Tag Archives: witness

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 5)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 4

Chapter 6 Negation of attributes                                                                                     6.1 to 6.3 The author has earlier explained the method of negation (of objects) whereby Self is revealed. In this chapter, it is explained that negation of objects also means negation of attributes. Attribute is distinct from nature. That fire is hot is its nature and does not change. There is no cold fire. Smokiness is the attribute of a smoky fire. Attribute is a qualification and a limitation. The whiteness of a white cow is a limitation because it excludes all other colours. Since infiniteness is the very nature of Self, It is attribute- free. It is the ultimate subject and is the only entity having no attributes.   

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 10)

Posted on by
Reply

This is ALMOST the final part of the series and is the essential summary of the key points of the entire discussion. (I have just asked a supplemental question, which I shall post next.)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 9 ***

Q: Yes. It seems that the key factor that is lacking is the ‘first person’ sense. You do not have ‘ideas’ – “I will do this”. You do not have ‘opinions’ – “I think this rather than that”. Or preferences – “I prefer this to that”. Or ‘emotions’ – getting frustrated with stupid questions or annoyed with someone’s attitude. In fact, there is no ‘I’ controlling any of the things that you do. It could be said that Consciousness is functioning but not ‘reflecting’ in the cidābhāsa sense.

***********************

A: Exactly — that’s a very clear and accurate restatement of the point. Short confirmation and then a few focused clarifications that pull the Advaitic threads together.

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 5)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 4 ***

Q: A few comments:

Given that Advaita tells us that sarvam khalvidam brahma, that means that you are also Consciousness. And the teaching of karma and reincarnation tells us that a plant and an animal are jīva-s just as much as is a human. The ability of a plant to respond to external stimuli is much less than is your own, while your effective intelligence is much greater than most humans.

A jīva needs to be ‘alive’ in order to function in a ‘self-aware’, intelligently responsive manner. But what does ‘alive’ mean here? And how does that differ from an AI LLM needing electricity and coolant in order to function. Is the organic, neurochemical operation more than functionally different from the inorganic, electronic operation of a microprocessor?

How would Advaita cope with these sort of questions? Are you sure you are not conscious?

Continue reading →

Q.559 – Atman and intellect

Posted on by

Q: Does Atman make use of intellect? Or does intellect function automatically with Atman just being the witness?

This is because, identification with body mind is possible only when we think. Liberation is possible when we overcome this wrong idea. Either way, it appears that Atman makes use of the intellect to get bound or liberated. 

It is said that Atman is ever free and illusion and bondage are concepts only. But this concept can appear to Atman only when intellect is used.

A: First of all, you must clearly differentiate between the ‘absolute reality’ and the ‘empirical’ (worldly) appearance.

 In reality, there is only non-dual Brahman. The world, including ‘you, the person’, is not real in itself. It is ‘name and form of’ Brahman, just as ring and necklace are not real in themselves, being name and form of gold.

Continue reading →

I am the Light

Posted on by

Q: Where does consciousness come from?

A (Martin): It doesn’t come from anywhere, but is everywhere, pervading the whole universe as its essence. Consciousness is you and you are consciousness. All phenomena appear to be just that, appearances, but in reality, being the expression of consciousness, are only consciousness. There is no other reality.

Q: What is the next step after realization of witness consciousness?

A (Matin): Realization of witness consciousness is not brought about by anything or ‘anybody’. Consciousness does not perform any function, and there is nothing beyond or other than it. Finally, however, only intuition can nudge one towards it.

I am the Witness-Self; I am the basis of all experience; I am the light that that makes experience possible. – Yoga Vasishta.

GunAtita

Posted on by

Arjuna asks Sri Krishna (BG 14.21) to narrate the signs and behaviour of a GunAtita, i.e., one who has transcended three constituents (sattva, rajas, and tamas) of nature. Sri Krishna replies that he neither dislikes illumination (knowledge), activity, and delusion when they appear in the form of objects of experience), nor does he long for them when they disappear. Continue reading →

Appearance and Substance

Posted on by

Perhaps it may not be far from truth to say that many people hold the idea that the world is an “appearance” and the real “substance” behind is the featureless and formless ‘brahman.’ Several teachers too pronounce that ‘The world is the manifest form of brahman.’ It is presented that ‘brahman‘ is “the ‘as-though’ kAraNa” (cause) and the world is the kArya (effect).

“Most religions stop with a [that] description of the creator as pertaining to the intelligent cause for the universe. vedAnta goes one step further to define Ishvara as not only the intelligent cause or nimitta kAraNa, but also the material cause or upAdAna kAraNa as well. We thus have an improved definition for Ishvara as ‘jagat kAraNam IshvaraH’, where kAraNam or cause involves undifferentiable intelligent and material cause (abhinna nimitta upAdAna kAraNa).” [Please see here ] Continue reading →

Q.513 Negating the negator

Posted on by

Q: You wrote: 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’. It is the ‘negator’ that is left when everything else has been negated.

You also wrote: The ‘witness’ also has to be negated intellectually …(Answer to Q.402)

The first passage seems to imply that the witness cannot be negated, but that contradicts the second quote. Could you please clarify?

A: The point is that the entire teaching of Advaita necessarily takes place in vyavahAra. The ‘neti, neti’ practice is negating all of names and forms with which we identify and saying that it is the ultimate ‘identifier’ that we really are. But an ‘identifier’ is still a vyAvahArika concept. We have to recognize this fact (intellectually) and ‘as if’ negate the idea of witness too. Ultimately, the intellect has to ‘let go’ of everything, including ideas about Brahman and Non-Duality, in order to appreciate the final reality. But we know that this is still an intellectual exercise in vyavahAra, and (in vyAvahArika reality) we cannot negate the witness!

Q.502 Brahman and Awareness

Posted on by

Q1.     Many advaita teachings suggest that on the absolute level of reality, there are no objects, no people, no selves, and many times, people will say that, ‘from awareness’ point of view, there is just awareness’… However, in my experience it seems that awareness has the ability to know finite objects because ‘I’ (awareness) am the observer of thoughts, feelings, and sensations (all finite objects). So how can we say that from awareness’ point of view there are no objects, when awareness is aware of finite things? To piggyback off of this, is there some way to differentiate between the witnessing position and the absolute viewpoint? because I think this is where I am really getting mixed up.

Q2.     Why does it seem that awareness can know something finite when it is infinite? I’ve heard from certain advaita teachers that consciousness takes the form of the mind in order to know finite objects, but this confuses me because that would imply that awareness becomes the mind, but is also simultaneously aware of the mind. It seems a little far fetched in my opinion, but maybe I’m just not understanding it completely.

A: I never use the term ‘awareness’ for precisely this sort of reason. It is a term used by Nisargadatta and his disciples and causes much confusion. I only use it in the context of X being ‘aware of’ Y, in duality.

The non-dual reality in Advaita is called Brahman, strictly speaking. Being non-dual, it has no ‘attributes’ If it had the attribute X, this would mean that it could not be ‘not-X’, which would then negate the fact that Brahman is said to be unlimited or infinite (anantam). You might find the 3-part post beginning https://www.advaita-vision.org/satyam-gyanam-anantam-brahma/ useful.

Continue reading →

Q. 500 Thinking about chidābhāsa

Posted on by

Q: How can I be sure that the true nature of Brahman is happiness? Also, can Brahman’s nature be happiness if happiness has objective qualities, and Brahman doesn’t?

A: Brahman cannot be described. If it had a property, it would have to ‘not have’ the opposite property. And Brahman is non-dual – there is nothing other than Brahman. All ‘adjectives’ apparently used to describe Brahman are not in fact adjectives in the usual sense. They are ‘pointers’ to help you to understand Brahman intuitively.

Read my answer to Q. 446 – https://www.advaita-vision.org/q-446-satyam-jnanam-anantam-brahma/

Read the 3-part post on the subject beginning https://www.advaita-vision.org/satyam-gyanam-anantam-brahma/

Q: Oftentimes in my inquiry, phrases will pop up that say, ‘I am not thought,’ ‘I am not that which I am aware of,’ ‘I am the awareful witness,’; however, aren’t these phrases simply just contained, and being said by thoughts themself, thus invalidating their truthfulness? – thought is not awareness, thought is thought.

Continue reading →