No Turiya and no illusion?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

It is worth discussing Maharaj's quotes of Sankara, on the fourth state or Inner

Self being the first illusion. Also that one side of a coin is illusion and on

the other side it vanishes?.Hu.

 

Does anyone have these advanced sankara quotes?

 

 

 

Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection

in the all-new Mail Beta.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hupa Ramdas-ji.

 

I browsed through Maharaj's website. Very interesting indeed and

most of what he says has immediate and high relevance to Advaitins.

The site has got into my list of favourites.

 

However, I don't think Shankara could have uttered the alleged quotes

mentioned below. He would never call the Inner Self (TurIyA) an

illusion. There is some misunderstanding there. Perhaps, the fault

is with the translation. Marathi to English can sometimes be a

difficult route - I am not sure. I have no clue to where the coin

quote exists or what it purports to convey.

 

Thanks indeed for taking us to Maharaj's site.

 

Pranamas.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

 

advaitin , Hupa Ram-Das <hupa_ram> wrote:

> It is worth discussing Maharaj's quotes of Sankara, on the fourth

state or Inner Self being the first illusion. Also that one side of a

coin is illusion and on the other side it vanishes?.Hu.

>

> Does anyone have these advanced sankara quotes?

>

[Guest guest]

Sri Hupa Ramdas :

 

i just visited the Sri Siddharameshwar Maharajji 's web site and

read the poem posted by Maharajji !

 

 

The ignorant man makes a make

belief God and worships him,

the 'knower' recognises the God

of Gods (that is, his own Self)

and then offers his worship.

Shankaracharya called that

Inner Self, the fourth body,

" the original illusion " .

The God may have infinite

number of names yet the Truth

is only one. For example

if a child call his father 'uncle',

does it mean that the man

loses his fatherhood?

 

To be quite honest with you , these lines remind me of Adi Shankara

Bhagvadapada' Prataha Smaranam stotra !

 

the very first verse of this stotra reads

 

Pratah smarami hridi samsphura ta twam Satchitsukham paramahansa

gatim turiyam Yat swapna jagara sushupta mavaiti nityam Tad brahma

nishkalamaham na cha bhuta sanghaha

 

At dawn I remember the Reality which is the Self, shining

brilliantly in the heart, existence-consciousness-happiness, the

goal of Paramahamsasannyasins (sages), the Fourth; That which knows

always the states of dream, waking and deep-sleep, that Brahman

which is partless I am, not the cluster of elements.

 

What Maharajji suggests may be is we need to transcend the fourth

state of Turiya and become Turiyateetha ( a state of Brahmanhood)

 

i may be wrong ....

 

but Maharajji 's poem does remind me of the Prataha smarana stotra

by Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada - i may be way off the mark ! !

 

These lines from Maharajji's poem remind me of these lines from

Swami vivekananda's 'song of Sanyassin' which itself is based on Adi

Shankara Bhagvadapada's Prataha Smarana stotra!

 

They know not truth who dream such vacant dreams

As father, mother, children, wife and friend.

The sexless Self! whose father He? whose child?

Whose friend, whose foe is He who is but One?

The Self is all in all, none else exists;

And thou art That, Sannyasin bold! Say -

'Om tat sat, Om!' ( song of Sanyassin - swami VIVEKANANDA)

 

 

MY UNDERSTANDING OF TURIYA FROM MANDUKYA UPANISHAD : ( AGAMA

PRAKARNA)

 

" Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective)

world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world,

nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of

consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It

unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible,

uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the

Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the

cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual.

This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this

has to be realized. "

 

OM TAT SAT !

[Guest guest]

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

 

Dhyanasaraswathiji - PraNAms.

 

I am sure Nairji would repsond. But I must say the

praataH smaraami slokas have no relation to the

statement of Nisargadatta Maharaj.

 

>

> What Maharajji suggests may be is we need to

> transcend the fourth

> state of Turiya and become Turiyateetha ( a state of

> Brahmanhood)

>

> i may be wrong ....

 

The fourth state itself is the transcedence of all the

states, as I just pointed out in response to another

similar mail. You donot transcend the transcendental

state - that leads to ad infinitam.

 

 

>

> but Maharajji 's poem does remind me of the Prataha

> smarana stotra

> by Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada - i may be way off the

> mark ! !

 

 

With my praNAms to Him, I will take the statement of

Nisargadatta Maharaj regarding illusary self in

advaitic terminology is nothing but 'chidaabhaasa' or

reflected consciousness - or in normal terminology -

the ego or ahankaara (with mamakaara) - what Bhagavaan

Ramana calls it as 'aham vRitti'.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your knowledgeble response , Sada-ji - I ALWAYS LEARN

SO MUCH YOU - SO MANY VRITTIS - I HAVE THAT I HAVE TO OVERCOME -

SMILE :-)

 

a minor correction , though !

 

The maharajji in question is not 'Nisargadatta' but sri

Siddharameshwar Maharaj! not that *name and form* matterS after one

is realized ! All maharaj jis are 'atman' only! smile :-)

 

if you read the entire poem , it does remind one of Adi shankara

bhagvadapada's Prataha smarana stotra ! please visit the web site

and read the entire poem sadaji ! OF COURSE , COMPARISONS ARE

ODIOUS!

 

on another note , sadaji - i do realize as you have correctly stated

thsat the fourth state of 'Turiya' itself is the Ultimate state

transcending the other three states ! ( DREAM, WAKING AND SLEEP)

 

BUT , I HAVE SEEN THIS TERM 'TURITA TEETHA' MENTIONED MANY TIMES !

THAT IS THE FIFTH STATE !

 

FOR EXAMPLE , READ THE FOLLOWING VERSE OF THAYUMANAVAR

 

In the state of deep sleep (sushupti)

That taketh place in the region of heart

Are tattvas three - prana, citta and purusa.

Turiya state occureth in navel

Where prana standeth with purusa.

In the muladhara in *turiya tita* state

There purusa stands alone.

Jnana ripens then.

The matured in yogic practices experience this.

Thus do the tattvas in the five avastas (states) stand.

 

SADAJI , SRI RAMANA BHAGWAN ALSO SAYS

 

" There is only one state, that of consciousness or awareness or

existence. The three states of waking, dream and sleep cannot be

real. They simply come and go. The real will always exist. The `I'

or existence that alone persists in all the three states is real.

The other three STATES are not real and so it is not possible to

say they have such and such a degree of reality. We may roughly put

it like this.

Existence or consciousness is the only reality. Consciousness plus

waking, we call waking. Consciousness plus sleep, we call sleep.

Consciousness plus dream, we call dream. Consciousness is the

screen on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real,

the pictures are mere shadows on it. Because by long habit we have

been regarding these three states as real, we call the state of mere

awareness or consciousness the fourth. There is however no fourth

state, but only one state.

There is no difference between dream and the waking state except

that the dream is short and the waking long. Both are the result of

the mind. Because the waking state is long, we imagine that it is

our real

state. But, as a matter of fact, our real state is turiya or the

fourth state which is always as it is and knows nothing of the three

states of waking, dream or sleep. Because we call these three

avasthas [states] we call the fourth state also turiya avastha. *But

is it not an avastha, but the real and natural state of the Self.

When this is realized, we know it is not a turiya or fourth state,

for a fourth state is only relative, but *turiyatita,* the

transcendent state. "

 

SADAJI, PLEASE NOTE IT IS SRI rAMANA HIMSELF WHO CALLS

THIS 'TURIYATITA' ( THE SUPER TRANSCEDENT STATE ) -

 

on another note , i am glad you mentioned about 'reflected

consciousness ' - Durgaji , another learned member of this forum,

has been requesting Rishji to elaborate on the subject of '

reflected consciousness' ! may i kindly request you to relect on

this topic in greater detail so durgaji and all of us can benefit ?

 

THANX ONCE AGAIN

 

love and warmest regards

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Dhyanasaraswathiji - PraNAms.

>

> I am sure Nairji would repsond. But I must say the

> praataH smaraami slokas have no relation to the

> statement of Nisargadatta Maharaj.

>

> >

> > What Maharajji suggests may be is we need to

> > transcend the fourth

> > state of Turiya and become Turiyateetha ( a state of

> > Brahmanhood)

> >

> > i may be wrong ....

>

> The fourth state itself is the transcedence of all the

> states, as I just pointed out in response to another

> similar mail. You donot transcend the transcendental

> state - that leads to ad infinitam.

>

>

> >

> > but Maharajji 's poem does remind me of the Prataha

> > smarana stotra

> > by Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada - i may be way off the

> > mark ! !

>

>

> With my praNAms to Him, I will take the statement of

> Nisargadatta Maharaj regarding illusary self in

> advaitic terminology is nothing but 'chidaabhaasa' or

> reflected consciousness - or in normal terminology -

> the ego or ahankaara (with mamakaara) - what Bhagavaan

> Ramana calls it as 'aham vRitti'.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Forgive me for a repeat sending of this email. But since exactly the same

question has arisen (as it did some months ago) with regards, Turiya and

'beyond the fourth', I thought I would send it again. References to a

'fifth' beyond the fourth can be found at the end of this mail. I am not

suggesting what I have written is the correct response, just that it's a

relevant response. See below.

 

Best wishes,

Peter

 

 

.. . . .

 

The traditional view is that Turiya is the non-dual, unconditioned

consciousness (eg see Guadapada's Mandukya Karika). Sri Ramana refers to it

as Pure Consciousness. It is the Atman. As it is " unconditioned

consciousness " it is nirguna brahman, which is also referred to as the

parabrahman.

 

Gaudapada explains that the three states of consciousness namely waking,

dreaming, and dreamless sleep (deep sleep) are characterised by two things:

 

- " non-apprehension of reality "

- " mis-apprehension of reality " .

 

" Reality " standing for Turya-Atman-Brahman. Tuyra is not a fourth state but

rather the unconditioned consciousness which is the substratum for all three

states. It is the one without a second, with no thing to know it and no

other for it to know.

 

Non-apprehension of Atman is the cause of ignorance.

Mis-apprehension is the resultant effect which leads us to see ourselves and

the world as other than we are - pure consciousness.

 

For example, in the rope and snake analogy often used in Vedanta -

non-apprehension of the rope is the cause of ignorance as to its true

nature. Because of this non-apprehension we mistake it for a snake

(mis-apprehension). As soon as we realize it is a really a rope, the snake

disappears for it had no real existence apart from the rope, its substratum.

In the same way, because we are ignorant of our true nature, we mistakenly

identify ourselves with the body mind and see a separate world of objects.

The sages tell us that when we recognise our true nature, Turya, then the

duality of 'me' and 'other' (ego and world) disappears and non dual brahman

is directly 'experienced' as alone existing.

 

In his Mandukya Karika, Sri Gaudapada gives us a handy way of looking at

Turya and the three states and which summarises what is said above. Each may

be characterised as follows.

 

Turya (Atman): non-apprehension of duality.

Prajna (deep sleep): non-apprehension of Reality and of duality.

Taijasa (dream state): non-apprehension of and misapprehension of Reality.

Visva (waking state): non-apprehension of and misapprehension of Reality.

 

As far as I know, turyatita is not referred to in the major upanishads.

Perhaps someone else has a reference, if it is? However, some of the minor

Upanishads refer to five states: visva, taijasa, prajna, turya and

turyatita. For example:

 

" 4. There are five Avasthas (states): Jagrat (waking), Swapna (dreaming),

Sushupti (dreamless sleeping), the Turya (fourth) and Turyatita (that beyond

the fourth)... "

" 5. The Yogin is one that has realised Brahman that is all-full beyond

Turya. "

 

(from " Mandala Brahmana Upanishad " , Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar)

 

and

 

" 5. There is nothing other than Brahman of the five padas (i.e. the

turyatita).

 

(from " Para-Brahma Upanishad " , Translated by Prof. A. A. Ramanathan)

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi also refers to Turyatita in a few places, though he

normally explains the traditional view. The way I understand this is that

the reference to Turyatita has more to do with meditation practice than with

the traditional view of metaphysics. Certain types of samadhi (eg Kevala

Nirvikalpa) don't really fit easily into the 3 states. It seems Kevala

Nirvikalpa Samadhi certainly isn't the 'waking' or 'dream' state, and it

also doesn't quite equate with 'deep sleep' for the latter is characterised

by 'non-apprehension' of Reality. Nor does it quite equate with direct

Realisation of Atman and therefore liberation, as it is a temporary state.

 

Another reason for five states, rather than four, is due to the stage of

establishing oneself in the Witness State and recognising that 'I am' is not

any of the other three states. Perhaps here, the term 'Turya' is used to

stand for the fourth state as the Witness State. However, the spiritual

aspirant has yet to realize herself as the non-dual Brahman - a fifth

'state' (so called). Hence this latter stage is referred to as Turyatita,

beyond the fourth (turya). Sri Ramana says as much when asked, " Why is the

Self described both as the fourth state (turiya)and beyond the fourth state

(turyatita)? " He replies:

 

" Turiya means that which is the fourth. The experiencers (jivas) of the

three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, known as visva, taijasa and

prajna, who wander successively in these three states, are not the Self. It

is with the object of making this clear, namely that the Self is that which

is different from them and which is the witness of these states, that it is

called the fourth (turiya). When this is known, the three experiencers

disappear and the idea that the Self is a witness, that it is the fourth,

also disappears. That is why the Self is described as beyond the fourth

(turiyatita). "

(from, " Spiritual Instruction " no. 8.)

 

Apart from one or two passages like the above, Sri Ramana generally refers

to Turya in the traditional way, as follows:

 

D.: What is turiya?

M.: There are three states only, the waking, dream and sleep. Turiya is not

a fourth one; it is what underlies these three. But people do not readily

understand it. Therefore it is said that this is the fourth state and the

only Reality. In fact it is not apart from anything, for it forms the

substratum of all happenings; it is the only Truth; it is your very Being.

The three states appear as fleeting phenomena on it and then sink into it

alone. Therefore they are unreal.

(Talk 353.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji and Adishaktiji.

 

Why do you still masquerade as Dhyanasaraswatiji, Adiji? We all

know the Truth. Vinatha is the TurIya behind Adi and DS. Hope you

got my point.

 

As simple as that. Sadaji is right and always right. TurIya is

not a fourth state. It is THAT WHICH PERVADES ALL THE THREE STATES

OF WAKING, DREAM AND DEEP SLEEP like gold pervades all gold

ornaments.

 

There is something wrong with that poem. Maharaj, my salutations to

him, couldn't have meant what appears in print in English.

 

Hey, I see him smoking in his pic. Although I have said goodbye to

fags long back, I wish I could have another one with him. That is

bondage and Madathil Nair, Adiji, is accustomed to bondage.

 

Now I have Vinayakaji waiting for a clarification. We will look at

his questions tomorrow. It is late night on this part of this

stupid globe where I am operating from. So, tomorrow morning.

 

So long then, Adiji the grandmA. Take care.

 

Usual pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Dhyanasaraswathiji - PraNAms.

>

> I am sure Nairji would repsond. But I must say the

> praataH smaraami slokas have no relation to the

> statement of Nisargadatta Maharaj.

[Guest guest]

Re: No Turiya and no illusion?

 

Namaste Sadaji and Adishaktiji.

 

Why do you still masquerade as Dhyanasaraswatiji, Adiji? We all

know the Truth. Vinatha is the TurIya behind Adi and DS. Hope you

got my point.

 

As simple as that. Sadaji is right and always right. TurIya is

not a fourth state. It is THAT WHICH PERVADES ALL THE THREE STATES

OF WAKING, DREAM AND DEEP SLEEP like gold pervades all gold

ornaments.

 

There is something wrong with that poem. Maharaj, my salutations to

him, couldn't have meant what appears in print in English.

 

 

 

Usual pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

Why couldn't he mean what he said? You are applying your own belief system and

understanding to what he said. He is essentially saying that creation vanishes

and that the Self isSaguna..........The fourth body. This was discussed on here

recently and cut short, because there was no quote from Sankara on the subject.

That doesn't mean that Sri Siddharamaheshwar Maharaj isn't right or doesn't have

some knowledge of what Sankara ultimately taught....Hu.

 

 

 

 

 

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time

with the Search movie showtime shortcut.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

. . .

>

> The traditional view is that Turiya is the non-dual,

> unconditioned

> consciousness (eg see Guadapada's Mandukya Karika).

 

PraNAms to all.

 

Just a point of clarification. Traditional view is

not Goudapaada's view. As was discussed in the last

mail, it is the Upanishadic pramaaNa as stated in

mantra 7 of Mandukya - that is not kaarika. What

Bhagavaan Ramana says about the unconditional

consciousness is the turiiyam that was discussed in

the Mandukya Upanishad - kaarika of Goudapaada is only

glossary on that mantra - which Goudapaada elaborates

further.

As I have pointed out there cannot be anything beyond

the beyond - the turiiyam is the absolute

consciousness that is one without a second.

 

It is not contradiction of Bhagavaan Ramana's

statement - one has to understand these mahaatmas

statements with proper context with the scriptural

statements as the basis - it is not the number - It is

beyond the number and what exactly that is described

as the state - it is absolute unconditional

existence-consciousness, one without a second. What we

experience is only three states of consciousness

-waking, dream and deep sleep states. One who is

meditating - he is only leaping towards the fourth

until he merges within - where meditator and meditated

sublimate into one.

 

Shankara bhaashhya on the above mantra reinforces the

above understanding.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Nar-ji :

 

i luv your sense of humor !

 

but it is not about Sadaji being wrong or right .... He is giving an

advaitic interpretation to the word 'Turiya' But as Peterji has

pointed out in his response there is a fifth state

called 'Turiyateetha' - please kindly read his latest post !

 

You say Maharajji is smoking in the picture ! i see nothing wrong

with that - most tantriks smoke and drink - but those who have

transcended duality can indulge in these practices without being

addiicted to these habits ! in the pancha makara , all this

is acceptable ! well, Sri Ramakrishna used to do the 'hookah' but

are we all 'Paramamsas' like him ? ... please smile :-)

 

on another note ,, Nairji ! have you heard of the 'Turiyateetha

upanishad ' of the shukla yajur veda ?

 

WELL, HERE IS A DESCRIPTION OF TURIYATEETHA AVADHUTA FROM THAT

UPANISHAD

 

" He is one terminating all religious and secular duties; free of

religious merit or otherwise in all situations; giving up both

knowledge and ignorance; conquering (the influence of) cold and

heat, happiness and misery, honour and dishonour; having burnt up in

advance, with the latent influence (vasana) of the body, etc.,

censure, praise, pride, rivalry, ostentation, haughtiness, desire,

hatred, love, anger, covetousness, delusion, (gloating) joy,

intolerance, envy, clinging to life, etc.; viewing his body as a

corpse, as it were; becoming equanimous effortlessly and

unrestrainedly in gain or loss; sustaining his life (with food

placed in the mouth) like a cow; (satisfied) with (food) as it comes

without ardently longing for it; reducing to ashes the host of

learning and scholarship; guarding his conduct (without vaunting his

noble way of life); disowning the superiority or inferiority (of any

one); (firmly) established in non-duality (of the Self) which is the

highest (principle) of all and which comprises all within itself;

cherishing the conviction, `There is nought else distinct from me';

absorbing in the Self the fuel (of concept) other than the secret

known only by the gods; untouched by sorrow; unresponsive to

(worldly) happiness; free of desire for affection; unattached

everywhere to the auspicious or the inauspicious; with (the

functioning of) all senses at standstill; unmindful of the

superiority of his conduct, learning and moral merit (dharma)

acquired in the previous stages of his life; giving up the conduct

befitting caste and stage of life (Vanaprastha); dreamless, as night

and day are the same to him; ever on the move everywhere; remaining

with the body alone left to him; his water-pot being the watering-

place (only); ever sensible (but) wandering alone as though he were

a child, madman or ghost; always observing silence and deeply

meditating on his Self, he has for his support the propless

(Brahman); forgetting everything (else) in consonance with the

absorption in his Self; this Turiyatita sage reaching the state of

the Avadhuta ascetic and completely absorbed in non-duality (of the

Atman) (finally) gives up his body as he has become one with Om (the

Pranava): such an ascetic is an Avadhuta; he has accomplished his

life's purpose. Thus (ends) the Upanishad. "

 

http://www.advaita.it/library/turiyatita.htm

 

Sadaji is right in his interpretation of 'turiya' from a

strictly 'advaitic 'point of view and sri ramana's interpretation

of 'turiya' is also in conformity with SADAJI 'S e 'advaitic ' point

of view but i think, i may be wrong again, what Maharaj ji means by

Turiya is what ShaIva sidda like Ramalinga Adigal or VALLALAR

mean !

 

May i quote in Tamizh, please ?

 

" Mukthi enbadhu nilai munnuru sadhanam, Siddhi enbadhu nilai

serndha anubhavam " ! Figure that one out,, nairji - u know enough

Tamizh to interpret this ! i think Maharajji knows what he was

talking about from a siddha yogi's point of view !

 

THANX ONCE AGAIN, NAIRJI

 

adi_shakthi16 or ds ( what is in a name ? rose smells sweeter by any

other name ! )

 

love and regards

 

ps btw , ONE OF THE NAMAVALI OF SRI LALITA PARAMESHWARI IS 'pARAM

JYOTI ' - THIS IS THE LIGHT THAT SIDDHA'S see after they attain the

turiya teeta - the fifth state !

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Sadaji and Adishaktiji.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hupa-Ram Das-Ji, Adi-ji and Peterji.

 

Ram Das-ji, I only said Maharaj couldn't have said so; probably it

is a misinterpretation of what he actually said. Honestly, I don't

dare question a Mahatman like Maharaj.

 

I don't know anything about TurIyAtItA because, in the way Advaita

has been taught to me, there are only the three states, which are

common experience, and TurIyA pervading them. There is some logic in

it that excludes the need for a fifth TurIyAtitA. Besides, Advaita

is not a belief-system. It is Knowledge.

 

Adi-ji, I have read your quotes. I would only seek one

clarification. If TurIyA is defined as THAT WHICH PERVADES AND

SUSTAINS THE THREE STATES, what would be the definition of

TurIyAtItA? If someone says TurIyAtitA is that which pervades and

sustains TurIyA, then isn't that an unwarranted addendum because

TurIyA is already totality - fullness, which does not require any

further substrata? It would be like saying " gold is that which

sustains and pervades all gold ornaments but " super-gold " is that

which supports gold " .

 

If there is a fifth TurIyAtita, why do we stop there at five. We

could go ad infinitum. We would then only be creating states, which

is not the purpose of Advaita.

 

Peter-ji, I think you are right to suggest that the fifth has

relevance only in the context of meditation. That is not my area and

I cannot comment any further on that. However, Bh. Ramana is very

clear about turIyA in the concluding quote of your post.

 

Pranams to all.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , Hupa Ram-Das <hupa_ram> wrote:

> Why couldn't he mean what he said? You are applying your own belief

system and understanding to what he said. He is essentially saying

that creation vanishes and that the Self isSaguna..........The fourth

body. This was discussed on here recently and cut short, because

there was no quote from Sankara on the subject. That doesn't mean

that Sri Siddharamaheshwar Maharaj isn't right or doesn't have some

knowledge of what Sankara ultimately taught....Hu.

[Guest guest]

Nairji writes :

 

(I don't know anything about TurIyAtItA because, in the way Advaita

has been taught to me, there are only the three states, which are

common experience, and TurIyA pervading them. There is some logic

in it that excludes the need for a fifth TurIyAtitA. Besides,

Advaita is not a belief-system. It is Knowledge)

 

Nair-ji , with all due respects to you , may i point out that even

the above statement you have so categorically STATED is a 'belief'

or 'hearsay' ( second hand information) only ! Sorry!

 

Real Knowledge is 'self knowledge' ( knowledge of the Self) All

other knowledge is Bouthika ( loukika or material) knowledge

only !

 

Let me ask you this - Nairji ! can you honestly claim only

by 'Jnana' marga one can attain the Knowledge of the Self ? ( I AM

THAT?)

 

THIS IS WHAT SWAMI VIVEKANANDA said when he designed the official

emblem of the Sri Ramakrishna Mission

 

" The wavy waters in the picture are symbolic of Karma; the lotus, of

Bhakti; and the rising-sun, of Jnana. The encircling serpent is

indicative of Yoga and the awakened Kundalini Shakti, while the swan

in the picture stands for Paramatman (Supreme Self). Therefore, the

idea of the picture is that by the union of Karma, Jnana, Bhakti and

Yoga, the vision of Paramatman is obtained. "

 

Nair-ji , you yourself know that the in the Srimad Bhagvad Gita ,

lord Krishna has explained the paths of Jnana , Bhakti , Karma and

Raja Yoga in great detail!If only 'jnana' was the way to go , Lord

Krishna would not have made the valiant efforts to explain the

other paths of Bhakti , Karma and Raja yoga !

 

On another note , Nairji , you and Sadaji may be absolutely right

when youy claim there is no 'turiyateetha' in the advaitic (belief)

system ! This does not mean there is no such thing as 'turiyateetha'

in other belief systems ...

 

May i share this with you

 

" The following is from Trumular's Tirumantiram. Yogi goes into the

4th state of consciousness.

 

Jiva Turiya: Jiva (individual self) realizes its pristine spiritual

nature and its organic relationship with God or Self. Duality still

exists: self and Self

 

Para Turiya: Jiva realizes Brahman; and union, absorption, or merger

takes place; they are still " NOT " united in essence. Duality is

still apparent between object and subject, Jiva and Brahman. It is

worthwhile to remember that Brahman, the all-knowing subject, can

never become an object.

 

Brahman Turiya: Jiva unites with Brahman, and is fully absorbed and

integrated into One Being.

 

Beyond Turiya: Jiva and Brahman become ONE as butter is poured into

butter, and water is mixed with water. It is an undifferentiated and

homogeneous state of subject-object fusion.

 

(Saiva Siddhanta: Siddhantists say that this Turiya state is

experiencing of Suddha Vidya of Suddha Tattvas through Samadhi yoga.

Turiyatita [the fifth state] is experiencing higher states of

Consciousness as follows.)

 

Saiva Siddhanta points to another state beyond Turiya called

Turiyatita, [which is consolidation of Turiya], which has two

phases: Un-mesham Consciousness, the opening of the eyes (Isvara

Tattva is attained) and Nimesha Consciousness, the closing of the

eyelids (Sadasiva Tattva is attained). Un-mesham is opening of the

eyes; Nimesha is closing of the eyes. Sadasiva Tattva (Nimesha)

experience and Consciousness are deeper and purer than the Isvara

Tattva (Un-mesham) Consciousness, and the yogi enjoys equality with

Siva, when Siva reveals his Grace to the Yogi, who is in union with

the Self of Bliss.

 

Ramprasad , a great devotee of Kali , though he attained

Turiyatitta by becoming one with Brahman, says that he would rather

be enjoying sugar (Brahman) than becoming Sugar himself. He liked to

be separate from Kali so that he could worship Her, because Oneness

with Her does not permit worship.

 

http://www.bhagavadgitausa.com/THE BRAHMA SUTRA.htm

 

This ia very advanced topic and i am not qualified to comment on it

any further ! but Nairji , you will be surptrised to know that there

are two more levels after Turiyateetha - there are actually seven

levels ! Smile ... but this is not a forum to discuss that !

 

anyway , Nairji - May i make bold to say 'Knowledge should be

Liberating *NOT* BINDING ' SMILE :-)

 

 

PLEASE SADAJI , I REQUEST YOU AGAIN TO READ THE POEM BY

Siddharamaheshwar Maharaj AND YOU WILL DISCOVER THERE ARE LOTS OF

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MAHARAJ'S POEM AND ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA'S

PRATAHA SMARANA STOTRA ! AND THEN READ SWAMI VIVEKANADA'S 'SONG OF

sANYASSIN' YOU WILL SEE SWAMIJI IS REPEATING WHAT aDI SHANKARA SAYS

IN HIS PRATAHA SMARANA STOTRA ! ( u know i am a poetry buff)

 

BTW , RAM DAS JI - WHY DO U SAY - HU at the end of your post ? Hu is

the islamic word equivalent to 'OM ' are you a sufi hindu like kabir

das ji ?

 

love and regards

 

ps - please do not be offended by my outspokenness - i love this

forum , all the more now ,( year 2007 ) because there is freedom of

expression and freedom of thinking .

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Hupa-Ram Das-Ji, Adi-ji and Peterji.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Peter writes:

 

> The traditional view is that Turiya is the non-dual,

> unconditioned

> consciousness (eg see Guadapada's Mandukya Karika).

 

Sadanandaji replies:

 

>Just a point of clarification. Traditional view is

>Not Goudapaada's view. As was discussed in the last

>mail, it is the Upanishadic pramaaNa as stated in

>mantra 7 of Mandukya - that is not kaarika.

 

Namaste Sadanandaji,

 

I'm a bit puzzled by what you are stating above and in other parts of your

mail. Obviously, as you say, Gaudapada's commentary is on the Mandukya

Upanishad itself. This is why it is called, " Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika " .

Sankara's also makes a commentary on Gaudapada's Karika. Both Gaudapada and

Sankara discuss Turya in terms of being 'non-dual, unconditioned

consciousness', as stated in the Upanishad. Are they wrong in some way? Out

of step with 'tradition'? Perhaps I haven't understood the aim of your

comments above.

 

By the way, I give Gaudapada's Karika as an *example* of where the

traditional view can be found. This is because in my mail, originally

written to another member, I later draw upon Gaudapada's explanations of the

three states and Turiya. By repeating it here, I had in mind that it would

support your own reference to the Upanishadic Mantra (7) itself.

 

 

Sadanandaji writes:

[[[ What Bhagavaan Ramana says about the unconditional

consciousness is the turiiyam that was discussed in

the Mandukya Upanishad - kaarika of Goudapaada is only

glossary on that mantra - which Goudapaada elaborates

further. ]]]

 

Once again, I am not sure why you are making of point of downplaying

Gaudapada's Karika. Should we say Sankara's bhashya is *only* a bhashya?...

or not the traditional view?

 

Sadanandaji writes:

 

[[[ As I have pointed out there cannot be anything beyond

the beyond - the turiiyam is the absolute

consciousness that is one without a second.

It is not contradiction of Bhagavaan Ramana's

statement - one has to understand these mahaatmas

statements with proper context with the scriptural

statements as the basis - it is not the number - It is

beyond the number and what exactly that is described

as the state - it is absolute unconditional

existence-consciousness, one without a second. What we

experience is only three states of consciousness

-waking, dream and deep sleep states. One who is

meditating - he is only leaping towards the fourth

until he merges within - where meditator and meditated

sublimate into one.]]]

 

As far as I am aware there is nothing that I qouted from Bhagavan Ramana or

from Sri Gaudapada that contridicts this view of Turiya that you have

expressed so well.

 

Bhagavan does explain the notion of Turiyatita to those who ask him about

that term/state, though it is not a notion that he makes a point of

propogating himself, as far as I am aware. Actually, he explains it in a

way that upholds the traditional view. Namely, for those who view the Self

as a Witness to the three states, as if it were some independent fourth

state, such people have still to realize Atman as the non-dual Reality.

Hence *for them*, the non dual reality is 'beyond the fourth'. But really,

as he says in other places Turiya is that which " is not apart from anything,

for it forms the substratum of all happenings; it is the only Truth; it is

your very Being. " (Talk 353.)

 

Whether we call it Turiya or Turiyatita, I would imagine the most important

thing is to know what we mean by the non-dual Reality.

 

As you very nicely say it is not a number at all, just as Bhagavan Ramana

states in the qoute at the end of my mail.

 

With best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

--- Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

Peter - PraNAms.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

I was trying to separate the Upanishas mantra that I

quoted vs kaarikas and bhaashyas.

 

Upanishad mantra is the Veda pramaaNam or means of

knowledge.

 

There is no judgment call about any masters in my

post. I am not qualified to judge anybody and would

not like to get into that kind of discussions.

 

What I meant is, the Upanishad defines only three

states - waking, dream and deep sleep states. It says

- the turiiyam 'what peaople call' - 'chaturtham

manyante' is the state beyond all states - it is the

absolute infinite advaitic state - sat chit ananda

swaruupam.

 

There is no fourth state or fifth state of experience.

What Bhagavaan Ramana calls as absoulte consciousness

is what people call is the turiiyam which is not

really a state at all, since it is in all states yet

beyond all states.

 

I hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adi-ji.

 

Your post 36005.

 

I would like to affirm the following points:

 

1. I might have got what I talk about Advaita from someone else or

from books. In that sense, it is borrowed knowledge. But, I observe

that I can assimilate and relate all of it to myself in a manner

satisfying to me at least. As such, the borrowed knowledge is self-

knowledge. I, therefore, dare say that Advaita is Knowledge to me

and not a belief system. A belief is subject to correction on

verification and the production of contrary evidence. My

understanding of Advaita is not subject to any correction. You may

call this ego. You can. It doesn't matter.

 

2. I have stated umpteen number of times on this forum that jnAna

and bhakti are the two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist

without the other. So, if there is a jnAna marga, it is bhakti

marga too by default. I might not be subscribing here to what Sw.

Vivekananda said. Does that matter? Many Advaitins take a stand

similar to mine vis-a-vis Swamiji's views.

 

3. In jnAna there is bhakti. Bhakti is insperable from karma yoga

too. I don't see any point in taking them as four or five separate

paths. If BG has said anything anywhere about paths, it is only

about two, i.e. sanyAsa (jnAna) and karma yoga. Both have bhakti in

them by default.

 

40 I didn't say that the word turIyAtIta doesn't exist elsewhere.

I only said that, from the point of view of advaita, the term lacks

logic. Like Peterji said it might have some relevance in yogic

practices and meditation. Your Tirumantiram quote and other

references also suggest some such understanding. If you want

turIyAtita to be brought into advaita, then you have to provide

satisfactory advaitic definition for it with reference to turIyA.

Otherwise, I at least cannot accept it.

 

All this by way of explaining my personal locus and calling a spade

a spade. I wouldn't like these to be debated.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Nairji writes :

 

(If BG has said anything anywhere about paths, it is only

about two, i.e. sanyAsa (jnAna) and karma yoga. Both have bhakti

in them by default.)

 

nairji , i neither have your erudition nor scholarship . I don't

believe in vithanda vada also. ( so called debates that Jnanis

indulge in- I HAVE OFTEN HEARD IT SAID THAT JNANIS DO HAVE BLOATED

EGOS - not of course atma-jnais - their ego is smaller than a

smallest of the mustard seed - smile :-)

 

but allow me to share this verse on Gita DHYANAM JUST TO PUT ALL

MARGAS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE !

 

Salutations to Krishna, the Parijata tree or the Kalpataru or the

bestower of all desires for those who take refuge in Him, the holder

of the whip in one hand, the wielder of the symbol of knowledge, and

the Milker of the nectar of the Bhagavad-Gita.

 

The whip is a great symbol !

 

Neither a yogi nor a jnani nor an advaitin - simply a grandma full

of Prema .

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- In advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Adi-ji.

>

> Your post 36005.

>

> I would like to affirm the following points:

>

> 1. I might have got what I talk about Advaita from someone else

or

> from books. In that sense, it is borrowed knowledge. But, I

observe

> that I can assimilate and relate all of it to myself in a manner

> satisfying to me at least. As such, the borrowed knowledge is

self-

> knowledge. I, therefore, dare say that Advaita is Knowledge to me

> and not a belief system. A belief is subject to correction on

> verification and the production of contrary evidence. My

> understanding of Advaita is not subject to any correction. You

may

> call this ego. You can. It doesn't matter.

>

> 2. I have stated umpteen number of times on this forum that jnAna

> and bhakti are the two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist

> without the other. So, if there is a jnAna marga, it is bhakti

> marga too by default. I might not be subscribing here to what Sw.

> Vivekananda said. Does that matter? Many Advaitins take a stand

> similar to mine vis-a-vis Swamiji's views.

>

> 3. In jnAna there is bhakti. Bhakti is insperable from karma

yoga

> too. I don't see any point in taking them as four or five

separate

> paths. If BG has said anything anywhere about paths, it is only

> about two, i.e. sanyAsa (jnAna) and karma yoga. Both have bhakti

in

> them by default.

>

> 40 I didn't say that the word turIyAtIta doesn't exist

elsewhere.

> I only said that, from the point of view of advaita, the term

lacks

> logic. Like Peterji said it might have some relevance in yogic

> practices and meditation. Your Tirumantiram quote and other

> references also suggest some such understanding. If you want

> turIyAtita to be brought into advaita, then you have to provide

> satisfactory advaitic definition for it with reference to turIyA.

> Otherwise, I at least cannot accept it.

>

> All this by way of explaining my personal locus and calling a

spade

> a spade. I wouldn't like these to be debated.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Hupaji,

 

" Why couldn't he mean what he said? You are applying your own belief

system and

understanding to what he said. He is essentially saying that creation

vanishes

and that the Self isSaguna..........The fourth body. This was

discussed on here

recently and cut short, because there was no quote from Sankara on the

subject.

That doesn't mean that Sri Siddharamaheshwar Maharaj isn't right or

doesn't have

some knowledge of what Sankara ultimately taught.... "

 

The distinction Maharaj makes is an exceedingly common one in Advaita

Vedanta. Please check any commentary by an Advaitin on chapter 15 of

the Gita, verses 16-17-18 (the Bhasya, the Gudartha Dipika, etc... or

even Swami Chinmayananda's commentary which is freely available

online, its also one of Vidyaranya's pet-topics). You can see that a

distinction similar to the one made by Maharaj is presented by these

Advaitins.

 

However, in terms of language, most Advaitins don't talk of " beyond

the Self " or " beyond turiya " because of the way they use the words

Self and Turiya. Talk of four bodies, let alone five is itself

extremely unusual, its always three bodies in traditional Advaita

(sthula, sukshma, karana).

 

This doesn't mean Maharaj is wrong, it just means that a different

nomenclature is being used. But we should also understand that the way

most Advaitins used turiya, it is meaningless to talk of " beyond

turiya. "

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Thank you dear dear Rishi-ji ! This is why i find your posts most

endearing... you always manage to see and apprciate a different

point of view . .

 

Rishiji states at the end of the post

 

" This doesn't mean Maharaj is wrong, it just means that a different

nomenclature is being used. But we should also understand that the

way most Advaitins used turiya, it is meaningless to talk

of " beyond turiya. "

 

Yes! Dear heart ! how can one talk about 'KAIVALYAM " in a forum for

the advaitins , by the advaitins and of the advaitins ! That will

be " undemocratic " - any pun intended is intentional ! :-) Maharajji

is a tantrik - not one who practices black magic or witchcraft -

He , like Sri Ramakrishna Pramahamsa , is a man of expanded

consciousness - in that sense , he is a Tantric!

 

may i please be allowed to share a Ramana quote with you all ?

 

" BHAKTI, arma, Jnana and (Raja) Yoga, all these paths are one. You

cannot love God without knowing Him nor know him without loving him.

Love manifests itself in everything you do and that is Karma. The

development of mental perception (Yoga), is the necessary

preliminary before you can know or love God... "

 

After reading many messages in the past several weeks , i am

reminded of the follwing verse from Thaymanavar :

 

No matter how much or from how many sources I learn I never seem to

be able to control my mind or get rid of my arrogance " .

 

( & #2958; & #2980; & #3021; & #2980; & #2985; & #3016;

& #2997; & #3007; & #2980; & #2969; & #3021; & #2965; & #2995; & #3021; & #2980; & #3006; & #2985; & #3\

021; & #2965; & #2993; & #3021; & #2965; & #3007; & #2985; & #3009; & #2990; & #3021;

& #2965; & #3015; & #2975; & #3021; & #2965; & #3007; & #2985; & #3009; & #2990; & #3021;

& #2958; & #2985; & #3021; & #2951; & #2980; & #2991; & #2990; & #3021;

& #2962; & #2975; & #3009; & #2969; & #3021; & #2965; & #2997; & #3007; & #2994; & #3021; & #2994; & #3\

016;, & #2991; & #3006; & #2985; & #3014; & #2985; & #3009; & #2990; & #3021;

& #2949; & #2965; & #2984; & #3021; & #2980; & #3016; & #2980; & #3006; & #2985; & #3021;

& #2958; & #2995; & #3021; & #2995; & #2995; & #2997; & #3009; & #2990; & #3021;

& #2990; & #3006; & #2993; & #2997; & #3007; & #2994; & #3021; & #2994; & #3016;... & #2950; & #2985;\

& #2984; & #3021; & #2980; & #2990; & #3006; & #2985; & #2986; & #2992; & #2990; & #3021; 9.) (

tamil)

 

we can even forgive a spiritual aspirant who is ignorant but

arrogant ...... ?

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Hupaji,

>

> " Why couldn't he mean what he said? You are applying your own

belief

> system and

> understanding to what he said. He is essentially saying that

creation

> vanishes

> and that the Self isSaguna..........The fourth body. This was

> discussed on here

> recently and cut short, because there was no quote from Sankara on

the

> subject.

> That doesn't mean that Sri Siddharamaheshwar Maharaj isn't right

or

> doesn't have

> some knowledge of what Sankara ultimately taught.... "

>

> The distinction Maharaj makes is an exceedingly common one in

Advaita

> Vedanta. Please check any commentary by an Advaitin on chapter 15

of

> the Gita, verses 16-17-18 (the Bhasya, the Gudartha Dipika, etc...

or

> even Swami Chinmayananda's commentary which is freely available

> online, its also one of Vidyaranya's pet-topics). You can see that

a

> distinction similar to the one made by Maharaj is presented by

these

> Advaitins.

>

> However, in terms of language, most Advaitins don't talk

of " beyond

> the Self " or " beyond turiya " because of the way they use the words

> Self and Turiya. Talk of four bodies, let alone five is itself

> extremely unusual, its always three bodies in traditional Advaita

> (sthula, sukshma, karana).

>

> This doesn't mean Maharaj is wrong, it just means that a different

> nomenclature is being used. But we should also understand that the

way

> most Advaitins used turiya, it is meaningless to talk of " beyond

> turiya. "

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>