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

Spirituality
#61

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].

#62

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.

#63

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.

#64

[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?

#65

[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…

#66

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.

#67

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.

#68

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.

#69

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.

#70

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.

#71

[QUOTE=Asuri;46359]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.[/QUOTE]

It’s semantics again: what do you call “matter”. If matter is defined by you as atoms, ions, molecules and perhaps a series of subatomic particles, then you are right. If you consider “matter” in a broader definition also encompassing energy (E = m * c square) then perhaps you’ll have to revise your opinion.
To deny “Mind” the three gunas I do not understand. Even if the brain is a mere physical conduit of particulate matter for processes taking place in the so-called manomayakosha, these processes in that kosha must also have so kind of substratum to express links, patterns and activities etc. I can follow the reasoning that the brain is merely a part of the mind, a transformator, but I cannot follow the reasoning that the Mind is structureless: structure needs a substratum of either particulate or otherwise energetic nature. Claims to non-observable dimensions are not helpful. They defer our problem to the unknowable. But Minds are clearly describable. They involve certain patterns and certain control centers. The question in this thread is ultimately: In what way do the gunas construct the mind. What is the guna-pattern embedding principle of the manomayakosha?

#72

[QUOTE=Asuri;46355]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.[/QUOTE]

The individual purushas, as you call them, are like droplets of water. Once they flow into the ocean there is no individual drop anymore. The idea of separation is a temporary illusion, due to the interaction with prakrti. Although I cannot say to have experienced this, here I really BELIEVE that this is the right interpretation. As pure consciousness is aspectless, there cannot be more than one, as that would necessarily the aspect of multiplicity and hence differences. Consciousness that is completely identical to another consciousness must be the same. If they are different, they are in different locations. Space is an activity of prakrti.
There are people who are gifted to sense the emotions and even thoughts of others; their quantum of consciousness extends beyond the borders of their physical border. Their minds tend to meld with the minds of others. Ultimately, when we all meld into the ultimate consciousness of Brahman and become omniscient, there can be no difference between you and me because our mind content has become identical. Individuality is a trick of the ahamkara aspect of the mind. It is also illusory and consists of the three gunas. This is how I see it and that’s merely an opinion, but I hope you see now better why I believe in “monism”.

#73

If you consider “matter” in a broader definition also encompassing energy (E = m * c square) then perhaps you’ll have to revise your opinion.

No, matter and energy are the same. They both exist in the physical realm, so this does not affect my conclusion.

The question in this thread is ultimately: In what way do the gunas construct the mind. What is the guna-pattern embedding principle of the manomayakosha?

I can’t answer that. I see guna theory as a useful model for describing human behavior. Samkhya claimed that the gunas were substances, but no one has ever been able to prove that, so I’m not sure that the model can be applied to scientific inquiry.

#74

As pure consciousness is aspectless, there cannot be more than one, as that would necessarily the aspect of multiplicity and hence differences. Consciousness that is completely identical to another consciousness must be the same. If they are different, they are in different locations. Space is an activity of prakrti.

This is an astute observation. If the purusa is without attributes, then one is indistinguishable from another. So either the purusa loses its individual identity as you say, like a drop in the ocean, or the individual purusa is not completely devoid of distinguishing attributes. I think the latter deserves a little more investigation. The definitions that we use to distinguish prakriti from purusa, (i.e. composed of the gunas or not composed of the gunas) don’t exclude the possibility of distinguishing characteristics of the purusa, only that it is not composed of the gunas.

Samkhya also seems to have recognized the problem of purusa needing time and space in order to exist as individuals. It appears to say that time and space are applicable to all, but this is problematic. Either the translation is not valid or there is an inconsistency in the theory of time and space as part of prakriti.

#75

[QUOTE=Asuri;46452]This is an astute observation. If the purusa is without attributes, then one is indistinguishable from another. So either the purusa loses its individual identity as you say, like a drop in the ocean, or the individual purusa is not completely devoid of distinguishing attributes. I think the latter deserves a little more investigation. The definitions that we use to distinguish prakriti from purusa, (i.e. composed of the gunas or not composed of the gunas) don’t exclude the possibility of distinguishing characteristics of the purusa, only that it is not composed of the gunas.

Samkhya also seems to have recognized the problem of purusa needing time and space in order to exist as individuals. It appears to say that time and space are applicable to all, but this is problematic. Either the translation is not valid or there is an inconsistency in the theory of time and space as part of prakriti.[/QUOTE]
Individuality is a form of prakrti I think; it is a product of the ahamkara. The purusha then does not need space and time to exist as individual, because it is not the purusha which exists as individual. We are like a tentacle of a great octopus. As tentacles we may think we have an individual consciousness, but this is wrong. The whole of the tentacles experiences are fed to a consciousness at a yet higher aggregation level. Ahamkara and prakrti need space and time to perform their fake-existence. These experiences are sensed by a great number of tentacles, who are under the illusion that they have a separate existence (you and me, all living beings). Ultimately there is only one conscious entity within which this holotheatre performance of prakrti takes place. In this view there is no inconsistency.

#76

I have a philosophy degree, I’m in no way opposed to it.

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.

??? what the hell was all that drivel???

Are you really this obsessed with trivia?

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.

Actually its much more due to Buddhism coming to Europe and the Americas, but you wouldn’t admit that, would you, as it doesn’t support your politics or world view? :rolleyes:

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.

:slight_smile:

You contribute nothing to Yoga.

#77

@awwware

Your proposition takes care of the unresolved problems nicely. It would be nice if life were that simple and easy, but it isn’t. I don’t have the answers, nor do I have really specific objections to what you offer, except that it all seems a little too easy and convenient. I reserve judgement at this time.

#78

I have a philosophy degree, I’m in no way opposed to it.

Sure doesn’t sound like it.

Actually its much more due to Buddhism coming to Europe and the Americas, but you wouldn’t admit that, would you, as it doesn’t support your politics or world view?

It is easy, prove it :wink:

I am going to stop wasting time you on you now. I make my case by providing plenty of factual evidence. You make your case by just saying it.

Anybody who knows anything about the history of of Yoga knows Yoga came to the West in the modern times through Hindu gurus. The first being Swami Vivekananda, followed by Swami Yogananda. Then it gained huge popularity in the West through the TM movement, again founded by a Hindu guru. Hatha Yoga, on the other hand gained huge popularity through yet another Hindu guru, B.K.S Iyengar.

You are evidently not qualified to have this discussion with me, and to boot, you are impolite and unreasonable. I am terminating it here.

#79

That’s nice.

It is easy, prove it :wink:

It’s part of the historical record. Buddhism has been in the “modern West” a lot longer than Hinduism. In fact, Buddhism was much more influential to Greek philosophy than Yoga or Hinduism ever was. Among leading European philosophers & scholars, Buddhism was studied during the 18th century and even earlier, and Buddhism spread through both immigrations and conversions in both Europe and the US in the 19th century, unlike Hinduism which came into popularity with scholars a century or more later (late 19th century) and didn’t start really growing in the West (outside of spiritualist groups) until substantial Hindu immigration took place & stuff like TM got popular because of the Beetles, etc. Scholars may have some knowledge beyond the general public but belief systems follow immigration patterns and Buddhism has Hinduism & Yoga beat by a good century at least.
It’s just the way it is. Sorry if you can’t accept it, it doesn’t affect historical truth.

I am going to stop wasting time you on you now. I make my case by providing plenty of factual evidence. You make your case by just saying it.

Anybody who knows anything about the history of of Yoga knows Yoga came to the West in the modern times through Hindu gurus. The first being Swami Vivekananda, followed by Swami Yogananda. Then it gained huge popularity in the West through the TM movement, again founded by a Hindu guru. Hatha Yoga, on the other hand gained huge popularity through yet another Hindu guru, B.K.S Iyengar.

You are evidently not qualified to have this discussion with me, and to boot, you are impolite and unreasonable. I am terminating it here.

Everyone here is aware of the “Yoga in the West Timeline”, I have no idea why you feel the need to slam readers with these posts jam packed with the most basic historical trivia. You remind me of Teitan except with better grammar & less of a temper.
You’re right, however. I’m not really qualified to have this “discussion”.
I could never match enlightened egos with you. Considering what a high opinion you have of yourself, maybe you should change your forum name to Ahamkaradev? Just a thought.

:wink:

(you’re the one with the Hindu/Indian supremacist, anti-JudeoChristian/Western agenda & you wanna call [B]ME[/B] impolite and unreasonable? Wow. I’d say that’s the pot calling the kettle black but you’d probably just take that as me being racist against kitchen ware or something…)

#80

It’s part of the historical record. Buddhism has been in the “modern West” a lot longer than Hinduism.

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but sure would like to see your sources. As far as I know the earliest major influence on the modern West was by Hinduism and not Buddhism. The first translations of Indian texts to be translated in the modern West were the Upanishads, which were translated from Arabic into English and read by Schopenhauer. He has gone on record and acknowledged both his debt and his admiration for the Upanishads. Thereafter, a huge craze for Hindu stuff started in the West and every major Hindu work was translated into English from Sanskrit.

In fact, Buddhism was much more influential to Greek philosophy than Yoga or Hinduism ever was.

This is certainly not the viewpoint of scholarship which clearly say that Greek philosophy is inline with Hindu philosophy. Almost every scholar acknowledges just how strongly Hindu Pythagorean philosophy is and are convinced that either he went to India and studied at one of its universities or there were Hindus present in Greece. Many scholars have noted how strongly Yogic Platonism is, and unsurprisingly the platonists later had major Sanskrit texts like the Gita traslated into Greek. There are several greek records which record the vists of Hindu brahmins into Greece. They were known for their wisdom.

But answer this very simple question. If Buddhism was more influencial on Greek philosophy then where are the concepts of annata, dukhha and shunyata in Greek philosophy, which are the cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy? On the other hand, it is far easier to make the case for Hindu concepts like atman, moksha and yoga being present in Greek philosophy

Face it, you are anti-Hindu and you will not concede anything to the Hindus, even if it were true. .