Existence

In class on Tuesday we discussed the possibility that the only thing that is real is consciousness. I was so surprised by the fact that Indian philosophy is so important in the Hindu tradition, but pleasantly surprised. Growing up in a Christian home I am very used to a "take it or leave it" attitude towards religion and I'm used to very little discussion or deliberation. I like that high importance is placed upon debate in the Hindu tradition because it encourages an open discussion which in my opinion is the best way to further understanding of life. While deliberating the depths of existence can become frustrating and complicated, it is a vital conversation that encourages free thought which will ultimately help to liberate a person.
In response to the question of what is real and is consciousness all that is I wonder that, if consciousness is all that makes something real, what about objects that exist and no one has yet to perceive them? Do they not exist? If I simply think about something for a long enough time to be conscious of it's existence, will it actually become physically real? In my opinion, these questions will never be answered and ultimately we will continue to live no matter what. 

         During yesterday's lecture, I found the exegesis of the Upanishads to be quite interesting but also a bit confusing. I understand that the goal of Hinduism is to achieve liberation by the act of understanding the relationship between atman and brahman. However, the part that gives me confusion is when the concept of diversity is mentioned. The Upanishads say that the "world is like a dream [and] diversity is a false superimposition  onto what is actually unity"(Hindu Interpretive Traditions), however I find this statement to be contradictory Hindu social structure. This opinion has to deal heavily with Hinduism's use of the caste system. The caste system brings diversity through its specific divisions and unity by creating a closer network within each caste. However, since liberation is reached by the realization of the brahman exists within everyone, what is the need for the caste system? If diversity does not actually exist, why must humans be divided and placed in specific groups? I thought this was quite interesting.
         Along with the concept of diversity, I also found the concept of cause and causality to be quite intriguing. I found the concept of parinama, which states that all change is transformation, to be very similar  to the cycle of reincarnation( Hindu Interpretive Traditions). A person is not simply does just disappear and a new one forms, but rather that person's next life is based on his or her karma. An individual's dharmic actions build up and eventually that person is "transformed" into another life, better or worse.

Consciousness

The most popular topic in today's blogs is the idea of the consciousness as the only reality. I would like to expand on this topic as well. We've have always been told that there is a consciousness and an unconsciousness that is apart of our psychology. As described in other Hindu texts, the way to obtain liberation or moksha is to alleviate ourselves from the cycle of karma or the physical world. Thus, it must be something greater than man's consciousness, such as the unconsciousness, that is responsible for this task. We briefly discussed yoga as well. Yoga is attempting to relive the mind of any thought. To me this seems like reliving oneself of our consciousness and digging deeper into our unconsciousness. Many people use yoga as a source of religious meditation to discover their spirituality. Again, the term spirituality refers to something that is beyond the physical world and something that our brain cannot comprehend. Thus, it is beyond our consciousness. So the idea that consciousness is the only reality is a little hard to digest. There are some traditions that would argue quite the opposite. For example, a Sufi places heavy importance on the spiritual and tries to eliminate all material goods. He meditates in order to seek the light of the divine and dig deeper into himself, beyond the conscious self. I find that the concept of moksha and the idea that consciousness is the only reality contrast greatly. While one is trying to liberate oneself from the reality of the consciousness into something more meaningful like moksha (which is the end goal), the other states that the only real thing is the conscious. Something to think about...

Is the glass completely empty?

I like to think that I have some sort of worldly purpose. I get up every morning, go to class, complete chores, and accomplish tasks to help advance my current stage of life. I’m not yet sure about my ultimate reason for being, but I have the hope that I will find it.
This fact might be why I was slightly taken aback by the section in last nights reading on emptiness and intrinsic existence—the incompatible rivals. Oxford English Dictionary defines emptiness as “the condition of being void of contents, of not being filled, furnished, or inhabited”. This definition, particularly the use of the word “condition”, matches how I had previously viewed emptiness. It was always a way of describing a lack of something, based off of my, perhaps incorrect, idea that something real was missing. The reading shifted my perception by discussing how emptiness was not a thing but everything: “Emptiness is the ultimate truth in this tradition in the sense that it is what is ultimately true about the object being analysed, whatever that object may be. Emptiness is hence a property, a property possessed by everything” (70 Williams). Here emptiness as “a property” rather than a “state” dramatically differs. It does not actually exist. The fact that emptiness can be an “ultimate truth” is chilling, using the way that I usually view the word.
        On the other hand, one could argue that if everything has emptiness that everything has something. This argument however prolongs the grasping onto some entity, which an understanding of emptiness as everything is supposed to halt.

Buddhism and Yoga - Parallels

I found last class's discussions very interesting. In particular, I noted a very distinct connection between Buddhist teachings and the teachings of the Yoga school.

This may have been referenced in a blog already, but...

"This is the teaching of Yoga.
Yoga is the cessation of the turnings of thought.
When thought ceases, the spirit stands in its true identity as observer to the world.
Otherwise, the observer identifies with the turnings of thought." (from our powerpoint)

What struck me, as I might have said in class, are the similarities between these statements and the Buddhist Four Noble Truths. As Yoga deals with the cessation of thoughts, Buddhism deals with the cessation of suffering. And, just as Yoga aims to cease the cycling of thought (for however long, though, I am not sure), Buddhism aims to end suffering. According to Yoga doctrine, one caught up in thought will continue to identify with the turning of such thought. Similarly, according to Buddhist thought, one caught up with one's desires will continue to be stuck in a cycle of suffering and rebirth.

It is almost if one could substitute the word "thought" with "suffering" and receive a condensed version of the Four Noble Truths. What this reveals, perhaps, is a vein of similarity present between various Indian thought systems - although I just examine Buddhism and Yoga here, there are probably many different parallels between various Indian systems of thought.

Anne Reynolds

I thought the argument that "only consciousness is real" was fascinating.  I don't necessarily agree, but it does beg the question, "What is reality?" Reality only exists because of our perceptions, because we are conscious of them and piece them together to form some sort of truth.  It does seem like a compelling argument to say that only what is witnessed is reality, and things such as testimony do not constitute legitimate knowledge.  However, I don't believe "only consciousness is real" because it seems like a very individualized view of things.  Humans live together, work together, experience together, and perceive together, and to say that consciousness is the only reality seems to split apart the inherent sense of community that humans share.  If "only consciousness is real," whose consciousness are we talking about? No one's consciousness is exactly the same. Whose consciousness is "the most real?"  I don't think a question regarding all of reality for every human being should be so objectified and minimized.

I also like how this question ties into a linguistic debate about whether or not language distorts our perceptions.  The debate mentioned in class reminded me of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that humans' perception of the world is strongly shaped by the language they speak.  However, this debate seems to be based around the converse of that statement, that our perceptions of the world are perfect until language comes along to muck it up.

It seems to me that these two issues are very "chicken or egg" in nature.  Which came first, consciousness or reality? Language or perception? Which one shapes the other? As we've seen, questions like this can result in ongoing debates that last for centuries.

     One of the things that caught my eye this week was Dharmakirti.  This is the idea that language is just the use of concepts even though initial perception is non-conceptual.  That being said, I feel the question of - if it is ever possible to truly communicate perfectly what one wants too - arises.  While I originally would've said yes, this has made me reconsider.  After all, things like human instinct or emotion are usual first reactions and can only be explained in words created to represent them (and can be easily misinterpreted) .  This, then, is reminiscent of our discussion on the polyvalence of words.  If everyone perceives words meanings in different ways then the concepts explained/represented by words are also not consistent.
     In addition, according to Dharmakirti these concepts/words are just distortions that arose for people's needs and desires.  While it makes sense that language arose to express wants, I also feel it hints that language is manipulative (which leans towards lies and bending of truths to obtain wants).  If this is true then the impossibility of true communication and mutual understanding of ones perceptions is furthered.

The Change and Causality Conundrum

It is no secret that the previous class proved to be rather difficult to grasp.  At some point during the lecture, we discussed the doctrine of satkāryavāda and the concept of change and causality.

On page 89 it reads, “Effect must in some way already exist in the cause because, if it were totally non-existent, it would even lack those distinctive features correlating it to a particular cause, and thus everything could be born from anything.”  (Torella 2011) From my understanding, in the notion of cause and effect, the effect is not nonexistent that came into existence.  Instead, it is already in the cause but in the state of potentiality, which provides the link between the two.

An example to help clarity this phenomenon is that “a sprout does not come into existence as a new entity; rather, it existed in a subtle, unmanifest form in the seed.” (PowerPoint)  This comparison was able to clear up my initial confusion.  However, as I thought about it afterwards, I find myself questioning the doctrine.

If I extend the lifeline of the seed, it sprouts into a bud, that blossoms into a flower, then it transforms into... what exactly? I would imagine that the flower would wither and die eventually, but does that follow the satkāryavāda?  It is said “nothing ever comes into or out of existence.  All change is transformation.” (PowerPoint)  So what latent effect is in the flower now?  What will be manifested from this potential?

Ideas?

The Importance of Yoga Sutra in Modern Society

The concept of Yoga is a highly throughout provoking and interesting idea. The belief that in order to satisfy our effort to liberate Pursura, or our souls, from Prakrti, or the physical world through deep though and meditation struck me. The concept that in order to end suffering we must allow our minds to be free from what surounds us is a highly philosophical observation. Yoga, in many ways, reminds me of the Buddhist teachings that in order to be free from suffering, one must remove the idea of the self. Yoga reminds me of this, because the need to stop all thought through meditation is vital for a person to free their minds. The one thing that I personally realized about Yoga, was how useful and important it can be for people living stressful and chaotic lives. Today, more than ever, people need to find ways to escape from the constant bombardment of information that occurs in modern society. Yoga  is the perfect remedy to this conundrum, because its purpose is to clear a person's mind from thought and our material attachments. I especially love the quote yoga Meredith used in her post, which outlines the purpose of yoga. It says," This is the teaching of yoga… Yoga is the cessation of the turnings of thought...When thought ceases, the spirit stands in its true identity as observer to the world...Otherwise, the observer identifies with the turnings of thought" Yoga to me is much more than what is in perceived as today; organized stretching and meditation. In reality, yoga is the belief that it is essential to clear the mind to help free ourselves from the chaos of the physical world. 

Andrew

Hindu Interpretive Traditions

Like most of the class, I found this week's topic and readings to be confusing. However, I found one particular part of the lecture and powerpoint on Tuesday interesting. The idea of ontoogy caught my attention. The Vaisesika and also the Nyaya are both based on ontology, which is the study of what exists. Not only had I never heard of the term, but the concept itself and how the Vaisesika perceived it was intriguing.

Ontology is defined as the study of what exists, or what is essentially real. Vaisesika ontology is described using seven categories called padartha which are basically the real things that exist the in the world. The seven padarthas are substance, quality, action, universal, individuator, inherence, and absence. Qualities, actions, universals, and indivudators are all related through the "inherence." The concept that absence is real is the most confusing. The metaphor that I remember was used in class time was that the absence of an elephant in the middle of the classroom is real.
However, I was doubtful about whether everything in the world that exists can be really categorized into those seven padarthas,

YogaSutra

Yogasutra 1.1 - 1.4

"This is the teaching of yoga
Yoga is the cessation of the turnings of thought
When thought ceases, the spirit stands in its true identity as observer to the world
Otherwise, the observer identifies with the turnings of thought"

Similar to the teachings of Buddha who believed suffering originated from attachment, the Yoga school of thought explains that detachment from the "turnings of thought" in order to truly observe the world. This also ties in to our studies of Hermeneutics - to become a truly unbiased interpreter of texts (particularly in religious studies), one must depart from previous knowledge and culture.

Andie's post helps define the cosmic forms of Prakti & Purusa as "nature" and "spirit" respectively. These two terms encompass the universe - Prakti: the potential of everything and then the universe and all its realities. Purusa: the spirit or soul interwoven with the aspect of the self or "atman."

Buddhism's idealogical view of the lack of self allows the individual to completely depart from all attachment where as Hinduism's identification of atman can depart from Prakti to become merely Purusa, "spirit."

So what it comes down to is the self. Is there a self to be liberated? Or should we be liberated from the self?

I think, therefore....only consciousness is real?

So I think a large number of us (myself included) were a bit confused by the idea that “only consciousness is real”. I’ll try to recap my understanding of this idea and convey how I feel it fits into our understanding of Hinduism from previous readings and discussions.

In this week’s readings – particularly in the discussion on the Vedanta system – we saw a Hindu school of thought make the jump from an idea of an eternal self (atman) and an eternal/infinite reality (brahman) to an assertion of absolute monism. That is, not only is there a self, but this self is the only thing that exists and is real: “The only wholly real entity is the Self, achieved by demonstrating the unreality of the differentiated world, based both on the authority of revealed texts and on reason (Torella 112).” I’ll focus on the latter part of this statement – the notion that through reasoned and logic we can demonstrate that the self is in fact all that exists.

As Ami pointed out in class, this idea (or, at the very least, the logic that precedes it) is quite similar to the Cartesian idea of cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. The reasoning goes something like this: If our consciousness is what gives rise to perception and our understanding of existence in the first place, then for anything else to exist within this framework, our consciousness must exist and it must be real. I believe there is one fatal flaw in this argument.

Such an assertion has some notion of cause and effect embedded within it. The cause is our consciousness perceives and understands things. The effect is we have thoughts. This is contradictory to the Vedanta system’s conclusion “that both cause and effect are unreal (Torella 112.” So I’m not quite sure how to remedy these seemingly opposite ideas. Can we separate the consciousness from a closed system of cause and effect? I’m not sure we can…

Lastly, I think it is quite interesting how all of this ties into what I would call a major part of the ultimate goal of Hinduism: “catching the self”. Part of the idea of the self being all that is real arises from the very fact that the self is capable of doubting its own existence. For something to be real, then, must it be capable of doubting itself? Or at the very least, must it be able to think about itself? Regardless, I think we can conclude that some concept of reflexivity and looking inward at one’s own existence is central to the Hindu notion of the self. Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts, as I know some of this reasoning can at times seem rather circular.  

Prakrti and Purusa

Although today’s class was a bit difficult to fully understand, I was able to understand Prakrti and Purusa and the relationship between the two.

            The Samkhya structure believes that “…the universe can be reduced to tension between two antithetic principles: on the one side, unitary matter (prakrti)…on the other, we find a spiritual principle (purusa)”(Torella 76).

Prakrti is translated as “nature.” When it is in an unmanifest state, it has the potential for everything that could possibly manifest and when it is in a manifest state, it is the universe as we know it.

Purusa is translated as “spirit” or “soul.” Purusa never changes and never actually does anything at all. It is this pure consciousness that is always free and always liberated and is never bound up in any kind of change. Purusa actually causes Prakrti to manifest even though it does not ever do anything.

The idea that Prakrti, coded as female, is envisioned as a female dancer and Purusa, coded as male, is envisioned as the male witness looking in on a female performance is very interesting to think about. It also helps to understand the relationship between Purusa and Prakrti. The male, or the Purusa, is not actually doing anything, but is just admiring the woman who is dancing, the Prakrti.

So, since Purusa is never changing and is pure consciousness, does this mean that Prakrti is everything that changes and is everything that is not conscious? It seems like Purusa is easier to understand since it does not change and is consciousness, unlike Prakrti. Is Prakrti a more complicated idea than that of Purusa? In a way, Purusa controls Prakrti, because it causes Prakrti to manifest. Does this mean that Prakrti is never able to be in a manifest state without Purusa? Thoughts?

Confessions of a Poser Yogi

When I was 16, I went through a stage where I was convinced I was a Yogi. I only ate food from Trader Joe’s, and sported a tie-dye backpack made from “organic” fabric. Soccer was replaced with yoga and meditation. For several months I refused to brush my hair, and proudly cultivated a pathetic dread-lock in the back of my hair.

Looking back, I realize how ridiculous my actions were. Although I knew that the practice of yoga had its roots in Hindu and Buddhist traditions, I never bothered to understand more about it. To me, yoga was just a way to combat stress and provide momentum for my immature counter-culture tendencies. 

Now, three years later, as I learn about Hinduism in a college setting, I realize that the practice of yoga is just one small part of the philosophy. 

The Yoga school of thought focuses not on “down-dog” or “sun-salutation,” but rather the liberation of purusa the “spirit/soul” from prakrti “nature.” The Yoga system presents a causal model of suffering, based on the disease-cure-path theme. As stated in The Philosophical Traditions of India, “the liberation process is none other than a process of ‘healing’ from the sickness of phenomenal existence” (95). Unlike the Samkhya doctrine, Yoga “conceives of the mind as a unitary entity... not distinguished in three dimensions” (101).

Even though I am still trying to fully grasp these concepts, I can appreciate the complexity and subtly of the Yoga system. By focusing on the practice, rather than the actual teachings, I never grasped the true meaning of the Yoga system. 

However, in order to come full circle, there are still some questions I would like to answer. First off, when was the modern form of Yoga developed? Does it all resemble the original practice of Yoga? If not, what are the differences?

Maybe after I answer these questions, I can really understand the system that I so enthusiastically (and ignorantly) embraced.