The past

[FlexPenguin]

I came across this quote from William Faulkner:
"The past is never forgotten. In fact, it's not even the past."

This brings to mind the rings of a tree. As the tree forms, each year it develops a new ring. These rings are what makes the tree sturdy, strong. If lost or forgotten, the tree tumbles. The past exists now and is a vital part of what we do now and in the future.

[Asuri]

The moment of time is an interesting meditation. I would say that the present is now. But at what point does the present moment become the past, and a new moment becomes the present?

Sometimes I think that things like tree rings and geological records are the akashic records, in a real sense.

The present is like a hinge on time, like the doorway between past and future. The thing about the past is that we can't change it. No matter how many times we relive it in our minds, what's done is done. The future though, is not yet set in stone. What we do now determines what the future will be.

In another sense, even though we can't change the past, we sometimes have to do a lot of work to change the effects of past actions. We could get a lot farther in life if we could spend less time repairing the effects of past actions and more time thinking about what we would like the future to be.

[FlexPenguin]

The moment we are aware of the present - in that small fraction of time - it becomes the past and as unchanging as the rings of the tree. The trick is to live slightly in the future.

At the risk of mixing metaphors - it's a bit like walking where our awareness is in the coming step.

[Seeker33]

"The past is never forgotten. In fact, it's not even the past."
This is the problem. There is no balance between past and future.

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by Asuri

The moment of time is an interesting meditation. I would say that the present is now.

To stay in the Present is the way to continue our Evolution. This means thoughtless awareness-Nirvichar Samadhi.

[Asuri]

But at what point does the present moment become the past, and a new moment becomes the present?

This was supposed to be a rhetorical question. I'm not sure anyone really knows the answer. If you think in terms of electronics and computer technology, a moment of time can be almost infinitesimally small. On the other hand, if you think in terms of geological or astronomical time, what seems like eons to us is insignificant. So it all boils down to perception and relativity.

Time is pervasive. All existence, every sensory perception, thought, and action takes place within the matrix of time and space. Time is part of the fabric of reality, or of maya, depending on what you believe. Our experience of gross reality takes place in the present time, the eternal now. Our more subtle nature, the mind, is not limited to the present. But we do not experience past and future in the same way that we experience reality. We know our own past as memory. We can also know the past as knowledge that we learn from sources outside ourselves. All learned knowledge is knowledge of the past. Likewise our mind cannot experience the future, it can only imagine what the future will be. A point of time in the future can take any form we desire until that point in time becomes the present. The present determines what that point in time and space will remain, until it is forgotten. Ultimately, experience is ephemeral.

To be here now means simply to restrict our mind from memories and imaginations, and focus it on the present. It is only in the present that we can see or hear or feel or think or know anything, or experience the presence of another.

[FlexPenguin]

The notion of 'thoughtless awareness' sounds a bit too much like sitting around pretending to be a plant. We are human blessed with thoughts and ideas. I prefer to embrace these.

[Asuri]

I too have a bit of a problem with "thoughtless awareness". Nirvicara is a technical term. Vicara refers to contemplation of subtle objects. Savicara would be contemplation with the help of conceptualization including verbal knowledge. Nirvicara means not only without the help of words, but also without the help of memory. But even though nirvicara involves limiting the mind to direct perception, cognitive activity still occurs. Nirvicara may be considered the more advanced state, but savicara may be the more useful state.

[JeremiahShanti]

"Not even God can change the past."

The best thing we can do about the past is learn from it.

[Brother Neil]

well in the past I was in a car crash, I can remember it now but it is not happening now

[Brother Neil]

Originally Posted by Asuri

But at what point does the present moment become the past, and a new moment becomes the present?

when you are trying to recreate it, however it will still not be the same

now

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by FlexPenguin

The notion of 'thoughtless awareness' sounds a bit too much like sitting around pretending to be a plant. We are human blessed with thoughts and ideas. I prefer to embrace these.

If the thoughts were ours why we don't know what we will think after 10 min?

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by Asuri

I too have a bit of a problem with "thoughtless awareness". Nirvicara is a technical term.

Patanjali uses the term Nirvitarkâ = beyond thought
This is the same as Nirvichar.
I.43 smëti-pariåuddhau svarûpa-åûnyevârtha-mâtra-nirbhâsâ nirvitarkâ
At the next stage, called coalescence beyond thought, objects cease to be colored by memory; now formless, only their essential nature shines forth.

I will open new thread regarding connection between thoughts and Ida, Pingala and Sushumna Nadi.

[FlexPenguin]

Originally Posted by Seeker33

If the thoughts were ours why we don't know what we will think after 10 min?

Seeker33, I know that there is something in your post, but I can't quite grasp it. I can probably expound for hours or days on thought, energy, time, light, matter, etc. It is a favourite topic of mine and the study of quantum theory a passionate hobby. I can even draw direct correlations to spirituality and God. But this will require a bit more than thoughtless awareness.

From your posts you seem quite thoughtful yourself. They are your own or you are channeling someone else's. Either way, I love to read them

[Seeker33]

Again, in the Present there is no thoughts. Enjoy the Present.

[Asuri]

Well, are you Seeker or no need to seek anymore because already founder?

If
Nir = Nir, and
Vitarka = Vicara, then,
Nirvitarka = Nirvicara.

But,
Vitarka != Vicara; therefore,
Nirvitarka != Nirvicara.

I still don't like "beyond thought". There's more to it.

[Asuri]

I think it's fair to say that the process is the same, regardless of whether concentration involves vitarka or vicara, but there is a difference in the type of object upon which the mind is concentrated (gross vs.subtle). Also in my view it is necessary to pass through savitarka in order to reach nirvitarka, and the same applies to savicara nirvicara.

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by Asuri

Well, are you Seeker or no need to seek anymore because already founder?

Seeker is my message to others, not my real self.

"Vichara" means fluctuation, subtle thoughts of our consciousness

There are two types of contact knowledge in Yoga Sutra:
SaVichara - with subtle thoughts
NirVichara - without subtle thoughts

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by Asuri

Also in my view it is necessary to pass through savitarka in order to reach nirvitarka, and the same applies to savicara nirvicara.

When Kundalini is awakened this process is very fast. Once Kundalini passes through Ajna chakra, Nirvicara state is established. It's a nice feeling.

[Asuri]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Are you some kind of spook?

[Asuri]

Well, maybe not a spook, just someone with an agenda to promote. My own agenda that I promote is accurate and right knowledge of yoga philosophy. As part of my agenda, I attempt to expose others who provide inaccurate or false knowledge, as they only serve to create confusion and division.

So, Mr. Seeker, can you tell us what are subtle thoughts, and how are they different from thoughts that are not subtle? And what does this have to do with the past, which was supposed to be the topic of this thread? Please provide references for your interpretation of "vichara" as "subtle thoughts", as this is quite different from every other translation that I am aware of.

[FlexPenguin]

Well I'm glad we are 'past' all this.

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by Asuri

So, Mr. Seeker, can you tell us what are subtle thoughts, and how are they different from thoughts that are not subtle? And what does this have to do with the past, which was supposed to be the topic of this thread? Please provide references for your interpretation of "vichara" as "subtle thoughts", as this is quite different from every other translation that I am aware of.

This is one of the best translations.
http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-14051.htm
May be under subtle thoughts he means concentration.

[Asuri]

I respect swamij, and even though he uses the terminology gross and subtle thoughts, he makes it clear that the modifiers gross and subtle apply to the objects of concentration, not to the thoughts themselves.

I should also point out that the term "thoughts" is a broad term, but the sutra is more specific than "thoughts". It talks about vikalpa (conceptualization) and smrti (memory). These are two of the modifications of the mind that are talked about earlier in the Yoga Sutras. Vikalpa has two distinguishing characteristics:

1. It is conceptualization that is associated with words and their meaning.
2. There is no underlying object.

It is my position that there are other types of cognitive activity that do not involve the use of words for which there is no underlying object. And it must be remembered that the sutra is talking about concentration on an object, which emphasizes why vikalpa is restricted, since in vikalpa there is no underlying object.

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by Asuri

And it must be remembered that the sutra is talking about concentration on an object, which emphasizes why vikalpa is restricted, since in vikalpa there is no underlying object.

Can you quote where Patanjali speaks about concentration on object.

[Asuri]

Can you quote where Patanjali speaks about concentration on object.

Why are you shouting? Of course, this can be easily done. There are two words translated as "object": visaya and artha. These appear in 1.42 - 44, where the context is concentration involving gross or subtle objects.

[Seeker33]

There are a lot of improper translations of Patanjali Sutras. Let's not forget the core, which is Samkhya Philosophy.
"Enlightenment is discrimination between Purusha and Prakriti" This is the ultimate point.
Objects are created from Prakriti and talking about "concentration on an object/Prakriti/ " is not related with entire structure of Yoga.

[Asuri]

The method of Samkhya is the study of the 25 tattvas or principles, 24 of which make up material nature or prakriti. One cannot discriminate between Purusa and Prakriti unless one is able to recognize that which is Prakriti. This applies directly to the sutras under discussion, as one cannot understand the meaning of gross and subtle objects without reference to the tattvas.

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by Asuri

One cannot discriminate between Purusa and Prakriti unless one is able to recognize that which is Prakriti.

That’s why the Samkhya is so precious if you want to understand the words of Patanjali. But Samkhya is not perfect because does not speak about desires, feelings and emotions.

[FlexPenguin]

All this, of course, presumes Patanjali knows anything at all. It gets pretty hot in the middle of the day in that part of the world.