Consciousness/Awareness, Mind, No Mind

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The difficulty is defining "knows" because It can't be objectified.

Does it need to be objectified? In doing so, does that bring it down into the realms of vritti? I think this is where you need to change the word to change the paradigm, because often 'knowing' is associated with a brain/mind process. If that's what your mind is used to then it goes back to that as a 'default' and struggles to resolve the paradox it has created. Using the word 'Gnosis' or similar takes you out of that paradigm and 'levels up' your understanding.

It's like the difference between "That which knows" and just plain Gnosis, 'that which' implies an 'object' of consciousness while Gnosis is.... not an object of consciousness.

Originally Posted by hazada guess

What is that which know's and where does it come from?

It depends on which 'knowing' you're talking about. If you're talking about the brain/mind processing of information then, from a strictly Spiritual perspective, 'that which' doesn't exist since you're talking about the ego. If you're talking about a levelled-up knowing then the 'that which' doesn't exist either. The 'that which' just Is and has always been there.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Does it need to be objectified?

For my own understanding? No. To relate it to others? Yes because that's how language and intellect works. Neither Gnosis or "knowing" will mean much to someone who hasn't "tasted" that qualia. It's like Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?". The answer is only a bat truly knows.

This is a good description of Gnosis and what does it really mean to someone who has not had such direct experiential "knowing"?

Knowledge (or gnosis) in Sufism refers to knowledge of Self and God. The gnostic is called al-arif bi'lah or "one who knows by God". The goal of the Sufi practitioner is to remove inner obstacles to the knowledge of god. Sufism, understood as the quest for Truth, is to seek for the separate existence of the Self to be consumed by Truth, as stated by the Sufi poet Mansur al-Hallaj, who was executed for saying "I am the Truth" (ana'l haqq).

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 3 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In the presence of vritt we have mind. In the absence of vritti we have no mind. In both states there's Consciousness of presence and absence of vritti.

Please elaborate more on "the absence of vritti". Your definition of vritti ("modifications of the mind") is fine for purposes of this discussion.

I once had a long discussion with my teacher, an adept in Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras, on the second sutra:

"Yoga chitta vritti nirodahah."

I had seen translations of "nirodahah" as annihilation, stilling, etc. Subsequently, I had previously translated that sutra as "Yoga is stilling all the modifications of the mind". This was in accordance with one of my favorite Biblical passages, Psalm 46:10 ("Be still and know that I AM God.")

However, my teacher pointed out that, if there was an "absence of vritti" (to use your terminology), there would also be no body...and that will suffice for purposes of this discussion now. Therefore, I ask you what do you mean by the "absence of vritti"?

NOTE: My teacher's translation of that sutra is: "One who has PERFECT CONTROL over the waves of the mind is a yogi."

I initially bristled at the word "control" until it was made clear that "control" (in this sense) was similar to the control that one needs when driving a car or guiding one's "vehicles".

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

This is a good description of Gnosis and what does it really mean to someone who has not had such direct experiential "knowing"?

You could say the same about any kind of no-mind or knowing beyond the processing of information, which most people will associate knowing with anyway. Have you tried to explain the taste of an orange to someone who hasn't tasted one? It's a fun exercise.

The problem with the definitions you gave is that people will base any understandings on their definitions of 'Self' and 'God', 'truth, 'knowing'. What most people usually mean by 'self' - uppercase or not - is either ego/Ahamkara at best or a Persona or a mask of convenience.

One of the simplest definitions for Gnosis I've heard is "Knowing without knowing how you know," so straight away that takes it away from the brain/mind process. It also is a finger pointing to the moon, and often people their selves are the biggest obstacles they have. And as I understand Eastern teachings in general, there is no goal to achieve in the way if Western education, the person takes whatever understanding they can that's relative to their own consciousness.

As your quote goes,
"separate existence of the Self,"

Usually I take that to read ego/Ahamkara, and Gnosis, no-mind or whatever other term you use to 'point' to something beyond the ego/Ahamkara, which is what you're pointing at. For most people egoism is what is beyond the ego. Where you're going with this, I think, is beyond ego/Ahamkara.

One definition of vbritti is -
"What does Vritti mean? Vritti refers to the thoughts that surface in the mind, often described as a whirlpool."

The unconscious is always chuntering away and throwing out thoughts, that's its 'job'. But also bear in mind that we are only conscious of some 10-15% of the total, so perhaps it's not an absence but a focus.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 15 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

One of the simplest definitions for Gnosis I've heard is "Knowing without knowing how you know," so straight away that takes it away from the brain/mind process.

I use a similar definition: "Knowing without thinking". Zen and other traditions use "Not Knowing" but most people might not understand that.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Please elaborate more on "the absence of vritti". Your definition of vritti ("modifications of the mind") is fine for purposes of this discussion.

In this context my usage of absence of vritti equates to experience of absence such as in deep and dreamless sleep or deep meditation.

This is probably an absolute take on no-mind and in another context I believe it's used to describe lack of surface thoughts, like being in the zone or flow-state. It's all just raw experience or qualia, however mind is certainly being modified by the ongoing stream of sensory perception.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Where you're going with this, I think, is beyond ego/Ahamkara.

Yes, I'm pointing at Atman. In the presence of Ahamkara - which is just a whirlpool of vritti - Atman is. In the absence of Ahamkara Atman still is.

Substitute Turiya for Atman and we have Mandukya Upanishad.

[lemex]

Isn't a persons still within self (mind), simply an expanded mind. The mind is expansive. One never leaves body but enters the expansive of body or what we don't know about it. Mediation goes deeper into levels that are present. You never leave mind. An example of knowing without knowing. The body heals itself and therefor knows how to at a level we are not aware of, this being the trap of awareness. Imagine being able to control that consciously. There is so much we don't need to know. I think what we fail to understand a part of mind (ability) operates as universe itself does and largeness is what you tap into. One is actually tapping into how universe works. There exist also body awareness (still mind) processing. Body is aware, mind is not.

[Still_Waters]

QuotE 17 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In this context my usage of absence of vritti equates to experience of absence such as in deep and dreamless sleep or deep meditation.

This is probably an absolute take on no-mind .

That was my original understanding of "absence of vritti" - absence such as in deep and dreamless sleep or deep meditation.

As usual, my teacher took the opportunity to boggle my "mind" even more at a deeper level by pointing out (as I saw for myself) yogis who can control subtler vrittis such as the ones that project their physical forms ... and more.

As one goes deeper and deeper in meditation, one discovers that there are subtler and subtler layers of the metaphorical onion that must be peeled.