-
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
The main point is:
---nothing can be communicated about IT as it contains the communicator itself!----
zer0
Member
Yes but that logically fails. That is like saying if you are in a house there is nothing you can do to describe the outside of that house. But this is not so. One can, from his observations of the inside, define the outside. Another way of looking at it is more in depth. Imagine you are a conscious gear in a clock. You want to find out what you are part of, you know you have more of a purpose than just the systematic movements which you do day in and day out that never change. You cannot see or hear very far so you decide to start to observe how you move and how you feel and how you act and essentially all that you do. Now, with time and with perfection, you could learn from everything that you do what your ultimate purpose is in the clock, and from learning what your ultimate purpose is you can then realize the you're in a clock. That's just an imaginary way of looking at it.
IMO, ZZ is talking about the difficulty of grasping the consciousness that grasps objects. It is impossible to see the Seer. Only way to see the Seer is to be the Seer. In Hinduism that translates to dissolution of ego-consciousness.
I agree with you on the above however, since, I find the knowledge of Turiya as the Seer of the three dream states of sleep, dream, and waking very valuable pointer to the nature of universe as sprouting of prajna ghana (unparted consciousness) and further to the nature of Turiya as unborn revealer of prajna.
Last edited:
zer0
Member
We seem to be on the same page on that one. Have you considered the fact that this phenomenon could be the cause of religion world-wide? Meaning, the God of religion is man's attempt to grasp the concept of Turiya? Consider the 4 states of AUM and then the Trinity of God. The 3 states of AUM are said to be all part of the 4th state, the figures of God, in Christian Doctrine the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in Ancient Judaic Doctrine the Father, Mother, and Son, all are separate yet still God is made up of them as one thing. Would it not be an interesting observation for one to find parallels of AUM in all religions? Here's an interesting one, the Mandukya describes Turiya as "the origin and end of beings."
In Revelation 1:8 John describes God in the first person "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 3:13-14 say ear, listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches" verse 14 continues"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation." (Now keep in mind that John is sitting in a cave hallucinating these things in a state of trance)
In Daniel we find something which is too significant Daniel 8:17-8:18 states "As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end." then in the 18th verse Daniel states "While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet." Again in Daniel 10:9 "Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground."
Much of the prophecy of the Bible holds its origin in some form of trance or sleep. Perhaps, just coincidence. Another interesting thing is that Amen is a Kabbalistic acronym meaning "God is our Faithful King". Who is Faithful here? God our us? It's all up to speculation though.
Yes, we are. We however know with certainty the difference between samadhi-Turiya and trance/sleep (which you had pointed out by citing Gaudapada).
Is it a test?
zer0
Member
Consciousness, I believe, is not being aware of oneself, for this is the goal of pure consciousness, which is Turiya. To be aware of oneself while all other phenomena but the self is absent is Turiya. For instance, to be conscious of ourselves in the waking state is to be conscious only of the top of the ice cube for our consciousness is distracted by so much other than our true nature. To be conscious of the dream state is taking water out of the cup and revealing more of the ice-cube however not the whole ice-cube for there is still phenomena distracting us. To attain prajna-sunyata or Bodhi or Turiya is pure consciousness for the fact that there is nothing for one to be conscious of but the essence of consciousness itself. It is to see the ice-cube as a whole. It is to be one with the ice-cube. It is to be a crooked hat wearing gangster with a fat cigar in his mouth and lots of hit albums
Lol. I'm sorry, I like to kid. But really. As to answer your question I much rather believe that what we call consciousness is much rather to be conscious of our action. For instance the story of Adam and Eve. They were not conscious of their action until they ate of the forbidden tree, and at the moment they had done an action which they were not supposed to, they became conscious of the ramifications of actions, the suffering caused by ignorance. When Eve and Adam met eyes and realized they both had eaten of the forbidden fruit they both knew that God would know. They became conscious of their actions. The consciousness known as Turiya is pure because it is the first thing we are conscious of: being. When we have nothing else to be conscious of other than our emptiness and a state of non-duality and non-phenomena, we are with our true inner-self. What the Vedas call the in-dweller. I am no guru on the religious Dharma, I am only extremely talented in finding connections between things and interpreting words and knowing what is being said.
Last edited:
zer0
Member
Yes but wouldn't you agree that the phenomena experienced in the state of dream are significant of the state of dreamlessness and further significant of the in-dweller, the inner controller the "Lord of all" as the Mandukya describes the Fourth, the "origin and end of beings". Does the inner controller still exist regardless of our conscious wisdom of it? If it does then can one not look at the waking world and see signs of the inner-dweller and look at the dreaming/trance world and see more signs of the inner-dweller? It would very well result in the difference between the two faiths (those of the Dharmic and the Abrahamic)
For instance, the Dharmic faith of Hinduism posits gods for many many things. The Dharmic faith of Buddhism posits Om is everything and everything is Om. The Christian religion posits there is but one God. The Muslim religion posits there is but one God. The Hebrew religion posits there is but one God. The defining difference is the state from which the prophecy has arisen. The prophets of the Abrahamic God stopped at the Dream state and projected one God. The yogi's of the East reached the true state, Turiya the state of awareness of the collective soul and the individuals piece in the collective soul. As a result many gods surface. I am looking at this on a very psychological basis. I'm asking "Why did the Abrahamic faiths come out saying one God" and "Why did the Dharmic faiths come out saying a collective soul" and I think the answer is how far they got.
Bible also says "God before all (transcendence) and all in God (immanence)" and Koran teaches "all are arisen of one soul" (the italics mine).
IMO, the difference in emphasis on the transcendence and the immanent in the west and the east is due to guna differences. The Word, I believe, is the same.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend zerO,
Thank you my learned friend for that response.
Is it a separate entity in totality???
Kindly help find the connections as you know and this fool knows not.
Love & rgds
n.b. You are trying to find sources from what others have written in the past, which are yet to be interpreted accurately and at best only a reflection of the writer's own understanding.
Only when connections are existential in nature do they become relevant / meaningful.
Thank you my learned friend for that response.
Kindly explain who this *I* the knower is???
Is it a separate entity in totality???
Kindly help find the connections as you know and this fool knows not.
Love & rgds
n.b. You are trying to find sources from what others have written in the past, which are yet to be interpreted accurately and at best only a reflection of the writer's own understanding.
Only when connections are existential in nature do they become relevant / meaningful.
Turiya is unborn, unchanging, neither consciousness nor unconsciousness, devoid of consciousness of internal or external. It is one foot only. It is without a second. But it chooses to stand on three feet also.
zer0
Member
The I which I speak of is the result of this souls own suffering. That which makes me differ from you and you from I is what we perceive individually. Our individual perception of our own experience of what we call life is in essence the I that I am speaking of. I personally believe ignorant to say there is no self for Buddhism as I have said at the beginning is all about the self. It is about the desire of the self to extinguish one's own suffering by transcending the ego of the self. The ego of the self is the part which has been created by our parents, our friends, our family, our surroundings. Essentially, the ego, is non-self. It is instead collective-self. For instance the son becomes like the father because he is the dominant figure in his experience. With a different dominant figure the son will often take on that figures different traits. Of course the son will continue to retain some physical and mental traits but there are merely reflections of the eternal self given to him by his father.
This self which I speak of is different. Buddhists are missing the point. We have a self and our self is the experiencer. The evidence for self is so simple if only you look for it for I cannot experience your life and you cannot experience mine. No matter what, in the end, we have been given different walks of life and we do know different people, I know people you don't know and you know people I don't know, as a result my life is different and it is different because my life is designed out of my past sufferings. Furthermore, the self also has afflictions which distinguish it. If there were no self then why would I suffer from a disease and you all not? If there were no self then how could I die from cancer and you all not? No but you would die to me for I am dying to you, but in your life and each others, you live on. Our lives are two separate successions of events. We are two different perceivers. If this is not the case then the comic Steven Wright put it best "All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand." Well guess what, you cannot. Because this empty shell is mine. It is all that is mine. In this world and to say otherwise is a extreme and dangerous notion. Even those who hypnotize people and appear to control the bodily functions of another are merely controlling their sub-conscious through active suggestion, if they were in fact moving their body as their own they could do it without a word.
These are all only extreme notions to he who is in denial of self. But the self, is not the problem. The matter of ego is that which is concerned with the outward and inward phenomena, Turiya is when someone is quite simply conscious of only one thing and that is the pure action of existing. Now people have experienced Turiya. I have not. That's because there is a distinction between my experience and theirs. Remember, ego is the projection of the self's situation. The ego where I live tends to be different than the ego where you live. The self is the action of being the feeling of self is the same everywhere but it is not necessarily the same experience it is not the same energy. Another of thinking about it is that ego insists on self-importance, as a result of the senses and sufferings. Self inherently knows that others have a self, others have an experiencer.
zer0
Member
Here is the easiest way to come to realize what I am saying. The Buddha taught the middle way. Why would he teach the extreme that there is no individual? Why would he teach the extreme that all is one and all one is none? No. The Buddha was enlightened and knew this is not true. He taught that all is one and hoped people would realize the fact the we are all individually a part of that one. Just as the gears in a clock. They are all part of the clock but have their own individual purposes and distinctions.
zenzero
Its only a Label
friends,
Though have no idea about foot/feet as explained by friend atanu but related explanation at Turiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is quite acceptable.
Love & rgds
Though have no idea about foot/feet as explained by friend atanu but related explanation at Turiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is quite acceptable.
Love & rgds
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend zerO,
Your points are well understood and accepted, it is the truth and never denied but still the question remains unanswered when did this perceiver *you* separate from that what the perceiver is *perceiving*.
The reason for asking this again and again is very simple.
Having taken the journey single pointedly like so many in this life could only overcome/transcend the mind only after realizing that there was never any separation but evolution itself developed the mind in what has been labelled by our own minds as *humans* to a state where duality became clear allowed ourselves to fall for that illusion or mind delusion; is the understanding.
More only after we reach any where near to oneness on this to add any value to the discussion and share the one energy which runs commonly between all forms and no-forms.
Love & rgds
Your points are well understood and accepted, it is the truth and never denied but still the question remains unanswered when did this perceiver *you* separate from that what the perceiver is *perceiving*.
The reason for asking this again and again is very simple.
Having taken the journey single pointedly like so many in this life could only overcome/transcend the mind only after realizing that there was never any separation but evolution itself developed the mind in what has been labelled by our own minds as *humans* to a state where duality became clear allowed ourselves to fall for that illusion or mind delusion; is the understanding.
More only after we reach any where near to oneness on this to add any value to the discussion and share the one energy which runs commonly between all forms and no-forms.
Love & rgds
Yo. Another usage is aja ekapada, the unborn one-footed. This aja ekapada, however has three feet: three dream worlds of sleep, dream, and waking.
Turiya has no parts. I highlight this, as some are talking/hinting of we being parts of the one Turiya.
Last edited:
zer0
Member
I have not said that the perceiver is seperate from the perceived. I have only said that it is necessary to know that there is a difference between this perceiver and the next perceiver. I believe rather that, as I have said, we are the perceiver and the perceived. Just as a gear in a clock is both part of the clock and the clock itself for it is interconnected with all of the other gears. It is necessary to recognize the individuality of those things which are interdependent. For instance all of the gears of the clock are different but in the end they make up one single result. The ego of the gear could be said to be it's movements for they are impermanent for time always changes but the movenments of the gear are not the gear itself. The gear itself is the most important part for it is both the individual aspects of the gear and its interdependence on the other gears which make up its reality. The way I am, my physical make up and mental make-up and my interdependence on all other things are what make-up my perception.
For instance you have four separate dots . . . . and you have four interdependent or interconnected dots ._._._. the difference between the two is that the four interconnected dots are greater than the four individual dots however that does not mean that there are not four individual dots which make-up the series of four interconnected dots! I am not saying that there is no self nor am I saying that there is no interconnected self I am saying that there is both self and non-self for it is necessary and it is the way of the universe to operate as so. To answer you more simply, the perceiver and the percieved never separated for it is not necessary for the perceiver to be separate in order to be an individual aspect of the percieved.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend zerO,
Thank you for your response.
Next it is obvious as to what one perceives?
Of course you have stated earlier about past karma/ birth/environment/etc has its effect on the mind's makeup of that form [individual] the response would be that if the individual understands that these make ups are all false and just mind delusions then the effects automatically nullifies and one never identifies or discusses such points.
One having understood that it is part of the whole it then identifies with IT and if any discussion is necessary then it is connected with IT.
Yes having born in a form with all that background mentioned earlier do have to function with a label in society which again is to understood as not any separate body but parts of the same *whole* and so do function as a marketing professional to keep uncover the unconscious parts to enable the frozen parts too melt and evaporate.
Love & rgds
Thank you for your response.
Next it is obvious as to what one perceives?
Of course you have stated earlier about past karma/ birth/environment/etc has its effect on the mind's makeup of that form [individual] the response would be that if the individual understands that these make ups are all false and just mind delusions then the effects automatically nullifies and one never identifies or discusses such points.
One having understood that it is part of the whole it then identifies with IT and if any discussion is necessary then it is connected with IT.
Yes having born in a form with all that background mentioned earlier do have to function with a label in society which again is to understood as not any separate body but parts of the same *whole* and so do function as a marketing professional to keep uncover the unconscious parts to enable the frozen parts too melt and evaporate.
Love & rgds