PDA

View Full Version : Care to Discuss this? Consciousness



yajvan
28 July 2007, 08:58 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,


Does any one wish to discuss the fabric of consciousness? As I read many posts we at HDF have a great desire to know the Divine, to know our Ishtadevata. We all have great respect for Isvara as far as I can see.

So what does this have to do with this post? The Divine, in it final form is consiousness, awareness, pure awareness. We possess this and use it everyday, that is why we can experience the Divine, because we are mode of this.

This is a very delicate state of awareness, very subtle. So if one wishes to know more about the Divine ( to the best of our human capacity) it mades sense to discuss this in an open forum.

Now who says the Divine [Brahman] is consciousness? The Upanishads. Others? Vishisita. Is the Divine more then consciousness? Absolutey. Yet this is the fundamental, least common denominator of all that is, Consciousness.

So I did not want to start the conversation unless others would find it of value.

Let me know if this is worth the pursuit.


pranams,

suresh
28 July 2007, 09:26 AM
Namaskara Yajvan,

Thanks for starting a good topic.

Is there a thing called consciousness at all, or is there only a conscious entity? When we say consciousness, can we ever separate it from the entity which is conscious? If so, why do we always, without any exception, relate every feeling, every emotion, every thought (and whatever else there is within the field of consciousness) with a person?

For instance, is there a thing called anger existing in isolation? No, that anger is always related to a person (who's angry). The same goes for everything else within consciousness. It doesn't exist in isolation, it's always centered on a person.

Can we then conclude that whenever we speak of consciousness, whether it's ours or some higher levels including the highest which we call Brahman, there must be a person corresponding to it?

yajvan
28 July 2007, 02:27 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskara Yajvan,

Thanks for starting a good topic.

Is there a thing called consciousness at all, or is there only a conscious entity? When we say consciousness, can we ever separate it from the entity which is conscious? If so, why do we always, without any exception, relate every feeling, every emotion, every thought (and whatever else there is within the field of consciousness) with a person?

For instance, is there a thing called anger existing in isolation? No, that anger is always related to a person (who's angry). The same goes for everything else within consciousness. It doesn't exist in isolation, it's always centered on a person.

Can we then conclude that whenever we speak of consciousness, whether it's ours or some higher levels including the highest which we call Brahman, there must be a person corresponding to it?

Namaste Suresh,
Your questions are reasonable and contributes to this idea. There is a notion you bring that is 'conscious of' something. I am conscious of typing this post, as you were, and of people reading this sentence.
So we can apply consciousness to an act..in this case a stream of ideas put to typing and then reading... simple enough.

Yet lets take a look at it another way, not different but another viewpoint. Consciousness is awareness. Being aware, or awake. Let me ask you and the reader to isolate this awareness just so we can all have the same experience...ok?

If you can now take your awareness and bring it to your foot. Take your time... Bring your awareness down to your foot, the right one. Feel your total foot, ok? Now take that awareness and bring it to your left foot, now up to your knee.
Last, take the awareness and bring it to the tip of your nose. Hold it there for a few seconds without any thoughts, just a few seconds. I will wait while you do this - - - - - - ( that was me waiting).

Do you notice you can direct your attention to different parts of your body? There is an outward flow. Now , while you were doing this, if cookies were being baked in the kitchen and you had a sniff of this, the awareness would go to the cookie smell. Or if the phone rang, you would have been distracted ( not really, as the mind seeks out more pleasurable circumstances, happier things, more enjoyment), your mind, applying consciousness goes there.

The point is , consciousness is applied. It is applied to the senses, to touch, feel, smell, taste as you mention. It could even be applied to anger as you mentioned. Yet, the bottom line, consciousness is ubiquitous, it is everywhere. And in the examples above they where applied in the outward direction.

When we think, and experience, it is only with us, that is the ignorance we are experiencing. that consciousness is divided up into segments, and it is distributed to people ( and animals, they too are aware, yes? this is consciousness), parsed out, consciousness applied.

This above is key point ... because the next part suggests that there is a vast reservoir consciousness, unending, without bounds, infinite, ananta.

This is what the rishi's, swami's, muni's bath in, hail about, and ask us to experience. Before we can go to this level of the conversation, we need to get comfortable with the ideas above, ok? And for others, if they wish to participate.

So lets ask those (and you) this wish to participate on this post to kick around, and poke around these ideas above. Consciousness applied / Awareness in use. We then can go a little further and offer up some more concepts and ideas.


pranams,

atanu
28 July 2007, 04:45 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Suresh,
Your questions are reasonable and contributes to this idea. There is a notion you bring that is 'conscious of' something. I am conscious of typing this post, as you were, and of people reading this sentence.
-----
pranams,

Excellently explained. Let 's see how it goes.

Om

Kaos
29 July 2007, 05:32 AM
Namaste yajvan, and all,

A very interesting thread indeed, and good questions from Suresh.
I hope others can participate and contribute as well.

Yes, you mentioned that consciousness is applied. I most certainly agree with that.

But the question is: who is it that applies this consciousness?

Does this "who" refer to the "i"?

If we looked and searched deeply, we cannot find an independent, permanent "i". We are not merely this collection of physical aggregates called the body.

In the Bhagavad Gita and other scriptures, they speak of "the Self within the self", that "the Lord dwells in our hearts" etc.


Therefore, if one cannot find the "i", and the Self is within the self, if one drops the self, then all that remains is Self.

Another way of looking at it is:

If I am not self, which "self" has consciousness, this very subtle consciousness...

This is addressed to in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:


IV-iv-5: That self is indeed Brahman, as also identified with the intellect, the Manas and the vital force, with the eyes and ears, with earth, water, air and the ether, with fire, and what is other than fire, with desire and the absence of desire, with anger and the absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with everything -–identified, in fact, with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred). As it does and acts, so it becomes; by doing good it becomes good, and by doing evil it becomes evil – it becomes virtuous through good acts and vicious through evil acts. Others, however, say, ‘The self is identified with desire alone. What it desires, it resolves; what it resolves, it works out; and what it works out, it attains.’


As to the questions, what is "self", what is "consciousness", and most importantly, "who is it that applies this conciousness", "what is it that pervades this entire universe", the Upanishads again address these questions:

"Brahman alone, the Greatest, is this whole universe." - Mundaka Upanishad II. 2. 11.

atanu
29 July 2007, 10:18 AM
Namaskara Yajvan,

------
Can we then conclude that whenever we speak of consciousness, whether it's ours or some higher levels including the highest which we call Brahman, there must be a person corresponding to it?


Namaskar Suresh

I add my bit so that the matter may proceed with more questions.

Suresh, leave alone Brahman, examine yourself.

If you cared to investigate, you would find that ‘the person that you are’, is the consciousness having a notion that I am Suresh, born on that date. That perception has changed very frequently. "I am a school student", "I am an Engineer", "I am -----" etc. etc.

Go ahead further and query this awareness of yours which makes you feel that you are Suresh. Why in that awareness you have solid bodies in the waking time, subtle bodies (sometimes elephants or full cities) during dream time, and nothing during deep sleep time?

Where is that person, you are talking about, through these three states? You may (or may not easily) find that 'person you think you are' is a wave of concsiousness itself.

Beneath that modified consciousness (wave) exists the real one.

Om

saidevo
29 July 2007, 10:36 AM
Namaste everyone.

Annie Besant has written a book titled A Study in Consciousness that elaborately traces the nature and evolution of Consciousness in all its manifestations. Though I've had the printed book for over four years with me, I got around to look it up only now when this subject came up for discussion in these boards. Written in the light of Theosophy, the book presents the concepts from Hinduism as well as other religions. I plan to read the book in full shortly; here is a gist of what I looked up regarding the nature of Consciousness.

Consciousness in Creation

1. Consciousness, in its most abstract, unmanifested form is Brahman, the One God, the Absolute Consciousness. Once it manifests, it becomes inseparable with matter.

2. Brahman manifests his Absolute Consciousness in the form of a Trinity, via his attributed counterpart, the Saguna Brahman, the Universal Consciousness. The Trinity represent the three aspects of the Universal Consciousness: Activity-Wisdom-Will: Sat-Chit-Ananda: Kriya-Jnana-Ichcha: Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva.

The Saguna Brahman, the Pratyag Atma (Inner Self) of the Hindus is the One (Personal) God of the Christians; Hormuzd of the Parsis; and the Allah of the Muslims.

The Trinity Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, in that order, is represented in other religions as Holy Spirit-Son-Father in Christianity; and Chochmah-Binah-Kepher in Kabala/Cabala; the Third-Second-First Logos in Theosophy.

Sat lent to the matter becomes the Universal Mind, represented by Brahma, who starts the process of creation of forms with his Rajo Guna, using his Kriya Shakti. Vishnu pervades the forms, maintains and harmonizes them with his Satva Guna and remains as the Jnana Shakti in them. Shiva as the Ichcha Shakti dissolves the forms when their time is up and restores them to the state associated with the Tamo Guna, the Eternal Bliss or Ananda, until the next creation starts.

Nature of Consciousness

Since I can't summarize it without losing the key ideas, let me quote Annie Besant from now on:

"To begin with a definition of terms consciousness and life are identical, two names for one thing as regarded from within and from without. There is no life without consciousness; there is no consciousness without life. When we vaguely separate them in thought and analyse what we have done, we find that we have called consciousness turned inward by the name of life, and life turned outwards by the name of consciousness. When our attention is fixed on unity we say life; when it is fixed upon multiplicity we say consciousness; and we forget that the multiplicity is due to, is the essence of, matter, the reflecting surface in which the One becomes the Many. When it is said that life is "more or less conscious", it is not the abstraction life that is thought of, but "a living thing" more or less aware of its surroundings. The more or less awareness depends on the thickness, the density, of the enwrapping veil which makes it a living thing, separate from its fellows. Annihilate in thought that veil and you annihilate in thought also life, and are in THAT into which all opposites are resolved, the ALL."

"This leads us to our next point: the existence of consciousness implies a separation into two aspects of the fundamental all-underlying UNITY. The modern name of consciousness, "awareness", equally implies this. For you cannot hang up awareness in the void; awareness implies something of which it is aware, a duality at the least. Otherwise it exists not. In the highest abstraction of consciousness, of awareness, this duality is implied; consciousness ceases if the sense of limitation be withdrawn, is dependent on limitation for existence. Awareness is essentially awareness of limitation, and only secondarily awareness of others. Awareness of others comes into being with what we call Self-consciousness, Self-awareness. This abstract Twain-in-One, consciousness ­- limitation, spirit - matter, life - form, are ever inseparable, they appear and dis­appear together; they exist only in relation to each other; they resolve into a necessarily unmanifest Unity, the supreme synthesis."

Consciousness as it Appears from the Forms Side

"Consciousness and matter affect each other because they are the two constituents of one whole, both appearing as they draw apart, both disappearing as they unite, and as they draw apart a relation exists ever between them. (That relation is magnetic, but of magnetism of the subtlest kind, called Fohat, or Daiviprakriti, "The Light of the Logos". It is of Substance, and in it the essence of consciousness and essence of matter exist, polarised but not drawn apart.)"

"There is no such thing as a conscious unit which does not consist of this inseparate duality, a magnet with two poles ever in relation to each other. We think of a separate something we call consciousness, and ask how it works on another separate something we call matter. There are no such two separate somethings, but only two drawn-apart but inseparate aspects of THAT which, without both, is unmanifest, which cannot manifest in the one or the other alone, and is equally in both."

"They affect each other because inseparable parts of a unity, manifesting as a duality in space and time. The "gulf" appears when we think of a "spirit" wholly immaterial, and a "body" wholly material - i.e., of two things neither of which exists. There is no spirit which is not matter-enveloped: there is no matter which is not spirit-ensouled. The highest separated Self has its film of matter, and though such a Self is called "a spirit" because the consciousness aspect is so predominant, none the less is it true that it has its vibrating sheath of matter, and that from this sheath all impulses come forth, which affect all other denser material sheaths in succession. To say this is not to materialise consciousness, but only to recognise the fact that the two primary opposites, consciousness and matter, are straitly bound together, are never apart, not even in the highest Being. Matter is limitation, and without limitation consciousness is not. So far from materialising consciousness, it puts it as a concept in sharp antithesis to matter, but it recognises the fact that in an entity the one is not found without the other. The densest matter, the physical, has its core of consciousness; the gas, the stone, the metal, is living, conscious, aware. Thus oxygen becomes aware of hydrogen at a certain temperature, and rushes into combination with it."

Consciousness as it Appears from Within

"Consciousness is the one Reality, in the fullest sense of that much-used phrase; it follows from this that any reality found anywhere is drawn from consciousness. Hence, everything which is thought, is. That consciousness in which everything is, everything literally, "possible" as well as "actual" - actual being that which is thought of as existent by a separated consciousness in time and space, and possible all that which is not so being thought of at any period in time and any point in space - we call Absolute Consciousness."

(As Absolute Consciousness) "It is the ALL, the ETERNAL, the INFINITE, the CHANGELESS. Consciousness, thinking time and space, and of all forms as existing in them in succession and in places, is the Universal Consciousness, the ONE, called by the Hindu the Saguna BRAHMAN - the ETERNAL with attributes - the PRATYAG-ATMA - the INNER SELF;"

Annie Besant goes on to say that the manifestations are nothing more than thought forms of the associated deities. They exist so long as he maintains them and they have no Reality other than that given by the deity's thought.

"Thus, as Spirits, we are inherently, indefensibly divine, with all the splendour and freedom implied in that word. But we are clothed in matter which is not ours, which is the thought-forms of the RULER of our system - controlled again by the RULERS of vaster systems in which ours is included - and we are only slowly learning to master and use it. When we realise our oneness with our RULER, then the matter shall have no longer power over us, and we shall see it as the unreality it is, dependent on His will, which then we shall know as also ours. Then we can “play” with it, as we cannot while it blinds us with its borrowed Reality."

"A careful dwelling in mind on the distinctions above traced between Absolute Consciousness, Universal Consciousness, and Individual Consciousness, will prevent the student from asking the question so often heard: Why is there any universe? Why does All-Consciousness limit itself? Why should the Perfect become the imperfect, All-Power become the powerless, God become the mineral, the brute, the man? In this form the question is unanswerable, for it is founded on false premises."

As further topics the book discusses: ch.6. Unity of Consciousness, ch.7. The Mechanism of Consciousness, ch.9. Consciousness and Self-Consciousness, ch.10. Human States of Consciousness, ch.12. The Nature of Memory. This is followed by a desire on Will, Desire and Emotion in Part 2 of the book, which can be read/downloaded at http://www.anandgholap.net/Study_In_Consciousness-AB.htm

A further reference on the subject could be the Pranava-Vada of Gargyayana, an ancient Sanskrit Text, translated in summary by the great Indian scholar (who was awarded Bharat Ratna) Bhagavan Das. This book could be read/download in pdf format at: http://www.makara.us/05ref/01books/pranavavada/pv_toc.htm

yajvan
29 July 2007, 03:19 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~~


Namaste,

I think these posts are great. I also think ( IMHO) that we went from 0 to 100 MPH in concepts and knowledge. All good , yet for some, our velocity may curtail the initial understanding of this simple and delicate fabric of consciousness. Again that is my assessment, no fault finding.

We have many knowledgable people on this post, and I would perhaps suggest approaches to make it a bit simpler to comprehend and appreciate? What are my thoughts on this? Let me share with you... If I am off base let me know.

[I]We know consciousness precedes thought. It is so intimate and immediate, so close to us, that it does not become an object to inspect, to appreciate. So when talks of this most delicate quality people find it difficult at times to grasp it. It is not an apple we can hold to our face and look at its size , shape, but without this consciousness, this awareness, the apple can not be understood.

So, if its okay, let me ( and anyone that wishes to help) try and form some concepts on clarifying the experience of this awareness. It will help us then with all the excellent posts of saidevo, Kaos, Atanu wish to bring.
We then can look at this from these view points ( which are great), yet be grounded in some of the fundamentals.

Examples are always good for a starting point, so perhaps here we can kick around a few notions. The one that seems to make sense to me is that of going to the movies. There are two examples.

One goes to the movies and sits and watches the show. The light from the projector is clear and bright, it shines through the 35mm film a frame at a time. It does not care what is on the film, as it projects the image onto the screen and from their we pick up these images in our eyes, mind, emotions, feelings.
How many movies has one gone to that an emotion was stirred-up? happy, sad, anger, etc. Yet when the movie is done we find that we were caught up in the moment. And what made that possible? That white pure light that projected the story through the plastic film. Like that in this simple analogy, that pure light is consciousness... It is applied to the movie/film [ our life, actions, karma, vasanas] and projects a 'reality' for that 2 hour movie [ or our life span] . It is consciousness, that light that allows this life to happen, to play out.

Some like to use the white movie screen with the same idea. The white movie screen is consciousness, that is, reflecting the movie sequence [life] that is happening. Take away the movie and what do we have? a white clear screen. Now just extend that screen in every dimension and you have an example of consciousness, where all of the universe plays out.

With this example, for us, for us humans, we never turn the movie off. It is episode after episode we watch day-in-and-day-out. What makes all the episodes available to us, that change all day and night, is the simple backdrop of the screen. The screen by itself is pure consciousness, pure awareness. This is the fabric of the SELF, this delicate, simple level of awareness that permeates this creation.

This screen or projecting light can be experienced, and it is of the greatest mental health one can bring to ones self, that of the 'reality' of life; to experience just the screen, just the brilliant projecting light.

Let me stop there, as we can add to this... that is, if we get comfortable with this, we can take it further. How to better understand this pure awareness, this consciousness that we use...applied consciousness that is being conscious and aware of life; using the 'raw material' of consciousness. Now how to experience just the raw materials once we have a better appreciation of what this can be in a future post, but lets poke around with this first, if that's ok.

pranams,

saidevo
29 July 2007, 11:36 PM
Namaste.

In the analogy of the movie, there are four elements: the projector with its source of light, the film with its dormant impressions, the white movie screen onto which the impressions are projected, and the audience who watch the movie.

It might be helpful to consider these elements as follows:

The projector is the Atman, the human soul, who is a spark from Brahman. The film and its dormant impressions are the seeds of Karma that fructify on the screen. The white screen is the Akasha or space in which the Life and World manifest in time. The audience are the Jivas, who not only watch but partake the action of the movie. And the light that issues out of the projector through the film onto the screen is Consciousness.

This analogy cannot be stretched too far, because in reality the projector, the film and the light are all within the Jivas, whereas the white screen or the Life and World seem to be outside them. In the normal waking state, Jivas focus the light of Consciousness on the Canvas of Life and World and see the lives of their own and others are played out in action.

The awareness created by Consciousness is largely external for most of us. We are aware of our physical selves and of the external world we live in. We are predominantly aware of our own actions and thoughts and also of the actions of other Jivas around us when they affect us. We are also aware of the resources and comforts of the world and seek them mostly for personal benefits.

Thus we use our Individual Consciousness largely to focus on our external selves and circumstances. Once we start to focus it within, we will find that it makes a large difference.

yajvan
30 July 2007, 11:36 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste.

In the analogy of the movie, there are four elements: the projector with its source of light, the film with its dormant impressions, the white movie screen onto which the impressions are projected, and the audience who watch the movie.

It might be helpful to consider these elements as follows:

The projector is the Atman, the human soul, who is a spark from Brahman. The film and its dormant impressions are the seeds of Karma that fructify on the screen. The white screen is the Akasha or space in which the Life and World manifest in time. The audience are the Jivas, who not only watch but partake the action of the movie. And the light that issues out of the projector through the film onto the screen is Consciousness.

This analogy cannot be stretched too far, because in reality the projector, the film and the light are all within the Jivas, whereas the white screen or the Life and World seem to be outside them. In the normal waking state, Jivas focus the light of Consciousness on the Canvas of Life and World and see the lives of their own and others are played out in action.

The awareness created by Consciousness is largely external for most of us. We are aware of our physical selves and of the external world we live in. We are predominantly aware of our own actions and thoughts and also of the actions of other Jivas around us when they affect us. We are also aware of the resources and comforts of the world and seek them mostly for personal benefits.

Thus we use our Individual Consciousness largely to focus on our external selves and circumstances. Once we start to focus it within, we will find that it makes a large difference.

Namaste Saidevo,
A most excellent post for one to grasp this concept. Most of us have the 'flood' of consciousness pour out of our eyes, ears, mouth, etc. an outward movement of this Consciousness/awareness.

My one friend said it reminded him of a pumpkin. In the USA there is a holiday , Halloween, in which pumpkins are used. The insides of the punpkin is removed and made hollow. Then eyes, ears, mouth, etc are cut out. Inside the pumpkin is placed a candle. The candle's light shines out all of the holes, a flood of light.

Like that, this consciousness comes out of us. The candle, in this example, is the 'flame in a still place, unflickering' as the Upanishads say. It is that consciousness/awareness that allows the eyes to see, the ears, to hear, etc. in our body (purusha) a city, puri, of 9 gates [ 2 eyes + 2 ears + 2 nostril openings +1 mouth + 2 openings for excretion = 9 gates]

What is interesting, as we will get here latter in the conversation, as we wish to go slowly in the beginning, is this consciousness 'fuels' the 3 states of awareness we all share: Waking, Dreaming and Sleep. Just like the candle, supports these 3 levels as the come and go, wax and wane for an entire life.

The opportunity to be able to look behind these 3 states some call prajna, taijasa and visva [wake, dream and sleep] and be aware of the candle. This is the cornerstone of higher states of consciousness is all about, about regaining this 'candle consciousness'...

We will talk more of this - I am in hopes people can poke around your most excellent analogy so there can be more discussion here then we can move forward and extend the discussion.

pranams

yajvan
30 July 2007, 12:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~




I add my bit so that the matter may proceed with more questions.
Beneath that modified consciousness (wave) exists the real one.
Om

Namaste Atanu (et.al)


Waves and oceans are used in the Upanishads to define the richness and vastness of consciousness. We thank you Atanu for this post this, as you bring 3 things for consideration: The wave, the ocean and avastha (states). Care to kick around some of these ideas?

The Wave - I see the wave as the individual. When the wave rises out of the ocean, it is as it it thinks I am wave; hey look! there are other waves, look at all of them! None of the waves look down to see the connection to the vast ocean. The waves rise and change shape, some crash into the rocks (karma I guess?) some fall back to the ocean. Yet the true value of the wave is the expression of the ocean to rise up.

Yet, as Kaos said several posts ago - its all about quantity and quality.
We as the wave may not have the mass of the ocean, but we are the exact quality, in every manner. We are the stuff of the ocean. This ocean is the ocean of consciousness that connects all things. Each wave, each being.

And these avastha's or 3 states some call prajna, taijasa and visva [wake, dream and sleep] , do care to comment on these? We will get to turiya from here, but do you care to prepare the soil first?

pranams,

saidevo
31 July 2007, 08:31 AM
Namaste.



The wave, the ocean and avastha (states). Care to kick around some of these ideas?


The wave and the ocean are opposites: the wave is not the ocean, and the ocean is not the wave. Yet they coexist, perhaps eternally. For this coexistence, a state or relationship is required, which keeps the multiplicity of the unity going.

The waves are only a fraction of the ocean, just as the universe is only a fraction of Brahman. The course for a wave is to rise, spread and fall, and this cycle goes on. The underlying ocean is static, though it projects the waves on itself.

The waves are bound by the cycle of rise and fall inside the cycle of time set in space. The ocean is not so bound. However much a wave rises in its worldly heights and feels proud about it, it should yet fall back into its source. The wave that realizes this truth of its impermanence would rather skim along the surface of the ocean, turned inward, with no ambitions of its own, ready to fall back anytime to its source.

The waves are packets of Discrete Consciousness derived from the Absolute Consciousness of the ocean. A wave that limits itself into its own individual consciousness never realizes that it is a part of the ocean. It is to realize its unity with the ocean that the wave is given the three states of existence.

If we stretch this analogy a little further, we find that the ocean itself stands on land! So we may say that the land that supports the ocean is the Nirguna Brahman and the ocean the Saguna Brahman that spawns the Jivas of waves.

The ocean is the Self, the 'A' (Atma) of the sacred letter AUM. The wave is the Not-Self, the 'U' (AnAtma); the 'M', niSedha or negation is the bond, the relation or the state between them that emanates creation and destruction. Thus the whole picture is evolved from the single sacred letter AUM.

Znanna
31 July 2007, 07:50 PM
Namaste,

To me, the wave is the ocean and vice versa.

What is the ocean but a commingling of many many drops which are moving in synchronicity?

I think the massive, infinite whole is a reflection of its parts. Like a hologram, each angle is the entire yet a piece.

YMMV



ZN

willie
31 July 2007, 09:02 PM
Say what? This only shows that the people who wrote these book had a very poor understanding of the waves and oceans.

Waves are mainly caused by wind, underwater disturbances like seismic events and to some extent the moon and tides.

A wave can move as a current underwater till it encounters the shore, where it rises up to become a wave. Waves break over because the top part moves faster than the bottom part when a shore slope is encountered.

In the US the great lakes can have some vicious waves during storms so saltwater is not a requirement.

Nuno Matos
31 July 2007, 09:51 PM
Namaste Willie


Thank you!
But let me remind you that if theres a use for metaphors the field of Philosophies and human Psychology are its natural houses.
Metaphors are natural human forms of Self expression they enrich intellect and communication.
What is mean by waves and the ocean is the same that saying that we are individual manifestations of a common genetic code. Here the genetic code in abstract ( in its static potential) represents the ocean and the individual manifestations of it the waves.
As they say (the great masters) Shiva without is Shackti is a Shava. So an ocean without waves will not be an ocean as far as we know.
So i believe that the ocean contains in it self the possibility of the wave. The wave is a part of it ( its Jiva), the question is does the wave have conscience of that? That shes a part of the ocean. I think most waves dont have that kind of conscience i think it must be a special wave like the big waves that come to shore in Hawai to have that kind of conciuseness. The same with humans. Never the less they are what they are...Waves, a part of the sea.
Go for it all!


Om namah shivaya!

saidevo
01 August 2007, 12:24 AM
Namaste ZN.



To me, the wave is the ocean and vice versa.

What is the ocean but a commingling of many many drops which are moving in synchronicity?

I think the massive, infinite whole is a reflection of its parts. Like a hologram, each angle is the entire yet a piece.

YMMV
ZN

I understand and appreciate your point. Yes, the ocean and the wave are the same. It is a paradoxical truth, as in the case of a hologram that the part is the same as the whole. Just like the seed and the tree are the same.

However, there is one distinction. In a laser hologram, the part represents the full in its entirety, so the full can be created from the part, which is not the case with Brahman and Atman. Here Brahman creates the Atmans and the world and pervades them, making them identical to That in quality. In quantity, however, the Atmans and the World can never sum up to Brahman, so they move on to accommodate another set of them, and the musical chair of life and creation goes on and on, eternally. Thus the ocean and wave are opposites, not in their difference, but in their size, in the same way the terms big and small are antonyms.

atanu
01 August 2007, 06:57 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Atanu (et.al)

--
The Wave - I see the wave as the individual. ---

Yet, as Kaos said several posts ago - its all about quantity and quality.
We as the wave may not have the mass of the ocean, but we are the exact quality, in every manner. We are the stuff of the ocean. This ocean is the ocean of consciousness that connects all things. Each wave, each being.
-----
pranams,

Namaste All,

Yes wave may be equated to an individual and the ocean to the consciousness/Brahman. But wrt to quality and quantity, I cannot agree. Sometime back some intuition struck me with a great force and I will try to replicate here. I may fail. I am not saying that the example is new. But the example was illuminated when I contemplated on the following.

Just keep a ring or a bangle of gold in front of your eyes and decide what the thing is. It is correct that the thing is a bangle. But then what is a bangle? It is name of a shape, where, in this case the material is gold. It is just a shape made out of Gold that we call bangle.


I do not have any doubt on Upanishadic teaching that all this is 'form and name', wherein the material is consciousness, which is a state of the SELF. Losing, the concepts of name and shape, as in samadhi and sleep, what remains is the material, whose will (UMA) makes the material come up as different shapes.

One will find in Mandukya Upanishad:

5. When one sleepeth and yearneth not with any desire, nor seeth any dream, that is the perfect slumber, who is become Oneness, who is wisdom gathered into itself, who is made of pure delight, who enjoyeth delight unrelated, to whom conscious mind is the door, Prajna, the Lord of Wisdom, He is the third.

6. This is the Almighty, this is the Omniscient, this is the Inner Soul, this is the Womb of the Universe, this is the Birth and Destruction of creatures.


Pragnya is the womb, wherefrom comes everything and wherein exists everything. It is the Lord. Yogi who can see the Pragnya to be ONE and ALL, can then enquire "To who this Pragnya belongs?".

---------

What I wish to convey is that a wave is an expression of shakti of ocean -- the material. But a wave is not a being, that a comparison of quantity and quality can be made between ocean (which is ONE WHOLE including the wave) and a wave, which merlely is a shape of expression of joy of the OCEAN. Wave is a name of dancing ocean. It is a concept. The real material is ONE WITHOUT A SECOND. Comparison of quantity and quality can only happen in states beneath Pragnya, since even Pragnya is ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

On the other hand, when it is clearly known that beneath the concept of shape, the wave is nothing but the material -- the ocean, then again ONE WITHOUT A SECOND. That is full and this is full. Full only remains. It is my settled opinion, that comparisons are possible is states but not in reality, which is advaita Self. Of course there will be people like Nirotu who will say "In Creation ------", without examining whether there is creation or not?

Om Namah Shivaya


To repeat the exercise:

Just keep a ring or a bangle of gold in front of your eyes and decide what the thing is. It is correct that the thing is a bangle. But then what is a bangle? It is name of a shape, where, in this case the material is gold.

atanu
01 August 2007, 07:15 AM
---

Waves are mainly caused by wind, underwater disturbances like seismic events and to some extent the moon and tides.

---



Say what Willie? Wave would not form in absence of water and air. Water would not exist in absence of fire, which would not exist in absence of air. All these would not exist in absence of ether. Nothing would exist in absence of Mahat, which would not exist in absence of Hiraynagarbha.

And if the Seer was not there, then Hiryanagarbha would be nought.

yajvan
01 August 2007, 09:11 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste All,

Yes wave may be equated to an individual and the ocean to the consciousness/Brahman. But wrt to quality and quantity, I cannot agree. Sometime back some intuition struck me with a great force and I will try to replicate here. I may fail. I am not saying that the example is new. But the example was illuminated when I contemplated on the following.

Just keep a ring or a bangle of gold in front of your eyes and decide what the thing is. It is correct that the thing is a bangle. But then what is a bangle? It is name of a shape, where, in this case the material is gold. It is just a shape made out of Gold that we call bangle.


I do not have any doubt on Upanishadic teaching that all this is 'form and name', wherein the material is consciousness, which is a state of the SELF. Losing, the concepts of name and shape, as in samadhi and sleep, what remains is the material, whose will (UMA) makes the material come up as different shapes.

One will find in Mandukya Upanishad:

5. When one sleepeth and yearneth not with any desire, nor seeth any dream, that is the perfect slumber, who is become Oneness, who is wisdom gathered into itself, who is made of pure delight, who enjoyeth delight unrelated, to whom conscious mind is the door, Prajna, the Lord of Wisdom, He is the third.

6. This is the Almighty, this is the Omniscient, this is the Inner Soul, this is the Womb of the Universe, this is the Birth and Destruction of creatures.


Pragnya is the womb, wherefrom comes everything and wherein exists everything. It is the Lord. Yogi who can see the Pragnya to be ONE and ALL, can then enquire "To who this Pragnya belongs?".

---------

What I wish to convey is that a wave is an expression of shakti of ocean -- the material. But a wave is not a being, that a comparison of quantity and quality can be made between ocean (which is ONE WHOLE including the wave) and a wave, which merlely is a shape of expression of joy of the OCEAN. Wave is a name of dancing ocean. It is a concept. The real material is ONE WITHOUT A SECOND. Comparison of quantity and quality can only happen in states beneath Pragnya, since even Pragnya is ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

On the other hand, when it is clearly known that beneath the concept of shape, the wave is nothing but the material -- the ocean, then again ONE WITHOUT A SECOND. That is full and this is full. Full only remains. It is my settled opinion, that comparisons are possible is states but not in reality, which is advaita Self. Of course there will be people like Nirotu who will say "In Creation ------", without examining whether there is creation or not?

Om Namah Shivaya


To repeat the exercise:

Just keep a ring or a bangle of gold in front of your eyes and decide what the thing is. It is correct that the thing is a bangle. But then what is a bangle? It is name of a shape, where, in this case the material is gold.

Nasmaste Atanu,
First let me say thank you for thinking this through... the post on this is gaining strength and direction. So for us to develop these notions before we get to Brahman, Atman, avastha (states), etc is a good thing.
I think we all can agree, we are developing, poking at the things we understand. It is not about right or wrong ideas, but getting a common view so we can actually take this consciousness discussion to more meaningful levels.

That said let me lay out a few ideas and contribute:

I concur on the bangle ; for me it is an expression of the gold. No matter how many times we chose to melt it down and remold it to a new shape e.g. a ring, an earring, a gold nail, etc. in essence it is still the gold.
Regarding the wave. For me the analogy works; I am not trying to convince anyone that this is the riveting metaphor that holds the concept of consciousness to jiva together. I see the wave as and expression of the ocean. Saidevo and ZN see it just a bit differently but not so different as it blows up the meaning that is inferred. So the wave/ocean as a tool allows us to have a common ground, as does the bangle.
Now we start getting closer to the true values of the conversation... of the expression of consciousness and how one discusses it. This is the diamond , the gold of the discussion. That is, one can see this is pure consciousness in total or one can see this as the Samkayan's view it, as Purusha and Praktriti - but we're not there just yet.
If I can ask us to hold off just a few more posts on this, because there still needs to be a discussion to gain more comfort & compare and contrast the notion of this consciousness we use - that is this following notion;
The seer ( me, and you) the organs of perception ( our eyes, our senses, etc) and the object that is seen or experienced [I]are all one thing. Why do I mention this ? This is the practical side of this conversation - this is, where the wave and the ocean analogy meet, the bangle and the ring meet. This is what this is saying - that me, the seer, the experiencer, is part and parcel part of the seeing process and the object that is being seen. Tieing creation together.
We need to explore the above because this is a fundamental understanding for future conversations on Brahman+Atman+Consciousness. If we go to this level of discussion with out the practical implications of our personal experience of seer-and-seen, we have done a dis-service to the reader. We would be going to an abstract level with no 'ladder' to get ourselves in and out of. Making this a a real experience is key, a daily idea that one can ponder in the shower, or on the train to work... this is the value I am in hopes we can tease out of this grand conversation. To make it real , every day. I hope I can ask for your [ all of you posting to this thread ] assistance on this. This is the diamond that is locked inside the rock.... lets see if we can get it out.pranams,

atanu
01 August 2007, 11:24 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

-----The seer ( me, and you) the organs of perception ( our eyes, our senses, etc) and the object that is seen or experienced are all one thing. -----pranams,




Namaste Yajvan Ji,


Again I add a bit. The seer -- me and you, does not work for me, since ego cannot be the seer. The ego is the questioner. Whatever is seen I only see. The doubters also I only see. The opposers I only see. The supporters I only see. My body I only see. Others who verify existence of my body as me, I only see.

But this "I" has not been found on extensive enquiry. The lifeless body does not say I and none of the sense organs or the brain are capable of saying "I". There is infinitely more to this I.


It is a mystery.



XII-12: May He, the Lord, join us with beneficial remembrance – He who is superior to all, who has been revealed in the Vedas, who is the Supreme Seer and who sees Hiranyagarbha who is the first among the gods and who is born before all the rest.


XII-13: Other than whom there is nothing higher, nothing minuter, nothing greater, by that Purusha – the One who stands still like a tree established in heaven – all this is filled.



Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
01 August 2007, 11:54 AM
Namaste.



The seer (me, and you) the organs of perception (our eyes, our senses, etc) and the object that is seen or experienced are all one thing.


This famous assertion of Advaitic Unity of life and consciousness behind all manifestations is known to us only metaphysically and experienced mystically. Now that we are discussing the physical expression of Consciousness, can we check the validity of this truth?

Here, I look at the golden bangle and know that whether form or substance, it is a metal. I look at a plant, at my puppy and then at myself or at a friend sitting opposite me. I wonder: how can they all be the same? Surely there is something nutty with metaphysics that asserts there is the same identical life force and consciousness present in all these--okay, manifestations.

If you want me to carefully look at a golden bangle and ask me what exactly do I see, my obvious answer would be that it is a bangle first and then only gold. My physical sense of vision, my eyes do see the bangle and the gold in it, sure, but the form overwhelmingly hides the content. If you want me to perceive it as gold, I would need to have it flattened into no shape or form. All the while, though, I know that it is just gold, that the form is only superficial, but I don't realize the truth with conviction. I don't think I shall ever have such realization, unless I do something special (spiritual?) about it.

Such being the case with me, the assertion that the bangle and the plant and the puppy and I are the same is bewildering to me. Unless I have physical and scientific proof, I would rather find it impossible to get convinced in the physical waking state, so that wherever I look, I would learn to look for the same life and consciousness. If some empirical proof at least to their fundamental similarity if not identity could be given it could go a long way for me.

Is there any such empirical proof? There is.

The first empirical proof is that the gold bangle and plant and puppy and I are identical at our atomic and sub-atomic levels. We are all made of the same bricks of matter.

But what about life and consciousness? Am I not smarter than my puppy which is smarter than the plant which for its part is smarter than the glittering gold bangle, which is obviously is the dullest--though most glittering--of the lot? And is not smartness a measure of life and intelligence?

Dr. Jagadish Chandra Bose, a famouse Indian scientist, developed an apparatus that he called Crescograph and conducted experiments on how the above four classes of existence (the mineral, vegetable, animal and humand kingdoms) react to stimuli. To the astonishment of the world, he found and proved that the reaction was very near identical with metal and plant and animal and man! Here are some quotes from his research papers he submitted to the scientific community, as presented in Annie Besant's book A Study in Consciousness:



Tetanus, both complete and incomplete, due to repeated shocks, was caused, and similar results accrued, in mineral as in muscle.

Fatigue was shown by metals, least of all by tin. Chemical re-agents, such as drugs, produced similar results on metals with those known to result with animals - exciting, depressing, and deadly. (By deadly is meant resulting in the destruction of the power of response.)

A poison will kill a metal, inducing a condition of immobility, so that no response is obtainable. If the poisoned metal be taken in time, an antidote may save its life.

A stimulant will increase response, and as large and small doses of a drug have been found to kill and stimulate respectively, so have they been found to act on metals. "Among such phenomena," asks Professor Bose, "how can we draw a line of demarcation and say: Here the physical process ends, and there the physiological begins? No such barriers exist."

Professor Bose has carried on a similar series of experiments on plants, and has obtained similar results. A fresh piece of cabbage stalk, a fresh leaf, or other vegetable body, can be stimulated and will show similar curves; it can be fatigued, excited, depressed, poisoned. There is something rather pathetic in seeing the way in which the tiny spot of light, which records the pulses in the plant, travels, in ever weaker and weaker curves, when the plant is under the influence of poison, falls into a final despairing straight line, and - stops. The plant is dead. One feels as though a murder had been committed - as indeed it has.


Professor Bose's experiments were followed up by other scientists.



Mr. Marcus Reed has made microscopical observations which show the presence of consciousness in the vegetable kingdom. He has observed symptoms as of fright when tissue is injured, and further he has seen that male and female cells, floating in the sap, become aware of each other’s presence without contact; the circulation quickens, and they put out processes towards each other.

More than three years after the publication of Professor Bose’s experiments, some interesting confirmation of his observations arose in the course of M. Jean Becquerel’s study of the N-rays, communicated by him to the Paris Academy of Sciences. Animals under chloroform cease to emit these rays, and they are never emitted by a corpse. Flowers normally emit them, but under chloroform the emanation ceases. Metals also emit them, and under chloroform the emanation again ceases. Thus animals, flowers, and metals alike give out these rays, and alike cease to emanate them under the action of chloroform.


With such proven scientific experiments that seek to establish the fundamental unity and identity of life and consciousness between all that I have been taught hitherto as animate life and inanimate objects, I think that the next time I would be careful not to drop my metal tumbler when I pick it up to drink water. I would water my plants daily and be wary of over pruning them (the last time I did too much pruning to my hibiscus plant, it refused to blossom for a whole fortnight though it was blooming all over until the previous day!), treat my puppy with love and try to be less moody with myself and others.

yajvan
01 August 2007, 02:52 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste.

With such proven scientific experiments that seek to establish the fundamental unity and identity of life and consciousness between all that I have been taught hitherto as animate life and inanimate objects,.

Namste Saidevo,
thank you for this great post. It is very rewarding to see that science can lend a helping hand. That this commonality is there. I see this too as the commonality of akasha. Science wonders at this, as when they look into matter or into the Universe its mostly akasha. Here's a common theme, as if there is no space , then there is no place for things to exist.
Hence, akasha is the first fundamantal tattva. Even finer then this akasha is pure consciousness, yet lets hold on this.

One thing that you mention is the commonality of things, of the tree, puppy, bangle, etc. This is the fundamental principle of the Madhu Brahmanana, found in the Brihadaranyaka. If others are interested we have posted this concept on HDF posts ( if one is interested):

1. Post one on space in the universe: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1441
2. Interconnectedness of everything: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=10629#post10629


last point " The seer (me, and you) the organs of perception (our eyes, our senses, etc) and the object that is seen or experienced are all one thing" - this is the subject matter of Adi Shankara, called Drg-Drsya-Viveka, or the discrimination between the seer and the seen. This is offered if some care to look at this further. Ramakrsna Asram I think may still have this work.

pranams,

Nuno Matos
01 August 2007, 03:29 PM
Namaste

"this is the subject matter of Adi Shankara, called Drg-Drsya-Viveka, or the discrimination between the seer and the seen. This is offered if some care to look at this further. Ramakrsna Asram I think may still have this work."



I have this work i.e. Drg-Drsya-Viveka in Spanish. If some one is interested please E-mail me i will send you the book.

saidevo
01 August 2007, 08:15 PM
Namaste Yajvan, Nuno Matos.

HDF is fast becoming a source of self-contained reference for Hinduism. Here is a brief on the work dR^ig dR^ishya vivekaH posted by me here:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1536

willie
01 August 2007, 09:37 PM
Still caught up on the ocean and the wave thing . Seems that most have not heard of being becalmed, where there are not waves at all and the ocean is as smooth as a piece of glass. It happens rarely and the navy use to send out boats from the main ship to photograph the ship when it happened. Quite an interesting picture.

The there is the sun sending out waves of photons through a vacuum to keep all life on earth going. And the fire of the sun is burning up the periodic table not down it.

If a person wants to talk about the ocean then brahman could be the moon. Sitting out in space affecting the ocean , as if by magic, causing the tides to rise and fall at timed intervals. And then look at the salinety of ocean water compared to the salinety of human blood. And while most would say the the moon cannot affect humans talk to the people who work in the emergency room and for the police about full moon nights.

atanu
02 August 2007, 08:47 AM
Namaste.

----
If you want me to carefully look at a golden bangle and ask me what exactly do I see, my obvious answer would be that it is a bangle first and then only gold. My physical sense of vision, my eyes do see the bangle and the gold in it, sure, but the form overwhelmingly hides the content. If you want me to perceive it as gold, I would need to have it flattened into no shape or form. All the while, though, I know that it is just gold, that the form is only superficial, but I don't realize the truth with conviction. I don't think I shall ever have such realization, unless I do something special (spiritual?) about it.

----


Namaste Saidevoji,

May be some day suddenly, like a flash, one will be convinced "Oh, the bangle is just a name of a shape in the collective consciousness".

Then further, if one followed the prescriptions similar to Ramana Maharshi's, one would realise, ----- well one would see the connection between consciousness and its shapes and names. The names are known in the consciousness (and by the consciousness) and the shapes are known in the consciousness (and by the cosciousness). However, what is further illuminated in flashes is the link from Pragnya to Taijjassa to Vaisvanaro. I believe that these are the real three steps of Vishnu and in the dust of these three steps the whole Universe is gathered.


The I awareness everywhere is subtle and intelligent but the objects do not have intrinsic awareness.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
02 August 2007, 08:58 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Still caught up on the ocean and the wave thing . Seems that most have not heard of being becalmed, where there are not waves at all and the ocean is as smooth as a piece of glass. It happens rarely and the navy use to send out boats from the main ship to photograph the ship when it happened. Quite an interesting picture.

The there is the sun sending out waves of photons through a vacuum to keep all life on earth going. And the fire of the sun is burning up the periodic table not down it.

If a person wants to talk about the ocean then brahman could be the moon. Sitting out in space affecting the ocean , as if by magic, causing the tides to rise and fall at timed intervals. And then look at the salinety of ocean water compared to the salinety of human blood. And while most would say the the moon cannot affect humans talk to the people who work in the emergency room and for the police about full moon nights.




Dear Willie , thank you for your assessment here:

sun sending out waves of photons - concur
ocean is as smooth as a piece of glass - yep, happens
brahman could be the moon - yes, as Brahman is everything, even you and me, Willie
emergency room and for the police about full moon nights - yes, the moon influences manas - a key point in JyotishYet , Willie, these analogies, the ocean , we are headed to explain a subtle idea of consciousness. We are using these metaphors to help the mind get a grasp on something that is not discussed on a daily basis. It's really is not about the ocean, or the projector, or the candle, really.... its about the fabric of consciousness.

Wanted to let you know because we are now moving on, the ocean has served its purpose. If you care to talk about protons, and the billions of neutrino's that pass though ones finger each milli-second, an pi-mesons , bosons, fliptons, etc. we can, yet, let me recommend we continue over on the Science folder of HDF and we can have a lively discussion there. As for now , we are taking this chitta idea to the next conversation platform.
.

Thanks ,

saidevo
03 August 2007, 01:58 AM
Namaste Atanu ji.



May be some day suddenly, like a flash, one will be convinced "Oh, the bangle is just a name of a shape in the collective consciousness".


I have always appreciated in my mind your spiritual progress in Advaita to the extent that you are able to prioritize the underlying unity in your thoughts, feelings and emotions. You are the bedrock of Advaita in HDF against which dvaitic and adharmic wave currents break and get weakened.

I feel that you have perhaps mistaken my words on your analogy of the gold bangle, specially the words "which is obviously is the dullest--though most glittering--of the lot?", and think that I have found fault with your idea. I need to explain myself.

Yajvan ji has sought our help to explain the nature, expression and role of Consciousness in simple terms to a neophyte seeker. So the 'I' of my post is not me but a neophyte, as you would have surely understood. (I suppose myself to have slightly more travelled than the neophyte on the road to Advaita, which is my path). Here we try to explain the physical expression of Consciousness drawing analogies that suit our purposes. Since the manifestation of life and consciousness in the physical world is in the four kingdoms (mineral, vegetable, animal and human), I chose an example from each.

You would have noticed that the neophyte seeker when he/she learns about the backing of science he/she feels more convinced and comfortable to contemplate on the metaphysics behind the concepts. As a first step he/she ends up learning more and more to look at the fundamental unity and identity in physical manifestation seen in the waking state.

When the discussion progresses to the trans-physical states, it would be more appropriate to introduce the concepts of Taijasa, Prajna and Turiya and how Consciousness expresses itself in those level, displaying the unity of things more and more.

I hope you have understood that it will never be intention to doubt the Advaita behind manifestation, though in practice it is easier and necessary to get well grounded in the Karma and Bhakti Yoga paths.

sarabhanga
03 August 2007, 03:05 AM
This famous assertion of Advaitic Unity of life and consciousness behind all manifestations is known to us only metaphysically and experienced mystically.

Is there any such empirical proof? There is.

... N-rays ...

With such proven scientific experiments ...


Namaste Saidevo,

I completely agree with the thesis of universal consciousness, but the existence of N-rays was disproved 100 years ago! :rolleyes:

N-rays are merely an artefact of wishful thinking, and certainly not scientific proof of anything (except poor experimental design).

atanu
03 August 2007, 08:01 AM
Namaste Atanu ji.

-----
I feel that you have perhaps mistaken my words on your analogy of the gold bangle, specially the words "which is obviously is the dullest--though most glittering--of the lot?", and think that I have found fault with your idea. I need to explain myself.

-----
I hope you have understood that it will never be intention to doubt the Advaita behind manifestation, though in practice it is easier and necessary to get well grounded in the Karma and Bhakti Yoga paths.

Namaste Saidevoji,

Actually, I thought that your post in question shows positively the effect of enquiring what a bangle is. Towards that end, I tried to re-inforce the need of a subtle thinking/appreciation, by repeating the analogies. The point is that these intuitional flashes and realisation of the verities of Upanishadic teachings will not dawn till one is subtle.

Your point is very well taken. It is true that Bhakti and selfless Karma are the basic requirements, but contemplation leads to intuitional flashes --- that I personally associate with Lord Indra. Bhakti and Karma, without jnana, may have the effect of stabilizing one in duality forever.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 August 2007, 08:26 AM
Namaste Atanu ji.

----
You would have noticed that the neophyte seeker when he/she learns about the backing of science he/she feels more convinced and comfortable to contemplate on the metaphysics behind the concepts. -----.

Namaste Saidevoji,

I agree that examples have to be appropriate. But there is always a limitation, since, an outgoing mind, is too egoistic. It never cares to bother about the ONE that is thinking/understanding/conceptualising/teaching/getting confused/getting illuminated etc. etc..

Once a very famed scientist went to Shri Ramana. He said that Relativity theory of Eisnstein supports Advaita, since relativity proves that two different observers in different frame of time-space will perceive the Universe differently. Ramana did not take a second to ask "Who is observing these two observers and what is his framework?"

The point is that science is not the support of sruti and meditative knowledge, rather sruti can illuminate scientists.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
03 August 2007, 09:07 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga.

Thank you for your correction. Annie Besant thought that the N-rays were vibrations in the 'Etheric Double' of the physical body, made of what she and Leadbeater classified as the higher four states of ether over the solid, liquid and gaseous states. There are significant differences in the classification of the vestures of the human soul between the Blavatsky school and the Besant/Leadbeater school of Theosophy, the former being more based on the concepts in Hinduism and Buddhism than the latter.

However, there are certain things like the psychokinesis, psychometry and telepathy that use some mysterious form of energy that is not explained by means of the electromagnetic hypothesis. N-rays was thought to explain these phenomena, but now, having disproved it, scientists are yet to explain the nature and source of such energy.

yajvan
03 August 2007, 09:28 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Saidevoji,

Actually, I thought that your post in question forcefully concretizes the effect of enquiring what a bangle is. Towards that end, I tried to re-inforce the need of a subtle thinking/appreciation, by repeating the analogies. The point is that these intuitional flashes and realisation of the verities of Upanishadic teachings will not dawn till one is subtle.
Om Namah Shivaya

Namate Atanu, saidevo, sarabhanga, (et.al)

I too think the conversation so far have been insightful and beneficial to those that wish to get a better understanding of this consciousness. The metaphors have been excellent, as the examples thereof.

I think we are now ready to click down one additional level that is to taijasa, prajna and turiya, etc. Now, lets get to here without a freefall all the way to 'Brahman is everything' - the ultimate Truth, but lets mingle in this area of expressed consciousness of wake, dream , sleep and the 4th and the implications thereof.


I encourage all that may find the conversation too esoteric to stop us and question the approach we are taking, as the authors here are delighted to expand the explanations... please feel comfortable you are among friends here, and we are happy to compare and contrast more ideas. You are ultimately qualified to ask any question, because you are a user of this pristine consciousness, a stake holder and shareholder, so all questions on this are open. We will answer the best we can.

Until someone stands up and humbly says ' Aham veda etam mahantam purusham' - I know this mighty Being, that is, I am established in Brahman, in the SELF, we are all students of life. And it is tradition to pass on what we know , the best we can, to others that have interest. When that happens on HDF, when one established in the SELF stands, then we will have the Brahmavit that will remove the doubts for us.


Like the night, the stars come out to brighten the sky the best they can, until that dawn (Usa) and the brightness of Surya rises, and no shadows remain; the stars in the sky with just their twinkles do the best to advance the light. Like that we offer this as service to you...

pranams,

Znanna
03 August 2007, 08:23 PM
... back to the bangle ...


Maybe it's a girl thingy, but to me the concept of gold bangle has more to do with the way it looks and feels on my wrist!

Yummy is my reference for such :)


Love,
ZN

willie
03 August 2007, 09:22 PM
If you take a bangle to different places , people would have different names for it and some might not have ever seen anything like it. I would like to do a fire assay for it and see how much of it was real gold and how much was pot metal.

Stars do not come out at night , they are alway there. Just waiting for the darkness to reveal them. If you can find a place where the sky is really dark and there are no lights around for miles you can see the three dimensional aspect of star clusters. And to think that they are all suns that might have planets orbiting around them. It gives a person a feeling of being part of something much bigger than this piece of dark matter we are living on.

atanu
03 August 2007, 11:20 PM
Whatever. Whether a girly thingy as for ZN or a romantic thingy as for Willie, a bangle is a name of a shape, first and foremost.

Willie, as usual, jumps ahead and describes what he wants to do with the concept, and then loses track of what he wanted to say. That is not the point.

But that is the point as well.

The name of bangle has evoked so many different emotions and preferences. It is said that I awareness (which is a bindu) grows unlimited like this.

Om

yajvan
04 August 2007, 04:04 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste,

Now that we had a day or so for input, lets move on.

Lets address waking, dream and sleeping states of consciousness that gets us to turiya the 4th. This forth is sometimes called kutastha or immutable, not subject to change ( from kuta ~ summit + stha or stand).

We all experience waking state (I hope!). Some call this visva. Over all people believe, in general that this is reality; that compared to other states one experiences, people in general believe that this state of form and objects is truth or satyam. I do not concur, but for now lets get through the 3 states at present.

So this awareness, this consciousness serves the individual during this time, in work, play, sometimes day-dreaming too. Yet the mind is active, and the body is active. We are aware and applying consciousness to some activity.

A key principle - the mind-body connection is tightly coupled. Both influence each other, yes? And this will have a say in this conversation. Just some examples here ( Note: no metaphors, or analogies are used here Willie; thought to let you know ahead of time, so there is no confusion. )


Fight or flight responses to challenging conditions - this is usually sited, as the changes are striking as how fear triggers multiple gland secretions, etc.
Adrenaline responses to mental stimulation - various movies one watches. That is where one is not in any danger in ones living room, but a persons palms are sweating; Another is hazardous conditions where one reacts and gains additional strength to cope with a condition.
Mental dis-stress that creates physical abnormalities - health symptoms triggered by stress and strain
Physical stimulus that brings mental reactions - both pleasurable or unpleasurable
Mental conditioning e.g. karate, etc. that is ability to change the 'image' of the body in ones mind for a short period to accomplish a task.
Mental relaxation that brings calmness to the body - music, nature walks,etc. - A stimulus that is favorably received by the body for relaxation.In dream state, REM state, some call this taijasa. The mind is still active and chooses to offer the individual a different level of experience. Consciousness-applied is active and people have all kinds of dreams. I have talked to a few that say they do not dream, and are adamant about their experience. And I meet others that say, they dream in color, 3D, that they can influence the dream, etc.

In dream state the mind is active and the body is inactive , less some fidgeting, or muscle twinges that have not been arrested by hormone secretions that are designed to keep the body still i.e. from acting on the dreams.

Deep sleep Non-REM, some call this prajana. The experience is that of nothing. People often said, I slept well, and the associated experience was that of no-experience.

In deep sleep neither the body or the mind is active. All the senses are withdrawn as they say. We will talk of this later and I will assume Saidevo or Atanu or others may go deeper here because it is is a very special state of being.
In the Upanishads (Mandukyopanishad), the wise call this the 3rd quarter. Hence the 1st quarter is waking, the 2nd quarter is dreaming, and this is 3rd quarter.

In the next few posts we will discuss how this 'sleep' = the absence of divisional consciousness i.e. duality. This is one measure of enlightenment, the destruction, some say arrest , of mental fluxuations, yet when one wakes the fluxuations return. Brahma-jnana (or direct knowledge of Brahman) did not stick. More on this as we look to the spiritual side of each state.

So if this is the 3rd quarter (3/4th's) what then is the 4th? Literally it is turiya, the 4th.

But you say, hey wait a minute, I have experienced the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters. I do not recall experiencing this 4th quarter. EXACTLY. This is what the rishi's and swami's and pundit's (and Krsna as Jagadguru) have been saying for eons. What of the 4th my friend? Why have you not experienced the 4th? This is what this conversation is all about. To bring your attention to the 4th to be aware that there is even a 4th. We are missing this experience.

More on this from others … as this will set-up the next several posts. That is, this turiya cannot be described in words as it limits and constricts what it is, and what it is not. But we will do the best we can - as this turiya is svatasiddhi - self proved. No scientist or doctor or [fill in the blank] can point to IT and say there it is, right there as that would contain IT, and that is not possible.

So we try and describe this turiya with metaphors, alliteration, ideas and concepts because it is so subtle, so delicate, even subtler then akasha. So we will try to give some dimension to this, but in the final analysis, it is you kusala (one proficient in yoga) that will need to experience it via svatasiddha.

dhanyavaad and pranams,

Znanna
04 August 2007, 04:32 PM
More on this from others … as this will set-up the next several posts. That is, this turiya cannot be described in words as it limits and constricts what it is, and what it is not. But we will do the best we can - as this turiya is is svatasiddhi - self proved. No scientist or doctor or [fill in the blank] can point to IT and say there it is, right there as that would contain IT, and that is not possible.

So we try and describe this turiya with metaphors, alliteration, ideas and concepts because it is so subtle, so delicate, even subtler then akasha. So we will try to give some dimension to this, but in the final analysis, it is you kusala (one proficient in yoga) that will need to experience it via svatasiddha.



Namaste,

Very informative post, thank you for introducing me to this term "svatasiddhi", yajvan. However, as dear atanu would say, who is the self that would be doing the proving? :)

I so agree with your comments, in that it seems that there is an implicit contradiction in describing that which has infinite as a root. Also, this is why I've not sought initiation; I try where possible to go directly to the Source for attribution. (Hope that doesn't offend, sorry if it does.) On the other hand, I think I understand how a Guru, like an artist, can convey meaning in pure expression, a beautiful thing.

I've been studying the Shakta hymns (thanks to Nora et al), and am constantly amazed at the precision both literally and figuratively of description which they embody. And, it seems to me that Sanskrit, as a language, itself, somehow contains a balance which is implicit in sri yantra and the many other representations in form of that which - and is not - Formless.



ZN
/student

yajvan
04 August 2007, 06:09 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste,

Very informative post, thank you for introducing me to this term "svatasiddhi", yajvan. However, as dear atanu would say, who is the self that would be doing the proving? ZN /student

Namaskar ZN,
thank you for the post... the answer to your question is on the way! I bet Atanu will post this... but with your kind permission and cooperation, we're building this concept point-by-point. So all of us can follow along and connect the dots. We are all very positive and wanting to contribute and get to the answer . Yet when one looks back in the rear view mirror there was no road they see as how they go to it. Our goal here for this post is to take it a piece at a time and let folks poke around a bit and get some comfort.

It is getting to this 'reality' to this 4th, and not making it foreign or so esoteric is the goal at hand. So all can see that it is possible to undersand this, that one need not be a swami, or guru, or muni. That everyones lineage of Brahman is within us all...


dhanyavaad and pranams

Znanna
04 August 2007, 06:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskar ZN,
thank you for the post... the answer to your question is on the way! I bet Atanu will post this... but with your kind permission and cooperation, we're building this concept point-by-point. So all of us can follow along and connect the dots. We are all very positive and wanting to contribute and get to the answer . Yet when one looks back in the rear view mirror there was no road they see as how they go to it. Our goal here for this post is to take it a piece at a time and let folks poke around a bit and get some comfort.

It is getting to this 'reality' to this 4th, and not making it foreign or so esoteric is the goal at hand. So all can see that it is possible to undersand this, that one need not be a swami, or guru, or muni. That everyones lineage of Brahman is within us all...


dhanyavaad and pranams


LOL

Sorry for putting the cart ahead of the horse ... it reminds me of when I did an algebra test using Pythagorean's theorum as "showing my work" :P I make strange connections, please forgive me for my chaoticness!


Love,
ZN

willie
04 August 2007, 08:57 PM
In the rem state I know a lot of people who have solved some tough problems while in that state. Maybe a lot of people have been to the 4th state and just don't remember it. These rishi's might just have been lucky enought to have remember being in it.

Hopefully there will be some pet scan to look at and perhaps some news of the recent german experiment in trying to decern if people are telling the truth or not. Now there is some cutting edge research.

yajvan
05 August 2007, 10:36 AM
Hari Om
~~~~

In the rem state I know a lot of people who have solved some tough problems while in that state. Maybe a lot of people have been to the 4th state and just don't remember it. These rishi's might just have been lucky enough to have remember being in it.




Hello Willie,
a most excellent post... That is exactly right, many visit this 4th, not even aware of what it was. I know many that have done this using a different venue other then meditation e.g. music. They tell me of this experience and they like it, but not sure what it was, yet know it was good, wholesome, etc.

Now where is this experience found innocently?

In samdhya, the gap or the in-between time. for many this samdhya is the 'in between time' found in the 24 hr periods. The time of dawn and then in the evening twilight, where its not all one quality of Day or all one quality night.
Like that, there are these gaps also in consciousness, not all waking, not all sleep, not all sleep not all dream. These are the conscious gaps.
In those gaps it is generally easier to experience ( best word I have as I type, but not accurate) this turiya at this time... that is way it has been 'classical' to have meditation times during these samdhya of the day. These gap times of day and night are more supportive for meditation and for the gap to shine through.
How can this be assisted by the individual? By sama - or calmness, even-ness. This is the point of meditation , to calm the fluctuations of the mind to to give it an opportunity to experience this gap. There is noting one has to do ... it is just to allow the mind to settle down. This turiya is there, it does not have to be built.

As Krsna says "calmness is said to be the means." (Chapt 6.3 Bhagavad Gita)What the risi's suggest is this turiya is not foreign to us ... it is part and parcel part of Being. All that are human are welcomed to experience this. I am in hopes on this post we get to that level of discussion.

Thank you for the post as this definitely moves the conversation forward.

Kaos
05 August 2007, 10:54 AM
Hopefully there will be some pet scan to look at and perhaps some news of the recent german experiment in trying to decern if people are telling the truth or not. Now there is some cutting edge research.




While all these cutting edge research sounds nice and fancy, scientists are basically going round and round in circles and ending up in same spot they began with.


Science talks of the relativeness, and yet does not say what is the absolute. The only absolute is brahman.


This is the nescience that scientists insists to be called science.

Scientists talk about trying to find proof, evidence. They don't even know what mind is, what is consciousness, let alone the Absolute.

Of course, scientists conducting all these research experiments because it uses up government funds, research grants and make them look like they know what they're doing. ;)

willie
05 August 2007, 08:58 PM
In the last few years brain research has moved lightyears forward. The brain work with electro chemical mechanisms. The beauty of the pet scan is that it works with and active brain and can tell which parts of the brain is active during a certain process. It is fast for a scan and is shows the readers the active brain, so when the thougths change the display changes in real time.

A down side is that it uses a short term radioactive material material attached to sugar. A lot of people don't like the radioactive idea at all. Then there is the cost, the radioactive material is not cheap and some scans can cost 6000 for the tracer alone.

If we could get someone who could get to this 4th state reliable then we could see what part of the brain was active and then find out how to make it active more and more. It seems that someone should have done this by now.

sarabhanga
05 August 2007, 11:45 PM
Science talks of the relativeness, and yet does not say what is the absolute. The only absolute is brahman.

Scientists talk about trying to find proof, evidence. They don't even know what mind is, what is consciousness, let alone the Absolute.


In relativity, the one absolute is Light. All matter is ultimately created from photons (in various combinations), and these photons define space and time by their own existence. But from the perspective of free photons (electromagnetic radiation) or anything that moves at the same speed as light, there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And attaining the speed of light is only possible by shedding all material nature and becoming one with light itself.

The break comes when science asks how and why this light (which has all been present since the first moment of creation) was originally produced. Was the “Big Bang” a spontaneous event (simply because “nature abhors a vacuum”), or was it caused (and in which case, what is the cause)? And from this point science understands that all is pure speculation and personal opinion.

In absolute singularity (or advaita) there is no reference for any normal relations or reactions, and empirical evidence or even the idea of observation is impossible, because such things (by their nature) require a framework of duality.

And God said “Let there be Light”. :)

No scientific hypothesis (apart from purely abstract mathematical or logical arguments) can ever be absolutely proven. Hypotheses may be disproved, but those still standing are known by all scientists to be our “best guess” at the present time.

I can see no particular division between true Religion and true Science, and I would say that spiritualists who scoff at all science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at all religion.

atanu
06 August 2007, 03:38 AM
------
I can see no particular division between true Religion and true Science, and I would say that spiritualists who scoff at all science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at all religion.


Nicely said. This is true, in general of most divisions.

Highest scientists have acknowledged that it is easier to examine the seen, but it rather impossible to examine the seer and his origin, with mind.

yajvan
06 August 2007, 09:33 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Good conversations by all.

As we look to these 4/4th's - waking, dreaming , sleep, and turiya, it is turiya that is next to spend some time on.

For many it is something that may be sensed but not experienced, for others, it may be an experience that is in-describable; for some, not even an idea of what this is - a foreign concept that is new to them and this may be the first time [on HDF posts] they have heard of this notion. And its all okay. Turiya exists with or without ones knowledge of it.

This turiya is unchangable and indescribable - so saying what it is outright challanges the english langage we use, as it limits or constricts the truth (satyam) of this 4th.

Patanjali-ji (author of Yoga Darsana or the Yoga sutras) may say , take away all the fluxuations of the the mind, this is where one starts to get to turiya.
What would we take away?
Distraught (ksipta) - perhaps envy and malice; anger
Stupefied (mudha) - obsession and infatuations; greed
Restlessness (viksipta) - the ceaseless fidgeting of the mind; one may go from a calm mind, back to agitated.

These states of mind keep the mind at the surface level , highly engaged with the world; with 'me and mine' concepts of living. It tightly couples action and reaction over and over again. ( more on this in a bit). Theses are the fluxations- the daily activities we cycle though.

Are there states of mind that are favorable?
One pointed mind (ekagra) - that is as one thought fades away, the same exact thought/idea arises anew; consistency of thought

Arrested (nirodhana) - all thoughts are arrested; that is the fluxuations of the mind , through practice, have been arrested, ceased.

The last two are fundamentally the 'technique' to calm the mind, and to expose turiya. Take away everything that the mind is not ( mind stuff as some call it) and what remains? turiya.

More as we practice ekaagra on this subject - to poke around on this matter of turiya a bit more. Lets see what others have to say on this and see if we can address questions , comments and ideas.

I am in hopes some that had or have this experience can comment on their experience to help others?

Let me humbly take a stab at it - I can only explain it with one word.
Clear - this is the only word I can think of that expresses the experience for me. Others may have a different notion; yet this world resonates the best.

Now, before anyone brings this up (and I know the creative folks on HDF will) this word is used in Scientology - I do not practice this and know little about it. Again, I do not want to use worlds (sanskrit) that only makes this experience esoteric ( we will get to the words for this) but lets be simple about it and keep the terms easy on the brain for now.

pranams,

Kaos
06 August 2007, 10:07 AM
I can see no particular division between true Religion and true Science, and I would say that spiritualists who scoff at all science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at all religion.



Pardon me, but you yourself have made a division, in your mind, by stating "true Religion and true Science.", thereby making a distinction between a "true" and a "false".

Are you implying that Sarabhanga alone is privy to what is and what is not "true Religion" and "true Science", all the rest are misguided because Sarabhanga alone can see no particular division whatsoever.

When you have made your position clear, then we can proceed.

saidevo
06 August 2007, 10:42 AM
In the last few years brain research has moved lightyears forward. The brain work with electro chemical mechanisms. The beauty of the pet scan is that it works with and active brain and can tell which parts of the brain is active during a certain process. It is fast for a scan and is shows the readers the active brain, so when the thougths change the display changes in real time.


Does this imply that science believes that human thoughts originate in the human brain, which science believes to be the human mind? Is thought nothing more than a chain of electro-neuro-chemical reactions that flow and activate the sense organs? If so, who/what originates those thought-processes and how? If thoughts are brainy reactions to sensual inputs from the world of observations and that dreams are interplay of the residual currents of those processes, the brain would be practically dead in its thinking areas in deep sleep! If it is, how does it 'wake up' to the normal state?

If science believes in a soul in human body though it can't prove it empirically, then it amounts to science admitting that it is the soul that drives the brain. Where does this soul reside in the body and why can't it originate thoughts being higher in status?

If brain is all there is to the human mind for storage and play out of its thoughts, then everything should be wiped clean at death of the physical body. But time and again stories of reincarnation crop up proving that the 'brain' lives between 'lives'. Not in all cases can these stories be dismissed as false?

Unless science does have some hypothesis about the human soul and mind as trans-physical entities, science would probably be groping in the gross grey matter of the brain for all that a human is.

Kaos
06 August 2007, 11:03 AM
In the last few years brain research has moved lightyears forward. The brain work with electro chemical mechanisms. The beauty of the pet scan is that it works with and active brain and can tell which parts of the brain is active during a certain process. It is fast for a scan and is shows the readers the active brain, so when the thougths change the display changes in real time.




A typical post from these "scientists" wannabees in this forum.
You talk about "electro chemical mechanism", "pet scans" and such.

But what is the origin of these "electro chemical mechanisms" or the source of the intelligence that enables a pet scan to perfom these novel
feats?

When you have presented your scientific evidence, we can proceed the discussion.

atanu
06 August 2007, 11:12 AM
-----
If we could get someone who could get to this 4th state reliable then we could see what part of the brain was active and then find out how to make it active more and more. It seems that someone should have done this by now.


What innocence,

The one who is investigating the brain area is not in Turiya, he is in waking state seeing through eyes/instruments. How will he see/know Turiya? His vision is as good as your's, seeing just blotches of colors.

It may be better to look at a bunch of flowers and feel happy.

yajvan
06 August 2007, 11:52 AM
What innocence,

The one who is investigating the brain area is not in Turiya, he is in waking state seeing through eyes/instruments. How will he see/know Turiya? His vision is as good as your's, seeing just blotches of colors.

It may be better to look at a bunch of flowers and feel happy.


Namaste Atanu,
beautiful...!

AND for those on the light vs. Absolute discussion, I opened a thread ( and added my thoughts) for you folks to continue this conversation over here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1812

[very interesting POV's]

Kaos
06 August 2007, 12:49 PM
It may be better to look at a bunch of flowers and feel happy.




Namaste Atanu,

Well, said. Thank you for providing that insight, as opposed to some of our friends in this forum who seem so much immersed and enamored into this nescience, which they claim to be "science".

Buddha picked up a rose and held it.
The monk, Mahakasyappa merely looked at it and smiled. This is the beginning of Zen.

To a scientist, immersed in nescience, the question of who am "I" or what is a "rose"? is an open ended question, which will never be answered by science alone. As new answers are provided, new questions inevitably arise.

Nuno Matos
06 August 2007, 05:59 PM
Namaste Kaos

" Buddha picked up a rose and held it.
The monk, Mahakasyappa merely looked at it and smiled. This is the beginning of Zen"


That is in fact is the beginning of knowledge!;)

In what concerns Scientific knowledge i suggest you the reading of the Books, " The critic of pure reason " and " The critic of practical reason " by Emanuel Kant. A must for the understanding of modern Scientific knowledge.

Znanna
06 August 2007, 06:36 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Good conversations by all.

As we look to these 4/4th's - waking, dreaming , sleep, and turiya, it is turiya that is next to spend some time on.

For many it is something that may be sensed but not experienced, for others, it may be an experience that is in-describable; for some, not even an idea of what this is - a foreign concept that is new to them and this may be the first time [on HDF posts] they have heard of this notion. And its all okay. Turiya exists with or without ones knowledge of it.

This turiya is unchangable and indescribable - so saying what it is outright challanges the english langage we use, as it limits or constricts the truth (satyam) of this 4th.

Patanjali-ji (author of Yoga Darsana or the Yoga sutras) may say , take away all the fluxuations of the the mind, this is where one starts to get to turiya.
What would we take away?
Distraught (ksipta) - perhaps envy and malice; anger
Stupefied (mudha) - obsession and infatuations; greed
Restlessness (viksipta) - the ceaseless fidgeting of the mind; one may go from a calm mind, back to agitated.

These states of mind keep the mind at the surface level , highly engaged with the world; with 'me and mine' concepts of living. It tightly couples action and reaction over and over again. ( more on this in a bit). Theses are the fluxations- the daily activities we cycle though.

Are there states of mind that are favorable?
One pointed mind (ekagra) - that is as one thought fades away, the same exact thought/idea arises anew; consistency of thought

Arrested (nirodhana) - all thoughts are arrested; that is the fluxuations of the mind , through practice, have been arrested, ceased.

The last two are fundamentally the 'technique' to calm the mind, and to expose turiya. Take away everything that the mind is not ( mind stuff as some call it) and what remains? turiya.

More as we practice ekaagra on this subject - to poke around on this matter of turiya a bit more. Lets see what others have to say on this and see if we can address questions , comments and ideas.

I am in hopes some that had or have this experience can comment on their experience to help others?

Let me humbly take a stab at it - I can only explain it with one word.
Clear - this is the only word I can think of that expresses the experience for me. Others may have a different notion; yet this world resonates the best.

Now, before anyone brings this up (and I know the creative folks on HDF will) this word is used in Scientology - I do not practice this and know little about it. Again, I do not want to use worlds (sanskrit) that only makes this experience esoteric ( we will get to the words for this) but lets be simple about it and keep the terms easy on the brain for now.

pranams,


Namaste,

I like to fancy myself creative, at times :)

I don't know this turiya, but I'd like to put out the notion that when something is everywhere and nowhere, it doesn't really matter what direction one approaches from, since approach itself creates distance and one is already there!

Perhaps I'm putting the cart ahead of the horse again...

"Be Here Now" - Baba Ram Dass

Regarding "clear", or "clarity of intent" ...this is a pointed (masculine) approach, I think. Alternatively, there is "effortless balance" which is the feminine counterpart. Ideally, they are one and the Same, en-twined.


Love,
ZN

yajvan
06 August 2007, 06:36 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Kaos

" Buddha picked up a rose and held it. The monk, Mahakasyappa merely looked at it and smiled. This is the beginning of Zen"
That is in fact is the beginning of knowledge!;)
.


Namaste ,
We have many wise words offered... this is good. We are continuing to unfold turiya. This is our intent here, a better understanding of this pure state, this innocent yet fundamental 4th. IMHO - it boils down to this:
"We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are." ...The Talmud

It is the intent of this post to get to explain things as they are, the pure you - that turns out to be fundamentally the core of you and of all of us. This is turiya, this 4th. And we will proceed to peel this back , bit by bit.

More as we continue this knowledge and as others weigh in. We still owe ZN and answer and we owe Atanu an answer on who is viewing whom when it is all said and done... this is unfolding.

pranams,

sarabhanga
06 August 2007, 07:50 PM
Pardon me, but you yourself have made a division, in your mind, by stating "true Religion and true Science.", thereby making a distinction between a "true" and a "false".

Are you implying that Sarabhanga alone is privy to what is and what is not "true Religion" and "true Science", all the rest are misguided because Sarabhanga alone can see no particular division whatsoever.

When you have made your position clear, then we can proceed.

Science is “the perception of truth” and Religion is “the selection of truth”. Ultimately, there is only one Truth, and both Science and Religion must be seeking the same thing. The superficial details seem quite different, but at the root things are just the same.

And that is why I made comment on quantum physics ~ to show the virtual identity of thought on both sides of the imaginary line (but you don’t seem to have noticed this).

It is not “Sarabhanga alone” who sees the identity (check the recent thread on Newton, for example). Science and Religion were only recently separated, but I do understand that in most people’s minds they have drifted very far apart.

The word “true” in my first statement is admittedly redundant ~ I only used it for emphasis. I am happy to adjust the wording.

I can see no particular division between Religion and Science, and I would say that spiritualists who scoff at ALL science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at ALL religion.

Unlike most people, I have live both as a Hindu Sannyasin and (in earlier years) as an atheist scientist. Ten years of post-graduate research in Science, and ten years of immersion in Sadhu culture, perhaps gives me some reasonable perspective from both sides of the equation.

Since you do seem to find some major difference between Science and Religion, can you please provide your definition of these terms. I know that the methods are somewhat different (and that both camps tend to scoff at the other), but what is there in the essence of these concepts that really makes them irreconcilable?

When you have made your position clear, perhaps we can proceed.

yajvan
06 August 2007, 08:46 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I like to fancy myself creative, at times :)

I don't know this turiya, but I'd like to put out the notion that when something is everywhere and nowhere, it doesn't really matter what direction one approaches from, since approach itself creates distance and one is already there! Perhaps I'm putting the cart ahead of the horse again...

"Be Here Now" - Baba Ram Dass

Regarding "clear", or "clarity of intent" ...this is a pointed (masculine) approach, I think. Alternatively, there is "effortless balance" which is the feminine counterpart. Ideally, they are one and the Same, en-twined.
Love, ZN

Namaste ZN,
I am very familiar with Ram Dass... he points to being here now. that is the only 'time' there is when there is turiya is now. Thank you for bringing this up.

Regarding clear...as with words, they go though ones eyes, mind and value system and bounce around ones synapse and comes out the other side. Let me help you with this word....

It was offered not to suggest male or female, but I guess coming out of my DNA, perhaps it is influenced - I do not know.
The word was offered as the best simple, yet elegant way of defining the experience for me- and caution , mileage may vary. It is not the same for all.
It has zero to do with intent - let me say that again. Intent has no-thing, even slightly, "n o__r o o m__a t__ t h e__ i n n" , to do with clear. It is a total mind-body experience I have been blessed to experience , for me, yajyan at this point of my development. Does this make me different? Special? ABSOLUTELY NOT - I am just one more bozo on the bus.
That is why others with such experiences hold back and they are most certainly misunderstood by those that perhaps have not had this experience as yet.
Why am I harping on this? Because it is of great import to Expect Nothing - if there is expectations, during ones meditation, then there is effort, and effort stops the innocent, delicate process of experiencing turiya. This is Krsna's most insightful guidance - expect nothing, do not be concerned with the fruit of the action - it only gets in the way.
"effortless balance" feels right for me outside of turiya; a beautiful idea here.Hope this helps as you have brought out some key valuable points...thank you.

pranams,

willie
06 August 2007, 09:07 PM
The brain is a sort of slave to hormones that other organs of the body produce. And the neurons use a chemical reaction to produce a small electrical charge that jumps to another neuron to activate it.

I was just reading about a person who have been in a semicoma with low function of the brain for a few years. And after the implantation of a sort of pacemaker it rev up the brain , that person is now talking and moving around. A dramatic improvment.

Sure there are other areas to look at but now we have technology that can look at an active brain and see what parts are being used. The enables us to map out what areas of the brain control or are active under certain condition.

In germany there is research to try to develope machines to tell when people are lying. This would be good for the police.

If the brain is a good reciever the I don't see why brahman could not influence it to have certain thoughts and move knowledge along.

willie
06 August 2007, 09:13 PM
On the fourth state , I heard an interview with a german race car driver that sort of goes along the lines of it . He said the during races , while he was in a straightaway, traveling at 160mph or better, he wondered what his kid was doing at home. What a mind and concentration to think about that in a 2 or 3 second interval and go back to a race.

Anyone who have ever been in a carwreck had probably had the experience , you see it comming and no matter what you do you cannot stop it. Then you come out after the impact.

Some may have done it at work , got so busy that you look up and 2 or 3 hours have passed and all you remember is what you were doing..

atanu
07 August 2007, 10:25 AM
On the fourth state , I heard an interview with a german race car driver that sort of goes along the lines of it . ------
Some may have done it at work , got so busy that you look up and 2 or 3 hours have passed and all you remember is what you were doing..


Sorry that may not be the fourth.

atanu
07 August 2007, 11:43 AM
One who never slumbers is the fourth.


http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14539&posted=1#post14539


Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
07 August 2007, 11:54 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste,

We are moving right along... Some key posts by atanu helps advance this discussion:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14532#post14532

If I may I wish to select a few points for this, and ask Atanu and others to give their comments. These principles/experience from the Upanishads add great value...let me comment ( thank you atanu for offering these up on the other post): Reality Of The 3rd State - as both these posts go hand and hand.

The knower, who is awake in the deep sleep dream less state, in third state of Pragnya, is Turiya himself.
The knower who remains awake in deep sleep is filled with the light of Sun.
The knower who realises that shadowless, bodiless, colourless, pure, Immutable being who is awake in dreamless sleep attains the supreme Immutable Itself. The knower (that would be us, some call the seer) who is awake in deep sleep, ( the 3rd state) is turiya - the decoding of this is is given in the next bullet point i.e. The knower who remains awake in deep sleep is filled with the light of Sun. That is, turiya is self-luminous it does not rely on other sources for its own Being, for its own light.

This 'awake' is pure consciousness itself, wakefulness, awareness, the raw materials of consciousness. This is the light behind the 35mm film analogy used 20 posts ago. This turiya is self-sufficient - independent of the other 3 states of consciousness. This is the SELF the rishi's speak of.

This answers ZN's question , on who is realizing whom. The Self is SELF-sufficient. The SELF realizes itself to itSELF - so says Adi Shakara and Katha and Mundaka Upanishad.

It does not rely on any other thing for its existence - it is independent of the relative field of life ( dimensions, weight, height, likes-and -dislikes, values, people, society, science etc etc); This is one reason the sages call it liberation. One becomes liberated from the day-in-day-out changes of the first 3 qualities of consciousness - wake, dream, and sleep and become grounded in turiya, the 4th. This is the reality - it is non changing, consistent, stable ( but these are words again). It is SELF luminous, extremely subtle, unbounded.


It remains every present with the native when established - wake , dream sleep happens, but now the ever present turiya is established, this is being grounded in the SELF; some call this SELF referral; If I were Maslow this would be called SELF actualization; this 4th is not overshadowed by the other 3 states of conscioousness.

How does one then go about ones daily business ? Restfully Alert as many say; this would be ZN's comment of yesterday ( which I thought was spot on) she called this "effortless balance".


Lets spend more time here if you wish. We are now in the heart of the matter. For many this may again maybe foreign, but please ask questions, come up with your thoughts and ideas on this matter. This level of Being is fundamental to knowing Brahman, to SELF=pure consciousness=His Divinity.



" To know the world you forget the SELF, to know the SELF you forget the world".

pranams,

atanu
08 August 2007, 10:39 AM
Namaste,

I like to fancy myself creative, at times :)

I don't know this turiya, but I'd like to put out the notion that when something is everywhere and nowhere, it doesn't really matter what direction one approaches from, since approach itself creates distance and one is already there!

Perhaps I'm putting the cart ahead of the horse again...

"Be Here Now" - Baba Ram Dass

Regarding "clear", or "clarity of intent" ...this is a pointed (masculine) approach, I think. Alternatively, there is "effortless balance" which is the feminine counterpart. Ideally, they are one and the Same, en-twined.


Love,
ZN

Namaste,

No, you are not putting the cart before the horse. Self is Svatasiddha. Self is always realised. However, the thoughts related to i-me-mine cover it up. Till this i-me-mine perceives to have karma, the Svatasiddha and i are on the opposite shores.

Can't help.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

Znanna
08 August 2007, 06:33 PM
Namaste,

No, you are not putting the cart before the horse. Self is
Svatasiddha. Self is always realised.

However, the thoughts related to i-me-mine covers it up. Till this i-me-mine perceives to have karma, the Svatasiddha and i are on the opposite shores.

Can't help.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste, dear atanu,

Where I differ substantially with what I understand the Hindu "karma" to mean, is that IMO all time, all lives happen simultaneously ... the notion of linear time and therefore discreet lifetimes doesn't work within my perception.

Also, to clarify, my comments on "clarity of intent" and "effortless balance" were directed towards the *steps* that some keep asking for elaboration about. In meditation, these are more attributes than goals ... if one is distracted enough to be wondering at the time.



Love,
ZN


/but perhaps I've jumped to conclusions as to what you mean by I-me-mine?

saidevo
08 August 2007, 09:25 PM
Namaste.



The knower, who is awake in the deep sleep dream less state, in third state of Pragnya, is Turiya himself.

The knower who remains awake in deep sleep is filled with the light of Sun.

The knower who realises that shadowless, bodiless, colourless, pure, Immutable being who is awake in dreamless sleep attains the supreme Immutable Itself.


Perhaps we may try a fancy analogy to understand how it might be in the Turiya and Deep Sleep states.

Suppose I wear a special astronaut suit that covers me all over from head to foot. The speciality of the suit is that it is self-illuminating, shedding its soft white light all around uniformly and brightly. I can tune the brightness of the light and shine more or less of it.

I walk in a large, dark hall with sufficient light to illuminate all around and keep me walking. What do I see in the dark hall? I see the objects--the furniture, paintings, fans, walls, etc. illuminated by the light from me. I try to see myself, directing the light on my outer self, and yes, I have an idea how I look like, though in patches. Fortunately there is a set of parallel mirrors that give me a full view of my outer self.

Then I slowly increase the volume of brightness. White light streams all around me. The objects become dimmer and dimmer, as it happens with what I see of my body parts. At one stage, when the white light is brilliant enough, I don't see the objects and even the walls have become dim and translucent. With a curious feeling of how I would look like now, I walk on to have a look in the mirror--wait, where are the mirrors?

With further increase in the brightness, even the walls fade away, and everything is nothing but white light. I know I am there still, though I can't see myself. I begin to feel elated as the brightness of the white light increases, drowning everything into itself.

Such could be the nature of deep sleep and turiya, the latter with a conscious feeling of elatedness and bliss.

Kaos
09 August 2007, 08:43 PM
The word “true” in my first statement is admittedly redundant ~ I only used it for emphasis. I am happy to adjust the wording.

I can see no particular division between Religion and Science, and I would say that spiritualists who scoff at ALL science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at ALL religion.



Therefore, you still imply that there are "true" spiritualists and "true" scientists as opposed to "false" spiritualist and "false" scientists.






Unlike most people, I have live both as a Hindu Sannyasin and (in earlier years) as an atheist scientist. Ten years of post-graduate research in Science, and ten years of immersion in Sadhu culture, perhaps gives me some reasonable perspective from both sides of the equation.



response removed by me pls see reason for editing...satay

vcindiana
09 August 2007, 09:32 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,


Does any one wish to discuss the fabric of consciousness? As I read many posts we at HDF have a great desire to know the Divine, to know our Ishtadevata. We all have great respect for Isvara as far as I can see.

So what does this have to do with this post? The Divine, in it final form is consiousness, awareness, pure awareness. We possess this and use it everyday, that is why we can experience the Divine, because we are mode of this.

This is a very delicate state of awareness, very subtle. So if one wishes to know more about the Divine ( to the best of our human capacity) it mades sense to discuss this in an open forum.

Now who says the Divine [Brahman] is consciousness? The Upanishads. Others? Vishisita. Is the Divine more then consciousness? Absolutey. Yet this is the fundamental, least common denominator of all that is, Consciousness.

So I did not want to start the conversation unless others would find it of value.

Let me know if this is worth the pursuit.


pranams,


what does Hindu scripture say about Consciousness? You say Divine or Brahman is Consciousness. what does it mean? I am a very practical person Please provide me a personal experience or example of such encounter. Then I will narrate my encounter if you Care to read. Thank you

yajvan
09 August 2007, 09:49 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

what does Hindu scripture say about Consciousness? You say Divine or Brahman is Consciousness. what does it mean? I am a very practical person Please provide me a personal experience or example of such encounter. Then I will narrate my encounter if you Care to read. Thank you

Namaste vcindiana,

this whole post is predicated on this discussion; of what consciousness is, how one views it in light of the shastra's and agamas, our experince of it, etc. Your answer is visible in the reading of the posts in this string,
then consider this post and conversations of Atanu's and the required scriptures that are there: ( thank you Atanu)
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1819

followed by this turiya conversation:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1822

This will give you a 360° view of the full discussion, the audit trail , the implications, and the level the conversation it has taken over the last 7 days.

You will see all that you need above... if this does not meet your expecations, then restate your question as then you will have apriori knowledge as a foundation.

dhanyavaad,

Kaos
09 August 2007, 09:58 PM
Since you do seem to find some major difference between Science and Religion, can you please provide your definition of these terms. I know that the methods are somewhat different (and that both camps tend to scoff at the other), but what is there in the essence of these concepts that really makes them irreconcilable?




Namaste sarabhanga,

As already mentioned earlier, let me repeat, "science talks of the relativeness, and yet does not say what is the absolute" The only absolute is brahman.

Science cannot go to what is beyond science. There is a limit to the scientific quest. At best, religion and science are complementary but to claim that Religion and Science is one and the same is inaccurate.

When science has finally measured and described accurately and in detail the mechanics of such nagging questions such as, what is mind, not to mention consciousness, let me know...

Then we can proceed with.

second last sentence edited by me...satay

Nuno Matos
09 August 2007, 11:17 PM
Namaste Dear Kaos


Just a remark. In the beginning Science main objective inside Religion was to free Mankind and religion from Psychosis's and religious psychotic thinking; not all religious thinking is psychotic as Kant and later on Heidegger will point out.
Sarabhanga is correct wen he says that Science and Religion are the same, Science is born inside and out of Religion.

sarabhanga
10 August 2007, 05:43 AM
Spiritualists who scoff at ALL science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at ALL religion.

Scientists who scoff at the whole of Religion are misguided.

Spiritualists who scoff at the whole of Science are misguided.




"Science talks of the relativeness, and yet does not say what is the absolute" The only absolute is brahman.

Science cannot go to what is beyond science. There is a limit to the scientific quest.

If you read what I originally posted, my position should be clear. I have given some indication of what Science does find to be “the Absolute”, and already noted the limit of scientific certainty!




In relativity, the one absolute is Light. All matter is ultimately created from photons (in various combinations), and these photons define space and time by their own existence. But from the perspective of free photons (electromagnetic radiation) or anything that moves at the same speed as light, there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And attaining the speed of light is only possible by shedding all material nature and becoming one with light itself.

The break comes when science asks how and why this light (which has all been present since the first moment of creation) was originally produced. Was the “Big Bang” a spontaneous event (simply because “nature abhors a vacuum”), or was it caused (and in which case, what is the cause)? And from this point science understands that all is pure speculation and personal opinion.

In absolute singularity (or advaita) there is no reference for any normal relations or reactions, and empirical evidence or even the idea of observation is impossible, because such things (by their nature) require a framework of duality.

And God said “Let there be Light”.

No scientific hypothesis (apart from purely abstract mathematical or logical arguments) can ever be absolutely proven. Hypotheses may be disproved, but those still standing are known by all scientists to be our “best guess” at the present time.

In Relativity, the one absolute is Light. All matter is ultimately created from photons, and these photons define space and time by their own existence. But from the perspective of free photons there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And attaining the speed of light is only possible by shedding all material nature and becoming one with light itself.

In Dharma, the one absolute is Atman. All beings are ultimately created from Atman, and that Atman defines space and time by its own existence. But from the perspective of Atman there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And realizing the Atman is only possible by shedding all material attachment and becoming one with the Atman itself.

And that shining Atman is Brahman.

Ultimately, Science and Religion are both concerned with realizing the Truth.

And until quite recently, most scientists (even Darwin) saw the universe as God’s creation, and by investigating the natural world they sought to better understand the divine plan and to glorify the Creator by exposing the intricate wonder of his works.

The Absolute, Nirguna Brahma, the Fourth, the Turiya, is (by definition) indescribable, so that any definitive description of the Absolute has surely missed the point!

Agnideva
10 August 2007, 06:35 AM
Namaste Kaos,

Science cannot go to what is beyond science. There is a limit to the scientific quest. At best, religion and science are complementary but to claim that Religion and Science is one and the same is inaccurate.

The way I see it, both science and religion are quests for the truth, the same truth. I do not find the two contradictory. Science absolutely demands empirical proof for everything, while religion does not. Although I guess one could say the empirical proof in religion is in the realization of the realized :). Early on, scientists in all religions were also theologians and philosophers. The rift probably began when the church started to suppress/persecute scientists, their works and theories because it contradicted church doctrines. Probably as a result of this rift going back a few centuries, we are accustomed to seeing science as a study of the physical world only, and religion a study of the spiritual world, but it need not be that way.

OM Shanti,
A.

Kaos
10 August 2007, 09:17 AM
Namaste Kaos,


The way I see it, both science and religion are quests for the truth, the same truth.




Namaste Agnideva,

Fair enough.
The relativity of science is maya. In that aspect, I guess, we can say that science and "religion" are the same? :)

Science can explain, relativity, through it's laws, only certain movements of the grand cosmic dance of parashakti, or primal energy; however, science is incapable of showing a path for realizing, merging and experiencing this oneness that flows through and underlies all form.


Om Namah Shivaya

Kaos
10 August 2007, 09:34 AM
so that any definitive description of the Absolute has surely missed the point!




Thank you for missing the point as well! :)

Kaos
10 August 2007, 11:15 AM
All matter is ultimately created from photons (in various combinations), and these photons define space and time by their own existence.




Really? Have you ever seen a photon?
Have you ever measured it? Please describe a photon? What does it look like?

Have you ever talked to a photon?
Have you ever been a photon?

Have you ever interviewed a photon? Describe to us what you experienced during your interview with this photon?

If you say, that talking, interviewing, or experiencing being a photon is not possible because a photon is inert matter, then please explain how or what makes inert matter non-inert? :)

atanu
10 August 2007, 12:16 PM
Namaste Kaos,


The way I see it, both science and religion are quests for the truth, the same truth. I do not find the two contradictory. Science absolutely demands empirical proof for everything, while religion does not. Although I guess one could say the empirical proof in religion is in the realization of the realized :). Early on, scientists in all religions were also theologians and philosophers. The rift probably began when the church started to suppress/persecute scientists, their works and theories because it contradicted church doctrines. Probably as a result of this rift going back a few centuries, we are accustomed to seeing science as a study of the physical world only, and religion a study of the spiritual world, but it need not be that way.

OM Shanti,
A.

Namaskar Agnideva ji,

Some say that Descartes, by separating, strongly, the observer and the observed as two distinctly separate entitities (this had very strong religious rationale, as dvaita philosophy has), led observers to forget that the observed is also the part of the observer.

With modern 19th and 20th century physics, the picture has indeed again changed. Scientists are now more aware of limitations and I have seen/read many excellent books that marry science and spirit.

Similarly there are scriptural instructions, which place a very high premium on intellectual vichara to discriminate between the eternal from the non-eternal. Sage Vasista, in the very beginning of Yoga Vasista says "Discard what Brahma says if that does not stand the test of logic." Svet. Upanishad says "Brahman is found in the heart by application of mind, bhakti, and Guru puja".

On the other hand, there indeed are so-called spiritual people who are bigoted, jingoist, and sectarian.

What Kaos Ji says about science being pre-occupied with the observed rather than the observer is in general true. At the ame time, Sarabhanga Ji is most wise man -- indeed 'Spiritualists who scoff at ALL science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at ALL religion'.


This statement coming from a sadhu, who has been taken in as Shiva himself, is not to be taken as an insult to ego, since it is balanced. This is my POV.

Regards to all

Om Namah Shivaya
Om Shanti

yajvan
10 August 2007, 01:03 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskar Agnideva ji,
Some say that Descartes by separating, strongly, the observer and the observed as two distinctly seaparate entitities (this had very strong religious rationale, as dvaita philosophy has), led observers to forget that the observed is also the part of the observer.
Om Namah Shivaya Om Shanti

Namaste atanu (et.al)
I believe René (Descartes) got it half right. His most notable statement is "I think, therefore I am" to attest to his being.

If he dropped the think part, and let Aham vibrate he would be Advaita.

just an idea....

vcindiana
10 August 2007, 07:04 PM
What science and religion got to do with Consciousness ? What does Hindu religion say about consciousness? Can some one please clearly explain without going in circles ? I find the word "CONSCIOUSNESS" is extremely important because it has practically changed my life.

Znanna
10 August 2007, 08:12 PM
What science and religion got to do with Consciousness ?



Religion is interpreted through the conventions which preserve the texts and science is also interpreted through the conventions which preserve the texts ... in the sense of consciousness being preservation of "self", both are "self" perpetuating memes which serve to create order from chaos.

Perhaps a more interesting question might be what does Consciousness have to do with Self?

:)


YMMV


ZN

yajvan
10 August 2007, 08:25 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

What science and religion got to do with Consciousness ? What does Hindu religion say about consciousness? Can some one please clearly explain without going in circles ? I find the word "CONSCIOUSNESS" is extremely important because it has practically changed my life.

Namaste vcindiana,
did you happen to look at the other posts that were recommended? The ground work has been laid? And you asked of what scriptures say of this matter I am not mistaken ? Did you have a chance to read recommended HDF posts? All address your questions. Perhaps no sequentially, but it is here...

Starting all over again with this discussion is not attractive to me, but let me point out a few ideas.

Sanatana dharma says the SELF in you=Atman=Brahman. That is the core foundation for our discussions that we have been pursuing in this post and in the turiya post and multiple other posts. I can understand being new, there is much to read.
net net: When one realizes the SELF, then one realizes Brahman. This is our discussion core idea.

An analogy
Think of yourself as a glass container; inside is this tattva called akasha, or space. Outside too is this notion of akasha, yet one calls it Brahman, as if it was different then the inside space. This glass container is your present state , within boundaries, limits, etc.

The space or akasha inside the container is Atman for now, the soul you hear so much about.
As one evolves, and expands, one comes to find that that glass container of limits is not really ones True SELF. The glass container gets broke ( ignorance, avidya) - what happens to the space? It is the same, as it always has been, yet our experience is that we are now infinite without bounds, Brahman. We associate now with the unbounded space. The space inside is no different then outside - all this is Brahman say the sie. And in the final analysis, IT is consciousness ITself. Pure consciousness with no boundry.

Who says this? A few such as Yoga Vasishta, the Upanishads (Chandogya Upanishad is my favorite,) and Mundaka Upanishad; We will also see this in the Bhagavad gita. There are 10 Upanishads that I would recommend for you to consider if you choose to pursue this line of thought. These 10 would round out your thinking.

Like that - this is what these discussions are all about. And the Upanishads sing this praise all along the way.

Self-effort is needed. There is plenty to read on this on HDF , many many posts to bring you up to speed. And the Upanishads are offered all over the web for ones consideration. Much to read and ponder. Please consider this.

What is consciousness ? - How do I , when do I ....how does this relate to... how is the practical? This mass of knowledge is all in the conversations we are engaged in. Some reading perhaps is suggested, then probing and questioning.

pranams,

willie
10 August 2007, 09:08 PM
I would have thought that hydrogen gas would have been a pretty elemental part of getting the everything going. Because if a cloud of hydrogen gas starts to condense it can cause a star to form. As gravity starts to work on it, becasue of the pull of other hydrogen atoms it start to burn up he periodic table. Hydrogen atoms unite to become helium and so on. As this combineing continues to released heat and light. Finally, if there is enought hydrogen at star is started and puts off light . But like all things it only works until the element Fe is reached. At that point, the star goes out and explodes.

Light itself has to have some mass as black holes pull it in.

vcindiana
10 August 2007, 09:55 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste vcindiana,
did you happen to look at the other posts that were recommended? The ground work has been laid? And you asked of what scriptures say of this matter I am not mistaken ? Did you have a chance to read recommended HDF posts? All address your questions. Perhaps no sequentially, but it is here...

Starting all over again with this discussion is not attractive to me, but let me point out a few ideas.

Sanatana dharma says the SELF in you=Atman=Brahman. That is the core foundation for our discussions that we have been pursuing in this post and in the turiya post and multiple other posts. I can understand being new, there is much to read.
net net: When one realizes the SELF, then one realizes Brahman. This is our discussion core idea.

.........................................
What is consciousness ? - How do I , when do I ....how does this relate to... how is the practical? This mass of knowledge is all in the conversations we are engaged in. Some reading perhaps is suggested, then probing and questioning.

pranams,

Thank you for your efforts.

what do you mean by realizing self ? Have you realized yourself and found the Brahman? Tell me how has this changed your way doing things? What is the purpose of Brahman? Why we need Brahman? Please tell me your personal life situations when you realized Brahman.

Consciousness according to dictionary.com:1.the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 2.the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation. 3.full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting. 4.awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing. 5.concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness. 6.the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes. 7.Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
You have read and mastered Upanishads etc, I am sorry I am just a janitor. Can you please present this in a few simple words. If this does not have practical application what good is it? Cleaning toilets is the best thing I do, I do take it seriously with full "conscience". Does that mean I have realized your Brahman?

atanu
10 August 2007, 11:00 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste atanu (et.al)
I believe René (Descartes) got it half right. His most notable statement is "I think, therefore I am" to attest to his being.

If he dropped the think part, and let Aham vibrate he would be Advaita.

just an idea....

Namaste Yajvan Ji

Nicely said. Yes let the Aham vibrate. But wait. Aham vibrates on its own. Who will let it or not let it?

Do you agree?

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 August 2007, 11:19 PM
---- I am sorry I am just a janitor. ----
-


Well, I am also a bit sorry that you are just a janitor.

But OK. This idea that "I am just a Janitor" will pass, but the consciousness that holds such ideas will never pass.


Do you think that coming to know the substratum is useless? Do you think that coming to know the substatum will not give the power as the best janitor -- to clean up the layers that pile up on the sub-stratum?

Every morning, you get up with an I feeling. The source of that feeling is consciousness. That is God, which rests on ATMA -- the SELF. When Jesus said that the Kingdom of heaven is within, he must have meant that only.

Sanatana dharma followers have very little difficulty of comprehending this. But those who, due to some consideration, have deserted sanatana dharma and claimed to have joined the band wagon of so-called christianity, do not comprehend Jesus at all.


Om

sarabhanga
11 August 2007, 02:01 AM
Namaste VC,




Consciousness according to dictionary.com is “awareness of one’s own existence”.

It is clear that Consciousness is the essence of “I am”. :)

sarabhanga
11 August 2007, 02:27 AM
Really? Have you ever seen a photon?
Have you ever measured it?
Please describe a photon?
What does it look like?
Have you ever talked to a photon?
Have you ever been a photon?
Have you ever interviewed a photon?
Describe to us what you experienced during your interview with this photon?
If you say, that talking, interviewing, or experiencing being a photon is not possible because a photon is inert matter, then please explain how or what makes inert matter non-inert?

Apparently inert matter is fundamentally composed from photons, but I would not describe a photon itself as inert matter ~ it is certainly not inert, nor is it material in any normal sense ~ rather, a photon is the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation, and it is pure energy in its most elemental form.

Photons (just as Brahma) both create and illuminate their creation.

I have seen Light, and I am sure that ultimately I am Light (and so are you)!

Have you ever seen the Atman?
Have you ever measured it?
Please describe the Atman?
What does it look like?
Have you ever interviewed the Atman?
Describe for us what you experienced during your interview with this Atman?
:rolleyes:

Agnideva
11 August 2007, 07:49 AM
I would have thought that hydrogen gas would have been a pretty elemental part of getting the everything going. Because if a cloud of hydrogen gas starts to condense it can cause a star to form. As gravity starts to work on it, becasue of the pull of other hydrogen atoms it start to burn up he periodic table. Hydrogen atoms unite to become helium and so on. As this combineing continues to released heat and light. Finally, if there is enought hydrogen at star is started and puts off light . But like all things it only works until the element Fe is reached. At that point, the star goes out and explodes. A good summary of stellar nucleosynthesis, Willie. But, even hydrogen gas, from which all other elements are created in nuclear fusion, is after all an element (matter). That too came into being at some point.


Light itself has to have some mass as black holes pull it in. No, light need not have mass for black holes to pull it in. The basic quanta of light, photons, have no mass or charge. Light does, however, carry energy. Remember the famous equation E=mc^2. So, energy carried by light has a mass equivalence and cannot escape blackholes.

A.

yajvan
11 August 2007, 08:54 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan Ji

Nicely said. Yes let the Aham vibrate. But wait. Aham vibrates on its own. Who will let it or not let it? Do you agree? Regards
Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste atanu,
Aham Brahma Asmi.. you are right ... by us choosing to use Aham
we get in sync with this Aham. A very good point - As most all mantras work in this manner. to get the indivdual jiva in sync with the devata of choice.

For Aham - the muni Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj found moksa with this mantra in less then 10 years, given to him by his guru. What a grand thing to occur.

This is why a guru is delightful- he brings the mantra to the sisya and 'jump starts' the process...as it has resenated in His pure awareness and is given in purity.


pranams, and let us hope Rene' figured this out!

yajvan
11 August 2007, 09:10 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Thank you for your efforts.

what do you mean by realizing self ? Have you realized yourself and found the Brahman? Tell me how has this changed your way doing things? What is the purpose of Brahman? Why we need Brahman? Please tell me your personal life situations when you realized Brahman.

You have read and mastered Upanishads etc, I am sorry I am just a janitor. Can you please present this in a few simple words. If this does not have practical application what good is it? Cleaning toilets is the best thing I do, I do take it seriously with full "conscience". Does that mean I have realized your Brahman?

Namaste vcindiana,
You ask much - I am impressed that you have this interest. I will not address all this now, as the time is not right. Yet let me say this
Please do not confuse what you do with who you are... this is the crux of avidya, ignorance . Not the ignorance of 2+2= 4 , but that of you ,you as a human Being.

I am a janitor
I am a father
I am a voter
I am a tax payer
I am mad
I am happy
I am a,b,c ............................................xyz.

your answer is not in what you do it is in who you really are.
And to the practical use of this? It is infinitely practical - so says Krsna in the Gita - his whole first 6 chapters is written for the practical man/women and predicated on this, yogastha kuru karmani - become established in yoga, Union, and perform actions. This gives one max. return on effort - very practical.

Let me ask - please (please please) read more posts.... much wisdom and thought has been put into these posts. Go past the first pages, and go into these... many have spent time actually thinking though these. You will see quickly on sifting out the diamonds from the rocks.

We will then address some of your questions as the month gets brighter...

pranams,

atanu
12 August 2007, 01:03 AM
---at some point.

No, light need not have mass for black holes to pull it in. The basic quanta of light, photons, have no mass or charge. Light does, however, carry energy. Remember the famous equation E=mc^2. So, energy carried by light has a mass equivalence and cannot escape blackholes.

A.

Namaste Agnideva and to all,

Yes, I think so. Quantum-mechanical calculations have deduced that this universe of apparent huge mass has no mass. Quarks self generate, mix, create, and also vanish. Possibly, mass/weight is manifestation of attraction and repulsion that crop up within this mass less infinite chidakasha. But who cares?

--------------

Trying to use science (which is a way to try to understand nature) to rationalise meditative knowledge will surely lead to disaster. This was pointed by Galileo to Church, who were so fixated on the earlier apparently settled scientific/philosophic concepts that they declared Galileo a heretic. And later ate humble pie.

It is better to meditate and thus equipped with tranquility continue to do whatever is required -- be it scientific enquiry.

There is no need to rationalise shruti, that is my view. Shri Willie et al.'s smart observations notwithstanding, since genuine innocent enquiry and cynicism based on settled bias can be easily discriminated.

-------------------------

Similarly,

If only Shri VC says that he cannot discern whether he exists or not, then only we can accept his questions on consciousness as innocent questions. This is so since Shri Sarabhanga clarified in a small sentence: Consciousness is the essence of 'I am'.

Om

saidevo
12 August 2007, 11:56 AM
Namaste everyone.

Now that we are at it, what are your opinions about Conscience vis-à-vis Consciousness? Conscience is the mana shAksi, the witness born by the mind to our activities. I remember to have read an advice by Kanchi Paramacharya that the mind should only remain a witness and not try to judge, hence the term mana shAksi.

Since the mind itself comprises manas, chit and ahamkAra, where does this conscience fit in? When we do something wrong, the conscience pricks us. Morally upright and wise people are called the conscience keepers.

Please let me have your opinions about this faculty of conscience and its connection to consciousness.

yajvan
12 August 2007, 03:43 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste everyone.

Now that we are at it, what are your opinions about Conscience vis-à-vis Consciousness? Conscience is the mana shAksi, the witness born by the mind to our activities. I remember to have read an advice by Kanchi Paramacharya that the mind should only remain a witness and not try to judge, hence the term mana shAksi.

Since the mind itself comprises manas, chit and ahamkAra, where does this conscience fit in? When we do something wrong, the conscience pricks us. Morally upright and wise people are called the conscience keepers.

Please let me have your opinions about this faculty of conscience and its connection to consciousness.

Namaste saidevo,
When you first mentioned this my thoughts did not go to conscience, but to mind. Why so? This mind, mana, from some of the readings I have pursued suggests the mind is a fluctuation ( per Patanjali); Once stilled or arrested it goes away.

Others have said that mind is not a source of knowledge, perhaps not a reliable source; It is an instrument of action that can help knowledge enter into the human system and then illumine it for use. I do not see these two points as opposing, only giving some dimension to 'mind'.

This is where I see 'conscience' come to play - that which illuminates. Hence the words of Kanchi Paramacharya that the mind should only remain a witness, may apply. Yet our judging comes quickly.
One can say 'mind' is not doing this , it is buddhi, the intellect supported by viveka, or discrimination. That said then which functions do you wish to attribute to the mind?

This mind, for those looking to realize Atman/SELF may be on a short leash and soon to be extinguished ( I hope).

Just a thought - let see what others have to say on this matter.

pranams,

atanu
12 August 2007, 11:15 PM
Namaste everyone.

--Please let me have your opinions about this faculty of conscience and its connection to consciousness.

Namaste Saidevoji,


This is an excellent aspect that you have brought to notice. There is mention of Viveka as the Supreme, within the consciousness. It is the Seer. When the Seer is known, all is then Seer only.

That is how it is, when I-ME-Mine' is truly thrown away as a lie.

Brahma (Consciousness as creator) is not another from Rudra (Pure Consciousness), but Rudra (as Manyu--anger arising of Viveka) tears away one head to make the creator Brahma (which is the thinking mind) and deny to it the omniscience. Those who are intent on creation as 'I-Me-Mine", will have no omniscience and no remembrance of the fullness before the small i developed and lusted.

Please enlighten us on this matter. Some upanishads (i think Br. Ar. Upanishad) have specific mention on this.

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
13 August 2007, 04:49 AM
Namaste Saidevo et al.

Brahma is one, and in absolute unity with Brahma there is unimpaired Consciousness, beyond any dualistic notions of morality or conscience.

Yama is two (twain or twin), and the divided creation is ultimately bound by the restraints of Yama.

yama and yamanI (yamA or yamI) are the essential pair ~ the reins of divine restraint.

This yamau (yamanIyama or yamaniyama) may also be considered as yama + niyama, and Patanjali elaborates them as follows:

ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacaryAparigrahA yamAH [Yoga Sutra 2.30]

shaucasaMtoSatapaHsvAdhyAyeshvarapraNidhAnAni niyamAH [Yoga Sutra 2.32]

The yamAH are normally counted as a list of five “Restraints”:

ahiMsA satyA asteya brahmacarya aparigrahA

Which is normally interpreted as: “Harmlessness, Truthfulness, Not Stealing, Chastity, and Poverty”

However, merely by prolonging a single vowel (from ya to yA), the following truth is revealed:

ahiMsAsatyAsteyAbrahmacaryAparigrahAyamAH

ahiMsA satyA aste yAH brahmacaryA parigrahAH yamAH

“Harmlessness and Truthfulness, unto Death, which (are) the Foundations of Divine Life, the Restraints”

No man can attain Brahma without first passing Yama!

When we know that we are being untruthful or causing injury, it is then that our Conscience (the yamadUta) pricks ~ and it is wise to take heed of this warning.

yajvan
14 August 2007, 06:17 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


It is clear that Consciousness is the essence of “I am”. :)

Namaste sarabhanga,
Yes, what you say is true.

Another view as I see it, Consciousness is the essence of all things in the final analysis. This is not a foreign idea to HDF. The Aitareyaopanishad has a nice sutra (5.2) that expands this idea. I use Swami Sivananda's view as I think he does an exceptional translation with it:

That which is known as the heart(hridayam), this mind (mana), consciousness ( Sivanananda uses samjnanam for this, which I like), mastery, knowledge of arts, comprehension (prajnanam), power of retaining the import of books (medha), percpetion, fortitude (dhtitih), reflection (matih), indepentdent power of thinking, distress of mind caused by dis-ease (jutih), memory and volition (smriti and sankalpha), application, any pursuit for maintenance of life, desire, (kama), even of women (vasah), all these ( iti savani or thus all) are indeed beome the names of consciousness ( prajnanasya).

I rather like this Upanishad - because in our present string of thought in this particular thread, it assists us with this notion of consciousness. Yet in this sutra Sivananda ji closely associates consciousness ( prajnanasya) and comprehension (prajnanam). What are your thoughts on this? can we take apart the words a bit and see , at their roots, if this holds water?

I am intrigued that this consciousness, we apply daily (some say it applies us daily!) is so close to us, that it is not a 'drop in the bucket' to describe; And it is so robust. We have the ability to think about thinking, and to become aware of our own awareness. This is the key of why (IMHO) we can then experience consciousness all by it self
and that is the SELF.

For me, and I have remained consistent in my view on this , consciousness applied is that of being conscious. Yet for some that too is abstract. Yet awareness is not. My teacher has always associated pure awareness = pure consciousness and also = pure intelligence. This purity is found in the Transcendent, niguna Brahman.

So , at the end of the day, this consciousness is pure, without bounds, and is of infinite intelligence as it is the raw materials of perfect order in this universe - from the sub-atomic particles to the galaxies found in akasha. Yet in me, in us, its this simple awareness, this delicate level of life that we say we are living, because we are aware of our surroundings, space, and time.

How could one not be in awe of this Brahman, this fullness?

sarabhanga
18 August 2007, 04:15 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

The “3rd state” of Consciousness is known as prAjña, and the genitive (“of the 3rd state”) is prAjñasya.

The Aitareyopanishad, however, uses the term pra-jñAna (“great knowledge or wisdom”) and the genitive prajñAnasya (“of great wisdom”).

prajñA (“wisdom”) is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma.

As “deep sleep”, prAjña is pra-ajña (“very unconscious”), and this is quite different to the “great intelligence” of pra-jñA.