Turiya = Brahman?

[Martin]

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

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

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

OK. I was hoping you could clarify the Maharshi quotes, but no worries.

Returning to the OP, it does seem that turiya and Brahman are equivalent.

 

[ajay0]

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

The goal is ending the domination of the mind and ensuring the domination of the Self instead.

And yes, identification with the permanent Self rather than the ever-changing mind.

To the extent the mind is purified by spiritual practice, thinking-emoting slows down, and this results in the Self being revealed more. This is charecterised by increasing feelings of peace and joy.

When all the vasanas or psychological impressions are cleared out by awareness, total love or spiritual practice, all the obscurements of the Self are removed, resulting in enlightenment.



These quotes of enlightened masters can be insightful in this regard...

There is one thing that can erase the karma that is awareness. Knowledge. Self-awareness, if you are aware of yourself, if you are in total love, then you are free from karma. ~ Sri Sri Ravi Shankar


Awareness has the strength to dissolve and destroy any karma. ~ Sri Sri Ravi Shankar


If you just live totally, you will dissolve lots of karma. Living totally means that you experience anything that comes fully and intensely. ~ Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

 

[George-ananda]

And yes, identification with the permanent Self rather than the ever-changing mind.

I agree with that but I am also wondering if we shouldn't create an intermediary step. The jump from our normal human consciousness state to Brahman is quite a leap. Perhaps we can be aided by seeing ourselves as our Higher Self/Soul/Causal Body beyond this single ego experience. It seems that smaller jump is more approachable to the average human.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I agree with that but I am also wondering if we shouldn't create an intermediary step. The jump from our normal human consciousness state to Brahman is quite a leap. Perhaps we can be aided by seeing ourselves as our Higher Self/Soul/Causal Body beyond this single ego experience. It seems that smaller jump is more approachable to the average human.

This, in my opinion, is why bhakti yoga is practiced.

 

[Martin]

I agree with that but I am also wondering if we shouldn't create an intermediary step. The jump from our normal human consciousness state to Brahman is quite a leap. Perhaps we can be aided by seeing ourselves as our Higher Self/Soul/Causal Body beyond this single ego experience. It seems that smaller jump is more approachable to the average human.

Possibly this can be seen in terms of "going deeper" into the sheaths, getting closer to the source.

 

[George-ananda]

This, in my opinion, is why bhakti yoga is practiced.

I was thinking what I was saying is more jnana yoga than bhakti yoga. Bhakti yoga is devotion to a form of God/Brahman which is a somewhat different (but highly effective for some) approach. Jnana yoga is a practice to live, think and feel in accordance with the knowledge of your ultimate reality.

 

[George-ananda]

Possibly this can be seen in terms of "going deeper" into the sheaths, getting closer to the source.

Well put.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I was thinking what I was saying is more jnana yoga than bhakti yoga. Bhakti yoga is devotion to a form of God/Brahman which is a somewhat different (but highly effective for some) approach. Jnana yoga is a practice to live, think and feel in accordance with the knowledge of your ultimate reality.

I'm well aware of the differences between bhakti yoga and jnana yoga.

My point was that the path of devotion can facilitate the identification with this intermediary step you describe, leading to jnana yoga and understanding of identification as Brahman.

 

[Cassandra]

Referring to the states of consciousness in the Mandukya Upanishad, is turiya the same as Brahman?

Before contemplating this, can you tell me what is not Brahman?

 

[Martin]

Before contemplating this, can you tell me what is not Brahman?

If Brahman is consciousness, then presumably everything that appears to consciousness is "non-Brahman", or Maya.
What do you think?

 

[Cassandra]

If Brahman is consciousness, then presumably everything that appears to consciousness is "non-Brahman", or Maya.
What do you think?

The way I understand it,

I think that is a misunderstanding of Maya. Maya is commonly understood as illusion. Illusion is commonly understood as "that which is not real". This together creates the misunderstanding that Maya is not real.

But I think, that is not "real-ly" true. Maya is rather a different aspect/level of reality. When it is created it starts to bind consciousness. It is created in limitations, thus it also limits consciousness. This limited consciousness creates whole new experiences, among which is suffering.

So one could say that it is a illusion, that Maya is a illusion. But even that illusion becomes real in Maya. It becomes again another sheet. In fact there can not be "things" that do not exist in consciousness, There is nothing "unreal" in reality. But there are levels in reality. The purest consciousness is the experience of the most inner reality in which no things are apparent, just bliss.

I would say, that to say Maya is an illusion is to say "there is no Maya". So, why are we talking about it? No reason to talk about it, if it is not there. But that is like saying there are no substances, only atoms. Sure every substance can be seen as atoms, but the way atoms combine, creates new phenomena that do not exist on a lower level of reality. And these are real when you live at higher levels, but they would not be real to a being at the subatomic level.

So I gather, Maya being perceived as real is a level of perspective. I think it can be delusional to permanently take the perspective of the enlightened one, when one is not yet enlightened. People like to take these "superior" views, as if they were kings overseeing their country from a mountain, they envision to be an enlightened one overseeing reality from the highest viewpoint. But does this lift them to higher consciousness or does this create another sheet of Maya?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The result of Maya is avidya.

Maya is "real" only in vyavaharika.

 

[Martin]

The way I understand it,

I think that is a misunderstanding of Maya. Maya is commonly understood as illusion. Illusion is commonly understood as "that which is not real". This together creates the misunderstanding that Maya is not real.

But I think, that is not "real-ly" true. Maya is rather a different aspect/level of reality. When it is created it starts to bind consciousness. It is created in limitations, thus it also limits consciousness. This limited consciousness creates whole new experiences, among which is suffering.

So one could say that it is a delusion, that Maya is a illusion. But even that delusion becomes real in Maya. It becomes again another sheet. In fact there can not be "things" that do not exist in consciousness, There is nothing "unreal" in reality. But there are levels in reality. The purest consciousness is the experience of the most inner reality in which no things are apparent, just bliss.

I would say, that to say Maya is an illusion is to say "there is no Maya". So, why are we talking about it? No reason to talk about it, if it is not there. But that is like saying there are no substances, only atoms. Sure every substance can be seen as atoms, but the way atoms combine, creates new phenomena that do not exist on a lower level of reality. And these are real when you live at higher levels, but they would not be real to a being at the subatomic level.

So I gather, Maya being perceived as real is a level of perspective. I think it can be delusional to permanently take the perspective of the enlightened one, when one is not yet enlightened. People like to take these "superior" views, as if they were kings overseeing their country from a mountain, they envision to be an enlightened one overseeing reality from the highest viewpoint. But does this lift them to higher consciousness or does this create another sheet of Maya?

There seem to be different views on this. Personally I don't find it useful to talk about Maya as being "unreal" or "illusory".
Rather I'd describe Maya as transient, and dependent (on Brahman).

And presumably Maya = anatman, if Atman = Brahman.

 

[Cassandra]

The result of Maya is avidya.

Maya is "real" only in vyavaharika.

I must confess I am not acquainted with Advaita Vedanta. I looked it up. I read:

The World - A Relative Reality (Vyavaharika Satta) The world is not an illusion according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The world is the product of Maya or Avidya.

That makes sense to me.

 

[Cassandra]

Rather I'd describe Maya as transient, and dependent (on Brahman).

And presumably Maya = anatman, if Atman = Brahman.

My problem with this.
If
Maya = anatman, and Atman = Brahman
then
Maya = abrahman

But as there is nothing but Brahman, even when Brahman expands, it is still Brahman. What ever is created in the swelling of Brahman is Brahman and nothing else. Brahman is This AND That. So Maya can not be anatman. Or can it?

I think we are only talking about the lack of knowledge of a selfconscious being (avidia)

 

[Martin]

My problem with this.
If
Maya = anatman, and Atman = Brahman
then
Maya = abrahman

But as there is nothing but Brahman, even when Brahman expands, it is still Brahman. What ever is created in the swelling of Brahman is Brahman and nothing else. Brahman is This AND That. So Maya can not be anatman.

So in your view:

1. Brahman isn't consciousness?
2. Maya is also Brahman?
3. There is nothing but Brahman?

Can you point to any scriptural support for these views, eg in the Upanishads?
I think there is some support for No. 3, but I don't know about the first two.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Describing turiya, my translation says: "The fourth (state of the Self) is beyond all the elements, and all the letters. There is no commerce with it. It brings all distinctions and developments to an end: as such, it is utterly unavailing. It is only peace, repose and oneness".

Answer to Original Post:
Mandukya is closest to my view. Yeah, what has been termed as Turiya was beyond words in the time of Mandukya Upanishad and it still is beyond words today, though we have come to know a lot since that period. Relativity, quarks, leptons, Gauge Bosons and Scaler Bosons, the four forces of nature and gravity, Quantum Mechanics, uncertainty, dark matter, dark, energy, black holes and CMBR. We have rocks from Mars in our possession. Why no commerce, when the Upanishad itself says that all things are but Brahman? Actually at no moment we are any other than it. Sure, it puts an end to all distinctions. In future we will know it even better.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Answer to Original Post:
Mandukya is closest to my view. Yeah, what has been termed as Turiya was beyond words in the time of Mandukya Upanishad and it still is beyond words today, though we have come to know a lot since that period. Relativity, quarks, leptons, Gauge Bosons and Scaler Bosons, the four forces of nature and gravity, Quantum Mechanics, uncertainty, dark matter, dark, energy, black holes and CMBR. We have rocks from Mars in our possession. Why no commerce, when the Upanishad itself says that all things are but Brahman? Actually at no moment we are any other than it. Sure, it puts an end to all distinctions. In future we will know it even better.

And this is Maya.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not wholly. IMHO, we are progressively getting closer to understanding Brahman, i.e., 'what exists'.