The Question at # 340 is, IMO, a landmine!
It sounds quite innocuous but barely conceals the explosive depths of its profundity.
It’s a cleverly worded question on the very origins of you and me, of the world, nay, of the “creation” itself, pregnant with implications on what comes first – the ‘witnessed’ or the ‘witnessor.’
The answer would inevitably be a replay of the classic debate on perception-based-creation (dRshTi-sRshTi-vAda) vs. creation-based-perception (sRshTi-dRshTi-vAda). But Advaita holds, contrary to either view, quite counterintuitively, that nothing has ever originated (ajAti vAda).
Some Pundits interpret sRshTi-dRshTi-vAda and dRshTi-sRshTi-vAda as the steps by which the seeker reaches the final Non-dual position of ajAti vAda, thus sublimating the sting of debate within these various doctrines of creation.
Drawing upon dRshTi-sRshTi-vAda, we have the doctrine of eka jIva vAda, developed by Vimuktatman, considered by many to be a prakriya par excellence in arriving at Pure Knowing of who Really I am. Others think that we have the shades of eka jIva vAda in the Mandukya karika in its 4th Chapter, alAtashanti.
With regard to the Question # 340, Swamini Atmaprakashananda rightly brought back the focus of the ‘spotlight’ onto where it should really belong, vide Peter’s Comment of 9th March 2013 (in the words of Peter): “When you say ‘witness’, know that there is no witness apart from consciousness. The term is used to indicate the knower of the knower. …….. though they are superficially similar, understanding the subtle difference is profound.”
(I would have preferred to capitalize the two words — Consciousness and the first Knower — to indicate that they imply Brahman).
And so, we should take a closer look at the three terms – witness, Witness-Consciousness and Consciousness – the respective Sanskrit equivalents being: sAkshi, sAkshi-chaitanya and Brahman.
sAkshi implicitly means not merely a beholder, an onlooker. (S)he has to satisfy, as in legal requirements, at least two criteria: (i) Uninvolvement in the scene, event, activity being witnessed and (ii) Disinterest in the final outcome of the scene, event, activity.
sAkshi-chaitanya refers to ‘that’ undefinable ability, sensing quality, in a detector probe – something like the ‘ability’ of a TV antenna which can detect a programme, irrespective of the language, content, quality, mood etc. It is totally non-objectifiable.
Brahman is the ineffable Beingness-Knowingness-Happiness.
So if one talks of ‘witnessing’, there has to be something to be witnessed. In the absence of anything to be witnessed, there cannot be a ‘witnessor.’
You cannot brand me a ‘murderer’ when it is clearly known that I am alone and that there is none else around to be murdered.
Obviously then, to talk of a ‘witness’, the world must have pre-existed to be witnessed!
The question then is : Am I born into an already existing world or have I created the world along with myself, my I-consciousness.
That is the reason why I said in the beginning that Q # 340 is a question on “creation” itself.
Vimuktatman in his Istasiddhi says:
brahmaiva avidyayA ekam ced
badhyate mucyate dhiyA
eka muktau jagan mukteh
na mukta anya vyavasthitiH
“Brahman alone gets entangled in one avidya and is liberated through knowledge. When a single person gets liberated, the world itself is liberated. There is no other explanation of liberation and bondage.”
Anand Hudli explains eka jIva vAda very clearly: “Some say that the lone jIva is HiraNyagarbha, some say it is the inquirer who is this jIva. For example, if I am the inquirer, I am this jIva. If you are the inquirer, you indeed are this jIva. What this amounts to is that for me, you are not an independent jIva but part of my dream, where I have created this universe, and Ishvara Himself. (Note that in this eka-jIva vAda, it is the jIva that creates the world and Ishvara as part of his dream.) And you can say the same about me. But then the question arises: who is correct? This is an irrelevant question because the ekajIvavAda holds for the person who is the inquirer and does not admit more than one inquirer. I can hold that you are part of my dream and you can hold that I am only a part of your dream. For me, even when you say to me, “You are part of my dream, not a real jIva.”, I can dismiss it as being part of *my* dream. It so happens that a so-called jIva who is no different from a dream object is making a statement in my dream that I belong to his dream! And it does not matter even if the rest of 7 billion people in the world tell me that I am part of each person’s dream. I can dismiss all these statements as coming from people in *my* own dream. They are not different from any other dream object. All this seems to border on absurdity, but as the siddhAnta-lesha saMgraha says about the eka-jIva vAda:
“atra ca sambhAvitasakalashaMkApaMka prakShAlanaM svapnadR^iShTAntasaliladhArayaiva kartavyamiti “.
Any doubts that arise (in the ekajIvavAda) should be washed away with the water of the dream analogy!
He adds in a later post: “I must also add that the dRshTi-sRshTi-vAda is as logically unassailable as it is absurd. The sRshTi-dRshTi view is, in this respect, less absurd, and fits well with commonsense notions of God, jIvas, and the world.”
(To continue … Part II)
The Mandukya kArikA theory is ekAtma vAda – one Atman, not one jIva. Since our experience is that there is a world of separate objects out there but our belief or knowledge is that everything is Brahman, why artificially introduce a third element?
Pot space is not the same as jar space or house space from an emipircal point of view, even though total space remains unaffected by any of these ‘upAdhis’.
I suppose you can get around the argument that, when someone gains enlightenment, the rest of humanity does not by saying that the one who gains it is a figment of my imagination. But it doesn’t convince me.
See http://www.srisharada.com/Vidyaranyar/ChapterIII.htm for an interesting discussion touching on eka jIva vAda.
Thanks Dennis for the Comments.
To my mind ekAtma vAda is just a restatement of ‘ekameva advitIyam,’ the quintessence of Advaita Vedanta and is common to all Advaita texts.
Mandukya kArikA, perhaps, distinguishes itself from others in its clear exposition of ajAti vAda (and asparsa yoga).
In order to help investigate whether the world is prior to or coeval with the witnessor, I have made a reference to the creation theories: sRshTi-dRshTi-vAda, dRshTi-sRshTi-vAda and ajAti vAda.
Why to introduce a third element, eka jIva vAda?
It is my feeling, I could be very well wrong and sincerely hope so, that right from the ancient days the followers of Sankara entangled and mixed up the’ Process Models’ of theory with ‘Practice Methods’ for Self-realization [Ah, a good title for another article !!]
EkajIva vAda is a good ‘practice method’ to help the seeker from being a witness to that of a Witness-Consciousness to Pure Consciousness.
I hope to cover this in the continuing part of the article.
regards,
RV: Advaita holds, contrary to either view, quite counterintuitively, that nothing has ever originated (ajAti vAda).
Śuka – advaita also talks of satkārya vāda with reference to jagat – I wonder how does ajātivāda fits into this schema?
RV: So if one talks of ‘witnessing’, there has to be something to be witnessed. In the absence of anything to be witnessed, there cannot be a ‘witnessor.’
Śuka – in order for Brahman to “become” Witness, it needs something else – what is this? māya? avidyā?
RV: Obviously then, to talk of a ‘witness’, the world must have pre-existed to be witnessed!
Śuka – this need not always be true – The witness can witness the world as and when it comes into being. I can see the pot coming into being, or the film coming to life on the empty screen.
RV: Any doubts that arise (in the ekajIvavAda) should be washed away with the water of the dream analogy!
Śuka – this means every experience can only be prātibhāsika – there can be no 3 orders or reality – vyāvahārika cannot be explained, which I think is a major gap – also, there can be no difference between bhramā and mithyā.
RV: He adds in a later post: “I must also add that the dRshTi-sRshTi-vAda is as logically unassailable as it is absurd.
Śuka – I also don’t find it logically unassailable since the entire science of epistemology falls flat when everything is consider as dream. It cannot account for the 6 means of knowledge including śruti pramāṇa – since everything is prātibhāsika. How is mukti possible then? Upadeśā is done by guru in dream? śravaṇa manana nidhidhyāsana also done in dream? What is it that kicks him out of his dream? Also, how is jīvanmukti explained by this school? I find eka jīva vāda to be an extreme proposition which leaves too many questions unanswered.
Thank you Suka for the interesting Questions.
Please do keep raising more because such questions help a writer to make the write ups more general instead of being addressed to only a limited audience. I shall briefly respond here to each of your questions and hope at least something, if left out, will get covered more in the subsequent Posts of mine.
regards,
*****
1. Śuka – advaita also talks of satkārya vāda with reference to jagat – I wonder how does ajātivāda fits into this schema?
Answer: satkArya vAda, as you may be aware, is essentially a school of thought of samkhya philosophy. It is based on cause – effect relationships (time dependent functions) and proposes that the effect pre-exists in the cause leading to the transformation of the cause.
ajAtivAda denies spacetime causation phenomena and Advaita declines “transformation.” Obviously then, anything that believes in a contrary thought will not fit in here.
Even those Advaitins who do talk of satkArya vAda, only accept a part of it and not hog it fully as sankhyans do.
But the basic question is, when there are different doctrines, why should one doctrine “fit into” another? If such a fit in is possible, wouldn’t all of them belong to the same family? Why do you suppose that one has to fit into the other? Each doctrine must be able to explain all observed facts to stand as a distinct theory.
2. Śuka – in order for Brahman to “become” Witness, it needs something else – what is this? māya? avidyā?
Answer: Brahman, by definition, DOESN’T “become” anything!
The rest is all mere ‘explanations’ or surmises.
3. Śuka – this need not always be true – The witness can witness the world as and when it comes into being. I can see the pot coming into being, or the film coming to life on the empty screen.
Answer: The particular “I” which begins ‘cognition’ is chidAbhAsa.
In the example you have given, the True “I” is the SREEN, empty or with form. Advaita points to the fact that the True “I” is that everlasting screen irrespective of the projection.
4. Śuka – this means every experience can only be prātibhāsika – there can be no 3 orders or reality – vyāvahārika cannot be explained, which I think is a major gap – also, there can be no difference between bhramā and mithyā.
Answer: Yes, as you examine deeply, the awake state is just a continuation of the dream state with slightly modified space-time dimensions. Advaitic texts like Yogavaasishta, in fact, do teach that there are only two states: the awake-dream state and deep sleep.
5. Śuka – I also don’t find it logically unassailable since the entire science of epistemology falls flat when everything is consider as dream. It cannot account for the 6 means of knowledge including śruti pramāṇa – since everything is prātibhāsika. How is mukti possible then? Upadeśā is done by guru in dream? śravaṇa manana nidhidhyāsana also done in dream? What is it that kicks him out of his dream? Also, how is jīvanmukti explained by this school? I find eka jīva vāda to be an extreme proposition which leaves too many questions unanswered.
Answer: I am baffled by your logic. In order to just uphold some body’s brainchild (a theory , for example, as you cite, epistemology), why should we reject another theory? The immense wealth, knowledge, name and fame one acquires collapse as a pack of cards in front of Advaita. Just to save his ‘hoarding’ should one reject Advaita?