Thank you for your encouragement and extending assent to continue in this thread . I wish to just acquaint you with some things prior to writing about Vedic Logic since the ideas are quite necessary as a preliminary .
In Vedic logic an inverted perspective is employed since our ancients percieved that our natural way of looking at things was /or had an error - in that it did not allow a person to "see the background (or substratum) of anything but only the foreground objects". Moreover according to them what was responsible for this partial knowledge ie. knowledge of things seen but not not of those unseen - was due to the impinging of the day to day objects on the background of our knowledge - much as like loud noises and colours and other big objects would have the effect of distracting us , sometimes even to the extent of so disconcerting to us that we would have to search hard for what exactly we were thinking or doing before the distraction occured.
Now according to them this was not an "inverted perspective'' but rather a correction in the flawed way we were looking at things , what they percieved was that on seeing an object or (in coming to know of the object) there was an inherent inversion the knowledge garnered created in our otherwise pristine knowledge (much as a lense in a camera would invert the image ) only here the inversion was not in the image but in our knowledge !. So Vedic Logic attempts to correct this perspective as partial knowledge was always considered as wrong knowledge . A keen and understanding mind is required to grasp this and the logic . moreover it only required understanding as knowledge would work on knowledge once it was understood correctly - It was also helpful in that this is the logic employed in all karikas and texts wherever things were propounded as well as in the epics and Yoga sutras etc.
I am following a classical approach but removing all the sanskrit terms and rigidity and some illustrations are only used to get the point home - moreover it is to be understood in the aspect of Total knowledge and a gradual rise to it .
Again the examples have over the years been enlivened as they are used throughout the vedas and , the vedas do not use multifarous examples , so wherever a person learns them it is in the same form that it was expounded thousands of years earlier and have acquired a potency to demonstrate knowledge once the import is accurately grasped.
One need not worry about delineations that one comes across in books like Hetu,Sambandham etc ( Major premise , minor or conclusion) I will append the reasoning only so that the correctness is grasped and can be contrasted by the reader with how he was seeing the same thing previously .The conclusions naturally will follow from understanding .
An object is revealed not by sunlight but because it is non luminous (or not capable of self illumination) . Sunlight is not the cause of its being revealed but the cause of it being brought to our cognizance is due to the fact that it cannot illuminate itself .
Here it may seem strange but as a fact , the ancients used to insist that the cause and effect have to be INTIMATELY connected and as far as possible it has to be immediate and no new parameters should be introduced into the equation since it would vitiate knowledge . For them one of the tests of right cause being attributed to right effect is one of the indications of right reasoning .This reasoning may be applied to various cases and validated .
Another example is : A man in a shadow (or shade) does not feel the heat( not because of the shadow) , but due to his refraining to interact with things having heat in them ..... for coolness is not a property of a shadow (or shade).
A thing to be noted is Universality of the applicability of the statement to ones own conviction ..
Here also the effect is allied as close as possible to the cause - one cannot just loosely say that the suns action is not there on the man - in which case one has to "Assume" (mentally and intellectually by images and a priori knowledge) many objects and instruments and other causes and effects thus making it interminable , giving rise to a fantastic mind (a mind riddled with fantasy) with roots in memory.
This much being said , a question will naturally rise as to what is wrong in saying that it is the sun or the sunrays which reveal an object . Such a pedestrian reasoning has its pitfalls in that , the sun (would in our consciousness and knowledge consequently ) acquire a conditioning "by the sun" meaning - To do - as in a person and would lead to a conferring of "life" on the sun as if it were a ''human being"" or "being" whereas in terms of scale (or size ) it is a relationship between the Earth and its non consciousness .
We are similarly culpable of painting nature as a woman, beautiful , etc etc . Nature is implacable and impersonal and treats everyone the same . It is calm , active and violent - just as human natures are - here the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm is attained through understanding and knowledge alone .
Otherwise we struggle to "imagine'' and merge the microcosm in the macrocosm or see it as an unbroken part of the unified whole .
Another example is : which came first the seed or the Tree ? - It is the Tree that came first . ---- strange as it may seem why is it so ? .. According to them everything in the world consists of Names and Forms , and names and forms are what are grasped by the mind - what does not have name or form cannot be grasped by the mind (we leave it at that ) .
Now according to them a person is acquainted with "knowledge'' of objects of perception in the following ways The Form or object is percieved by a person and he is "told'' that it is a Tree or House or Car or Dog etc by someone else IN THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE IN HIS LIFE or he reads or hears about it - but anyway a pictorial representation is a must . So on an other wise plain tabula rasa of a memory or mind or knowledge a person aggregates what is known as perceptional knowledge and their impressions. ie. in short a thing is pointed out or indicated and its representation connected to the knowledge of the word. or sound . internally .
Here the logic is that - All things percieved are EFFECTS . - In the outer world it is understood that the Tree is an effect (If the person was FIRST acquainted in consciousness and knowledge with a Tree in the inner world it is Cause) . Now a person may ask why it cannot be a seed as it is well known trees come from seeds .. The logic was - it may be so - but then a problem of non immediacy arises in the relationship - for if a tree (HIS TREE the reasoners) were to come from a seed , then that seed would have to come from another Tree , and so on into an infinite regression . And again there would be a violation of the "All things perceived are Effects" - for the seed would be an effect and an effect cannot come from an effect .A seed has to give forth a seed - not a tree . From a tree similarly a tree would be the cause . So we have now two things which are both effects depending on how the knowledge came to him in the FIRST INSTANCE . This law requiring that all things connected by cause and effect have to be RELATED SUBSTANTIALLY to the thing under consideration (like the sun illuminating a house ). is to be strictly adhered to if we have to know the truth of things . This law of Effect on FIRST knowledge of an object was brought in to preempt the wrong thought process in knowledge whereby ultimately a man goes on thinking infinitly as to whether a tree came from a seed the that seed would have to come from a tree etc etc in infinity . And thus lead to a state of indeterminacy - indeterminacy would create doubt and doubt was the nature of the mind , whilst determinacy was the nature of the intellect . And since doubt is a creation of the person himself involved in reasoning and shows flawed understanding and consciousness - the point of infinite regression in any person was the point of pure ignorance due to a forgetting of the FIRST memory as to whether he was acquainted with a seed and then a Tree or a Tree and then the relationship of the Tree to it . So man if he does not remember his first experience has to make a principled stand and decide HIMSELF (thus eliminating doubt) whether in his opinion it was a Tree which came first or seed .- The thing to be understood in the above dissertation is that primacy was given to the operations of the mind and how it worked - since everything was conjured up instantaneously when a sound was heard - Thinking is an act that takes place in the dream consciousness even if we are awake , this is the thing to be noted.
Now the majority will be acquainted with Tree rather than seed , and as Trees are everywhere it is ingrained in our consciousness and knowledge that Trees are taken for granted , and moreover when the word Tree is mentioned a mental image is formed in our mind (of a Tree in general) - so the Cause is a Tree in which case there is a harmony between the Gross perception of the eye in the outer physical world , and In the mental world of thought and in the intellect which has the knowledge and in memory .Here emphasis is on seen and heard knowledge relating to physical objects .
Similarly a person is precluded by this into tracing his cause of birth to the sun , or god, or even his grand parents etc.
And an argumentative disputant is immediately located and thrown out of the debate . For if a person says the cause of his birth is the womb of his mother - no - Scale requires scale and consistency in both the Cause and effect .
So the correspondance of knowledge in consciousness has to be both of scale and equality of item . (naturally this is to get the right image - from which Species will follow which is a matter of intellect ) . Womb is a matter of discussion if only the subject is of conception and fertilization . One cannot talk to a fully grown man that his mothers womb is responsible for his birth as an illustration of cause and effect - the vulgarity and grossness in thinking is brought out by the statement of such a person who reasons so. HIs mind is fully known and also his knowledge and character .
. In all thinking , everything has to be short and direct but universal at that level .
So what we mean here is that (in western terminology) "Material Cause" (or Substantial Cause ) is required . Clay pot comes from Clay. not from potter . Moreover it is validated by our conscious knowledge for when somebody says "Clay pot" he remembers the image of the pot not the potter or the idea that a potter and earth have to be added !!!.
Similarly gold ornaments are nothing but Gold .
Clay pot is nothing but Earth .
Here what is to be noted is that the accent was on the ACTUAL obtaining situation in knowledge and consciousness by our ancients . For one associates (internally) on seeing or hearing the words clay pot or gold ornaments - first the Object per se "is seen internally and externally" next it is associated with the FEELING and KNOWLEDGE "Earthen or Gold" as the case may be .
By this we can locate erroneous thinking within ourselves and by becoming aware it is corrected automatically .
So a question as to if a glass is half full or half empty can be immediately shut out - for the questioner has to frame it first and the question gives the answer itself .
How is this done ? Assuming that it is a well known conundrum the most taut question can be if a person asks such an unfair question by the words : Would you say that a glass is half empty or half full - this is trolling and inadmissible since there is a preconcieved notion by the questioner that it is well known so answer is due to him - One can just let it pass or ask him to elucidate it so as to "see" his mind - he will have to ''Assume " a glass , a liquid . a pouring of the liquid by a someone to a desired level etc !!!! All which leaves a million loopholes to shoot it to bits . Or one can resort and give a considered reply that it is Full of space .
One should not introduce actions, instruments and agents without notifying the other party into any argument or debate .
One should not get into any debate or discussion where the ground rules are not known , ie. if a discussion on the existence of God is elicited by an awowed athiest - he has to first agree to the word God and what it means in the word concept - rather than use the word God and say that God does not exist , it is a Tamasic and most ignorant thing to say since he needs the word God to define the non existence . Of course the word Atheist if being discussed has to be agreed upon as ITSELF and not as some vague "meaning god does not exist'' - since it is another language and word meaning and idea would be different - which ultimately would lead to a conclusion of it being a state of mind or knowledge of a person !!.
So if a man complains he has been called a dog by another and frets he is being stupid - the other person cannot distinguish between a dog and man , and the hearer does not become a dog either !! if he feels aggrieved it means he has lost the humour of the situation altogether - he cannot become aggrieved because of anothers faulty logic and knowledge and consciousness (however temporary the lapse may be ). Krama becomes Karma gradually .
There is no day or night
There is no silver in mother of pearl
When we say "like'' (ie as ) and say an example people understand as "is'' in the absence of proper thinking - they approximate the like to is in consciousness and it becomes a habit .
Too much doubts indicate inability to think in the general and infer correctly to the particular - (conversly) treating the particular as the general .
People might wonder what QM has to do with all this - QM is dealing with infinitesmally small measurements , maybe knowledge can be included as a QM variable ?
Note : I do not physically mean a disputant or a debate with another person - It is all in our own ways of thinking and is an internal dialogue or process in thinking within us - of course it is applicable in the outer world also but knowing and silence is better in the outside world - one allows everything to be said and goes along so to say !!
There is a thing to be said about knowledge , which we assimilate (It is something to be taken into account when you read the far fetched post below ) Unlike physical objects , perceptional knowledge or results of proofs and evidences were considered thus (if it is of help in understanding the previous post )
There was a so called knowledge based on physical evidences arising in the consciousness of the observer , and this knowledge would stay for a period as long as it was pondered upon and then vanish when the thinking process was left off . And since knowledge however defective has to arise (as in dream - ie. in the subtle world of mind and matter) since it was based on evidences , it was considered to have arisen from a like "Cause'' ie knowledge which was pure and complete . It had a vanishing point when the thought was left off and unlike in ordinary physical matters it was found to revert back to pure knowledge. And the same was recalled from knowledge at an instant when the recall function was applied. It appears as if from nowhere like magic only to stay for a while and then vanish - and these time frames of genesis of secondary knowledge could only be from a like thing and not from something substantially different ., and it was sustained in knowledge and could revert back to knowledge . Of physical things it was found that we percieve only the effects and never the cause - the cause in popular parlance was a deconstruction of the effect - which was considered impossible , whereas in the internal world it was possible . So in essence what it means is that in the physical world there is actually no cause and effect but rather discrete events - this was so because it was not just an intellectual exercise , the reality was also considered - for instance in the case of Milk becoming curd , in the physical world the right reasoning is that Milk though the ostensible cause and curd the effect - considering the way the perception of objects took place by a conscious individual and how it affects his knowledge - milk is an effect in the physical world as well as Curd since milk required the addition of Agents and Instruments - and agents and instruments were a matter of the intellect and its knowledge . In the inner world both arise in the mind without knowledge as if in dream and cognition is by the intellect wherein it determines the object percieved with relation to previous knowledge of the Agent and Instruments and of connecting cause and effect in one quick instant . So mind has a random character and it cannot distinguish the particular image - it just displays all images as if in dream and so is chaotic whilst the intellect determines the object by prior knowledge . It is particular as related to the generality of the mind but in turn though particular at that level it in effect is general in relation to the Ego or empirical self . So basically the 5 senses are general (ie they are just conduits and cannot distinguish the object to which they relate their attribute) but become particular in the mind ( as an aggregation of senses and thus image of the object is produced) and the particularity of the mind is general compared to the(knowledge of the ) intellect and the particularity in the intellect becomes general in comparison to the knowledge in the Ego (empirical) . to clarify matters - the Ego contains the background data also as well as the foreground data of an object of knowledge thus making it complete in almost every respect . IT becomes perfect knowledge when the person has knowledge of the real self . I hope I have not been too obtuse and confusing
Dear Captain ,
These 4 things have to be ascertained according to Shankara in relation to the Self
1. It is always the Known
2.It need not be known .
3. It must be known .
4. It cannot be known .
These have to be ascertained by a person of knowledge since they are quite different though they may be construed as being in Harmony or in conjunction mutually reinforcing . This is Shankaras refutation of Janism - no doubts will remain , there is no "maybe '' or "sometimes'' types of statements - it is emphatic and he always means The Self or Brahman - according to him Maya is non existent and hence need not be discussed or ascertained - since if there is any Maya or Ignorance then right knowledge will remove it . For a man of knowledge there is no Maya , it is a word used to describe the predicament of the person who is under a delusion and wishes to remove it .
Again in the matter of Mathematics and Logic this is how you have to see it :
Mathematics or numbers is the most intuitive of all the sciences , it is an empirically intuitive one , No other science is so . Because it is directly connected with representation of Numbers in space , which are beyond time , It is not subject to time as other sciences and their representations are - it does not have a priori assumptions unlike other sciences ,
the primary representation is 1 which in all cases is a true statement . IT can be directly intuited by observation and does not require any other thing to support it . Every subsequent representation of a number is an increment of the same by the same but represented differently - it is a science which was intuitively developed from necessity unlike the others , but it is also a higly theoretical science affording higher assumptions as a prioris when it departs from Numbers . Also 2 cannot exist without 1 and if we see any number we know intuitively the EXACT numbers contained in it and those which are conversely not contained in it . Unlike geometry it does not truncate space in such a way that time can be extracted from it . Time is always one dimension - it does not afford different dimensions in space . Numbers are the intuitive observations as a feeling and translated into ideas in space - they are not forms so they are a higher thing .
Now logic is entirely another matter - please understand that any good logical system "EXPLAINS'' the working of the faculty of Reason whereby man is superior to beasts ,They do not enunciate rules (why on earth do you have to understand them in the very SPECIFIC manner that is enunciated ? it is only a pointer on how our reason works and judgement - it is not a SCIENCE it is higher than a science , and it is concerned with Perception and Cognition and Judgement and Reason and Other things which are inner , it is not exhaustive but it is quite how we work with our inner instruments the intellect ).
Aneka = many . Antha = End . Vada = postulate or just a doctrine - do not spend you time on doctrines and postulates , it is a certainity that in Metaphysics iot will be overturned at a level of transcendance because Knowledge does not admit to varying and diverse doctrines , knowledge will at a certain level and above admit only Knowledge alone , The word knowledge is an action , because the root of every word is an action and the action as a root of knowledge means "To Know'' - it is impossible for you to admit that other than yourself the knower there cannot be another knower who knows you and another knower which is a regressus ad infinitum - the Self is the limit and the end .
If you have doubt it means that is not knowledge - it is the mind being born from consciousness like a shadow,
Logic and Mathematics are intuitive - there is another Higher logic which is Metalogic it is directly concerned and leads to self realization - but the angle of vision is different , it is philosophical and not intellectual .
Jainism was not particularly known for their knowledge of things , rather they were known for their practices , Of course the self realized Jain would not naturally upset tradition , it is so otherwise anarchy is the result .
There is no path - Logic is to be understood as not a subject , just as a doctor would read anatomy - it is a reality for him and he need not study it so too logic need not be ''studied'' it has to be understood as the principles of thought - or how the intellect works .
Again Captain keeping in view your best interests - The quest for the truth requires a STRICT adherance to PRECISION in THINKING . You cannot mix Boolean Algebra with logic all ANACHRONISMS in thought have to be avoided so that over time your thinking becomes clear .
Boolean Algebra is a later development and the Intellect is a prior one . You cannot club the two - Fuzzy Logic is yet later .
Algebra is not Logic - it REQUIRES LOGICAL THINKING
Boolean is a Variant of Algebra of which Algebra came first and Boolean later .
Fuzzy Logic is a take off on the general way the intellect sees things and so is a derived concept neither logic nor intelligent or conscious - it is just a concept and a later development.
You cannot compare Logic with Fuzzy Logic as concepts it will spoil your idea of time within you . You have to be extremely aware that a reality is being compared against something which has the name only , but is just a concept and not anything more .
In Boolean Logic is involved , but representations by Algebraic methods are also involved
and it is a variant within the General Science Of Mathematics - Algebra offers alternative representations and Boolean is a Variant of Algebra .One moves from the general to the particular and throws out what is not germane to the issue ,
So In the Aneka vada etc - You have to be aware if you were imbibing this information in English or in Sanskrit ,What is the language in which you think or choose to think . If I read a book in Malayalam precision requires that I understand it in Malayalam , now if an English thought comes by way of understanding - I have to be aware of it and see if there is any anachronism in the UNDERSTANDING . Its source may be a Sanskrit book read in English translation or a Tamil Book which thought has come in English to me since I use English more than Tamil - it will give you a pointer as to how you assimilate knowledge .
Shankara cannot be compared with anything else - since his was Advaita Vedanta or Non Dual , As also Kashmir Advaita - the Tenets are same - You have to either start from Non Duality or work your way up from Dual theories , you cannot compare - because it is worthless to read Jainism ,Bhattas,Nayayikas,Samknyas, Charvakas,Buddhism ,Idealists,Nihilists,Realists etc since they just do not exist in Advaita . On the other hand if you work your way up - then obviously if you are not going in for Advaita - it will end up in either the thought structures of Dvaita and Vishista Advaita at the highest , that is all but still there would not be Jainism etc etc ---- because at each level of knowledge there is a merging or subsuming of religions and theories according to the strength of the thought structure . The proof of the pudding is in its eating .
The scope of conception differs - Memory is used in the nature of Cosmic Memory and never individual memory , since it includes the reflective knowledge of the infinite as well as past karmas which are forgotten.
Nothing can be taken literally when you are reading the upanishads , it is addressed to the JIvatma and not the body . This is the problem of cross consciousness , one has to withdraw the mind when it wanders into a worldly type of movement , other wise you must have a constant remembrance that it is written for the JIvatma and read accordingly in which case you will stop after every few words to consciously inhere in that mode of understanding . It is a problem this knowledge path just as a man sits for meditation and is troubled by various thoughts , the same occurs. Doubts are the mind , and sleepiness, inability to push the intellect and tiredness tc all happen when one is going into a subtler movement of thought , there is no other way than to surmount this lethargy of a million years , it requires tremendous effort and power .
The order is correct as you have mentioned - the Upanishad has the explanation of how each is subtler and why . so you should not have this problem actually . It is all inward with a couple of lines scattered to show why it is so . but those are also quite subtle in construction .Why are you making a distinction as between experience or otherwise ? This is relating to yourself , and if correctly understood by right reasoning you become the thing through knowledge !! There is no explosive or life changing experience that will blow you out into infinity and swallow your world into nothingness and put you in the true one state that you are !!, What you read and understand if done correctly will be experienced as shifts in consciousness and you obviously change for the better and ever . It does not consist of going to meet something or something coming to meet you - negation of wrong knowledge by right knowledge is enough , the knowledge by which wrong understanding was removed cannot then undergo any change , for it is the Truth . So what validation is further required ? . This is pure knowledge so obviously when you understand it correctly , you become that ie. the accumulated dirt of centuries is negated as they exist as manifest knowledge within you , It is say suppose a man has been wrongly taught by his parents that he is their son and in later life he comes to know that he was adopted , his wrong assumptions are put to rest , it is a mistaken notion that is corrected and lived as such . Like the story in "The Lion King" . the lion thought he was some other animal but he was shown his reflection and his wrong notion went away . Any mystery surrounding realization means the person has some contradictions unreconciled and he has to or it will transmute by experience through living in later life . It is a living moving experience in the heart and , in the here and now (to use a cliche which in itself endows esoterism to the knowledge). Obviously it is in the here and now everyone experiences life and not in the past and future ......the mind has to be shorn of the concept of time and everything becomes in the now and undistanced . I hope I have been helpful and not obfuscating .
Hari, once again you have used an expression which I find amazing and with the potential to solve many puzzles. Cross-Consciousness.
I could read further but I am stuck here. Kindly expand on this. Thanks.
Dear Captain ,
It is mine , this phrase I am glad you find it interesting - actually let me try to put it into correct perspective -
When we are engaged in the eliminating the inner world of dreams - it is a technique of reasoning and knowledge that I used to employ in order to obtain a clear mind ie. Mind without any ''objects '' in it so that it becomes imageless and like a blank paper .Devoid of the inner world . It is essential to isolate the Ego related to mind and that of the consciousness of the Ego relating to the Body and the Intellect - presently all these are in an Undifferentiated state of consciousness within our ''I '' sense .
The reasoning and knowledge works like this :
Since we have waking state and Dream state and Sleep state - what essentially happens in a person is that - when we go to sleep our consciousness leaves the waking state and then enters the dream state proper and then moves on to the state of deep sleep .
It is not always a person will see dreams whilst going to sleep - but it is always (ie our consciousness) whether we see dreams or not - it always transits through the dream state and on waking it comes back to waking through the dream state . It is a linear relationship , just as one life is linear and non repetitive from birth through living to death . Our daily life is a micro cosmic movement of this same phenomena. And again if we contract into a smaller
unit - we can see that in waking state we do thinking and fantasizing etc and planning all these are in the dream consciousness and sometimes we may sit without anything in particular with a blank mind and if someone says ''what were you thinking'' you reply nothing . This roughly corresponds to the sleeping state internally but you are awake .
Now in dream what happens is that the impressions in memory are the content of the inner world and our senses have only half the expansion they had in the waking state - or to put it in another manner "Dream State is that state of consciousness wherein our 5 senses of knowledge and the one sense of action the larynx are half awake only ". And obviously they are fully not available in sleep as in stone .
The problem I faced was how to clean up the memory or the internal world , This required some practice - The reasoning was as follows - In my memory are impressions of the waking state which are replicated whenever I see dream , but whilst in dreaming I am unable to detach myself from the objects or in other words to be indifferent to the objects , and I was experiencing dream as if it were real and however much I tried to create a distance between the object and 'Myself'' as could be done in the waking world it would not be possible - I investigated deeply into this phenomena since how was I to eliminate the ego in Dream ? It was here that I found that since even in dream I am aware of the external world my dreams were aligned to that knowledge or the residuum of the waking state that I was carrying into the Dream state and this residuum was making the problem of my experiencing Dream as if it were the external world. This is what I called cross consciousness - it is a very small and subtle and very very small consciousness of the world which I had just left that lingered in memory . So the knowledge that I had now I used to erase the residuum from memory in the following manner - deep cogitation and (I mean really deep and focussed thinking was done over a period of time ) in the following manner
Since in dream I do no have a physical body and the physical world also is not available - it would not be possible (in the state of pure dreaming) to ''see" or experience worldly objects like bodies, hair, vehicles like cars planes, seas , shirts animals ,pots and pans etc - so here I employed the method of negation of the waking world from dream - what transpired was slowly I was as soon as closing the eyes - I would be in the dream state and start lucid dreaming - and my awareness was sharper - as in the waking world - and the reasoning worked out very well as day by day worldly things seen in dream state started becoming less and less - like houses , people etc - and the effect was really very gratifying - I started developing an unprecedented clarity and objectivity in the waking state and one without any judgement and there was a peace and indifference to objects . The impinging of objects on my consciousness was soft and more rounder not jarring or painful. And the flip side was I fell into always lucid dreaming when I transited to sleep and back into waking . Now you may wonder if the outer world and its memory were totally inoperable in dream what was the dream world then - It was colourful and one could see pleasant sites and palaces and other ''Divine " objects at will and celestials - which convinced me that the real dream state has pictures which were not man made , they just existed and the scenes were so sublime and feelings of sublimity that one cannot express or even write , it is like sort of very clear and each scenery or picture flashed with colours and feelings with a lot of information on the stage of consciousness . It is really inexplicable , but then it became a problem and I had to employ the same reasoning to wipe out this ancient and embedded world in memory though beautiful as it was a big problem and since the senses had acquired a sharpness which was subtle and much stronger than normally - hese impressions were like a "branding'' with an iron sometimes it took maybe days for a dream image to vanish - it impinged o the consciousness with so much feeling , beauty, colour and such artistic beauty that the impression was almost indelible and we start wishing for the waking consciousness!!! . Whics is more duller and insipid actually and less vibrant compared to this non concocted inner world . I use the same reasoning since the dream impressions and the ego consciousnes of the dream experiencing body was again going into seed state and laya in sleeping - by knowledge it can be erased. Till the dream state is transcended. Intense mediatation on M helps in these parts of the consciousness,
Cross consciousness is thus the element of ego that is conscious of the physical body (and hence the world ) that passes into the dream state and vitiates it , and the seed consciousness of the dream body passes into dep sleep and is in laya . The same happens in waking state we have a seed consciousness in our ego of the dream state which is why we can fantasize or think or plan etc . The states are distinct and separate actually we contaminate by carrying the residuum from each state to the other and then enjoy that ego .
This is the cross consciousness - In waking we should not have past or future , this is due to the action of this nature of ego on the memory . We have to be in the present always and every object is intuited in the Now . I personally would prefer that you do not follow me or my explanation - but you should delve deep and retrieve the knowledge that flashed in your consciousness which occured to you on reading this concept - The True knowledge would be more helpful to you than what I wrote - maybe it flashed exactly as I knew it , or with more clarity and knowledge - so find out what that exact knowledge was that flashed in you . Do not go by mine - but if you cannot get the knowledge maybe it means it was false and the background of your thought may have been some hidden memory which the words triggered - in which case you will be better off going by what I have written . These flashes have to be inquired and corrected . Every flash of knowing may not relate to the subject on hand if you are too prone to emotions - it may be some ridiculous and totally unrelated thing .Subtlety is the key to the inward journey and never be amazed or surprised with anything that you see or hear in the world or in dream - Surprise is an indication of stupidity and ignorance in a person . The last sentence is not mine it is from the Vedantas .
As a post script : succintly it due to this phenomena that we :
When expounding on Theosophy or other subtle things
a) Argue the case from a worldly example to a subtle principle in the next ie we mix up the Gross with the subtle when we write. Worldly examples are to be used only as an exception ,
b) So we can easily know where the writers thinking is skewed and so his knowledge in the intellect
c) lack of consistency between the general in the subtle and the particular in the subtle.
Finally I have acknowledged this term as mine since normally I ascribe everything to a prior knowledge - this was an absolute thought and hence the explanation that I have given is unique both in knowledge content and concept and practice . I am allowed some things so that just one thought which is mine will ensure that if I have maintained intellectual honesty my thoughts system will remain in the original without erosion over time as it will be assimilated in the ego of vedanta and find its resting place in a proper manner at the proper places to the correct sources within - whilst this will be an index concept which will pull in all my thoughts from universal memory into the original if required . It is how the intellect works . Whatever I have written will stay as a body within the main body of thought . This is true Intellectual property , it is a matter of indifference if anyone uses it as if their own also - then those writings will be subsumed in mine depending on the acknowledgements . The intellect is a very fascinating thing since the universe as an idea rests in it as are also the stars and various suns and galaxies - it is unbound even in reflection ..