"Dying the cloth" refers to the integration of
pure transcendental consciousness with the three
ordinary states, but the integrated state is not
turiya, of course. So I'm not sure why you even
mention dying the cloth in this context.
In other words, that one's muscles don't move in
samadhi is a function of having no intention to
move (or any other intention). There's no way to
establish paralysis in turiya because there's no
way to test it.
You're describing something different. Sounds like you're
describing samapatti (mental absorption into mantra).
If what you're saying has any validity, then
obviously we're not describing the same thing,
as I went on to note. I'm trying to get you to
be more precise so we can see what the differences
are.
Here's what I'm describing:
"The fourth state [turiya] is not that which is conscious of the
subjective, nor that which is conscious of the objective, nor that
which is conscious of both, nor that which is simple consciousness,
nor that which is all-sentient mass, nor that which is all darkness.
It is unseen, transcendent, the sole essence of the consciousness of
self, the completion of the world."--Mandakya Upanishad
Experientially the sensation of paralysis is quite clear.
If there is any "sensation" of anything, it's not
turiya, per the Mandakya Upanishad's definition.
You seem to be assuming that people cannot consciously enter
samadhi-- or the particular state where this paralysis occurs.
No, I'm not assuming that. But if you're referring
to entering turiya, then "paralysis," as noted, doesn't
make any sense. In turiya, there is no awareness *of*
anything but awareness itself. Turiya is not object-
oriented consciousness; there are no objects of
perception (subjective, as of paralysis, or objective)
in turiya.
I *think* what you're describing is not turiya but an
integrated state, what TM would call "witnessing," in
meditation. But then your comment above that I wasn't
describing turiya makes no sense.
