difference between turiya and deep sleep?

[jg22]

Hello Wannabe Yogi,


Can you repair the apparent discrepancy between;

By repeated experience in Abhyasarupa the next type of samadhi comes.

and

Sthitirupa which is a stable state of total manifestation of Brahman. It is never lost or Gained. This is Turiya from which all states of come from.

?

If this Sthitirupa which you call Turiiya comes from a repeated experience, then it cannot be said that this Sthitirupa is never to be gained (or lost), nor can it be said that it is That from which all states come, since it itself comes from something else (ie. the repeated absorption in the prior samaadhi, which is a state). In other words, how can Turiiya, which is the eternal Self, be the product of a transient experience? If Sthitirupa is never gained or lost, then why should it come about through repeated Abhyasarupa samaadhi? Doesn't repetition of samaadhi imply prior non-attainment? If it is never gained or lost, then it does not require samaadhi or spiritual experience to bring it about. And yet, you say that repeated experience in Abhyasaraupa samaadhi brings it about, hence it seems like a contradiction. I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this (from your particular path).

I think it's difficult to equate Turiiya with samaadhi, since all kinds of samaadhi have to be attained, developed, or practiced from a prior state of non-attainment, and yet the selfsame Self underlies both (attainment and non-attainment of spiritual experience), so surely Turiiya, being the Self, is different (from samaadhi).

 

[DanielR]

hello jg22,

sorry I have another question I hope you can help,

can I say turiya is like 'waking deep sleep'? I hope that makes sense somehow ^^

 

[Marble]

hello jg22,

sorry I have another question I hope you can help,

can I say turiya is like 'waking deep sleep'? I hope that makes sense somehow ^^

I think in truth, we are all sleep walkers.
Only the enlightened ones are awake.

 

[jg22]

Hello DanielR,

can I say turiya is like 'waking deep sleep'?

Well, that might create the impression that its some form of lucid sleep state, and that wouldn't be accurate. Turiiya and the state of deep sleep are similar in that both are free from duality, but Turiiya is just the nature of oneself correctly understood- it's not 'like' anything else.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Hello Wannabe Yogi,

If this Sthitirupa which you call Turiiya comes from a repeated experience, then it cannot be said that this Sthitirupa is never to be gained (or lost), nor can it be said that it is That from which all states come, since it itself comes from something else (ie. the repeated absorption in the prior samaadhi, which is a state). In other words, how can Turiiya, which is the eternal Self, be the product of a transient experience? If Sthitirupa is never gained or lost, then why should it come about through repeated Abhyasarupa samaadhi? Doesn't repetition of samaadhi imply prior non-attainment? If it is never gained or lost, then it does not require samaadhi or spiritual experience to bring it about. And yet, you say that repeated experience in Abhyasaraupa samaadhi brings it about, hence it seems like a contradiction. I'd be interested to hear your perspective on this (from your particular path).

I think it's difficult to equate Turiiya with samaadhi, since all kinds of samaadhi have to be attained, developed, or practiced from a prior state of non-attainment, and yet the selfsame Self underlies both (attainment and non-attainment of spiritual experience), so surely Turiiya, being the Self, is different (from samaadhi).

Good Questions thanks for making me think about it. The fact is that any answer I give you is me just theorizing the nature of Turiya. So it is of limited value.

I guess the key word is "apparently", in Abhyasarupa there is not complete merger the vail of ignorance has not been pierced all the way through. Once that happens our "Brahmaness" (Turiya) is realized completely, it was always their and never leaves.

This story is from the Tripura Rahasya an Enlightened wife teaching her husband about this very thing we are talking about. Hemalekha had the best explanation I have ever heard on this subject.

Chapter 10

1-5. "Hemalekha noticed that her husband had attained supreme Peace and so did not disturb him. He awoke in an hour and a half, opened his eyes and saw his wife nearby. Eager to fall into that state once more, he closed his eyes; and immediately Hemalekha took hold of his hands and asked him sweetly: 'My Lord, tell me what you have ascertained to be your gain on closing your eyes, or your loss on opening them, my dearest. I love to hear you. Do say what happens on the eyes being closed or left open.'

6. "On being pressed for an answer, he looked as if he were drunk and replied reluctantly and languidly, as follows:

7-14. "'My dear, I have found pure untainted happiness. I cannot find the least satisfaction in the activities of the world as sorrow increases when they finish. Enough of them! They are tasteless to me like a sucked orange, only indulged in by wasters, or like cattle incessantly chewing the cud. What a pity that such people should be to this day unaware of the bliss of their own Self! Just as a man goes a-begging in ignorance of the treasure hidden under his floor, so did I run after sensual pleasures unaware of the boundless ocean of bliss within me. Worldly pursuits are laden with misery and pleasures are transient. Still I was so infatuated that I mistook them for enduring pleasures, was often grief-stricken, yet did not cease to pursue them over and over again. The pity of it: Men are fools, unable to discriminate pleasure from pain. They seek pleasures but gain sorrow. Enough of these activities which increase the relish for such pleasure.

"My dear, I beg you with hands clasped. Let me fall again into the peace of my blissful self. I pity you that though knowing this state, you are not in it but are ever engaged in vain."

15-27. "The wise girl gently smiled at all this, and said to him: 'My lord, you do not yet know the highest state of sanctity (which is not besmirched by duality), reaching which the wise transcend duality and are never perplexed. That state is as far from you as the sky is from the earth. Your small measure of wisdom is as good as no wisdom, because it is not unconditional, but remains conditioned by closing or opening your eyes. Perfection cannot depend on activity or the reverse, on effort or no effort. How can that state be a perfect one if mental or physical activity can influence it or if the displacement of the eyelid by the width of a barley grain makes all the difference to it? Again, how can it be perfect if located only in the interior? What shall I say of your muddled wisdom! How ridiculous to think that your eyelid one inch long, can shut up the expanse in which millions of worlds revolve in one corner alone!'
TRIPURA RAHASYA. Chapters I - XV of XXII

Is this not your point exactly.

Jai Maa

 

[Shântoham]

Shrigurubhyo namaH

DanielR

TurIya is that which pervades the three states of experience. Therefore it is that which pervades deep-sleep as well.
The scheme of the MAndUkya Upanishad comes handy to address this. In this Upanishad Brahman/TurIya, is presented as the One Consciousness appearing as the microcosmic Consciousness called 'jIva' in his three states: waking, dream, and sleep as vishva, taijasa, and prAjna. Again, this very same One Consciousness is also presented as the macrocosmic Consciousness, Ishvara, corresponding to the three states of waking, dream, and sleep as VirAt, Hiranyagarbha, and Ishvara.
Now, all these 'six' entities, called jIva and Ishvara, obtain in the phenomenal three states of gross, subtle, and causal. The 'place' or platform where these two entities operate, namely the world, jagat, is also this One Consciousness only appearing as such (bhogya prapancha).
However, the Upanishad goes on to present the One Consciousness, Brahman/TurIya, as transcending these three states/two entities and the platform where these two operate, the jagat. The seventh mantra shows the TurIya as jIva-Ishvara-jagat vilakShaNa – that which is different (vilakShaNam) from jIva-Ishvara-jagat. The jagad-vilakShaNatva is known from the specific word: prapanchopashamam. The nAntaH-prjnam, etc. words show the TurIya as jIva-Ishvara vilakShaNa. 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.

Furthermore – although substantially correct – it is misleading to equate TurIya to the Witness because we tend to understand the equation in a subjective manner. The average person is aware that he passes through the three states of waking, sleep, and dreaming. He is aware of these because there is a basic all-pervading awareness, which enables him to know this fact. He thinks he is some ‘one’ who is aware (or has awareness) of these three states. But the truth is that he is not some-‘one’ or some-‘thing’ who ‘is aware’ or ‘has awareness’. He is in reality the very awareness itself which pervades all the three states, and which is unable to see (or be aware of) itself, because of its very nature (of being aware-ness) – just as the eye cannot see itself, and the tongue cannot taste itself. The average person has (as the pseudo-entity) usurped the subjectivity of TurIya/Brahman (which is Absolute Subjectivity), thus creating an illusory pseudo-subject, which he calls his ‘self’.

Tat Sat BrahmArpaNamastu​

 

[zenzero]

Friend Shantoham,

That explains well!

Love & rgds

 

[Shântoham]

Shrigurubhyo namaH

DanielR

My personal suggestion would be NOT to read the MandUkya kArikA. It will only confuse you more. VedAnta is meant to be learned directly from the mouth of a competent Guru.
The independent study of the Scriptures will turn you [at best] into an amateur scholar or [at worst] into an armchair philosopher. But it won’t lead you to Mokha.
In fact, the independent study of the Scriptures is one of the biggest obstacles on the way to Moksha.

Tat Sat BrahmArpaNamastu​

 

[zenzero]

Friend Shantoham,

My personal suggestion would be NOT to read the MandUkya kArikA. It will only confuse you more. VedAnta is meant to be learned directly from the mouth of a competent Guru.
The independent study of the Scriptures will turn you [at best] into an amateur scholar or [at worst] into an armchair philosopher. But it won’t lead you to Mokha.
In fact, the independent study of the Scriptures is one of the biggest obstacles on the way to Moksha.

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

 

[Cassandra]

Shrigurubhyo namaH

DanielR

My personal suggestion would be NOT to read the MandUkya kArikA. It will only confuse you more. VedAnta is meant to be learned directly from the mouth of a competent Guru.
The independent study of the Scriptures will turn you [at best] into an amateur scholar or [at worst] into an armchair philosopher. But it won’t lead you to Mokha.
In fact, the independent study of the Scriptures is one of the biggest obstacles on the way to Moksha.

Tat Sat BrahmArpaNamastu​

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.

 

[Student of X]

It is amazing how many sexual predators are among sect leaders.

Why are you amazed? Haven't you experienced the erotic effects of mysticism? Here are a couple of books.

Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom: Eroticism and Reflexivity in the Study of Mysticism

William Blake once wrote that "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." Inspired by these poetic terms, Jeffrey J. Kripal reveals how the works of scholars of mysticism are often rooted in their own mystical experiences, "roads of excess," which can both lead to important insights into these scholars' works and point us to our own "palaces of wisdom."

In his new book, Kripal addresses the twentieth-century study of mysticism as a kind of mystical tradition in its own right, with its own unique histories, discourses, sociological dynamics, and rhetorics of secrecy.

Fluidly combining autobiography and biography with scholarly exploration, Kripal takes us on a tour of comparative mystical thought by examining the lives and works of five major historians of mysticism—Evelyn Underhill, Louis Massignon, R. C. Zaehner, Agehananda Bharati, and Elliot Wolfson—as well as relating his own mystical experiences. The result, Kripal finds, is seven "palaces of wisdom": the religious power of excess, the necessity of distance in the study of mysticism, the relationship between the mystical and art, the dilemmas of male subjectivity and modern heterosexuality, a call for ethical criticism, the paradox of the insider-outsider problem in the study of religion, and the magical power of texts and their interpretation.

An original and penetrating analysis of modern scholarship and scholars of mysticism, Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom is also a persuasive demonstration of the way this scholarly activity is itself a mystical phenomenon.

Sex, Drugs & Magick: A Journey Beyond Limits

This book can be considered a "scholarly" appraisal of both the historical and modern use (and misuse) of drugs in conjunction with sex and "occult" practices. But don't let the word "scholarly" put you off. Done in Wilson's inimitable style, this is a book filled with humor, cynicism, wonder and essential information for those who would pursue what can be an immensely rewarding path, potholed with an array of social and physical dangers.

 

[Cassandra]

Why are you amazed? Haven't you experienced the erotic effects of mysticism? Here are a couple of books.

Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom: Eroticism and Reflexivity in the Study of Mysticism

William Blake once wrote that "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." Inspired by these poetic terms, Jeffrey J. Kripal reveals how the works of scholars of mysticism are often rooted in their own mystical experiences, "roads of excess," which can both lead to important insights into these scholars' works and point us to our own "palaces of wisdom."

In his new book, Kripal addresses the twentieth-century study of mysticism as a kind of mystical tradition in its own right, with its own unique histories, discourses, sociological dynamics, and rhetorics of secrecy.

Fluidly combining autobiography and biography with scholarly exploration, Kripal takes us on a tour of comparative mystical thought by examining the lives and works of five major historians of mysticism—Evelyn Underhill, Louis Massignon, R. C. Zaehner, Agehananda Bharati, and Elliot Wolfson—as well as relating his own mystical experiences. The result, Kripal finds, is seven "palaces of wisdom": the religious power of excess, the necessity of distance in the study of mysticism, the relationship between the mystical and art, the dilemmas of male subjectivity and modern heterosexuality, a call for ethical criticism, the paradox of the insider-outsider problem in the study of religion, and the magical power of texts and their interpretation.

An original and penetrating analysis of modern scholarship and scholars of mysticism, Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom is also a persuasive demonstration of the way this scholarly activity is itself a mystical phenomenon.

Sex, Drugs & Magick: A Journey Beyond Limits

This book can be considered a "scholarly" appraisal of both the historical and modern use (and misuse) of drugs in conjunction with sex and "occult" practices. But don't let the word "scholarly" put you off. Done in Wilson's inimitable style, this is a book filled with humor, cynicism, wonder and essential information for those who would pursue what can be an immensely rewarding path, potholed with an array of social and physical dangers.

Namaste Student of X

Thanks for the information, it is an interesting subject. I know there are people seeking this kind of mystical experience. I read that after the flower power period had gone down in drug abuse, many people turned to meditation as a safer more controlled manner to get similar experiences. I think a movement like Iskcon is the result of that.

Personally, I have not walked this road, and to be honest it never attracted me. The first inhalation of drugs was also the last. I did not find it pleasant. I have clear mind and I like to keep it that way. I noticed that for some people it opened the road to mystical experience, especially if raised in extremely rational materialistic environments. Same with sex I noticed that trying to repress sexual feelings can have very strong effects.

I am wary of provoking such strong experiences. I always felt a spiritual connection, which gave my experiences a subtle extra dimension. In stead of pursuit of thrills I have been pursuing to make my mind more subtle thus creating a gradual overall improvement of experience. Nothing more drastic than seeing colors somewhat more vividly, slightly better taste, smell, touch, hearing, feeling more connected to other beings. But overtime it improved balance, equanimity, contentment and reduced anger fear, anxiety.

I noticed that members of religious movements that seek high emotional devotional or meditative experiences tend to have a very rational approach to sacred scripture and are often both rude and easily agitated. I think this is a logical result of seeking peak experiences. Peak experiences numb the mind making it less sensitive and subtle. It is little use to engage in vegetarianism if you do not bring the peak levels of experiences down.

As I see it, spiritual peak experiences are life changing events but should not be pursued, because they can never be sustained and the overall effect is making the mind less subtle. On the other hand if you can make the mind extremely subtle you can enjoy a permanent bliss.

That is why I think pedosexuality is such heinous crime, children are involved in strong experiences early in their life, it is burning their still subtle mind, destroying their happiness for the rest of their lives. So if people go the road of thrill seeking whether in meditation, drug, sex, group devotion, or whatever, the sensation will certainly be powerful, but this shortcut is a dangerous road.

As I see it there are two path you can take: One increase you sensitivity, the other increase the level of stimuli. The first one increases the overall experience, the second decreases the overall experience. As our modern consumer society is basically about seeking more and stronger stimuli all time, it is not a surprise depression has become the number one mental disease.

I am looking for ways to avoid strong stimuli, rather than seeking them. After a while they even become unattractive. Though I have more mental control now, I have less tolerance for overemotional, rude people. More than ever I discovered the sheer pleasure of company of quiet happy balanced people. So yes I think there are two roads to spiritual experiences, one is gradual, slow but rewarding, the other is fast, extremely powerful, but also destructive.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Cassandra,

I am looking for ways to avoid strong stimuli, rather than seeking them. After a while they even become unattractive. Though I have more mental control now, I have less tolerance for overemotional, rude people. More than ever I discovered the sheer pleasure of company of quiet happy balanced people. So yes I think their are two roads to spiritual experiences, one is gradual, slow but rewarding, the other is fast, extremely powerful, but also destructive.

That is a huge and positive step in the right direction.
If you allow me then would suggest something as otherwise you would take it that am a preacher or guru or a fraudster. At best am only a friend of those who wish it or else we can remain strangers like consciousness and unconsciousness or the two shores of a river .
Love & rgds

 

[Cassandra]

Friend Cassandra,


That is a huge and positive step in the right direction.
If you allow me then would suggest something as otherwise you would take it that am a preacher or guru or a fraudster. At best am only a friend of those who wish it or else we can remain strangers like consciousness and unconsciousness or the two shores of a river .
Love & rgds

Namaste Zenzero,

As I see it, there are two sides to words, one is meaning and the other effect. The rude rational mind knows the meaning, the subtle mind the effect, both the direct and subtle long term effects. In the end the meaning is less significant than the effect. Meaning is bound in definitions and relationships between definitions, trying to convey meaning is trying to tie down. Effect is movement, it loosens or breaks relations. Friendship is a bond, a tie, not something to engage in lightly. As Ram says, he would even break Dharm to honor his friendship, so much are you bound by it. Friendship creates great expectations. But if we can open our heart to strangers, it is not necessary to create these bonds.

You speak about "unconsciousness". I don't know that. What is that? I only know of consciousness. Is it the fifth state of consciousness? Is it ignorance? What is ignorance? I find ignorance far more fascinating than Turiya. And God agrees with me, why would he otherwise explore it in endless ways? Lets join God in his search through the wonders of ignorance. Turiya is something human escapists seek. If God wants to escape anything, it must be turiya.

We are something like opposites, you stress all path lead to the same, I stress that God leads to different paths. You want to unite, i want to differentiate. You want to bond, I want to be free. And that is the beauty of it, difference.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Cassandra,

Yes, what you label as *differences* label it as duality between consciousness and unconsciousness, day and night.
They appear two but there is a binding where there are no bindings by either of them and that is the point of discussions/differences/etc.

TATHASTU!!

Love & rgds

 

[Cassandra]

Friend Cassandra,

Yes, what you label as *differences* label it as duality between consciousness and unconsciousness, day and night.
They appear two but there is a binding where there are no bindings by either of them and that is the point of discussions/differences/etc.

TATHASTU!!

Love & rgds

Namaste zenzero,

Sorry, duality is a meaningless concept to me, an abstraction. I regularly hear it in contact with people that studied Vedanta. Like you hear Christians all the time about forgiveness and mercy. Vedanta readers I understand want overcome all distinctions. They start in diversity, or trinity, than they move up to duality, and even oneness. To me those seem different states of rationalizations, the mind playing her tricks as vedantists are jnani.

As I see it, you label, I unlabel. As I said before I am interested in making my mind more subtle. Labeling does the opposite. It categorizes. I seek subtle experience, through subtle distinctions, I seek nuances. I see colors, and I like to see more colors, more subtle colors. When I distinguish colors jnanis often tell me: My friend, what you see is black and white, but actually it is all white light. So what? To me that is a rational concept of reality. A byproduct of some elevated experience.

In my view, jnani's want the highest truth. They want to float above all illusions, from a superior understanding. Than they look at people below with compassion. Like the Buddha that was just about to leave the world when he heard a baby cry. This identification with the highest gives them this position, this mind state, and it is something they want to teach others, they think it is the only salvation.

Their views are full of abstractions like "duality". My view is essentially simple, truth is what I experience, and in more subtle experience I see higher truth. I find God to be endlessly subtle, and never One. To me Oneness or Zeroness is reducing reality to the extreme, only jnanis can do that. I think, you have to elevate yourself from the world to do that, mental separation. Some people obviously like this position and seek it in meditation.

I have no desire for the top position. I am ambitious, but not that ambitious. I too want promotion, I like to make my mind more subtle. I want to walk with the Gods again one day, in splendor. I serve the Deva's and they serve me. I too meditate but to distinguish more not less. It is working for me. I don't want the top position, it is too much a burden for me. No Vedanta is not for me.

Thank you for your blessing. Blessed you are.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Cassandra,

Personally do not follow this *they*, *we* etc.
If there is no oneness there is no sharing.
Since you prefer differences; so be it; and let us all be happy!

Love & rgds

 

[Cassandra]

Friend Cassandra,

Personally do not follow this *they*, *we* etc.
If there is no oneness there is no sharing.
Since you prefer differences; so be it; and let us all be happy!

Love & rgds

Namaste Zenzero

I share wih you, you share with me, we share with them, they share with us. I do not see why oneness should be a precondition for or even the object of sharing. I think it rather becomes a hindrance if this is the case. I think celebrating differences is core to Hinduism. So if we agree to disagree, this is not an obstacle for discussion for me, as long as we remain respectful. I think it is much more fun to exchange ideas with people of different viewpoint than the same, but if that is different for you, I will respect that.

 

[zenzero]

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

 

[Student of X]

I do not see why oneness should be a precondition for or even the object of sharing.

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