[QUOTE=Asuri;72528]Good grief. Another one of these guys.[/QUOTE]
This is the opinion/declaration of the ancient scriptures. I am not interjecting my opinion here at all. The scriptures tell us this. Within the context of this subject, Jnana yoga is one of the higher yogas. It is by no means the highest of all yogas, but it is certainly advanced. This is a fact.
Actions speak louder than words.
The sky is blue.
Truth is something very different from facts and beliefs. Patanjali includes facts, as well as beliefs as modifications/patternings/distortions of the mind. Thus, because they are modifications/patternings/distortions of the mind, they are not actually true. This is a pretty remarkable statement, because it applies to any fact like “The Eiffel tower is in Paris, The battle of hastings was in 1066, E=MC^2” None of these facts are actually really true. The actual truth behind all these facts is hiding under the modifications/patternings/distortions of the mind, and as long as they continue to pattern and condition our consciousness of facts, the truth cannot be revealed about anything.
The factual knowledge that we call truth, Patanjali calls verbal knowledge. It is referential knowledge, built up of associations e.g., to know the meaning of a fact like, “The Eiffel tower is in Paris” one must know the meaning of the words that make up the sentence: the, Eiffel tower, is, in, paris. 'The, is and in" refers knowledge of English grammar. Paris refer to knowledge of countries.
But even then no meaning is produced, because the referents refer to more meanings: English grammar refers to knowledge of verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, pronouns, punctuation etc. Buildings and structures refer to shapes and geometry; Countries refer to knowledge of areas and boundaries, history, ethnicity.
Still meaning is not produced, because there are infinite possible referents constantly referring to one another forming complex semantic nets. Thus any kind of factual knowledge is purely just sementics (referential) it does not actually refer to any absolute truth or meaning. As such it is not really knowledge. This is why Patanjali classes this as the grossest and lowest kind of knowledge - but underlying this gross and lowest kind of knowledge are deeper subtle and causal systems which construct this knowledge. Thus real knowledge is not actually knowing any facts, but knowing the internal processes that construct the fact. This type of knowledge Patanjali calls natural/intuitive, it is not something we have to logically deduce or discover through scientific discovery, it is knowledge that automatically dawns when the mind is still. In actual fact most scientific discoveries do arise not from the analytical process of observing, reasoning and analysing, but rather they jump at the observer when his mind is still. Galileo’s mind relaxed in his bath after the exhaustive mental activities in trying to work out how to tell fake gold from real gold, receives the information about the principles of hydro statics by suddenly noticing the relationship between volume and mass. Prior to that Galileo would have had many baths, but it was only then when his mind was sufficiently stilled, that the principle of hydro statics jumped at him. Likewise, Newton would have seen many things fall in his life, but when his mind was sufficiently stilled he was able to notice for the first time the relationship between mass, falling, velocity and hence the principle of gravitation.
Note in your own life how your intuition will jump in and fill in the details in many things you do. When you do a Sudoku puzzle, before you’ve even started thinking of what goes in the box next to the one you are doing, you suddenly already know what goes in every box. In a jigsaw puzzle, even when a fraction of of the pieces have formed, you know exactly what the image will be. But not always does it happen. It only happens when the mind still enough to receive. The stiller it is, the more the powerful the intuition and deeper the penetration.
Similarly, there is a deepest knowledge that is revealed to us about every fact we perceive when our mind is completely still. That is the truth.
[QUOTE=omshanti;72534]The sky is blue.[/QUOTE]
This is a perfect example of a statement which is factually correct, but not actually true. This example is used in Vedanta a lot, and in the text the Yoga Vasistha it begins by showing how we perceive this reality to be real in the same way we perceive the sky to be blue, not realizing that it is ultimately illusory like the blueness of the sky.
The sky is obviously not blue because the sky is perceived with different colours at different times of the day: red, yellow, orange grey, black: so what is its colour really? The blueness of the sky is an optical illusion that is produced through the interaction of the rays of light coming from the sun, with the atmosphere and then with the pigments in our eyes. Thus the eye is not really any colour, its colour is an illusion we perceive.
In the same way the fact of the sky itself is an illusion. We consider the sky to be space and define this space as an absolute space in which bodies are somehow suspended(planets, stars, nebulas) and thus consider this to be empty. In fact it is not empty, but teeming with infinite energy interactions. This energy is too subtle for us to detect with our ordinary senses.
Eventually, we may come to realize that whatever we call energy is actually just a more crude form of mind(As the Samkhya-yoga system have) and all matter actually begins at the level of mind. Still further, we may realize that what we call mind is just modifications of the same consciousness present within you and me(as the Vedantins have realized)
Thus we can see there are several levels of meaning to any fact that we discover and every relative level actually turns out to be completely illusory.
Both of Surya?s above statements, describing the indescribable, are worthy approximations of description in my mind.
Now, relating all of this back to my question on how can we practice the truth of absolute reality at our relative reality. In Vedanta it is considered absolutely true that all is Brahman i.e. all is the infinite one consciousness. Thus we must know that whatever we are perceiving - whatever object: form, taste, smell, touch, thought, feeling, person is all just modifications of that one infinite consciousness. Thus everything we perceive really is an illusion(including our notion of selfhood) and the essential truth is that everything is, we are that infinite one consciousness expressing itself in a myriad ways.
HOWEVER
How does identifying with that absolute truth that all is that one infinite consciousness make any difference to our practical life? We know today the sun does not set or rise, that it is just the earth orbiting around the sun, but still we all use the expression “sun set” and 'sun rise" and live by it. It really makes no difference to us knowing that that it is the earth orbiting around the sun, we still act as if the sun is orbiting around the earth.
It only becomes relevant knowing that the earth is orbiting around the sun in astrophysics, to make correct calculations, but otherwise most people could just continue believing the sun is orbiting the earth with no difference to their life. In like manner, if it really is true that everything is that one infinite consciousness, it does not really make any difference to the ordinary persons life whose consciousness is definitely not felt as infinite. Until they are not at that absolute level, this truth cannot set them free.
How to get to that absolute level?
My understanding after reading a lot of spiritual literature is that there are two ways of doing this and it ironically mirrors two kind of psychotherapeutic approaches in psychology: CBT/NLP and Psychoanalysis. In CBT/NLP one acts as if they are already there. The way you would be if you get there, is how you act at the very beginning. This flows into my earlier approach to spirituality: “Act like a god” If you really that absolute one infinite consciousness, then act as if you are, rather than acting as you right now. As somebody once said to me, “You are a prince among men” so act like it. This means changing your behaviours and your conscious thinking patterns to mirror what a god would be like. If you were a god, how would you walk, talk and act in life? What what your attitudes be to life and to others? When you have answered that for yourself you bring these behaviours, attitude and mindsets to your current life.
Does it really work?
The other approach involves being a passive witness to life and the world. It involves releasing all the conditioning we have acquired to reveal the absolute state of being. Rather than acting as if you are already there, this approach involves accepting where you are already and to gradually remove all the obstructions that are preventing you from getting where you want. It is a slow and developmental process. In Yoga every level of our being is purified(physical, emotional and mental, spiritual) and it said to take lifetimes of purification efforts(via Patanjali’s Kriya Yoga) before the absolute state is revealed.
The first approach is what I call the path of arrogance. Simply, because in the beginning acting like a god when you clearly are not creates a lot of arrogance. In the beginning rather than treating others like gods too, one starts to treat like them mortals and looks down upon them. However, the kind self-empowerment it produces in oneself gives one a lot of charisma and magnetism, making one a leader of others, rather than a follower. It certainly feel very good to say, “I am god” and maybe that good feeling reflects our real knowing deep down that we are god. We somehow feel that we are beautiful, brilliant people and deserving of nothing less than everything - even if the reality of our current situation maybe the right opposite. But apparently in the long term by simply acting as if we do actually get there
The second approach I call the path of boredom. This is because in the beginning it is boring because one denies themselves any enjoyment. It is also the path of humility because we humble ourselves to the higher power(rather than acting like we are it) and accept the higher power’s guidance in our life, rather than seeing ourselves as actors with free will. We go through intense penance denying ourselves sensory and wordy pleasures and enjoyments. When others are out there enjoying themselves, we are in our solitude with only ourselves.
Let’s be honest the second approach is boring, painful and slow. It may in the end lead to a state of bliss and enlightenment, but that end might be several lifetimes away! In the beginning one must endure a lot of boredom, that life becomes dull, unexciting and depressing. How many people can truly commit to this path? However, if the first approach does not work, then I guess we have no choice!
Correction: Thus the sky is not really any colour, its colour is an illusion we perceive.
Is there a way to make the spontaneous happen, do we have control?
Yes.
The plant grows spontaneously, but before it can grow the conditions need to be created for it to grow.
So yes, in order to reach enlightenment/final liberation/self realization one must first create the conditions for it to happen.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;72537]Both of Surya?s above statements, describing the indescribable, are worthy approximations of description in my mind.[/QUOTE]
LOL. Now this is actual truth.
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. In my own experience, I used to write music a lot (never achieved commercial success but wasn’t bad). Anyway, I reached a point where I could summon inspiration almost at will. I did it by practicing scales and chords and studying theory. It was only after I had done the work that inspiration would come to me.
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. 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]I-maker[/I]. On the individual level, Ahamkara can be described as ego. On the cosmic level, it is something more.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is necessary to be precise in order to avoid these subtle errors. These are the facts about what Samkhya-Yoga teaches, they are however, not actual facts. They fall into the category of philosophy, speculation, or theory. Surya Deva has presented his version of the facts as truth, and when someone presents unproven theories as truth, that falls into the category of religious belief.
So please be aware of what is happening here. As modern people, we should be looking at this philosophy with a more critical eye. If we accept it as true, then we are making a statement about our own religious beliefs. In my opinion, the Samkhya principles work well at the level of the individual psyche, but not so well at the cosmic level.
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 
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:
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.
Of all three the functions can be unconscious, subconscious and conscious, but it is always preceded by a sense perception whether seen or unseen.
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.
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.
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.
The external 10-fold sense organs have both gross and subtle material data for their objects. Speech only has sound for its object.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.