Jnana Marga: Path of Knowledge

Spirituality
#54

This may be true, but it is necessary to exhaust the mental activities in order to receive the inspiration. Nothing great has ever been achieved by simply stifling the activity of the mind.

On the contrary, everything is achieved when the mind is stilled and one is a state of pure awareness. This is why in Zen there is the philosophy of Wu Wei(do nothing/effortless effort) It does not literally mean do nothing, it means doing without any kind of mental activity, to be in pure awareness.

It is easy to see the virtue of still mind, when one sees the vice of a noisy mind. If one tries to do anything with a noisy mind one finds how difficult it is to do e.g. listening to somebody while your mind is full of obsessive-compulsive thoughts. On the other hand, when the mind is clear doing is effortless.

Patanjali describes to us how the mind’s activities are undesirable. They are unnecessary noise that occlude all of our perception. Hence by getting rid of all that noise, we attain a pure crystal clear perception and hence the truth is unveiled to us of everything.

Inspiration is something we receive, it is not something we create. It is revelation from a higher faculty within us that knows without knowing. In the case of Archimedes(not Galileo, my bad), his higher faculty knew the principle of hydrostatics; Newton’s higher faculty knew the principle of gravitation; Mozart’s higher faculty knew the principles of musical composition. In like manner, the higher faculty within us knows the truth about everything, not just knows, but has control and mastery of everything. It is this higher wisdom and power that is awakened in Yoga(Patanjali’s third chapter describing the technique of Samyama on various objects shows the kind of wisdom and power that can be drawn from the higher faculty)

Inspiration does not happen in a vacuum of course. One must have the basics to begin with. It is unlikely that somebody could come up with perfect composed poems without having some basic knowledge of poetry and language. Nor is likely that Archimedes would have discovered the principle of hydrostatics without having some knowledge of mathematics. The intuition merely fills in the knowledge.

If you ask any great mathematician, physicist, scientist, singer or poet how they achieve the greatness, most will say that it just comes to them(as if revealed) Einstein famously said that his knowledge just came to him. The Indian mathematician Ramunjana wrote many theorems in mathematics, but never gave proof for them, because he said it just came to him. His background in mathematics was only to highschool level, yet his knowledge surpassed the best mathematicians in Oxford and Cambridge in his time.

Perhaps you could be a great music writer, if you let the inspiration just come to you. That is unlikely to happen, because of your reluctance to let go of the minds activities. You think you can create inspiration - that is like saying we can create growth in the plant :wink:

#55

Since Surya Deva has credited Samkhya Yoga with this, I have to take issue with it, because this is a very subtle distortion of what Samkhya-Yoga actually says, which Surya Deva is using to bolster his own neo-Vedanta belief system.

I will say it once again I am not a Neo-Vedantist. Neo-Vedanta refers to the Vedanta as taught by modern gurus like Ramana Maharishi, Paapaji, Sri Aurobindo etc. This type of Vedanta combines classical Vedanta with modern Western thought and is based on the writings of modern gurus. On the other hand, classical Vedanta is Vedanta as taught in the Sankara tradition, which is still taught today in traditional Vedanta ashrams in India, where I have stayed and studied myself. This involves studying the triad canon: Bhagvad Gita, 10 Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras with the commentaries of Sankara. In addition to this, we study the works(prakarna) of Sankara and other classical Vedanta texts.

My grounding is in classical Vedanta, not Neo-Vedanta. In fact I am not very familiar with Neo-Vedanta writings.

[quote]Technically, in the Samkhya theory of evolution, both visible and subtle matter and the senses with which we perceive it (including the mind) are products of Ahamkara. Aham-kara literally means I-maker. On the individual level, Ahamkara can be described as ego. On the cosmic level, it is something more.
[/quote]

Again, you show your ignorance of basic Samkhya philosophy. Ahamkara, buddhi and manas are collectively mind. In some bad translations only manas is translated as mind, but in Samkhya manas only refers to the deliberating aspect of the mind. Buddhi is the ascertaining aspect and ahamkara is the ego aspect.

The actual word for mind in Samkhya philosophy is not manas, but antakarana(inner instrument) which is made up of manas, buddhi and ahamkara.

From the Karika:

  1. The 3 internal organs(intelligence, ego and deliberating mind) are their own function. They operate through the common 5 pranas throughout the body, without which they would cease to operate.

  2. Of all three the functions can be unconscious, subconscious and conscious, but it is always preceded by a sense perception whether seen or unseen.

  3. The organs all operate by a common impulse in tandem with one another to bring about the purpose of the consciousness associated with it; fulfillment of desire and liberation.

  4. The organs are of 13 kinds(11 sense organs, ego and intelligence) and they serve the function of seizing, sustaining, illuminating. The objects are 10 fold.

  5. The internal organs are 3 fold , and the external organs are 10-fold. The internal organs operate the external organs. The external organs always operate at the present moment in time, but the intenal organs operate at all times simultaneously.

  6. The external 10-fold sense organs have both gross and subtle material data for their objects. Speech only has sound for its object.

  7. The internal organs are the principal organs which cognize all the data, the external organs are mere receivers and channels for data

Thus to say that Samkhya says all physical matter(5 elements) begins at the level of mind is a correct statement. As according to Samkhya the elements evolve directly from the ego and the ego is a part of the mind. Samkhya thus regards all matter to be on a continuum

Subtle ----------------------------------- Gross
Intellect --------------------------------- 5 physical elements

The first thing to come into being is intellect(buddhi/mahat), followed by ahamkara(ego) and this simultaneously creates the sense and motor organs and physical matter.

#56

The mind can exist in a number of states. It can be restless, distracted, and lethargic, it can be one pointed, or it can be arrested. It is the one-pointed state that is productive. Everybody knows this. It is foolish and idiotic to say otherwise, and merely the product of endless intellectualizing.

One cannot get to the arrested state in which transcendental insight is said to occur without passing through the one-pointed state. Even transcendental insight is useless if it cannot be translated into words or mathematical symbols and communicated to others. But it is not a stopping of mental activity, as you continually preach. It is more like focusing and getting your own mental coloring out of the way so that your mind reflects the true nature of whatever object you choose. Then the innate intelligence can do its work.

Patanjali describes to us how the mind’s activities are undesirable. They are unnecessary noise that occlude all of our perception. Hence by getting rid of all that noise, we attain a pure crystal clear perception and hence the truth is unveiled to us of everything.

This is more subtle distortion and error. It is the restless and distracted mind that is undesireable. You seem to forget that perception also is an activity of the mind. The insight that we receive in samadhi is not the truth of everything. This is just you pontificating. Prajna received in samadhi is for a particular purpose. All of the scientists you mentioned in your post came up with answers to particular questions or problems.

#57

It’s easy to see from the distortions and errors in your sermons, that you have not achieved the clarity of vision that you preach about so endlessly. Why should listen to you? It is the blind attempting to lead the blind.

#58

Thus to say that Samkhya says all physical matter(5 elements) begins at the level of mind is a correct statement.

No it isn’t. It’s a misleading statement.

#59

But it is not a stopping of mental activity, as you continually preach. It is more like focusing and getting your own mental coloring out of the way so that your mind reflects the true nature of whatever object you choose. Then the innate intelligence can do its work.

I have already demonstrated conclusively in the thread, “Why do Yoga” that Patanjali says all the activities must be ceased, barring none. You have also recently admitted that Patanjali does ultimately say that all the activities must be ceased before liberation can take place.

Yes, you are right that the awakening of the Prajnana is not the cessation of all activities, because perception still remains. This is why Patanjali calls this a lower stage of samadhi and advises one to not become attached to it. However, the awakening of the Prajnana cannot be achieved until the mental activities have been ceased to an extent. There is a relationship of inverse proportionality between mental activities and the samadhi. When the mental activity comes down, higher mental states are achieved. Hence, any kind of quietening of the mind will bring about higher mental states. This is exactly what happens in meditation: gradually the thought waves become lesser and lesser and as they become lesser the more acute the mind becomes.

You are obviously attached to the minds activities, hence why you are resisting this part of Samkhya-Yoga which desires an end to all guna/vritti activity, and playing semantic games to make it sound softer or more palatable to you. This is why I have always considered you a dishonest person. If something does not agree with you, rather than simply accepting it does not, you will distort it until it does agree with you. This indicates a highly rigid and active ahamkara. Put it simply - you suffer from a massive ego problem.

#60

[QUOTE=Asuri;72571]No it isn’t. It’s a misleading statement.[/QUOTE]

No it isn’t. The Samkhya Karika itself says that the first things to come into existence is Mahat/Buddhi and Ahamkara, and these are not physical matter, but mental matter. Physical matter come at the end of evolution in the Samkhya cosmology.

It is easy to prove as well.

Everything that comes into being does not materialize straight away, but rather gradually evolves from a subtle state to a more gross state. Physical matter did not just come directly into existence, but evolved from a more subtle energy state(hence why tanmatras precede physical matter). Mind is the most subtle kind of matter known, and therefore we can derive that the beginning of the matter continuum is what we call mind.

It is a well known fact to anybody familiar with Samkhya philosopy that Samkhya consider matter to be a continuum going from the most subtle and lightest to the most gross and heaviest:

Karika

  1. From the sattva aspect of the ego principle the sense and motor organs evolve, and from the tamas aspect of the ego principle the 5 physical elements evolve. The rajas aspect intermediates between and energizes both.
  1. Objective evolution is as follows:
    Higher planes are populated by 8 kinds of entities(spiritual beings etc)
    Lower planes are populated by various kinds of animals
    Intermediate planes are populated by humans, which are of one kind.
  1. The higher planes are preponderant with sattva guna, the lower planes with tamas guna and the intermediate plane with rajas guna.

It is clear from the above that the higher sattvic region of creation is created first and sattvic matter is buddhi, ahamkara and manas(i.e., the mental). The lowest tamasic region is created last and tamasic matter is the 5 physical elements. If any doubt remains, then we can confirm from the Karika further:

  1. The subtle body is produced at the beginning of creation, for each purusha. It is not confined to physical matter. It is the constant vehicle for consciousness from the beginning of creation to dissolution. The subtle body is the carrier of the intelligence down to the primary elements. The subtle body transmigrates from one body to the other, tinged with dispositions, but devoid of experiences.

The subtle body made up of buddhi, ahamkara, manas, sense organs, motor organs and 5 primary elements is created at the very beginning of creation.

There is absolutely no doubt from the above that the mental precedes the physical in the Samkhya cosmology i.e. all matter begins at the level of mind.

This argument Asuri is putting forward that Samkhya does not say that mind is the most subtle kind of matter and precedes physical matter is yet another of Asuri’s pointless arguments where he distorts the basics of Samkhya philosophy to make it sit well with what he likes. The irony is, the basics are well know to those versed in Samkhya philosophy and no controversy exists among scholars on this matter. Buddhism which is also a Samkhya-derived philosophy also considers matter to have derived from mind - especially the yogacara school.

The problem is Asuri’s ego thinks of itself as a Samkhya-Yoga scholar and yet he goes against everything that actual Samkhya scholarship says: Re:

Matter-consciousness dualism -mistaking it for Cartesian dualism
Guna-Vritti activity cessation for liberation - mistaking it for judgement of good and bad thoughts and the need to get rid of bad thoughts(but keep the good ones)
Mind-matter continuum - treating the mind and matter as different substances
The authoritativeness of the Samkhya Karika - Giving more authority to late medieval Samkhya texts, to the extent of ignoring the definitive text of the school
Emergent Ishvara vs Eternal Ishvara - mistaking the ishvara of classical Yoga for the Ishvara of late Samkhya philosophers
Samkhya axiomatic-logical method - Mistaking Samkhya’s method to be based on empirical observation

These are some of the many mistakes Asuri has made in understanding the system of Samkhya-Yoga. These mistakes are not just born from ignorance, because if they were Asuri would have corrected his mistakes by now. These are born out of his religious needs to make Samkhya fit with his Christian beliefs. He freely distorts the basics of Samkhya to make them fit in with his Christian worldview, without realizing that classical Samkhya is completely at odds with Christianity and comes from an entirely different worldview and philosophical system.

Again readers are cautioned not to take what Asuri says on Samhya-Yoga seriously. The consistency with which Asuri jumps into every thread where I am discussing Samkhya philosophy and attempts to contradict everything I say, and preaches his Christianized Samkhya views is troll-like behaviour and is obviously designed to confuse the readers here.

#61

LOL, LOL, LOL. coming from you, this is really funny! This is your favorite trick, to project on others your own weakness and inadequacies.

#62

It is clear to see who is jealous and insecure here. You’ve hated me from the very start when I joined the forum, because you were here on this forum first portraying yourself as the resident scholar of the Samkhya-Yoga, but as soon as I joined the forum and many people started to regard me as the scholar and compliment me for my knowledge, you turned sour against me. You have consistently jumped into nearly every thread I’ve started to attack me and undermine whatever I have said. It is clear you are suffering from a jealousy complex, hide it as much as you want :wink:

PS. By the way there is room on this forum for two scholars of Samkhya-Yoga :wink: However, you do not actually represent Samhya-Yoga philosophy, but some distorted Christian version of it, as unrecognizable from it, as Christian Yoga is from Yoga! Hence, you are not really a scholar of Samkhya-Yoga. You should be honest with readers on this forum that understanding of Samkhya philosophy is not the official view of the school, but only peculiar to you. Rather than pretend that your views are official and mislead readers on this forum.

I on the other hand am not misleading the readers, because I have studied Samkhya philosophy academically and have done my dissertation in Samkhya. I also directly cite from the primary texts of the school and the readers can easily verify everything I say is true by cross-referencing. I represent the actual official views.

The real reason you are jealous is because you know are not qualified on the subject of Samkhya-Yoga and I am. Yet your ego simply cannot admit it, so you undermine me every chance you get to feel better about yourself, like an ugly girl at school does with the pretty girl lol

#63

Correction, your favorite trick is indulging in personal attacks, lies, and bigotry whenever you have been challenged. This exposes your path as not the highest, or even elevated, but simply an exercise in egotism.

#64

I challenge you to produce this “dissertation”, name your school and the degree you received. Then we shall see who is misleading whom.

#65

And who appointed you as the official representative?

#66

It’s a difficult job, but somebody has to do it. I feel it is my duty not to let error proliferate. How do you like it now that your method has been turned against you?

#67

Asuri you are a troll. I have nothing more to say to you. You can seethe with jealousy like the ugly girl that you are behaving like right now as much as you want. You are no longer contributing anything of relevance to any discussion.

I do not have to boast of my credentials; my credentials speak for themselves in the knowledge I share on this forum. No, I will not be revealing my school, for the same reason i will not be revealing my address, real name, bank details, because this information can be used to identify me and I have a strict policy of not sharing any such information online(a wise thing to do) I have no need to lie about having a degree in Philosophy(first class/distinction) and doing my dissertation in Samkhya-Yoga philosophy. If I was going to lie, I could have said I have a Phd in Samkhya-Yoga :wink: (Although, in the next few years I intend to do my Phd in a related area)

By showing such blatant disrespect for my achievements you clearly show just how jealous you are of me. You really do have a serious case of ugly girl syndrome.

#68

Believe me, pal, there is no jealousy. I happen to think you’re a complete idiot, so there’s nothing to be jealous of. But that is purely my own personal opinion and others can judge for themselves.

#69

[QUOTE=Asuri;72598]Believe me, pal, there is no jealousy. I happen to think you’re a complete idiot, so there’s nothing to be jealous of. But that is purely my own personal opinion and others can judge for themselves.[/QUOTE]

Your actions speak louder than your words. It is clear you suffer from extreme jealousy of me.

In any case I do not consider you even mildly a threat or an intellectual equal.

#70

Would you post your dissertation so we can read it?

Getting a master’s degree in the humanities is not a big deal, the quality of the education in this department has been declining steadily. Getting a good grade for a dissertation on a subject your professor doesn’t know anything about, doesn’t say much either. Unless you can say that your guiding professor was a renowned expert in the field of Indian philosophy, you are merely bragging about something that’s not worth bragging about.

#71

Generally, it is considered disrespectful to undermine somebodies achievements and when somebody feels the need to do that it is because they are spiteful. We can easily turn the table around and you can tell me about your grades at school, GPA scores, your degree, masters or PHD, and if I respond by undermining your achievement, it is easily to see what a horrible person I am.

I honestly believe at this point you and Asuri are being horrible. I understand you have issues with me personally, but now you are simply being horrible. It is clear you are not the best of yogis, isn’t it and Sarva, being Hindu has made you no better of a person than a Christian :wink:

By the way my degree was in the top 5% of the population of that year. If it was that easy to achieve, then 95% of people would also be getting it. What my degree shows is that I am qualified in the area of my degree: Philosophy. I am entitled to show my qualifications in an area I am qualified in. Now, when somebody who is not qualified(Asuri) enters my threads and undermines my knowledge(who is qualified) I have to state my credentials to establish the playing field. Asuri is not my intellectual equal in the area of Samkhya-Yoga/philosophy. I have demonstrated that several times by exposing his ignorance of the basics of this philosophy.

#72

By the way Sarva this was posted by you in my visitors profile section a few months ago:

Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā
You are doing great work here, Surya! Very admirable.

How quickly and dramatically you change your opinions and views, over philosophical-religious disagreements. God save us from friends like you :wink:

#73

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72610]By the way Sarva this was posted by you in my visitors profile section a few months ago:

How quickly and dramatically you change your opinions and views, simply over disagreements. God save us from friends like you ;)[/QUOTE]

I didn’t actually read your posts in the past, because they were too longwinded, but you pretended to defend Hinduism. Now it is clear though that you are merely giving Hinduism a bad name with your nonsense.