Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 namaste. We read in the books and we hear in the various discourses that we should develop sAkshi bhAva, a witness attitude, in order to progress in our quest for realization of the SELF. sAkshi bhAva may be understood to mean one of 1. develop a witness attitude, i.e., look at happenings of the jagat from afar, or 2. behave AS IF you are a witness to the jagat. Although there is a distinct difference between the two, I would like to argue in this post that neither is a tenable proposition for an early sAdhaka, and in general express my doubt on *wilful choice* for this particular route. 1. develop a witness attitude to the happenings of the jagat around us. Quite often we hear sayings to the effect, to watch the thoughts as they develop. I wonder how can this be done by an early spiritual seeker. The thoughts are arising in you, with you being the main and only producer of these thoughts. How can you be a witness to that? You are a participant. You can be a witness only if you are apart from the thoughts and nothing to do with the thoughts. This witness attitude can develop on its own as Knowledge dawns, i.e., if one recognizes what tvam (You) is: dehendriya manaH prANAhamkr^itibhyo vilakshaNaH (You is quite distinct from body, sense organs, mind, prANaH and ego). Only when that knowledge of tvam has evolved, then only one can be a witness. But at that stage, there is nothing outside to witness. All is subsumed in the tvaM. That is, witness attitude is not at the beginning stages of spiritual seeking. 2. behave AS IF one is a witness to the jagat: Difficulty with this outlook is, it pre-supposes that jagat is apart from you and it legitamizes a practice that the jagat is functional apart from you. But, that is contrary to the Truth and is not possible. jIvA is not apart from brahman and jagat is not apart from brahman. If this 'practice' is followed, it leads unknowingly to an unrealistic situation that we see jagat-functioning, apart from oneself, i.e. giving reality to a jagat apart from brahman. Quite often, the example of a screen on which a movie is projected is used to illustrate the witness attitude. The difficulty with that example is it is not relevant vis-a-vis jIvA and Atman. Yes, the screen is a neutral observer as the movie is projected and the screen is unaffected by the pictures or scenes of the projected movie. The screen is apart from the movie. However, in the case of the jIvA, the brahman and the jIvA are one and the same. Yet, the jIvA in its deluded state, takes him/herself to be apart from the brahman and sees only a limited self. While he/she is in such a deluded state, he/she cannot think him/herself to be a witness. Only after dawning of Knowledge, the jIvA sees the infinite nature of itself and will be a witness. That is only at advanced state of spiritual evolution. Hence, my thinking is: the witness attitude can develop only on its own as tvaM is properly understood. But a conscious effort to be a *witness* to the thoughts/actions can be like a dog chasing the tail. JnAnam, the true Knowledge is the only way and is moksha. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 namaste. I have received the following message from shri Kartik on the above subject. I am grateful to shri Kartik for this and I am forwarding it to the List as the List members will also be interested in the contents. gm ---------- ----- Forwarded message from kartik ----- Thu, 24 May 101 19:44:44 GMT kartik kartik Re: sAkshi bhAva - witness attitude gmurthy OM GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH OM NAMAH SIVAYA OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA Blessed Self, There is a GRADUAL evolutionary process in cultivating the Sakshi Bhava, this is by no means a sudden or abrupt process. Like anything else in the Spiritual Path, this is gradual and should be gradual and is evolutionary. There are stages as in anything else. Complete Sakshi bhava is certainly a sign of a highly eveolved state. Observing thoughts helps in cultivating the Sakshi Bhava and also understanding the play of the mind and ego. This detachment is immensely helpful in life Spiritual. On another note, even in our "making a living" life, it becomes essential to take oneself out of a situation and look at it from the outside. many successful professionals in different fields did this and cultivated this also. Something that is not to be forgotten is that in the Spiritual Path thare are NO shortcuts. There is the typical egsample of 5 years of medical school to get a medical degree (after 12 years of schooling) and then learning many more years in experience before becoming a reasonably decent physician (no specialization yet) amd the same for law and engineering careers. if this be the case of "mundane" life, then the Spiritual path demands even more rigorous training simply becase it is a training of the mind and thinking (or the lack of it) from the heart - to put it grossly. If you feel these are good ideas, please post them to the list in your inimitable manner - you just have a great expression.... Pranam OM > > namaste. > > We read in the books and we hear in the various discourses that > we should develop sAkshi bhAva, a witness attitude, in order to > progress in our quest for realization of the SELF. sAkshi bhAva > may be understood to mean one of > > 1. develop a witness attitude, i.e., look at happenings of the > jagat from afar, or > > 2. behave AS IF you are a witness to the jagat. > > Although there is a distinct difference between the two, I would > like to argue in this post that neither is a tenable proposition > for an early sAdhaka, and in general express my doubt on *wilful > choice* for this particular route. > > 1. develop a witness attitude to the happenings of the jagat > around us. Quite often we hear sayings to the effect, to > watch the thoughts as they develop. I wonder how can this > be done by an early spiritual seeker. The thoughts are > arising in you, with you being the main and only producer > of these thoughts. How can you be a witness to that? You > are a participant. You can be a witness only if you are > apart from the thoughts and nothing to do with the thoughts. > > This witness attitude can develop on its own as Knowledge > dawns, i.e., if one recognizes what tvam (You) is: dehendriya > manaH prANAhamkr^itibhyo vilakshaNaH (You is quite distinct > from body, sense organs, mind, prANaH and ego). Only when that > knowledge of tvam has evolved, then only one can be a witness. > But at that stage, there is nothing outside to witness. All is > subsumed in the tvaM. That is, witness attitude is not at the > beginning stages of spiritual seeking. > > 2. behave AS IF one is a witness to the jagat: Difficulty with > this outlook is, it pre-supposes that jagat is apart from you > and it legitamizes a practice that the jagat is functional apart > from you. But, that is contrary to the Truth and is not possible. > jIvA is not apart from brahman and jagat is not apart from brahman. > If this 'practice' is followed, it leads unknowingly to an > unrealistic situation that we see jagat-functioning, apart from > oneself, i.e. giving reality to a jagat apart from brahman. > > Quite often, the example of a screen on which a movie is projected > is used to illustrate the witness attitude. The difficulty with that > example is it is not relevant vis-a-vis jIvA and Atman. Yes, the > screen is a neutral observer as the movie is projected and the screen > is unaffected by the pictures or scenes of the projected movie. The > screen is apart from the movie. However, in the case of the jIvA, > the brahman and the jIvA are one and the same. Yet, the jIvA in its > deluded state, takes him/herself to be apart from the brahman and > sees only a limited self. While he/she is in such a deluded state, > he/she cannot think him/herself to be a witness. Only after dawning > of Knowledge, the jIvA sees the infinite nature of itself and will > be a witness. That is only at advanced state of spiritual evolution. > Hence, my thinking is: the witness attitude can develop only on its > own as tvaM is properly understood. But a conscious effort to be a > *witness* to the thoughts/actions can be like a dog chasing the tail. > JnAnam, the true Knowledge is the only way and is moksha. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Namaste, I also recall from Swami Sivanandaji's writings where he recommended 'nimitta bhaava' as equally effective. [Gita : 11:33 ..... nimittamaatraM bhava savyasaachin.h .] Regards, s. advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste. > > I have received the following message from shri Kartik > on the above subject. I am grateful to shri Kartik for > this and I am forwarding it to the List as the List > members will also be interested in the contents. > > gm > > ---------- > > ----- Forwarded message from kartik@k... ----- > Thu, 24 May 101 19:44:44 GMT > kartik@k... > kartik@k... > Re: sAkshi bhAva - witness attitude > gmurthy@m... > > OM > GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH > GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH > OM NAMAH SIVAYA > OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA > > Blessed Self, > There is a GRADUAL evolutionary process in cultivating the > Sakshi Bhava, this is by no means a sudden or abrupt > process. Like anything else in the Spiritual Path, this is > gradual and should be gradual and is evolutionary. > > There are stages as in anything else. Complete Sakshi bhava > is certainly a sign of a highly eveolved state. > > Observing thoughts helps in cultivating the Sakshi Bhava > and also understanding the play of the mind and ego. > > This detachment is immensely helpful in life Spiritual. > > On another note, even in our "making a living" life, it > becomes essential to take oneself out of a situation and > look at it from the outside. many successful professionals > in different fields did this and cultivated this also. > > Something that is not to be forgotten is that in the > Spiritual Path thare are NO shortcuts. > > There is the typical egsample of 5 years of medical school > to get a medical degree (after 12 years of schooling) and > then learning many more years in experience before becoming > a reasonably decent physician (no specialization yet) amd > the same for law and engineering careers. if this be the > case of "mundane" life, then the Spiritual path demands > even more rigorous training simply becase it is a training > of the mind and thinking (or the lack of it) from the > heart - to put it grossly. > > If you feel these are good ideas, please post them to the > list in your inimitable manner - you just have a great > expression.... > > Pranam > OM > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste. > > We read in the books and we hear in the various discourses that > we should develop sAkshi bhAva, a witness attitude, in order to > progress in our quest for realization of the SELF. sAkshi bhAva > may be understood to mean one of > > 1. develop a witness attitude, i.e., look at happenings of the > jagat from afar, or > > 2. behave AS IF you are a witness to the jagat. > > Although there is a distinct difference between the two, I would > like to argue in this post that neither is a tenable proposition > for an early sAdhaka, and in general express my doubt on *wilful > choice* for this particular route. <SNIP? Blessings! Thank you so much for this post. It is wonderful! What you have shared seems very wise and useful to the seeker. The pitfalls you point out are very real, it seems to me, and to be avoided. The moment you have the so-called human mind willfully "doing it" error has entered the picture in some shape or form. Indeed, the error that you expose so logically could actually lead to a kind of spaced-out self-alienation and self-separation, which would actually be a kind of psychological trauma. In extreme form, it could even lead to a kind of schizophrenia. In my own spiritual experience, I can also attest that it has only been -- how to say this -- growth in Grace and spiritual understanding that has enabled any measure of true witness and genuine attentiveness. Trying to do it in the mistaken way you so helpfully warn against only leads to delusion and literal self-alienation. Unfortunately, as a Westerner, I can tell you that this wrong approach is very prevalent in pop and many "new age" counterfeits of genuine Eastern mysticism. That is also why your post is so helpful. Many thanks to you. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Namaste. Thanks for a wonderful inquiry. In an earlier post on 'Nishkama Karma', Shree Ram Chandran conveyed right approach to Karma. This can be found at advaitin/message/9438 Shree Murthy further conveyed about mind control referring to Gita 6.35, 6.36 and can be found at advaitin/message/9552 In my opinion, all the above are related closely to one another. sAkshi bhAva, I think, one must cultivate to be an effortless joy. As Shree Steve pointed out in a later post, a concentrated effort in one direction alone may not be a good idea. This has to be balanced by following an overall plan incorporating jnana, bhakti, raja, karma yogas. When mind control is becoming tough, it is probably because of not enough not-I bhAva (nishkama karma). When nishkama karma is getting tough, it is probably because of not enough sAkshi bhAva. sAkshi bhAva is easier if fruits are offered to the God as Shree Ram Chandran pointed out under item#2 of his post (bhakti/karma blend). Please feel free to correct the above as necessary. With Love, Raghava Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 OM GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH GURURH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH OM NAMAH SIVAYA OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA Blessed Self, Most beautiful indeed. You guys have stated the approach of Sri Swami SIVANANDAJI in most simple terms. Sri Swami Sivananda has been the proponent of the Integral Yoga, i.e. neither this nor that but a little of all, leading to Moksha and avoiding the pitfalls of ego that arises if one follows one path only and becomes an "expert" in it. This may not be true of all aspirants, but in the Kali Yuga, it seems best to adopt an integral approach. More on this at: SIVANANDA'S INTEGRAL YOGA By Siva-Pada-Renu SRI SWAMI VENKATESANANDA http://www.dlshq.org/download/integral.htm Pranam OM > Namaste. > Thanks for a wonderful inquiry. > > In an earlier post on 'Nishkama Karma', Shree Ram > Chandran conveyed > right approach to Karma. This can be found at > advaitin/message/9438 > Shree Murthy further conveyed about mind control > referring to Gita > 6.35, 6.36 and can be found at > advaitin/message/9552 > > In my opinion, all the above are related closely to > one another. > > sAkshi bhAva, I think, one must cultivate to be an > effortless joy. > As Shree Steve pointed out in a later post, a > concentrated effort in > one direction alone may not be a good idea. This has > to be balanced by > following an overall plan incorporating jnana, bhakti, > raja, karma > yogas. > When mind control is becoming tough, it is probably > because of not > enough not-I bhAva (nishkama karma). When nishkama > karma is getting > tough, it is probably because of not enough sAkshi > bhAva. sAkshi bhAva > is easier if fruits are offered to the God as Shree > Ram Chandran > pointed out under item#2 of his post (bhakti/karma > blend). > > Please feel free to correct the above as necessary. > > With Love, > Raghava > > > > > Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions./ > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > ------------ Get FREE E-Mail http://www.valuemail.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 Harih Om! I would like to bring in a day-to-day example related to the sAkshi bhAva. Imagine you went to a movie. In that movie -- on the screen you see all characters playing their role! From the beginning we almost know who is who in the movie! Imagine that there is a traitor in that movie --- and he is trying to talk all nice things to cheat another person, who is a good person! We feel sorry for this good person, that he is getting cheated by that traitor. Because, we know that the other person is a traitor! But the good person, who is inside the movie doesn't know --- what we already knew! We know who is good and who is bad! That is what we call as being a "Witness". GOD is said to be a "sAkshi" in the above terms. He knows who is who, who is good and who is bad. But then, being potentially divine, why can't we maintain this witness attitude? The answer is because of our "identification" with the objects we can't maintain our witness attitude. In Gita Lord used the word "dvaMdva mOhEna abhijAtOsi pAMDava" -- beings are born in to the dualities. We identify ourselves to either good or bad. We like something or we dislike something, but we never stay neutral. Did you ever try to watch a tragedy movie? :-) You can see many people, who came to watch the movie, crying out loud at the end! Did you ever wonder why people, sitting in the cinima hall, instead of thinking of it as just another tragedy movie, keep crying? It is because they *temporarily* forget that they are in a theater, hence they cry! That is the maya. They get identified with the situation. When there is no identification, there is no drama! When there is no identification there is no world, no jeeva, no jagat :-) In deed, this is where the "Knowledge Path" comes in to picture to help us! "jnAna mArga" - nahi jnAnEna sadRUSaM pavitraM iha vidyatE. A person who has the right knowledge, that he is watching *just* a movie, can only be able to see the tragic movie with out crying! Same way, a person who has the right knowledge about the world, about birth; about death; and about all incidences which are taking place around us in day to day life ---- can only be a witness. One who indulges gets perished. The one who can be just a witness alone can transcend from all this divine drama! :-) If anybody is complaining that he is *not* able to be a witness, then that means he is getting indulged! Beware, mind cheats in many ways! Harih Om tat sat. In my humble opinion, the following sloka from Gita should be contemplated upon while discussing about the Sakshi Bhava: avyaktAdeeni bhootAni vyakta madhyAni bhArata avyakta nidhanAnyEva tatra kA paridEvanA || 2.28 Beings unmanifest in the beginning, and unmanifest again in their end seem to be manifest in the middle, O Bharata. What then is there to grieve about? I remain yours, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 Namaste, Another verse for contemplation: Gita 9:18 - gatiH bhartaa prabhuH saakshii nivaasaH sharaNa.n suhR^it.h . prabhavaH pralayaH sthaana.n nidhaanaM biijam avyayam.h .. "I am the Goal, the Sustainer, the Lord, the Witness, the Abode, the Shelter and the Friend, the Origin, Dissolution and Stay, the Treasure-house, the Seed Imperishable." Regards, s. advaitin, "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava@m...> wrote: > avyaktAdeeni bhootAni vyakta madhyAni bhArata > avyakta nidhanAnyEva tatra kA paridEvanA || 2.28 > > Beings unmanifest in the beginning, and unmanifest again in their end > seem to be > manifest in the middle, O Bharata. What then is there to grieve about? > > I remain yours, > Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2001 Report Share Posted May 28, 2001 OM GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH OM NAMAH SIVAYA OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA Blessed Self, Sakshi Bhava is to rise to a higher level of conciousness, ultimately there is no sakshi all is pure conciousness. A Sadhaka on the physical level, may need to cultivate the Sakshi Bhava at that level, to transcend it. A Sadhaka at the mental level may transcend the mental level by Sakshi Bhava at that level. It is something like "growing up from a level to the next" Sakshi Bhava helps in this because it cultivates dispassion and realization of the object-subject relationship and this implies a trancending of that level. For instance merely repeating "this jagat is unrealmy body is not realmy mind is not realthis situation is not real" may not be completely effective. Truth simply dawns. An evolution from one level to the next can be accomplished by Sakshi Bhava. Pranam OM > > On Sat, 26 May 2001, Madhava K. Turumella wrote: > > > Harih Om! > > > > I would like to bring in a day-to-day example related to the sAkshi > > bhAva. Imagine you went to a movie. In that movie -- on the screen you > > see all characters playing their role! From the beginning we almost > > know who is who in the movie! Imagine that there is a traitor in that > > movie --- and he is trying to talk all nice things to cheat another > > person, who is a good person! We feel sorry for this good person, that > > he is getting cheated by that traitor. Because, we know that the other > > person is a traitor! But the good person, who is inside the movie > > doesn't know --- what we already knew! We know who is good and who is > > bad! That is what we call as being a "Witness". > > > > GOD is said to be a "sAkshi" in the above terms. He knows who is who, > > who is good and who is bad. But then, being potentially divine, why > > can't we maintain this witness attitude? The answer is because of our > > "identification" with the objects we can't maintain our witness > > attitude. > > > > In Gita Lord used the word "dvaMdva mOhEna abhijAtOsi pAMDava" -- beings > > are born in to the dualities. We identify ourselves to either good or > > bad. We like something or we dislike something, but we never stay > > neutral. Did you ever try to watch a tragedy movie? :-) You can see > > many people, who came to watch the movie, crying out loud at the end! > > Did you ever wonder why people, sitting in the cinima hall, instead of > > thinking of it as just another tragedy movie, keep crying? It is > > because they *temporarily* forget that they are in a theater, hence they > > cry! That is the maya. They get identified with the situation. When > > there is no identification, there is no drama! When there is no > > identification there is no world, no jeeva, no jagat :-) > > > > In deed, this is where the "Knowledge Path" comes in to picture to help > > us! "jnAna mArga" - nahi jnAnEna sadRUSaM pavitraM iha vidyatE. A > > person who has the right knowledge, that he is watching *just* a movie, > > can only be able to see the tragic movie with out crying! Same way, a > > person who has the right knowledge about the world, about birth; about > > death; and about all incidences which are taking place around us in day > > to day life ---- can only be a witness. One who indulges gets perished. > > The one who can be just a witness alone can transcend from all this > > divine drama! :-) If anybody is complaining that he is *not* able to > > be a witness, then that means he is getting indulged! Beware, mind > > cheats in many ways! Harih Om tat sat. > > > > namaste shri Madhava and other learned members, > > Thanks very much for the viewpoints. I am not convinced > yet that sAkshi bhAva (witness-attitude) is feasible. Let > me use shri Madhava's response to build up on what I stated > earlier. > > Before we say that we are (or need to be) a witness, we > need to clarify at what stage this "we" is. Again, I use > shri shankara's usage of tvaM as our standard. [dehendriya > manaH prANAhamkR^itibhyo vilakshaNaH] > > If we see ourselves at the body level, we can regard ourselves > to be a witness to characters outside our body. > > If we see ourselves at the thought-level, we can regard ourselves > as witness to the thoughts. > > If we see ourselves as more all-encmpassing, then what are > we witness of? Let me expand on this a bit more. > Advaitic understanding deals with this knowledge of the SELF. > Here, I doubt on the feasibility of the witness-attitude. > Firstly, if we are a witness, we need to ask: witness to what? > What is there apart from the I that need to be witnessed? Also, > witness, by definition, has to be apart from what is being > witnessed. That is not the case here. > Secondly, if we accept there is an event/object that is witnessed, > then it automatically assumes that there is some event/object apart > from the I. That is, it separates the I and the jagat, a non-acceptable > situation. Thus, on these grounds, there is nothing that is witnessed. > > > In my humble opinion, the following sloka from Gita should be > > contemplated upon while discussing about the Sakshi Bhava: > > > > avyaktAdeeni bhootAni vyakta madhyAni bhArata > > avyakta nidhanAnyEva tatra kA paridEvanA || 2.28 > > > > Beings unmanifest in the beginning, and unmanifest again in their end > > seem to be > > manifest in the middle, O Bharata. What then is there to grieve about? > > > > In addition to the above verse, a more appropriate may be the > one from GauDapAdakArikA > > adau ante ca yAn nAsti, vartamAnepi tat tathA > > [that which is not there at the beginning and which is not going > to be there at the end may as well considered to be not there at > the present.] > > I would be most obliged for both pro- and contrary- viewpoints > to the above and amplifications. > > > I remain yours, > > Madhava > > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ------------------------- ----------- > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > ------------ Get FREE E-Mail http://www.valuemail.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2001 Report Share Posted May 28, 2001 On Sat, 26 May 2001, Madhava K. Turumella wrote: > Harih Om! > > I would like to bring in a day-to-day example related to the sAkshi > bhAva. Imagine you went to a movie. In that movie -- on the screen you > see all characters playing their role! From the beginning we almost > know who is who in the movie! Imagine that there is a traitor in that > movie --- and he is trying to talk all nice things to cheat another > person, who is a good person! We feel sorry for this good person, that > he is getting cheated by that traitor. Because, we know that the other > person is a traitor! But the good person, who is inside the movie > doesn't know --- what we already knew! We know who is good and who is > bad! That is what we call as being a "Witness". > > GOD is said to be a "sAkshi" in the above terms. He knows who is who, > who is good and who is bad. But then, being potentially divine, why > can't we maintain this witness attitude? The answer is because of our > "identification" with the objects we can't maintain our witness > attitude. > > In Gita Lord used the word "dvaMdva mOhEna abhijAtOsi pAMDava" -- beings > are born in to the dualities. We identify ourselves to either good or > bad. We like something or we dislike something, but we never stay > neutral. Did you ever try to watch a tragedy movie? :-) You can see > many people, who came to watch the movie, crying out loud at the end! > Did you ever wonder why people, sitting in the cinima hall, instead of > thinking of it as just another tragedy movie, keep crying? It is > because they *temporarily* forget that they are in a theater, hence they > cry! That is the maya. They get identified with the situation. When > there is no identification, there is no drama! When there is no > identification there is no world, no jeeva, no jagat :-) > > In deed, this is where the "Knowledge Path" comes in to picture to help > us! "jnAna mArga" - nahi jnAnEna sadRUSaM pavitraM iha vidyatE. A > person who has the right knowledge, that he is watching *just* a movie, > can only be able to see the tragic movie with out crying! Same way, a > person who has the right knowledge about the world, about birth; about > death; and about all incidences which are taking place around us in day > to day life ---- can only be a witness. One who indulges gets perished. > The one who can be just a witness alone can transcend from all this > divine drama! :-) If anybody is complaining that he is *not* able to > be a witness, then that means he is getting indulged! Beware, mind > cheats in many ways! Harih Om tat sat. > namaste shri Madhava and other learned members, Thanks very much for the viewpoints. I am not convinced yet that sAkshi bhAva (witness-attitude) is feasible. Let me use shri Madhava's response to build up on what I stated earlier. Before we say that we are (or need to be) a witness, we need to clarify at what stage this "we" is. Again, I use shri shankara's usage of tvaM as our standard. [dehendriya manaH prANAhamkR^itibhyo vilakshaNaH] If we see ourselves at the body level, we can regard ourselves to be a witness to characters outside our body. If we see ourselves at the thought-level, we can regard ourselves as witness to the thoughts. If we see ourselves as more all-encmpassing, then what are we witness of? Let me expand on this a bit more. Advaitic understanding deals with this knowledge of the SELF. Here, I doubt on the feasibility of the witness-attitude. Firstly, if we are a witness, we need to ask: witness to what? What is there apart from the I that need to be witnessed? Also, witness, by definition, has to be apart from what is being witnessed. That is not the case here. Secondly, if we accept there is an event/object that is witnessed, then it automatically assumes that there is some event/object apart from the I. That is, it separates the I and the jagat, a non-acceptable situation. Thus, on these grounds, there is nothing that is witnessed. > In my humble opinion, the following sloka from Gita should be > contemplated upon while discussing about the Sakshi Bhava: > > avyaktAdeeni bhootAni vyakta madhyAni bhArata > avyakta nidhanAnyEva tatra kA paridEvanA || 2.28 > > Beings unmanifest in the beginning, and unmanifest again in their end > seem to be > manifest in the middle, O Bharata. What then is there to grieve about? > In addition to the above verse, a more appropriate may be the one from GauDapAdakArikA adau ante ca yAn nAsti, vartamAnepi tat tathA [that which is not there at the beginning and which is not going to be there at the end may as well considered to be not there at the present.] I would be most obliged for both pro- and contrary- viewpoints to the above and amplifications. > I remain yours, > Madhava > Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2001, Madhava K. Turumella wrote: > ---------------------------- > namaste shri Madhava and other learned members, ------------------------- > Before we say that we are (or need to be) a witness, we > need to clarify at what stage this "we" is. Again, I use > shri shankara's usage of tvaM as our standard. [dehendriya > manaH prANAhamkR^itibhyo vilakshaNaH] > > If we see ourselves as more all-encmpassing, then what are > we witness of? > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy --\ ------------------ NamonnamaH GMji, Please try the following for size. It is very true that once you have acheived the vision that you are the *dehendriya manaH prANAhamkR^itibhyo vilakshaNaH*, there is nothing other than YOU, for you to witness. The advice to develope *saakshii bhaava* obviously applies while you are still under adhyaasa, and are still identifying (wrongly) yourself with the dehendriya manaH prANAhamkR^iti -s. In order to get rid of this wrong identification, you are advised to develop (gradually) the attitude that you are different from your deha etc. That whatever is happening to your deha etc. is not happening to (the real) YOU. That you are not a participant, but only a WITNESS to whatever is happening. For example, even when you fall sick you take the attitude it is only my body that is afflicted and not my self ! As this attitude develops, your identification with the deha etc.weakens and ultimately the adhyaasa vanishes. *Nimitta bhaava * refers to your attitude to your actions. There, your attitude is that you are only a tool and not the doer, the results of the action being dedicated to Ishvara. Both these bhaava-s develop a-sangatva. They are applicable while you are under adhyaasa; and help you to overcome that adhyaasa. Obviously, they cease once jiiva-brahma aikayam is realised. Regards. V.M.Sundaram > > --- > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 namaste and thanks very much for the clarifications from shri Kartikji and shri Sundaramji. Specifically in response to shri Sundaramji's clarification, On Tue, 29 May 2001, V.M.Sundaram wrote: > > NamonnamaH GMji, > > Please try the following for size. > > It is very true that once you have acheived the vision that you are the > *dehendriya manaH prANAhamkR^itibhyo vilakshaNaH*, there is > nothing other than YOU, for you to witness. > > The advice to develope *saakshii bhaava* obviously applies while you are > still under adhyaasa, and are still identifying (wrongly) yourself with the > dehendriya manaH prANAhamkR^iti -s. In order to get rid of this wrong identification, > you are advised to develop (gradually) the attitude that you are different > from your deha etc. That whatever is happening to your deha etc. is not > happening to (the real) YOU. That you are not a participant, but only a WITNESS to > whatever is happening. For example, even when you fall sick you take the attitude > it is only my body that is afflicted and not my self ! > As this attitude develops, your identification with the deha etc.weakens and ultimately > the adhyaasa vanishes. > Does it not automatically mean there is something or we place something (be it the body, be it the jagat) outside or apart from the SELF for which SELF is the witness? If I am the SELF, what is this apart from this SELF? Your point in your last sentence above is quite correct and I agree with that. However, along with that (weakening of the identification with deha etc), we grow a monster *outside* called the jagat which is APART from the SELF. That cannot be the case (because the jagat apart from the SELF does not exist). Hence this difficulty with sAkshi-bhAva. You may say that what has been witnessed apart from real YOU is all mithya. Is it not closer to Truth to look at it that everything has evolved out of YOU (that SELF) in which case there is only I, nothing else to witness. I realize that we will explain ultimately that the jagat (the deha and everything which we have gradually built as not the SELF in our development of sAkshi-bhAva) is subsumed back into this SELF. Because, it is this SELf from which all this jagat (to which you say we are witness of) is coming out and going back in again. But, still, can the Truth be realized without this intermediate sAkshi-bhAva attitude which in a way necessitates build-up of jagat apart from the SELF? > *Nimitta bhaava * refers to your attitude to your actions. There, your attitude is that you > are only a tool and not the doer, the results of the action being dedicated to Ishvara. > > Both these bhaava-s develop a-sangatva. They are applicable while you are under > adhyaasa; and help you to overcome that adhyaasa. Obviously, they cease once > jiiva-brahma aikayam is realised. > > Regards. > V.M.Sundaram > Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 Namaste: Here is my understanding of the "witness attitude." When we go to the court as the witness, our role is neither to judge nor to argue in favor of one or other. The best quotation that I can think of is the following from the Upanishdads which explains sAkshi bhAva beautifully: "Life is a bridge, enjoy while crossing, don't build any castle." Simply speaking, life is to live and not to dream! regards, Ram Chandran Note: Any more explanations will take us away from "sAkshi bhAva." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 OM GURUR BRAHMA GURU VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH OM NAMAH SIVAYA OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA Blessed self, Most excellently expressed!!! Pranam OM > > > Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > > > > Does it not automatically mean there is something or we place > > something (be it the body, be it the jagat) outside or apart from > > the SELF for which SELF is the witness? If I am the SELF, what is > > this apart from this SELF? Your point in your last sentence above > > is quite correct and I agree with that. However, along with that > > (weakening of the identification with deha etc), we grow a monster > > *outside* called the jagat which is APART from the SELF. That cannot > > be the case (because the jagat apart from the SELF does not exist). > > Hence this difficulty with sAkshi-bhAva. > > ---------- > > We should distinguish between SELF and self. > The SELF is Pure Consciousness aka atman, brahman. > The self is the SELF conditioned by MAAYAA / AVIDYAA. > > Jagat has no existence as other than the SELF. But the self perceives > the jagat as if it is *outside* of the self , under the influence of avidyaa. > This false perception, which you rightly call the Monster, is a product > of avidyaa . It is not grown by the saakshii bhaava. > > The saakshii bhaava is not to be understood as promoting the view that the > jagat is outside the SELF. It is an attitude of mind which will help the self > to remain unaffected by its association with the apparently- outside- jagat. > By such a-sangatva , the self can get disentangled from the false notions the > association gives rise to. This dissociation from the jagat (which it perceives > to be outside) is necessary before the self can realise that it is really the SELF. > With the dawn of such knowledge , the jagat no longer appears to be *outside*. > > Regards. > V.M.Sundaram. > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > ------------ Get FREE E-Mail http://www.valuemail.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > Does it not automatically mean there is something or we place > something (be it the body, be it the jagat) outside or apart from > the SELF for which SELF is the witness? If I am the SELF, what is > this apart from this SELF? Your point in your last sentence above > is quite correct and I agree with that. However, along with that > (weakening of the identification with deha etc), we grow a monster > *outside* called the jagat which is APART from the SELF. That cannot > be the case (because the jagat apart from the SELF does not exist). > Hence this difficulty with sAkshi-bhAva. ---------- We should distinguish between SELF and self. The SELF is Pure Consciousness aka atman, brahman. The self is the SELF conditioned by MAAYAA / AVIDYAA. Jagat has no existence as other than the SELF. But the self perceives the jagat as if it is *outside* of the self , under the influence of avidyaa. This false perception, which you rightly call the Monster, is a product of avidyaa . It is not grown by the saakshii bhaava. The saakshii bhaava is not to be understood as promoting the view that the jagat is outside the SELF. It is an attitude of mind which will help the self to remain unaffected by its association with the apparently- outside- jagat. By such a-sangatva , the self can get disentangled from the false notions the association gives rise to. This dissociation from the jagat (which it perceives to be outside) is necessary before the self can realise that it is really the SELF. With the dawn of such knowledge , the jagat no longer appears to be *outside*. Regards. V.M.Sundaram. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2001 Report Share Posted May 31, 2001 On Wed, 30 May 2001, V.M.Sundaram wrote: > > We should distinguish between SELF and self. > The SELF is Pure Consciousness aka atman, brahman. > The self is the SELF conditioned by MAAYAA / AVIDYAA. > > Jagat has no existence as other than the SELF. But the self perceives > the jagat as if it is *outside* of the self , under the influence of avidyaa. > This false perception, which you rightly call the Monster, is a product > of avidyaa . It is not grown by the saakshii bhaava. > > The saakshii bhaava is not to be understood as promoting the view that the > jagat is outside the SELF. It is an attitude of mind which will help the self > to remain unaffected by its association with the apparently- outside- jagat. > By such a-sangatva , the self can get disentangled from the false notions the > association gives rise to. This dissociation from the jagat (which it perceives > to be outside) is necessary before the self can realise that it is really the SELF. > With the dawn of such knowledge , the jagat no longer appears to be *outside*. > > Regards. > V.M.Sundaram. > namo namaH shri Sundaramji, Thanks very much for your comments. I agree fully with the essence of what you have said above. Our difference seems to be on the usefulness of such a *willful* track of adopting sAkshi-bhAva, as a technique for SELF-realization. Let me expand by asking the following questions: Who is this sAkshi? Is it the self or the SELF? By that question, I do not mean to say that self and SELF are different. The self is the deluded version of the SELF. My question is: is it in the deluded state it is a sAkshi, or is it in the full-realized state it is a sAkshi? My answer to the question is the following: If it is in the deluded state, the jIvA or the self cannot be a sAkshi because the jIvA or the self is not separate from the actions. How can the jIvA be a witness to the actions which he/she performs? If it is in the realized state the SELF is the sAkshi, that would again be not the case, because there is nothing outside the SELF that is being witnessed. Thus the sAkshi-bhAva could not be either in the state of delusion or in the state of full realization. Another question I have is: in your opinion, is this sAkshi-bhAva a transitory-stage tactic or is it the ultimate Truth? Another reservation I have about this sAkshi-bhAva is the following: please allow me to digress slightly first. >From childhood, we have been taught by the parents, by the society, to be cometetive, to aspire for material wealth. We have been taught to seek what is pleasant and had been told that is Happiness. (some of us might have been taught to seek what is good, but because of our prArabdha or past vAsanA-s, we still ended up in our present stage). We realize now, of course, that that is a wrong teaching and we are spending the rest of our life de-educating ourselves from those wrong concepts. Now coming to the point of discussion, I believe sAkshi-bhAva is not the ultimate Truth but only a suggested intermediate stage in our spiritual evolution. A bye-product of this particular tactic of spiritual growth, whether we like it or not, is to see the jagat *outside* us. There is tremendous evidence for this [seeing the jagat outside us] as one of the fundamental mistakes of a seeker (although he/she is a genuine serious seeker) is having difficulties with the understanding of brahma satyam jagat mithya. We have seen this topic appear many many times on many discussion lists, in many books, many AcAryA-s teaching it differently many many times to seekers at various levels. As you say above, sAkshi-bhAva may be intended to be a necessary tactic for the *mind* to see things separately from the doer. But you cannot deny the bye-product which I mentioned above. So much so, what happens then is, to again de-educate ourselves for the rest of our life that there is really nothing outside us, sAkshi-bhAva is only a tactic. In any case, it seems to me that I am repeating my arguments although using different words. That means, it is time for me to keep silent on this matter. Of course, I would be looking for more insights from you and other learned members. p.s. my apologies to shri Paul Cote-ji for intermixing some sanskrit words in this post. The reason for that is I do not really know whether what I call sAkshi-bhAva is the same as what Paulji calls witness-consciousness, or whether the phrase witness-consciousness is specially coined with a definite meaning. Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2001 Report Share Posted June 1, 2001 Namaste Gummuluruji and Sundarji: Thanks for the lively discussion on the thread on "witness attitude." When we move into the analytical mode, we do get into all sorts of contradictions as you both rightly pointed out. When we try to find intellectually satisfactory answer to questions that are beyond our intellect, we certainly likely to get contradictions! But such discussions do help us to grow spiritually and thanks to you both for your scholarly contributions. One of the easy resolution is the following: we just pretend as though we are the "witness" to our own actions. This assumption implies that we should just act and avoid to react. The rest of this posting distinguishes between `act' and `react' from Gita's perspective. The `witness attitude' can become clearer if we go back and read Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, verses 55 to 72. The witness attitude implies that our mind should be kept free from agitation. This is by no means an easy task and the manual of Gita can help us cultivate our mind to become a Yogi. Yogi means a person who has cultivated him or herself, who acts, not reacts.Yogi has the stable mind and Gitacharya calls such a person as the Sthitaprajna (person with non-oscillating steady mind) The Sthitaprajna only acts and never reacts. In verse 54, Sri Arjuna asks Lord Krishna to describe the person who has this firmly founded wisdom, whose being steadfast in spirit. Arjuna wants to know how should the person of settled intelligence behave (act). Lord Krishna's reply to Arjuna's question is described by the verses 55 to 72 - the characteristics of the perfect sage (Sthitaprajna). Lord Krishna clearly suggests that Arjuna should act and should not react. What is the difference between reacting and acting? Acting is the action we are supposed to do, at that moment. Reaction is that we are influenced by the situation and we are confused by the situation. We give ourselves into the situation where we cannot act. Then we react. Reaction means that the power of certain circumstances comes into our mind. If I am mad at you, if you act, you won't get mad back at me. If you react, you will shout exactly the same way because you have taken my anger. You will answer with the same manner or twice as angry. You reacted. When we act, we keep our-self calm and centered and do not get affected by anger. A situation for a person who has not cultivated him or herself makes them angry or agitated. The same situation, same intensity, makes a Yogi laugh. When we keep a situation in our mind all night, we poison our-self. We ruin our sleep, our evening and we cannot act. We can't find a good reason for reacting the way we did. The buddhi (intellect) shuts down. Buddhi is the finest portion of our mind and is clear crystal, a mirror. The individual Self constantly reflects on that mirror, the Buddhi. When we use our intellect, we only act. We have to cultivate to become the Sthitaprjana. What is our dharma, our duty to do in life? What is the meaning of life? Life is full of experiences consisting of circumstances, events, crises and resolutions. We can not find a single human being that is free from this. They are there to teach us and give us the opportunity to learn to rise up. What is important in life? Celebrate everything within. Focus on the dweller withing our heart. The heart is the temple where the dweller lives. Light a candle at the heart center and bow to the dweller, the Self. Pay our homage to Him, sit there and meditate until we get the peace. Receive the Prasad (mental peace) when we come out from that temple. We don't want to leave the peace there and we should take and keep the peace with us, everywhere we go. Keep that peace in our mind with every single action that we perform. Keep that peace always in our mind. That is the way we cultivate to become the Sthitaprajna. warmest regards, Ram Chandran 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.