Guest guest Posted June 1, 1999 Report Share Posted June 1, 1999 This passage is from Haridas Chaudhuri's essay, Yoga Psychology, quoted from the classic text, Transpersonal Psychologies. "There is no experiential evidence to support the theory of an eternally self-existent and absolutely perfect, unchanging, and unchangeable Self, finite or infinite, individual, universal, or transcendental. The human individual does indeed have the characteristic of pure formless consciousness capable of cognizing body, mind, Nature, and their functions, processes, and phenomena. But the utmost that can be said about pure consciousness without overstepping the limits of experience is that pure consciiousness is an mergent characteeristic of the human psychophysical system. As the human organism endowed with the brain emerged in the course of evolution, pure formless consciousness also emerged as an essential characteristic of man. Thus the integral view of human personality is firmly established on the empirical foundation. The distinction between mind and the Self is emphatically not a metaphysical or ontological difference. The human mind is in its essential structure an empirical, object-oriented modality of consciousness. It is an emergent characteristic possessed by the highly developed human organism endowed with the brain. What is mystically described as the spiritual or transcendental Self is a further refinement of mental consciousness. As the brain-energy of the evolving human organism attains to a higher degree of structure and function, it acquires the still higher emergent characteristic if pure self-luminous consciusness. When man's self-luminous consciousness in its turn rises to the height of its words, at the highest point of development, man's pure consciousness acquires the transcendental dimension of intuitive apprehension of Being as the nontemporal ground of both Nature and Spirit. To know Being is to experience oneness with Being. So when an individual intimately knows Being, he also partakes of he life eternal of Being via his sense of identification. To transform this experience of identity or oneness inot the doctrine of individual or personal immortality is an unwarrantable metaphysical or theological construction. Such a construction evidently bears the marks of wishful thinking." For those perhaps unfamiliar with Chaudhuri, he was a student/disciple of Shri Aurobindo, and an advocate of Integral Yoga. Chaudhuri's legacy continues in the graduate school that he established, The California Institute for Integral Studies. Madhya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 1999 Report Share Posted June 1, 1999 I hate to say it, but I don't buy a word of it. There is AMPLE evidence for reincarnation (not only from classical Indian scriptures, but from documented cases all over the world of hypnotic past-life regressions and the resulting investigations), and for a self-existent, universal consciousness (to me this is not theory, but reality). I don't know how Haridas Chaudhuri arrived at his conclusions, but it sounds to me like a weak attempt to synthesize science and spirituality, with an utter failing to do so. I've seen far better attempts in various treatises on nonduality and quantum physics. Sorry everyone, this is not meant as negativity, but the way I see it man is much more than the body-mind mechanism. There is much that is not known, and it sounds like Chaudhuri has "learned" too much. Unless I'm misunderstanding completely what he wrote, I'm very surprised that he was Aurobindo's chela. At 10:57 AM 6/1/99 -0700, you wrote: >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >This passage is from Haridas Chaudhuri's essay, Yoga Psychology, quoted from >the classic text, Transpersonal Psychologies. > >"There is no experiential evidence to support the theory of an eternally >self-existent and absolutely perfect, unchanging, and unchangeable Self, >finite or infinite, individual, universal, or transcendental. The human >individual does indeed have the characteristic of pure formless >consciousness capable of cognizing body, mind, Nature, and their functions, >processes, and phenomena. But the utmost that can be said about pure >consciousness without overstepping the limits of experience is that pure >consciiousness is an mergent characteeristic of the human psychophysical >system. As the human organism endowed with the brain emerged in the course >of evolution, pure formless consciousness also emerged as an essential >characteristic of man. Thus the integral view of human personality is >firmly established on the empirical foundation. > >The distinction between mind and the Self is emphatically not a metaphysical >or ontological difference. The human mind is in its essential structure an >empirical, object-oriented modality of consciousness. It is an emergent >characteristic possessed by the highly developed human organism endowed with >the brain. What is mystically described as the spiritual or transcendental >Self is a further refinement of mental consciousness. As the brain-energy >of the evolving human organism attains to a higher degree of structure and >function, it acquires the still higher emergent characteristic if pure >self-luminous consciusness. > >When man's self-luminous consciousness in its turn rises to the height of >its words, at the highest point of development, man's pure consciousness >acquires the transcendental dimension of intuitive apprehension of Being as >the nontemporal ground of both Nature and Spirit. > >To know Being is to experience oneness with Being. So when an individual >intimately knows Being, he also partakes of he life eternal of Being via his >sense of identification. To transform this experience of identity or >oneness inot the doctrine of individual or personal immortality is an >unwarrantable metaphysical or theological construction. Such a construction >evidently bears the marks of wishful thinking." > >For those perhaps unfamiliar with Chaudhuri, he was a student/disciple of >Shri Aurobindo, and an advocate of Integral Yoga. Chaudhuri's legacy >continues in the graduate school that he established, The California >Institute for Integral Studies. ----- Visit The Core of the WWW at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 1999 Report Share Posted June 1, 1999 At 11:45 AM 6/1/99 -0700, Tim Gerchmez wrote: >Tim Gerchmez <fewtch > > >I hate to say it, but I don't buy a word of it. There is AMPLE evidence >for reincarnation (not only from classical Indian scriptures, but from >documented cases all over the world of hypnotic past-life regressions and >the resulting investigations), and for a self-existent, universal >consciousness (to me this is not theory, but reality). I don't know how >Haridas Chaudhuri arrived at his conclusions, but it sounds to me like a >weak attempt to synthesize science and spirituality, with an utter failing >to do so. I've seen far better attempts in various treatises on nonduality >and quantum physics. > >Sorry everyone, this is not meant as negativity, but the way I see it man >is much more than the body-mind mechanism. There is much that is not >known, and it sounds like Chaudhuri has "learned" too much. Unless I'm >misunderstanding completely what he wrote, I'm very surprised that he was >Aurobindo's chela. > >At 10:57 AM 6/1/99 -0700, you wrote: >>"Madhya Nandi" <madhya >> >>This passage is from Haridas Chaudhuri's essay, Yoga Psychology, quoted from >>the classic text, Transpersonal Psychologies. >> >>"There is no experiential evidence to support the theory of an eternally >>self-existent and absolutely perfect, unchanging, and unchangeable Self, >>finite or infinite, individual, universal, or transcendental. The human >>individual does indeed have the characteristic of pure formless >>consciousness capable of cognizing body, mind, Nature, and their functions, >>processes, and phenomena. But the utmost that can be said about pure >>consciousness without overstepping the limits of experience is that pure >>consciiousness is an mergent characteeristic of the human psychophysical >>system. As the human organism endowed with the brain emerged in the course >>of evolution, pure formless consciousness also emerged as an essential >>characteristic of man. Thus the integral view of human personality is >>firmly established on the empirical foundation. >> >>The distinction between mind and the Self is emphatically not a metaphysical >>or ontological difference. The human mind is in its essential structure an >>empirical, object-oriented modality of consciousness. It is an emergent >>characteristic possessed by the highly developed human organism endowed with >>the brain. What is mystically described as the spiritual or transcendental >>Self is a further refinement of mental consciousness. As the brain-energy >>of the evolving human organism attains to a higher degree of structure and >>function, it acquires the still higher emergent characteristic if pure >>self-luminous consciusness. >> >>When man's self-luminous consciousness in its turn rises to the height of >>its words, at the highest point of development, man's pure consciousness >>acquires the transcendental dimension of intuitive apprehension of Being as >>the nontemporal ground of both Nature and Spirit. >> >>To know Being is to experience oneness with Being. So when an individual >>intimately knows Being, he also partakes of he life eternal of Being via his >>sense of identification. To transform this experience of identity or >>oneness inot the doctrine of individual or personal immortality is an >>unwarrantable metaphysical or theological construction. Such a construction >>evidently bears the marks of wishful thinking." >> >>For those perhaps unfamiliar with Chaudhuri, he was a student/disciple of >>Shri Aurobindo, and an advocate of Integral Yoga. Chaudhuri's legacy >>continues in the graduate school that he established, The California >>Institute for Integral Studies. > > >----- >Visit The Core of the WWW at: >http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html >Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. > >Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at: >http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html > >------ >Having difficulty getting "in synch" with list members? > >Try ONElist's Shared Calendar to organize events, meetings and more! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 1999 Report Share Posted June 1, 1999 At 11:45 AM 6/1/99 -0700, Tim Gerchmez wrote: >Tim Gerchmez <fewtch > > >I hate to say it, but I don't buy a word of it. There is AMPLE evidence >for reincarnation (not only from classical Indian scriptures, but from >documented cases all over the world of hypnotic past-life regressions and >the resulting investigations), and for a self-existent, universal >consciousness (to me this is not theory, but reality). I don't know how >Haridas Chaudhuri arrived at his conclusions, but it sounds to me like a >weak attempt to synthesize science and spirituality, with an utter failing >to do so. I've seen far better attempts in various treatises on nonduality >and quantum physics. I agree with Tim on the above. Also that there are much better sytheses of science and metaphysics. What's worse, Chaudhuri's fundamental claims below are equally unsupported. I'll demonstrate how... (The numbering of the sentences is mine): 1. >"There is no experiential evidence to support the >theory of an eternally self-existent and absolutely perfect, >unchanging, and unchangeable Self, finite or infinite, >individual, universal, or transcendental. 2. >The human individual does indeed have the characteristic >of pure formless consciousness capable of cognizing body, >mind, Nature, and their functions, processes, and phenomena. 3. >But the utmost that can be said about pure consciousness >without overstepping the limits of experience is that pure >consciiousness is an mergent characteeristic of the >human psychophysical system. On (1). This is way wrong. Chaudhuri is expecting experiential evidence to point to an eternal self *as an object or entity*. And of course, he's right that no *object* can be eternal, transcendental, etc. But what the mystics write and sing about is not an object, but a an immanent, transcendent, and non-dual Self. This kind of Self is source and substance of EVERY experience. No experience can disconfirm it; every experience confirms it. Because all experience it is the Self experiencing. On (2). This is a reductive, psycho-physicalistic way of looking at things, based on the mistaken belief that Chaudhuri expresses in (3). On (3). This mistake is the root of Chaudhuri's difficulties. Pure consciousness as "an emergent characteeristic of the human psychophysical system" cannot be anyone's experience. To support his claim, Chaudhuri must show how the emergence is experienced. For the emergence of consciousness from a body/mind to be experienced, there must be the following experiential sequence of evidence: i. no experience arises ii. body/mind arises, but no consciousness YET iii. consciousness arises Now clearly, (ii) can never happen. Because when ANY experience arises, consciousness is there to record it. So even (i) can never happen, because it would entail the experience of no-experience. And (iii) can never be shown as following (ii), since for (ii) to be established, consciousness had to be "there" first. Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 1999 Report Share Posted June 1, 1999 > "Madhya Nandi" <madhya > > This passage is from Haridas Chaudhuri's essay, Yoga Psychology, > quoted from > the classic text, Transpersonal Psychologies. > > "There is no experiential evidence to support the theory of an eternally > self-existent and absolutely perfect, unchanging, and unchangeable Self, > finite or infinite, individual, universal, or transcendental. Neither is there experiential evidence of the contrary. The human > individual does indeed have the characteristic of pure formless > consciousness capable of cognizing body, mind, Nature, and their > functions, > processes, and phenomena. But the utmost that can be said about pure > consciousness without overstepping the limits of experience is that pure > consciiousness is an mergent characteeristic of the human psychophysical > system. But this is an assumption without experiential evidence. As the human organism endowed with the brain emerged in > the course > of evolution, pure formless consciousness also emerged as an essential > characteristic of man. Thus the integral view of human personality is > firmly established on the empirical foundation. Despite the different history of human races, in capability there is no difference between African Pygmies, Australian Aborigines and Caucasians; there isn't the slightest evidence of evolution of human intelligence yet. A nuclear holocaust would wipe out science and technology but not human capability, although archeology, 10,000 years from now, would suggest otherwise. > > The distinction between mind and the Self is emphatically not a > metaphysical > or ontological difference. The human mind is in its essential > structure an > empirical, object-oriented modality of consciousness. This reminds of discussions like "is the mind the 'owner/controller' of the mind?". Experience from Yogis suggests that it is possible to become conscious of and control all functions of the mind and the entire nervous system. Mind controlling the mind? This requires a mind, controlling the mind that is controlling the mind that is.... ERROR - STACK OVERFLOW. It is an emergent > characteristic possessed by the highly developed human organism > endowed with > the brain. What is mystically described as the spiritual or > transcendental > Self is a further refinement of mental consciousness. But the Self cannot be described in any way. Would it be a refinement, it would be a finite product. What is mental consciousness? The very term suggests the existence of non-mental consciousness. As the brain-energy > of the evolving human organism attains to a higher degree of structure and > function, it acquires the still higher emergent characteristic if pure > self-luminous consciusness. Electricity existed long before Edison invented the incandescent lamp to use it. Likewise, consciousness existed before the advent of human beings to manifest it. > > When man's self-luminous consciousness in its turn rises to the height of > its words, at the highest point of development, man's pure consciousness > acquires the transcendental dimension of intuitive apprehension > of Being as > the nontemporal ground of both Nature and Spirit. Consciousness can neither rise nor fall. Only pure consciousness is self-luminous; the self-luminousness becomes identification in the case of beings and property in the case of matter. > > To know Being is to experience oneness with Being. So when an individual > intimately knows Being, he also partakes of he life eternal of > Being via his > sense of identification. To know Being is to temporarily disable all identification; what "remains" is called "enlightenment". To transform this experience of identity or > oneness inot the doctrine of individual or personal immortality is an > unwarrantable metaphysical or theological construction. Such a > construction > evidently bears the marks of wishful thinking." To know Being isn't an experience; what isn't an experience cannot be described or explained. So analogies are used to "intuit" and this works because Being can be recognized; recognition is eased by the analogies. > > For those perhaps unfamiliar with Chaudhuri, he was a student/disciple of > Shri Aurobindo, and an advocate of Integral Yoga. Chaudhuri's legacy > continues in the graduate school that he established, The California > Institute for Integral Studies. This reminds of Swami Sivananda's remark about Sri Aurobindo: "He advocates to realize in the midst of society but has shut himself in a room for 20 years". Don't know if it was true but would be surprised if it wasn't. > > Madhya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 1999 Report Share Posted June 2, 1999 Dear List, I will do no quoting, I am sure that you all have the relevant material. Greg and Jan and Tim have posted arguments 'against' what was posted by Harsha as forwarded by Madhya. I must say, that so far, I have not seen an argument here which is actually 'against' what was posted. Indeed, my reading of the original posting shows it as valid as written. If it is read carefully, one may see that the writer (Haridas) succeeds in stating truth, while at the same time, confounding the mind of the readers who have argured against it. He has, very cleverly, inserted into his writings the very arguments which are put forth against, as the very qualifications for his argument. I am suprised that others have not seen this. Haridas states well, the qualifications for his arguments as he makes them. This can be seen in a careful reading. He is indeed 'trolling' for argument, and has succeeded in 'reeling in' a few objectors. Jan came the closest in saying that 'it cannot be disproved either'. This is actually already explicit in the original posting. Apparently, it takes a 'vast maturity' to grok the style and substance of such writings, to see that what was written, was written with the mind of the reader in mind. Writing like that, is like a banana peel for the speed-reader. If the paper is reread at the speed of speech, it may be understood. Not that this is a big deal. Just my comments on the difference of perceptions between 'individuals'. Later, ==Gene Poole== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 1999 Report Share Posted June 2, 1999 "jb" <kvy9 wrote: > This reminds of discussions like "is the mind the 'owner/controller' of the > mind?". Experience from Yogis suggests that it is possible to become > conscious of and control all functions of the mind and the entire nervous > system. Mind controlling the mind? This requires a mind, controlling the > mind that is controlling the mind that is.... ERROR - STACK OVERFLOW. Is it not possible for something to control itself? Do you mean to imply that the mind cannot control itself, therefore what is controlling the mind is the Self (or whatever you wish to call it)? In this case, what is controlling the Self? If nothing can ever control itself, but must always be controlled by something else, then we either have an infinite chain, or a loop... Perhaps we need to look at whether anything is really controlling anything else? gill ps this reminds me of the old argument against the existence of God - if God created everything, then what created God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 1999 Report Share Posted June 2, 1999 > magus (==Gene Poole==) > > Dear List, > > I will do no quoting, I am sure that you all have the relevant material. > > Greg and Jan and Tim have posted arguments 'against' what was posted by > Harsha as forwarded by Madhya. > > I must say, that so far, I have not seen an argument here which > is actually > 'against' what was posted. Indeed, my reading of the original > posting shows > it as valid as written. If it is read carefully, one may see that the > writer (Haridas) succeeds in stating truth, while at the same time, > confounding the mind of the readers who have argured against it. <snipped the remainder> In that case, let me show a part of the text that could be called "bullshit" instead of truth: ------------------------ "As the brain-energy of the evolving human organism attains to a higher degree of structure and function, it acquires the still higher emergent characteristic if pure self-luminous consciousness." ----------------------- What is brain-energy? 1. the caloric value obtained by burning the brain (physics). 2. the caloric value obtained by eating the brain (dietetics). 3. the amount of energy used by the brain during copulation (biology). 4. the amount of energy the brain can generate as laserbeams radiated from the eyes (science fiction). 5. the antigravitational ectoplasmic thrust used for yogic flying and walking on water (metaphysics). 6. there is no such thing as brain-energy (the undertaker). The term "brain-energy" debunks the entire phrase. Energy doesn't attain either. The article is riddled with inconsistencies, inaccuracies like the "pure consciousness" but without defining what it is and suggesting "pure" consciousness differs from consciousness. If one has to start commenting from the assumption that articles are deliberately created to misinform, where does it end? In that case the article reminds of the Ekoj Lirpa scriptures from the donkey called Shasole Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 1999 Report Share Posted June 2, 1999 > "Gill Collingwood" <Gill > > "jb" <kvy9 wrote: > > This reminds of discussions like "is the mind the > 'owner/controller' of the > > mind?". Experience from Yogis suggests that it is possible to become > > conscious of and control all functions of the mind and the > entire nervous > > system. Mind controlling the mind? This requires a mind, controlling the > > mind that is controlling the mind that is.... ERROR - STACK OVERFLOW. > > Is it not possible for something to control itself? > Do you mean to imply that the mind cannot control itself, therefore > what is controlling the mind is the Self (or whatever you wish to > call it)? In this case, what is controlling the Self? > If nothing can ever control itself, but must always be controlled by > something else, then we either have an infinite chain, or a loop... > Perhaps we need to look at whether anything is really controlling > anything else? > gill > ps this reminds me of the old argument against the existence of God - > if God created everything, then what created God? There are two possibilities: 1) Mind works as a loop, presenting what "gets in" as a processed result. 2) Mind is an object of perception and Self is the perceiver (but not the controller) In the first case, the pure, natural mind means looping remains but it is empty looping (idling). In the second case, the absence of thought, when mind isn't perceived, is said to reveal "that which is independent of mind" (Self). It is a matter of preference. Control is a different matter. If a "controller" is acknowledged, it is easy to visualize "switch on" and switch off" and "what switches the switch what...". Without such a controller, one has to assume various functions of the mind, one remaining natural and pure and other functions, doing looping etc. Experience suggests one can observe various threads of thoughts, going on at different levels, simultaneously. It is possible to influence ongoing thought patterns but not those at the deeper levels. Instead of control, the picture emerges of steering an ongoing process in a certain direction. The general idea is that by proper steering one can prevent something from entering the mind. Once entered, processing is unavoidable, the result is presented and will likely lead to action. The yogi is intent on depleting the store of existing impressions that will be stirred up by what enters the mind. So the capacity of processing in the case of a successful yogi will be idling most of the time whereas in the case of a non-yogi the store-house is continually presenting its content. The question of "the creator of the creator of the ..." doesn't arise this way. Whether 1. or 2., the only option is emptying the loops. What isn't used will atrophy - this means by not becoming involved in spontaneous thinking, the patterns (contents of the loops) will die out unless they are fuelled again. The capability of one-pointedness means one can steer the thought process in such a way that unrelated thoughts will not arise. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.