Samsara

[neti neti]

"The rising of thought (the rising of the first thought, ‘I am so-and-so’) itself is birth, and the forgetfulness of Self itself is death. The mind’s phenomena of such thinking and forgetting is called samsara.

 

When the mind, freed from its impure state of thinking and forgetting, stands ever holding on to Self, that is called the destruction of the mind [manonasa], which itself is liberation."

 

~Sri Muruganar

[neti neti]

"The world cannot appear where the mind-light is absent. That is to say, in the true light of Self the universe, which consists of objects that are created (by thinking), sustained (by continuing to think), and destroyed (by forgetting), does not at all exist. On the other hand, since Self (or God), the truly existing Thing, is beyond the range of mind-light, to the mind It is non-existent.

 

The reason why Self is said to be beyond the range of mind-light, whose function is thinking and forgetting, is that It is a Thing which can neither be thought of nor forgotten, and which can Itself neither think nor forget."

[neti neti]

"If, instead of seeing anything in front [of you] by the mind, you see by the mind the one who sees, all will be found to be oneself, the seer; then all objective knowledges will be found to be foolish.

 

If the seer [drik, the ego] and the seen [drisya, the world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never be possible. But since seeing is possible, know that they [the seer and the seen] have one and the same reality." ~Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by neti neti

[Boundlesscostfairy]

So if thoughts are about projections of psyche, then if those things relate to matter.. don't we have something honest to work with? The prime materia?

[neti neti]

9 minutes ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

So if thoughts are about projections of psyche, then if those things relate to matter.. don't we have something honest to work with? The prime materia?

 

Sounds pretty Jungian for the Hindu section. If the seer, the seen, and seeing is the same consciousness, I'm not sure what really matters.

 

Playing with yourself can become tiresome after a while. Eventually the images on screen start to fizzle out, get blurry and just seem to get sucked back into the lens. The Great Work transforms into the Great Rest.

[Boundlesscostfairy]

So the great work is thoughts? Thaumaturgy perhaps? Or maybe even thuergy?

[neti neti]

The frames are projected on screen at a speed indiscernable to the naked eye, appearing as if they are all just one continuous picture. Likewise, this universe(the 'I-thought') spontaneously rises and sets at a speed with which it seems to be continuously existing.

 

The wizard superimposes the Great Work upon that miracle which is already greatly working.

[Jeff]

I think Boundless raises an interesting question on the view. If you take the above statement...

 

If the seer [drik, the ego] and the seen [drisya, the world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never possible. But since seeing is possible, know that they [the seer and the seen] have one and the same reality.

 

It is kind of like a circular logic statement...  And, the first statement is not necessarily true. There could easily be a me that consists only of my own consciousness (within an objective reality) and a separate table that exists independent from me.  I "see" it and it exists, but the seeing is only a reflection in my own mind space.  Hence, the seer and seen would not necessarily be one and the same reality.  My "wood" color could be very different than the actual "wood" color.

[neti neti]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

I think Boundless raises an interesting question on the view. If you take the above statement...

 

If the seer [drik, the ego] and the seen [drisya, the world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never possible. But since seeing is possible, know that they [the seer and the seen] have one and the same reality.

 

It is kind of like a circular logic statement...  And, the first statement is not necessarily true. There could easily be a me that consists only of my own consciousness (within an objective reality) and a separate table that exists independent from me.  I "see" it and it exists, but the seeing is only a reflection in my own mind space.  Hence, the seer and seen would not necessarily be one and the same reality.  My "wood" color could be very different than the actual "wood" color.

 

It may seem circular... but you've said nothing to oppose it. Yes, that reality can exist objectively for the jiva. He can claim that he or the table exists, separately or otherwise... But, as you confirm, his initial impression of himself or the table isn't necessarily the true nature or reality of the things seen. Is it not an assumption that the seeing, the reflections seen in the mind space, and the mind space itself are all of a different nature?

 

Consider dreaming. Is not the dreaming of the dream only possible because the dreamer and the dream share the same reality? That's all that's being said.

 

Seeing, (whether seeing yourself or seeing the table), must necessarily be of the same nature as the seer and the seen (regardless of whether or not your perception of the "wood" color isn't the actual "wood" color). Would you agree?

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by neti neti

[Jeff]

37 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

It may seem circular... but you've said nothing to oppose it. Yes, that reality can exist objectively for the jiva. He can claim that he or the table exists, separately or otherwise... But, as you confirm, his initial impression of himself or the table isn't necessarily the true nature or reality of the things seen. Is it not an assumption that the seeing, the reflections seen in the mind space, and the mind space itself are all of a different nature?

 

Consider dreaming. Is not the dreaming of the dream only possible because the dreamer and the dream share the same reality? That's all that's being said.

 

Seeing, (whether seeing yourself or seeing the table), must necessarily be of the same nature as the seer and the seen (regardless of whether or not your perception of the "wood" color isn't the actual "wood" color). Would you agree?

 

 

Your dreamer analogy has the exact same circular logic trap.  A dream exists in the mind and not part of what we could call outside/objective reality.  Your analogy is like saying... Assume you live inside of a video game, and hence, everything you "see" is inside of the video game.

 

The seer and the seen do not necessarily have the same reality.  I can see an object in a video game, but that does not mean that I live in the same reality as the object does in the video game. 

 

Also, seeing itself does not need to be of the same nature as the seer and the seen object.  Seeing itself can just be an aspect of the seer.  Similar to a sonar pulse sent out that reflect upon "separate objects".

[neti neti]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

Your dreamer analogy has the exact same circular logic trap.  A dream exists in the mind and not part of what we could call outside/objective reality.  Your analogy is like saying... Assume you live inside of a video game, and hence, everything you "see" is inside of the video game.

 

The trap is of your own making.

 

What exactly determines the difference you perceive between "inside" and "outside"? What exactly is it which makes you so sure the dream exists only in the mind?

 

It seems preconceived notions veil your ability to see that my analogy is more like saying:

As character and video game arise together simultaneously, then the character, the character's seeing within the game, and everything the character sees within the game are all of the same nature.

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Quote

The seer and the seen do not necessarily have the same reality.  I can see an object in a video game, but that does not mean that I live in the same reality as the object does in the video game. .

 

Scenario within scenarios, ad nauseam. And yet, you as the seer, the video game and the object within the video game all arise and exist simultaneously within the same reality. Otherwise, you as the seer could not even claim to have seen in the first place.

 

Quote

Also, seeing itself does not need to be of the same nature as the seer and the seen object.  Seeing itself can just be an aspect of the seer.  Similar to a sonar pulse sent out that reflect upon "separate objects"

 

A seer's sole function is to see. Now it's just an aspect?

 

Mirrors only reflect objects within their range.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by neti neti

[Jeff]

25 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

The trap is of your own making.

 

What exactly determines the difference you perceive between "inside" and "outside"? What exactly is it which makes you so sure the dream exists only in the mind?

 

It seems preconceived notions veil your ability to see that my analogy is more like saying:

As character and video game arise together simultaneously, then the character, the character's seeing within the game, and everything the character sees within the game are all of the same nature.

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Scenario within scenarios, ad nauseam. And yet, you as the seer, the video game and the object within the video game all arise and exist simultaneously within the same reality. Otherwise, you as the seer could not even claim to have seen in the first place.

 

A seer's sole function is to see. Now it's just an aspect?

 

Mirrors only reflect objects within their range.

 

I was only pointing out the circular logic of the original premise. If your definition of a seer is only seeing and not capable of athing else, then I agree that they are of the same stuff. But, that still does not give you the object seen as being the same “stuff”. Your seeing the video game object in your “reality”, is just a bunch of software programming code in the outside/objective reality. 

 

The difference is sort of like the difference between a television transmission itself and what is “seen” on the television screen.  

[neti neti]

27 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I was only pointing out the circular logic of the original premise. If your definition of a seer is only seeing and not capable of anything else, then I agree that they are of the same stuff. But, that still does not give you the object seen as being the same “stuff”. Your seeing the video game object in your “reality”, is just a bunch of software programming code in the outside/objective reality. 

 

The difference is sort of like the difference between a television transmission itself and what is “seen” on the television screen.  

 

You're just complicating things. There is no circular logic. The seen simply does not exist without a seer, thus they share the same existence/nature/reality.

 

Or maybe you're not, and it's just that I no longer even see the seer! 

[neti neti]

Either way.... samsara! 

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, neti neti said:

 

You're just complicating things. There is no circular logic. The seen simply does not exist without a seer, thus they share the same existence/nature/reality.

 

Or maybe you're not, and it's just that I no longer even see the seer! 

 

Yes, I know that you believe that. But, saying that the “seen simply does not exist without a seer”, does not necessarily make it true. That is like saying that a tree falling in the woods does not make a sound since no one is around to hear it. The tree falls, the sonic transmission is made from the falling. Hence, in my view the sound is made because the energy for it exists, even if no one is around to actually translate that energy into a sound like thing in their mind (local consciousness/reality).

 

At the level of Brahman, this is like I am saying that just because there is a Brahman, it doesn’t mean that there cannot be another totally separate Brahman that within that specific reality, it is also one without a second...  

[s1va]

19 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, I know that you believe that. But, saying that the “seen simply does not exist without a seer”, does not necessarily make it true. That is like saying that a tree falling in the woods does not make a sound since no one is around to hear it. The tree falls, the sonic transmission is made from the falling. Hence, in my view the sound is made because the energy for it exists, even if no one is around to actually translate that energy into a sound like thing in their mind (local consciousness/reality).

 

At the level of Brahman, this is like I am saying that just because there is a Brahman, it doesn’t mean that there cannot be another totally separate Brahman that within that specific reality, it is also one without a second...  

 

Well, as per Advaita that tree does not even exist outside the person experiencing it, then where is the question of falling and the sound? 🙂

If the Samsara is held similar to a dream, then there is only experiencer.  So, I think the question boils down to - is it similar to a dream or similar to a game as you describe.  There are other schools of Vedanta (vishishtadwaita) that reject the dream notion and state that the manifested world has certain reality.

[neti neti]

Lol now I know you're just complicating things.

 

All those "levels" "maybes" and "whatifs" are illusions. Your extrapolating here only serves to prove the endless mental gymnastics being excercised within the topic's title. 

 

There is only Brahman. So rest assured that as Brahman, speculation about whether or not there is another one without a second does not arise.

[s1va]

Per Vishishtadvaita there is Jiva-Atman in every living being (which can be thought of as Brahman in each) and then there is the Param-Atman or the universal Brahman.  In mukthi, one comes to understand that the Jiva-Atman (local) and Param-Atman (universal) are one and the same.  This may be more in line with the more than one Brahman concept.

[neti neti]

I sometimes wonder if posters like you actually believe what they post, or just come in to troll the Hindu section to start drama and arguments. I'm swiftly reminded that no one else is here, and I must just enjoy being annoyed! 

[s1va]

Just now, neti neti said:

I sometimes wonder if posters like you actually believe what they post, or just come in to troll the Hindu section to start drama and arguments. I'm swiftly reminded that no one else is here, and I must just enjoy being annoyed! 

 

Is that directed towards me?  If so, I am neither interested in drama nor any arguments with you.  Best wishes!

[neti neti]

No s1va, it's obvious who the troublemaker is here. Me! Haha!

[s1va]

Well, it was right next to my post and we were the only persons on the thread at the time!  So, It was confusing. 

 

Anyway, I thought the questions Jeff asked were interesting and was enjoying the discussion.  Your sudden response above just threw me.  Didn't expect those posts to be annoying in anyway.  Well, anyway that's my take. Since it's your thread, I don't want to add any more to what you clearly seem to dislike.  

[neti neti]

6 minutes ago, s1va said:

Well, it was right next to my post and we were the only persons on the thread at the time!  So, It was confusing. 

 

Anyway, I thought the questions Jeff asked were interesting and was enjoying the discussion.  Your sudden response above just threw me.  Didn't expect those posts to be annoying in anyway.  Well, anyway that's my take. Since it's your thread, I don't want to add any more to what you clearly seem to dislike.  

 

Oh no by all means please continue if you are so led. Your insights are quite welcome as always.

 

It just seems counterintuitive how some members engage in discussion by basically just saying, "no you're wrong." It also becomes frustrating when they shamelessly ignore any and all pointed questions once their own have been answered. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by neti neti

[Jeff]

I apologize for the disruption. Best wishes to you.  

[neti neti]

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

I apologize for the disruption. Best wishes to you.  

 

If that was your intention, mission accomplished Jeff. If not, the questions which force you to reevaluate your position still stand.