prakriti exists. How do you infer horses and elephants as being pre-existent? There is no inference to support that. As these are produced and existent entities which did not always exist, they evolved into being in time. They were only potential in prakriti, just as the tree is only potential in the seed. At the level of prakriti everything is the transformation of the gunas. A certain transformation of the gunas produces a horse, a certain transformation produces an elephant.
At the level of prakriti there is no such thing as objective existence. It is just a function of gunas interactions. Nothing objectively exists there. No horses and no elephants.
Sorry to interject here but I thinks it’s appropriate that this be posted in the thread, just for the record.
Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram - Book 2, Sutra 38
karaṇaṃ trayodaśāvidhaṃ avāntarabhedāt
[ul]
[li]Karaṇaṃ - Instrument
[/li][li] trayodaśā-vidhaṃ - thirteenfold
[/li][li]Avāntara-bhedāt - through subsidiary division
[/li][/ul]
The instrument is of thirteen kinds, according to subsidiary differences.
In Samkhya philosophy, there are two different schemas used to classify what are known as indriyas, the instruments of the Purusa or self. The first schema classifies indriyas as either cognition or action. There are five instruments of cognition (the senses) and five instruments of action (locomotion, speech, grasping, reproduction, and excretion.) Manas (lower mind) is included in this schema because it is said to have characteristics of both cognition and action. Manas, along with the indriyas of action and cognition make up the eleven indriyas that are enumerated in this schema.
There is a second schema that classifies the indriyas as either internal or external. There are thirteen indriyas enumerated in this schema, consisting of the three internal (buddhi, ahamkara, and manas) and the ten external (instruments of cognition and action).
An astute observer might say, well, the word indriya is not used here. The word used is karaṇaṃ. This objection is answered in sutra 2.29 which directly connects the word karaṇa to the word indriya.
SPS 2.29 draṣṭṛtvādirātmanaḥ karaṇatvamindriyāṇāṃ
[ul]
[li]Draṣṭṛ-tva-adi - The being the seer, etc
[/li][li]ātmanaḥ -Is of the self
[/li][li] karaṇatvam - Being the instrument
[/li][li]indriyāṇāṃ - Is of the indriyas
[/li][/ul]
The being the seer, etc., is of the self; being the instrument is of the indriyas, or,
The seer is the self, the instruments are the indriyas.
From there, the Kapila Sutram goes on to talk about the modifications of the indriyas. This is where the yoga sutras begin, except that in the yoga sutras, the “modifications of the indriyas” becomes “the modifications of chitta”. But Kapila says one very interesting thing. He says that the five vayu, airs, beginning with prana, are the common modifications of the indriyas. So instead of each indriya having its own corresponding object, there is a common object that the internal indriyas filter into its various parts, sort of like audio and video in the same TV signal. This concept is similar to what Panoramix said earlier.
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):
This second scheme is obviously a later classification. Classical Samkhya is based on the first scheme of 11 indiryas, 1 ahamkara, 1 mahat, 1 prakriti, 5 tanmatras, 5 gross elements = 25 elements which make up matter.
The second scheme is not popular. But it is not wrong either. Even I am referring to the ahamkara, mahat and manas as instruments or faculties. They are emergent systems, which are unconscious and therefore for the use of the purusha. They are therefore instruments.
I was only politely pointing out that classical Samkhya does not include ahamkara and ego in the indriya list. You overreacted and responded with abuse. The disagreement was so minor, and merely semantical, it did not deserve the kind of response you gave.