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

Spirituality
#35

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.

#36

[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.

#37

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.

#38

[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.

#39

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.

#40

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.

#41

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”.

#42

[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?

#43

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.

#44

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?

#45

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.

#46

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.

#47

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):

#48

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.

#49

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.

Also quoting Panoramix, there is also quite a bit of similarity between this cosmology and the Samkhya cosmology, although it is not exactly the same. Here the will corresponds to ahamkara,and you have a similar division of jnana - knowledge - cognition and kriya - action.

#50

I knew Surya Deva would not have the character to admit that he is wrong and apologize, so unfortunately my contempt is unmitigated.

#51

Normally, it is the abuser that apologises, and not the one being abused :wink:

But I do not answer to some annoying little schoolmarm with bug up her rear end.

#52

I’m not really well-versed in it, but I’ve read enough o know that the renowned psychologist Carl Jung was very big on archetypes, which he used in the interpretation of dreams.

#53

Yes, mythological figures and archetypes are not arbitrary as you say Surya, but in CG Jung’s words, mnemic sedimentations or perception patterns. They slowly go forming through evolution. Don’t underrate them.
A chakra iconography devoid of archetypal figures would be flimsy, as there would be no means for accessing your chakras through the power of your unconscious.

I’m curious: How can one demonstrate the existence of something like Mahat, that cosmic intelligence whose function is keeping all in order, through inference, without falling into speculation?

#54

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45964]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.[/QUOTE]

Awwware, if you want to see the dark side of Ahamkara working, you need look no further than this post. Here you have an ego which has constructed an illusory world in which it is the omniscient master. Whenever it is presented with some evidence that tends to contradict the illusion, it works mightily to keep it intact. But what you have are really excuses for why the master didn’t know this. “The second scheme is a later clasification”…not obvious at all, in fact, it is very highly debatable and in my opinion, not true. Then he continues with the illusion that he must be the teacher.

“The second scheme is not popular”, so then the master is master of only that which is popular? But then he gives it his imprimatur “it’s not wrong”. Kapila will be very happy to hear that. All the while, he maintains the illusion of mastery.

Then oh yes, I was so polite, the disagreement was so minor, all designed to keep the illusion intact. He tries to isolate the response, but in so doing he blinds himself to the reality that it was not an isolated response, but a trigger, a tipping point, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Now he has become the victim of abuse by the big bad man who he has attempted to discredit with false statements, unsupported statements, and false, unsupported accusations. But of course, those are very small things, not deserving of a response of such magnitude. So why does he do these things? Because the ego must constantly maintain the illusion of being the master, the smartest guy in the room. This is the destructive behavior of the self-seeking ahamkara.