The Import of Turiya ...

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

Nothing that I have posted in this thread will make much sense if one does not understand that (following the Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme) a indicates a short “a” and A indicates a long “aa”.

There is very much confusion about brahman, which has two forms (one masculine, and one of neutral gender), and the whole purpose of this thread (as I have understood it) was to distinguish and relate the various concepts that are commonly equated with turya or turIya (which terms are themselves often loosely distinguished, and consequently the source of even more confusion).

And for some days now, this conversation has been going in circles!

Of course I realize that you have considered the term brahmapare as “the highest brahman” (ignoring the fact that it is a locative case, which would actually translate as “in the highest brahman”); but, also ignoring the fact that brahmapare could be either brahmA-pare or brahma-pare, you seem to have missed my point.

brahmapara is the brahmayoni ~ i.e. brahma (neut.) ~ and you have repeatedly noted that it is “beyond the brahman of the veda” ~ i.e. “beyond brahmA” (masc.).

The brahmayoni is brahmapare, and you have insisted that brahmapare simply means “beyond brahmA”.

And I have always taken brahmapare as the locative case of brahmapara, meaning “in the highest brahman” ~ i.e. “in brahma”.

Can you see the subtle difference between “beyond brahmA” and “in brahma”? The meaning is identical, but you have been presenting the former (in which pare is clearly connected with brahmA) and I have been presenting the latter (in which pare is clearly connected with brahma).

Your “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma.
And your “brahma (brahman)” that is “knowledge of the Vedas” or “the truth” is my brahmA.

And ALL of my two-fold lines of equation have been clearly distinguishing these same two aspects of “Self” ~ brahma (ekapad) and brahmA (tripad) ~ the brahmayoni (brahma) and the brahmabIja (brahmA).

It is true that all humans are already Self-realized (and if we don’t know it now, we should just forget everything we have learned), and I suppose we could leave it at that! But Sanatana Dharma has provided and explained the blueprint for the apparent Creation and its ultimate Dissolution, and wise Hindus have always followed the traditional script. Of course everyone is free to travel alone and unguided (and I do not doubt that some few will succeed), so perhaps we should ignore the Hindu scriptures and traditions as superfluous mumbo-jumbo and just cut to the chase!

OK. Creation never happened, and we are all immortal God. Nothing more needs to be said, and now everyone should understand perfectly!

The “import of turIya” is aja ekapad ~ just unravel the Self by yourself ~ case closed!

[Madhavan]

Thanks Sarabhanga for your final words - especially The “import of turIya” is aja ekapad ~ just unravel the Self by yourself ~ case closed! It seems to me that many Hindus take this too literally....and yet do not realize why they are not realized yet! Hinduism is much much beyond the ekapAd....

I would like to point out that according to Advaita vedAnta no other statements other than the equivalents of "neti neti" are considered as true pramANas for NB. Yet, we have Sri Krishna saying that sarvaischa vedah ahamevavedyo - all the vedas sing only my glory. It is quite true that all words vedas use is to sing the praise of Ishvara, and nobody else( and nothing beyond). In such a case, there is no room for saying that something beyond Ishvara exists even in a figurative speech. Holding that Ishvara is pragnya amounts to saying that vedas do not speak of the ultimate truth, but of some enitity in the fictitious samsAra that will ultimately dissolve. That is why Ishvara has his locus in turIya and not in pragnya.

Nothing exists beyond the brahma(n) of the vedas. Just because his nature is explained in human words does not mean what is being described is not the highest being. ( and that there is a brahman beyond it)

By brahmayoni( supreme Ishvara), it is meant to be the progentor of the four faced brahma(hiraNyagarbha), and not brahman of the vedas. The term brahmayoni does not equate to the yoni of the brahman of the vedas.

[Madhavan]

Namaste Madhavan,

In fact there is no creation. If what is real water (unpercieved), changes its form from solid ice to vapour steam, do we say that a creation has taken place? In fact your definition of anantam goes against it.

Secondly, what you say about Saguna Brahman may be a personal choice but this view definitely contradicts shruti which says "One who sees any difference in Brahman goes from death to death." If Brahman has, qualities such as anantam, purity etc., then does some other thing remain devoid of those qualities? In that case Brahman is no more all pervading?

What you are citing as qualities are possibly not qualities but the very being itself.

Yet, yes, we are on the same page.

Regards,

Om

What gives you the impression that Sri Shankara and his commentrators hold the belief that Brahman has absolutely no guNas- which will be a void only?

It maybe possible for the layman to convince himself that the meaning of the terms satyam, jnAnam and anantam maybe identical to the being of Brahman. Is really 'knowledge', truth' and 'endless' identical? What is the proof to conclude so? Then what is the need to describe Brahman thus and what information does it provide to the seeker? The logician in Shankara cannot wantonly say that all these qualities are identical with the being. Nor is he willing to concede that these are qualities as understood in a worldly sense, because the nature of Brahman is different - so he terms Brahman as nirguNa.

What Sri Shankara says is;

satyam should not be understood as the truth in the way things are normally understood. So he interprets satyam as "non untruth". jnAna is "absence of ignorance". anantam is "non finite". These are implied qualities, but they cannot be defined like they can be for wordly objects.

For example,

Let us say that a tree is tall. It can also be called as 'non short'. But 'non short' can be more fuzzy that saying that the tree is tall, and this is the preferred way to handle Brahman. For eg, the tree could be of medium height. So NB has implied qualities( not explicitly defineable) of the nature 'absence of ignorance' or 'non finiteness' etc, which are not related to the triguNa. Viewed in this way, NB is a personal being with implied qualities (not describable in words though satyam, jnAnam and anantam are close approx.) and with a witness consciousness(sAxi) of the world. Without such an idea, it is impossible to explain any creation ( even the illusory world).

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,
Nothing that I have posted in this thread will make much sense if one does not understand that (following the Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme) a indicates a short “a” and A indicates a long “aa”.

Namaste sarabhanga Ji

Well this an assumption about which I can say nothing. It is a bit low. Difference between BrahmA and Brahman is understood at preliminary level.

The brahmayoni is brahmapare, and you have insisted that brahmapare simply means “beyond brahmA”.

I have not alluded to this as will be shown below.

Your “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma.
And your “brahma (brahman)” that is “knowledge of the Vedas” or “the truth” is my brahmA.

No. Dear sarabhanga Ji. My “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma, as well, as shown in the quote below.

To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested.

The shivoadvaitaatma (Self), which is the source of "I" , is beyond. It is Turya. It has nothing beyond it and it has no second besides it. This is Brahman unborn.

Yes this 'Brahman unborn' is aja ekapad.

Can you see in red letters above that I am saying what you are saying? My only point of seeming difference is that I insist that the Self has been there before the term Brahman came in the consciousness of the Self. You may or may not disagree with this.

so perhaps we should ignore the Hindu scriptures and traditions as superfluous mumbo-jumbo and just cut to the chase!

The knowledge of ONE Aham - "I" is not numbo-jumbo. It is very much the part of knowing the Self.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Ps: I am sorry, if I caused any anger, which is apparent in your rejoinder. I am genuinely sorry, though I do not understand the reason for the rasp note of the post.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Atanu

" To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested. "

That is Shakti. Maybe the confusion lays on gender terms after all. Sri Aurobindo was a Shakta.
And Sarabhanga tried to explain the matter in a pure Brahmanical non dual point of view. Then the use of masculine and neuter forms instead of masculine/feminine or masculine plural of the shaktas and samkhias.

" By accepting that brahmapare is not dual, the possibility of brahmapare being feminine is removed. And I assume that a masculine plural would also be out of the question! And that leaves only the masculine and neuter singular as possibilities.

If brahmapare is masculine, then it would refer to brahmA (masc.); and if brahmapare is neuter, then it would more likely refer to brahma (neut.). In both cases, however, it could only be the locative singular form ~ i.e. “in brahmapara”."

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu

" To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested. "

That is Shakti. Maybe the confusion lays on gender terms after all. Sri Aurobindo was a Shakta.
------

Namaste Nuno,

The I is not shakti. The I is the manifestation of Shiva/Shakti -- ONE being. And I am not talking of Shri Aurobindo.

Regards

[atanu]

-----

Let us say that a tree is tall. It can also be called as 'non short'. But 'non short' can be more fuzzy that saying that the tree is tall, and this is the preferred way to handle Brahman. -----

Namaste,

Let me take your example. Let us assume that Brahman is “Not short”. As all is Brahman, it is not possible for “short” to exist. If “short does not exist, then what does “Not-short” mean? By giving some attribute to Brahman you make the opposite attribute impossible.

Why so much trouble? Mandukya Upanishad says Turya is indescribable. Brihad Arayanaka says “Neti Neti” in alternate chapters. Gita and Svet. Upanishad use the term "nirguna".

Holding that Ishvara is pragnya amounts to saying that vedas do not speak of the ultimate truth, but of some enitity in the fictitious samsAra that will ultimately dissolve. That is why Ishvara has his locus in turIya and not in pragnya.

Check what you say. First, Vedas truly do not speak of the ultimate truth but Vedas point to it. Else “words return from Him, mind returns from Him—“ or “neti-neti” or “indescribable”, would not have arisen. And Shri Krishna would not have taught “The truth is known in Samadhi alone”.

Second, Ishwara is pure Pragnya as Mandukya Upanishad terms pure (dense) Pragnya as “Sarvesvara” (Taijjassa is equated with Hiranyagarbha).

Third, please check what you have said. First you deny that Ishwara is Pragnya. Then you affirm that Ishwara has His locus in Turya and not in Pragnya. Can you not see the contradiction?

Who said Ishwara has locus in Pragnya? Ishwara is pure Pragnya. Yes, pure Pragnya has locus in Turya and in Pure Pragnya, Hiranyagarbhaha is located.

Om Shanti
Om Namah Shivaya

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Atanu

But that "I" that you refer is still limited and manifested Brahman can be equated with shakti. If you take in consideration that shakti means the infinite multitude of forms of Brahman and not what is beyond that i.e. Paramshiva.
You can say that saguna brahman or BrahmA is what polarizes consciousness into aham and idam without separating them dualistically.

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu

But that "I" that you refer is still limited and manifested Brahman can be equated with shakti. If you take in consideration that shakti means the infinite multitude of forms of Brahman and not what is beyond that i.e. Paramshiva.
You can say that saguna brahman or BrahmA is what polarizes consciousness into aham and idam without separating them dualistically.

Namaste Nuno,

I is not limited. It is the common thread of existence.

Shakti is unmanifest. Is energy manifest? One sees its effects. Maitrayana Brahmana Upanishad says: In the beginning it was death alone, it was in the highest . Moved by the highest, it became uneven. Moved by the highest the light issued.

Om

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Atanu


In Turya that "I" does not exists only in Turiya is that "I" present and that is called the shiva-shakti play. Beyond that "I" resides the true self the unborn, paramshiva. That state is called Turya.