Are You Satisfied?

[Aupmanyav]

Is humility rated high on the list of virtues, in Hindu philosophy, would you say? Just interested...

Virtues do not belong to any religion. They are universal, they are eternal (as we say, Sanātan, no beginning, no end).
https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/16/
Chapter 16: Divine and Demonic Natures - BhagawadGita
"Fearlessness; purification of one’s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor – these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature." (Verses 1-3)

"Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance – these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Pṛithā." (Verse 4)

You might ask why BhagawadGita only all the time? Gita, because it is easily accessible at Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. It is concise. I do not agree to Hare Krishna / Prabhupada translations. They are biased, they include words and meanings which are not there in the original. I am an atheist and they are theists. I pick and choose from Gita, omit the verses which talk about God and soul.
Otherwise, discussion of virtues can be found in nearly every Hindu scripture.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

If you were to lose your body and mind to death today, are you satisfied to surrender these “tools?”

If not, and if you don’t mind sharing, what is left to do?

I got hit by a car two years ago. Lying on the road, awaiting paramedics, my mouth was filling up with blood and I remember thinking that unless it’s my teeth or tongue, this may be my time.

I thought of my nearest and dearest and felt glad to know that they knew how much I loved them. I also knew that they had each other and had great faith in that they all would be okay. I felt much at peace with who I had been and how I had lived and I had a strong feeling that all was exactly as all should be.

It was a broken jaw.

But when my time does come, I hope to think and feel very much like then again.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Polymath257]

So by mind, you presumably mean electric activity occurring in the brain? The brain being an organ, then the mind is a function of the body? It has no qualities at all beyond it’s purely material nature?

That is my belief, yes. Although, I would say 'physical' to avoid certain confusions.

The mind, as an independent state, or manifestation of being, is an illusion then? But who or what is experiencing the illusion?

Independent state? yes, it is an illusion that the mind is independent of matter.

To experience something is the same as having the brain process the information and reach a conclusion about what happened. I hold something like the multiple-draft theory of Dennett in this regard. What we 'experience' is simply the latest best guess the brain has based on the information it has. There is no Cartesian theater.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Virtues do not belong to any religion. They are universal, they are eternal (as we say, Sanātan, no beginning, no end).
Chapter 16: Divine and Demonic Natures - BhagawadGita
"Fearlessness; purification of one’s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor – these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature." (Verses 1-3)

"Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance – these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Pṛithā." (Verse 4)

You might ask why BhagawadGita only all the time? Gita, because it is easily accessible at Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. It is concise. I do not agree to Hare Krishna / Prabhupada translations. They are biased, they include words and meanings which are not there in the original. I am an atheist and they are theists. I pick and choose from Gita, omit the verses which talk about God and soul.
Otherwise, discussion of virtues can be found in nearly every Hindu scripture.

I have two English translations of the Gita, one by Juan Mascaro, the other by Laurie L. Patton. I understand the Mascaro one is held in very high regard by scholars, but I found the Patton one slightly more elegant stylistically. Are you familiar with either of these?

With translations one is always at the mercy of the translator. For that reason I consider myself forever indebted to the translators of the King James Bible, for the sheer ambition and integrity of their scholarship, and for the evident love of language which, permeates every verse.

Like you with the Gita, I have no problem picking and choosing my passages. Or rather, focussing on those that speak to me direct; direct to my soul, I would say - though I know you do not believe in the existence of souls.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is my belief, yes. Although, I would say 'physical' to avoid certain confusions.



Independent state? yes, it is an illusion that the mind is independent of matter.

To experience something is the same as having the brain process the information and reach a conclusion about what happened. I hold something like the multiple-draft theory of Dennett in this regard. What we 'experience' is simply the latest best guess the brain has based on the information it has. There is no Cartesian theater.

So there is no difference between being, and observing the condition of being? It's not possible to observe ones own thought processes from a place of detachment?

But you would presumably acknowledge that we rationalise experiences, consciously evaluate them, and create narratives to make sense of them? We may be the only creatures that do this. So the analytical mind exists separately from the experiential mind?

There is consciousness and there is thought, and these are not the same, though they overlap. I would assert that the first is a function of the body, the second a function of the mind. But we are not two dimensional beings. There is more; there is always something which lies beyond; science surely tells us that?

 

[Polymath257]

So there is no difference between being, and observing the condition of being? It's not possible to observe ones own thought processes from a place of detachment?

One aspect of self-consciousness is that the brain models its own activity. it is, however, imperfect in this. But, if you 'observe your own thoughts', you are aware of them and processing the information about them.

But you would presumably acknowledge that we rationalise experiences, consciously evaluate them, and create narratives to make sense of them? We may be the only creatures that do this. So the analytical mind exists separately from the experiential mind?

I think we are the only animals that use words to do this narrative, but I do not think we are the only ones to evaluate our experiences. Dogs, for example, clearly dream. And dreams are one way we evaluate our experiences and 'try out' new behaviors in a safe context.

But I certainly believe other animals have thoughts about their thoughts (analytical mind?).

There is consciousness and there is thought, and these are not the same, though they overlap. I would assert that the first is a function of the body, the second a function of the mind. But we are not two dimensional beings. There is more; there is always something which lies beyond; science surely tells us that?

But, as I see it, the mind is a function of the body. It is all ultimately physical. The difference is that the mind is heavier into information processing and modeling the navigation in the world. But I don't think you can separate consciousness from thoughts, emotions, judgements, and other brain activities.

Consciousness is always consciousness *of* something. That something might be something outside through our senses, or it may be something internal, when we have one system evaluate the workings of another.

Our three/four dimensionality is ultimately based in physics, I believe. I don't see anything 'beyond' that.

 

[syo]

If you were to lose your body and mind to death today, are you satisfied to surrender these “tools?”

Yup.

 

[RestlessSoul]

One aspect of self-consciousness is that the brain models its own activity. it is, however, imperfect in this. But, if you 'observe your own thoughts', you are aware of them and processing the information about them.



I think we are the only animals that use words to do this narrative, but I do not think we are the only ones to evaluate our experiences. Dogs, for example, clearly dream. And dreams are one way we evaluate our experiences and 'try out' new behaviors in a safe context.

But I certainly believe other animals have thoughts about their thoughts (analytical mind?).



But, as I see it, the mind is a function of the body. It is all ultimately physical. The difference is that the mind is heavier into information processing and modeling the navigation in the world. But I don't think you can separate consciousness from thoughts, emotions, judgements, and other brain activities.

Consciousness is always consciousness *of* something. That something might be something outside through our senses, or it may be something internal, when we have one system evaluate the workings of another.

Our three/four dimensionality is ultimately based in physics, I believe. I don't see anything 'beyond' that.

Four dimensions aren't enough for modern physics are they? Isn't that why the need arose to conceptualise Hilbert Space?


I do think consciousness can be separated from attachment to all the things you listed btw. This is one of the purposes of meditation, for many practitioners.

 

[Polymath257]

Four dimensions aren't enough for modern physics are they? Isn't that why the need arose to conceptualise Hilbert Space?

Yes and no. The Hilbert space is a space of functions on three/four dimensional spacetime.

I do think consciousness can be separated from attachment to all the things you listed btw. This is one of the purposes of meditation, for many practitioners.

Attachment to? Or eliminate entirely? There is a difference.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes and no. The Hilbert space is a space of functions on three/four dimensional spacetime.



Attachment to? Or eliminate entirely? There is a difference.

Well we have to begin somewhere. Perhaps we begin by asking ourselves, What value might there be in looking beyond that which is apparent?

 

[Polymath257]

Well we have to begin somewhere. Perhaps we begin by asking ourselves, What value might there be in looking beyond that which is apparent?

All sorts of value in learning about what we cannot directly see or otherwise experience.

For example, ultrasound, infrared light, x-rays, atoms, etc. ALL things we cannot experience directly and are not 'apparent'. All discovered by trying to understand more about the world around us.

 

[RestlessSoul]

All sorts of value in learning about what we cannot directly see or otherwise experience.

For example, ultrasound, infrared light, x-rays, atoms, etc. ALL things we cannot experience directly and are not 'apparent'. All discovered by trying to understand more about the world around us.

And within us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have two English translations of the Gita, one by Juan Mascaro, the other by Laurie L. Patton. I understand the Mascaro one is held in very high regard by scholars, but I found the Patton one slightly more elegant stylistically. Are you familiar with either of these?

Like you with the Gita, I have no problem picking and choosing my passages. Or rather, focussing on those that speak to me direct; direct to my soul, I would say - though I know you do not believe in the existence of souls.

True that.
No, I have not read any of them. I had my first encounter with Gita through a small pocket book published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur, India, when I was young, say around 15. That was in Hindi. It is a beautiful literal translation. They have English editions also. Perhaps you can get it from Amazon or some such sellers. Do not buy a book which has commentaries. Understand it in your own way. Most commentaries are not exact (a-la Hare-Krishna translation). Then I learnt some Sanskrit to get the hang of what was mentioned. Now I understand it. I have this on my computer for quick reference: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is

 

[Polymath257]

And within us.

I'm always nervous about relying on my own internal states. Way too many ways to deceive oneself.

In particular, I do not think that we can determine solely by internal reflection the origin and nature of our thoughts.

For example, I think that the 'stream of consciousness' is mostly an illusion. Instead, we have multiple different systems in the brain that give their conclusions. But, because we aren't aware of the time between (because there is no system devoted to judging that time), we see the discrete aspects as continuous. This works sort of like how we see a continuous movie instead of separated images (which is the reality).

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm always nervous about relying on my own internal states. Way too many ways to deceive oneself.

In particular, I do not think that we can determine solely by internal reflection the origin and nature of our thoughts.

For example, I think that the 'stream of consciousness' is mostly an illusion. Instead, we have multiple different systems in the brain that give their conclusions. But, because we aren't aware of the time between (because there is no system devoted to judging that time), we see the discrete aspects as continuous. This works sort of like how we see a continuous movie instead of separated images (which is the reality).

You distrust the internal monologue? And the self creative narrative? I do too. I suspect that much of what our minds tell us about the world is illusory, though it has to be said that many of those illusions contribute positively to our ability to function in the world.

Do you ever wonder how thoughts might manifest without words? Perhaps some neurologists are working on this now. Poets and visionaries have been, for centuries.

In the words of Percy Shelley;

“Language is a perpetual Orphic song,
Which rules with Daedal harmony, a throng,
Of thoughts and feelings, which else formless and shapeless were.”

Orpheus was the son of Apollo, who descended into the underworld to retrieve his lover, Eurydice (not sure what the reference to Daedalus infers in this context). What intrigues me though is, would our thoughts “formless and shapeless be” without language? Could we think analytically, without language?

 

[Polymath257]

You distrust the internal monologue? And the self creative narrative? I do too. I suspect that much of what our minds tell us about the world is illusory, though it has to be said that many of those illusions contribute positively to our ability to function in the world.

Not just about the outside world. Much of our inside world is illusion as well.

Do you ever wonder how thoughts might manifest without words? Perhaps some neurologists are working on this now. Poets and visionaries have been, for centuries.

In the words of Percy Shelley;

“Language is a perpetual Orphic song,
Which rules with Daedal harmony, a throng,
Of thoughts and feelings, which else formless and shapeless were.”

Orpheus was the son of Apollo, who descended into the underworld to retrieve his lover, Eurydice (not sure what the reference to Daedalus infers in this context). What intrigues me though is, would our thoughts “formless and shapeless be” without language? Could we think analytically, without language?

Many animals seem to be able to do so. Wolves will coordinate an attack on prey with many members of the hunting group.

I think that language greatly increases the ability to analyze and communicate, but it extends on already existing capabilities as opposed to producing something de novo.