difference between turiya and deep sleep?

[Cassandra]

Have you ever shared thoughts with someone, as in psychic ability?

Have you ever not done that?

 

[chinu]

greetings everyone,

could somebody explain to me the difference between deep sleep and turiya, I know that turiya is not really a state but underlies all three states waking, dreaming, deep sleep.

I also know that in waking, dreaming there is a sense of duality but what about deep sleep, isn't deep sleep the same as turiya??

here's a definition from wikipedia:

is this definition correct. What I don't understand is, it says that in deep sleep there is no sense of I, how can that be, I thought consciousness is always present. Then it says in turiya there is awareness of the undifferentiated 'I' (what is an undifferentiated 'I'?).

I hope you can help!

Thank you

In turiya consiousness resides outside the body in higher regions where as in deep sleep consiousness resides inside the body.

In deep sleep consiousness always stays inside the body at nable centre taking dreams and all that.

 

[Student of X]

Have you ever not done that?

While it's true that psi is always operating in the background, making us all ONE, I am referring to instances of conscious ego-self awareness of the non-locality of consciousness.

 

[YmirGF]

While it's true that psi is always operating in the background, making us all ONE, I am referring to instances of conscious ego-self awareness of the non-locality of consciousness.

*Looks hesitantly at the threads Dir location*
*Grumbles, disapprovingly*
*Adapts dialogue accordingly*

With the deepest, most profound respect, Student of X, what, precisely, do you mean by the highlighted passage?
I thought it best to seek an explanation before chiming in. Loved the experience you wrote about.
To Tantalize: Neat, ain't it?

I will humbly wait for your reply before proceeding further.

 

[Student of X]

*Looks hesitantly at the threads Dir location*

eh, hmm sorry if such comments as mine are not appropriate for a DIR. I'll withdraw from this thread with apologies to all.

 

[Cassandra]

Friend Cassandra,

Kindly understand what is *SHARING*
This is personal understanding and sorry not be available in scriptures!
A tree takes water and minerals from the earth, Sunlight and air from above and then grows fruits. These fruits are eaten by birds and not by the tree that grows. That is sharing!
There are no claims that have grown these fruits or telling that am giving this to you etc.
In existence each being is sharing with the other to make this the garden of den of which am part of. The zannat for some but we humans have made it hell with our own mind by this *you, me , mine etc. Till one can drop that ego it cannot be labelled as SHARING!

Love & rgds

Namaste Zenzero

That is what I would call serving. Earth and sun serve tree, tree serves birds, etc.

So now your text becomes:
Personally do not follow this *they*, *we* etc.
If there is no oneness there is no SERVING.

hmmmmmmm. Then kindly explain what you mean with oneness?

 

[YmirGF]

eh, hmm sorry if such comments as mine are not appropriate for a DIR. I'll withdraw from this thread with apologies to all.

Silly wabbit. I was referring to my own intrusion into the thread, not about your participation. Given that no one has objected to your posts, thus far, I'd say you are welcome to keep posting.

That aside, I was quibbling over so many of these discussion taking place in the various RF foxholes wherein debate is not allowed and one must tow a given party line, as it were, and remain "respectful".

All that aside, could you elaborate on my original post? What, precisely, do you mean by, "I am referring to instances of conscious ego-self awareness of the non-locality of consciousness."

 

[Student of X]

Well in that case ok.

All that aside, could you elaborate on my original post? What, precisely, do you mean by, "I am referring to instances of conscious ego-self awareness of the non-locality of consciousness."

Psi is always operating below the threshold of conscious awareness, even in people who don't believe in it. It can influence the behavior of people, even skeptics, without crossing the threshold.

But sometimes there are instances where psi rises above the threshold of conscious awareness, and so the ego-self becomes aware of an anomaly.

 

[YmirGF]

Psi is always operating below the threshold of conscious awareness, even in people who don't believe in it. It can influence the behavior of people, even skeptics, without crossing the threshold.

But sometimes there are instances where psi rises above the threshold of conscious awareness, and so the ego-self becomes aware of an anomaly.

*Grapples with how this is related to Hinduism*

Respectfully, I cannot respond, in a meaningful manner, within the constraints of the Hinduism Dir format, as any explanation I would offer may well diverge from the traditional stance(s) of Hinduism. This topic might be better served in the Seekers Dir unless you are intent on shoehorning your experience into the existing dogma of Hinduism.

 

[Student of X]

*Grapples with how this is related to Hinduism*

Respectfully, I cannot respond, in a meaningful manner, within the constraints of the Hinduism Dir format, as any explanation I would offer may well diverge from the traditional stance(s) of Hinduism. This topic might be better served in the Seekers Dir unless you are intent on shoehorning your experience into the existing dogma of Hinduism.

That which parapsychologists call psi is an archetype of the collective unconscious and so is found in every religion in one form or another, including Hinduism. But this is not a comparative religion thread so I'll bow out now.

 

[atanu]

The following may help to complement the valuable explanations given both by jg22 and shAntoham.

Consciousness - the Three States

The difference between the deep sleep state, which is one of ignorance, and the Turiya, which is the Self, is beyond intellectual comprehension (except at the level of metaphors), since Self is actually the goal of knowledge.

 

[Shântoham]

Friend Shantoham,



Sorry, what you say may be a general rule BUT cannot be an exception as EXISTENCE itself is pointing towards THAT [itself] without words at all times.
Those who have REALIZED have written down something which is the basis of all scriptures and surely if you are right then there was no first who realized and nor would have the scriptures be written.
being conscious of what one is doing at all times is enough and in addition read/discuss/etc. and when the time is ripe the guru will appear to take one further where he himself as reached. There is no limitation.The final guru is existence ITSELF!

Love & rgds

Shrigurubhyo namaH

Zenzero

Everything I write is from the standpoint of VedAnta. Traditional VedAnta. Adi SaNkAracArya’s paramparAm.
I am not here to debate or to impose the vision of VedAnta on others. I am not an Iskconite.
And I am also not here to discuss so called “personal experiences” because they are subjective and that which is subjective begins and ends with the individual.
I am here to share the teaching of VedAnta with those who are interested.
As a rule, as far as VedAnta is concerned, guru is indispensable and irreplaceable. The Adi guru – first guru – is BhagavAn.

sadASiva samArambhAm SaNkarAcArya madhyamAm |
asmadAchArya paryantAm vande guru paramparAm ||

//I salute the lineage of teachers, beginning with the ever auspicious Lord Siva, linked by Adi SaNkarAcArya in the middle, and extending up to my own teacher//

The importance of the guru is connected to the teaching method of VedAnta. The teaching method of VedAnta is what removes the ignorance from the student’s mind. The removal of the ignorance from the student’s mind is what liberation is.
It is a fundamental but extremely subtle and extensive point… which I won’t elaborate in this contest.
Suffice to say that the VedAnta sAdhanA for the prepared mind consists of SravaNam, mananam, and nididhyAsanam. The first and most important step is SravaNam: the process of attentive hearing. It is the most important step because the other two are based on it. The process of attentive hearing can only take place if there is someone to listen to. The guru gives not only the upadeSa of the “words”, he gives more than that, he gives the whole vision of VedAnta. Without the guru there is no SravaNam, and without SravaNam there is no liberation. Therefore guru is indispensable and irreplaceable.
All of this is from the standpoint of VedAnta of which I am qualified to talk.
Outside the parameters of traditional VedAnta I let others talk and I remain silent.

Tat Sat BrahmArpaNamastu​

 

[Cassandra]

Shrigurubhyo namaH
This brings us to the conclusion:

01. The jIva-Ishvara-jagat triad exist in the phenomenal state.
02. TurIya/Brahman, exists in this phenomenal state too.
03. TurIya/Brahman, exists in the transcendental state too.
04. In other words, while the triad exists *only* in the phenomenal, the TurIya exists *both* in the phenomenal and the transcendental.
05. That makes the TurIya the Absolutely Real.
06. And the triad only the relatively real.
07. In Vedanta, therefore, Brahman is the Sat, Absolutely Real, paramArthika satyam.
08. The triad: jIva-jagat-Ishvara, vyAvahArika satyam (also called mithyA, relativelly real).
09. It is possible to talk of the triad as satyam in the vyavahAra and mithyA, relative to the paramArtha.
10. However, finally, as pointed out in the GaudapAda KArika, even this distinction (satya-mithyA) is only vyAvahArika; the Truth cannot be called satyam or even paramArthika satyam. For, to call it paramArthika satyam is only relative to vyAvahArika. Since the vyAvahArika itself is a non-entity, as there is no creation at all, the dvaitam of pAramArthika-vyAvahArika itself falls.
11. Maybe we can then use the name 'Advaitam'. However, the kArikA itself points out elsewhere that even the word 'Advaitam' is relative only to the word 'dvaitam'.
12. If we have to completely free ourselves from all relativity, we have to keep quiet.

Pranaam Shântoham,

Interesting stuff, as far as I can understand it. I never studied any philosophy, so I can only rely on limited personal experience and rational thought here. I can see the logic of the steps you lay out here. My questions concerns nr.3: " TurIya/Brahman, exists in the transcendental state too."

I have some questions relating this. nr.4 suggest that "existence" in nr.3 is the same as in nr.2. In both is something that can be adressed with the same word.

• What does "existence" exactly mean in this respect.
• Is there existence in the transcendental state and how do we know that? Is it assumed, referred, experienced, else?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Shantonam,

Thank you and am sure the VEDANTA DIR would be now utilized properly by every student of Vedanta by listening in silence about talks on the subject.
At the same time, personally find debates to be noises that arise from silence which is eternal but in silence to unconsciousness creeps in to miss understand, mis quote, mis manage etc. which could be guilty off being human.
However one needs to be human which is part of consciousness itself first; before being a student, master, a vedantin or whatever one claims authority on. Do we agree to that??

Love & rgds

 

[Shântoham]

Friend Shantonam,

Thank you and am sure the VEDANTA DIR would be now utilized properly by every student of Vedanta by listening in silence about talks on the subject.
At the same time, personally find debates to be noises that arise from silence which is eternal but in silence to unconsciousness creeps in to miss understand, mis quote, mis manage etc. which could be guilty off being human.
However one needs to be human which is part of consciousness itself first; before being a student, master, a vedantin or whatever one claims authority on. Do we agree to that??

Love & rgds

Shrigurubhyo namaH

Zenzero

I doubt that we can listen to anything written down on a book or on this forum.

Debates on the Internet between two or more unknown quantities – although (for some) engaging and titillating – are a total waste of time.

The human condition is not part of consciousness – at best it is incidental.

Do we agree? No. To agree we must first speak the same language. Our conversations – if that is what they are – remind me of an old joke:

Hey, where are you going?

I am going to see a movie.

What movie are you going to see?

Quo Vadis.

What does it mean?

Where are you going.

I am going to see a movie.

What movie are you going to see?

Quo Vadis.

What does it mean?

Tat Sat BrahmArpaNamastu​

 

[Shântoham]

Pranaam Shântoham,

I agree with that. As I see it, book knowledge tends to create intellectual arrogance, philosophical works even more. People with not fully formed identities tend to identify with their heroes and copy the ideas and behavior. Especially if their idol is a moral teacher like Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, they tend to start preaching too. Some start acting as a guru, even if they were never given this position by the people they are preaching to.

Some read in scriptures about higher state and had some sort of elevated experience and start thinking they are i-less. They relabel everything people say as "illusions". They patronize people from their high enlightened perspective, in which everything is condescending Love. Some become self-appointed guru's in sects that abuse people, they start seeing their own perversities as Godlike qualities. It is amazing how many sexual predators are among sect leaders.

Because sacred texts offer an attractive elevated perspective, during reading people start identifying with that in thought. At some point people will also start speaking and acting accordingly. Developing convictions, it becomes a trap, and they want to live up to their new status, oppressing their former identity. Sacred texts can become a real threat to the natural identity of people.

Shrigurubhyo namaH

pranAm Cassandra

What you wrote is correct on many levels – but the reason why I suggested not to read the MAndUkya kArikA is more connected to the teaching method of VedAnta than anything else.
To be able to understand what we read we need to make connections between the book and what we already know. For example, if we have a good understanding of philosophy we can try to understand VedAnta.
The problem is that VedAnta is not something that needs to be understood by us. Like mathematic or science or philosophy. Our main problem as human beings is that we tend to objectify everything we encounter in life – and we do that by creating concepts. We conceptualize our very existence – including VedAnta. VedAnta is a pramANa, though, and we cannot conceptualize a pramANa – we can only use a pramANa. In order to gain moksha we have to expose ourselves to the appropriate pramANa. In other words, we have to open our ears and listen to the systematic teaching of a competent teacher. In order to do this we have to drop the knower – the conceptualizer. Through SraddhA we have to assume a posture-less posture – an attentive listening devoid of conceptualizations – and let the teaching and the teacher do the knowing for us. If we want to know form and color we simply point our eyes toward it and let the eyes do their job. If we want to know AtmA we let the teacher and the teaching see for us. They reveal to us our real essential nature – all we have to do is listening attentively. As I wrote the VedAnta sAdhanA for the prepared mind consists of SravaNam, mananam, and nididhyAsanam. The first and most important step is SravaNam – the process of attentive hearing – and not paThanam – the process of reading.
Our condition as jIvas is sapratibandhaka-jñAnam – knowledge with obstacles. There are specific obstacles – malam, AvaraNam, vikSepam – that prevent us from understanding our real essential nature. Listening attentively removes the obstacles and allows us to gain moksha. Exposing ourselves to the VedAnta pramANa causes in us a cognitive shift. This cognitive shift is what VedAnta calls enlightenment.
The pramANa does not give us knowledge. The pramANa removes the obstacles. And when the obstacles are removed we will clearly see what is plainly obvious to me – that this is a non-dual reality and… that (non-dual reality) we are!

Tat Sat BrahmArpaNamastu​

 

[Shântoham]

Pranaam Shântoham,

Interesting stuff, as far as I can understand it. I never studied any philosophy, so I can only rely on limited personal experience and rational thought here. I can see the logic of the steps you lay out here. My questions concerns nr.3: " TurIya/Brahman, exists in the transcendental state too."

I have some questions relating this. nr.4 suggest that "existence" in nr.3 is the same as in nr.2. In both is something that can be adressed with the same word.

• What does "existence" exactly mean in this respect.
• Is there existence in the transcendental state and how do we know that? Is it assumed, referred, experienced, else?

Shrigurubhyo namaH

pranAm Cassandra

VedAnta teaches that existence (sat) is that which remains unchanged in the three periods of time – past, present and future. kAlatraye’pi tiSThatIti sat (TattvabodhaH).
Existence therefore implies reality as reality is defined as that which does not undergo any change at any time.
Consciousness alone remains unchanged in all the three states. The sense-organs are not present in the dream state and the mind itself is not experienced in deep sleep. Therefore this consciousness is the unchanging essence of every living being and it is therefore called the self. This self, or essence of all living beings, is of the nature of existence.
We experience innumerable objects in this world through our sense-organs in the waking state. The objects are different from one another, but the consciousness behind the senses, which is different from the objects experienced, is only one. The consciousness of A is not different from that of B or C. Since consciousness by itself has no distinguishing features, it cannot vary from person to person.
The same is the case with the dream state. The objects experienced in dream are transient and disappear when the dreamer wakes up, but the objects experienced in the waking state are relatively permanent. But the consciousness in both the states is the same.
When a person wakes up from deep sleep he remembers that he slept happily and did not know anything during his sleep. Remembrance is possible only of objects experienced earlier. It is therefore clear that in deep sleep absence of knowledge and happiness are experienced.
The same consciousness is present in all the three states, as is proved by the fact that a person identifies himself as the same in all the states. This consciousness is thus the same in all persons and at all times. It is therefore only one and is eternal, without any beginning or end. It is self-revealing and does not need another consciousness to reveal itself or its objects.
Here is where it gets tricky – we cannot experience pure consciousness. The same way we cannot experience pure light. That’s why outer space is pitch black. We can only experience light in the presence of objects.
Light and object are not distant from one another – the object shines in the very presence of light. They are inseparable. There is no way to see the object separate from the light. To be able to say, 'this is a flower' implies the presence of light, but it does not mean that light has any connection with the flower. The flower and the light may be physically inseparable, but they are cognitively separable.
Similarly we can only experience consciousness together with nAma-rUpa. Consciousness experienced together with every nAma-rUpa is manifest consciousness, otherwise it is pure consciousness. The problem is that one is not able to see that one is experiencing consciousness with every manifest nAma-rUpa. But one can never experience pure consciousness, that is consciousness without nAma-rUpa.
If consciousness is not an object of knowledge, how can it be experienced? When one says that consciousness is experienced, one isn’t talking about pure consciousness, but about manifest consciousness. And in order to experience manifest consciousness, there needs to be a manifesting medium, which is any nAma-rUpa. This is similar to experiencing light when you experience any object. There is no knowledge or cognition of an object without the unavoidable experience of light. That experience of light is the experience of manifest light. There is no difference between pure light and manifest light: the two adjectives, pure and manifest are added to distinguish pure from manifest light. By these two terms one is meant to understand the light. Manifesting media are many, so the one indivisible partless light seems to be manifesting in different forms. But we are not interested in pure light or manifest light, the aim is to understand the light.
There is no such thing called pure light or manifest light, there is only light. Similarly, there is no such thing as pure consciousness or manifest consciousness there is only consciousness. Manifest consciousness can be experienced, but pure consciousness cannot, because it is not an object of knowledge.
You cannot experience pure consciousness – consciousness without nAma-rUpa. You can cognitively separate the experience – but not physically.
Therefore pure consciousness – which is the transcendental state – can only be inferred from the words of the scriptures. It is a matter of understanding not of experience.

Tat Sat BrahmArpaNamastu​

 

[zenzero]

Friend Shantoham,

GrEEtings!

I doubt that we can listen to anything written down on a book or on this forum.

SorRy, persOnally when am reaDing it iS as If somEone is spEAking to Me. ToTally soRRy, it doEs noT Work the sAme fOr alL huMans. ExcUse mE.

The human condition is not part of consciousness – at best it is incidental.

Again SoRRY, That ReaLization is not tHe sAme fOr eVeryOne.

Where are you going.

soRRy agaiN; neVer knEw tHat yOu aRe gOing soMewherE. PeRsonaLly reAlIsed tHat tHere is nO goINg anD coMing. KinDly gO wherEEver yOu wiSh,
BleSSings!

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

This per Vedanta:

Therefore pure consciousness – which is the transcendental state – can only be inferred from the words of the scriptures. It is a matter of understanding not of experience.

Agree with the it but also the important point and is *understanding*. Understanding comes from somewhere and as the scriptures are written by realized individuals in the past by DIRECT experiences as they did not have the support of the Vedas themselves and so relied on DIRECT experience to understand and the same is possible HERE-NOW! through any being!

Love & rgds

Love & rgds

 

[DanielR]

Thank you all for your comments,

thanks atanu for the link, thanks shAntoham