Guest guest Posted December 29, 1999 Report Share Posted December 29, 1999 > "Warren E. Donley" <wedonley > >Nitin wrote: > > > >The core Amness is the basic screen of Consciousness upon which > everything > appears. It is upstream of all conceptualization. The > differentiated witness > is the illusory `me' which is a total illusion. The constructed > programmed > personality is the > >phenomenally real (anatomical-physiological) body-mind which > acts and > reacts in everyday life. > > > > > >Colette <colette > > > >So you think witness is illusion too? I wonder where soul fits > into all > this? > > > I believe Nitin was using the word "witness" differently than > it's normally > used in Advaita. Rather than the true Subject (Atman), he seems > to be > referring to the pseudo-subject (personal ego, or feeling of > individual > doer-ship). Hence his qualified term "differentiated witness". I was a little confused by this, too, and made the same assumption about what Nitin meant. But what did Colette mean by DW? As one who has been greatly influenced by phenomenology, I want to draw attention to a book I plan on ordering which is quite relevant to this topic: The Disinterested Witness : A Fragment of Advaita Vedanta Phenomenology (Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy) by Bina Gupta Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. The Advaita Notion of Saksin (Witness-Consciousness); its Anticipations in the Upanisads and Gaudapada 3. Samkara on Saksin 4. Saksin and Advaita Epistemology 5. Saksin and Advaita Metaphysics 6. Saksin and Western Phenomenology So, can anyone elaborate on the "saksin" notion? Namaste, -- Max Talk to your friends online with Messenger. http://messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 1999 Report Share Posted December 29, 1999 Hi Max. > Max Harris <max4dialog > > > "Warren E. Donley" <wedonley > > > I believe Nitin was using the word "witness" differently than > > it's normally > > used in Advaita. Rather than the true Subject (Atman), he seems > > to be > > referring to the pseudo-subject (personal ego, or feeling of > > individual > > doer-ship). Hence his qualified term "differentiated witness". > > I was a little confused by this, too, and made the same assumption > about what Nitin meant. But what did Colette mean by DW? Hi. This is just me theorising here Max. Well I guess I was laying two aspects together ~ that of witness (detached watcher) & the pure intuitive ego in tune with Nature's laws not making mistakes. I guess I was presuming witness doesn't think, but I know from that state, pure thought may be observed as arising. I think there is a difference between ego's thoughts when enmeshed in polarity (duality), & when perceived rather from the deeper, purer level of the mind where witness is aware (or we are aware, we are witness). I know Maharishi explains that if we can perceive thought in its infant state (before it moves through all the stress) that we would catch it in its pure state before it is distorted by the stresses lodged in the human mind. I guess I am interpreting this to mean that Atman manifests thought, which is in tune with Natural law but usually we do not hear it until it reaches the surface of the human mind, where it has already changed due to all the conditioning & limitations we suffer from. We act on these distorted thoughts, & express conditional love. And act based on the man made laws of society etc. There is a difference between man made laws & the laws of Nature. If through meditation we begin to hear thought in its infant state (at the junction point where individual mind first manifests too) ... then we may act spontaneoulsy in tune with Natural law. (Thus not violating any laws of Nature.) Differentiated witness ~ I guess I was recognising that the witness appears to be vastness .. yet also thought may be observed in this state .. which is then acted upon. So in this sense I guess I was acknowledging its larger awareness of no boundary ... yet enough boundary to perceive (watch hear) thought. I don't know I am just learning about it myself ... Byee, Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 1999 Report Share Posted December 29, 1999 Max, The best advice I can give you for now is to go ahead and read the book you mentioned. It's a pretty good one; I just read it myself a month or so ago. I think that it will clear up several issues regarding Advaitic epistemology that have been troubling you, and at the same time will open up several new cans of worms for you (at least that's what happened to me....) W >Max Harris <max4dialog > >As one who has been greatly influenced by phenomenology, I want to >draw attention to a book I plan on ordering which is quite relevant >to this topic: > >The Disinterested Witness : A Fragment of Advaita Vedanta >Phenomenology (Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy) > >by Bina Gupta > >Table of Contents >1. Introduction >2. The Advaita Notion of Saksin (Witness-Consciousness); its >Anticipations in the Upanisads and Gaudapada >3. Samkara on Saksin >4. Saksin and Advaita Epistemology >5. Saksin and Advaita Metaphysics >6. Saksin and Western Phenomenology > >So, can anyone elaborate on the "saksin" notion? 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.