Anger can be a Gift

[running]

Unseeking Seeker

when i was a kid i remember a philosophy that ran in my head that was very similar to a discontentment to cyclic joy and sorrow. it felt as if ups and downs were being measured where one would equal the other. feeling like im not here but witnessing everything. it took a lot of effort to keep my frame of mind the way others were. it was sorta a battle but nothing anyone would notice except myself. my mind was always in philosophy and contemplating. these things that were such a pain to me to get away from became blessings when i began my spiritual journey. the things i fought against became the things that opened doors to bliss and silence. its all strange looking back. lol

Originally Posted by running

Greenslade
responding to your last post.
agree with you on many levels. if we a conversation in real life i actually think there would be no disagreement. its kinda hard to nail it down what seems like difference of opinions.

If we can't become conscious of what another is conscious of?

It's a difference of Life experience, so while your Spirituality is about Spirituality my Spirituality is also about the 'background' to that Spirituality. I read an article that said that while Descartes - who came out with "I think therefore I am" - was one of the great minds of his time, he stopped there and rested on his laurels. Buddha didn't stop, he just kept right on going. While Western Spirituality is about consciousness Eastern Spirituality is also about the 'background' to consciousness.

I've asked a few questions on this forum that have yet to be answered, one of them is where does your Spirituality come from?

For me anger has been a gift in many ways and the childhood anger - or rather what the anger was about - has been a massive catalyst for change. Now I don't feel it the way I used to but I still feel something for the things that would have made me very angry once upon a time. I just want the 'real deal'.

"The mind ismaya (illusion). Reality lies beyond the mind. So long as the mind functions there is duality, maya and so on. Once it is transcended the Reality shines forth. Although it is said to shine forth, Self-Effulgence is the Self."
"Sat-chit-ananda is said to indicate that the Supreme is notasat (unreal), not achit (insentient) and not anananda (unhappiness). Because we are in the phenomenal world, we speak of the Self as Sacchidananda.
Sat denotes being beyond Sat and Asat. That is, Reality denotes being beyond Reality and Unreality.
Chit denotes being beyond Chit and Achit. That is, Consciousness denotes beyond Consciousness and Insentience.
Ananda denotes being beyond Ananda and Ananandha. That is, Bliss denotes beyond Bliss and Unhappiness."
https://sriramanamaharishi.com/faith...t-chit-ananda/

Originally Posted by Greenslade

While Western Spirituality is about consciousness Eastern Spirituality is also about the 'background' to consciousness.

The Western concept of consciousness is actually pointing to states of mind. The Eastern concept points to the Fourth (Turiya).

http://www.sankaracharya.org/library/mandukya.pdf

The first three (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) are a "reflection" of Turiya according to state of mind or Turiya illumining a specific state of mind and we erroneously label them states of consciousness. It's like calling the reflection of the face in the mirror the actual face.

[running]

.nvm

need coffee

Originally Posted by running

.nvm

need coffee

Let's have a real conversation, like whether American or Scottish beer is better.

[running]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Let's have a real conversation, like whether American or Scottish beer is better.

neither. Ireland. lol.

https://www.google.com/search?q=geni...NU6u4utOe34KnM



.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The Western concept of consciousness is actually pointing to states of mind. The Eastern concept points to the Fourth (Turiya).

From what I've picked up from much of the material it's either being conscious that we are conscious, or an awareness that we are conscious. It seems to vary according to whose material I'm reading/watching. What doesn't help is when you put Jung into the mix, and according to him ego is the centre of the field of consciousness. From my own.... experiences consciousness seems to sit atop it all, and it comes in 'layers'. Certainly most of the discussion in these forums don't seem to delve any deeper than consciousness.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The first three (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) are a "reflection" of Turiya according to state of mind or Turiya illumining a specific state of mind and we erroneously label them states of consciousness. It's like calling the reflection of the face in the mirror the actual face.

Ideologies and theologies as Spirituality aren't much good to me, having knowledge doesn't make me Spiritual. The interesting part is the exploration or embodiment of these things, and understanding them in the context of a more pragmatic Spirituality. It's also a pain trying to encompass another dictionary sometimes, because interpreting meanings aren't always so straightforward. The other pain is that there are as many definitions and descriptions as there are gurus.

https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/turiya/
"Turiya refers to both Atman, the individual self, and Brahman, the infinite self, representing their spiritual union."
"Turiya is not a state apart from the grosser states but pervades all levels of reality as superconsciousness. Ramana Maharshi interprets turiya as the natural state that permeates the other states, the only whole reality. The Mandukya Upanishad discusses turiya as pure consciousness, which is indescribable, incomprehensible, and unthinkable by the mind, but ultimately realized as the one true self."

Still a work in progress.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

From what I've picked up from much of the material it's either being conscious that we are conscious, or an awareness that we are conscious.

From my own.... experiences consciousness seems to sit atop it all, and it comes in 'layers'. Certainly most of the discussion in these forums don't seem to delve any deeper than consciousness.

All of that is mind and isn't It. It's a product of Ahamkara's attempt to appropriate the non-local by localizing It.

That bit from Yogapedia...

It mentions the Mandukya Upanishad and that's what I linked in my post. One way I would explain it is using the lucid dream analogy. While a dream is still mundane there's separation. There's a dream plot, dream body, dream scenery and other dream characters. An entire apparent reality of the dream. Upon attaining lucidity one realizes there's only the Dreamer and by virtue of that realization the Dreamer, dream plot, dream body, dream scenery and dream characters are all one and the same. That's the Absolute reality. In essence that's what Ramana Maharshi is stating about all realities (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) and Turiya.

Attainment of lucidity within a dream isn't a product of a dream mind and dream thoughts. It's beyond that. A Gnosis or Realization. It's a "Knowing" beyond knowing.

This is probably why all these discussions go sideways. It's a feature of trying to reason it out within duality. It can't be reasoned out to any degree of accuracy and we each attempt to convey it within our own constrained condition using the limited tools available. LOL!

The lucid dream analogy resonates for me because I experienced the waking equivalent. Sure I had been almost obsessed with consciousness studies and meditating for a good decade with a smattering of lucid dream work and had just begun exploring Advaita but when it happened it wasn't a product of intellect. It just happened like being struck by lightning. Like becoming lucid in a dream. Beyond that I can't even begin to explain it.

[Gem]

There is just this, but everyone wants it to be some other way, which by definition, it isn't

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Gem

There is just this, but everyone wants it to be some other way, which by definition, it isn't

Yeah, everything is changing and becoming another way, and we can't change that. But we can allow the ever change to change into the unchanging.
We cannot experience the unchanging, but the unchanging does allow the experience of change.