-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God as consciousness?
- Thread starter Onkara
- Start date
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
Boy, I wish I had the answer to that question, lol.
The first thing that came to mind, Onkara, was this: by finding out for oneself.
The first thing that came to mind, Onkara, was this: by finding out for oneself.
Last edited:
Thanks TOR
It is a tricky one. The fascinating fact is actually based on what you say: by finding out for oneself.
Only the you (or I) can confirm consciousness. Even doubt about God must arise in that very same consciousness. So what is this consciousness, it seems to be the foundation for everything and yet nothing that arises or is known by consciousness is as eternal as consciousness itself. Mind goggling stuff :areyoucra
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
It may be a petty amendment, but it's probably not accurate enough to say "the I" or "the you", at least from my vantage point. I feel that I can say this because of a rather unusual experience I had some time ago. Suffice to say, it is the case that "I" or "God" or "consciousness" is spoken directly from a rather large and deeply entrenched ego form, at least in my case. It is my opinion that there is "medium" several folds beyond such concepts. :yes:
Last edited:
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
Yes. I will try to be as detailed as I can, but please have patience for the words. I'll start by explaining the original context.
I was lying in bed during which this happened. It was late at night and moments before falling asleep. I was contemplating things rather deeply, as I usually do before nodding off.
A strange series of thoughts began to trickle down over my field of vision. My eyes shuttered intensely for a moment, and "god" was revealed as ego. It appeared as if "the I" was an inherent aspect of "god", by which they were complimentary parts of the same ego form. I can't overemphasize the reaction as this massive thought-object eclipsed my field of awareness. There was a very clear biological response...terrifying as well as awe-inspiring. Imagine, if you can, having a balloon inflated inside your nervous system. What was briefly apparent in that moment was a "medium" upon which all of that rested. A very clean vacuum, well beyond my experience of "the void". It made my world feel quite small by comparison.
Hello ToR
Thanks for sharing your experience. I agree with your understanding. A query of "Who Am I?" or "Who is Seeing this I?" at this stage of vision is said to be useful.
Generally, it is taught in Hindu scripture to begin meditation with meditation of Sun, or a mantra, or an auspicious peaceful image.
Regards
...
Namaste Onkara ji
I think that is the better question.
The highest being, called Turya or Brahman or Self cognises its own prajna -consciousness, wherein sprouts the dream world and the waking world. But the highest being, being the cogniser has no second cogniser of itself. What or who will cognise the ultimate cogniser of prajna?
So, Turya is defined as neither consciousness nor unconsciuosness, neither cognizant of inner nor of outer.
So, it is prajna-the expressed wisdom of Turya that is labelled as Sarvesvara-all God.
Regards and thanks for a precise question.
...
Thank you Atanu ji
Yes, my initial question could be seen by some as the goal rather than the starting point, so it is not the best to begin with. Please feel free to take any angle that interests you here. I am looking to prove myself wrong, as it happens. What I am starting to sense is that there is not necessarily a need for a theist approach, but I am looking to confirm that too.
From your reply I feel that I may need to avoid using the word "consciousness". I have found the word confuse people with the state of being awake rather than unconsciousness which generally means deep sleep, coma or death.
Yes, my initial question could be seen by some as the goal rather than the starting point, so it is not the best to begin with. Please feel free to take any angle that interests you here. I am looking to prove myself wrong, as it happens. What I am starting to sense is that there is not necessarily a need for a theist approach, but I am looking to confirm that too.
From your reply I feel that I may need to avoid using the word "consciousness". I have found the word confuse people with the state of being awake rather than unconsciousness which generally means deep sleep, coma or death.
Thank you Atanu ji
From your reply I feel that I may need to avoid using the word "consciousness". I have found the word confuse people ----
Namaste Onkara
That is expected. We almost always make our decisions based on the premise that "I am a body and intelligence belongs to it". A simple twist really, but makes a lot of difference.
Only a few may have had chance of contemplating that awareness is subtle, ungraspable and distinct from the body (which lies inert on departure of something called life force). And still fewer may agree that the power of cognition has never died.
...
Last edited:
What is significantly tangible, but beyond words, is that very turiya. It is undoubtedly the foundation.
What I can confirm is that the more I push my mind to find an explanation the more it returns empty handed. I am convinced that this is it. In fact I cannot seem to prove mySelf wrong, and that leads me to conclude that all that the scriptures called God is this.
Now let me throw a spanner into the works and make it into a question, for investigation sake only: What if we remove the scriptures from the picture. What then vouches for turiya as divine?
What I can confirm is that the more I push my mind to find an explanation the more it returns empty handed. I am convinced that this is it. In fact I cannot seem to prove mySelf wrong, and that leads me to conclude that all that the scriptures called God is this.
Now let me throw a spanner into the works and make it into a question, for investigation sake only: What if we remove the scriptures from the picture. What then vouches for turiya as divine?
Buddha is known to have removed scriptures from the scene. He arrived at the same conclusion that there is indeed an unborn substratum which makes all our endeavours worthwhile -- and all else is just flux.
...
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend onkara,
Friend atanu [post#9] has provided the dharmic interpretation quite well.
Personal understanding is that the human form could be the last as a form but formless existence continues eternally at various levels.
Have no idea if any scriptures have given any road maps to such states.
Existence being eternal can never have an end an so the journey continues......
[sorry maybe out of topic but topic for another thread???]
Love & rgds
Friend atanu [post#9] has provided the dharmic interpretation quite well.
Personal understanding is that the human form could be the last as a form but formless existence continues eternally at various levels.
Have no idea if any scriptures have given any road maps to such states.
Existence being eternal can never have an end an so the journey continues......
[sorry maybe out of topic but topic for another thread???]
Love & rgds
Thanks Atanu Ji
This is just it, it seem inescapable.
Now the "flux" as you say does not stop, nor should it "need" to stop. I have had to conclude that this is the spanda, of Shaivism, as it drives people onwards. Take Buddha for example, he still acted. Sri Shankara still toured India and Ramakrishna likewise went on. Any ideas why?
This is just it, it seem inescapable.
Now the "flux" as you say does not stop, nor should it "need" to stop. I have had to conclude that this is the spanda, of Shaivism, as it drives people onwards. Take Buddha for example, he still acted. Sri Shankara still toured India and Ramakrishna likewise went on. Any ideas why?
As far as I theoretically know, Turya is not the doer. It is nature that acts. It is nature that creates. As long as, due to prarabdha, the body lasts, onlookers will see the touring etc.. It is said that a potter's wheel does not stop the moment potter removes his hands from the wheel.
I think doubts such as whether Atma is an actor will deepen the actions. A screen is never the film playing on it.
At least this is advaita. There are many others endings however, of which I can tell nothing.
...
Last edited:
I agree, Atanu. The theory can be seen as fact, take for example the smell of food, once smelt we can confirm we had no choice to smell it and the reactions which follow are all that of nature (i.e. hunger, salivation or even physical movement or repulsion).
Now there is an apparently contradicting point made by Sri Adi Shankara, where he states that the Atman is the doer, on the grounds that the Vedas imply there is a direct benefit to someone (i.e. Atman) in carrying out the sacrifices. This seems, on first look to be a big contradiction to the teaching of the Gita i.e. Gunas and nature being the doer.
However there is an answer.
What is equally interesting is the fact that one is never apart from that nature. All is one, that Brahman. It is due to turiya (turya) that all has arisen. In addition to this Adi Shankara (I think) concludes that Atman is singular and not plural. In other words there is only one Atman, and that Atman is Brahman i.e. also nature. So the circle is complete. Yes nature is the doer, and turiya is not, but what is nature? Nature is Atman which is Brahman which is turiya. There is no duality just a different ways of explanation "until the penny drops".