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

Spirituality
#21

The right translation is “instrument”.

This is generally correct. The etymology is the word Indriya comes from Indh which means power. The indriyas are the instruments that are coordinated by a natural power that controls them.

We are said to have ten indriyas

The manas is included amongst the indriyas so they are said to be 11 indriyas(5 jnanaindriyas, 5 karmaindriyas and 1 manas)

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.

These are not called indriyas. These are rather the powers behind the indriyas and control the indriyas. The part that controls it is the ahamkara(the self-reference faculty) which gives the sense of personal identity, which is turn is made out of the discrimination faculty. This is like an executive program which receives information organized and sorted by the manas, personalises it through personal identity filters and then makes a judgement and acts on it through controlling the indriyas.

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

Yes, they in turn got their logos concept from the notion of shabda-Brahman in the Vedas and is represented as the sound of OM. In the beginning there is a vibration which sets the world into motion and causes it to evolve into being. In Kashmir Shivaism this is known as spanda. In Samkhya this is explained as the the breaking of of the balance of the gunas in the beginning. In the Rig Veda it is described in the Nasadiya sukta as in the beginning the divine will arose which causes manifest beingness.

#22

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45763]
These are not called indriyas.
[/QUOTE]

You know, it would be very easy to prove that what I wrote is correct. But I do not answer to some annoying little schoolmarm with bug up her rear end.

#23

[QUOTE=Asuri;45780]You know, it would be very easy to prove that what I wrote is correct. But I do not answer to some annoying little schoolmarm with bug up her rear end.[/QUOTE]

Adhominems will not prove your argument. Proof will. So far all Samkhya texts I have read distinguish between the 11 instruments, the ego and the intellect. Thee ego and intellect are not called instructed as well.

Here is a quote from the commentary on the Samkhyakarika 15 by Gaudapada

The mergent mahat and the rest are finite and the specfic effects of nature. The intellect is one, ego is one, the subtle elements are 5, the organs are 11 and gross elements are 5

You have to stop being arrogant and claiming you know Samkhya, when it is clear you have misread many of core concepts in Samkhya. You still do not understand that purusha and prakriti are inferred entities, which every Samkhya text says. Your arrogance only causes you to lose credibility in matters of Samkhya.

#24

Surya Deva, you should have realized by now that I have nothing but contempt for you. While you have tried to establish yourself as some kind of authority, the effect has been the opposite. As far as I’m concerned, your credibility is less than zero. I have very little interest in anything that you have to say, unless it concerns me directly, and often not even then. I do not intend to engage in any pretext of civil discourse with you. You can avoid the unpleasantness by simply not provoking any more confrontations with me, especially when I’m trying to have a discussion with someone else.

You’ve been trying to discredit me since the first time you posted here, so I must be doing something right. Don’t try to tell me what I do or do not understand. I don’t have to prove anything to you, and I don’t care what you think, so just bug off. I’ve always approached Samkhya as a student, whereas it is you who claims to be the master, but you are no master. If I were to accept a teacher in these matters, it definitely would not be you.

#25

Again adhominems will not prove your arguments. They will say a lot about your character though and trust me, it’s not saying good things :wink:

I have so far disproven everything you have said about Samkhya with direct citations from the core Samkhya texts. You resent me, because I have shown you up. However, what do you expect, when you go around telling people wrong Samkhya concepts.

Most recently, you claimed budhhi and ahamkara are instruments. Previously you claimed purusha and prakriti were observed entities. On both occasions I have directly cited references from the Samkhya works which have said contrary to what you have said. Rather than admitting you are wrong and revising your wrong ideas, you react by spitting venom.

Your ego has been injured. It is very obvious. Incidentally, I was only politely pointing out that buddhi and ahamkara are not instruments. Your reacted with
outright abusing which was completely unnecessary. You obviously cannot abide the fact that I have more knowledge on Samkhya and Indian philosophy than
you do.

#26

Asuri, Surya, dudes, I appreciate the decent tone of your clash. I have been around on other forums and can assure you that discussions very easily degrade into completely uncivilised calling names.
Both of you still show a level of ahimsa, which is worthy of the aspiring yogi. I had my clash with Surya as well in the other thread, but since I put straight that the tone in a yoga forum should always be friendly, no matter how sharp the reason is and great progress has been made.
You know in the end all this philosophy is not the real thing. It is yama and niyama. If we get to master that, we’ll master everything. Let’s put behind us mutual contempt if any and get this thread running again.
Awwware, the knight of morality;)

#27

Awwware,

I’ve just recalled a book I read this summer: “The Psychology of the Child”.
A brief overview about Jean Piaget’s work. An indispensable book to learn about the genesis of the mind in the child.

We can say that one of the functions of the mind is representational, mind represents elements belonging to the physical world, as mental images, and operates with these mental images, giving birth to a form of thought.

The stages the child follows are:

  1. Deferred imitation: Imitation of the model after its disappearance.

  2. Symbolic play: Or the game of pretending. The deferred signifier is an imitative gesture, though accompanied with objects which are becoming symbolic. Through it the child assimilates adults’ world.

  3. Drawing: An intermediate stage between play and mental image.

  4. Mental image: Nothing but an internalized imitation. Mind can now evoke the model without the support of a physical object.

  5. Verbal evocation. Now the model can be evoked in another mind.

We can say then that a function of the mind consists in transferring to consciousness a material reality that is no longer present, in other words, transferring without the agency of the senses.

From now on I speculate, as cosmological issues are involved.

If one of the individual mind’s functions is re-creating in a subjective,limited fashion, what was created in an objective,unlimited fashion by an universal,almighty mind, we could say the following:

Individual minds, as sparks or rays of an universal mind, create as a result of an aggregate of all their minds, the material or physical reality. For example, if all intelligent beings in universe simultaneously visualized a bottle of “Grange 1951” wine, it would instantly materialize, and Nick Rockefeller would drink it.

Or inversely, as white light splits into color lights when passing through a prism, material reality splits into mental realities when “passing through” the prism of Maya Shakti and the five Kanchukas (constrictors):
K?la: sequential experiencing, Niyati: spatial ordering, Raga: attachment to objects, Kal?: limited action, Vidy?: limited knowledge.

Perhaps both would occur simultaneously, or aren’t but two sides of the same phenomena.

We could state then that matter and mind are equivalent, but from different angle or context: Individual vs. Universal. It’s the power in which the phenomena is experienced what marks the difference. Brahman is allmighty and can create a material universe. But the souls it is made of are miserable, and can create just a mental,subjective universe. The result of overlapping all those mental,subjective universes is the material one.

One could say:

"Ok, but what about the period when there was no conscious individual mind experiencing matter? "

And i would reply:

“Is it of any use considering a system that cannot be observed?”

And I would refer him to quantum mechanics and the collapse of the wave function.

I’m sure more flaws might be found, but i hope i’ve thrown some inspiration on your thoughts.

We’ll talk latter, time to sleep.

Bye!

#28

A correction:
Niyati: spatial arrangement.

#29

@panoramix & awwware

Sorry but I have a troublemaker to deal with.

#30

They will say a lot about your character though

Do you want to talk about character, Surya Deva? Let’s find out a little something about [I]your[/I] character. I will be more than happy to show everyone just how wrong you really are, and when I do, I will expect an apology from you. Let me know when you are prepared to be humiliated and your apology is ready.

#31

[QUOTE=panoramix;45845]Awwware,

I’ve just recalled a book I read this summer: “The Psychology of the Child”.
A brief overview about Jean Piaget’s work. An indispensable book to learn about the genesis of the mind in the child
…
I’m sure more flaws might be found, but i hope i’ve thrown some inspiration on your thoughts.

We’ll talk latter, time to sleep.

Bye![/QUOTE]
Thanks for the tip, looks like worthwhile reading. I also like the part that physical matter is just Universal mindstuff. As panpsychist i couldn’t agree more.
The next questions I’d like to have an answer about are:

  1. Where does the Will originate? where does initiative originate? Is it at the level of Buddhi or Ahamkara?
  2. Is Ahamkara a vehicle for emotions? Our I sense seems most prominent when we feel offended, hurt etc.
#32

The ahamkara is the faculty within us that leads to personalization of things. It is distinguished by its property of “mine-ness” therefore it this part that leads to emotions. If I think that something is mine, then if I lose that something, I feel negative emotional states. If you did not have the faculty of ahamkara at all, nothing would be “mine” and as there is nothing that is mine there is no cause to cause emotional states.

#33

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45893]The ahamkara is the faculty within us that leads to personalization of things. It is distinguished by its property of “mine-ness” therefore it this part that leads to emotions. If I think that something is mine, then if I lose that something, I feel negative emotional states. If you did not have the faculty of ahamkara at all, nothing would be “mine” and as there is nothing that is mine there is no cause to cause emotional states.[/QUOTE]
Is it then not fair to conclude that in fact all activity (perhaps with exception of yoga in advanced stage) is an act of appropriation, making things mine?
And if so, is it then not fair to conclude that Will and initiative originate in ahamkara? Please correct me if there is a logic fallacy.

#34

Yep, because all activities requires the faculty of doer. So yes the will and initiative originate within the doer. The doer feels it must do something, such as go and talk to the hottie in the bar. This puts into motion the organs of knowledge and action.

The doer itself relies on another faculty - the faculty of judgement. As the doer is a process it relies on the processing part of the mind. The ahamkara is after all a process really made out of thoughts. These in turn are just guna activity.

#35

According to tantric cosmology, Will or Iccha, is one of the three primary shaktis, originated together with Jnana (knowledge) and Kriya (action) in the three bindus that differentiated in quality from the Para Bindu or Shiva Bindu or Iswara Tattva, the point from which manifest universe springs. Apart from the three shaktis, are also issued the three devas (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva), the three gunas, and the three forms of manifest sound (Pasyanti: undifferentiated, pranava, OM — Madyama: subtle, thought — Vaikhari: gross, uttered speech).

These three bindus, Sun, Moon and Fire, form a triangle, called Akatha, from which the subtle forms of the fifty letters of the sanskrit alphabet are issued. They are called the Matrikas, and are said to be the body of Maha Kundali, the cosmic,universal Kundalini, who remains coiled around the Para Bindu just before the creation, containing into herself in a potential state all creatures and worlds to be created. This Akatha triangle is depicted in a microcosmic level in the Kameswara Chakra, inside the Sahasrara Chakra, in any detailed,worthy chakra scheme. Have a look to Harish Johari’s illustrations.

So Will is a primary force, beyond “mental” tattvas (Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas), and is “originated” in our Kameswara Chakra. Haven’t you noticed during meditation state how first there is a generic,shapeless volition or desire, and then it transforms into concrete thought? Meditation is the art of reverting the evolution of the tattvas, rolling them back to the supreme bindu, the origin of all manifest stuff.

#36

[QUOTE=panoramix;45896]According to tantric cosmology… Have a look to Harish Johari’s illustrations.
So Will is a primary force, beyond “mental” tattvas (Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas), and is “originated” in our Kameswara Chakra. Haven’t you noticed during meditation state how first there is a generic,shapeless volition or desire, and then it transforms into concrete thought? Meditation is the art of reverting the evolution of the tattvas, rolling them back to the supreme bindu, the origin of all manifest stuff.[/QUOTE]
I have two books from Harish Johari and as much as I appreciate the beauty and the richness of its concepts, I have never been able to experience anything the like. So for me it is still a form of Abracadabra (Chakrarara where are you?). When I try to meditate (and for the sake of clarity some semantics, for me meditation is synonymous with samadhi, whereas I refer to dhyana as contemplation, dharana as concentration and pratyahara the retreat from the sensorial input) ( I have never reached samadhi), I essentially focus on isvara pranidhana, surrender to God. When a thought arises, I try to let it go and return to my aforementioned focus. As of yet I have never experienced anything described in johari’s books. Yet I do not despair, as you recommended to me; it may take 777 lives to get there!;).
i find my attempts of meditation rather idle as long as I have not freed myself from disagreable behaviour, anger, irritation etc. First I’ll try to master yama & niyama and then I’ll return to the practice of Kriya yoga I have learnt.

#37

The trouble I have with Tantra is its tendency to mix Samkhya and Vedanta with mysticism, mythology, occultism, symbolism. A lot of this is unnecessary and superfluous.

The beauty of Samkhya-Yoga is it keeps it simple, scientific and rational. No mysticism, no occultism, no, no mythology, no symbolism. It is as technical and precise as modern science is today. Thus it is the most useful to modern science. Tantra simply confuses.

#38

[quote=Surya Deva;45898]The trouble I have with Tantra is its tendency to mix Samkhya and Vedanta with mysticism, mythology, occultism, symbolism. A lot of this is unnecessary and superfluous.

The beauty of Samkhya-Yoga is it keeps it simple, scientific and rational. No mysticism, no occultism, no mysyicism, no mythology, no symbolism. It is as technical and precise as modern science is today. Thus it is the most useful to modern science. Tantra simply confuses.[/quote]

I desagree. I do not know Samkhya or Vedanta, i’ve just studied and practiced Tantra, but believe me, mythology, symbolism and occultism are not superfluous at all, there are archetypal entities awaiting in our collective unconscious whose power can be channelized for spiritual purposes.

Further, we have two brains, left and right, rational and intuitive, and the latter cannot be accessed through reason but through symbols.

That’s what I love about Tantra, it’s both scientific and mystical, oriented to both brains, valid for everybody, regardless of their development stage.

Tantra is Kundalini Yoga, Kriya Yoga, and a great part of Hatha Yoga.
Tantra is philosophy, cosmology, and provides a full-fledged system of practices.
Tantra is an empirical science, systematic and holistic, and it works wonders.
Tantra is confusing for those who don’t know or understand it.

I do not pretend to compete with other systems, as I don’t know them, but you shouldn’t underrate Tantra, believe me.

#39

Namaste Panoramix,

To say that the mythology, symbolism and occultic elements are archetypal entities awaiting in our collective unconsciousness is as good as saying to me that there is a land that has an invisible pink elephant. I cannot test your claim, thus it is useless to me and I have to reject it. The idea of a horse, elephant etc only occurs to me after I experience it(posteriori) not before I experience it. I had no idea what an elephant was or what it looked until I I learned of it from books and television, and I had a much better idea when I saw a real one. I could not dream of an elephant before I saw one. I had no concept of one.

Mythology is the result of combining ideas. Like elephant + human = Ganesha; horse + flying = Pegasus. Human + flying = Superman. Tree + talking = talking tree. These are completely arbitary creations and there are infintie combinations of combining things to form new things. They do not exist where but in the human imagination. To say they already exist in some mysterious ether is begging the question.

I am not downplaying mythology and symbolism, I can see their signifiance as art to explain things in a metaphorical way. However, they are superfluous by definition. They are not mandatory. Much as the mythological tooth fairy and Santa claus is not mandatory in a child’s life.

#40

Just to share an observation on Mahat: Mahat is the first evolute of prakriti and it is from Mahat that buddhi arises later on. Mahat is the same as cosmic intelligence and its function is to keep everything in order. It is a system of universal complexity where everything that exists is kept in relational order. This same structure is repeated on a microcosmic level as the human mind.

Make no mistake about it, the cosmic intelligence is no other than Brahma in Vedic language. The Gita says each universe that arises is administered by a local Brahma. This is only saying each universe is controlled and coordinated by a local cosmic intelligence(Brahma) and then there is super-universal intelligence called Ishvara which governs all universes at once, which Patanjali describes.