Turiya = Brahman?

Two birds, inseparable companions, perch on the same tree,
one eats the fruit, the other looks on. The first bird is our
individual self feeding on the pleasures and pains of this world;The other is the universal Self, silently witnessing all. (Mandukya Upanishad 3.1.1)



Below is an excellent article by Swami Krishnananda distinguishing between the higher Self and the lower illusory self.......

A Story of Two Birds - Quote from Mandukya Upanishad - ReSanskrit

. So there are two phases of experience going on in one’s own body: a consciousness that is totally detached, and a consciousness that is very much involved.

The detached consciousness in us is called Kutastha- Chaitanya. It stands uncontaminated even in the state of deep sleep and enables us to regain our consciousness of the identity of personality when we awake the next morning and feel that we are there.

This consciousness of our being the same person that we were yesterday is not the action of the mind, not of the sense organs, not the body. The body cannot know anything; it is unconscious, and the mind and the senses were not functioning in sleep. So who told us that we existed yesterday?

There is some minimal awareness, consciousness qua being, as it is called, which is our essence that existed in deep sleep, and that is responsible for our memory of the fact of our having existed yesterday also. That is the uncontaminated detached consciousness in us. It is not connected with body, mind and sense organs. That is the Ishvara-tattva that is in us. ~ Swami Krishnananda

Click to expand...

shivsomashekhar said:

So, a non-existent self unites with Brahman. Such a unity would be non-existent too.

Like you said, there are any number of different views in Hinduism, but a non-existent/illusory self is not one of them. That would be Buddhism.

Click to expand...

So you're denying that Maya's a concept in Hinduism?

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying self merging with Brahman is wrong because they've always been unified, so the concept of a discrete self is absurd; or are you saying the self is real, independent and not a part of Brahman?
Clarify?

"Illusory self" is true speaking from waking-state. "Non-existent self" is true speaking from Samadhi/Turiya/enlightenment.
We need to be clear what level of reality we're speaking from/of.

Meerkat said:

How would you describe it?

Click to expand...

I would relate it to when one chants the three sounds of OM, "A" being the waking state, "U" being the dream state, and "M" being the deep sleep state. The substrate of silence that eternally exists behind these sounds and which follows is comparable to turiya.

shivsomashekhar said:

.. but a non-existent/illusory self is not one of them.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is there is Vyavaharika Satya.

Valjean said:

We need to be clear what level of reality we're speaking from/of.

Click to expand...

A valid question, because change perspective and things appear to change.

Aupmanyav said:

Perhaps it is there is Vyavaharika Satya.A valid question, because change perspective and things appear to change.

Click to expand...

I'd say there are several subjective realities and on objective reality. What is subjectively real in a dream is not real in waking-state.
I can say truly that I live with a cat, own a car and there's a tree in my yard. This is my (subjective) reality, but if I woke to another reality these would no longer be true, either subjectively or objectively.
Reality is structured in consciousness.

Valjean said:

I'd say there are several subjective realities and on objective reality. What is subjectively real in a dream is not real in waking-state.
I can say truly that I live with a cat, own a car and there's a tree in my yard. This is my (subjective) reality, but if I woke to another reality these would no longer be true, either subjectively or objectively.
Reality is structured in consciousness.

Click to expand...

Then, there is no objective reality. What you believe to be objective may in reality be subjective and therefore, temporary. You have no way of knowing.

A couple of points -

1. Problem - Advaita logic is convoluted. Everyone has a different idea what is real and what is not. This is the danger of learning abstract philosophies from online and other dubious sources.

2. Effort - Put in the work. Take the time to read the original Mandukya text (it is very short) and draw your own conclusions. Lookup Sanskrit words using the online dictionary. There is nothing in this Upanishad about magical realization, meditation, experiencing Brahman, temporary reality vs. permanent reality, fake self vs. real self.

3. Honesty - Don't be afraid to question your understanding. Just because you have cultivated a certain interpretation for sometime, does not mean you are stuck with it (sunk cost fallacy). If your point of view cannot withstand scrutiny, then you have work to do.

SalixIncendium said:

I would relate it to when one chants the three sounds of OM, "A" being the waking state, "U" being the dream state, and "M" being the deep sleep state. The substrate of silence that eternally exists behind these sounds and which follows is comparable to turiya.

Click to expand...

I think of these sounds as ripples on the surface of Brahman. Or something.

So if Brahman is consciousness, does it follow that Maya is objects appearing to consciousness?

Meerkat said:

So if Brahman is consciousness, does it follow that Maya is objects appearing to consciousness?

Click to expand...

That's a bit of an oversimplification, in my opinion, but you may be barking up the right tree, depending on what you're calling consciousness. Swami Vivekananda dedicated entire three lectures on what Maya is in his series of talks on jnana yoga.

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Jnana-Yoga/Maya and Illusion - Wikisource, the free online library
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Jnana-Yoga/Maya and the Evolution of the Conception of God - Wikisource, the free online library
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Jnana-Yoga/Maya and Freedom - Wikisource, the free online library

Swami Sarvapriyananda also gives a good lecture on Maya here:

Meerkat said:

So if Brahman is consciousness, does it follow that Maya is objects appearing to consciousness?

Click to expand...

IMHO, the last part of your statement is correct, 'maya' is objects appearing to consciousness, but Brahman is not (Human) consciousness, which is a temporary thing, gets erased with what is known as death. Brahman is more than that, Brahman is eternal. Brahman is the substrate of all appearances.

Meerkat said:

So if Brahman is consciousness, does it follow that Maya is objects appearing to consciousness?

Click to expand...

Maya is just the dualistic mind agitated by intense desires in the form of cravings/aversions for pleasure/pain respectively.

Brahman is pure consciousness beyond the dualistic mind, free of cravings or aversions, and consequently capable of nondual perception.

Brahman is the lake of pure consciousness within, while Maya is the mind/ego which agitates this lake with the mud of desires in the form of cravings and aversions, obscuring or veiling the base of pure consciousness.


These sayings of Ramana can help comprehend this better....


"The mind is maya. Reality lies beyond the mind. So long as the mind functions there is duality, maya, etc. Once it is transcended the Reality shines forth. Although it is said to shine forth Self-effulgence is the Self." - Ramana Maharshi

'The pure mind is itself Brahman; it therefore follows that Brahman is not other than the mind of the sage.'- Ramana Maharshi

Aupmanyav said:

IMHO, the last part of your statement is correct, 'maya' is objects appearing to consciousness, but Brahman is not (Human) consciousness, which is a temporary thing, gets erased with what is known as death. Brahman is more than that, Brahman is eternal. Brahman is the substrate of all appearances.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "human" consciousness? Do you mean the waking state?

ajay0 said:

Maya is just the dualistic mind agitated by intense desires in the form of cravings/aversions for pleasure/pain respectively.

Brahman is pure consciousness beyond the dualistic mind, free of cravings or aversions, and consequently capable of nondual perception.

Brahman is the lake of pure consciousness within, while Maya is the mind/ego which agitates this lake with the mud of desires in the form of cravings and aversions, obscuring or veiling the base of pure consciousness.


These sayings of Ramana can help comprehend this better....


"The mind is maya. Reality lies beyond the mind. So long as the mind functions there is duality, maya, etc. Once it is transcended the Reality shines forth. Although it is said to shine forth Self-effulgence is the Self." - Ramana Maharshi

'The pure mind is itself Brahman; it therefore follows that Brahman is not other than the mind of the sage.'- Ramana Maharshi

Click to expand...

The Maharshi quotes look contradictory to me.
First he says the mind is Maya, then he says the "pure" mind is Brahman.
Also, isn't mind included in the sheaths (koshas), which "surround" Atman/Brahman?

Meerkat said:

The Maharshi quotes look contradictory to me.
First he says the mind is Maya, then he says the "pure" mind is Brahman.

Click to expand...

The pure mind means the Self or awareness or the no-mind, free from compulsive thinking and emoting.

It is distinct from the mind which is characterized by compulsive thinking and emoting.

Ramana Maharshi equates the Self with one's true identity and the mind/ego as the false identity or the false self.

ajay0 said:

The pure mind means the Self or awareness or the no-mind, free from compulsive thinking and emoting.

It is distinct from the mind which is characterized by compulsive thinking and emoting.

Ramana Maharshi equates the Self with one's true identity and the mind/ego as the false identity or the false self.

Click to expand...

This still seems to be comparing different states of mind, rather than comparing mind with Atman.

Meerkat said:

This still seems to be comparing different states of mind, rather than comparing mind with Atman.

Click to expand...

It might seem, but it is not the case.

The Self is pure consciousness, while the mind is composed of thoughts and emotions which has a beginning and an end.


The enlightened one is established in the Self while the unenlightened one identifies with the mind ignorantly and suffers due to its everchanging nature. The latter lacks Self-knowledge or understanding of his primal identity.



You might find these sayings insightful....



Mind is nothing but the absence of your presence. ~ Eckhart Tolle

Awareness goes on growing higher and the mind goes on growing smaller – in the same proportion. If awareness is fifty percent then mind is cut to fifty percent. If awareness is seventy percent, only thirty percent of the mind remains. The day awareness is a hundred percent, there is no mind to be found at all. ~ Osho

ajay0 said:

It might seem, but it is not the case.

The Self is pure consciousness, while the mind is composed of thoughts and emotions which has a beginning and an end.


The enlightened one is established in the Self while the unenlightened one identifies with the mind ignorantly and suffers due to its everchanging nature. The latter lacks Self-knowledge or understanding of his primal identity.



You might find these sayings insightful....



Mind is nothing but the absence of your presence. ~ Eckhart Tolle

Awareness goes on growing higher and the mind goes on growing smaller – in the same proportion. If awareness is fifty percent then mind is cut to fifty percent. If awareness is seventy percent, only thirty percent of the mind remains. The day awareness is a hundred percent, there is no mind to be found at all. ~ Osho

Click to expand...

Sorry, but these quotes only confuse things further, since I am trying to decipher what Maharshi means here.

According to Maharshi, is the goal to completely get rid of the mind? Or to stop identifying with the mind? Or to "purify" the mind?

And how exactly does Maharshi define "mind"?

Meerkat said:

Sorry, but these quotes only confuse things further, since I am trying to decipher what Maharshi means here.

According to Maharshi, is the goal to completely get rid of the mind? Or to stop identifying with the mind? Or to "purify" the mind?

And how exactly does Maharshi define "mind"?

Click to expand...

Mind is just the thoughts and emotions springing from our past psychological impressions (vasanas) in the unconscious.

As an example, you saw a stunning car yesterday, and you start thinking about it today due to an unconscious desire for it. Most of our thoughts and emotions are just like that, springing from numerous desires in the form of cravings and aversions. Most of it are just useless thoughts and corresponding emotions resulting in a waste of vital energy.

I had briefed on this in this thread of mine...

Brahmakumari Pari on the necessity of thought management for proper life management

Most people under the grip of desires think and emote incessantly and habitually, and wear out their minds and bodies in things they don't really need. There is obviously a difference between needs and greed.

The enlightened one, as he is not under the domination of desires and the unconscious, is easily satisfied with needs and depends on the inherent bliss and joy of his own Self for happiness.

The unenlightened one thinks happiness comes outside from satisfaction of desires, even though desires are non-extinguishable, and foolishly invests a pound of pain to get an ounce of pleasure all his life.

The enlightened one is in a constant state of thoughtless awareness or no-mind. He uses thought at will and switches it off when not needed.

It is the reverse for the unenlightened, who is in the grip of the mind (due to compulsive thinking-emoting) and is unaware of the Self.


The Self (awareness) alone can give you happiness. All happiness is from the Self. All trouble, sorrow and suffering is from the mind. ~ H.W.Poonja

ajay0 said:

Mind is just the thoughts and emotions springing from our past psychological impressions (vasanas) in the unconscious.

As an example, you saw a stunning car yesterday, and you start thinking about it today due to an unconscious desire for it. Most of our thoughts and emotions are just like that, springing from numerous desires in the form of cravings and aversions. Most of it are just useless thoughts and corresponding emotions resulting in a waste of vital energy.

I had briefed on this in this thread of mine...

Brahmakumari Pari on the necessity of thought management for proper life management

Most people under the grip of desires think and emote incessantly and habitually, and wear out their minds and bodies in things they don't really need. There is obviously a difference between needs and greed.

The enlightened one, as he is not under the domination of desires and the unconscious, is easily satisfied with needs and depends on the inherent bliss and joy of his own Self for happiness.

The unenlightened one thinks happiness comes outside from satisfaction of desires, even though desires are non-extinguishable, and foolishly invests a pound of pain to get an ounce of pleasure all his life.

Click to expand...

You're sounding like a Buddhist now.

Meerkat said:

You're sounding like a Buddhist now.

Click to expand...

It is only the one established in the Self who can enjoy the pleasures of the world without getting caught in it. Examples are Janaka Krishna, Guru Gobind Singh.

My Sikhs shall enjoy the pleasures of the world and at the same time will be detached from it. (by constant attachment to Self or God)~ Guru Gobind Singh

Without the anchor of the Self, one is only bound to be tossed around like a superficial piece of wood here and there by the huge waves of sensory desires, in the whirlpool of the world.