Guest guest Posted November 9, 1998 Report Share Posted November 9, 1998 Regards Charles, Thanks for your considered post. So as to not post another long e-mail, I'll try to narrow the focus a bit. The point about ESSE IST PERCIPI is that we can't say of an object that it exists or doesn't exist. It appears to appear real. And what is an object, according to this model? Anything that appears to consciousness. About perception -- you asked a very good question -- according to the view I was speaking from, there is said to be no object. Then, you asked astutely, how can it be called perception? Really it's not perception at all, according to the view I'm speaking from. It's not perception because there can't be an object proved to exist beyond the perceiving. There's a sound of a barking, the sight of a dog, the bite of a dog. But the dog cannot be said to exist beyond these things. The only evidence for the dog is JUST THESE "perceptions." For the dog really to exist, it would have to exist before, after, and outside these perceptions. There's just no evidence to establish that it does. In the Western tradition, the best and most accessible exposition of this view is George Berkeley's THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS. It is a totally compatible view with the Mandukya Upanishad. (though Berkeley says that minds and ideas really do exist, having really been created by God, who is the source of all ideas). You ask another very good question - the witness I spoke of, how do we know that this witness is Consciousness and not the ego? What makes this view different from solipsism? The "witness" is a conceptual construct that Krishna Menon speaks of as the "final superimposition." It is that which is aware of the comings and goings of all objects of consciousness (which include thoughts, feelings, "perceptions" etc.). The reason it cannot be the ego is that it is that to which the ego appears. In other words, if the ego is something that arises as an object, then that which knows this cannot be the ego. That which knows this is said to be the witness. The witness can be a very rarified thing as a superimposition, and is closer to realization than any superimposition of body/mind/intellect, etc. To the realized, the witness disappears when the objects are no longer seen as objects but as pure consciosness. Objects can later be spoken of as objects, but it is known that they are never separate from pure consciousness. Thank you for explaining your concept of the way to enlightenment. I think we agree on most things, actually! Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1998 Report Share Posted November 11, 1998 On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 Greg Goode <goode wrote: > The point about ESSE IST PERCIPI is that we can't say of an object > that it exists or doesn't exist. It appears to appear real. And what > is an object, according to this model? Anything that appears to > consciousness. We seem to agree here: perception does not prove that the apparent object is real or separate or independent or even in any way "there". A simple illustration of this is waking from a dream: in fact, it occurs to me that this may be the function of dream -- to cast doubt on the so-called reality of the waking state. So perception does not prove anything at all: it is the observer that attributes reality to the object, e.g. a scientist sees an object and then seeks to discover the laws governing it. > About perception -- you asked a very good question -- according to the > view I was speaking from, there is said to be no object. Then, you > asked astutely, how can it be called perception? > > Really it's not perception at all, according to the view I'm > speaking from. It's not perception because there can't be an > object proved to exist beyond the perceiving. I think that our understanding of perception differs here. You seem to imply that the object must be real in order for perception to take place, whereas I don't qualify the object: it may be imaginary, as dream clearly illustrates. My idea of perception is that it is simply a relationship between a subject and an object: whether subject or object or both are illusory, is irrelevant; the point is that perception produces an apparent duality separating subject and object. > There's a sound of a > barking, the sight of a dog, the bite of a dog. But the dog cannot be > said to exist beyond these things. The only evidence for the dog is > JUST THESE "perceptions." The pattern of barking, sight, bite, etc. is the manifest nature or form (i.e. rUpa) of a concept (nAma) that we associate with the word "dog". > For the dog really to exist, it would have > to exist before, after, and outside these perceptions. There's just > no evidence to establish that it does. The concept "dog" as a universal idea, is available to the mind before during and after these perceptions. By associating the particular perception with the universal concept we are able to communicate: "A dog bit me." > You ask another very good question - the witness I spoke of, how > do we know that this witness is Consciousness and not the ego? > What makes this view different from solipsism? A question comes to mind: how does solipsism account for language? With whom would the solipsist communicate, and about what? > The "witness" is a conceptual construct that Krishna Menon > speaks of as the "final superimposition." It is that which is > aware of the comings and goings of all objects of consciousness > (which include thoughts, feelings, "perceptions" etc.). That statement is as true for the relative witness (ego) as it is for the absolute witness (Atman). The question nonetheless remains: how to determine whether that observer is relative or absolute? > The reason it cannot be the ego is that it is that to which the ego > appears. In other words, if the ego is something that arises as > an object, then that which knows this cannot be the ego. That > which knows this is said to be the witness. Ah, there we definitely differ. The ego is never seen by anyone at any time under any conditions. The very nature of the ego is to assume the role of subject in relation to some object: the presence of the ego can only be inferred through observing its effects, such as values, beliefs, attachment, possessiveness, and so on, that are manifest in its actions. For example, in BG 2:54 Arjuna asks for a description of a man of steady wisdom. Summarizing the reply with verse numbers: (55) satisfaction in the Self, (56) equanimity in pleasure and pain, (57) absence of attachment, delight, aversion, (58-60) complete withdrawal of senses from objects, (61-68) devotion to the Lord, (69) the universe a mere dream to the sage, (70-71) subjugation of desire and personal self. Methinks any ego that is there, is universal -- at least! > The witness can be > a very rarified thing as a superimposition, and is closer to > realization than any superimposition of body/mind/intellect, > etc. To the realized, the witness disappears when the objects > are no longer seen as objects but as pure consciosness. No, the witness disappears when there is no object to witness, as for example, the ego disappears in deep sleep, but the Self does not. That may be one test as to whether that witness is relative or absolute. > Objects > can later be spoken of as objects, but it is known that they are > never separate from pure consciousness. Later? Surely that would just be another concept? The test would need to be while the objects are present: are they then real or illusory at that time. For example, if I laid into you with a baseball bat, can you be as detached as though watching a TV soap opera: is it the just the body/mind writhing and screaming in agony, or is it you? ( This is called making one's point forcefully. :-) Besides, the ego could figure that out theoretically and come up with some philosophy such as solipsism, or have some "spiritual experience", and then speak about its theory or experience as though it were real. Then we are back to asking whether that witness relative or absolute. Ultimately that question is unanswerable: the best that one can do is gauge one's experience against reason and the scriptures. But to take the scriptures as an authoritative reference implies an act of faith, and so in the end it comes down to faith and reason. By reason, I mean intuition, immediate knowledge, not any process such as logic. So a statement such as "esse ist percipi" may, at best, be used to illustrate the Truth, but cannot in any manner whatsoever demonstrate It, let alone prove It. > Thank you for explaining your concept of the way to > enlightenment. I think we agree on most things, actually! Excellent! That allows me to withdraw into silence again. :-) Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1998 Report Share Posted November 11, 1998 At 10:33 AM 11/11/98 +0200, Charles Wikner wrote: >A question comes to mind: how does solipsism account for language? >With whom would the solipsist communicate, and about what? I've only read one solipsist, Max Stirner, a precursor to Nietzsche. In his book Das Ego und Sein Eigentum (the Ego and its Own), he said that all that exists is himself. So he might answer your question as, he's talking to himself for entertainment. On the other hand, most people who mention solipsism do so in order to distinguish some idea of their own FROM solipsism. It has a pretty bad reputation. What Stirner takes to be himself is exactly the ego. So that's how it differs from non-dualism. Solipsism says "I am all that exists," and means the "I" to be the ego. This can be some combination of elements of the thought-stream, or the memories, or values or intellect. Some aspect of the koshas. Solipsists definitely do NOT take the featureless, untainted pure Consciousness as the "I". > >> The "witness" is a conceptual construct that Krishna Menon >> speaks of as the "final superimposition." It is that which is >> aware of the comings and goings of all objects of consciousness >> (which include thoughts, feelings, "perceptions" etc.). >That statement is as true for the relative witness (ego) as it is >for the absolute witness (Atman). The question nonetheless remains: >how to determine whether that observer is relative or absolute? Anything that has a function is relative. This is why the witness is a superimposition, because of the implied functionality. The witness is a teaching device, to get the student to see that it, not anything else, is what "sees" things come and go. When objects cease, so does the witness. >> The reason it cannot be the ego is that it is that to which the ego >> appears. In other words, if the ego is something that arises as >> an object, then that which knows this cannot be the ego. That >> which knows this is said to be the witness. > >Ah, there we definitely differ. The ego is never seen by anyone at >any time under any conditions. The very nature of the ego is to assume >the role of subject in relation to some object: the presence of the >ego can only be inferred through observing its effects, such as values, >beliefs, attachment, possessiveness, and so on, that are manifest in >its actions. Yes, it's a construct, never directly perceived. But when it is inferred, it arises as an object of cognition. >> The witness can be >> a very rarified thing as a superimposition, and is closer to >> realization than any superimposition of body/mind/intellect, >> etc. To the realized, the witness disappears when the objects >> are no longer seen as objects but as pure consciosness. >No, the witness disappears when there is no object to witness, as >for example, the ego disappears in deep sleep, but the Self does not. There are many, many times other than deep sleep where there's no witness. There's no witness at exactly those times that Sadananda and I have been saying that there's no ego -- in the present, in a pure experience. For example, being lost in a good book, movie, concert, nature, samadhi, etc. >> Objects >> can later be spoken of as objects, but it is known that they are >> never separate from pure consciousness. > >Later? Surely that would just be another concept? Sure! Anything that anyone says is a concept. > The test would >need to be while the objects are present: are they then real or >illusory at that time. For example, if I laid into you with a baseball >bat, can you be as detached as though watching a TV soap opera: is it >the just the body/mind writhing and screaming in agony, or is it you? >( This is called making one's point forcefully. :-) >Besides, the ego could figure that out theoretically and come up with >some philosophy such as solipsism, or have some "spiritual experience", >and then speak about its theory or experience as though it were real. >Then we are back to asking whether that witness relative or absolute. Krishna Menon's concept of the witness is as clearly described as any I've ever come across. As I understand him, the witness it relative, because that which appears to it is objects, objects of consciousness. It is a teaching point, a sop given to the aspirant, so that no existential import or reality is attributed to anything else, such as sublime states, or thoughts or concepts. There really are no objects. So there really is no witness. What there is, is pure consciousness, which cannot be spoken of :-) and which doesn't witness anything. >By reason, I mean intuition, immediate knowledge, not any process >such as logic. So a statement such as "esse ist percipi" may, at >best, be used to illustrate the Truth, but cannot in any manner >whatsoever demonstrate It, let alone prove It. The Truth cannot be shown, demonstrated, proved, etc. It just Is. >Excellent! That allows me to withdraw into silence again. :-) Me too! Regards, Greg Greg Goode (e-mail: goode) Computer Support Phone: 4-5723 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 1998 Report Share Posted November 16, 1998 On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 Gregory Goode <goode wrote: >>> The "witness" is a conceptual construct that Krishna Menon >>> speaks of as the "final superimposition." It is that which is >>> aware of the comings and goings of all objects of consciousness >>> (which include thoughts, feelings, "perceptions" etc.). >> >>That statement is as true for the relative witness (ego) as it is >>for the absolute witness (Atman). The question nonetheless remains: >>how to determine whether that observer is relative or absolute? >Anything that has a function is relative. This is why the witness is a >superimposition, because of the implied functionality. Witness-hood is a relationship between a subject and an object; it does not _necessarily_ imply functionality. Functionality superimposes a purposive activity upon the simple relationship of witness-hood. The witness is NOT a superimposition: the very thrust of vicAra and viveka is to undo the _functional_ relationship between subject and object so that there is simple witnessing. >The witness is a >teaching device, to get the student to see that it, not anything else, >is what "sees" things come and go. Ultimately the witness is the Self, Atman, but in practice the meaning of the term evolves with the individual's understanding. In the practical application of viveka, the tight bond between subject and object is weakened and then severed, so that the two are distinct: the unity of the ego, expressed as "I am this", is separated into "I" and "this". This is certainly a divisive process: the splitting of the unity of the ego into duality is the first step towards advaita. This process is iterative: the ego is split into subject and object, and the the subject is discovered to be another (subtler, finer) ego, which is in turn split into ..... The sarvopanishad describes the Witness as: j~nAtR-j~nAna-j~neyAnAm Avir-bhAva-tiro-bhava-j~nAtA svayam evam Avir-bhAva-tiro-bhAva-hInaH svayam jyotiH sa sAkshIty ucyate | As the cognizer of the arising and disappearing of the [triad] knower-knowing-known, Himself devoid of such arising and disappearing, being Self-luminous, He is called the Witness. So finally, the Witness (Self, pure Consciousness) sees "this" (creation, universe) as Its own nature (a movement appearing in Consciousness). That is advaita. (More precisely, the universe is Its lower nature, an expression of Its higher nature, see BG 7:1-5.) At all levels, a being (man, dog) is not separate (a-dvaita) from its nature; but it is an error to presume that the manifest nature IS the being, or defines the being -- such presumption of a unity is superimposition, and manifests as the ego. >When objects cease, so does the witness. That is so in deep sleep and when totally identified with the object. >>Ah, there we definitely differ. The ego is never seen by anyone at >>any time under any conditions. The very nature of the ego is to assume >>the role of subject in relation to some object: the presence of the >>ego can only be inferred through observing its effects, such as values, >>beliefs, attachment, possessiveness, and so on, that are manifest in >>its actions. > >Yes, it's a construct, never directly perceived. But when it is inferred, >it arises as an object of cognition. It is then the _inference_ that is the object of cognition, and not the ego itself, which is now the cognizer of that inference. Nevertheless, the attachment observed in the inference can now be seen to false and let go (even if only briefly). >> To the realized, the witness disappears when the objects >> are no longer seen as objects but as pure consciosness. > >>No, the witness disappears when there is no object to witness, as >>for example, the ego disappears in deep sleep, but the Self does not. > >There are many, many times other than deep sleep where there's no witness. And those times are when one is so totally identified with some object, that there is no subject there to witness the object. This is not advaita but unity; experience of such superimposition to the point of identity is the ego. >There's no witness at exactly those times that Sadananda and I have been >saying that there's no ego -- in the present, in a pure experience. For >example, being lost in a good book, movie, concert, nature, samadhi, etc. Lost ?!! Yes, that's the point: the witness has been lost; it has become totally engrossed in the reading, seeing, hearing, etc. I will agree that in these states there is no sense of agent and no claiming: in that sense there is no ego. I confess that I have been using the term ego in a very broad sense: I would be happy to split the term into jIva, the mutual superimposition described by Shankara giving a sense of being an individual, and ego in the sense of agent (doer/thinker/feeler) that interacts with an object with a view to obtaining some result. Nonetheless, in this state of unity there is still the jIva: both both witness and ego in the sense of agency, are absent. It strikes me that the state that you are describing here is Ananda- maya-koSha (bliss sheath) -- you will concede that it is a blissful state? Because of the experience of unity between subject and object there is no sense of agency. This state of unity is not advaita, but ignorance, and is aptly described in the phrase "ignorance is bliss". This state of unity or ignorance strikes me as the causal body (kAraNa-SharIra), i.e. the cause of the subtle/gross bodies and the other sheaths. This state is a trap because there is no possibility to discriminate between subject and object, which are in total unity. It is only when this unity of the jIva interacts with something else that there is the possibility of the jIva understanding its nature and limitations. This does rather imply the presence of an ego as agent (vij~nAna-maya). It seems to me that this totally identified state where there is neither ego as agent, nor witness, is one that should not be sought. >Krishna Menon's concept of the witness is as clearly described as any I've >ever come across. As I understand him, the witness it relative, because >that which appears to it is objects, objects of consciousness. If Krishna Menon is an advaitin, then you have misunderstood him; if you have understood him correctly, then he is not an advaitin. >There really are no objects. So there really is no witness. The objects that are witnessed have so separate or independent reality of their own, but appear on the substratum of Consciousness, which is the Witness Itself. >What there is, is pure consciousness, which cannot be spoken of >:-) and which doesn't witness anything. Let the scriptures dispell that notion of not witnessing: Krishna describes Himself as the Witness. (BG 9:18) The Supreme Self is the Witness, Absolute, nirguNa. (Svet. 6:11) I am the Witness, Ever Auspicious Pure Consciousness. (Kaivalya Up. 18) Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 1998 Report Share Posted November 16, 1998 At 10:55 AM 11/16/98 +0200, Charles Wikner wrote: >The witness is NOT a superimposition: the very thrust of vicAra >and viveka is to undo the _functional_ relationship between subject >and object so that there is simple witnessing. > >>The witness is a >>teaching device, to get the student to see that it, not anything else, >>is what "sees" things come and go. > >Ultimately the witness is the Self, Atman, but in practice the >meaning of the term evolves with the individual's understanding. That's fine - we agree here, a quite important point. Atmananda speaks of two levels of witnessing. The lower witness, which is what I've been talking about, which is given to students who no longer see physical objects, but just perhaps subtle objects. This level of witness gets them to see the subtle apparatus and its objects as objects of consciousness. Then the higher witness is taught, which is synonymous with Atman. >>There are many, many times other than deep sleep where there's no witness. > >And those times are when one is so totally identified with some >object, that there is no subject there to witness the object. >This is not advaita but unity; experience of such superimposition >to the point of identity is the ego. You say this as though there's an object somewhere. Where? Take a look, you can't find one at that time. At that time, there's no time or where. Identification happens only when something says or acts like or feels "it's me/mine." During these times, no such thing happens. At these times, there's no object, nothing seen, no seer, no identification, there's nothing whatsoever happening at all. Everything you are saying about these times comes from what happens later, in memory. That is, perhaps there is a memory of what supposedly happened. This would be the arising of another object, a memory in the student. Then the teacher can point to them as "free samples," to show what is always the case. >It strikes me that the state that you are describing here is Ananda- >maya-koSha (bliss sheath) -- you will concede that it is a blissful >state? If it is objectified and seen to and go, then it's a state. In that case, there are perforce other states in which these blissful states are seen to be absent. During these other states, the student asks what was going on during those times, and the teacher can refer to these times as not states, but as when the Self was shining in its true nature, then later was "covered" by a superimposition. >Because of the experience of unity between subject and object >there is no sense of agency. This state of unity is not advaita, but >ignorance, and is aptly described in the phrase "ignorance is bliss". Some ignorance may be bliss, but not all bliss is ignorance. What about the Ananda non-qualifying attribute of Brahman? Would you call that a state? What do you think is its relevance? The times I was referring to are not a state of unity. There is nothing to be unified, no subject, no object. Whenever there is a state of unity, there is dvaita. As a friend of mine once said "Where there's oneness, there's two-ness!" > >This state is a trap because there is no possibility to discriminate >between subject and object, which are in total unity. If there is no possibility to discriminate between subject and object, then how can you say that they are there? Just because memory later tells you? Memory is just another state that arises at that time. What proof is there that anything exists outside the memory itself that is pointed to?? All you can point to is the memory. Memory wasn't even there at the times in question. At these times, there are no subject and object, so it's not really even a state. They only seem to appear later. Consider the possibility that at some times, there just is no subject or object. If you say that there can never be no subject or object, how can subject/object EVER fall away? >It seems to me that this totally identified state where there is >neither ego as agent, nor witness, is one that should not be sought. It's not a state, because it's not some "thing" that comes and goes. And even if it were a state, you can't help/hasten/avoid its arising, because if you are speaking of what the jiva can "do," it is powerless. >>Krishna Menon's concept of the witness is as clearly described as any I've >>ever come across. As I understand him, the witness it relative, because >>that which appears to it is objects, objects of consciousness. > >If Krishna Menon is an advaitin, then you have misunderstood him; >if you have understood him correctly, then he is not an advaitin. That is intellectually inappropriate to say about a teacher you have not read. But as I might not have said before, Krishna Menon doesn't say he is an orthodox Shankaracharya follower. Not all teachers of non-dualism are orthodox, or speak only from the scriptures. There are several differences. One is the esse ist percipi notion. The other is his notion of the (lower) witness that is a superimposition. It is a passing thing in his teaching that we're saying more about than he ever did. This lower witness falls away soon enough when the student realizes what the Witness REALLY is, the Absolute, Atman. >Krishna describes Himself as the Witness. (BG 9:18) >The Supreme Self is the Witness, Absolute, nirguNa. (Svet. 6:11) >I am the Witness, Ever Auspicious Pure Consciousness. (Kaivalya Up. 18) Good quotes! I agree. I especially like the Svet. 6:11. Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 1998 Report Share Posted November 17, 1998 On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 Gregory Goode <goode wrote: >>Ultimately the witness is the Self, Atman, but in practice the >>meaning of the term evolves with the individual's understanding. > >That's fine - we agree here, a quite important point. Atmananda speaks of >two levels of witnessing. The lower witness, which is what I've been >talking about, which is given to students who no longer see physical >objects, but just perhaps subtle objects. This level of witness gets them >to see the subtle apparatus and its objects as objects of consciousness. >Then the higher witness is taught, which is synonymous with Atman. There is only one witness, the Atman. Full stop. There is no lower witness distinct and separate from That. The Atman is covered by layers of ignorance (sheaths) so that it seems to be many. >>>There are many, many times other than deep sleep where there's no witness. >> >>And those times are when one is so totally identified with some >>object, that there is no subject there to witness the object. >>This is not advaita but unity; experience of such superimposition >>to the point of identity is the ego. > >You say this as though there's an object somewhere. Where? Take a look, >you can't find one at that time. Precisely because you have totally identified with it. >At that time, there's no time or where. At that time you are so identified with the limited, that you are quite unaware of any other time or place. Does the whole universe collapse when you are "lost" in a book, cinema, concert, etc. (which were your examples), or is it that your awareness is so identified with the limited activity as to shut out the rest of the universe? >Identification happens only when something says or acts like or feels >"it's me/mine." Then there is awareness of the identification, and an opportunity to sever the bond. >During these times, no such thing happens. At these times, >there's no object, nothing seen, no seer, no identification, there's >nothing whatsoever happening at all. When you are so "lost" in the identification, there is no opportunity to sever the bond. >Everything you are saying about these >times comes from what happens later, in memory. That is, perhaps there is >a memory of what supposedly happened. This would be the arising of another >object, a memory in the student. Thank God for memory: it allows us to analyse those totally identified states, and do something to avoid them. >Then the teacher can point to them as >"free samples," to show what is always the case. Namely that one is identified with something limited in the creation. >>It strikes me that the state that you are describing here is Ananda- >>maya-koSha (bliss sheath) -- you will concede that it is a blissful >>state? > >If it is objectified and seen to and go, then it's a state. In that case, >there are perforce other states in which these blissful states are seen to >be absent. And it the familiar ego that is at the dead centre of all these states. >During these other states, the student asks what was going on >during those times, and the teacher can refer to these times as not states, But they were states: they came and they went. Isn't that what is meant by the word "state"? >but as when the Self was shining in its true nature, then later was >"covered" by a superimposition. You are choosing one of these states, a pleasant one so far as the individual is concerned, and declaring that to be real. It's not! >>Because of the experience of unity between subject and object >>there is no sense of agency. This state of unity is not advaita, but >>ignorance, and is aptly described in the phrase "ignorance is bliss". > >Some ignorance may be bliss, but not all bliss is ignorance. What about >the Ananda non-qualifying attribute of Brahman? Would you call that a >state? What do you think is its relevance? It is the very nature of Brahman: it is not a state because it does not come and go. By contrast, it is our awareness of it that comes and goes; and even when we are aware of it, we are only aware of a tiny fragment of it, and not its full unlimited (anantam) glory. >The times I was referring to are not a state of unity. There is nothing to >be unified, no subject, no object. Whenever there is a state of unity, >there is dvaita. As a friend of mine once said "Where there's oneness, >there's two-ness!" That is precisely the process: unity --> dvaita --> advaita. >>This state is a trap because there is no possibility to discriminate >>between subject and object, which are in total unity. > >If there is no possibility to discriminate between subject and object, then >how can you say that they are there? Just because memory later tells you? Yes. Or because someone else tells you so. Or the scriptures. >Memory is just another state that arises at that time. What proof is there >that anything exists outside the memory itself that is pointed to?? All >you can point to is the memory. Memory wasn't even there at the times in >question. The mind was there, and it stored the impression which is later recalled in describing the state. Or are you denying memory and saying that the state was invented? >At these times, there are no subject and object, so it's not >really even a state. They only seem to appear later. At these times, the subject was totally identified with the object, to the exclusion of all else. Later it is recognised that this was a state of unity or total identification, and very limited. >Consider the possibility that at some times, there just is no subject or >object. If you say that there can never be no subject or object, how can >subject/object EVER fall away? The subject, after the removal of all the sheaths, is the Atman, which is the ultimate witness of all objects. The objects will finally fall away in universal pralaya, but not the Atman, which is Brahman. >>It seems to me that this totally identified state where there is >>neither ego as agent, nor witness, is one that should not be sought. > >It's not a state, because it's not some "thing" that comes and goes. And >even if it were a state, you can't help/hasten/avoid its arising, because >if you are speaking of what the jiva can "do," it is powerless. It can analyze; it can enquire; it can discriminate. Each time this is practiced it weakens the identification of Self with not-Self. At each step it is Knowledge (which is the Atman) entering to weaken the bond. That Knowledge does not "do" anything, for that is not the nature of knowledge, but neither is it powerless. >>>Krishna Menon's concept of the witness is as clearly described as any I've >>>ever come across. As I understand him, the witness it relative, because >>>that which appears to it is objects, objects of consciousness. >> >>If Krishna Menon is an advaitin, then you have misunderstood him; >>if you have understood him correctly, then he is not an advaitin. > >That is intellectually inappropriate to say about a teacher you have not >read. Because I have not read him, it was expressed as a conditional statement. I stand by it. Krishna Menon is not the issue, but your understanding of advaita. >But as I might not have said before, Krishna Menon doesn't say he is >an orthodox Shankaracharya follower. Not all teachers of non-dualism are >orthodox, or speak only from the scriptures. There are several >differences. The main one being appropriating the terminology advaita vedAnta and then using these inappropriately and confusingly. >One is the esse ist percipi notion. The idealist proposition that nothing exists apart from perception, is not altogether strange to advaita. See Shankara's commentary to BG 2:16 recently posted on this list: "This is a pot" implies the two-fold perception of pot and existence. Liberation is to realise that one is that Existence without any limitation, such as a pot, which is a superimposition, a limitation, an object with respect to the Atman, Existence, as subject, and certainly not to get "lost" in that pot. >The other is his notion >of the (lower) witness that is a superimposition. It is a passing thing in >his teaching that we're saying more about than he ever did. This post is the first time that you have raised the issue of two levels of witnessing, hence the confusion in communication and understanding. >This lower >witness falls away soon enough when the student realizes what the Witness >REALLY is, the Absolute, Atman. The lower witness seems to be vij~nana-maya-koSa, as in worldly terms where we have the neutral witness to a motor accident, a witness in court and so on. It is not so much that the lower witness falls away, as the sheaths of ignorance that fall away; when all sheaths have fallen away then it is realised that the witness is the Witness, and always has been so. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 1998 Report Share Posted November 17, 1998 When you think of the Atman as witness, do you not again introduce duality? If it is Witness-subject, then there is also object and the dualiiy circus is back. On the other hand, what is the object? If Atman is the same as awareness (or I-awareness), objects always are "in I-awareness" as the mountain is in space. Just as the moutain takes up space but is not space, the object or object thought is in I-awareness but is not I-awareness. I-awareness is present with the object and when the object goes. Atman or I-awareness can only be described as a witness when there is an known object, even a subjective thought, present. But the Atman or I-awareness is not itself always a witness. This is the reason it seems that the term sAkshi (witness) is not as often used to describe the self as is sat, chit and Ananda or ananta. "Witenss" presupposes the subject-object duality. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya Charles Wikner <WIKNER advaitin <advaitin > Tuesday, November 17, 1998 4:55 AM Re: Reply to Charles Wikner >Charles Wikner <WIKNER > >On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > >>>Ultimately the witness is the Self, Atman, but in practice the >>>meaning of the term evolves with the individual's understanding. >> >>That's fine - we agree here, a quite important point. Atmananda speaks of >>two levels of witnessing. The lower witness, which is what I've been >>talking about, which is given to students who no longer see physical >>objects, but just perhaps subtle objects. This level of witness gets them >>to see the subtle apparatus and its objects as objects of consciousness. >>Then the higher witness is taught, which is synonymous with Atman. > >There is only one witness, the Atman. Full stop. There is no lower >witness distinct and separate from That. The Atman is covered by >layers of ignorance (sheaths) so that it seems to be many. > >>>>There are many, many times other than deep sleep where there's no witness. >>> >>>And those times are when one is so totally identified with some >>>object, that there is no subject there to witness the object. >>>This is not advaita but unity; experience of such superimposition >>>to the point of identity is the ego. >> >>You say this as though there's an object somewhere. Where? Take a look, >>you can't find one at that time. > >Precisely because you have totally identified with it. > >>At that time, there's no time or where. > >At that time you are so identified with the limited, that you are >quite unaware of any other time or place. > >Does the whole universe collapse when you are "lost" in a book, >cinema, concert, etc. (which were your examples), or is it that >your awareness is so identified with the limited activity as to >shut out the rest of the universe? > >>Identification happens only when something says or acts like or feels >>"it's me/mine." > >Then there is awareness of the identification, and an opportunity >to sever the bond. > >>During these times, no such thing happens. At these times, >>there's no object, nothing seen, no seer, no identification, there's >>nothing whatsoever happening at all. > >When you are so "lost" in the identification, there is no opportunity >to sever the bond. > >>Everything you are saying about these >>times comes from what happens later, in memory. That is, perhaps there is >>a memory of what supposedly happened. This would be the arising of another >>object, a memory in the student. > >Thank God for memory: it allows us to analyse those totally identified >states, and do something to avoid them. > >>Then the teacher can point to them as >>"free samples," to show what is always the case. > >Namely that one is identified with something limited in the creation. > >>>It strikes me that the state that you are describing here is Ananda- >>>maya-koSha (bliss sheath) -- you will concede that it is a blissful >>>state? >> >>If it is objectified and seen to and go, then it's a state. In that case, >>there are perforce other states in which these blissful states are seen to >>be absent. > >And it the familiar ego that is at the dead centre of all these states. > >>During these other states, the student asks what was going on >>during those times, and the teacher can refer to these times as not states, > >But they were states: they came and they went. Isn't that what is >meant by the word "state"? > >>but as when the Self was shining in its true nature, then later was >>"covered" by a superimposition. > >You are choosing one of these states, a pleasant one so far as the >individual is concerned, and declaring that to be real. It's not! > >>>Because of the experience of unity between subject and object >>>there is no sense of agency. This state of unity is not advaita, but >>>ignorance, and is aptly described in the phrase "ignorance is bliss". >> >>Some ignorance may be bliss, but not all bliss is ignorance. What about >>the Ananda non-qualifying attribute of Brahman? Would you call that a >>state? What do you think is its relevance? > >It is the very nature of Brahman: it is not a state because it does >not come and go. By contrast, it is our awareness of it that comes >and goes; and even when we are aware of it, we are only aware of a >tiny fragment of it, and not its full unlimited (anantam) glory. > >>The times I was referring to are not a state of unity. There is nothing to >>be unified, no subject, no object. Whenever there is a state of unity, >>there is dvaita. As a friend of mine once said "Where there's oneness, >>there's two-ness!" > >That is precisely the process: unity --> dvaita --> advaita. > >>>This state is a trap because there is no possibility to discriminate >>>between subject and object, which are in total unity. >> >>If there is no possibility to discriminate between subject and object, then >>how can you say that they are there? Just because memory later tells you? > >Yes. Or because someone else tells you so. Or the scriptures. > >>Memory is just another state that arises at that time. What proof is there >>that anything exists outside the memory itself that is pointed to?? All >>you can point to is the memory. Memory wasn't even there at the times in >>question. > >The mind was there, and it stored the impression which is later >recalled in describing the state. Or are you denying memory and >saying that the state was invented? > >>At these times, there are no subject and object, so it's not >>really even a state. They only seem to appear later. > >At these times, the subject was totally identified with the object, >to the exclusion of all else. Later it is recognised that this >was a state of unity or total identification, and very limited. > >>Consider the possibility that at some times, there just is no subject or >>object. If you say that there can never be no subject or object, how can >>subject/object EVER fall away? > >The subject, after the removal of all the sheaths, is the Atman, >which is the ultimate witness of all objects. The objects will >finally fall away in universal pralaya, but not the Atman, which >is Brahman. > >>>It seems to me that this totally identified state where there is >>>neither ego as agent, nor witness, is one that should not be sought. >> >>It's not a state, because it's not some "thing" that comes and goes. And >>even if it were a state, you can't help/hasten/avoid its arising, because >>if you are speaking of what the jiva can "do," it is powerless. > >It can analyze; it can enquire; it can discriminate. Each time this >is practiced it weakens the identification of Self with not-Self. >At each step it is Knowledge (which is the Atman) entering to weaken >the bond. That Knowledge does not "do" anything, for that is not the >nature of knowledge, but neither is it powerless. > >>>>Krishna Menon's concept of the witness is as clearly described as any I've >>>>ever come across. As I understand him, the witness it relative, because >>>>that which appears to it is objects, objects of consciousness. >>> >>>If Krishna Menon is an advaitin, then you have misunderstood him; >>>if you have understood him correctly, then he is not an advaitin. >> >>That is intellectually inappropriate to say about a teacher you have not >>read. > >Because I have not read him, it was expressed as a conditional statement. >I stand by it. Krishna Menon is not the issue, but your understanding >of advaita. > >>But as I might not have said before, Krishna Menon doesn't say he is >>an orthodox Shankaracharya follower. Not all teachers of non-dualism are >>orthodox, or speak only from the scriptures. There are several >>differences. > >The main one being appropriating the terminology advaita vedAnta and >then using these inappropriately and confusingly. > >>One is the esse ist percipi notion. > >The idealist proposition that nothing exists apart from perception, >is not altogether strange to advaita. See Shankara's commentary >to BG 2:16 recently posted on this list: "This is a pot" implies >the two-fold perception of pot and existence. Liberation is to >realise that one is that Existence without any limitation, such as >a pot, which is a superimposition, a limitation, an object with >respect to the Atman, Existence, as subject, and certainly not >to get "lost" in that pot. > >>The other is his notion >>of the (lower) witness that is a superimposition. It is a passing thing in >>his teaching that we're saying more about than he ever did. > >This post is the first time that you have raised the issue of two >levels of witnessing, hence the confusion in communication and >understanding. > >>This lower >>witness falls away soon enough when the student realizes what the Witness >>REALLY is, the Absolute, Atman. > >The lower witness seems to be vij~nana-maya-koSa, as in worldly >terms where we have the neutral witness to a motor accident, a >witness in court and so on. It is not so much that the lower >witness falls away, as the sheaths of ignorance that fall away; >when all sheaths have fallen away then it is realised that the >witness is the Witness, and always has been so. > >Regards, Charles. > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 1998 Report Share Posted November 17, 1998 Charles, Much as I like talking about Brahman/The Absolute, this thread is getting worn out. We don't really disagree on anything important. There is only one reality, Brahman. People call it different, to paraphrase the Rig Veda. I was showing how another sage can point to Brahman/The Absolute in a different way. You seem to be more comfortable with the orthodox teachings, panchacosa model, etc. This model is a magnificent model, it was actually what interested me in non-dualism in the first place. But it is by no means the only one in use by sages. Below is something that we probably both agree on, after which, what is there to say? I won't say any more on this thread. Mandukua Upanishad, Vaithathya Prakarana, II:29 =============================================== (Transliteration, translation by Swami Chinmayananda) Yam bhavan darsayed-yasya tam bhavam sa tu pasyati; Tam cha-avati sa bhootva-asau tadgrahaha sam-upaiti tam. The seeker recognises only that idea which is presented to him by his master. The Atman assumes the form of what is recognised and thus protects the enquirer. Possessed by that exclusive idea he comes to realize it as the only sole truth. =============================================== Same text, II:32 ================ Na nirodho na chotpattir- nabaddho na cha sadhakaha; Na mumukshur-na vai mukta ityesha paramarthata. There is neither dissolution, nor birth; neither anyone in bondage, nor any aspirant for wisdom; neither can there be any seeker for liberation, nor any liberated as such. this alone is the Supreme Truth. Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 1998 Report Share Posted November 17, 1998 On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 Aikya_Param <aikya wrote: > When you think of the Atman as witness, do you not again introduce duality? > If it is Witness-subject, then there is also object and the dualiiy circus > is back. On the other hand, what is the object? If Atman is the same as > awareness (or I-awareness), objects always are "in I-awareness" as the > mountain is in space. Just as the moutain takes up space but is not space, > the object or object thought is in I-awareness but is not I-awareness. > I-awareness is present with the object and when the object goes. Atman or > I-awareness can only be described as a witness when there is an known > object, even a subjective thought, present. But the Atman or I-awareness is > not itself always a witness. > > This is the reason it seems that the term sAkshi (witness) is not as often > used to describe the self as is sat, chit and Ananda or ananta. "Witenss" > presupposes the subject-object duality. Shankara's commentary to the first line of Kena 1.4 (pratobodhavidhitaM matam amRtatvaM hi vindate) gives (Gambhirananda's translation): Pratibidha-vidhitam, known with reference to each state of intelligence. By the word bodha are meant the cognitions aquired through the intellect. The Self, that encompasses all ideas as Its objects, is known in relation to all these ideas. Being the witness of all cognitions, and nothing but the power of Consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as non- different from them. There is no other door to Its awareness. Therefore when Brahman is known as the innermost Self (i.e. witness) of cognitions, then is It matam, known, that is to say, then there is complete realisation. Only by accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned, and one in all beings, just as it is in the case of AkASha (space) because of the non-difference of its characteristics despite its existence in pots, caves, etc. The purport of that very traditional text, "It is different from the known, and again It is above the unknown" (Kena 1.4) which is thus clarified, is concluded here. For (in support of this) there is the other Vedic text: "The witness of vision, the Hearer of hearing, the Thinker of thought, the Knower of knowledge" (bRhad. 3.4.2). .... [counter-arguments and debate deleted] ... Hi, because; vindate, (one) attains; amRtatvam, immortality, existence in one's own Self, emancipation -- by virtue of the aforesaid pratobodha, i.e. from knowledge of the Self as appearing with reference to (i.e. as the witness of) each state of consciousness, therefore the Self is truly known when It is known along with each state of consciousness. Besides, consciousness, as having the indwelling Self as its content, is alone held to be the cause of immortality. Immortality does not surely consist in the Self becoming a non-Self. Immortality being the very nature of the Self, it is certainly without any cause. And thus mortality consists in the Self being perceived as the non-Self through ignorance. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 1998 Report Share Posted November 17, 1998 On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > Much as I like talking about Brahman/The Absolute, this thread is getting > worn out. We don't really disagree on anything important. Confusing the jIva with Atman, ego with the Witness: nothing important. End of thread. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 1998 Report Share Posted November 18, 1998 Charles, Regarding the following: Besides, >consciousness, as having the indwelling Self as its content, >is alone held to be the cause of immortality. Is not immortality the fact, in fact, because of the nature of consicousness (without form)? Is there not quite a leap for the individual to first, understand that he is not this, this, this and this, but consciousness sufficient, and then to see what is that consciousness? Many people acknowledge consciousness but do not associate it with immortality nor any "outside" consciousness with themselves. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 1998 Report Share Posted November 18, 1998 On 18 Nov 98, at 8:50, Aikya_Param wrote: > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > Charles, > > Regarding the following: > > Besides, > >consciousness, as having the indwelling Self as its content, > >is alone held to be the cause of immortality. > > Is not immortality the fact, in fact, because of the nature of consicousness > (without form)? > Is there not quite a leap for the individual to first, understand that he is > not this, this, this and this, but consciousness sufficient, and then to see > what is that consciousness? Many people acknowledge consciousness but do > not associate it with immortality nor any "outside" consciousness with > themselves. > end > ------------------------------- > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter i am wondering simply if the sum total of all our perceptions are not equal and opposite to the end product of all that anyone (or anything) knows to be true be it that [they] can think a thought, feel an emotion, hurt their body, or in the end, realize their existence in terms of why and how their 'being' came to exist out of the vast nothingness and everything to which we owe our very existence in the worlds of God that were created as an educational process for Soul to discover It's true purpose outside of purely divine consciousness and intention. furthermore, i'm wondering if trying or failing is in any way relevant to achieving what we are all destined for anyway, that is, full and total realization of what this life is all about, and that to dwell on the mental aspects of existence is not only a waste of time, but an affront to the integrity of the entire all in which we reside between the God-pole and the Human-pole which is nothing more than the difference between looking through a magnifier and wearing a pair of sunglasses. peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.