NOTE 9/28/14: The ground state is basically a transition point from non-awareness into awareness. This is described more fully at Universe and Awareness
.
References:
Aristotle and the Ground State
Awareness and the Ground State
Awareness is known to arise, change and disappear. It may be likened to a disturbance that arises, changes and disappears. We may assume some ground state, which when disturbed gives rise to awareness.
The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is an absence of awareness. It shall forever remain unknown because there is no awareness to accompany it.
The ground state is similar to that sound sleep in which no time seems to have passed. That time is just gone and cannot be found in memory either.
The ground state has no definition. The definition comes from awareness.
Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state, which is unknowable.
.
The idea of self exists throughout the spectrum of life. There is mineral self, plant self, the animal self, and the human self. Thus self is relative. The absolute Self of the Vedas is arrived at through the process of “neti, neti” (not this, not that). It leads to the same ground state described above.
The concepts of “Brahma” in Hinduism and “Nirvana” in Buddhism are based on this ground state. “Mahamudra” of Tantra is an attempt to describe this ground state.
The ultimate Self of Vedas arrived at through the process of “neti, neti” is the same ground state.
.
The God of Abrahamic religions is considered as the Creator of the world. Thus defined, God is relative to the ground state because the ground state has no definition.
The Static of Scientology is considered as the unmoved mover that can postulate and perceive. Thus defined, Static is relative to the ground state.
The concepts of God of Abrahamic religions and the Static of Scientology are relative to this ground state.
.
In the numbering system, zero is the absence of counting numbers. It then becomes the reference point of all numbers whether positive or negative, rational or irrational, real or imaginary.
Similarly, the ground state is an absence of awareness. It then becomes the reference point of anything that one can be aware of, whether potential or actual, real or imaginary, etc. All awareness, therefore, is relative. None of the awareness or considerations, such as, those of God and Static, may be regarded as absolute.
All awareness and considerations are relative to the ground state. There is no absolute awareness or consideration.
There is no bottom to the rabbit hole.
.
Next: The Nature of Consciousness
.
Comments
“The ultimate Self of Vedas is the same ground state of complete absence of awareness.”
The earliest self that arises is raw awareness itself. It is a dsiturbance akin to light (electromagnetic wave). It is raw, raw, raw. It later devlops into self- awareness of forms, then self of minerals, plants, animals, humans, etc.
There is no self in the beginning that would resemble God.
Correct. Rather it is God, invented by man who resembles man. I see a few philosophical inversions such as this. We find another example when we look at the terms infinite and finite. We tend to be conditioned to believe that material world is finite while the unseen world is infinite. Rather it seems to me that all that we can understand about the material world leads us to believe it is both irrational (without ratio) and infinite.
I have had interesting realizations on the subject of finite and infinite that I shall be putting in my next essay “Consciousness and Forms.”
Written another way, it is the finite within which the infinite is contained. I say this because for instance the irrational value of pi is an irretrievable value which lies between two whole numbers and yet whose precise calculation can never be arrived. This is infinite and yet it lies within the finite.
Pi is actually finite because one can determine its upper and lower limits. It just cannot be expressed as a precise ratio of two numbers. That makes it irrational but not infinite.
Infinite = no limits, boundless.
With respect, this can be a limited look at boundless. Using fresh eyes, things can be more than, different than they appear at first. But you already know this. We only need to remind one another to keep looking with fresh eyes.
The moment something is defined it becomes finite. Therefore, the concept of self is finite because it is defined as opposed to something that is not self. Therefore, the two members of any dichotomy shall be relatively finite.
Now self may appear outside the boundary of some other concept. For example, human self may appear outside the boundary of the animal self. It may appear as infinite from the viewpoint of animal self, but that would only be a relative view.
In my view all “infinities” shall be relative except for the Ground State. The ultimate infinity is the Ground State. In other words, no other infinity is absolute.
>
How is this a limited look? Please explain how you are looking at it? Do you think that the value of Pi is infinite?
I want to propose that our usual look at “ordinary” concepts such as boundless bear more looking. Yes, pi is infinite: Infinitely pointed. This is where my fractal notion of the definitions of infinite and finite have altered. It seems there can always be another order of magnitude.
The concept of pi being “irrational number” simply means that there are no two whole numbers whose ratio can exactly express the value of pi. The ratio gets more and more exact as the two numbers in a ratio get larger and larger. The ratio 355/113 gives a value closer to pi than the ratio 22/7. The ratio has to be of two very large numbers that are prime to each other for a much closer value.
An irrational number simply cannot be exactly represented by two such numbers no matter how large they are. This means that there is no small enough unit whose multiples act as the two numbers of the ratio. A prime number can be multiple of a unit, but an irrational number cannot be multiple of a unit no matter how small.
The existence of irrational number simply shows that there is no natural unit. All units are contrived.
Similarly, there is no natural self. All selves are contrived. This points to a ground state that cannot be defined.
>
Yes. You did get my meaning. This math for me is rich and profound. That is my take and I hope to go further. But of course I will go further. That is the nature of the math and by extrapolation, the world. ! 🙂
Well, all real values appear to be asymptotic when attempt is made to define them through a very logical subject such as mathematics. This tells me that logic has its limitations, and no absolute logic is possible.
“This tells me that logic has its limitations, and no absolute logic is possible.” Absolutes are unobtainable because the universe has a recursive and self-similar but non-identical nature.
This infinite characteristic is a part of all we are and all we will ever know. There seems to be the ground state and there seems to be the infinite. “Finite” is the imaginary concept. The idea that there can be a “whole” anything seems to me an abstraction. We see an apple where there is much more and much less than an apple. “Apple” is the finite abstraction for what is surely an infinite and ongoing process.
Any characteristic is defined at a certain level. Therefore, it would be finite relative to the Ground State that is undefined. However, a characteristic may be infinite relative to some other characteristic that has a greater definition.
So, infinities may be degrees of definition. Some infinities are less defined than other infinities. And then there is Ground State that simply cannot be defined.
>
For now, I am going to hold that without any form, there can be no infinity. Therefore the ground state is neither infinite nor finite.
I like that and I am going to use that argument in my next post.
🙂
This area is not so scientific for me and is hard to communicate without writing poetically:
“The clouds that wander through the sky have no roots, no home, Nor do the distinctive thoughts floating through the mind. Once the Self-mind is seen, Discrimination stops. ”
I see finite in a discriminatory sense. Do you see?
So, space can be discriminated from the ground state. That makes space finite relative to the ground state. Though space in itself may be considered infinite relative to the space occupied by our body.
>
Yes, I think that works.
Some “gurus” like OSHO associate this Ground state (when describing it as Mahamudra) with orgasm or orgiastic feelings. That is utter trash.
“The ground state is similar to that sound sleep in which no time seems to have passed. That time is just gone and cannot be found in memory either.”
“The ground state is similar to that sound sleep in which no time seems to have passed. That time is just gone and cannot be found in memory either.”
A year ago I had a simple outpatient surgery using gas general anesthesia. As a personal experiment, I was being calm yet quite alert as I was prepared. I was paying attention to everything and my memory is good leading up to being given the gas at which point, like a cut and paste of time from that moment until I woke refreshed in recovery room, the surgery is just completely missing from my experience and time.
Yes, that is the case when one is given a measured dose of propofol for anesthesia.
Here is one translation of 10th century instructions on Mahamudra by Tilopa
http://www.osholeela.com/poetry/tilopa.html
The Void needs no reliance,
Mahamudra rest on nought.
Without making an effort,
but remaining loose and natural,
one can break the yoke –
thus gaining liberation.
If one sees naught when staring into space;
if with the mind one then observes the mind,
one destroys distinctions
and reaches buddahood.
The clouds that wander through the sky have no roots,
no home, nor do the distinctive thoughts
floating through the mind.
Once the Self-mind is seen,
discrimination stops.
In space shapes and colours form,
but neither by black nor white is space tinged.
From the Self-mind all things emerge,
the mind by virtues and by vices is not stained.
The darkness of ages
cannot shroud the glowing sun,
the long kalpas of samsara
never can hide the mind’s brilliant light.
Though words are spoken to explain the void,
the void as such can never be expressed.
Though we say “the mind is bright as light”,
it is beyond all words and symbols.
Although the mind is void in essence,
all things it embraces and contains.
Do nought with the body but relax;
shut firm the mouth and silent remain;
empty your mind and think of nought.
Like a hollow bamboo rest at ease with your body.
Giving not nor taking, put your mind at rest.
Mahamudra is like a mind that clings to nought.
Thus practicing, in time you will reach buddhahood.
The practice of mantra and paramita,
instruction in the sutras and precepts,
and teaching from the schools and scriptures,
will not bring realization of the innate truth.
For if the mind when filled with some desire
should seek a goal,
it only hides the light.
He who keeps tantric precepts, yet discriminates,
betrays the spirit of samaya.
Cease all activity, abandon all desire,
let thoughts rise and fall
as they will like ocean waves.
He who never harms the non-abiding,
nor the principle of non-distinction,
upholds the tantric precepts.
He who abandons craving
and clings not to this and that,
perceives the real meaning given in the scriptures.
In Mahamudra all one’s sins are burned;
in Mahamudra one is released
from the prison of this world.
This is the dharma’s supreme torch.
Those who disbelieve it are fools,
who ever wallow in misery and sorrow.
To strie for liberation
one should rely on a guru.
When our mind receives his blessings
emancipation is at hand.
Alas,all things in the world are meaningless,
they are but sorrow’s seeds.
Small teachings lead to acts –
one should only follow teachings that are great.
To transcend duality is the kingly view.
To conquer distractions is the royal practice.
The path of no-practice is the way of all the buddhas.
He who treads that path reaches buddhahood.
Transient is this world,
like phantoms and dreams, substance it has none.
Renounce it and forsake your kin,
cut the strings of lust and hatred,
and meditate in woods and mountains.
If without effort
you remain loosely in the natural state,
soon Mahamudra you will win
and attain the non-attainment.
Cut the root of a tree and the leaves will wither;
cut the root of your mind and samsara falls.
The light of any lamp dispels in a moment
the darkness of long kalpas;
the strong light of the Mind in but a flash
will burn the veil of ignorance.
Whoever clings to the mind
sees not the truth of what is beyond the mind.
Whoever strives to practice dharma
finds not the truth of beyond-practice.
To know what is beyond both mind and practice
one should cut cleanly through the root of the mind
and stare naked.
One should thus break away from all distinctions
and remain at ease.
One should not give or take,
but remain natural – for Mahamudra
is beyond all acceptance and rejection.
Since Alaya (the inner abode)is not born,
no one can obstruct or soil it;
staying in the unborn realm
all appearance will dissolve into dharmata,
and self-will and pride will vanish into nought.
The Supreme Understanding
transcends all this and that;
The supreme action
embraces great resourcefulness without attachment.
The supreme accomplishment
is to realize immanence without hope.
At first a yogi feels his mind
is tumbling like a waterfall,
in mid-course, like the Ganges,
it flows on slow and gentle;
in the end it is a great vast ocean
where the lights of son and mother merge in one.
Poetic! . . . and just about right.
You can see several different translations of this “Song of Mahamudra” by googling it. Some translations are better than others.
Yes, I did. It is a rich text.
With regard to our research on “inertia” I noticed that Mahamudra gets into it right away as follows:
“Without making an effort, but remaining natural, One can break the yoke thus gaining liberation.”
For me, this means that by being relatively still, one does not invoke inertia. I have noticed this since I was a child. It is for me a deep and profound observation. And now that I “have learned so much” it seems even more so. Hahahaha!
Self may be a measure of one’s inertia.
>
Mass is also a measure of inertia. Could self be something like mass?
Mass is condensed energy. Self could be condensed awareness. Self is made up of beliefs, experiences and cross indexing. All these must express condensed awareness.
This brings into focus the question, “How does the atomic configuration gets created from the condensation of alternating electromagnetic fields. The electromagnetic fields probably get interlocked in some fashion. Spinning seems to be part of the process.
Atom could be a single structure with the most condensed layer at the core and least condensed layer on the outside. It ejects part of it as spinning particles when energy is added to it in different forms. These particles get created only upon separation, otherwise, no particles exist in the atom.
Similarly, self could consist of many layers with the most condensed layer at the core and least condensed layer on the outside. As the self is bombarded with considerations of different energies, “belief” particles separate from it.
Just like an atom is stable and cannot just dissipate as electromagnetic waves, similarly, self is also stable and cannot just dissipate as awareness. So, how can the ground state be achieved?
>
I love this. Fresh and powerful observations.
Yes it is a profound observation. Now it needs to be applied to physics.
Inertia enters the picture the moment frequency enters the picture.
The frequency represents disturbance, and therefore it represents light and awareness. As frequency increases the inertia also increases.
It is like the reaction is built into the action. An example would be the more one stretches the spring, the greater is the restoring force.
This means that the Ground State is elastic and inertia is the restoring force. On the other hand the desire to know is the disturbing force. It creates a resonance because the disturbance appears as a form and provides something to know about.
By looking at one’s inertia one can get alerted to the action one may be engaging in unknowingly.
Excellent!
I’d agree that there’s no consciousness or sense of self in the ground state (=nirvana, or native state). Consciousness only arises after there has been a division into that which knows and that which is there to be known, and also after saṃskāra, so the Buddha placed it third in the nidāna chain.
Here is the next essay in this series.
My purpose is to put Buddha’s thesis forward as a scientific theory.
The unseen world seems to have two connotation very different from one another.
The first connotation is of that part of the material world of which we have no awareness for reasons such as our perceptions are too narrow but for which, artificial perceptions can be developed to help us discover them.
The second connotation is of the imaginary zero of static, or no disturbance for which there is postulated no possibility of awareness. This may what you mean by the ground state of no disturbance.
I do not have a problem with a definition like this except for the fact that by postulate, I can never know about it! hahaha… but be that as it may I do so love to conjecture about it. Working my mind on concepts like these help stave off the dimming mental states and give me a sense of adventure.
There is nothing that cannot be perceived except for the ground state.
There are six main perceptions: Sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell and the mind. The mind is a sense organ and it can perceive those things that other senses cannot.
Probably, the unseen world is that which cannot be perceived by physical senses, but it can be perceived by mindfulness.
There may be confusion between what the mind is perceiving and what it is imagining. But that is an entire subject of its own. That’s where filters come in.
Your second connotation has to do with the paragraph above. The key that opens the door is an understanding of mindfulness and of the inner sense of consistency and coherency.
“But that is an entire subject of its own.”
And an interesting one.
Yup!
Ground State is the ultimate viewpoint (once acquired) from which everything appears to be finite. From Ground State one would be able to discriminate easily between what is existing and how it is being viewed through a filter, or being imagined.
That would be a wonderful state to acquire. That would be the state of Nirvana.
And of “entanglement?”
See https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-25637
Ground State would be the ether-centric viewpoint of relativity that we talked about earlier when looking at the theory of relativity.
Ground State would be the Disturbance Level of “minus infinity”. Haha!
If one sees naught when staring into space;
if with the mind one then observes the mind,
one destroys distinctions
and reaches buddahood.
.
The destruction of distinctions occurs through the identification of the common denominator. For example the distinction between cat and dog is destroyed when we identify both as animals.
The ultimate common denominator is identified as GOD in the western society.
This is the”discrimination” mentioned in the Mahamudra..
I have now published a translation of the Song of Mahamudra that I like.
.
I was talking to a friend today, who is a disciple of OSHO. He thinks that there is some awareness associated with the ground state because one can be in it when in Samadhi.
This computation violates the ‘neti, neti’ process to arrive at the ground state. It tells you that ground state is beyond awareness. Just because one can get into ground state in Samadhi, does not mean that there is awareness in ground state. One should watch out for such assumptions.
Samadhi is not ground state as we are describing it.
I think that my friend has a misunderstood on the state of Samadhi. To me Samadhi is absence of awareness as in the Ground State.
Here is a recent summarization of a discussion on Ground State on another forum.
http://independent-spiritual-technology.com/discussion/index.php?topic=988.msg4322#msg4322
Only Isle of View (IOV) have engaged in the discussion on Ground State so far. Per the policy of this forum many of the remarks by IOV have been moved out from this thread by David as off topic. PLEASE SEE
Let me summarize my view of the discussion with Isle of View.
(1) It was originally proposed that this universe is a “Universe of Awareness.” The Ground State of awareness resides in its dichotomy, which is “absence of awareness.” Therefore, the Ground State of this universe has been speculated to be “beyond awareness” since the Vedas.
(2) IOV asked if this Ground State was a potential. This was an intelligent question. It was answered by noting that if a potential is defined as a “potential of so-and-so,” then that potential would lie within the realm of awareness.
(3) A definition, being defined, has obviously awareness associated with it. Therefore, anything defined would lie within the realm of awareness. The Ground State shall be undefined and unknowable because it is not in the realm of awareness.
(4) IOV then raised the question whether this Ground State has any point if it is beyond awareness. This post was removed by David as “being off topic.” But I consider it to be a valid question. This shows how “awareness-centric” humans are. Humans do not seem to be pan-determined about the “awareness – no awareness” dichotomy.
(5) The problem with being “awareness-centric” is that we confuse any placeholder being used for Ground State with the Ground State, becuase the Ground State simply cannot be conceived. IOV fell in that trap as obvious from his next post, which was also removed by David as “being off-topic.”
(6) Abrahamic God was intially a place holder for Ground State. It was then defined as the creator of this universe. Thus, God, as defined, is not the Ground State. This definition of God makes it an “Uncaused Cause.” This phrase is inherently inconsistent and arbitrary. The idea of cause actually leads to a fractal (infinite regression), but the whole fractal lies within the realm of awareness. The “Cause-Effect” dichotomy lies within the Universe of Awareness. It does not lie outside of it.
(7) The same argument can be extended with respect to the Static, which is defined as having the ability to postulate and to perceive. The definition of Static makes it an “Unmoved Mover”. This phrase also is inherently inconsistent and arbitrary. The idea of “Static as mover” also leads to a fractal (infinite regression), but the whole fractal lies within the realm of awareness even as potential. The “Static-Dynamic” dichotomy lies within the Universe of Awareness. It does not lie outside of it.
(8 ) The THETA-MEST theory of Hubbard presents the model that “ultimately spirituality produces physicality”. IOV correctly identified it as an ancient model that should be taken only as a model. However, these 2 posts were also removed by David as “being off-topic.”
(9) In actuality the THETA-MEST theory is not even a theory. It is an unverified hypothesis that simply repeats the ancient bias springing from the “awareness-centric” ideas of humanity. This is similar to the earlier “earth-centric” ideas of humanity that considered earth to be at the center of the universe. This point will be further discussed in a later post.
(10) It is only here that IOV moved away from the topic of Ground State to the topic of Knowledge. I then created a new thread “The Ideal Scene for Knowledge” for this purpose.
I would suggest that the last two posts on IOV’s moved thread should be placed in the “The Ideal Scene for Knowledge” thread, and rest of the moved posts should be returned to the “Ground State” thread.
My last 3 posts on “Ground State” thread [which are above this post] should also be moved to the “The Ideal Scene for Knowledge” thread.
Thank you David.
The very first Axiom of Scientology states:
AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
Looking from the Ground State of “Absence of awareness” the following questions arise:
(1) What is the nature of Static because the idea of “Unmoved Mover” is inconsistent and arbitrary?
(2) What is nature of the awareness (the ability to postulate and to perceive)?
.
What are you trying to understand about Scientology static?
That it is inherently a useless concept just like Motion or Cause, when attempt is made to turn it into an absolute.
Hubbard talks about infinite-value logic, but then comes with a binary THETA-MEST theory, which according to Hubbard himself is a very primitive type of logic.
He was not only fooling others, he himself was a fool.
Reference: Unmoved mover
“The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ,[1] ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, “that which moves without being moved”) or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a philosophical concept described by Aristotle as a primary cause or “mover” of all the motion in the universe.[2] As is implicit in the name, the “unmoved mover” moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek “Λ”) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the Active Intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek “Pre-Socratic” philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the Unmoved Mover in the quinque viae.”
.
Hubbard Static is no different from Aristotle’s “Unmoved mover.” So, Scientology Static is simply an old concept in a new garb. We can now see how this concept has been viewed in the philosophical world.
Scientifically, “static-dynamic” is a dichotomy. A dichotomy basically refers to a scale by its two opposite ends. These two ends are part of an infinite gradient. They do not exist independent of each other. There is no static that exists in isolation. There is no “unmoved mover.” There is only relative motion.
Awareness arises with relative motion. When there is no relative motion there is no awareness either. Thus, the Ground State of “absence of awareness” shall also be “absence of relative motion.”
Since, the Scientology static has the ability to postulate and to perceive, it is aware. It is relative to the Ground State.
The Scientology Static somehow comes about. It is not something permanent. How does the Scientology Static come about?
.
Since you are exploring the static end of the scale, we could also mention the dynamic end of this scale and ask how dynamic can dynamic be? What are examples of the least and the most dynamic?
Well, exploring the static is like exploring the asymptote to zero (nothing). Exploring “most dynamic” is like exploring the asymptote to one (something).
Other quantities are just multiples of one and they fall in the same category of something.
Reference: Unmoved mover
“Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, “that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world”.[3] In the Physics (VIII 4–6) Aristotle finds “surprising difficulties” explaining even commonplace change, and in support of his approach of explanation by four causes, he required “a fair bit of technical machinery”.[4] This “machinery” includes potentiality and actuality, hylomorphism, the theory of categories, and “an audacious and intriguing argument, that the bare existence of change requires the postulation of a first cause, an unmoved mover whose necessary existence underpins the ceaseless activity of the world of motion”.[5] Aristotle’s “first philosophy”, or Metaphysics (“after the Physics”), develops his peculiar stellar theology of the prime mover, as πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον: an independent divine eternal unchanging immaterial substance.[6]”
.
Aristotle’s postulate is fine but how does that “immortal, unchanging being” of Aristotle come about? Or, one may ask, “How does a postulate come about?” or, “How does anything come about?”
The Ground State of “absence of awareness” provides a basis from which to start answering such questions. Any change is relative motion, and relative motion is same thing as awareness. We don’t really need Aristotle’s invented concepts of potential and actual. We do not need all other complex explanations of Aristotle, such as, hylomorphism, theory of categories, first cause and unmoved mover. All this complexity seems to generate more mystery and confusion.
All we are talking about is arising of awareness. So, what is awareness?
.
Reference: Four causes
Aristotle wrote that “we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause.” … Aristotle’s word for “cause” is a Greek word meaning “responsible.” He uses this word in the sense meaning an explanation for how a thing came about; in this context, “x is the cause of y” means “x makes a y”.
.
The concept of cause basically points to a sequence of occurrences, But it never resolves how the first step in that sequence came about, or how that whole sequence came about in the first place. This concept simply leads one into a blind alley of justification.
This concept of cause, invented by Aristotle, can simply be dropped as part of any explanation for the Ground State. All we can say is that the awareness simply appears before anything else appears in awareness.
I am being able to work around there being an ultimate cause. I’ve no need for this at this time. But you’ve moved from definition of cause through responsible to reason. I don’t particularly follow your migration but I do like knowing the reason for things.
My friend and I were drinking beer. I handed him one and he said, “This is next to the next to the last one.”
The previous step in a sequence is the reason [cause, responsible, “fill in the blank”] for the next step in the sequence. But there is no first step in this sequence that can be pin-pointed. Similarly, there is no last step in this sequence that can be pin-pointed.
It goes asymptotic at either end.
Now, if you look at how this whole sequence came to be, you may run into similar asymptotes.