• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Consciousness

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
In a normal human brain, how much cognitive ability is the stem responsible for, if any? How much does it contribute to the overall functionality of the rest of the brain and/or bodily functions, if any?

How much cognitive abilities does a newborn infant have? How much self awareness does a newborn infant have? How much language or any other higher cognitive faculties does a newborn have? Does he need it? You wouldn't be trying to compare a fully-formed normal adult human brain, to that of a newborn infant, would you? That would be silly, both anatomically and physiologically. As to the brainstem's functions, control, and contributions to the cerebellum, cerebrum, thalamus, sensory/motor systems, sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, spinal cord, hearing, balance, the sympathetic response system, breathing, and how it controls heart rate, is beyond any reasonable doubt. Without the brainstem the cerebrum couldn't communicate with the cerebellum, the thalamus, or the spinal cord. Since the brainstem also controls most autonomic functions, such a breathing and heart rate, without it YOU WILL MOST CERTAINLY DIE.

Please refer to any grade school biology or physiology textbook, BEFORE you make these uninformed comments. Don
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Brain stem is responsible for controlling almost all involuntary bodily and brain functions and reflexes (including smiling reflex, crying reflex, hunger etc etc). In normal circumstances, it does not take part in voluntary or intentional functions, but if much of the brain is damaged in an infant, the neurons will be flexible enough at this age to take over some of these functions. Which is why an MRI is necessary to see if Aarons brain is processing other types of information as well.

Do not be fooled by it's small size. It an extremely functionally dense and compact region of the brain.
Brain Stem
Adds a new outlook to the idea that we only use 5 - 10% of our brain capacity.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
How much cognitive abilities does a newborn infant have? How much self awareness does a newborn infant have? How much language or any other higher cognitive faculties does a newborn have? Does he need it? You wouldn't be trying to compare a fully-formed normal adult human brain, to that of a newborn infant, would you? That would be silly, both anatomically and physiologically. As to the brainstem's functions, control, and contributions to the cerebellum, cerebrum, thalamus, sensory/motor systems, sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, spinal cord, hearing, balance, the sympathetic response system, breathing, and how it controls heart rate, is beyond any reasonable doubt. Without the brainstem the cerebrum couldn't communicate with the cerebellum, the thalamus, or the spinal cord. Since the brainstem also controls most autonomic functions, such a breathing and heart rate, without it YOU WILL MOST CERTAINLY DIE.

Please refer to any grade school biology or physiology textbook, BEFORE you make these uninformed comments. Don

uh, didn't make any; I was asking a question.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Yogananda belongs to the Sankara school of thought. Many (most) Hindu schools don't agree. This is specifically true when we are discussing the Maya mentioned in the Gita.

I had gathered all along that there are, in general, two main views of maya: 1. that the world itself is illusion, but we see it as real; due to maya, and awakening allows us to see it's illusory nature. Therefore, maya is both in the mind and in the world, and 2. the world is real, and maya is only in the mind. I subscribe to view #1, and it appears that you subscribe to view #2, which I think most people also subscribe to. What is it about the world that makes you see it as 'real'?

If you subscribe to the Hindu view of maya and lila, in which the world is the result of divine play, then wouldn't that make the 'material' world illusory, in the manner of the rope (ie Brahman) appearing as a 'snake' (ie The Universe)?

"While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (kShara) superimposition on brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time brahman remains as brahman, the imperishable (akShara) substratum.


This phenomenon of brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `mAyA' means. It does two things. It hides brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.


The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX - 5, 6. 'Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.


The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!"

What is the nature of maya? Professor V. Krishnamurthy.
*****

"Swami Vivekananda said in one of his lectures that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation (kala, desha, nimitta). He said that time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see.

Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I had gathered all along that there are, in general, two main views of maya: 1. that the world itself is illusion, but we see it as real; due to maya, and awakening allows us to see it's illusory nature. Therefore, maya is both in the mind and in the world, and 2. the world is real, and maya is only in the mind. I subscribe to view #1, and it appears that you subscribe to view #2, which I think most people also subscribe to. What is it about the world that makes you see it as 'real'?

The world is not an illusion as the world is constituted by Brahman/God. Here Gita is relevant, where Krishna explicitly states that His higher and lower nature's together constitute the substance and the self of all things that exist in the universe. The universe is real and is constituted by modes of Brahman/God. See below,

Chapter 7 verse 4 onwards,

Earth, water, fire, air,
Ether, mind, intellect
And egoism this,
My material nature, is divided into
eight parts.

Such is My inferior nature,
But know it as different from
My highest nature, the Self, 0 Arjuna,
By which this universe is sustained.

All creatures have their birth in this,
My highest nature.
Understand this!
I am the origin and also the
dissolution
Of the entire universe.


Nothing higher than Me exists,
o Arjuna. On Me all this universe is strung
Like pearls on a thread.


I am the liquidity in the waters, Arjuna,
I am the radiance in the moon and sun,
The sacred syllable (Om) in all the Vedas,
The sound in the air, and the manhood in men.

I am the pure fragrance in the earth,
And the brilliance in the ftre,
The life in all beings,
And the austerity in ascetics.

Know Me to be the primeval seed
Of all creatures, ArjW1a;
I am the intelligence of the intelligent;
The splendor of the splendid, am I.

The might of the mighty I am,
And I am that desire in beings
Which is freed from lust and passion,
Which is according to law, Arjuna.

And those states of being which are sattvic,
And those which are rajasic and tamasic,
Know that they proceed from Me.
But my Self is not in them; they are in My Self.

All this universe is transfixed by these
three states of being,
Composed of the qualities.
It does not recognize Me (this Self),
Who am higher than these, and eternal .

Since this divine Maya of Mine which is constituted by the three qualities
is difficult to cross over,
(therefore) those who take refuge in Me
alone cross over this Maya.


I think it should be obvious that here the Maya refers to this diversified world of real phenomena which is constituted by the Self and the lower material modes of Brahman. The problem is that the Self of God that is inherent in it all and transcend this diversity, is lost sight of in the beguiling diversity of Creation.





If you subscribe to the Hindu view of maya and lila, in which the world is the result of divine play, then wouldn't that make the 'material' world illusory, in the manner of the rope (ie Brahman) appearing as a 'snake' (ie The Universe)?
Lila means a creative activity indulged out of leisure or aesthetics. Play, theatre, dance etc. qualifies. This does not mean that the product of this play is an illusion though, rather the concept Lila points to the fact that the universe is a spontaneous and aesthetic outpouring of Brahman and is not designed for some end goal, purpose, function or motive.

"While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (kShara) superimposition on brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time brahman remains as brahman, the imperishable (akShara) substratum.
The analogy that better represents my view is that of waves in the ocean. Waves are both real and a superimposition on the ocean which remains unchanged by the waves.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
The world is not an illusion as the world is constituted by Brahman/God. Here Gita is relevant, where Krishna explicitly states that His higher and lower nature's together constitute the substance and the self of all things that exist in the universe. The universe is real and is constituted by modes of Brahman/God. See below,

Chapter 7 verse 4 onwards,

Earth, water, fire, air,
Ether, mind, intellect
And egoism this,
My material nature, is divided into
eight parts.

Such is My inferior nature,
But know it as different from
My highest nature, the Self, 0 Arjuna,
By which this universe is sustained.

Brahman's lower nature is ego, which is illusion, and the verse includes materiality in the same category. Brahman's higher nature is that which sustains the Universe. Since the Universe cannot sustain itself, it cannot be Brahman in its higher nature. It is maya. The Universe comes and goes, as illusion does; but Brahman does not come and go.

All creatures have their birth in this,
My highest nature.
Understand this!
I am the origin and also the
dissolution
Of the entire universe.

Nothing higher than Me exists,
o Arjuna. On Me all this universe is strung
Like pearls on a thread.

Again, Brahman is the source of the origin/dissolution of the Universe, which has a beginning/end (ie in Time and Space); Brahman has no beginning and is not in Time or Space. Universe therefore, comes and goes; Brahman is changeless.


I am the liquidity in the waters, Arjuna,
I am the radiance in the moon and sun,
The sacred syllable (Om) in all the Vedas,
The sound in the air, and the manhood in men.

I am the pure fragrance in the earth,
And the brilliance in the ftre,
The life in all beings,
And the austerity in ascetics.

Know Me to be the primeval seed
Of all creatures, ArjW1a;
I am the intelligence of the intelligent;
The splendor of the splendid, am I.

The might of the mighty I am,
And I am that desire in beings
Which is freed from lust and passion,
Which is according to law, Arjuna.

The statement of the Gita 'I am the liquidity...radiance...fragrance...etc., is an expression of attributes, but Brahman is attributeless. It must be so, since all characteristics have their origin in That which has no characteristics, and that is the true nature of Brahman:


"Brahman is the only Reality; it is beyond definition in words, the range of sensory perceptions, and the human mind. It is conceived to be boundless Being, ever existent, limitless in space and time, immutable, immaculate, devoid of qualities, attributes, name, or form. It is not subject to birth, continuation, growth, maturity, decay and dissolution, and has nothing similar to it and nothing different from it. It is also described as pure Knowledge. 18"

"It is also regarded as both the efficient and material cause of the visible universe, the all-pervading spirit of the universe, the essence from which all beings are produced and into which they are absorbed. The entire phen- omenal world of beings, qualities, actions, all manifestations, and so on, is said to be an illusory superimposition on the imperishable substratum, which is Brahman."


from: THE ESSENCE OF RIBHU GITA*

http://www.sageramana.org/files/Essence of Ribhu Gita.pdf

And those states of being which are sattvic,
And those which are rajasic and tamasic,
Know that they proceed from Me.
But my Self is not in them; they are in My Self.

All this universe is transfixed** by these
three states of being, [ie 'maya']
Composed of the qualities.
It does not recognize Me (this Self),
Who am higher than these, and eternal .

Since this divine Maya of Mine which is constituted by the three qualities

is difficult to cross over,
(therefore) those who take refuge in Me
alone cross over this Maya.
[/QUOTE]

WHAT IS MAYA?
What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the Upanishads that it is made of three gunas: tamas, rajas, and sattva. Tamas has its veiling power, avarana shakti in Sanskrit. Rajas has its projecting power, vikshepa shakti in Sanskrit, and sattva has its revealing power, prakasha shakti in Sanskrit. Now this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything out of a guna as the Sankhyans wanted to do. These three gunas, of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold, out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion.

The Equations of Maya


I think it should be obvious that here the Maya refers to this diversified world of real phenomena which is constituted by the Self and the lower material modes of Brahman. The problem is that the Self of God that is inherent in it all and transcend this diversity, is lost sight of in the beguiling diversity of Creation.


To the contrary, I think the verses you provided make clear that the world is illusory, as the highlights I inserted indicate.

Lila means a creative activity indulged out of leisure or aesthetics. Play, theatre, dance etc. qualifies. This does not mean that the product of this play is an illusion though, rather the concept Lila points to the fact that the universe is a spontaneous and aesthetic outpouring of Brahman and is not designed for some end goal, purpose, function or motive.

Purposeless play is none other than illusion. Nothing is created; nothing destroyed. Lila is always coupled with maya. The world is none other than Brahman, playing ITself as 'The World', but which has lost itself in the world. We are none other than Brahman, which, upon Awakening, is no longer lost in maya, and which sees the world for what it actually is: an illusion.


The analogy that better represents my view is that of waves in the ocean. Waves are both real and a superimposition on the ocean which remains unchanged by the waves.

That analogy doesn't cut it, because wave and water are still seen as water, whereas the rope (ie Brahman) appears as something else, that is 'snake', (ie 'The Universe). IOW, the conditioned mind does not see The Universe for what it is: The Absolute. It only sees it as the material Universe, as it is conditioned by Time, Space, and Causation:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekendanda

*The Ribhu Gita forms the sixth section of the Sanskrit work known as Siva Rahasya. It is the teachings of Lord Siva in Mount Kailas to His devotee RIBHU, from whom the Gita derives its name.

** trans·fix
tran(t)sˈfiks/
verb
past tense: transfixed; past participle: transfixed
1
.
cause (someone) to become motionless with horror, wonder, or astonishment.
"he was transfixed by the pain in her face"
synonyms: mesmerize, hypnotize, spellbind, bewitch, captivate, entrance, enthrall, fascinate, absorb, enrapture, grip, hook, rivet, paralyze
"she was transfixed by the images on the screen"
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Brahman's lower nature is ego, which is illusion, and the verse includes materiality in the same category. Brahman's higher nature is that which sustains the Universe. Since the Universe cannot sustain itself, it cannot be Brahman in its higher nature. It is maya. The Universe comes and goes, as illusion does; but Brahman does not come and go.



Again, Brahman is the source of the origin/dissolution of the Universe, which has a beginning/end (ie in Time and Space); Brahman has no beginning and is not in Time or Space. Universe therefore, comes and goes; Brahman is changeless.




The statement of the Gita 'I am the liquidity...radiance...fragrance...etc., is an expression of attributes, but Brahman is attributeless. It must be so, since all characteristics have their origin in That which has no characteristics, and that is the true nature of Brahman:


"Brahman is the only Reality; it is beyond definition in words, the range of sensory perceptions, and the human mind. It is conceived to be boundless Being, ever existent, limitless in space and time, immutable, immaculate, devoid of qualities, attributes, name, or form. It is not subject to birth, continuation, growth, maturity, decay and dissolution, and has nothing similar to it and nothing different from it. It is also described as pure Knowledge. 18"

"It is also regarded as both the efficient and material cause of the visible universe, the all-pervading spirit of the universe, the essence from which all beings are produced and into which they are absorbed. The entire phen- omenal world of beings, qualities, actions, all manifestations, and so on, is said to be an illusory superimposition on the imperishable substratum, which is Brahman."


from: THE ESSENCE OF RIBHU GITA*

http://www.sageramana.org/files/Essence of Ribhu Gita.pdf


But my Self is not in them; they are in My Self.

All this universe is transfixed** by these
three states of being, [ie 'maya']
Composed of the qualities.
It does not recognize Me (this Self),
Who am higher than these, and eternal .

Since this divine Maya of Mine which is constituted by the three qualities

is difficult to cross over,
(therefore) those who take refuge in Me
alone cross over this Maya.


WHAT IS MAYA?
What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the Upanishads that it is made of three gunas: tamas, rajas, and sattva. Tamas has its veiling power, avarana shakti in Sanskrit. Rajas has its projecting power, vikshepa shakti in Sanskrit, and sattva has its revealing power, prakasha shakti in Sanskrit. Now this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything out of a guna as the Sankhyans wanted to do. These three gunas, of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold, out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion.

The Equations of Maya




To the contrary, I think the verses you provided make clear that the world is illusory, as the highlights I inserted indicate.



Purposeless play is none other than illusion. Nothing is created; nothing destroyed. Lila is always coupled with maya. The world is none other than Brahman, playing ITself as 'The World', but which has lost itself in the world. We are none other than Brahman, which, upon Awakening, is no longer lost in maya, and which sees the world for what it actually is: an illusion.




That analogy doesn't cut it, because wave and water are still seen as water, whereas the rope (ie Brahman) appears as something else, that is 'snake', (ie 'The Universe). IOW, the conditioned mind does not see The Universe for what it is: The Absolute. It only sees it as the material Universe, as it is conditioned by Time, Space, and Causation:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekendanda

*The Ribhu Gita forms the sixth section of the Sanskrit work known as Siva Rahasya. It is the teachings of Lord Siva in Mount Kailas to His devotee RIBHU, from whom the Gita derives its name.

** trans·fix
tran(t)sˈfiks/
verb
past tense: transfixed; past participle: transfixed
1
.
cause (someone) to become motionless with horror, wonder, or astonishment.
"he was transfixed by the pain in her face"
synonyms: mesmerize, hypnotize, spellbind, bewitch, captivate, entrance, enthrall, fascinate, absorb, enrapture, grip, hook, rivet, paralyze
"she was transfixed by the images on the screen"
We are going to disagree here. There is no sense in the Gita which says that the lower material nature of Brahman is an illusion. The illusion here is not that the world is real, but that the world and it's distinctions are the only thing that is real, being unable to see it's unified constituent, which is the Self/Brahman. Again waves of an ocean come and go, but the ocean is eternal.

Further you forget that Brahman can exist both as Saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes) and Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without attributes). The world is Saguna Brahman, the water of the waves...and it comes from and merges back into Nirguna Brahman (the ocean beneath). Something is being created and destroyed...the attributes themselves...the nama-rupa and the gunas that are the modes of Brahman as it manifests as the world of phenomena and which are destroyed as the world dissolves back. Clearly these attributes or gunas or nama-rupa are not the Self of Brahman, as they come and go, but they originate from it. Which is what Krishna is saying.

So we have
a) A real world made up of the gunas or qualities (that come from Brahman but not it's Self) And substantiated by the Self/Brahman. This is the manifest Saguna Brahman.
b) The ground of this world is the unmanifest Brahman, the Self without qualities, gunas etc. This Nirguna Brahman transcends the world and on it the Saguna Brahman is rooted.
c) The real world dissolves back into unmanifest Brahman when it's gunas/nama-rupa is destroyed and the Self of Saguna Brahman becomes Nirguna again. Similarly the real world emerges from the Nirguna as modes and qualities are superimposed on the Self to form the manifest Saguna Brahman. This formation, dissolution and transformation of the gunas is the creative Maya or Shakti of Brahman.
d) The effect is the formation of jiva-atmans embedded in a variegated world. The beguiling transformations of the world, creates the illusion that this differentiated phenomena is the only real thing and people pursue it through the dualities of attraction and repulsion. This moha is the effect of Maya. Moha is the delusion, while Maya is the creative-destructive activity that causes this world to exist over and above the transcending Self of Nirguna Brahman.
e) Thus the goal is to destroy Moha by
e1) clearly understanding the transformative workings of Maya and
e2) Identifying the Brahman/Self hidden within all the phenomena of the world
e3) Realizing the unqualified unmanifest Brahman that transcends it all.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
We are going to disagree here. There is no sense in the Gita which says that the lower material nature of Brahman is an illusion. The illusion here is not that the world is real, but that the world and it's distinctions are the only thing that is real, being unable to see it's unified constituent, which is the Self/Brahman. Again waves of an ocean come and go, but the ocean is eternal.

Further you forget that Brahman can exist both as Saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes) and Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without attributes). The world is Saguna Brahman, the water of the waves...and it comes from and merges back into Nirguna Brahman (the ocean beneath). Something is being created and destroyed...the attributes themselves...the nama-rupa and the gunas that are the modes of Brahman as it manifests as the world of phenomena and which are destroyed as the world dissolves back. Clearly these attributes or gunas or nama-rupa are not the Self of Brahman, as they come and go, but they originate from it. Which is what Krishna is saying.

So we have
a) A real world made up of the gunas or qualities (that come from Brahman but not it's Self) And substantiated by the Self/Brahman. This is the manifest Saguna Brahman.
b) The ground of this world is the unmanifest Brahman, the Self without qualities, gunas etc. This Nirguna Brahman transcends the world and on it the Saguna Brahman is rooted.
c) The real world dissolves back into unmanifest Brahman when it's gunas/nama-rupa is destroyed and the Self of Saguna Brahman becomes Nirguna again. Similarly the real world emerges from the Nirguna as modes and qualities are superimposed on the Self to form the manifest Saguna Brahman. This formation, dissolution and transformation of the gunas is the creative Maya or Shakti of Brahman.
d) The effect is the formation of jiva-atmans embedded in a variegated world. The beguiling transformations of the world, creates the illusion that this differentiated phenomena is the only real thing and people pursue it through the dualities of attraction and repulsion. This moha is the effect of Maya. Moha is the delusion, while Maya is the creative-destructive activity that causes this world to exist over and above the transcending Self of Nirguna Brahman.
e) Thus the goal is to destroy Moha by
e1) clearly understanding the transformative workings of Maya and
e2) Identifying the Brahman/Self hidden within all the phenomena of the world
e3) Realizing the unqualified unmanifest Brahman that transcends it all.

The Gita passage you provided states that The Universe must be sustained by Brahman. Brahman ITself is self-sustaining, and needs no support. So that which requires support cannot be Brahman; cannot be that which is real. Like the 'snake' which never existed to begin with, so, too the material universe of forms is sustained only by Brahman, and also does not exist from the get-go. 'Snake' only 'exists' by virtue of the rope, and the mistaken identity of rope as 'snake'.

I think the confusion here lies in the fact that forms are being mistaken for 'things', which are considered as 'real', due to perceptual reality. We 'know' them to be 'real' because we experience them via the five senses and as objects of the mind. But in reality, when percepton and mind are transcended via Ultimate Reality, it is seen that there are no such 'things'; there are only forms, and going to the Heart Sutra in Buddhism, we are told that 'all phenomena in the world are empty of inherent self-nature" due to the Law of Dependent Origination, in which all such forms co-arise dependently along with everything else. Therefore:


'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

and from Hui Neng, the Sixth Zen Patriarch we have:

Bodhi* has no tree,

nor is there a stand for the mirror.
Originally there is not a single thing,
so where can dust** gather?

*Bodhi (Sanskrit: बोधि; and Pali) in Buddhism is the understanding possessed by a Buddha regarding the true nature of things. It is traditionally translated into English with the word enlightenment, although its literal meaning is closer to "awakening". The verbal root "budh" means to awaken.

Wikipedia

**dust: metaphor for Samsara, the world of suffering.

Q: Can Moha really be destroyed? I would say that all efforts to destroy Moha will only result in the continuation of Moha. All one can do is to awaken to what it is, which is seeing what Moha is. In seeing what Moha is, it is no longer a problem. That which sees the nature of Moha is Brahman, awakened.

To think that something is bing created or destroyed is be under the spell of maya, because it only seems that there is creation and destruction. If, as you say, the world is real, and is Brahman, it cannot be created or destroyed, because Brahman is indestructible. The play of Brahman that is lila resulting in maya is illusion, and illusion is not a creation of 'something', but merely a manifestation of That.

I earlier mentioned that 'particles', which were thought to be the basis for the 'real' material world, are now understood by some physicists to be standing waves. Here is some information for you to look at:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-intro.asp
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
So, I take it that you are now better informed for asking? Don

I have been informed that the brainstem, as important as it is functionally, accounts for only 4% of the total physical volume of the entire brain. In two of the cases cited, the subjects were missing over 90% and even 95% of their brain material, the brain virtually missing in these individuals. They weren't missing parts of their brain; they were missing virtually all of it. This does not refer to functionality, but to volume.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The Gita passage you provided states that The Universe must be sustained by Brahman. Brahman ITself is self-sustaining, and needs no support. So that which requires support cannot be Brahman; cannot be that which is real. Like the 'snake' which never existed to begin with, so, too the material universe of forms is sustained only by Brahman, and also does not exist from the get-go. 'Snake' only 'exists' by virtue of the rope, and the mistaken identity of rope as 'snake'.

I think the confusion here lies in the fact that forms are being mistaken for 'things', which are considered as 'real', due to perceptual reality. We 'know' them to be 'real' because we experience them via the five senses and as objects of the mind. But in reality, when percepton and mind are transcended via Ultimate Reality, it is seen that there are no such 'things'; there are only forms, and going to the Heart Sutra in Buddhism, we are told that 'all phenomena in the world are empty of inherent self-nature" due to the Law of Dependent Origination, in which all such forms co-arise dependently along with everything else. Therefore:


'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

and from Hui Neng, the Sixth Zen Patriarch we have:

Bodhi* has no tree,

nor is there a stand for the mirror.
Originally there is not a single thing,
so where can dust** gather?

*Bodhi (Sanskrit: बोधि; and Pali) in Buddhism is the understanding possessed by a Buddha regarding the true nature of things. It is traditionally translated into English with the word enlightenment, although its literal meaning is closer to "awakening". The verbal root "budh" means to awaken.

Wikipedia

**dust: metaphor for Samsara, the world of suffering.

Q: Can Moha really be destroyed? I would say that all efforts to destroy Moha will only result in the continuation of Moha. All one can do is to awaken to what it is, which is seeing what Moha is. In seeing what Moha is, it is no longer a problem. That which sees the nature of Moha is Brahman, awakened.

To think that something is bing created or destroyed is be under the spell of maya, because it only seems that there is creation and destruction. If, as you say, the world is real, and is Brahman, it cannot be created or destroyed, because Brahman is indestructible. The play of Brahman that is lila resulting in maya is illusion, and illusion is not a creation of 'something', but merely a manifestation of That.

I earlier mentioned that 'particles', which were thought to be the basis for the 'real' material world, are now understood by some physicists to be standing waves. Here is some information for you to look at:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-intro.asp
Hinduism and Vedanta categorically rejects the emptiness doctrine of Madhyamika Buddhism. You can't mix the two. Vedanta (all forms) declare that everything is fully Brahman, and nothing at all is empty of this essence. As Isha Upanisad says,

Om
Purnamadah Purnamidam
Purnat Purnamudachyate
Purnasya Purnamadaya
Purnameva Vashishyate
Om shanti, shanti, shanti


Om.
That is full; this is full.
This fullness has been projected from that fullness.
When this fullness merges in that fullness,
all that remains is fullness.
Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

Furthermore there is no reason to assert that something is an illusion only because it is subject to arising, change and decay. What can be said of such things is that these changes are non-Self, as Self is something that, by definition is the essential unchanging substrate in all that is.The Madhyamaka emptiness doctrine is that all world phenomena are empty of any Self, while the Vedanta doctrine is that all these phenomena is full with the Self of Brahman, which as I have shown you both Krishna asserts and Upanisads agree with.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
That is not important. A natural system also exhbits the same properties. Further the natural tendency of a quantum system is to lose it's coherent and integrated nature, and decohere into multiple independent systems. The quantum system falls apart and give us non-superposition results much much earlier than it ever reaches human consciousness. Thus a true quantum system with holistic integration is never seen, what is observed are the "fossil" traces of the deceased and decohered quantum system after it has interacted with the environment and becomes a classical observation, much before consciousness enters the picture.

First, how do we know that we observe only the relict quantum system?

Second, the human intellect is not equal to consciousness. The human intellect is only an ‘abhaasa’ (indicator).

So, what I mean is that although QM results cannot prove presence of consciousness, since all is known because of consciousness, results do suggest non local communication etc..
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
I have been informed that the brainstem, as important as it is functionally, accounts for only 4% of the total physical volume of the entire brain. In two of the cases cited, the subjects were missing over 90% and even 95% of their brain material, the brain virtually missing in these individuals. They weren't missing parts of their brain; they were missing virtually all of it. This does not refer to functionality, but to volume.

The volume of the brain is irrelevant to its functional properties. Because of the brain's neuroplasticity, it will try to rewire itself with whatever percentage of the brain is left. If only the brainstem is left, I'm afraid that the patient will be reduced to a vegetated state where only heart rate, breathing, and other vegetative functions can be sustained. My point was, any person missing a brain(entire brain), is dead. Period! Therefore, a collective unconsciousness or universal consciousness becomes null and void. Equivocating functionality with volumetry is another blatant fallacy. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you didn't mean that some people can function without a brain, and move on? Why are you trying to circumvent the obvious? Don
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Hinduism and Vedanta categorically rejects the emptiness doctrine of Madhyamika Buddhism. You can't mix the two. Vedanta (all forms) declare that everything is fully Brahman, and nothing at all is empty of this essence. As Isha Upanisad says,

Om
Purnamadah Purnamidam
Purnat Purnamudachyate
Purnasya Purnamadaya
Purnameva Vashishyate
Om shanti, shanti, shanti


Om.
That is full; this is full.
This fullness has been projected from that fullness.
When this fullness merges in that fullness,
all that remains is fullness.
Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

Furthermore there is no reason to assert that something is an illusion only because it is subject to arising, change and decay. What can be said of such things is that these changes are non-Self, as Self is something that, by definition is the essential unchanging substrate in all that is.The Madhyamaka emptiness doctrine is that all world phenomena are empty of any Self, while the Vedanta doctrine is that all these phenomena is full with the Self of Brahman, which as I have shown you both Krishna asserts and Upanisads agree with.

There is no conflict between the Hindu and Buddhist views, only a misunderstanding.

Sunyata (emptiness doctrine) in Buddhism is referring to inherent self-nature as empty, and not to Self. IOW, there is fullness because there is emptiness of finite self nature, an illusion because of co-arising (not just arising) in the process of Dependent Origination. IOW, there are no separate 'things'; there is no multiplicity; there only seems to be. There is, at all times, only the One. All forms emerge from the formless source, just as all snowflake forms emerge from their common source that is water.

Think of a great actor playing his character. The character has no actual reality to it; it is only the actor behind the mask that is real. Like the character which is wholly dependent upon the actor to appear as being real, so, too, the material universe is wholly dependent upon Brahman to appear as being real. Because it is dependent, it cannot be Brahman, which needs no such support.
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
The volume of the brain is irrelevant to its functional properties. Because of the brain's neuroplasticity, it will try to rewire itself with whatever percentage of the brain is left. If only the brainstem is left, I'm afraid that the patient will be reduced to a vegetated state where only heart rate, breathing, and other vegetative functions can be sustained. My point was, any person missing a brain(entire brain), is dead. Period! Therefore, a collective unconsciousness or universal consciousness becomes null and void. Equivocating functionality with volumetry is another blatant fallacy. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you didn't mean that some people can function without a brain, and move on? Why are you trying to circumvent the obvious? Don

I wasn't equivocating function with volume; just the opposite.

Collective and universal consciousness are not null and void simply because of individual death. The body is not consciousness.

The TV set can be damaged or become completely inoperative, but the TV signal is always present, prior to the TV being made, and after it is no more. Planck sees this, thus his statement re: consciousness being fundamental. It is non-local.
 
Last edited:

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
I wasn't equivocating function with volume; just the opposite.

Collective and universal consciousness are not null and void simply because of individual death. The body is not consciousness.

The TV set can be damaged or become completely inoperative, but the TV signal is always present, prior to the TV being made, and after it is no more. Planck sees this, thus his statement re: consciousness being fundamental. It is non-local.

You were clearly trying to say that if a person can survive on only 4% of the brain by volume, then a person is essentially surviving on no brain at all. Instead of parts of the brain, you are now using its volume. This is a fallacy. Since I was referring to the dead, it is from this perspective that collective Unconsciousness or a universal consciousness does not exist. Not from those that have a conscious perspective(the living). Therefore, null and void. Unless you are consciously aware of my consciousness, there is no such thing as a universal consciousness or unconsciousness. Will this Universal consciousness or unconsciousness still exist, when the physical Universe ends?

"..but the TV signal is always present, prior to the TV being made, and after it is no more". Are you saying that the broadcast signals from broadcast stations were here before television was invented, and will continue sending signals after TV's are gone? I don't think so. Maybe you are referring to the CMBR that causes the static on your television screen, that has always been here. Don
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
You were clearly trying to say that if a person can survive on only 4% of the brain by volume, then a person is essentially surviving on no brain at all. Instead of parts of the brain, you are now using its volume. This is a fallacy. Since I was referring to the dead, it is from this perspective that collective Unconsciousness or a universal consciousness does not exist. Not from those that have a conscious perspective(the living). Therefore, null and void. Unless you are consciously aware of my consciousness, there is no such thing as a universal consciousness or unconsciousness. Will this Universal consciousness or unconsciousness still exist, when the physical Universe ends?

"..but the TV signal is always present, prior to the TV being made, and after it is no more". Are you saying that the broadcast signals from broadcast stations were here before television was invented, and will continue sending signals after TV's are gone? I don't think so. Maybe you are referring to the CMBR that causes the static on your television screen, that has always been here. Don

After television was created (ie both signal and set), before and after set goes bad, signal still present.

I agree with you that one cannot survive where 100% of the brain is absent. But to have just 4% of the brain intact is to have virtually no brain. Both of my references pointed to a 'missing brain' where that was the case. Sorry for the confusion.

Universal consciousness is present regardless of birth and death. Individual consciousness is a fabrication of universal consciousness, and only seems real. It's the illusion resulting in 'I'. UC does not mean everyone knows everyone else's thoughts. Having said that, the enlightened are said to gain psychic powers along with the experience.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
After television was created (ie both signal and set), before and after set goes bad, signal still present.

I agree with you that one cannot survive where 100% of the brain is absent. But to have just 4% of the brain intact is to have virtually no brain. Both of my references pointed to a 'missing brain' where that was the case. Sorry for the confusion.

Universal consciousness is present regardless of birth and death. Individual consciousness is a fabrication of universal consciousness, and only seems real. It's the illusion resulting in 'I'. UC does not mean everyone knows everyone else's thoughts. Having said that, the enlightened are said to gain psychic powers along with the experience.

Then I truly don't understand what the properties are in a UC. I agree that our consciousness is our subjective perspective(the "I"), and is a dimensionless illusion created by a functioning physical brain. But our sense organs are real and physical. Without them the brain has no way to represent our external environment. To claim that consciousness is a fabrication of a UC, implies that the UC exists. What role do our sense organs play in determining the existence of a UC? If there is no way for our senses to detect UC, it will always remain just another unfalsifiable claim that just sounds right. If a UC did exist, we should be able to tap into it, and experience other consciousness's, not simply levels of consciousness. At least, that's my take. Don
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Then I truly don't understand what the properties are in a UC. I agree that our consciousness is our subjective perspective(the "I"), and is a dimensionless illusion created by a functioning physical brain. But our sense organs are real and physical. Without them the brain has no way to represent our external environment. To claim that consciousness is a fabrication of a UC, implies that the UC exists. What role do our sense organs play in determining the existence of a UC? If there is no way for our senses to detect UC, it will always remain just another unfalsifiable claim that just sounds right. If a UC did exist, we should be able to tap into it, and experience other consciousness's, not simply levels of consciousness. At least, that's my take. Don

It sounds to me from your comment that you have not had any experiences like UC or mental/spiritual communication with other conscious beings. So for all practical purposes, it simply doesn't exist for you, especially since there is no factual evidence for it, and since factual evidence is what you are dependent upon for verification of reality. So if someone were to tell you of their experiences communicating psychically with others, for example, you would have no experiential basis or hard evidence for validation of their claims.

The experience of UC is not via the senses; it is transcendent of them. I think you still see it as a belief system. Not having a doctrine, it cannot be belief-based. Nature itself is doctrine-less.

Meditation is one way to 'tap into' UC. But many sessions may be required to subdue the discursive mind, which is forever in the way, and which is always trying to 'figure it out', when there is nothing to figure out.

With many spiritual seekers, they begin their journey when doubts begin to form about the rational explanations for reality they have been taught since childhood. So one might say that there is a Hide phase and then a Seek phase to the journey, the Hide phase being that situation where our true nature is hidden from us because we are engrossed in the state of Identification with the illusory 'I'. At some point, we may become dissatisfied with our life situation. Goals we previously thought to be rewarding may seem empty. So we begin to seek for something more lasting than temporal gratification. The irony is that the very thing we are seeking is exactly what is causing us to seek (!), though we are unaware of it, partly because 'I' thinks it is responsible for the seeking; that it is in complete control.

Q: Besides knowing that 'I' is a 'dimensionless illusion', which you most likely know via experimental knowledge of brain function, is this something that you also intuitively see as being the case? And if, as you say, 'I' is an illusion, then who, or what, is it that is posting under the title of 'Truly Enlightened'?
 
Last edited:

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
It sounds to me from your comment that you have not had any experiences like UC or mental/spiritual communication with other conscious beings. So for all practical purposes, it simply doesn't exist for you, especially since there is no factual evidence for it, and since factual evidence is what you are dependent upon for verification of reality. So if someone were to tell you of their experiences communicating psychically with others, for example, you would have no experiential basis or hard evidence for validation of their claims.

The experience of UC is not via the senses; it is transcendent of them. I think you still see it as a belief system. Not having a doctrine, it cannot be belief-based. Nature itself is doctrine-less.

Meditation is one way to 'tap into' UC. But many sessions may be required to subdue the discursive mind, which is forever in the way, and which is always trying to 'figure it out', when there is nothing to figure out.

With many spiritual seekers, they begin their journey when doubts begin to form about the rational explanations for reality they have been taught since childhood. So one might say that there is a Hide phase and then a Seek phase to the journey, the Hide phase being that situation where our true nature is hidden from us because we are engrossed in the state of Identification with the illusory 'I'. At some point, we may become dissatisfied with our life situation. Goals we previously thought to be rewarding may seem empty. So we begin to seek for something more lasting than temporal gratification. The irony is that the very thing we are seeking is exactly what is causing us to seek (!), though we are unaware of it, partly because 'I' thinks it is responsible for the seeking; that it is in complete control.

Q: Besides knowing that 'I' is a 'dimensionless illusion', which you most likely know via experimental knowledge of brain function, is this something that you also intuitively see as being the case? And if, as you say, 'I' is an illusion, then who, or what, is it that is posting under the title of 'Truly Enlightened'?


I agree with many of your comments. The "I" or the voice in my head is truly an illusion and dimensionless. You obviously agree with that. This was not derived from experimental knowledge, it was derived from common sense. Since everything we can conceive of can't physically exist in our head, its existence can only be a dimensionless illusion of reality. But this "I" can't move the keys on my keyboard. It's the sensory signals I receive from my eyes, that interpreted your post, that accessed comprehension, memory, and knowledge compartments throughout the brain, that started this process of dialog. These signals are then interpreted as language. I can then access my motor cortex and send signals to my fingers to type the specific keys and respond to your post. In other words the "I" represents just another functional real member of your own species that is posting under the silly tag "truly enlightened".

You are correct, I am held back by the consistency of reality. I have been taught to trust the scientific methods of inquiry. I am guilty of defining my reality by all things I experience through my senses. You will agree that(from a science perspective) there is nothing physically perfect, or absolute in Nature. Is it possible that our senses over time, missing, or when over used, will simply give a faulty representation of reality? Amputee's still feel "phantom" itches to their missing limbs.

No matter how compelling the argument we create, it must be tested to become valid. No matter how good the rationale is, it can't be better than the evidence supporting it. If a medium exists that allows one consciousness to interact with another, it can easily be tested. Since one consciousness does not interact with another, we have no connection to a UC. I certainly believe that your experiences are real to you. Don
 
Last edited:
Top