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

Spirituality
#1

What started as a relative innocent inquiry into the nature of the soul, a philosophical dialogue on ideas I had about the nature of the Soul, turned into a nightmare of nocturnal ?lucubrations.

At first I thought I had it all figured out. Thanks to my dear friends Surya Deva and Asuri, I had become acquainted with the straightforward approach of reasoning of Samkhya.
In the thread ?An Inquiry into the nature of the Soul? we had come to some interesting conclusions.

* The only thing I know is that I am aware, conscious.

* What I am aware of, the objects of observation is not I.

* I am aware of these objects via perception of my five outward directed senses and apperception of the sixth sense: the inner organ called mind (antah karana)

* Apparent ?reality? changes with the state of consciousness

* Something never comes out of nothing.

* Gross and massive aggregates are gradually built from ever more subtle and minute sub-substances

* Mind and matter are transformations of the same substance because they are able to contact eachother

* As mind is ever more subtle than any form of apparent material aggregate, mind is the origin of matter, not vice versa.

* Beyond mind, even more subtle there is only the ?Self? or the Soul, hence this must be the origin of mind and matter

* All there is, is Jnana. The primacy of consciousness. This is the true nature of the Soul

* Prakrti (matter energy, mind etc.) is but the illusory field of observation. It changes and becomes, it is the world of time and space, hereinafter called the ?relative world?

* But if the self is the cause of reality, then the effect should be like the cause (Samkhya). But this is not true [in an absolute sense: Vedanta]. As we already concluded, the self is pure consciousness, unchanging, spaceless and timeless and the world is unconscious, changing and in space and time. It therefore follows that the effect is not actually real but imaginary or holographic (maya ? illusion).

* Consciousness itself cannot change, it can only be and perceive. It is spaceless and timeless ? eternal and infinite. It is everywhere and in everytime

* Hence here is only one Soul

* Individuality is but another illusion

* A photon is just energy, it is just a form of prakrti; it is not a Soul

* Life is also not the Soul, it is also limited in time and space and therfore has no absolute reality

But my mind kept on crunching on these topics. Especially because I was interested in the specific prakrti aspects of nature of the jivatma, the illusory individual living aspect of the thus ?captured? Soul. Because as a scientist I constantly seek for parallels between science and vedanta. Because as a scientist I understand that a mind is built from connections (Goertzel?s Creating Internet Intelligence).

Even if there is no objective reality as Nietzsche and Wittgenstein conclude, even if the objects themselves are not really there but are holographically built from connections, connections, links must be for a mind to be. And even if these connections need not be embedded in material matrix of the brain, which merely functions as a facilitator in funnelling the results of the mental or causal body (the manomayakosha) and merely reflects what is happening at a more subtle level, the mind must have some prakrti-substratum to build its links.

So what is the nature of these connections, links?

It was said that mind is but a subtle form of matter. If so, it must be observable; measurable.
Again I?ll provoke the reader with some fantasies to give him food for thought. Are the links of the manomayakosha the beams of light between the stars? (The stars themselves not being real, but holographic)? The pattern of planets and stars functioning as a grid, through which an interference pattern of energy is generated? Or is it at a level which we cannot measure or probe? In the absolute sense that cannot be if our conclusion is right that mind is but a subtle form of matter. If so, it must be observable; measurable. Our instruments may not be sufficiently developed for this purpose, but the must be some level of prakrti, not gross particulate matter, but a level of energy, which is more subtle, which forms the connections of our minds.

And here comes another theory from science which nicely fits in this discussion: dark energy vs. information. It was recently found that energy can be created out of information; the so-called demonic energy with reference to Maxwell?s demon. Information decreases entropy, by letting only hot gas particles through a filter, thereby creating a local high energy and a local low energy chamber. It offends the second law of thermodynamics as we knew it.

Speculative ideas on this topic have been brought forward by Kurzweil?s Singularitarians, (they remind me of the techno?s in the ?Incal? by Moebius and Jodorowsky) who believe that as we approach the technological singularity, which results in an explosion of information and the forming of one great Demiurge, who encompasses the whole universe, this explosion of information is balanced by the coming into existence of dark energy. That?s why we start to see galaxies moving from eachother at an ever increasing speed.

Read the thread http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/information-dark-energy.

So the result of this expansion is that the Universe ends in a big rip and gives birth to new multiverses. A final Coda to the Universe.
So if information generates energy, it must be energy by the law of the nature of cause and effect are the same. So the connections or links must somehow be embedded in a form of energy. Is it then the pattern of dark energy in the multiverse that forms the links, the connections?

And when the universe ends in the big rip, particulate matter as we know it will have disappeared. The nature of what will be left we can only guess, but one thing is for sure, in the expansion of matter in the big rip, in its striving for an ever increasing entropy, matter will be ripped apart into its finest, most subtle components, which can no longer be called things or particles. A kind of no-thingness wave function. As a whole this ripped-apart state of no-universe has attained an almost perfect homogeneity of no-thingness. And by attaining the highest entropy, the lowest entropy will be attained. The ripped-apart Chaos is perfectly ordered. And the perfect order of zero entropy must decay in a higher entropy. And thus universes are born. Thus matter will be born out of mind.

#2

Yes, the mind is a subtle form of matter. It is observable and measurable, but not by the physical body or a physical instrument. There are several bodies and each body exists in a dimension. The physical body exists in 3D time and space. The etheric body exists in 4D time and space. The mental body exists in 5D time and space. The intellectual body exists in 6D time and space. The higher self body exists in 7D time and space(in order anaamayakosha, pranamayakosha, manomayakosha, vijnanamayakosha and anandamayakosha) If you want to observe any of the other dimensions you need to enter that phase of your body. You will not see your etheric body until you phase out of your physical body. You will not see your mental body, until you phase out of your etheric body and so on.

What it all ultimately is just guna activity.

#3

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45536]Yes, the mind is a subtle form of matter. It is observable and measurable, but not by the physical body or a physical instrument. There are several bodies and each body exists in a dimension. The physical body exists in 3D time and space. The etheric body exists in 4D time and space. The mental body exists in 5D time and space. The intellectual body exists in 6D time and space. The higher self body exists in 7D time and space(in order anaamayakosha, pranamayakosha, manomayakosha, vijnanamayakosha and anandamayakosha) If you want to observe any of the other dimensions you need to enter that phase of your body. You will not see your etheric body until you phase out of your physical body. You will not see your mental body, until you phase out of your etheric body and so on. What it all ultimately is just guna activity.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your reply, Surya. I presume that what you call dimensions here are not traditional physics dimensions such as charge, temperature etc. but rather dimensions on a different level, out of reach of our material measurements instruments. But unless you have experienced these dimensions yourself, it appears that calling these levels dimensions is merely giving names to these levels. Or is there a source in Indian philosophy, that explains these levels as “dimensions”? I’d be rather interested. There have been quite some western philosophers who have postulated the existence of an independent world (i.e. beyond the physical body) of ideas and archetypes (Plato, Jung etc.). I guess there will also be Indian sources which are more detailed on these issues.

#4

You will find the ultimate answers when you achieve samaddhi. Ask less, practice more.
:wink:

#5

[QUOTE=panoramix;45641]You will find the ultimate answers when you achieve samaddhi. Ask less, practice more.
;)[/QUOTE]
m?s f?cil decirlo que hacerlo…14 a?os sin resultados…:???:

#6

No deseperes hombre!
Lleva toda una vida, o m?s…

:cool:

#7

I like your point about matter started expanding because it was observed by a supreme being.

Reminds me the tantric scheme of the 36 tattvas. Shiva and Shakti Tattvas become Sadkya Tattva, where there is the first expression of duality, there is an Aham (I) and an Idam (that), but they aren’t differentiated yet. Successive differentiation finally gives birth to the group of Ashuddha Tattvas (impure), which are nothing but the manifest universe: buddhi, manas, indriyas, tanmatras and mahabutthas (gross matter).

In a nutshell, supreme, undifferentiated consciousness observed itself and became observable universe, being Buddhi the first “observable” stuff to be “created”, and manas the next. Both of them are vehicles of information.

From the mantra aspect of this process, mind, energy and matter aren’t but sound/vibration at different levels of subtlety. Thought becomes word and word becomes object. Hence the artha/shabda couple. Everything is sound/vibration (nada/spanda), and the cause are the gunas, karmic trends with no beginning or end.

And one could ask: What the hell is consciousness then? What’s the link between the observer and the observed? And so on…

As Lao Tzu said: “Tao that can be explained, is not true Tao.”

Goodnight!

#8
  • But if the self is the cause of reality, then the effect should be like the cause (Samkhya). But this is not true [in an absolute sense: Vedanta]. As we already concluded, the self is pure consciousness, unchanging, spaceless and timeless and the world is unconscious, changing and in space and time. It therefore follows that the effect is not actually real but imaginary or holographic (maya ? illusion).

Let me start by saying that Samkhya and Vedanta are philosophy, that is, speculation about the nature of the world, not absolute truth.

If, and it is a big if, the self is pure consciousness, unchanging, etc., and the world is unconscious, changing, etc., and the nature of the effect is inherent in the cause, another conclusion is possible, and to my way of thinking, more intuitively correct. That is, that the self, which is the pure consciousness and unchanging is [I]not[/I] the cause of the world which is unconscious and changing. The fact that material nature undergoes transformation does not make it unreal, it just makes it different from that which is unchanging.

Also, there is another interpretation of pure consciousness of self versus the unconscious material nature. If we look around us, I think we have to conclude that consciousness is part of nature. Have you ever seen a leaf turn to face the sun? Don’t trees go dormant in winter? Don’t plants react to dry conditions by sending out roots farther and deeper into the soil? It seems apparent that plant life does possess a form of consciousness, even if they lack senses as we know them. That is why I favor the word “intelligence” in place of the words pure consciousness and unconscious, with respect to the self and material nature. In other words, the purusa or self is pure intelligence, and prakriti or material nature is unintelligent.

I think there is some indirect support for my position in the yoga sutras. If you read the end of the first chapter where it talks about the higher stages of samadhi, one result is insight that is gained with respect to particular objects of meditation. This insight or prajna is a form of higher intelligence that surpasses that which can be gained through the pramanas, or means of right kinowledge. From that we can infer that the nature of the self that we contact through samadhi is pure intelligence.

#9

[QUOTE=panoramix;45664]
From the mantra aspect of this process, mind, energy and matter aren’t but sound/vibration at different levels of subtlety. Thought becomes word and word becomes object. Hence the artha/shabda couple. Everything is sound/vibration (nada/spanda), and the cause are the gunas, karmic trends with no beginning or end.[/QUOTE]

If you think about this in a real sense, what you have said here is not quite right. Thoughts and words do not become objects directly. In a discussion of cause and effects, material objects can have two types of causes, a material cause, which is the actual physical substance that makes up the object, and an instrumental cause or causes, which are the conditions and actions that allow the object to come into being. To really make any sense, you have to differentiate between material causes and instrumental causes. Thoughts and words may be instrumental causes of an object, but not the material cause.

Now in re-reading your post I notice that you specifically refer to the[I] mantra aspect[/I]. It occurs to me that you may be referring to the belief that the use of mantras can actually bring substances into being. In that case I think the sound/vibration is believed to be the actual material cause of an object or objects. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

#10

Samkhya and Vedanta are not really philosophy. They are darsanas: views of reality. Let us not forget this crucial difference between Indian philosophy and Western philosophy.
Western philosophy is speculation, thus it is not the absolute truth. Indian philosophy is not speculation, but scientific views on reality and uses an actual scientific method. True philosophy Plato once said was real science. Indian philosophy is science.

No matter which school of Indian philosophy you look at(Except for skepticism) they all accept the pramana method of epistemology. Even Charvaka(materialists) which only accepts perception as its means of knowledge, comes to a completely rational conclusion based thereof that nothing exists except matter. All that exists is matter and there is no such thing as mind/consciousness/supernatural. Therefore you only get one life and all life is about is fulfilling material desires. Hence why they said life is all about pleasure.

So Asuri is just patently wrong that consciousness is observed in nature. Which faculty do you observe consciousness with may I ask? The eyes? The nose? The skin? The tongue? The ears? Explain.

But… As soon as you accept another means of means knowledge other than perception, such as inference, then you have to come to conclusions that are contadictory to common perception. For example my eyes observe that the sun and stars are moving and thus I must conclude that the sun and stars move. But when I come to learn of another observation that the sun I observed was moving in one direction, and simultaneously for another observer it was moving in another direction. I have to use my faculty of inference to conclude that it is not the sun that is moving, but the earth which is moving which must be a spherical shape in order to explain these facts. I therefore come to a complete opposite conclusion to perception.

This knowledge is certainly absolute that planet earth is a sphere. Therefore inference is a valid means of arriving at actual knowledge. This means if I reason correctly I can arrive at actual scientific knowledge. This is exactly what Samkhya has done in ennumerating the 25 tattvas that exist - based purely one just one fact: an observable effect in nature.

  1. Effect means there is a cause
  2. Cause is an effect of another cause
  3. There is an ultimate cause of all effects, else there would be an infinite regression
  4. The ultimate cause is unmanifest
  5. An efficient cause is required to collapse the unmanifest cause
  6. The efficient cause must be the opposite of the nature of the unmanifest cause
  7. The unmanifest cause is possesed of the properties of change, unconscious, unintelligent. It is the material cause.
  8. Therefore the efficient cause is possessed of the properties of unchanging, consciousness and intelligence
  9. Therefore the ‘I’ is the efficient cause itself
  10. Therefore ‘I’ is not the material cause
  11. If the ‘I’ is not the material cause then my identification with material is false
  12. Therefore, I must cease identification with the material cause by remaining a pure witness of the material
  13. Then the identification will reverse and I will be revealed in my pure state

Now go out there and meditate :smiley:

#11

I’d like to go back a bit more to the exact nature of the mind; the aforementioned discussion on purusha and prakrti etc. can be continued in the other thread, the Inquiry into the nature of the Soul.
There is something strange about minds. Although I can follow the reasoning that physical matter gross and aggregate comes out of mind which is a more subtle form of matter, I still believe that the concept of Mind can be codified to a great extent. Read well what I say, I am not claiming that consciousness, self awareness or “pure intelligence” can be codified, but Mindstuff can. You should not underestimate the advances in AI; I have witnessed some very impressive results in the development of so-called sentient AI in Robots.
The processes of how we think, how we use intelligence follow patterns, that can be mimicked. If Mind only existed in a 5th dimension, there would be no need for a brain. However, we do have a brain, where those patterns of electromagnetic activity take place. I do not deny that they might originate in another dimensional realm, but the signals from perception to mind and from mind to motor organs are processed in the brain. These processes can be codified and be expressed in a material substrate (as we know it), for instance in silico or via nanophotonics. Now the real question here is what part of the mind can be codified and what part cannot i.e. only exists at another level. This is my present obsession: to figure out how my mind works, which processes there are, which motives I have, why I have these motives etc. This is in fact part of the yama-niyama: the constant moral touchstone. Only once I have mastered yama-niyama my blockades in meditation will dissappear, so in fact for the moment trying to meditate is a rather idle activity.
So perhaps we can redirect this discussion more to some practical aspects of the Mind and its structures. What are the roots of anger, lies, greed, lust etc. How can you practice ahimsa, when you’re boiling with anger etc.?

#12

There is no concept of dimensions in Samkhya. I am only using that modern concept to explain the levels of prakriti to you as described in Samkhya. The Samkhya talk of “levels” and not “dimensions” However, they are roughly the same thing if you understand the physical world as 3D, and then count up from there as per the Samkhya levels(kosas) As per this scheme the mind is in the 5th dimension. However, according to Samkhya all 25 tattvas get reproduced in each dimension(understand that I mean level) So there is a level of buddhi, ahamkara, jnana and karma indriyas, manas, tanmatras and mahabhutas. In our 3D physical level the brain has in it the buddhi, manas, ahamkara and the body has in it the jnana and karma indriyas(sense and motor organs) and the world has the tanmatras and mahabhutas.

So the answer is yes you can create a robot that mimics the functions of the mind exactly. You can make it sentient(i.e., it can sense things) you can make it perform cogntiive functions and motor functions. In fact you can make it do pretty much everything a human body can do. What you can’t make it do is live. It will have no awareness. It will have no soul so it could not enter the higher planes of reality and reincarnate. It will be nothing more than a sophisticated machine that outwardly will look human and inside will be dead.

#13

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45700]There is no concept of dimensions in Samkhya. I am only using that modern concept to explain the levels of prakriti to you as described in Samkhya. The Samkhya talk of “levels” and not “dimensions” However, they are roughly the same thing if you understand the physical world as 3D, and then count up from there as per the Samkhya levels(kosas) As per this scheme the mind is in the 5th dimension. However, according to Samkhya all 25 tattvas get reproduced in each dimension(understand that I mean level) So there is a level of buddhi, ahamkara, jnana and karma indriyas, manas, tanmatras and mahabhutas. In our 3D physical level the brain has in it the buddhi, manas, ahamkara and the body has in it the jnana and karma indriyas(sense and motor organs) and the world has the tanmatras and mahabhutas.

So the answer is yes you can create a robot that mimics the functions of the mind exactly. You can make it sentient(i.e., it can sense things) you can make it perform cogntiive functions and motor functions. In fact you can make it do pretty much everybody a human body can do. What you can’t make it do is live. It will have no awareness. It will have no soul so it could not enter the higher planes of reality and reincarnate. It will be nothing more than a sophisticated machine that outwardly will look human and inside will be dead.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But these robots are not useless. In places where we cannot breathe (outer space, mines, under water) they can perform many useful tasks for us.

#14

I agree the robots are not useless. However, I think our focus should be on developing ourselves, because we can outdo any technology once we have tapped the power of the mind.

So perhaps we can redirect this discussion more to some practical aspects of the Mind and its structures. What are the roots of anger, lies, greed, lust etc. How can you practice ahimsa, when you’re boiling with anger etc.?

The roots are attachments to objects. In order to dissolve an attachment you simply observe it without identification. Next time you are boiling with anger, just observe it and be with it. It will go.

#15

[quote=Asuri;45674]If you think about this in a real sense, what you have said here is not quite right. Thoughts and words do not become objects directly. In a discussion of cause and effects, material objects can have two types of causes, a material cause, which is the actual physical substance that makes up the object, and an instrumental cause or causes, which are the conditions and actions that allow the object to come into being. To really make any sense, you have to differentiate between material causes and instrumental causes. Thoughts and words may be instrumental causes of an object, but not the material cause.

Now in re-reading your post I notice that you specifically refer to the[I] mantra aspect[/I]. It occurs to me that you may be referring to the belief that the use of mantras can actually bring substances into being. In that case I think the sound/vibration is believed to be the actual material cause of an object or objects. Please correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

Well, that’s what Tantra Shastras say: At the time of creation, the material world was created out of “words”. Isn’t it what bible says? Thoughts and words were the material cause of matter. They also say that if you achieve enough purity or development, you can do the same as well, you can materialize things. As matter is vibration, and mind is so (at least for tantra), you may create one out of the other, provided you are evolved enough.

#16

At the time of creation, the material world was created out of “words”. Isn’t it what bible says?

Not exactly. I think it’s the Gospel of John that says “In the beginning was the Word”, referring to Christ as “The Word”. That’s a little different, but intriguing and worthy of contemplation nonetheless.

#17

[QUOTE=Asuri;45710]Not exactly. I think it’s the Gospel of John that says “In the beginning was the Word”, referring to Christ as “The Word”. That’s a little different, but intriguing and worthy of contemplation nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t there also a passage in an ancient Indian text, that the whole Universe was comprised in the name Krsna?

#18

Probably.

#19

It was said that mind is but a subtle form of matter. If so, it must be observable; measurable.
Again I’ll provoke the reader with some fantasies to give him food for thought. Are the links of the manomayakosha the beams of light between the stars? (The stars themselves not being real, but holographic)? The pattern of planets and stars functioning as a grid, through which an interference pattern of energy is generated? Or is it at a level which we cannot measure or probe? In the absolute sense that cannot be if our conclusion is right that mind is but a subtle form of matter. If so, it must be observable; measurable. Our instruments may not be sufficiently developed for this purpose, but the must be some level of prakrti, not gross particulate matter, but a level of energy, which is more subtle, which forms the connections of our minds.

First, a little background: The sanskrit word that is used to describe the various functional parts of our bodies and minds is [I]indriya[/I]. Indriya is sometimes translated a “sense”, as in our five senses, but that is too narrow a definition. The right translation is “instrument”. We are said to have ten indriyas, which fall into two categories, the instruments of cognition (the senses), and the instruments of action (arms, legs, etc.). They are instruments in the sense that a microphone is an instrument, a lens is an instrument, a temperature sensor is an instrument, etc. For each of the sense instruments, there is a corresponding tan matra, sort of a potential. So we have a certain type of potential, say light, and a corresponding instrument that perceives light.

There are also said to be three internal indriyas, manas or lower mind, ahamkara, the “I” sense, and buddhi, the instrument of discrimination. It would stand to reason that if these three are instruments, there must be some corresponding potential that they perceive. Inexplicably though, Samkhya does not define these potentials as separate from the instruments that perceive them.

#20

Didn’t ancient Greeks speak about something similar, something they called “Logos”?