Amness and witness

[Guest guest]

Dear Colette, Warren and Max,

 

I had written:

 

See how you like this (As much as any such thing can be said in words).

 

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.

 

The core Amness is the real You (and I), the differentiated witness is what one

*thinks* oneself to be, and the c.p.p. is what carries on the lila of daily life

in the phenomenal reality

 

All the three = the average person.

Remove the (illusion of) the d.w., and you have the sage.

-------------

Colette wrote:

So you think witness is illusion too? I wonder where soul fits into all this?

---------

Depends on what you mean by "witness." You had said "differentiated" witness. So

if there is an idea of "difference" or separateness, then that is certainly an

illusion. Some people refer to the ultimate state as "Witnessing" which they

describe as "Witness-ING without a witness-ER." But in that case there will be

no separate (or "differentiated") witness.

 

The "soul" is the word used in Christianity, which indicates the same feeling of

a separately existing independent, autonomous entity residing "in" the body

which is referred to in Hindu texts as "jivaatman" and is usually translated as

"self" (small s) or "individual self" or "ego" (not to be confused with the

Freudian ego of psychoanalytic theory). Actually, the word jivaatman corresponds

more to the word "soul."

------------

Warren wrote:

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 hate to speak for somebody else - so correct me if I'm wrong, Nitin!

----------

Reply:

On the dot, warren. However, "witness" was not my word (as you can see from

above). Personally I prefer to avoid it because it implies a witness(er). I

would rather use the following terms for the possible situations:

 

"Involved, dualistic viewing" for the average situation,

 

"Detached, dualistic viewing" for the active practice of `mindfulness'

(Vipassana type of meditation)

 

"Non-dual perception" where viewing is the same as being. It is not a

`practice.' There is now no `one' who is doing the viewing. And there is no

question of detachment (detachment for `whom,' from `what'? All is

`inseparate'). The triad of seeing-seer-seen seen in its original and

ever-existent (never lost) unity. This is the post-Enlightenment spontaneous

mindfulness of the Buddha.

 

Best wishes,

 

Nitin

 

Homepage: http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi