Normally, it is the abuser that apologises, and not the one being abused 
But I do not answer to some annoying little schoolmarm with bug up her rear end.
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.
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?
[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.
Haha, you realy don’t let go do you. The oldest extant text on Samkhya is the Samkhyakarika by Ishvarkrishna. It mentions the classical scheme of 11 organs + ahmakara and mahat etc. The text you are citing Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram came several centuries after. It describes another scheme in addition to the classical scheme of classifying the evolutes of prakriti. It is not wrong, because the ahamkara, mahat and manas are indeed internal instruments or faculities. However, they are the ones that control the 11 organs. The ahamkara has the property of “mineness” so it is the agent and its agency is the 11 organs.
Your objection is minor and I do not actually wholly disagree with your point, but I do think the classical classification is less ambigious. You’re really doing nothing but trying to pick a fight. You were doing that from the start.
Well, all of the best scholars believed the Samkhya-Pravachana Sutram to be the work of Kapila. Aniruddha, Vijnana Bhiksu, Nandalal Sinha, the authors of the textbooks that I read, none of them disputed the authenticity of the work. It’s only the second rate Hindus who haven’t even read it who dispute its validity. But they are all just salesmen for their own particular perversion of Kapila’s philosophy, so one cannot expect anything more from them. We all know who started this, and I’m not fool enough to get sucked into one of your interminable and useless debates.
[QUOTE=panoramix;45999]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?[/QUOTE]
One can’t.
You’ll find that there are members here who possess a vast academic knowledge of spiritual and religious matters, and it’s obvious that is all they have considering the manner in which they use it and attempt to lord over other members. They may be “right” but they don’t “know”.
It’s better to ignore this kind of enlightened ego, leave them alone with their spiritual materialism. Without anyone to impress or any debates to “win”, they will eventually see the futility of academic & trivial knowledge of spiritual matters alone.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45895]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.[/QUOTE]
Not that I claim to know these things, but as a scientist I would conclude that you define Ahamakara as a product of thought processes; A kind of emergent property. Intuitively, I’d rather say that the processes of Ahamkara, this sense of I and mine are more instinctively and do not result from traditional thought processes. it is a deep rooted mechanism that even shortcuts and overrules the faculty of Buddhi. When Ahamakara operates in its most original manner as you see with very small children not capable of thought at all, not capable of a rationalised judgment, it commands the desire. That the desire is born out of interaction with the jnana-indriyas and manas only insofar as discomfort is registered appears self-evident. But then Ahamkara in the neonate commands as something is lacking; something has been taken away from it. So in my humble opinion of a non-self-realised wannabe yogi, I’d still conclude that Ahamkara is a separate function of the mind; it is not made out of thoughts. Also, ahamkara involves the awareness of the I as an individual entity. If you conclude it is an emergent property of thought processes, basically you?re claiming a robot with sufficient AI capabilities could have a sense of I in the future. I doubt it. It is always said that purusha is completely separate and not affected by prakrti. Yet the purusha or the bhoktr is that (all encompassing) entity, which enjoys the universe (hence the term Bhoktr or enjoyer). If it can enjoy the universe or more broadly spoken the prakrti it must somehow interact therewith, but that cannot be as they are of a different nature (according to samkya). This is why I have always felt more comfortable with the definition that the prakrti is the mindstuff of the Brahman, it is embedded therein. Panpsychism. It can be enjoyed and experienced because it is within the enjoyer.
The sense of I-ness lies closest to what we as simple mortals experience as awareness, isn?t it? It is a vital function if you want to exist in this material world (read the thread: maybe I’m the devil in disguise). In neuroscience I guess it operates as what is known as the release mechanism of fixed action patterns in the basal ganglia. It can be triggered by thoughts, but it can also exist independent of thoughts, like in the neonate.
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;46042]One can’t.
You’ll find that there are members here who possess a vast academic knowledge of spiritual and religious matters, and it’s obvious that is all they have considering the manner in which they use it and attempt to lord over other members. They may be “right” but they don’t “know”.
It’s better to ignore this kind of enlightened ego, leave them alone with their spiritual materialism. Without anyone to impress or any debates to “win”, they will eventually see the futility of academic & trivial knowledge of spiritual matters alone.[/QUOTE]
It is indeed a pity that some wannabe yogis, such as i, have to resort to philosophy and speculation. It is born out of the incapacity to arrive at true mediatative states, which in its turn is born out of blockades due to a lack of completely mastering yama and niyama. Yet I see it (this philosophising) as a part of a niyama: svadyaya. It is a first step into the exploration of oneself, and how imperfect it may be, the intention (at least mine) is (hopefully) pure. It is unfortunate that also false Ego :evil: mingles in these dialogues/discussions. Once it is about being a wiseacre or outsmarting another, then something goes wrong and we become a group of quacking ducks; wannabe pundits who know nothing:confused:. I like your term “enlightened Ego”, which is a beautiful contradictio in terminis. Academic knowledge can never on its own lead to the revelation of the absolute truth, but it can help us to trigger our curiosity, isn’t it? Great avatar you have;)
[QUOTE=Awwware;46053]Not that I claim to know these things, but as a scientist I would conclude that you define Ahamakara as a product of thought processes; A kind of emergent property. Intuitively, I’d rather say that the processes of Ahamkara, this sense of I and mine are more instinctively and do not result from traditional thought processes. it is a deep rooted mechanism that even shortcuts and overrules the faculty of Buddhi. When Ahamakara operates in its most original manner as you see with very small children not capable of thought at all, not capable of a rationalised judgment, it commands the desire. That the desire is born out of interaction with the jnana-indriyas and manas only insofar as discomfort is registered appears self-evident. But then Ahamkara in the neonate commands as something is lacking; something has been taken away from it. So in my humble opinion of a non-self-realised wannabe yogi, I’d still conclude that Ahamkara is a separate function of the mind; it is not made out of thoughts. Also, ahamkara involves the awareness of the I as an individual entity. If you conclude it is an emergent property of thought processes, basically you?re claiming a robot with sufficient AI capabilities could have a sense of I in the future. I doubt it. It is always said that purusha is completely separate and not affected by prakrti. Yet the purusha or the bhoktr is that (all encompassing) entity, which enjoys the universe (hence the term Bhoktr or enjoyer). If it can enjoy the universe or more broadly spoken the prakrti it must somehow interact therewith, but that cannot be as they are of a different nature (according to samkya). This is why I have always felt more comfortable with the definition that the prakrti is the mindstuff of the Brahman, it is embedded therein. Panpsychism. It can be enjoyed and experienced because it is within the enjoyer.
The sense of I-ness lies closest to what we as simple mortals experience as awareness, isn?t it? It is a vital function if you want to exist in this material world (read the thread: maybe I’m the devil in disguise). In neuroscience I guess it operates as what is known as the release mechanism of fixed action patterns in the basal ganglia. It can be triggered by thoughts, but it can also exist independent of thoughts, like in the neonate.[/QUOTE]
Great. Maybe we should have Yoga Alliance demand that all prospective teachers pass a Turing test? They might be Hindu robots from the future… :rolleyes:
You state that you are a scientist. You should know that Yoga is indeed a science. You do it, it works. Oh, & btw, you won’t ever completely master the yamas & niyamas w/o real enlightenment. It’s impossible.
& they’re not sequential. It’s more of a pratityasamutpada kind of thing.
Yet I see it (this philosophising) as a part of a niyama: svadyaya. It is a first step into the exploration of oneself, and how imperfect it may be, the intention (at least mine) is (hopefully) pure. It is unfortunate that also false Ego :evil: mingles in these dialogues/discussions. Once it is about being a wiseacre or outsmarting another, then something goes wrong and we become a group of quacking ducks; wannabe pundits who know nothing:confused:. I like your term “enlightened Ego”, which is a beautiful contradictio in terminis. Academic knowledge can never on its own lead to the revelation of the absolute truth, but it can help us to trigger our curiosity, isn’t it? Great avatar you have;)
It’s all about the difference be an ego with too much spiritual trivia at it’s disposal VS a true seeker with just enough yoga to get them where they want to go: [B][I]inside where it’s quiet[/I][/B].
Namaste Awware,
If the ahamkara is not a product of thought processes. Then how can I say my name is Surya Deva, I am 30 years old, I live in the UK, I am a Hindu? All these sentences hinge upon an “I” master concept. Now when I was born I had no name, I did not know what my country was called, I did not know what my age was and what my religion was. I had no sense of “I-am-that-ness” I was a clean slate. Later on, I developed this and it assembled by various thoughts I acquired through learning. The ahamkara is nothing more than an executive-master program. That the soul is using in order to functin in this world. Had the soul incarnated in an animal body, it would have a diffferent ahamkara.
Samkhya is clear on the fact that the soul has no agency. It does nothing, but observes.
Theoretically we can indeed create a robot that that has a highly developed ahamkara and externally it will exhibit all the behaviours that we exhibit, but what it will lack is what conscious beings have - awareness. It will not be aware, it will just be a circuit running its algorithms. Similarly, we human beings have a highly advanced circuit that is running itself and all activity seen is the result of that. The consciousness is misidentified with this complex circuit. The property of this consciousness is just witnessing, experiencing and seeing - it watches the material activity as a detached observer. Doing nothing. It only feels and knows(pain, pleasure, desire, ignorance, knowledge)
We cannot create a robot that feels and knows. We can replicate everything else ahamkara, manas, buddhi, jnanaindryas, kamaindriyas, but we cannot give feeling and awareness to it. This can only come from the association of consciousness with it.
It’s all about the difference be an ego with too much spiritual trivia at it’s disposal VS a true seeker with just enough yoga to get them where they want to go: inside where it’s quiet.
Those who oppose knowledge prefer ignorance.
You assume automatically that the conclusion that one must “go inside when it is quiet” through Yoga is natural knowledge. It is not natural, I had to learn Yoga. Before I learned Yoga I did not do Yoga. In the West Yoga was not known until it came to the West in modern times.
Yoga is not natural knowledge. It is something that needs to be discovered through scientific and intellectual methods. First you need to know that matter and consciousness are distinct. Then you need to discern their differences and investigate how and why they are associated and delinate the continuum of their interaction(the great science of Samkhya) and then you need to develop practical methods via which you can reverse the association process so you can get to the state where both consciousness and matter are in their pure state.
Samkhya-Yoga is the culmination of science. You first must begin with science to get to Samkhya-Yoga. The scientists are the folks that do the hard work in the research and development to give you the product of Yoga.
You take the product for granted.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;46061]Namaste Awware,
If the ahamkara is not a product of thought processes. Then how can I say my name is Surya Deva, I am 30 years old, I live in the UK, I am a Hindu? All these sentences hinge upon an “I” master concept. Now when I was born I had no name, I did not know what my country was called, I did not know what my age was and what my religion was. I had no sense of “I-am-that-ness” I was a clean slate. Later on, I developed this and it assembled by various thoughts I acquired through learning. The ahamkara is nothing more than an executive-master program.[/QUOTE]
Namaste Surya,
It is an interesting point of view you just mentioned and for the moment I cannot tell whether you are right or I, but we can try to dissect this issue a bit further. I agree the sense of I-ness and its actions is an executive master program. No problem. But that is not the same as thoughts. Rather it is a conduit for thoughts.
The notions: “my name is Awwware, I am 39 years old, I live in NL, I became a Hindu” are thoughts. When I express them via my will, that is an action of Ahamkara. It’s a bit of semantics, but the mindstuff or manas, the thoughts per se and the action that executes them, the ahamkara, I’d rather consider as different aspects of the mind. just as the output and input of a program, is not the program itself. Why would the Vedas and samkhya otherwise have made the distinction?
That said, what is interesting is that basically you claim a neonate has no sense of I-ness yet and it is created by learning and experiencing. That could be true, I don’t know. So there you make a distinction between a more instinctive type of Will, which is present from the onset and a more devloped kind of Will that emerges later. That basically rejoins your statement:
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;46061]
That the soul is using in order to functin in this world. Had the soul incarnated in an animal body, it would have a diffferent ahamkara.
[/QUOTE]
You also stated
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;46061]
Theoretically we can indeed create a robot that that has a highly developed ahamkara and externally it will exhibit all the behaviours that we exhibit, but what it will lack is what conscious beings have - awareness. It will not be aware, it will just be a circuit running its algorithms. Similarly, we human beings have a highly advanced circuit that is running itself and all activity seen is the result of that. The consciousness is misidentified with this complex circuit. The property of this consciousness is just witnessing, experiencing and seeing - it watches the material activity as a detached observer. Doing nothing. It only feels and knows(pain, pleasure, desire, ignorance, knowledge).
We cannot create a robot that feels and knows. We can replicate everything else ahamkara, manas, buddhi, jnanaindryas, kamaindriyas, but we cannot give feeling and awareness to it. This can only come from the association of consciousness with it.
[/QUOTE]
What I always find puzzling is how consciousness can observe this world. I believe the world is embedded within the consciousness. All is jnana.
Note that the AI developer Goertzel has in his opencog/novamente and webmind algorithmic programs called the “self” ( a kind of ahamkara) and the “attention broker” (a kind of Buddhi).
Can you agree with these statements or is yr point of view yet different?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;46065]Those who oppose knowledge prefer ignorance.
You assume automatically that the conclusion that one must “go inside when it is quiet” through Yoga is natural knowledge… [/QUOTE]
No I don’t. Shows what you know…
In the West Yoga was not known until it came to the West in modern times.
Perhaps you should read up a little more on the Greeks.
You take the product for granted.
Really? because I use it, while you talk about it. It shows…
When I express them via my will, that is an action of Ahamkara. It’s a bit of semantics, but the mindstuff or manas, the thoughts per se and the action that executes them, the ahamkara, I’d rather consider as different aspects of the mind. just as the output and input of a program, is not the program itself. Why would the Vedas and samkhya otherwise have made the distinction?
In a sense you are right the thoughts are just inputs and outputs. In Samkhya a distinction is made between the thought and the process, but this is not a real distinction, but the thought is really the process. Hence why the order in Samkhya goes from manas, to ahamkara and then buddhi. The buddhi is at the level of pure process(Mahat is the cosmic level of process) These processes are caused by the activity of the gunas within prakriti.
The ahamkara is both linked to the mind and to the physical world. This is why it gets both affected by mind and physical matter(input and output) As soon as the buddhi develops the ahamkara self-similar process(or module) that self similar process then starts to develop selfishness(for me) and therefore by default it also generates what is not self or other. The result of this is the field of prakriti is split into a subjective part(mine) an objective part(not mine) However, subjective-objective dichotomy is false. It is all just a field of process activity caused by guna activity.
What I always find puzzling is how consciousness can observe this world. I believe the world is embedded within the consciousness. All is jnana.
Consciousness is simply the awareness and the gunas activity(the processes) is what is taking place within consciousness. This is not classical Samkhya, but the theistic Samkhya that is found in the Gita and the Upanishads. As I said befoe in my dissertation I proved that classical Samkhya is incomplete and it needs Vedanta to complete it. There is no such thing as unmanifest matter, unmanifest matter is is the same as consciousness. The field of prakriti is an emanation from that and therefore prakriti is within consciousness not outside of it. Now if something is taking place within, like I can see my thoughts, you are aware of it. Similarly consciousness is aware of everything that is happening in prakriti.
Then why do you oppose science and philosophy?
Perhaps you should read up a little more on the Greeks.
The Greeks did not develop a meditation tradition. There was Platonism which was influenced by Hinduism, which had a stray reference to sense withdrawal in order to access the soul in the Pheado, but this never gained any prominence in Greek culture, which was predominantly materialist and hedonist. Hence why Socrates was executed for going against the tide. Then later emerged neo-platonism and gnosticism, but they were persecuted and eventually declared heretics by the council of Niceia and this was enforced by Constantine. Thereafter Greek philosophy and gnosticism was condemned as paganism and they were silenced. The Western pagan traditions did not see revival until the modern times when Hinduism entered the West. The first official esoteric society to form was the Theosophical society. The heavy emphasis on Hinduism and Buddhism, lead to the formation of the Heremetic order of the Golden Dawn(OTO etc) which revived ancient Western pagan traditions(Gnosticism, Druidism, magik etc)
In both cases it was not until the original wisdom passed from India to the West. In ancient times it passed from India to Greece. In modern times it passed again from India to Europe. Since the the coming of Yoga into the West, the new-age movement, the human growth movement and the counter-cultural movement have ensued. It also lead to the development of psychological sciences and the scientific study of meditation and spirituality.
Today meditation is common knowledge and a sizable number of people in the West practice it. A few hundred years ago it was not common knowledge at all. It is due to the proliferation of Hinduism in the West through Yoga that this has been made possible.
Again, you take Yoga for granted. You show no appreciation for its history, its origins and the scientific research behind it. This is evident from how you deride us intellectuals. But if it was not for us intellectuals you would not have Yoga in the first place.
It was said that mind is but a subtle form of matter. If so, it must be observable; measurable.
This is a difficult concept for us westerners to get our minds around, because when we use the word “matter” it has a specific scientific meaning for us. But in Samkhya philosophy, material nature is defined differently than physical matter. Material nature is defined as that which consists of the three gunas: sattva, rajas, and tamas. In that sense, mind is observable, if not measurable. There can be no doubt that we observe our minds to have these qualities. And although we cannot measure them, we do observe that some of us are more disposed toward one quality or another than others.
Yet the purusha or the bhoktr is that (all encompassing) entity, which enjoys the universe (hence the term Bhoktr or enjoyer). If it can enjoy the universe or more broadly spoken the prakrti it must somehow interact therewith, but that cannot be as they are of a different nature (according to samkya). This is why I have always felt more comfortable with the definition that the prakrti is the mindstuff of the Brahman, it is embedded therein.
I’ve never understood the argument that there can be no interaction between purusa and prakriti because they are of a different nature. Why not? This is stated as axiomatic, but is it really true? In the physical world we see different types of substances interacting or reacting all the time.
I think it may be true in the sense that purusa must take the physical form in order to experience and interact with the physical world. I’m sure there are many people who would dispute that statement, citing many reported encounters with non-physical beings. But the usual case is that the soul needs a body to interact with the world.
I think this problem might stem from the conception of the purusa as an all encompassing being. In the historical samkhya, purusa is conceived as an individual, of which there are many, not as a single all-encompassing being.
It was said that mind is but a subtle form of matter.
As I contemplate this further, I’m leaning toward the conclusion that such statements should be regarded as incorrect. Mind is composed of principles that are entirely different from matter as we know it. Subtle forms of matter are merely physical substances that are not perceivable by the senses. Beyond that are the principles that make up what we call the internal instruments. While they are included in the definition of material nature, they do not consist of physical matter at all. We need to be careful to define material nature as consisting of the gunas: sattva, rajas, and tamas.