Guest guest Posted August 6, 1999 Report Share Posted August 6, 1999 Namaste, It seems thoughts do not know anything but themselves depend on being witnessed in order to exist at all. It seems the "person" is only implied by thoughts about it but each of those thoughts is being witnessed as well as the abscence of thought. The "person" must therefore an intermittent assumption and not the continuing truth of experience. Do Advaitins agree? Bhagwan Nityananda (perhaps a questionable source) said " God is the witness of thought ". If we replace Atman or Brahman for "God" would Advaitins agree with this statement? I think Sankhya says Prakriti is the source of thought but I don't think Advaita recognizes Prakriti (or do they?) -- so I was wondering what Advaita considers the source of thought to be? Is it just like any other part of this apparently spontaneously arising maya-movie? What is the source of maya in Advaita? thank you sincerely, -A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 1999 Report Share Posted August 7, 1999 On 8/6/99 at 6:46 AM a c wrote: >a c <ac > >Namaste, > >It seems thoughts do not know anything but themselves depend on being >witnessed in order to exist at all. It seems the "person" is only implied >by thoughts about it but each of those thoughts is being witnessed as well >as the abscence of thought. The "person" must therefore an intermittent >assumption and not the continuing truth of experience. Do Advaitins agree? > >Bhagwan Nityananda (perhaps a questionable source) said " God is the >witness of thought ". If we replace Atman or Brahman for "God" would >Advaitins agree with this statement? I think Sankhya says Prakriti is the >source of thought but I don't think Advaita recognizes Prakriti (or do >they?) -- so I was wondering what Advaita considers the source of thought >to be? Is it just like any other part of this apparently spontaneously >arising maya-movie? What is the source of maya in Advaita? > >thank you sincerely, > >-A. If it is stated, God is the witness of thought, then who is the witness of the witness? And who is the witness of the ... (ad infinitum). So I don't agree with that statement at all. (Nirguna) Brahman is without attributes. "The witness" is just a stage of sadhana. Regarding thought, there is the analogy with water. It can only flow, if there is a difference between levels. In the mind, these levels are emotions; hence, the necessity for equanimity. When the difference in level is large and abrupt, water can gain energy to drive turbines and likewise, the mind will force one into action. Clarity of mind points to the situation where there is no flow and thoughts cannot be perceived. The potentiality for thoughts remains as long as flow is possible, which means as long as memory keeps functioning. Thinking is the basic process of differentiating and the "sample points" are successive sense-impressions (causing emotions). The question, what causes the infinitely small difference in the unmanifest to become the manifest is another question to cause infinite regression: what causes the difference that causes the difference that..... So it cannot be answered too. Jan 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.