s1va

The Myth of Conscious awareness in Sleep

Recommended Posts

I like my sleep as it’s always been...

 

Dreams and silence mixed with an occasional bathroom break. 

 

Sleeping while being awake doesn’t sound like fun to me. 😊

 

 

Edited by Fa Xin
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

I like my sleep as it’s always been...

 

Dreams and silence mixed with an occasional bathroom break. 

 

Sleeping while being awake doesn’t sound like fun to me. 😊

 

 

Actually it is wonderful but very hard to really describe. It is not one of sleep deprivation nor is it filled with thoughts - and if listening to something it is not filled with judgement and extrapolation.

 

One can be awareness in stillness and non-object awareness with one’s eyes closed - it is often like a chrome lake in a cloudless moonless night. 

Edited by Spotless
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spotless said:

Actually it is wonderful but very hard to really describe. It is not one of sleep deprivation not is it filled with thoughts - and if listening to something it is not filled with judgement and extrapolation.

 

One can be awareness in stillness and non-object awareness with one’s eyes closed - it is often like a chrome lake in a cloudless moonless night. 

 

I am glad it is pleasant - and no need for coffee in the morning! 

 

Can you choose to let go of your awareness if you want ? Like really pass out ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I think Spotless is just pretending to sleep in order to fit in with us mortal humans.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spotless said:

The heading is quite misleading and forgive me for not reading through all of it.

 

I am not familiar with the term Turiya but I have achieved this awakened state.

 

It is rare to those un-awake but not so rare in those Awake.

 

It has been six + years.

 

 

 

Thank you for your post. There is indeed a surprisingly larger number than I initially expected who are out there and "have achieved this awakened state" as you have stated in your post. To me at least, it is unimportant what one calls it (Turiya or otherwise) as one can easily get bogged down in terminology and definitions.

 

You stated it well when you said that "it is rare to those un-awake but not so rare in those Awake". That parallels my sentiments exactly though I did not think so in my early development days. As one matures spiritually, one comes in contact with more and more of these "not so rare" beings but it has been my experience that they are often very, very quiet.

 

As Nisargadatta Maharaj once said, those well along the path to self-realization are generally very quiet as I too have observed. I have found that to be the case as well. On the other hand, the un-awake intellectuals seem to do the most talking and are constantly engaged in intellectual dialogues and spewing forth quotes which, as I have stated before, cannot adequately express the inexpressible. Nonetheless, the oral/written teachings serve a very important purpose initially as long as one is aware that "You yourself must strive. Buddhas are but sign posts ..." (Dhammapada, 276). The Buddhas and the oral/written teachings are but sign posts pointing out the way but PRACTICE is the key.

 

Over 30 years ago, when I first met my primary spiritual mentor, she gave me a book on meditation. At that time, I was an intellectual novice and read the whole book in one week. (In retrospect, my intellectual reading processing now appears extremely ridiculous to me but that is exactly what I did at that time.) I went back to the ashram the following week and told her that I had "questions". After a long, very uncomfortable silence, she stared at me and asked, "You read the whole book in one week?" Sensing a quiz or an admonition coming, I shrank back and sheepishly responded, "Sort of". The follow-up question unnerved me completely: "...and you PRACTICED?") Even more sheepishly, I responded, "Sort of". At that point, she sternly instructed me: "PRACTICE. Only then can you ask questions. Now you may leave." My bruised little ego was deeply offended and I resolved never to go back to her. However, as I'm sure most of you long-time practitioners realize, she was absolutely correct though most teachers might have handled it a little more gently. (That is why, in a chapter dedicated to her in Linda Johnson's Book "Living Women Saints of India", she is referred to as the "No Nonsense Yogini".) Needless to say, I eventually became her disciple for over 30 years and actually wrote the introduction to a revised edition of that initial meditation book. In that introduction, I warned readers NOT to do as I had done initially and stressed the importance of PRACTICE.

 

It is wonderful to find people here who have practiced and who contribute substantively to this discussion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spotless said:

Actually it is wonderful but very hard to really describe. It is not one of sleep deprivation nor is it filled with thoughts - and if listening to something it is not filled with judgement and extrapolation.

 

One can be awareness in stillness and non-object awareness with one’s eyes closed - it is often like a chrome lake in a cloudless moonless night. 

That was very well said. Thank you once again for sharing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

At this point I think Spotless is just pretending to sleep in order to fit in with us mortal humans.

One cannot rule that out.

 

The first of my truly awesome teachers was an outwardly uneducated "homeless black man" on the streets of New York City whom I knew for 9 years many many years ago. For the first two years, however, before he revealed himself, we had numerous "coincidental" meetings on the streets of NYC during which I would always take him out to lunch or dinner depending on the time of day. There was nothing particularly impressive about his words in general as he usually just listened to me talk about myself. :) Nonetheless, whenever we parted, there was invariably a seemingly bizarre statement or question he had raised that lingered with me and became a catalyst for meditation. After two years, he finally revealed himself in an extraordinary manner and I was stunned by his wisdom and understanding of the Reality. I immediately questioned him: "We've known each other for two years. Why haven't you ever spoken to me like this before." His response to me, who FOOLISHLY considered myself somewhat enlightened at that time based on my intellectual understanding of scriptures, was: "You weren't even at a level where we could discuss basics". :o However, his overall demeanor was sensitive and appropriate so I wasn't in the least bit offended. For the next seven years, we continued to meet "coincidentally" on the streets of NYC whenever I needed him most (whether I liked it at the time or not as I was sometimes engaged in less than noble activities when he appeared :o). With one exception, he refused my offer to stay at my house or accept my phone number so that he could call collect whenever he wanted to meet so our meetings were unscheduled for obvious reasons but uncannily timely.

 

Our parting was unforgettable. At our last meeting, he abruptly told me that I would not be seeing him again. Having grown very attached to this unusual relationship, I was understandably upset and asked if I had offended him in any way. He simply indicated that "My work with you is done" and that "Another teacher will come to take my place". He hugged me and started to walk away. I could not bear losing him so I followed him and was only a couple of steps behind him as he turned the corner. I turned the corner only a few seconds after he did, and no one was there. I never saw him again, but I will never forget those incredible 9 years with him.

 

As for your statement, "At this point I think Spotless is just pretending to sleep in order to fit in with us mortal humans", you may be right. One never knows. However, be assured that I will be watching more and more of his posts in the future. LOL :)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Everything said:

So going with what feels good leads to attachments how? 

You really think you're gonna enjoy the ride more with a vehicle? Don't be attached to having no vehicle. If a buddha refuses to ride a bike, he's attached to something alright. His two feet. 

You are talking about attachments in the negative sense. You cannot have negative attachments / resistance and feel good at the same time. The laws of the universe do not allow that to be so. 

 

Thereason going with what feels good is the same thing as being without attachments, is because feeling good is of your natural nature. And going with the flow of your naturally good feeling nature doesn't require you to do something, but rather let go of what prevents you from being your full true self. Naturally. That which you enjoy, by your very nature. 

 

That's like saying, I'm thirsty. It would feel good to drink water. But that will lead to attachments. I'll just have to starve then... And good that you will die, cause otherwise ull be thirsty ever more. Not fun. Not natural. Not normal. 

 

You can be negatively attached to thirst and suffer. 

You can be positively attached to thirst, which then inspired the new preference of growth of new ideas and new freedom and new choice, to drink water. 

 

And then ul say, oh I like thirst. When I'm thirsty I really enjoy drinking water so much! I love this thirst! 

I love what you just wrote, particularly: "...feeling good is of your natural nature. And going with the flow of your naturally good feeling nature doesn't require you to do something, but rather let go of what prevents you from being your full true self. Naturally. That which you enjoy, by your very nature. "

 

I've learned to surrender to that which lies beyond thoughts, and allow my pure intuition to unerringly guide my steps one step at a time. I think less and less in terms of likes and dislikes but rather in terms of "This is where I am now and how do I proceed from here in this moment." As you duly stated, one can indeed go with the flow and enjoy it without being kept in the local mind as another poster postulated.

 

Thanks for posting. The posts here keep getting better and better as I see that the quiet ones are coming forth more and more with pragmatic wisdom and not just scriptural quotes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fa Xin said:

 

I am glad it is pleasant - and no need for coffee in the morning! 

 

Can you choose to let go of your awareness if you want ? Like really pass out ?

 

 

It is a bite like that in the chrome lake analogy but no - I do not obscure Self

it is definitely not like passing out - one easily slips to no thought no object no inertia and it is utter stillness until it is not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Everything said:

So going with what feels good leads to attachments how? 

You really think you're gonna enjoy the ride more with a vehicle? Don't be attached to having no vehicle. If a buddha refuses to ride a bike, he's attached to something alright. His two feet. 

You are talking about attachments in the negative sense. You cannot have negative attachments / resistance and feel good at the same time. The laws of the universe do not allow that to be so. 

 

Thereason going with what feels good is the same thing as being without attachments, is because feeling good is of your natural nature. And going with the flow of your naturally good feeling nature doesn't require you to do something, but rather let go of what prevents you from being your full true self. Naturally. That which you enjoy, by your very nature. 

 

That's like saying, I'm thirsty. It would feel good to drink water. But that will lead to attachments. I'll just have to starve then... And good that you will die, cause otherwise ull be thirsty ever more. Not fun. Not natural. Not normal. 

 

You can be negatively attached to thirst and suffer. 

You can be positively attached to thirst, which then inspired the new preference of growth of new ideas and new freedom and new choice, to drink water. 

 

And then ul say, oh I like thirst. When I'm thirsty I really enjoy drinking water so much! I love this thirst! 

 

If you are thirsty then drink water. You need water or you will die.

 

If your feet hurt and you can ride a bike or ride in a car, it is commonsense to do so.

 

If on the other hand after a longs day of work you need a six pack to relax everyday, that is an attachment. If you are bored and you eat food because it makes you feel good that is an attachment.

 

If you like to spend all your money on clothes, because shopping makes you feel good then yes that is an attachment.

 

None of those things is the bliss of being that is ones natural state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Still_Waters said:

Our interpretations of the Mandukya Upanishad clearly differ. It is said that Shankaracharya declared that if one could only study a single Upanishad it should be this one; similarly in a late Upanishad, the Muktika ("Deliverance"), Rama appears and tells a devotee that "the Mandukya alone is sufficient for the deliverance of the aspirant". Take it for what it's worth and proceed as you see fit.

 

 

 

Mandukya is a simple (yet profound) Upanishad with very few words.  No one is debating it's power or usefulness in certain contexts.  I haven't heard anything about your interpretation, or any quote to back up the statements you made about conscious sleep and practices!  We can praise Mandukya all day.  But that doesn't prove that this Upanishad proposes jagrat consciousness in sleep.  Because I know for a fact it doesn't!  I am just trying to avoid unnecessary mixups and confusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Still_Waters said:

I learn from all. Ramana Maharshi has filled in some vital points in my meditation practices. He is not my only source. His "Talks" are obviously very disjointed since random people come to his ashram at random times and ask questions to which he responds in the moment based on their level of understanding. What he says to one person may not apply to another and he directly states that on many occasions. It was difficult reading him at times because his answers to the same questions from different people at different levels can be significantly different. Therefore, there is not a preferred prescribed practice from Ramana other than self-enquiry which he highly recommends. Even with self-enquiry, he states that there are relatively few who can practice that well. For those who cannot do self-enquiry for whatever reason, he recommends bhakti. For still others, he recommends karma yoga (losing one's self in service to others). For those who cannot do any of the above, he recommends pranayama since it is a "natural sedative" and will calm them down. :)

 

The Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying aptly describe the similarities between going to sleep and dying. I personally met with the author of the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying as we discussed my near-death-experience compared to what he had just taught at St. Peter's Church in New York City. In addition, the Sufi mystic Hazrat Inayat Khan spoke extensively about "dying before death" which employs the same principle albeit with different terminology. I studied directly under his son, Pir Vilayat Khan, for about two years and these subjects came up. Kabbalistic Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan of my borough, Brooklyn, spoke and wrote extensively about the talmudic consensus regarding what happens at physical death and how to prepare for crossing over. My practice and knowledge is a composite from various traditions that did not contradict each other regarding basics and are consistent with my own near-death-experience and my conscious sleep practice. In addition, my own spiritual mentor was a guide in this respect. I am not going to peruse Ramana's writings to identify where he spoke or hinted about conscious sleep. You will have to do that yourself if it's important to you. I would recommend that you follow your ideal practice to the end and do what is best suited to you personally as all of us are unique and what works for one may not work best for another. Ramana Maharshi has stated that explicitly as I mentioned above when he recommended self-enquiry for some, bhakti for others, karma yoga for still others, and a "natural sedative" (pranayama) for still others. Now, do as you wish.

 

P.S. Ramana's words about the Light projecting the brain and the impressions in the brain manifesting as the body and the world triggered me to apply that to the dream-process and use that as a catalyst to understanding how to trace the Light back to the Source as best as possible. That was all that I said about Ramana in this respect and it was a vital point related to something on which I was meditating at the time. My teacher once told me, "You're an experienced meditator. Meditate and all will be revealed." Verily, what has been important to me has become a subject for meditation and revelations just happened in one way or another with Ramana's talks filling in various pieces of the puzzle for the subject under consideration. However, I repeat that Ramana is not my only source but what he has said does not contradict anything that I have discovered and incorporated into my understanding of the Reality. That is why he remains one of my favorites.

 

P.S.S. I am sure that you have discovered that words are ultimately inadequate and cannot express the inexpressible. With a user-name like Siva, I am sure that you are aware of Dakshinamurti who taught in utter and complete silence. Quotes from the Upanishads can only go so far. Some of my most illuminating "dialogues" have been in complete and utter silence with masters who have virtually no following at all since there are very few who are receptive to that kind of communication. Most need words and "quotes".

 

I am trying to show this retaining consciousness in sleep is not something from Hindu scriptures like Upanishads, or from the teachings of great masters like Ramana Maharishi.  My arguments are to the point and with regards to this topic.

 

It's not a debate about the greatness of the Ramana Maharishi or traditions.  I agree with some of what you say, but feel it's just generic and all over the place.  Quoting is important when we make certain claims or connect our experiences to masters, traditions or scriptures.  It is very easy to misunderstand our own experience many times and think it is something, while it may entirely be something else, which we discover later!

 

Appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.  I stand firmly by the OP and with the explanations I gave in subsequent posts.  Reattaining Consciousness (jagrat state) in sleep is a myth, except for the temporary states of lucid dreaming.  Awakened sleep or Turiya is an entirely different topic which many seem to ignore and just favor this new age 'consciousness in sleep', which has been debunked by many traditions.  In my view Tibetan yoga refers to the awakened sleep or Turiya in their teachings, certainly not this retaining consciousness.  Only in lucid dreaming they try to bring the conscious awareness into dream.  This happens temporarily and only in certain stages.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spotless said:

I am not sure what you read but your phrasing is quite contentious.

 

The shift you later describe is definitely a shift. It is also accompanied by no dreaming.

 

One can listen to a podcast while hearing oneself snoring and your wife snoring and the dog moving

all night long.

 

Waking up is not like waking up - you open your eyes already awake and slide off the bed - no coffee needed to coaks you into the body - one’s awareness does not slowly come back - it never diminished. 

 

It is unique - your wife may ask a question in the darkness of night and you are completely present but we’re in objectless awareness and responsive awareness is immediate.

 

I have not ruminated over a fuller explanation at this time but it is accompanied by a lightness - a very physical embodied sustained lightness.

 

I will write more about Turiya and some of the things that are unveiled to a person that has reached that state.  The 5 cloaks such as time, space, limitations, etc does not limit a person who has transcended to 4th state.  In Daoist terms, I would call such a person as Ruler Immortal.

 

The state described transcends the sleep, but not bypasses it.  One in sleep during turiya does not hear to external sounds through senses.  The sensory mind, out of the 4 I described earlier with sense perceptions and sense organs are off, since they are in sushupti or deep sleep state.  Also, it is possible for a person in Turiya to dream from time to time.  Gautam Buddha had dreams from time to time, this is mentioned by him and well documented in some sutras.  Generally their sleep is devoid of dreams.  I am not sure about the state you describe, but I don't think it is similar to what I described as Turiya.  Perhaps you are describing some semi-awake state where the sense organs still operate and provide input to the mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Dzogchen perspective.

 

The Dream Practice by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

 

Quote

Increase the luminosity of the red A or the red sphere as well as the

white bead of light gradually, giving it slowly more brightness from

night to night. This is important, otherwise you will risk damaging

the dream. At this point the practice cannot not bring results. The

dreams will necessarily be clearly remembered. Dreams must

manifest themselves, for dreams always exist until one has reached

the level called chosed, which is the fourth and final level of

realization in the practice of thoghel, which is the same as the level of

gommed, the ultimate state in the practice of Mahamudra.

 

 

Quote

What are the results of the dream practice?

 

If the level of the practitioner is highly advanced, the state of

chosed may manifest and dreaming will cease.

 

This state is different from not remembering dreams, which may

be caused by lack of clarity or by temporary circumstances like too

deep sleep or heavy food. When one ceases to dream, the dreams never

arise again and clarity becomes manifest both in the waking state and

in the state of dream.

 

If the practitioner's level is moderately advanced, one will

recognize the dream state while dreaming.

 

In the case when the practitioner's advancements are very modest,

one's dreams will obtain more clarity.

 

Edited by Jonesboy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

Mandukya is a simple (yet profound) Upanishad with very few words.  No one is debating it's power or usefulness in certain contexts.  I haven't heard anything about your interpretation, or any quote to back up the statements you made about conscious sleep and practices!  We can praise Mandukya all day.  But that doesn't prove that this Upanishad proposes jagrat consciousness in sleep.  Because I know for a fact it doesn't!  I am just trying to avoid unnecessary mixups and confusions.

While Mandukya certainly doesn't propose anything besides pointing out that Turiya (Chaturtham) is none other than Atman itself, a result of recognizing and abiding as Turiya results in NOT losing that abidance in dreams or deep sleep either. It is not an opinion. This is an experiential reality. Just because there are no objects in consciousness doesn't mean there is no consciousness. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this is the most interesting point. From Jonesboy’s quote...

 

“If the level of the practitioner is highly advancedthe state of

chosed may manifest and dreaming will cease.

 

This state is different from not remembering dreams, which may

be caused by lack of clarity or by temporary circumstances like too

deep sleep or heavy food. When one ceases to dream, the dreams never

arise again and clarity becomes manifest both in the waking state and

in the state of dream.”

 

Dreams are simply subconscious mental activity. Energy flows spilling over into the local mind space. :) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jeff said:

To me, this is the most interesting point. From Jonesboy’s quote...

 

“If the level of the practitioner is highly advancedthe state of

chosed may manifest and dreaming will cease.

 

This state is different from not remembering dreams, which may

be caused by lack of clarity or by temporary circumstances like too

deep sleep or heavy food. When one ceases to dream, the dreams never

arise again and clarity becomes manifest both in the waking state and

in the state of dream.”

Until the samskaras all disappear, dreams will appear. Some of these samskaras are associated with prārabdha karma and are already set in motion.

9 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Dreams are simply subconscious mental activity. Energy flows spilling over into the local mind space. :) 

Dreams are associated with the astral body. As we know, there are many different types of dreams. Some are processing of residual impressions from our waking experiences - this is in the realm of the so-called individual mind (taijasa). Others are astral activities and are part of the Universal consciousness/mind (Hiranyagarbha) according to Vedanta. 

 

I know we probably won't agree on this...but it is just another perspective.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dwai said:

Until the samskaras all disappear, dreams will appear. Some of these samskaras are associated with prārabdha karma and are already set in motion.

Dreams are associated with the astral body. As we know, there are many different types of dreams. Some are processing of residual impressions from our waking experiences - this is in the realm of the so-called individual mind (taijasa). Others are astral activities and are part of the Universal consciousness/mind (Hiranyagarbha) according to Vedanta. 

 

I know we probably won't agree on this...but it is just another perspective.

 

Thanks for sharing.  Not really sure what you think we are not agreeing about?

 

Clarity that Norbu talks about in Dzogchen would seem to be similar to samskaras disappearing.  You are just describing the cause, and he is describing the absence of the cause.

 

Also, I would agree that some dreams are associated with the astral body, but I would just say that is very rare for most. Maybe like 1%,  as most have to many local mind samskaras "in the way of" any astral projections, and hence it is mostly just the residual as you described.  Also, even with astral activities, the residual is "viewed" or reflected in the local mind as the perception that creates the mind/dream experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dwai said:

While Mandukya certainly doesn't propose anything besides pointing out that Turiya (Chaturtham) is none other than Atman itself, a result of recognizing and abiding as Turiya results in NOT losing that abidance in dreams or deep sleep either. It is not an opinion. This is an experiential reality. Just because there are no objects in consciousness doesn't mean there is no consciousness. 

 

Based on our prior discussions, it is clear that we don't agree in certain areas.  I consider it a pleasure to engage in discussions or debates with mature adults who have respect for each other, irrespective of the differences they might have.  Not with those that are mostly condescending towards others with different perspectives, insulting teachers from other systems as juvenile or imply the differing perspective as a crack-pot theory or stoops to any low levels to prove they are superior and 'awakened'.

 

A level of person's awakening should reflect in their actions, how they interact with the world, in humility, in compassion, etc, and not by the claims they make as their own experiences!  I have made it very clear to you here and in PM that I don't want to engage in repeat discussions on the same topics with you again and again with no end in sight.  But, since it is a public forum, you can continue with your ways as long as they don't break the terms of the site.  Only I don't see any need to respond to your posts henceforth, unless they are sincere and truly adds to the discussion, instead of just beating the same old drum to show you know more than others as you openly claim.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Everything said:

So you feel good by spending all your money on clothes? You feel good when you eat food in boredom?

Is that what feels good to you?

 

No, just using examples of addictions which make people feel good.

Edited by Jonesboy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Based on our prior discussions, it is clear that we don't agree in certain areas.  I consider it a pleasure to engage in discussions or debates with mature adults who have respect for each other, irrespective of the differences they might have.  Not with those that are mostly condescending towards others with different perspectives, insulting teachers from other systems as juvenile or imply the differing perspective as a crack-pot theory or stoops to any low levels to prove they are superior and 'awakened'.

You have made that clear, no doubt. However, these  types of reactionary responses are quite revelatory.

26 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

A level of person's awakening should reflect in their actions, how they interact with the world, in humility, in compassion, etc, and not by the claims they make as their own experiences!  I have made it very clear to you here and in PM that I don't want to engage in repeat discussions on the same topics with you again and again with no end in sight.  But, since it is a public forum, you can continue with your ways as long as they don't break the terms of the site.  Only I don't see any need to respond to your posts henceforth, unless they are sincere and truly adds to the discussion, instead of just beating the same old drum to show you know more than others as you openly claim.

It is more about sharing my thoughts on this, not specifically with you. There ARE other participants on this forum and thread. Unless you think that is not welcome on your thread...feel free to ignore my posts. Of course, you (or someone else on the board admin team) can choose to let me know how and why I have violated forum rules. :) 

 

There seems to be a trend of "banning" those who don't agree with a certain group within Daobums. Perhaps it will come to pass that I get banned too. That's okay as well. Personally I don't think I have ever insulted teachers from other systems. I did call a post juvenile --  nothing about any teacher. 

 

As far as the clay-pot vs crack-pot theory title goes -- Alan Watts was famous for using that phrase. I just borrowed it. It wasn't pointed toward any individual or group, rather to highlight how the clay pot example when taken too far can become the "crack pot" theory. 

 

Quote

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I will write more about Turiya and some of the things that are unveiled to a person that has reached that state.  The 5 cloaks such as time, space, limitations, etc does not limit a person who has transcended to 4th state.  In Daoist terms, I would call such a person as Ruler Immortal.

 

The state described transcends the sleep, but not bypasses it.  One in sleep during turiya does not hear to external sounds through senses.  The sensory mind, out of the 4 I described earlier with sense perceptions and sense organs are off, since they are in sushupti or deep sleep state.  Also, it is possible for a person in Turiya to dream from time to time.  Gautam Buddha had dreams from time to time, this is mentioned by him and well documented in some sutras.  Generally their sleep is devoid of dreams.  I am not sure about the state you describe, but I don't think it is similar to what I described as Turiya.  Perhaps you are describing some semi-awake state where the sense organs still operate and provide input to the mind.

Is anything you are describing from your experience?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dwai said:

You have made that clear, no doubt. However, these  types of reactionary responses are quite revelatory.

It is more about sharing my thoughts on this, not specifically with you. There ARE other participants on this forum and thread. Unless you think that is not welcome on your thread...feel free to ignore my posts. Of course, you (or someone else on the board admin team) can choose to let me know how and why I have violated forum rules. :) 

 

There seems to be a trend of "banning" those who don't agree with a certain group within Daobums. Perhaps it will come to pass that I get banned too. That's okay as well. Personally I don't think I have ever insulted teachers from other systems. I did call a post juvenile --  nothing about any teacher. 

 

As far as the clay-pot vs crack-pot theory title goes -- Alan Watts was famous for using that phrase. I just borrowed it. It wasn't pointed toward any individual or group, rather to highlight how the clay pot example when taken too far can become the "crack pot" theory. 

 

 

 

There are examples of others who disagreed with the topic and did respectfully and it turned out to be a very interesting discussion.  You were the only person to call someone juvenile and imply what is mentioned in this thread as crack-pot theory.  I sent a friendly note objecting to those and requesting you to remove the link.  Which you flatly denied.  When a moderator's request to remove certain content is denied, I could have automatically suspended you for 3 days initially before we discussed the issue.  Neither me nor the rest of the team took any such action.  

 

Just because Alan Wats called something or someone crack-pot in some context, it does not justify to use that as an insult against someone or some idea here when convenient.  Everyone knows of some teacher calling someone jackass in some article in some context.  If I use that article to imply some member here or their theory is jackass, then that is an issue.

 

In my post, I mentioned as long as you follow the terms of the site, you should be fine.  This applies to all including the staff.  Not sure why it would upset someone to go off as you did, talking about some group and the banning of others, which I have no clue about.

 

You may think you are clever and you know how to intelligently insult others and get away with it, use another teacher's quote to call someone or their post as crack-pot.  There is a thing called walking the ropes and getting away with things.  When confronted, to challenge and say show me where I broke the rule, give excuses, "I never mentioned that insult myself, it is not against anyone", "it's the article I called juvenile", etc.  But, it's mostly clear to everyone here that such comments here are not made in good spirit.  Please don't join others into your side.  Everyone else, though they argued vehemently, never once engaged in condescending insults to others like you.

 

You have discounted the teachings of masters like Swami Lakahmanjoo (anyone that does not confirm to your idea of Advaita) of Kashmir Shaivism in multiple posts before.  Calling them amateurish and using your "clever" techniques like using quotes or other intelligent second hand methods to insult.  In communication to me, you have openly insulted others members here as having no clue or expertise like you in topics, claiming you know more than everyone here!

 

Most people try to get along with others.  They agree to disagree on certain topics and be respectful towards each other.  Steve and I agreed to disagree on this topic, which I see as a decent and respectful thing to do.  

 

Let me illustrate your actions in the recent times with an example like a story.  Let's say someone or a set of people believes in God and someone else or another set doesn't and they believe only in nature.  They both participate in same spiritual forum. Those that believe in nature start discussions or posts to share their feelings and thoughts.  They want to discuss the beauty of nature, but they don't believe in a God person.  But, a person that believes in God, comes and argues in their topics stating God is the ultimate truth for everyone, nature is not the final truth, etc.  These people that love nature disagree.  Both parties realize that they have irreconcilable difference of opinions.  They need to agree to disagree on this to co-exist in the same place.  Supposing, the believer of the God, comes to every topic created by the nature lovers about nature, and posts repeatedly, this is all not true, you people don't know the ultimate truth.  I have realized it as God.  These people try to tell him, we respect your beliefs and thoughts, we won't interfere in your practice, but this is what we believe.  But this God believing person cannot give up, he argues nature is also God and wants the other party to accept this.  Doesn't matter who is right, but he has to butt into every discussion or post that is in this topic.  To prove he is right.  The othe side tries to reason, says let's not get into the same arguments we have done 1000 times in every single thread.  But this person cannot help and keep bringing up the same thing in every single discussion and at times becomes condescending and starts to insult others.  If confronted, he says this is a public place, I would like up do whatever I like.

 

Instead of believing in God, substitute it with Advaita.  You are doing exactly what I mentioned above as the person believing in God does.  Every single topic that we create about KS or Abhinavagupta's thoughts, some of us can't have an open discussion without you barging in every single thread to say we are wrong.  Pushing your ideas of Advaita on others claiming it is the only final truth.  Some of us believe in Kashmir Shaivism and other systems that are different from Advaita. There is room for everyone to co-exist and have decent discussion.  If we treat each other with respect and not barging into every discussion or topic that is against our principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites