The discussion on ahamkara I want to split off from this thread. I started a new one on that topic called “Maybe I’m the Devil in disguise”.
[quote=Surya Deva;45909]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.[/quote]
Are there pink elephants in Mahat, Surya?
There is the basic stuff that could later develop a pink elephant. Matter when it is potential contains only the potentiality of something. Nothing really exists before it is manifested.
What I wanted to ask you was, why do you dismiss archetypal entities for not having experienced them, but on the other hand you profess such faith for concepts like Prakriti or Mahat.
Deities are powerful symbols of mind transformation. And perhaps something else.
Can the cells in your body even conceive what that they are building is?
Prakriti is an entitiy one can infer logically. The Samkhyakarika is full of arguments on why prakriti exists. How do you infer horses and elephants as being pre-existent? There is no inference to support that. As these are produced and existent entities which did not always exist, they evolved into being in time. They were only potential in prakriti, just as the tree is only potential in the seed. At the level of prakriti everything is the transformation of the gunas. A certain transformation of the gunas produces a horse, a certain transformation produces an elephant.
At the level of prakriti there is no such thing as objective existence. It is just a function of gunas interactions. Nothing objectively exists there. No horses and no elephants.
Sorry to interject here but I thinks it’s appropriate that this be posted in the thread, just for the record.
Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram - Book 2, Sutra 38
karaṇaṃ trayodaśāvidhaṃ avāntarabhedāt
[ul]
[li]Karaṇaṃ - Instrument
[/li][li] trayodaśā-vidhaṃ - thirteenfold
[/li][li]Avāntara-bhedāt - through subsidiary division
[/li][/ul]
The instrument is of thirteen kinds, according to subsidiary differences.
In Samkhya philosophy, there are two different schemas used to classify what are known as indriyas, the instruments of the Purusa or self. The first schema classifies indriyas as either cognition or action. There are five instruments of cognition (the senses) and five instruments of action (locomotion, speech, grasping, reproduction, and excretion.) Manas (lower mind) is included in this schema because it is said to have characteristics of both cognition and action. Manas, along with the indriyas of action and cognition make up the eleven indriyas that are enumerated in this schema.
There is a second schema that classifies the indriyas as either internal or external. There are thirteen indriyas enumerated in this schema, consisting of the three internal (buddhi, ahamkara, and manas) and the ten external (instruments of cognition and action).
An astute observer might say, well, the word indriya is not used here. The word used is karaṇaṃ. This objection is answered in sutra 2.29 which directly connects the word karaṇa to the word indriya.
SPS 2.29 draṣṭṛtvādirātmanaḥ karaṇatvamindriyāṇāṃ
[ul]
[li]Draṣṭṛ-tva-adi - The being the seer, etc
[/li][li]ātmanaḥ -Is of the self
[/li][li] karaṇatvam - Being the instrument
[/li][li]indriyāṇāṃ - Is of the indriyas
[/li][/ul]
The being the seer, etc., is of the self; being the instrument is of the indriyas, or,
The seer is the self, the instruments are the indriyas.
From there, the Kapila Sutram goes on to talk about the modifications of the indriyas. This is where the yoga sutras begin, except that in the yoga sutras, the “modifications of the indriyas” becomes “the modifications of chitta”. But Kapila says one very interesting thing. He says that the five vayu, airs, beginning with prana, are the common modifications of the indriyas. So instead of each indriya having its own corresponding object, there is a common object that the internal indriyas filter into its various parts, sort of like audio and video in the same TV signal. This concept is similar to what Panoramix said earlier.
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):
This second scheme is obviously a later classification. Classical Samkhya is based on the first scheme of 11 indiryas, 1 ahamkara, 1 mahat, 1 prakriti, 5 tanmatras, 5 gross elements = 25 elements which make up matter.
The second scheme is not popular. But it is not wrong either. Even I am referring to the ahamkara, mahat and manas as instruments or faculties. They are emergent systems, which are unconscious and therefore for the use of the purusha. They are therefore instruments.
I was only politely pointing out that classical Samkhya does not include ahamkara and ego in the indriya list. You overreacted and responded with abuse. The disagreement was so minor, and merely semantical, it did not deserve the kind of response you gave.
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.
Also quoting Panoramix, there is also quite a bit of similarity between this cosmology and the Samkhya cosmology, although it is not exactly the same. Here the will corresponds to ahamkara,and you have a similar division of jnana - knowledge - cognition and kriya - action.
I knew Surya Deva would not have the character to admit that he is wrong and apologize, so unfortunately my contempt is unmitigated.
Normally, it is the abuser that apologises, and not the one being abused 
But I do not answer to some annoying little schoolmarm with bug up her rear end.
I’m not really well-versed in it, but I’ve read enough o know that the renowned psychologist Carl Jung was very big on archetypes, which he used in the interpretation of dreams.
Yes, mythological figures and archetypes are not arbitrary as you say Surya, but in CG Jung’s words, mnemic sedimentations or perception patterns. They slowly go forming through evolution. Don’t underrate them.
A chakra iconography devoid of archetypal figures would be flimsy, as there would be no means for accessing your chakras through the power of your unconscious.
I’m curious: How can one demonstrate the existence of something like Mahat, that cosmic intelligence whose function is keeping all in order, through inference, without falling into speculation?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45964]This second scheme is obviously a later classification. Classical Samkhya is based on the first scheme of 11 indiryas, 1 ahamkara, 1 mahat, 1 prakriti, 5 tanmatras, 5 gross elements = 25 elements which make up matter.
The second scheme is not popular. But it is not wrong either. Even I am referring to the ahamkara, mahat and manas as instruments or faculties. They are emergent systems, which are unconscious and therefore for the use of the purusha. They are therefore instruments.
I was only politely pointing out that classical Samkhya does not include ahamkara and ego in the indriya list. You overreacted and responded with abuse. The disagreement was so minor, and merely semantical, it did not deserve the kind of response you gave.[/QUOTE]
Awwware, if you want to see the dark side of Ahamkara working, you need look no further than this post. Here you have an ego which has constructed an illusory world in which it is the omniscient master. Whenever it is presented with some evidence that tends to contradict the illusion, it works mightily to keep it intact. But what you have are really excuses for why the master didn’t know this. “The second scheme is a later clasification”…not obvious at all, in fact, it is very highly debatable and in my opinion, not true. Then he continues with the illusion that he must be the teacher.
“The second scheme is not popular”, so then the master is master of only that which is popular? But then he gives it his imprimatur “it’s not wrong”. Kapila will be very happy to hear that. All the while, he maintains the illusion of mastery.
Then oh yes, I was so polite, the disagreement was so minor, all designed to keep the illusion intact. He tries to isolate the response, but in so doing he blinds himself to the reality that it was not an isolated response, but a trigger, a tipping point, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Now he has become the victim of abuse by the big bad man who he has attempted to discredit with false statements, unsupported statements, and false, unsupported accusations. But of course, those are very small things, not deserving of a response of such magnitude. So why does he do these things? Because the ego must constantly maintain the illusion of being the master, the smartest guy in the room. This is the destructive behavior of the self-seeking ahamkara.
Haha, you realy don’t let go do you. The oldest extant text on Samkhya is the Samkhyakarika by Ishvarkrishna. It mentions the classical scheme of 11 organs + ahmakara and mahat etc. The text you are citing Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram came several centuries after. It describes another scheme in addition to the classical scheme of classifying the evolutes of prakriti. It is not wrong, because the ahamkara, mahat and manas are indeed internal instruments or faculities. However, they are the ones that control the 11 organs. The ahamkara has the property of “mineness” so it is the agent and its agency is the 11 organs.
Your objection is minor and I do not actually wholly disagree with your point, but I do think the classical classification is less ambigious. You’re really doing nothing but trying to pick a fight. You were doing that from the start.
Well, all of the best scholars believed the Samkhya-Pravachana Sutram to be the work of Kapila. Aniruddha, Vijnana Bhiksu, Nandalal Sinha, the authors of the textbooks that I read, none of them disputed the authenticity of the work. It’s only the second rate Hindus who haven’t even read it who dispute its validity. But they are all just salesmen for their own particular perversion of Kapila’s philosophy, so one cannot expect anything more from them. We all know who started this, and I’m not fool enough to get sucked into one of your interminable and useless debates.
[QUOTE=panoramix;45999]Yes, mythological figures and archetypes are not arbitrary as you say Surya, but in CG Jung’s words, mnemic sedimentations or perception patterns. They slowly go forming through evolution. Don’t underrate them.
A chakra iconography devoid of archetypal figures would be flimsy, as there would be no means for accessing your chakras through the power of your unconscious.
I’m curious: How can one demonstrate the existence of something like Mahat, that cosmic intelligence whose function is keeping all in order, through inference, without falling into speculation?[/QUOTE]
One can’t.
You’ll find that there are members here who possess a vast academic knowledge of spiritual and religious matters, and it’s obvious that is all they have considering the manner in which they use it and attempt to lord over other members. They may be “right” but they don’t “know”.
It’s better to ignore this kind of enlightened ego, leave them alone with their spiritual materialism. Without anyone to impress or any debates to “win”, they will eventually see the futility of academic & trivial knowledge of spiritual matters alone.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45895]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.[/QUOTE]
Not that I claim to know these things, but as a scientist I would conclude that you define Ahamakara as a product of thought processes; A kind of emergent property. Intuitively, I’d rather say that the processes of Ahamkara, this sense of I and mine are more instinctively and do not result from traditional thought processes. it is a deep rooted mechanism that even shortcuts and overrules the faculty of Buddhi. When Ahamakara operates in its most original manner as you see with very small children not capable of thought at all, not capable of a rationalised judgment, it commands the desire. That the desire is born out of interaction with the jnana-indriyas and manas only insofar as discomfort is registered appears self-evident. But then Ahamkara in the neonate commands as something is lacking; something has been taken away from it. So in my humble opinion of a non-self-realised wannabe yogi, I’d still conclude that Ahamkara is a separate function of the mind; it is not made out of thoughts. Also, ahamkara involves the awareness of the I as an individual entity. If you conclude it is an emergent property of thought processes, basically you?re claiming a robot with sufficient AI capabilities could have a sense of I in the future. I doubt it. It is always said that purusha is completely separate and not affected by prakrti. Yet the purusha or the bhoktr is that (all encompassing) entity, which enjoys the universe (hence the term Bhoktr or enjoyer). If it can enjoy the universe or more broadly spoken the prakrti it must somehow interact therewith, but that cannot be as they are of a different nature (according to samkya). This is why I have always felt more comfortable with the definition that the prakrti is the mindstuff of the Brahman, it is embedded therein. Panpsychism. It can be enjoyed and experienced because it is within the enjoyer.
The sense of I-ness lies closest to what we as simple mortals experience as awareness, isn?t it? It is a vital function if you want to exist in this material world (read the thread: maybe I’m the devil in disguise). In neuroscience I guess it operates as what is known as the release mechanism of fixed action patterns in the basal ganglia. It can be triggered by thoughts, but it can also exist independent of thoughts, like in the neonate.
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;46042]One can’t.
You’ll find that there are members here who possess a vast academic knowledge of spiritual and religious matters, and it’s obvious that is all they have considering the manner in which they use it and attempt to lord over other members. They may be “right” but they don’t “know”.
It’s better to ignore this kind of enlightened ego, leave them alone with their spiritual materialism. Without anyone to impress or any debates to “win”, they will eventually see the futility of academic & trivial knowledge of spiritual matters alone.[/QUOTE]
It is indeed a pity that some wannabe yogis, such as i, have to resort to philosophy and speculation. It is born out of the incapacity to arrive at true mediatative states, which in its turn is born out of blockades due to a lack of completely mastering yama and niyama. Yet I see it (this philosophising) as a part of a niyama: svadyaya. It is a first step into the exploration of oneself, and how imperfect it may be, the intention (at least mine) is (hopefully) pure. It is unfortunate that also false Ego :evil: mingles in these dialogues/discussions. Once it is about being a wiseacre or outsmarting another, then something goes wrong and we become a group of quacking ducks; wannabe pundits who know nothing:confused:. I like your term “enlightened Ego”, which is a beautiful contradictio in terminis. Academic knowledge can never on its own lead to the revelation of the absolute truth, but it can help us to trigger our curiosity, isn’t it? Great avatar you have;)
[QUOTE=Awwware;46053]Not that I claim to know these things, but as a scientist I would conclude that you define Ahamakara as a product of thought processes; A kind of emergent property. Intuitively, I’d rather say that the processes of Ahamkara, this sense of I and mine are more instinctively and do not result from traditional thought processes. it is a deep rooted mechanism that even shortcuts and overrules the faculty of Buddhi. When Ahamakara operates in its most original manner as you see with very small children not capable of thought at all, not capable of a rationalised judgment, it commands the desire. That the desire is born out of interaction with the jnana-indriyas and manas only insofar as discomfort is registered appears self-evident. But then Ahamkara in the neonate commands as something is lacking; something has been taken away from it. So in my humble opinion of a non-self-realised wannabe yogi, I’d still conclude that Ahamkara is a separate function of the mind; it is not made out of thoughts. Also, ahamkara involves the awareness of the I as an individual entity. If you conclude it is an emergent property of thought processes, basically you?re claiming a robot with sufficient AI capabilities could have a sense of I in the future. I doubt it. It is always said that purusha is completely separate and not affected by prakrti. Yet the purusha or the bhoktr is that (all encompassing) entity, which enjoys the universe (hence the term Bhoktr or enjoyer). If it can enjoy the universe or more broadly spoken the prakrti it must somehow interact therewith, but that cannot be as they are of a different nature (according to samkya). This is why I have always felt more comfortable with the definition that the prakrti is the mindstuff of the Brahman, it is embedded therein. Panpsychism. It can be enjoyed and experienced because it is within the enjoyer.
The sense of I-ness lies closest to what we as simple mortals experience as awareness, isn?t it? It is a vital function if you want to exist in this material world (read the thread: maybe I’m the devil in disguise). In neuroscience I guess it operates as what is known as the release mechanism of fixed action patterns in the basal ganglia. It can be triggered by thoughts, but it can also exist independent of thoughts, like in the neonate.[/QUOTE]
Great. Maybe we should have Yoga Alliance demand that all prospective teachers pass a Turing test? They might be Hindu robots from the future… :rolleyes: