On approaches to turiya and consciousness

[atanu]

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.

Namaste Ao

I do not know whether this post is in response to post 29 or not. But the Veda view is that there is not a Mind and another Self. Veda says that the truth is One. Self is without a second. Anyway, we may further discuss, if i know whether you have replied after reading the post 29 or not?

Om

[atanu]

namasté Ao
Two points
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.

Namaste Snip

Actually it is not a paradox. It is said in scripture that consciousness is all this. Yoga Vasista teaches "Whatever is true in consciousness is true, since consciousness is true". It is the magical power of consciousness (also called kalpataru or kAmdhenu) that holds notion of being this and that and many and one etc etc. The released ones do not hold such notions. It is simple for them. For us, wherein, the notions are brick solid, effort is required. Frankly I do not see any paradox.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ao]

Namaste Ao

I do not know whether this post is in response to post 29 or not. But the Veda view is that there is not a Mind and another Self. Veda says that the truth is One. Self is without a second. Anyway, we may further discuss, if i know whether you have replied after reading the post 29 or not?

Om

Namaste

No, my post was in reply to #27. I read your #29 after submitting it, and understand the Vedic view here (although it is a certainty that I can always learn more).

[Onkara]

Yes and No. Ekanta would answer this nicely. You are speculating this way because 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.

Namast� Atanuji
There is a subtle point in the above a-priori perception you highlight which I feel is useful for us to explore. Sri Krishna speaks of �His prakriti� in this a-priori sense, as if it were separate to Him. Mind is within His prakriti. If we say He experiences His prakriti then so mind is witnessed by Him also.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind,
Intellect, ego-principle:
These are the eight divisions of
My prakriti, O Arjuna.1 (Bhagavad Gita 7.4)

It is no coincidence then that we too experience the mind, we witness its movements. However, as I mentioned on the Dream thread, mind is only an object when we objectify it for explanation. Likewise so is the Lord�s prakriti only an object when we talk of it. In order to explore it we need to objectify it, yet we know it exists without having to talk about it. Likewise we objectify Shri Krishna when we do puja, I bow to His lotus feet. He who knows Brahman is Brahman, even if he speaks of it objectively.

This is the trap of mind I speak of in the earlier thread. To assume that I will feel the mosquito bite your friend after realization is to assume that it is wrong to objectify.

Although I appreciate you point is slightly different (an I agree with you my friend. Unconditional surrender is key). This is why I must also add the question? Is it possible to �Just Be�? Being can include philsophising, dobuting and even posting on forums. All of which may appear to be symbolic of missing the supreme goal. But all these actions are only His lila and our doubt to know it as such is maya.

---
Bonus question - Does Saivism have a different view or is it identical?

[Onkara]

Namaste atanuji
It seems we are saying the same in different ways

I wil take a back seat

Namaste Snip

Actually it is not a paradox. It is said in scripture that consciousness is all this. Yoga Vasista teaches "Whatever is true in consciousness is true, since consciousness is true". It is the magical power of consciousness (also called kalpataru or kAmdhenu) that holds notion of being this and that and many and one etc etc. The released ones do not hold such notions. It is simple for them. For us, wherein, the notions are brick solid, effort is required. Frankly I do not see any paradox.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Namasté Atanuji
There is a subtle point in the above a-priori perception you highlight which I feel is useful for us to explore. Sri Krishna speaks of “His prakriti” in this a-priori sense, as if it were separate to Him. Mind is within His prakriti. If we say He experiences His prakriti then so mind is witnessed by Him also.

Namaste Snip

Exactly. That is why i said that eventually it is "I" of the primordial Purusha. Consciousness is situated as we and using that 'we' must work to remove the ignorance of separated selfs, yet ultimately, everything must be known as the unborn consciousness.

You are correct. To “Just Be” is the most difficult attainement. So, we try to engage the mind in things that will not add to adharma.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Onkara]

To “Just Be” is the most difficult attainement. So, we try to engage the mind in things that will not add to adharma.

Om Namah Shivaya

Wonderful then we can understand the meaning quoted below:


ਜੋਤੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਈਐ ਸੁਰਤੀ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਸੰਜੋਗੁ ॥
जोती जोति मिलाईऐ सुरती सुरति संजोगु ॥
Joṯī joṯ milā▫ī▫ai surṯī suraṯ sanjog.
When one's light merges into the Light, and one's intuitive consciousness is joined with the Intuitive Consciousness,

ਹਿੰਸਾ ਹਉਮੈ ਗਤੁ ਗਏ ਨਾਹੀ ਸਹਸਾ ਸੋਗੁ ॥
हिंसा हउमै गतु गए नाही सहसा सोगु ॥
Hinsā ha▫umai gaṯ ga▫e nāhī sahsā sog.
then one's cruel and violent instincts and egotism depart, and skepticism and sorrow are taken away.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਿਸੁ ਹਰਿ ਮਨਿ ਵਸੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਮੇਲੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਸੰਜੋਗੁ ॥੨॥
गुरमुखि जिसु हरि मनि वसै तिसु मेले गुरु संजोगु ॥२॥
Gurmukẖ jis har man vasai ṯis mele gur sanjog. ||2||
The Lord abides within the mind of the Gurmukh, who merges in the Lord's Union, through the Guru. ||2||

ਕਾਇਆ ਕਾਮਣਿ ਜੇ ਕਰੀ ਭੋਗੇ ਭੋਗਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
काइआ कामणि जे करी भोगे भोगणहारु ॥
Kā▫i▫ā kāmaṇ je karī bẖoge bẖogaṇhār.
If I surrender my body like a bride, the Enjoyer will enjoy me.

[atanu]

Wonderful then we can understand the meaning quoted below:

Kā▫i▫ā kāmaṇ je karī bẖoge bẖogaṇhār.
If I surrender my body like a bride, the Enjoyer will enjoy me.

Namaste Snip

That is wonderful and honey. Some will say sweet mAyA has covered up dry old Brahman.

However, being given to worry too much, cannot but have apprehension that the enjoyer may complain:

And the other day the whole night thrusome
was it you who snored so gruesome?

(From a gibberish poem of Shri Sukumar Ray, father of Satyajit Ray.)

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I am happy to see our posters qualify their statements on the knowledge that is offered. This is very important.

It suggests a view of the truth from one angle then another. That does not infer angle A is better then angle B.
Atanu has been correct to qualify the views from vedānta and me from the POV of kaśmir śaivism, or others from sāṃkhyā, or yoga, or the nyāya¹ school ( which yet is to be offered). It is good we do this so we can see the different views offered.

Now that said, there is no doubt that the maṇḍūkaya upaniṣad is brilliant regarding this turīya... it tells us turīya is na prājña - not cognizable as if it were an object. It is key to remember this.

Yet this turīya can be experienced, this too we should not forget. Who says so? The kaṭhopaniṣad (1.3.12) It ( the SELF) is perceived by seers ( that could/would be us) in their penetrating subtle intuitive thinking. This word 'thinking' is not the best translation, it should be more like budhya or 'awaken-ness', but will leave this for another time.

Now atanu was kind enough to remember abhinavagupti-ji and his views from a kaśmir śaivism perspective. This muni is brillant and his insight, depth and breath of knowledge from a being that lived Reality is most uplifting to read. I mention this as the knowledge of turīya is more then meets the eye. Let me explain.

In one of his most noted works ( for me) the parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa , he mentions the following, In all dealings , what ever happens whether it is a matter of knowledge or of action - all that arsies in the fourth stage turyabhuvi i.e. in parāvāk in an undifferentiated (gatabhedaṁ) way.
This to the avg. reader may mean lttle , but clearly suggest spanda¹ ( some vibration some movement ) in this turīya. My teacher called it Self-referral. We will talk of this at a later date.

What does this have to do with anything? If we look at the maṇḍūkaya upaniṣad it says this turīya is alakṣaṇa ( a+lakṣaṇa) without a mark i.e. without qualities. Because it is unseen (adṛṣṭa) and cannot be grasped (agārhya) because it is not an object. Yet in kaśmir śaivism it's nature suggests spanda.

See how we can look at this differently yet not be in opposition ?

So for the esteemed HDF reader - let us go back to vedānta and revisit a key upaniṣad aforementioned - the kaṭhopaniṣad ( kaṭha upaniṣad ).
Note this upaniṣad IMHO is not considered pure vedānta but is sāṃkhya by nature.

Let's look to the 10th and 11th śloka of the 1st chapter, the 3rd & 4th vallī (1.3.10-11). My question has much to do with the notion of 'beyond the 4th' , it says the following:

Beyond the senses are their objects
Beyond sense-objects is the mind
Beyond the mind resides the intellect
Beyond the intellect is the great SELF ( called out as ātmā-mahān)<--- I stand corrected on the use of this word - see atanu's next post for the correction.


At this point we are all comfortable and are pretty much at home with this wisdom, yet continuing in the 11th sūtra it says the following:

Beyond the great (Self) is the unmanifest
Beyond the unmanifest is puruṣa
Beyond puruṣa none there is ( or said another way there is no more, this is the end)
That is the destination, that is the final refuge.

Dearest friends - where then is turīya - is it not the Self or the unmanifest? Yet there is something beyond this ( turya-atītam) ?
How can this be?

praṇām

words

• nyāya - that into which a thing goes back i.e. an original type , standard , method , rule
  • a darśana or school of philosophy delivered by gautama (one of the 6 darśanas ) so called , because it 'goes into' all subjects physical and metaphysical .
• spanda - throbbing , throb , quiver , pulse , vibration

[atanu]

--- the kaṭhopaniṣad ( kaṭha upaniṣad ).
Note this upaniṣad IMHO is not considered pure vedānta but is sāṃkhya by nature.

Let's look to the 10th and 11th śloka of the 1st chapter, the 3rd & 4th vallī (1.3.10-11). My question has much to do with the notion of 'beyond the 4th' , it says the following:

Beyond the senses are their objects
Beyond sense-objects is the mind
Beyond the mind resides the intellect
Beyond the intellect is the great SELF ( called out as ātmā-mahān)


At this point we are all comfortable and are pretty much at home with this wisdom, yet continuing in the 11th sūtra it says the following:

Beyond the great (Self) is the unmanifest
Beyond the unmanifest is puruṣa
Beyond puruṣa none there is ( or said another way there is no more, this is the end)
That is the destination, that is the final refuge.

Namaste Yajvanji

There seems to a is a mix-up between Mahat and Mahan Atman on side and atman on the other. The chathurta-Turya is the goal - the Purusha, the Self, the atman. What is originated from the unmanifest moola prakriti is the Mahat. And what manifests the moola prakriti - pragnya ghana is the Self.

The verses are below:

Katha U.

indriyebhyaH paraa hyarthaa arthebhyashcha paraM manaH .
manasastu paraa buddhirbuddheraatmaa mahaanparaH .. 10..

mahataH paramavyaktamavyaktaatpurushhaH paraH .
purushhaanna paraM ki.nchitsaa kaashhThaa saa paraa gatiH .. 11..

eshha sarveshhu bhuuteshhu guuDho.a.atmaa na prakaashate .
dR^ishyate tvagryayaa buddhyaa suukshmayaa suukshmadarshibhiH .. 12..

yachchhedvaaN^manasii praaGYastadyachchhejGYaana aatmani .
GYaanamaatmani mahati niyachchhettadyachchhechchhaanta aatmani .. 13..

1-III-10. The sensory objects are subtler than the senses, and subtler than the sensory objects is mind. But intellect is subtler than mind and subtler than intellect is Mahat (the Hiranyagarbha).

1-III-11. The unmanifested (avyakta) is subtler than Mahat (Hiranyagarbha) and subtler than the unmanifested is Purusha. There is nothing subtler than Purusha. That is the end, that is the supreme goal.

1-III-12. This Self hidden in all beings does not shine. But by seers of subtle and pointed intellect capable of perceiving subtle objects, It is seen.

1-III-13. Let the wise man merge speech in his mind, merge that (mind) into the intelligent self and the intelligent self into the Mahat. (Let him then) merge the Mahat into the peaceful Self.

The word used, in these sets of verses, is not maha atman but param manah or mahat, which originates from the unmanifest mola prakriti; The dream mind of light and shade, which is intermediate between the dark sleep and the waking.

• The vaisvanaro is the waking world (A of AUM).
• The mahat is Hiranyagarbha, the mahat, world soul, equivalent of dream state of shushupti, where all creation takes place. (U of AUM)
• Mahat has origin in Pragnya Ghana, unmanifest moola prakriti, which is the first step and manifested Pragnya of Self. (M of AUM).
• Self is transcendental (OM) into which the world soul Mahat dissolves.

Katha Upanishad 1.3.11 - 1.3.12 clarify together that Purusha and the Self are the same Being beyond unmanifest Pragnya Ghana .

You may like to examine the above and distinguish between mahat (the first mind), the unmanifest, and the Atma-Purusha, the hidden manifestor of Pragnya.

Mahan atman word is used at places for Nachiketa himself (I.1.16) and also for Mahat (III.2.7). One may note that Maha is usually used for the embodied.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya