Introduction
Verse 3.42 of the Bhagavad Gita says that the sense organs are superior to the gross body, the mind is superior to the sense organs, the intellect is superior to the mind and the Atma is superior to the intellect. Superiority also refers to subtlety. Our interest is in the mind, the intellect and finally in the Atma. There are five fundamental elements called panchabhutas. They are space, air, earth, water and fire. The subtle body is made of panchbhutas in their primary or nascent forms. When the panchabhutas undergo a process of compounding among themselves, the gross or physical body emerges. The mind and the intellect belong to the category of subtle body, i.e., made of the five elements in primary form. The Atma is beyond the panchabhutas because It is not a thing or physical entity.
Consciousness
We all know that we are a conscious entity. We also feel so. We are also certain that consciousness is different from the gross body. However we are not so sure whether the consciousness is different from the mind because consciousness ordinarily gets mixed up with the mind. Vedanta says that the consciousness is different from the mind. It is based on the axiom that the subject (observer) is different from the object (observed). This is Seer-Seen discrimination (Drg Drisya Viveka).
If we intently watch the mind then it is revealed that there is ‘something’ which observes the mind. The ‘something’ is the observer or witness and the mind is the observed or the witnessed. Therefore, the ‘something’ is different from the mind. Further probing reveals that that this ‘something’ is none other than consciousness. (I have put ‘something’ within inverted comma because consciousness is a not a thing.)
As the observer or witness is attribute-free, it follows that there is one consciousness in the sense that the consciousness of a person X is not different from the consciousness of person Y. Many will doubt this because as a conscious entity, X is different from the conscious entity Y. The doubt is unfounded if it is appreciated that consciousness is different from the manifested consciousness. A conscious entity X is consciousness manifested in mind body X. Manifested consciousness (es) will be different. But the consciousness, the observer, is the same for every conscious entity.
It is like electricity which is same for every gadget but manifested differently. It is better to call it Pure Consciousness. During meditation, when the mind shifts its focus from itself towards Witness, there is an intuition of pure I or I-ness in the background Witness. This intuition comes by sustained meditative practice. The Witness is called Self (to distinguish from self) because the Witness is the original ‘I’ (capital I to distinguish from small i). Whereas mind and body undergo change,the ‘I’-sense is changeless from birth to death. Vedanta claims that the I-sense is unique and is the common factor among all of us. There may be many persons in a room but there is only one Self. The Self is also called Atma. The Pure Consciousness, the Witness, the Self and the Atma are interchangeable in the present context. As there is only one Pure Consciousness, It is unlimited and infinite. The mind-body duo is subject to change but Pure Consciousness remains unchanged. In this sense, our true and intrinsic nature, the ‘constant companion’, is Pure Consciousness.
Ego
There is a relationship between the consciousness and the mind. For the sake of simplicity, the mind will be taken to include the intellect as they are made of the same stuff though their functions are different. The Pure Consciousness and the mind are different but are mixed up in day to day living because of their apparent closeness. Closeness arises because the mind is subtle. The closeness leads to mutual super-imposition much like a hot iron rod in which there is super-imposition of heat and iron rod ;consequently, the hot iron rod is perceived as one entity.
Due to superimposition, the mind appropriates the ‘l’ of the Pure Consciousness, the Witness. Alongside, Pure Consciousness is identified with the mind and the finiteness of the mind is transferred to the Pure Consciousness, which causes loss of Its infiniteness.
The mind with the borrowed ‘I’ is ‘i’, ego or self. It is to be noted that the ego or self or ‘i’ is not infinite whereas original ‘I’ is unlimited. Action is done by the mind-body and not by ‘I’ which is the Witness of action. However, due to superimposition, action is attributed to the Pure Consciousness, the Witness whereby the notion that ‘I (its locus is the Witness) do the action’ arises. In this state, ego is in full play. It can be seen that ego is a function of mind and has no existence of its own. Its i-sense is borrowed from the Witness – the locus of the original infinite ‘I’. The ego is an illusion but because of ignorance we are deluded.
Self- knowledge
We perceive ourselves as one conscious entity on account of superimposition between the Pure Consciousness and the mind. The Pure Consciousness, which we really are, is pushed to the periphery and It loses the pre-eminent position. The superimposition is not removed physically. It is obvious that the superimposition is due to ignorance. An ignorant person erroneously thinks that a hot iron rod is one entity. A person who has the knowledge that the iron rod and heat are different is not prone to the error. Similarly the knowledge to remove superimposition is that our true nature is Pure Consciousness though due to superimposition, It is identified with the mind.
When superimposition is removed and identification of Pure Consciousness with the mind disappears, then ‘I’ is restored back from the mind to its original location, i.e. the Witness, the Self. As the mind becomes devoid of ‘I’, ‘i’ also disappears meaning thereby that there is no ego, there is no self. The Self rests as It is – pristine.
There dawns realization that our true nature is Pure Consciousness. This is Self-knowledge, the goal of spirituality. In simple terms, spirituality is the journey from small ‘i’ to capital ‘I’. The journey is not in space, it is right here within each of us. The summit is Enlightenment. Vedanta prescribes the road map for the spiritual journey. It is shravana, manana and nididhyasana. Shravana means listening to scriptures from the teacher, manana means contemplation on what has been listened to and nidhidhyasana is meditation on vedantic proclamations. The journey may be long, yet we ought to embark on it. It is full of curiosity and enjoyable.
Hi Bimal,
Great post, thank you! I would like to make a couple of (provocative; devil’s advocate) points if I may, the aim being to promote discussion and clarify any issues.
You say: “The ‘something’ is the observer or witness and the mind is the observed or the witnessed. Therefore, the ‘something’ is different from the mind”.
The mind is conceived in Advaita as having several different functions. Thus, manas might retrieve data from chitta in order to mentally ‘debate’ a question; buddhi would consider points from manas in order to reach a decision. In each case, one function is effectively the ‘subject’ and another function the ‘object’, yet all are still in the mind. So why does the ‘witness’ have to be different?
You say that: “As the observer or witness is attribute-free, it follows that there is one consciousness in the sense that the consciousness of a person X is not different from the consciousness of person Y.” And you go on to say: “Manifested consciousness (es) will be different. But the consciousness, the observer, is the same for every conscious entity.”
Where is your evidence that the ‘witness is attribute-free’? And why does ‘it follow that there is one consciousness’? You are now equating the one Consciousness with the observer but should you not rather equate the manifest consciousness with the observer? If it were the former and not the latter, how do you explain that X is not aware of Y’s thoughts and actions?
The pratibimba theory tells us that the conscious aspect of mind – chidAbhAsa – is effectively a ‘reflection’ of the ‘real’ (bimba) Consciousness. Consciousness itself does not ‘do’ anything. This would have to include perceiving, thinking, deciding… and witnessing. So isn’t the ‘witness consciousness’ effectively a part of mind? This is still seer-seen discrimination but the ‘witness’ is the last step we can make – there is no seer of the witness.
It then follows that this ‘witness’ is different for each jIva. There are many minds and therefore many ‘reflections’ of Consciousness. The consciousness, the observer, is NOT the same for every conscious entity.
You conclude that: “The Pure Consciousness, the Witness, the Self and the Atma are interchangeable in the present context.”
I suggest that it is the Pure Consciousness, the Self and the Atma which are interchangeable, while the witness is an individual aspect that, whilst it is the ‘animating’ principle as far as the jIva is concerned, is necessarily different for each jIva.
The witness is a ‘mixture’ if you like of pure Consciousness and inert mind. In order to realize the truth, it is not that I have to simply appreciate the existence of the witness. Yes, I do have to do that, but then I have to mentally negate the inert ‘mind’ part of the witness and realize that I am the pure Consciousness, Brahman.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
Provocations are welcome. I have made four parts and answer them serially.
Part 1
You say: “The ‘something’ is the observer or witness and the mind is the observed or the witnessed. Therefore, the ‘something’ is different from the mind”.
The mind is conceived in Advaita as having several different functions. Thus, manas might retrieve data from chitta in order to mentally ‘debate’ a question; buddhi would consider points from manas in order to reach a decision. In each case, one function is effectively the ‘subject’ and another function the ‘object’, yet all are still in the mind. So why does the ‘witness’ have to be different?
Ans: When it is said that ‘something’ is the witness and mind is the witnessed, it also means that witness and witnessed are simultaneous, i.e., at the same time. The condition of simultaneity is not fulfilled when it is said that one function of the mind is witness (subject) and other function is witnessed (object).
Part 2
You say that: “As the observer or witness is attribute-free, it follows that there is one consciousness in the sense that the consciousness of a person X is not different from the consciousness of person Y.” And you go on to say: “Manifested consciousness (es) will be different. But the consciousness, the observer, is the same for every conscious entity.”
Where is your evidence that the ‘witness is attribute-free’? And why does ‘it follow that there is one consciousness’? You are now equating the one Consciousness with the observer but should you not rather equate the manifest consciousness with the observer? If it were the former and not the latter, how do you explain that X is not aware of Y’s thoughts and actions?
Ans: When it is said that witness of mind is attribute-free, witness referred to is the ultimate witness (Witness) because there is no witness of Witness. This Witness is the Pure Consciousness which is different from manifested consciousness X or manifested consciousness Y. X is different from Y. One manifested consciousness need not be aware of another manifested consciousness.
Part 3
The pratibimba theory tells us that the conscious aspect of mind – chidAbhAsa – is effectively a ‘reflection’ of the ‘real’ (bimba) Consciousness. Consciousness itself does not ‘do’ anything. This would have to include perceiving, thinking, deciding… and witnessing. So isn’t the ‘witness consciousness’ effectively a part of mind? This is still seer-seen discrimination but the ‘witness’ is the last step we can make – there is no seer of the witness.
It then follows that this ‘witness’ is different for each jIva. There are many minds and therefore many ‘reflections’ of Consciousness. The consciousness, the observer, is NOT the same for every conscious entity.
Ans: Reflected consciousness is Pure Consciousness reflected in the mind like the sun reflected in water. The reflected consciousness enables the mind to function. The function would include witnessing the sense organs, the body and the objective world. The relationship between the reflected consciousness and the mind is natural in the sense reflected consciousness is co-terminus with the mind. One cannot and need not try to remove the relationship. Yes, witness is different for each jIva. But this witness is the mind supported by the reflected consciousness. The ultimate witness (Witness) is beyond it.
Part 4
You conclude that: “The Pure Consciousness, the Witness, the Self and the Atma are interchangeable in the present context.”
I suggest that it is the Pure Consciousness, the Self and the Atma which are interchangeable, while the witness is an individual aspect that, whilst it is the ‘animating’ principle as far as the jIva is concerned, is necessarily different for each jIva.
The witness is a ‘mixture’ if you like of pure Consciousness and inert mind. In order to realize the truth, it is not that I have to simply appreciate the existence of the witness. Yes, I do have to do that, but then I have to mentally negate the inert ‘mind’ part of the witness and realize that I am the pure Consciousness, Brahman.
Ans: I have suggested Witness (capital W) in the context of interchangeability and not witness which is at the level of mind supported by reflected consciousness. Scriptures do use the word sAkshi to refer to Pure Consciousness.
Best wishes,
Bimal
Hi Bimal,
I am still thinking about this but just so as not to keep you waiting too long, here are my thoughts at the moment:
Part 1:
Sorry, I don’t follow this. What has simultaneity to do with anything? If I drop my cake, it contacts the ground. The ground is struck by the cake. Do not these events occur simultaneously? Yet are not the two separate? (We could regard the cake as subject and the ground as object.) The question of whether seer and seen are simultaneous also depends upon your schema of interpretation, viz. idealism, representationalism or direct realism. (I am presently reading Chittaranjan Naik’s book on this and hence have picked up the jargon! I gather that the latter schema is the one that would be used by Advaita and I think this would say that the ‘witness’ functioning of the mind and witnessed aspect of the object ARE simultaneous, even if the object happens to be a star supposedly light-years away.) So my question still stands.
Part 2:
I agree. But you haven’t answered the question: If the Observer is the Pure Consciousness, and NOT the manifest consciousness, how do you explain that X is not aware of Y’s thoughts and actions?
Parts 3 and 4:
I had not appreciated that you were differentiating a ‘witness’ from a ‘Witness’ – sorry! I have not encountered this before. What is the Sanskrit term for the ‘witness’ function of mind? Can you provide any scriptural reference where this is explained? Is it not the case that what you are calling ‘witness’, with a small ‘w’, is actually ahaMkAra? Or ‘reflected Consciousness’, which amounts to the same thing? Is it not a contradiction in terms to talk about a non-dual Consciousness being a ‘witness’, which is dualistic by definition?
Coincidentally, I am in the process of writing about this issue for my next book. The real Self, Consciousness if you like, does nothing; has no attributes etc. It can only ‘act’ if there is a mind through which the action can take place.
In deep sleep, the mind is resolved so ‘I’ do not know anything. But, on awakening, ‘I’ know that I did not know anything whilst in deep sleep. That deep-sleep knowing must have been the witness, lacking a mind through which it might have known something. It is like the sun shining in deep space – there is nothing to reflect the light so it seems to be dark even though the light is there.
Here is how I have concluded the section so far. (I could still add more depending on how this exchange proceeds!):
“In normal, empirical life (vyavahAra), when I use the word ‘I’, I am referring to the ego, ahaMkAra, which is Consciousness identified with the functions of this particular mind. This is effectively the avachCheda vAda of the bhAmatI mentioned earlier. The (particular) mind acts as a limitation (upAdhi) on the pure Consciousness. We cannot exactly ‘drop’ this limitation (without dying) but the process can be appreciated and the reality of our true nature recognized. We say ‘neti, neti’ not just to all of the presumed objects in the world, and to our body and mind, but also to the ahaMkara ‘I’ that relates to this body-mind. The ‘I’ that is able to do this is the ‘witness’. But it must still be a function of the mind…”
So I suppose my killer question is this: Since Consciousness does nothing, how can it be a Witness without the mind?
Best wishes,
Dennis
I find this discussion, so far, rather confusing mostly due to the espousal by both Dennis and bimal of the pratibimba vada theory introduced by the Vivarana school. This leads to a possible confusion between Consciousness and Observer, on the one hand, and Witness and witness (bimal) on the other; also to the idea that ‘the witness is a “mixture” of pure Consciousness and inert mind’ (Dennis). —
That there is a different witness for each jiva is accepted by both (?).
I find it much easier to consider the Self or Atman as the one reality behind the knower, enjoyer, etc., and also as pervading every sense organ and, indeed, the universe itself: ‘It is the eye of the eye, mind of the mind, ear of the ear….’ (Ke1.2). Can this not be grasped intuitively?
‘I am the Witness Self; I am the basis of all experience; I am the light that makes experiences possible’. (Yoga Vasishta, 16th Discourse).
Hi Martin, Welcome to the fray!
I agree with your last 3 paras but have some problems with your first.
I did mention avachCheda vAda in my last comment – I don’t think this helps. You are now using the term ‘Observer’ instead of Bimal’s ‘witness’ but what is this ‘Observer’? What is the Sanskrit term for this?
My question was really referring to the notion that there is something that is still aware whilst we are in deep sleep. Obviously the Atman is still present and unaffected by the sleep of the jIva. But how can we ‘know’ that nothing was experienced in deep sleep when the mind that is the mechanism for knowing is resolved and Atman ‘on its own’ is akartA, abhoktA and therefore can ‘know’ nothing? It is only through the reflection in mind, or limitation of the mind, that we ‘know’ anything.
Your Yoga Vasishta quote refers to ‘I’ as Atman, not ‘I’ as knower; pAramArthika I, not vyAvahArika I.
In the original post and the comments on them, I see some points on the notion of Witness in advaita vedAnta that deviate from my understanding of the scriptures. Certain questions raised remain open. Here I am not replying to anyone specifically. Further discussions are welcome.
In advaita vedAnta, the words Brahman, Self, Atman, Paramatman, Ishwara, ParamEshwara, Consciousness, Seer, Witness, etc. are used to indicate the one truth without a second. The contexts in which a particular word is used may be different. The words self (s in lower case), jIva etc. indicate the individual self, which status (jIvatva) is the result of its ignorance of its true nature. This ignorance is the reason for the fundamental mutual superimposition (adhyAsa) between the Self on the one hand, and the internal organ possessed of the concept of ego, on the other. The internal organ functions as manas (mind), buddhi (intellect), citta (memory) and ahamkAra (ego). The internal organ is acEtana (inert). To be more precise, the status of jIvatva or self is the result of mutual superimposition between the Self on the one hand, and ahamkAra with cidAbhAsa (that is, ahamkAra with the reflected consciousness), on the other.
The vedAnta speaks of Brahman as Seer, Witness, in relation to the world.The appearance of the world to the ignorant jivas and witnessing them by the Witness do not bring in any change in It.There is no other witness suggested in the scriptures. Witnessing is not an activity. It does not require the mind or the sense organs to see. The Witness directly sees or witnesses the presence or absence of objects and their activities. It is the nature of the Witness to witness. It is like, when we say the Sun shines, the Sun shines naturally and equally on all objects that are in its presence. This means that, all objects, including the self, and their activities have their basis in and are illumined (animated) by the presence of the Witness. They are superimpositions on the Witness. They do not exist apart from Witness. They function because of Witness.
The little self also is a seer, which sees the objects of the world through the sense organs and is aware of the activities of the mind (thoughts, feelings, etc.).The real Seer cannot be seen by the seer, whereas the Self as Witness, witnesses everything, including the seer and its activities.
The existence of the Witness is revealed only in the Upanishads and is unknown in any other system of thought. The seeker, when his avidyA is removed by the right knowledge, experiences his identity with the Witness.
There are two erroneous concepts in relation to the witness:
1.The jIva or the little self is witness of objects. But in this concept, the witness and the witnessing aspect are in the empirical plane, where there is duality. However, the modification of the internal organ when it functions as witness and the modification when it functions to know the witnessed object cannot happen simultaneously. The internal organ can do one activity at a time.The internal organ ‘sits’ in the witness first (that is, imagines being a witness) and a moment later, ‘sits’ in the witnessed object (passes through a sense organ and covers the object to take its form). Although these two are distinct activities, they happen so fast as to give the illusion to the seer of witnessing the witnessed.
2. The witness is said to be beyond the internal organ, and is called as jIvasAkshi. This jIvasAkshi is said to be different for different bodies. The real Sakshi, the Witness, is different from all the jIvasAkshis. This is not logical. Here, the jIvasAkshi is taken to be the witness of all the objects including the seer. Now, let us say that there is some seer who imagines that there are several jIvasAkshis. Then the sAkshi of this seer is the real Sakshi. All others are merely imagined jIvasAkshis of this
seer! In vedAnta, Sakshi is the ultimate. Also, since the jIvasAkshi must be the self of the individual jIva, the real Witness which is considered to be different from all jIvasAkshis, becomes not-self !
If Brahman is the only Witness, then, why does an individual X is not aware of the thoughts of Y, and vice versa, when both these thoughts are witnessed by the same Witness? This is because the thoughts are in the empirical plane, related to the body and internal organ of individuals. They are, thus, private. The thoughts or any other activity in any one of them do not ‘touch’ the Witness (On a lighter vien: There are no activities in Sakshi. It is not a thought store and forward machine!).
Hi,
Thanks for your input! I deliberately left some questions ‘open’ to invite discussion.
The problem with a topic such as this is that it is, in a way, ‘on the borderline’ between paramArtha and vyavahAra. And (by definition) we cannot talk about paramArtha. Thus, I agree with what you are saying to begin with (although I would put some of the things differently) but we start to diverge when you say: “Witnessing is not an activity. It does not require the mind or the sense organs to see. The Witness directly sees or witnesses the presence or absence of objects and their activities.”
The first two sentences are OK (although the word ‘see’ is not to be taken literally!) The classic example is in deep sleep, where we say that the mind and senses are resolved but the Witness is still there to ‘know’ after awakening that ‘I knew nothing’. But, because the mind and senses were inactive, it did not ‘see the world of objects’ or the ‘thoughts in the mind’. Accordingly, what can you mean by the third sentence? Does a j~nAnI know what was happening whilst he or she was in deep sleep?
Furthermore, you say here that the witness directly sees the presence or absence of objects, which are ‘in the empirical plane’. But then, later, you say that X does not know Y’s thoughts because, although these thoughts are witnessed by the same Witness, the thoughts are ‘in the empirical plane’.
The example of deep-sleep and ‘I did not know anything’ is instructive in another sense. The ‘I did not know anything’ is only realized on awakening. This shows that there is a need for a mind if we are actually to be aware of anything. I.e. we are not aware of not being aware whilst still asleep, in which state the mind is resolved. And this is why I do not know what you are thinking. A mind is needed (for both!) and my mind is different from your mind. As Shankara says (upadesha sAhasrI 6.4): “The Self should ever be apprehended as the bare knower to the exclusion of the knowable.”
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis, I have taken liberty to address you by your first name! I may be addressed by all by my first name Ramanatha.
Here are my responses to your thought provoking questions and observations.
Question/observation: “…. but we start to diverge when you say: “Witnessing is not an activity. It does not require the mind or the sense organs to see. The Witness directly sees or witnesses the presence or absence of objects and their activities.”
The first two sentences are OK (although the word ‘see’ is not to be taken literally!) The classic example is in deep sleep, where we say that the mind and senses are resolved but the Witness is still there to ‘know’ after awakening that ‘I knew nothing’. But, because the mind and senses were inactive, it did not ‘see the world of objects’ or the ‘thoughts in the mind’. Accordingly, what can you mean by the third sentence? Does a j~nAnI know what was happening whilst he or she was in deep sleep?”
Response: Yes, the word ‘see’ is not to be taken literally. That is why I have put it within inverted commas! Further, the word see in this context includes hear, smell etc. also.
In the case of deep sleep, it is not that the mind and the senses are inactive. They do not exist there. Therefore, there is no question of the existence of a self or any kind of experience in deep sleep. In the waking state the little self owns it up as its experience by a thought on the deep sleep thus: “I slept blissfully, I knew nothing”. This simply means that in deep sleep the Self exists without any adjuncts (upAdhis)- no mind, no senses, no world. It is pure Consciousness.
As for the Self being called a Witness in deep sleep, vedAnta makes a deliberate superimposition (adhyAropa) of witness-hood on the Self. In the method of discrimination of the three states, vedAnta instructs the seeker that he is not the little self but the Witness of the entire waking world, and calls it by the name VaishwAnara. Similarly he is Taijasa, the Witness of the dream. Analogously, in deep sleep he is not in ignorance (non-apprehension), seeing nothing, but PrAj~na, the Witness of that state. In each case the Witness is Self only, who is the eternal Seer, devoid of any activity. Later, vedAnta recedes (apavAda) the superimposition to convey that he is the attributeless Brahman.
Question: “Does a j~nAnI know what was happening whilst he or she was in deep sleep?”
Response: Well, in the deep sleep state only Self exists, and nothing happens! Therefore, j~nAni or aj~nAni, they both do not see anything in deep sleep. However, on waking up, the
aj~nAni has identification with his body as before and continues to wonder as to what had happenned to his body and the world during the deep sleep. But the j~nAni, on waking up, has no wonders at all as he is established in Self-knowledge, as he was before he went to deep sleep.
Question/observation: Furthermore, you say here that the witness directly sees the presence or absence of objects, which are ‘in the empirical plane’. But then, later, you say that X does not know Y’s thoughts because, although these thoughts are witnessed by the same Witness, the thoughts are ‘in the empirical plane’.
Response: I have already given the meaning of Witness. There is no activity involved in Witnessing. The illumination or enlightening of the presence or absence of objects and their activities by Its mere presence is conveyed by vedAnta when it says ‘Witness directly sees’.
However, in the empirical plane, the self is aware of the thoughts in the mind that is private for it.
Observation: The example of deep-sleep and ‘I did not know anything’ is instructive in another sense. The ‘I did not know anything’ is only realized on awakening. This shows that there is a need for a mind if we are actually to be aware of anything. I.e. we are not aware of not being aware whilst still asleep, in which state the mind is resolved. And this is why I do not know what you are thinking. A mind is needed (for both!) and my mind is different from your mind. As Shankara says (upadesha sAhasrI 6.4): “The Self should ever be apprehended as the bare knower to the exclusion of the knowable.”
Comments: It is true ‘that there is a need for a mind if we are actually to be aware of anything’, and since our minds are different, we do not know the thoughts in the other’s mind.
However, although the Self is the eternal Seer (Knower), that is, His Seeing (Knowing) never ceases, in deep sleep the reason for not Seeing (Knowing) is that there is no second object beside the Self to see! There are no adjuncts of any kind in deep sleep. And that is the reason Shankara has said in his commentaries that deep sleep is a profound state, it serves as the example of the moksha (liberation). In fact, the quote from Upadesha SAhasri that you have given is conveying exactly this.
Hi Ramanatha,
My apologies for querying your use of the word ‘see’ but in fact there were no quotation marks in the original. It does still seem from what you are saying that you believe that the Witness actually ‘sees’ (rather than ‘illumines’) in the usual sense of the word even in the absence of a mind.
I don’t quite agree with your description of vishva-taijasa-prAj~na. These are the waking-dream-deep-sleep ‘experiences’ but who-we-really-are is turIya that is in and through all three states. Also, the deep-sleep state IS associated with ignorance (only), whereas waking and dream states are each associated with ignorance AND error. turIya of course is associated with neither.
You say, in response to my query about what the j~nAnI knows in deep sleep: “Well, in the deep sleep state only Self exists, and nothing happens!” And you also say: “there is no second object beside the Self to see!” So are you also espousing eka jIva vAda? We have had discussions about this in the past so I do not want to initiate another. (I have argued that Advaita as per Shankara does NOT support this post-Shankara theory.) I would maintain that the world and other jIva-s continues (on the empirical ‘plane’) while the j~nAnI is in deep-sleep; and as a corollary state that the j~nAnI does not witness any of this other activity because his or her mind is resolved. The deep-sleep state is characterized by ignorance even for a j~nAnI!
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
You said:
My apologies for querying your use of the word ‘see’ but in fact there were no quotation marks in the original. It does still seem from what you are saying that you believe that the Witness actually ‘sees’ (rather than ‘illumines’) in the usual sense of the word even in the absence of a mind.
Reply:
It is an error on my part when I said that I put the word in quotation marks, when, in fact, I had missed it out in the original message. But It is really a pity that “I seem to believe that the Witness actually ‘sees’ (rather than ‘illumines’) in the usual sense of the word, even in the absence of the mind”, after all that I wrote with the sole purpose of clarifying the profound revelation of the Witness in the scriptures.
I wrote that the existence of the Witness is revealed only in the Upanishads and is unknown in any other system of thought; Witness is the Seer, Self, Brahman; Witnessing is not an activity; Witnessing does not bring in any changes in It; Witnessing means that, all objects, including the self, and their activities have their basis in and are illumined (animated) by the presence of the Witness.
I suppose seeing in the usual sense requires the internal organ as well as changes in it. Therefore, after telling what the Witness is, when we say Witness directly sees, this seeing is not in the usual sense of the word!
I have clarified the point again in my next message: “I have already given the meaning of Witness. There is no activity involved in Witnessing. The illumination or enlightening of the presence or absence of objects and their activities by Its mere presence is conveyed by vedAnta when it says ‘Witness directly sees’.”
You wrote:
I don’t quite agree with your description of vishva-taijasa-prAj~na. These are the waking-dream-deep-sleep ‘experiences’ but who-we-really-are is turIya that is in and through all three states.
Reply:
Shankara in his commentary on the third verse of MAnDUkya uses the word bahiShpraj~na to refer to the Self in the waking state (which is the first quarter, pAda of the Atman, Self), where Consciousness appears as though related to outer objects owing to ignorance of the little self. The Self of this state is desribed as saptAnga and VaishvAnara. Shankara has elaborated the meaning of these words which, essentially,
tells us that the entire waking world is the adjunct of the Self and He is the bestower of the fruits of actions of the individual jIvas of the waking state (Which means He is Ishwara, SAkshi).
The Self (Atman) without any upAdhis (adjuncts) is called TurIya (the fourth, beyond the three) in this Upanishad. TurIya is beyond space and time and, therefore, is in and through all the three states, as you have said. TurIya in the waking state is called VaishwAnara.
In the GowdapAda KArika (1.1) the words Vishwa, Taijasa and PrAj~na are used. Vishwa is vibhu, all pervading. Shankara is the commentator of both the Upanishad and the KArikas, and therefore, the same idea can be understood for both VaishwAnara and Vishwa, by a proper understanding of the sentences there.
In a similar manner the Sakshitva of Taijasa and PrAj~na can be understood.
You wrote:
Also, the deep-sleep state IS associated with ignorance (only), whereas waking and dream states are each associated with ignorance AND error. turIya of course is associated with neither.
Reply:
Ignorance in deep sleep? To whom is it related to in deep sleep? The waking jIva who says he does not know his own true nature, is nowhere to be found in deep sleep. Surely PrAj~na is not ignorant. Because, the verse 6 of MAnDUkya is telling that He is the Lord of all, He is Omniscient, He is the indweller of all beings, He is the cause of the birth as well as dissolution of all beings. (the meaning of this is He is Ishwara, SAkshi).
Further, ignorance means not knowing, agrahaNa, due to which there is error, anyathAgrahaNa, in the waking and dream states. It is a vritti in the mind of the jIva when he says he does not know his original nature, and erroneously identifies himself with a body and internal organ. Therefore, in deep sleep, where there is no mind, in what sense can we say that “the deep sleep IS associated with ignorance (only)”?
In the Karikas it is said that PrAj~na is bound by non-apprehension, agrahaNa (ignorance). But PrAjna cannot be in ignorance. He is Ishwara. The non-apprehension in deep sleep is from the vyAvahAric viewpoint of the waking state. The ignorant jIva erroneously imagines in the waking that he experiences the three states. It is his non-apprehension of his TurIya natutre that is the reason for PrAj~ntva (TurIya with ‘seed of the world’), and the reason for his waking up from deep sleep!
Therefore, your statement needs elaboration. Or, are you suggesting that ignorance is an ‘objective something’ which is present in the deep sleep state?
You wrote:
You say, in response to my query about what the j~nAnI knows in deep sleep: “Well, in the deep sleep state only Self exists, and nothing happens!” And you also say: “there is no second object beside the Self to see!” So are you also espousing eka jIva vAda? We have had discussions about this in the past so I do not want to initiate another. (I have argued that Advaita as per Shankara does NOT support this post-Shankara theory.) I would maintain that the world and other jIva-s continues (on the empirical ‘plane’) while the j~nAnI is in deep-sleep; and as a corollary state that the j~nAnI does not witness any of this other activity because his or her mind is resolved. The deep-sleep state is characterized by ignorance even for a j~nAnI!
Reply:
I do not know much about Eka jIva vAda, its genesis and later arguments. I have never been troubled by such theories while studying Shankara. However, it is our experience that in the empirical plane (waking) there are multiple jIvas in the world; The deep sleep, dream or liberation of one jIva is seen to not affect the continuation of the other jIvas in the world. This is from a reference point in the waking, and not from a reference point in deep sleep. The deep sleep of one jIva is like liberation of that jIva, albeit temporary, since he entered deep sleep state without shedding his ignorance. If the reference point is in the deep sleep, where is any world or anyone there to talk about. This is the implicit assumption that we see in the scriptures when we study them.
J~nAni or aj~nAni, is one with the Self in deep sleep. The Self (TurIya) does not have a mind and is called Witness of the waking, dream and deep sleep, with different names. The Witness hood of the Self is a deliberate superimposition made by the Vedanta for the purpose of imparting instructions to the seeker.
I am a bit confused about your idea of a j~nAni, because you are saying that a ‘j~nAni does not witness any of this other activity because his or her mind is resolved in the deep sleep’. Does this mean that he is a witness in the waking where he seems to have a body and mind, in the same sense of the Witness of vedAnta?
-Ramanatha Sharma
Hi Ramanatha,
Your reply here is rather long and there is a clear danger that we will have a discussion that no one else reads! Accordingly, I do not intend to answer all your points here. The points you make regarding mANDUkya and kArikA-s in particular are subtle and would really require extended replies and, no doubt, further discussion. I have written all about these aspects in my book ‘A-U-M: Awakening to Reality’, which covers the complete text.
I think it likely that we do actually agree on this topic but it is unfortunate that the language contains inbuilt ambiguities. The word ‘witness’, whether with capital or lower case ‘w’, implies a subject perceiving an object which, being duality, could not apply to the Self. If we use the word ‘illumines’ for what the Self/Brahman ‘does’, then there is much less of a problem. Brahman ‘enables’ everything to take place but ‘does’ nothing.
I appreciate that, when you say “when we say Witness directly sees, this seeing is not in the usual sense of the word”, you agree with what I am saying but any use of the word is in danger of misleading some seekers. Saying that there is ‘no activity involved in witnessing’ is still not enough. Suppose that you close your eyes and I then hold up an object in front of you and ask you to open them. Upon opening them, you are obliged to ‘see’ what I am holding without there being what most people call ‘action’ on your part.
I will just take up one important point from your comments on mANDUkya. Who is it who gains Self-knowledge? I hope you will agree that it is the jIva, and that it is the jIva who has the Self-ignorance that causes us to mistake the Self for the body and mind. Of course, this mistake can only be made in waking and dream states when the mind is active. But it is the ignorance that causes us to make the mistake and this is still present in deep-sleep. (Shankara points out that the locus of the ignorance has to be brahman. Br. Up. Bh. 1.4.10.) Furthermore, if ignorance is not present in deep-sleep, all that we would have to do to gain enlightenment would be to go to bed! (You also note that “he entered deep sleep state without shedding his ignorance”, so it would seem that you are not altogether disagreeing with me.)
In deep sleep, there is awareness of neither subject nor object, ‘just a homogeneous mass of consciousness’ (prAj~naHnaghana eva) as Mand. 5 puts it. The ‘concealing’ (AvaraNa) aspect of ignorance is present in all three states but the ‘projecting’ aspect (vikShepa) only takes place in waking or dream. But the waking and dream ‘worlds’ are still effectively present, just unmanifest.
Mand. 6 is talking about the samaShTi aspect, not the vyaShTi. The jIva is not all-knowing etc. Ishvara, of course, is.
You say that you are confused about my idea of a j~nAnI. A j~nAnI is a jIva who has realized the true nature of the Self and reality; who knows that there is only Brahman and ‘I am That’. This knowledge is in the mind of the j~nAnI, which still exists and continues to function until the body of the j~nAnI drops when prArabdha karma is exhausted, whereupon there is no further rebirth. Consequently, a j~nAnI in deep sleep is non-different from an aj~nAnI in deep sleep because the minds of both are resolved. Does this differ from your view?
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
I too think that the discussion has come to encompass more and more subtler aspects of vedAnta, and I do not intend to make it harder on the readers. In any case there can be private communications if needed. I will make some general conclusions about our discussion here, and I will understand if you choose not respond further.
1. Regarding Witness: I wrote about sAkShi (Witness, Seer, Observer are the more common English language words) of the Upanishads, which is just another name of Self, Atma, Brahman, Pure Cosciousness. SAkshitva (Witness hood) is a deliberate superimposition made in the vedAnta in relation to sAkShya, witnessed, namely the world, which shows up due to the avidyA of jIva. [ShwEtAshvatara Upanishad has a verse: Eko dEvaH, sarvabhUtEShu gUDhaH, sarvavyApI, sarvabhUtAMtarAtmA | karmAdhyakShaH, sarvabhUtAdhivAsaH, SAkShI, cEtA, kEvalaH, nirguNaShca || (One, shining, hidden in the depths of all beings, all-pervading, self of all beings, … , SAkShI, … attributeless.)].
In my opinion, Bimal, in his original post, as well as in the one in reply to yours, came close to state this.
However, it appears to me that you have not recognized this SAkshi of the upanishads. Instead you seem to believe in jIvasAkshi, one for each jIva.
2. Regarding deep sleep: You seem to accept the AvaraNa (shakti?) and vikShEpa (shakti?) aspects of ignorance, instead of agrahaNa (non-apprehension), and anythAgrahaNa (erroneous apprehension) of the Self by the jIva. Of course, you did not comment on my statement that avidyA is a mental modification (which is nothing but adhyAsa, atasmin tadbuddhiH, as in the adhyAsa bhAShya of Shankara), and did not directly respond to my question “are you suggesting that ignorance is an “objective something, which is present in deep sleep”. This latter understanding of ignorance is a theory put forward by post Shankara vedAntins, in the name of Shankara.
3. Your differentiation of vyaShThi and samaShThi in the context of MAnDUkya and the KArikAs is not in line with my understanding, which may be clear in my previous reply. Thus, we seem to have more disagreements on the crucial aspects of vedAnta, unless I have misunderstood what you have written, which I think I have not, but hope that I have!
With best wishes,
Ramanatha Sharma
Hi Ramanatha,
I agree with your synonyms for sAkShI. I was certainly not suggesting that there is a different sAkShI for each jIva. I was saying two significant things:
1) the word ‘witness’ normally entails subject-object duality in the English language, which can obviously mislead seekers.
2) It is only in conjunction with the mind of a jIva that witnessing in this subject-object sense can take place.
Vidyaranya, in his pa~nchadashI, uses the metaphor of a lamp in a theatre. The lamp illuminates the empty stage before the performance begins, the actors and audience throughout the play, and is still illuminating the theatre after everyone has left. It enables all of this to take place yet is totally unaffected by any of it. Similarly, the non-dual Self ‘illuminates’ as it were the ego, mind and body, all of the objects of the world and the actions therein but is totally unaffected. Even when all of these are absent in deep sleep, it is ‘self-illuminating’. It is that which enables the entire ‘performance’ but is unaffected by any of it. It is not a ‘witness’ in the sense of someone who is able to report what happened after an incident.
Because it is necessary for there to be a mind in order for subject-object witnessing to take place, there is ‘effectively’ a jIva sAkShI. Here is what Shankara says on the subject:
“One may grant the possibility of injunctions and prohibitions on the hypothesis of the connection of the one Atman with several bodies. But it may be said that if the jIvAtman is one and all-pervading, the actions done by one man may be the occasion of enjoyment of the fruit thereof by another. But this cannot be because the jIvAtman is not all-pervading. It cannot, in other words, establish its connection with all the bodies at once, because the upAdhi-s on which it is dependent are not themselves all-pervading. So, as there are different actions and different fruits, there are also different doers and enjoyers.” (Brahmasutra bhAShya 2.3.49)
Advaita often uses several different metaphors in order to convey a particular aspect of the teaching. I frequently use adhyAsa and avidyA (more frequently than AvaraNa-vikShepa) and rarely use anyathA grahaNa when talking about ignorance. All have their place. I do not want to discuss ignorance at present. It is one of the main topics of ‘confusion for seekers’ in my new book but I have yet to conduct the in-depth research on it. Please raise again in a few months’ time if it does not occur naturally in another post.
Regarding Mandukya, Mantra 5 talks about prAj~na – This is the deep-sleep state in which one neither desires anything nor sees any dream. Mantra 6, on the other hand, speaks of antaryAmin – the Lord of everything (sarva Ishvara); the source of everything (yoniH sarvasya); the source and final resting place of all beings (prabhava apayayau bhUtAnAm).
In describing the gross and subtle states – waking and dream – the Upanishad does not clearly differentiate the micro and macrocosmic forms. The difference between me, the knower (waker or dreamer), and the objective universe (gross or subtle) are clear. In deep sleep, there is no knower-known differentiation, since all is in unmanifest form. Accordingly, a little more explanation is needed! Hence the differentiation between vyaShTi and samaShTi.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
You say “I agree with your synonyms for sAkShI. I was certainly not suggesting that there is a different sAkShI for each jIva.”
Confusion arose about how you really understand sAkShi because of your statement in reply to Bimal: “You conclude that: “The Pure Consciousness, the Witness, the Self and the Atma are interchangeable in the present context.” I suggest that it is the Pure Consciousness, the Self and the Atma which are interchangeable, while the witness is an individual aspect that, whilst it is the ‘animating’ principle as far as the jIva is concerned, is necessarily different for each jIva.”
The essence of what is contained in the metaphor in Pa~ncadashi that you have written about, is available in my replies.
Regarding Brahmasutra BhAshya in 2.3.49 : The opponent view (pUrvapakSha) was that association with the fruits of actions of individual souls would be mixed up with the assumption of a single Self associated with different bodies. Shankara says no, because the soul that is the agent of action and experiencer does not have a universal connection (with all other bodies). I am afraid there is no scope for a jIvasAkshi here. (The idea in this sutra is what is meant when I wrote that the minds of individual jIvas are private).
The words adhyAsa and anyathAgrahaNa mean one and the same, taking one thing for another (atasmin tadbuddhiH). But AvaraNa and vikSkEpa are normally associated with the root ignorance (avidyAshakti) of the post shankara vedAntins. That is why I had questioned whether you beleived that ignorance is a ‘thing’ (bhAvarUpa) (in which case, it will be said to be present in the deep sleep in some form, and due to which the waking self remembers the absence of the mind and other objects), rather than a vritti of the mind.
In MANDUkya the third pAda of the Self, PrAj~na, is described in Mantras 5 and 6. The Self in which there is no second thing, but which has the imagined seed (not real seed) of the world, is PrAj~na. It is from Him alone that the world is imagined to be ‘born’ (waking). PrAj~na and TurIya are ‘different’ only because of the imagined seed.
With best wishes,
Ramanatha Sharma
Hi Ramanatha,
It seems there is a danger here of descending into jalpa rather than aiming to reach a common understanding and helping readers to understand Advaita.
As I explained, I challenged the use of the word ‘witness’ for two reasons: 1) because of its universally accepted subject-object connotation and 2) because I was currently writing about it in the context of ‘confusions encountered by seekers’. And I left the topic open to invite discussion – so thank you for responding!
I’m not clear why, when you agree that jIva A cannot know the thoughts of jIva B, this does not effectively amount to a jIva sAkShI. Obviously it is the same Consciousness-Brahman that enables both jIva-s to think at all but, by virtue of that Consciousness ‘reflecting’ in the mind (chidAbhAsa if we take the vivaraNa approach), each jIva has its own subject-object relationship with the world. Shankara’s words appear to support this to my mind. Of course he does not use this term but that is what it amounts to.
As I said in my last post, I do not want to discuss the very large topic of ignorance here. I want to revisit a number of sources to gather material for covering this in the book. We can revisit next year some time if you like. I presume incidentally that you agree with me that Shankara did not write vivekachUDAmaNi, since the topic of AvaraNa – vikShepa is covered at length therein and also in dRRigdRRishya viveka!
I am happy with the understanding of mANDUkya that I wrote about in ‘A-U-M’. I studied every available book, talk, paper in English that I could find before reaching any conclusions. So I stand by the statement that I made in the last post.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
I agree that this discussion should not degenerate into a jalpa. It is prolonging because there is divergence in the understanding of the concepts and the respective positions are being held on to. We may agree to stop discussion on this topic, at this stage.
I shall be very brief here.
Yes, each jIva has a different mind and has its own subject-object relationship with the world. The cidAbhAsa in the mind of each jIva is due to the same Consciousness, Brahman, Witness, which ‘illumines’ everything, by Its mere presence. Scriptures speak only of this SAkShi. Now if we bring in any sAkshi other than this, that may complicate and confuse understanding.
In my view, the correct understanding of what Shankara means by Ignorance (avidyA) is the key to the understanding of deep sleep, MANDUkya, KArikA, and practically everything about vedAnta.
I do not consider VivEkacUDAmaNi as Shankara’s work as it contains the concept of avidyA different from Shankara. It is a great text, otherwise.
With this I rest with this topic.
With best regards,
Ramantha Sharma
Hi Dennis, Ramanatha
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Dennis, you write:
“Who is it who gains Self-knowledge? I hope you will agree that it is the jIva, and that it is the jIva who has the Self-ignorance that causes us to mistake the Self for the body and mind. Of course, this mistake can only be made in waking and dream states when the mind is active. But it is the ignorance that causes us to make the mistake and this is still present in deep-sleep. (Shankara points out that the locus of the ignorance has to be brahman. Br. Up. Bh. 1.4.10.)”
You seem to imply that ignorance must lie in the jiva, but then seemingly contradict yourself by saying that ignorance is present in deep sleep, and therefore the locus of ignorance is Brahman.
In BG 13.2, Sankara writes:
“To whom does ignorance belong?
It belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced”
“If ignorance is perceived by you them you perceive its possessor as well”
“Again whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, nothing of the cognised – the knower of the field – is tainted by such defects as ignorance”
So ignorance = jiva. In the absence of ignorance, there is no jiva. And in deep sleep, there is no mind, no jiva, and therefore no ignorance. ‘The seed of ignorance’ in deep sleep is surely just another cause-effect relationship to explain to our minds the awakening from sleep of the jiva,
Dennis, I think that you ‘entify’ the jiva, and believe that the jiva attains positive knowledge, jnana. Whereas I think the gist of Sankara is that the jiva itself IS ignorance. The ‘Jnanis’ are only such in the minds of jivas.
best,
venkat
Hi Venkat,
Yes, I did notice when I read through that, having just pasted into the text window, that there was an apparent contradiction. But I left it there anticipating that someone would point it out! As I told Ramanatha, ‘Ignorance’ is one of the very significant topics that I am aiming to write about in the new book. It will cover avidyA, aj~nAna, adhyAsa, adhyAropa, mUlAvidyA, mAyA… But how long it will take me to reasearch and write about this concisely, with appropriate references, god only knows!
But I remain mystified by your last para. Could you elaborate, please?
Best wishes,
Dennis
Best wishes,
Dennis
Thanks for the intervention of Venkat and the quotes given by him, I too got interested in the discussion.
It is my honest feeling that Shankara never did really give or care to give a clear and convincing “explanation” for creation.
[Of course, we all know about his ‘models’ hinged on karma theory, mAyA etc. etc. which he adopted in his commentaries on the Upanishads (except mANDUkya) and popularizing the term ‘mithya’ for the apparent empirical world. But all that was voiced by him just to satisfy some madhya or manda adhikari-s but not something that he spoke out of his own conviction.
Why do I say so?
Because, Shankara himself was very vociferous in his declaration at 2.1.33, BSB: लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम् ॥
Shankara says at the end: न चेयं परमार्थविषया सृष्टिश्रुतिः ; अविद्याकल्पितनामरूपव्यवहारगोचरत्वात् , ब्रह्मात्मभावप्रतिपादनपरत्वाच्च — इत्येतदपि नैव विस्मर्तव्यम् ॥
“The Vedic statement of creation does not relate to any reality, for it must not be forgotten that such a text is valid within the range of activities concerned with name and form called up by ignorance, and it is meant for propounding the fact that everything has brahman as its Self.” Trans: Swami Gambhirananda.
Same sort of an idea comes from his commentary at GK 3.15.
In addition Shankara says in his commentary on mantra 2.1.20, brihadaranyaka:
“Therefore the-mention in all Vedanta texts of the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe is only to strengthen our idea of Brahman being a homogeneous unity, and not to make us believe in the origin etc. as an actuality.” — Trans: Swami Madhavananda.
In addition Shankara also admits that mAyA is no more than an explanatory fiction. At GK 4.58, he comments:
“That mAyA is never existent. “mAyA” is the name we give to something which does not (really) exist (but which is perceived). (Translation: Swami Nikhilananda).”]
Therefore, neither Shankara nor Gaudapada ever spent much time on giving convincing reasons for the existence of creation nor did they consider it worth wasting their time on creation. For both of them creation is NON-EXISTENT.
Shankara used avidya and mAyA interchangeably in all his commentaries. It is his later followers who tried to distinguish the two terms and tried to find a locus for each etc.
It also becomes very easy to decipher and ingest the essence of the Non-dual message if we ignore that there is a creation at all.
Mind some how magically (aha mAyA was the old term for this black box mechanism) seems to pop up moment by moment and when it pops up a ‘world’ manifests “historylessly.” As the mind dissolves after a momentary appearance, the world too dissolves (we call it the “gap” between thoughts).
Even Gaudapada never explained why this ‘throbbing” happens within brahman beyond saying :
चित्तस्पन्दितमेवेदं ग्राह्यग्राहकवद्द्वयम् । — GK 4.72
This perceived world of duality, characterized by subject-object relationship is verily an act of the mind.
Hence, it is, IMHO, nothing more than hair-splitting intellectual gymnastics to worry much about all those terms like “avidyA, aj~nAna, adhyAsa, adhyAropa, mUlAvidyA, mAyA…”
Just stay with “No creation; no jIva has ever originated (GK 3.48 / 4.71).
If any question is raised, well, surely one is slipping into many a Rabbit hole!
Hi Ramesam,
I agree with what you say. I fully expect to come to much the same conclusions when I get around to writing that section. I will, however, have to make some statements about each of these supposedly separate aspects.
Hi Dennis
With respect to your question, I think Ramesam has answered for me from MK3.48 – there is no jiva. Jiva is a thought of separation, of subject-object. So therefore it is not that the jiva (as some entity) HAS ignorance; the jiva IS ignorance (in the sense of that thought of separation).
In Sankara’s BSB:
1.4.22: “The difference between the individual Self and the supreme Self is a creation of conditioning factors like body, etc constituted by name and form which are conjured up by nescience; the difference is not real”
Hi Venkat,
There has never been any disagreement about the pAramArthika state of affairs. But the empirical jIva has to be led to that understanding by an appropriate adhyAropa-apavAda ‘explanation’. The questions revolve around which explanations were used/advocated by Shankara.
An interesting Wikipedia entry on the subject under discussion…”Sankhara”, “Samsara”
———–
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra
“In the first (passive) sense, saṅkhāra refers to conditioned phenomena generally but specifically to all mental “dispositions”.[2] These are called ‘volitional formations’ both because they are formed as a result of volition and because they are causes for the arising of future volitional actions.[3] English translations for saṅkhāra in the first sense of the word include ‘conditioned things,'[4] ‘determinations,'[5] ‘fabrications'[6] and ‘formations’ (or, particularly when referring to mental processes, ‘volitional formations’).[7]”
Never heard of ‘volitional formations’ and have no idea what they are. One should always have serious suspicions about ‘explanations’ from academics!
In your reply to Venkat above you say:
“But the empirical jIva has to be led to that understanding by an appropriate adhyAropa-apavAda ‘explanation’.”
—————————
‘Volitional formations’ = ’empirical jiva’ ????
Samskara
Dennis,
There are interesting passages in BSB, in which Sankara writes:
1.4.22: The individual soul is verily unchanging, eternal . . . but as a result of knowledge there is a dissociation for it from the matras comprising the senses and the elements that originate from ignorance . . . There is particularised knowledge when it it within the range of ignorance . . . and it is shown that for that very soul, there is an absence of particularised knowledge, like seeing, etc when it is within the ambit of illumination.
3.4.17: Moreover the scriptures declare that the whole world of manifestation, which consists of actions, instruments and results, bestowing the necessary qualification for work, and which is a creation of ignorance, is destroyed root and branch by knowledge.
4.1.3: For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception are confined within that state only, because texts as this “But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?”, point out the absence of perception etc in the state of enlightenment.
Hence sannyasa is entirely consistent with this absence of particularised knowledge, for what does a jnani need to hold?
Hi Venkat, Ramesam, Dennis
I am coming back here since certain aspects of vedAnta not direcly related to original topic have emerged now.
I find that most of what has been written by Venkat and Ramesam are fine from the paramArtha point of view. But vedanta and its methods are needed only in the empirical plane, to remove the imagined jIvatva of the individual. The popular notion of the difference of the individual soul from the supreme Self is only restated in the vedanta, but not established, and that superimposition and all duality is removed with the help of texts that have support of logic enshrined in them.
Shankara in BSB 4.1.2 says that one has to resort to reasoning based on scriptures ( shravaNa and manana), may be repeatedly, to remove the doubt or wrong understanding of the words Tat and Tvam in the Chandogya statement Tatvamasi. Otherwise the vedantic statement may not produce the Self knowledge in the listener. This clearly means that one needs to ‘accept’ his jIvatva in the vyAvahAra, and seek to know his Self by vedantic methods. The jIvatva is like a ghost that never alights from our shoulders until realization!
Therefore I fully endorse the reply of Dennis to Venkat: “There has never been any disagreement about the pAramArthika state of affairs. But the empirical jIva has to be led to that understanding by an appropriate adhyAropa-apavAda ‘explanation’. The questions revolve around which explanations were used/advocated by Shankara.”
I have some reservation about the ‘dismissive tone’ in what Ramesam has written in relation to creation, karma theory, maya, adhyAsa, avidyA etc. : “But all that was voiced by him (Shankara) just to satisfy some madhya or manda adhikari-s but not something that he spoke out of his own conviction”. Such a remark is unfortunate. Creation, maya, karma theory, re-incarnation of the jIvas, avidya- every one of these are found in the Upanishads and BhagavadgItA. Shankara harmonised the entire teachings contained in these scriptures, which, apparently, seem to have contradictions, by a proper reconciallation, in a fitting manner (nyAyataH), in his Bhashya on the Brahmasutras. A proper understanding of all of them is needed by one or the other seeker, before he attains the enlightening Self knowledge.
Yes, it is true that all these theories are for the sake of madhya and manda adhikari-s. Shankara says, by implication, in BSB 4.1.2 that for an uttama adhikari the sentence Tatvamasi, once heard, will remove his ignorance. But, how does one acquire the status of a uttama adhikari? Do we have any uttama adhikari in the world? If there is one, he
would not remain one for long; he would be a j~nAni on a mere hearing of the liberating statement! Everyone will have to go through the mill before that.
Therefore to say that “Just stay with “No creation; no jIva has ever originated (GK 3.48 / 4.71)” will not serve the purpose of the seeker; Practically no one can stay just with that!
I have written the above notwithstanding any contradictions or wrong ideas about jIva, ignorance in deep sleep or its locus, on the part of Dennis. I have given my understanding on these, in my previous replies.
Ramanatha Sharma
Hi Shri Ramanatha Sharma,
Thanks for your kind intervention addressing me and also Venkat and Dennis.
It is clear that you have disagreed with some sentences or words in my comment. Fair enough.
Yes, Shankara did make extensive commentaries on the prasthAna trayi principally adopting the “superimposition-sublation” model of imparting the Non-dual message. Nevertheless, he did not hold that “model” as a holy cow. He himself negated it. Moreover, he adopted a different ‘model’ for teaching Advaita in his prakaraNa grantha-s. Obviously then, there are alternate models of teaching the jIva-brahmaikya. His first and leading disciple, Sureshwara said:
यया यया भवेत्पुम्सां व्युत्पत्तिः प्रत्यगात्मनि ।
सा सैव प्रक्रिया साध्वी ज्ञेया सा चानवस्थिता ॥ — 1- 4 – 402, br. up. bhAshya vArtikA.
Meaning: That path alone by following which a man becomes grounded in the knowledge of the “I-Principle,” is the right path for him. There is no single path which suits all alike.
Hence, there are many different “Vedantic methods” by which committed seekers can obtain Self-Knowledge and these methods are unlimited in number. They should all be understood to be valid.
The most popular “model” followed in the West appears to be the Direct Path method which echos 2.2.4 of muNDaka and kena Part 1 and 2, aShTAvakra samhita, maitri upanishad, Yogavasishta etc. This does not involve or revolve around ‘karma’ and rebirth.
But what exactly is **your** question for me? Honestly, I could not make out.
Hi Sri Ramesam,
There was no question for you in my previous reply. It was an observation on what you wrote:
“It is my honest feeling that Shankara never did really give or care to give a clear and convincing “explanation” for creation. [Of course, we all know about his ‘models’ hinged on karma theory, mAyA etc. etc. which he adopted in his commentaries on the Upanishads (except mANDUkya) and popularizing the term ‘mithya’ for the apparent empirical world. But all that was voiced by him just to satisfy some madhya or manda adhikari-s but not something that he spoke out of his own conviction.”
Shankara is considered a jagadguru in the country of his birth. His bhAshyas are the oldest available on the prasthanatraya. He revived the age old traditional interpretation of the Upanishads (anAdi-sampradAyAgata- prakriyA, continuing the legacy of BadarAyaNa and GowdapAda). Almost the entire advaita vedanta world, sages, seekers, scholars and authors, for the last over 1200 years, have revered him so highly, derived inspiration from him, and acknowledged him for their own understanding and works. [Even those who deviated, fundamentally, from him, have either written granthas in his name (almost all prakaraNa granthas in his name, except Upadesha sAhasri, could be in this group), or have suitably (mis)interpreted his bhashyas in their sub-commentaries (read VivaraNa and BhAmati), but have claimed that they represent their correct interpretation. Such is the eminence of Shankara.]
I felt that you may consider Shankara as just another commentator, who, perhaps, should have done something better or more than “just to satisfy some madhya and manda adhikari-s”. I expressed reservation on such a ‘dismissive tone, in my previous reply.
You have responded to my observation and it reinforces my thinking, since you now write:
“Yes, Shankara did make extensive commentaries on the prasthAna trayi principally adopting the “superimposition-sublation” model of imparting the Non-dual message. Nevertheless, he did not hold that “model” as a holy cow. He himself negated it.”
I do not understand what you mean by “He himself negated it.” I am not sure if this means that Shankara contradicted himself, in which case it is a very serious charge! Vedantins after Shankara might have said that they have contributed to a better understanding of Shankara, but no one, as far as I know, attribute contradictions to him.
You also say: “Moreover, he adopted a different ‘model’ for teaching Advaita in his prakaraNa grantha-s.”
If the different models adopted in prakaraNa granthas nullify what Shankara has said in
the bhAshyas, then that would be a strong reason for concluding that he did not write the prakaraNa granthas.
Although I am in total dependence on Shankara for my adhyAtmic pursuits, I would respect and accept the freedom of all seekers to find their own sources for inspiration and guidance.
I don’t think I posted this before (for anyone’s interest):
“This principle of reality called the Absolute, since it is that which manifests in the guise of the knower, is that on which all right empirical cognition and so on depend. Its existence is therefore established as logically prior to all empirical experience, including valid empirical knowledge. For, as the self of all, it is immediately evident; and because it is self-luminous experience, it is self-evident, and does not, like other objects, require anything else apart from itself to make itself known. For all these reasons it does not require any special positive teaching”.– Sri Swami SatchidAnandendra, ‘The Method of The Vedanta. A Critical Account of the Advaita Tradition’, Kegan Paul, 1989, p.2.