On approaches to turiya and consciousness

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

It is rather amusing to read--this top-down approach to turIya and the Self. On the one hand we say that we are the Self--or rather the Self is us; and on the other, we say that we must attain and be established in the state of turIya to know the Self in its pUrNatvam--fullness, and enjoy its Ananda--bliss.

It seems we do not have to do anything to know and experience the Self, except to let the Self assert its Self through all the muck of individuality that marks our koshas--sheaths (physical, astral, mental, causal) as many and different.

The paradox of the TWO WE's is caused by adhyAsa--imposition, of the consciousness (light) of the Self on an individual set of antaH-karaNa, which is otherwise known as the mind. Therefore, all we have to do is to mind our mind.

Human mind is pre-emptive and multi-threaded in action, to use the Infotech terminology. All that is required is to shut down the extraneous threads and let the mind run in a single thread as tailadhAra--flow of oil, without any break. To the extent our mind (not we if you please) does it, the gaps of turIya will widen and reveal its nature as the Self, ripping off the systolic-diastolic vibrations of breathing, thoughts, etc. that punctuate the state of turIya.

This is not to say that the mind must be killed--only that it must be stilled into a single thread of a single thought, to let the light of the Self shine through assertively (rather than be passively reflected), and the Ananda of the Self fill up the mind. This single thread of thought may be a mantra in meditation, a mantra in ajapa--involuntary litany, or simply sustained awareness of the gaps of turIya and the extraneities to the Self.

It is the mind that clouds over the Self, and it is the mind that lets the Self shine through. The mind is the knower until the Self is known, and when that knowledge arrives, the mind becomes shuddha--pure, always filled with the sat-chit-Ananda of the Self in sahaja-samAdhi, with the knower-knowledge-knowing limitations merging into the single entity of the Self as in a jnAni, whose all koshas shine with the light of the Self.

[atanu]

namaste everyone.

It seems we do not have to do anything to know and experience the Self, except to let the Self assert its Self through all the muck of individuality that marks our koshas--sheaths (physical, astral, mental, causal) as many and different.

The paradox of the TWO WE's is caused by adhyAsa--imposition, of the consciousness (light) of the Self on an individual set of antaH-karaNa, which is otherwise known as the mind. Therefore, all we have to do is to mind our mind.

Namaste saidevoji

I agree on this, noting that according to Shankara, the imposition is two way -- the inertness of mind on Self and intelligence of Self on inert mind. JUst as a hot red iron ball may seem to be having property of agni, which though subtle may appear as hard due to its association with the iron ball.

This is not to say that the mind must be killed--only that it must be stilled into a single thread of a single thought, to let the light of the Self shine through assertively (rather than be passively reflected), and the Ananda of the Self fill up the mind. This single thread of thought may be a mantra in meditation, a mantra in ajapa--involuntary litany, or simply sustained awareness of the gaps of turIya and the extraneities to the Self.
It is the mind that clouds over the Self, and it is the mind that lets the Self shine through. The mind is the knower until the Self is known, and when that knowledge arrives, the mind becomes shuddha--pure, always filled with the sat-chit-Ananda of the Self in sahaja-samAdhi, with the knower-knowledge-knowing limitations merging into the single entity of the Self as in a jnAni, whose all koshas shine with the light of the Self.

Respectfully, i disagree here (based on Guru Ramana's teachings, which is ajAtivAda of advaita.

According to Guru Ramana (which is supported from Mandukya Karika), the mind is manifestation of desire. Mind, though beginningless is destroyable, while Brahman is not (Note: This is theoretical for me). While teaching that a transparent mind is maintained by sadhu in the state of Jivan mukti, He says that manonAsa (disappearance of the entity called individual mind) and manolaya (sleep-submergence) give different results. Submergence of mind as in sleep inevitably leads to rise of the mind again. But manonAsa (with the established knowledge that the mind is only a bundle of thoughts arising of Self and with individuality gone is not associated with individual me), a state where repeated submergence and rise do not take place is attained. This He calls the sahaja state.

In this regard, i will point out that the mind and consequent fragmentation and jiva parts are not in Turiya-Brahman (as per scripture, which allows no difference in Brahman). Both the Dvaita and advaita schools criticise the VA teaching that the jivas form part of the Brahman. The former schools hold that Turiya-Brahman is entirely free of division and devoid of mind. In other words, the Seer and the Thinker are products and not the root, which is division and duality free.

The above is as per advaita and particularly aJAtivada as taught by Shri Ramana.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Note: I am concerned that Ao may be getting upset about the direction of this discussion. Sorry.

[Onkara]

Namaste Atanu and Saidevo
I am glad you raise the point of manonAsa (disappearance of the entity called mind). As it raises the question: How does consciousness (or turiya) know itself (without mind)?

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu and Saidevo
I am glad you raise the point of manonAsa (disappearance of the entity called mind). As it raises the question: How does consciousness (or turiya) know itself (without mind)?

Namaste Snip

This an important question, which has been partly answered above (i think).

Brihadaranyaka U. teaches that the functions of knowing and sensing are immortal. What is lost is is the sense of individuality, the sense of a personal mind and thus the tendency of associating the thoughts arising in Self as my thought/my mind etc. The scripture that there is no knower but Him attains reality.

This is how i comprehend it.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Onkara]

Namaste Snip

This an important question, which has been partly answered above (i think).

Brihadaranyaka U. teaches that the functions of knowing and sensing are immortal. What is lost is is the sense of individuality, the sense of a personal mind and thus the tendency of associating the thoughts arising in Self as my thought/my mind etc. The scripture that there is no knower but Him attains reality.

This is how i comprehend it.

Om Namah Shivaya

Namasté Atanu
Thanks for the answer. I think you are correct too I like the teaching that the mind is desire, it helps a lot.

Logically if we stop thoughts, then there must be someone there to do the stopping. Likewise if we see thoughts as "mine" or "yours" then again we enforce a duality of owner and object (albeit known to be only apparent with further investigation). The whole crux of the problem rests on one single deep rooted idea: "I am the body-mind-intellect". This is considered an error of sorts in Advaita.

I conclude that the body-mind-intellect i.e. thoughts, continue but as you say, what is lost is the sense of individuality which is found to arrise with the "I am the body" idea.

manonAsa is an important topic, because, in my opinion, there is an overlap of the "no mind" or "no thoughts" teachings and Advaita teaching found today under the neo-advaita school which appears to pick up ideas which feel right rather than are traditional. In my personal opinion the term "no mind" is dominated by Zen philosophy as Buddhist believe the world arises in the mind and mind must "stop" it seems. From an Vedanta perspective the foundation is Brahman (satchitananda) or consciousness and not mind. If the aspirant is really serious they need to be clear on this topic.

This leads me to ask how Sri Ramana explains mind to be destroyable. How does he describe this, as I think the context will clarify further?

I would agree that mind is a part of prakriti (as explained above) so mind too is transient and that implies it is created and can be destroyed, but that which creates, sustains and destroys prakirit (including mind) is Brahman - Sri Krishna. Mind is His to destory, not "mine". This leads us back to the topic of Shakti (already discussed as being one with Brahman, but appearing as two to our minds).

[Ao]

Note: I am concerned that Ao may be getting upset about the direction of this discussion. Sorry.

Not at all! This third page has been most fascinating, and if no one shares my interest in the physical manifestations of these cognitive changes, I'm more than happy to abandon the point.

Regarding Snip's allusion to Zen's teaching on "no mind" vis a vis Saidevo's mention of a single-flowing thread, I think some clarity will help move the issue forward. To me, the teaching of "no mind" is a direct result of non-duality and therefore in line with Advaitan thought. There can only objectively be a computer screen in front of me if there is also a non-computer screen in front of me to act as its negation and hence delineate the former as being present. A mind game to break down the distinctions we place on the world around us.

This same thinking, though it may be expressed in completely different terms like Snip's, Saidevo's, Yajvan's gaps or even Atanu's patchwork cloth, all leads to the same conclusion--namely, the unity of all. It is up to each of us how we realize that unity, and discussions like these fill me with a great sense of wonder and joy.

[Onkara]

Regarding Snip's allusion to Zen's teaching on "no mind" vis a vis Saidevo's mention of a single-flowing thread, I think some clarity will help move the issue forward. To me, the teaching of "no mind" is a direct result of non-duality and therefore in line with Advaitan thought. There can only objectively be a computer screen in front of me if there is also a non-computer screen in front of me to act as its negation and hence delineate the former as being present. A mind game to break down the distinctions we place on the world around us.

This same thinking, though it may be expressed in completely different terms like Snip's, Saidevo's, Yajvan's gaps or even Atanu's patchwork cloth, all leads to the same conclusion--namely, the unity of all. It is up to each of us how we realize that unity, and discussions like these fill me with a great sense of wonder and joy.

namasté Ao
Two points
1) "No mind" implies that we will not have a mind, this, in my opinion can add confusion because we still must recognise the teaching of Sri Krishna i.e. Samkhya philosophy. Unless anyone can provide a reason not to?

It is non-dual, I agree, and this is why it is picked up by people who feel it explains the next step. However, isn't one at risk of confusing themselves in thinking that they can have no mind?

2) It is up to each one of us, this is the paradox. We are told to find a non-dual unity, which goes beyond being individuals, yet it is the individual who apparently must strive to arrive at the point of enlightenment.

[atanu]

Namasté Atanu
This leads me to ask how Sri Ramana explains mind to be destroyable. How does he describe this, as I think the context will clarify further?

Namaste Snip.

Vedanta position is that under overall plan of Self only, the respective leaders of Shushupti, Taijjassa, and Vaisvanara create and control their respective worlds. But with more and more clarity, it becomes obvious that the whole process originates from Self, which does not change and remains unborn.

Shri Ramana does not, to begin with, teach about a real individual mind. So, there is actually nothing to destroy, except the notion that there is something -- some intelligent apparatus called 'my mind'. He does not deny mahat - the universal sattwik mind. But that again, he holds, is a product and thus not necessary for Sat-Chit-Anand.

Shri Ramana's technique is rather simple at surface and requires unbroken enquiry with every thought as to whose thought it was? In other words, it amounts to holding on to the "I" sense, which according Guru, is of Self alone and also is the beginning of samsara. Beyond that He says, is beyond the capacity of ego. Individual must only strive to centralise the wandering mind and rest would follow from power of Self. The answer to the aforesaid query is not rational and never resolves. But as Vasista teaches rAma "I have enquired after the 'I' for eons and not found it", this process helps and the knowledge gets deepened. Shri Ramana does not deny the ego as notion. It is the ego that initiates the dialogues. Even if the enquiry fails to confer the rise of knowledge, it helps to keep one centralised. The method is only possible for some practitioners. Thus he recommends surrender as another option for most others.There is literature on the process.

Shri Ramana was a brahmarishi and to label His teaching as Neo is an insult that some jealous people might resort to. We have seen it suggested in HDF by some who proclaimed Shri Laksman Joo as teacher. Funny thing is that Shri Lakshman Joo himself visited Shri Ramana several times -- prostrating to Him -- as is the practice among us. It is immaturity to label Gurus. In every shcool there would be some freshers/theorists who might probably be holding that only the theoretical knowledge is sufficient. But that is not so. And that has been my point all along. The Turiya must be known.

I would agree that mind is a part of prakriti (as explained above) so mind too is transient and that implies it is created and can be destroyed, but that which creates, sustains and destroys prakirit (including mind) is Brahman - Sri Krishna. Mind is His to destory, not "mine".

Yes and No. Ekanta would answer this nicely. You are speculating this way becuse a-priori you are holding yourself as real and different from Shri Krishna -- the Self of you and of All. You are a-priori creating 'mine' and 'His', which is falsity.

Yes. Because unconditional surrender is this only -- just Be.

No. Since, Shri Krishna Himself says that He abides not in objects. Here the knowledge of adhyAsa is required. I repeat that Shri Ramana does not deny ego in a sadhaka. And Shri Krishna Himself teaches "Renunciate I am doer notion". Neti-Neti process will also lead to rejection of all mental and sensual adhAra, which props up the so-called mind.

So, there is indeed something to be lost.

I have rambled for long.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Namaste Ao

WRT to 'No Mind' and 'one single flowing mind'

Both Buddha and Vedanta teach of the unborn unchanging substratum. Vedanta also recognises Mahat, whom some call Hari -- the pure Sattwik Mind, as Manifestor, as Maintainer, as Destroyer. Yet this Sattwik Mind has its stable in the immutable 'NO MIND'.

It does not matter whether you believe in 'No Mind' or 'Mahat' -- since it is a futile intellectual argument/exercise. The scriptures teach that the Supreme being unfolds and withdraws the mind and its contents just as spider unfolds its network and withdraws it. So, this is happening at a level beyond us.

But what is taught in scripture is:The Turiya must be known. (The Turiya is Mindless). And thus the mindless primeval state must be known.

I think that should be simple.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ao]

namast� Ao
Two points
1) "No mind" implies that we will not have a mind, this, in my opinion can add confusion because we still must recognise the teaching of Sri Krishna i.e. Samkhya philosophy. Unless anyone can provide a reason not to?

It is non-dual, I agree, and this is why it is picked up by people who feel it explains the next step. However, isn't one at risk of confusing themselves in thinking that they can have no mind?

2) It is up to each one of us, this is the paradox. We are told to find a non-dual unity, which goes beyond being individuals, yet it is the individual who apparently must strive to arrive at the point of enlightenment.

Apologies for cutting in, Atanu.

I think it is easier to understand the concept of "no mind" as that of a "perfectly still mind"--one at rest in unity. To me this more accurately reflects the Zen teachings using the "mu" character (mumon, mugen, etc.). However, that said, one can always be at risk of confusing oneself! Personally, I like a lot of Zen's esoteric teachings but find its core a little hollow. Still, these points can be useful for our discussion here, I think.