A Note on Non-Duality

[Guest guest]

Concordance909 wrote:

 

 

2.20 The indweller is pure consciousness only, which though pure,

sees through the mind and is identified by ego as being only the

mind.

4.34 When the attributes cease mutative association with

awarenessness, they resolve into dormancy in Nature, and the

indweller shines forth as pure consciousness. This is absolute

freedom. - Yoga Sutras

 

This is quite similar too:

 

What is the Self?

-- He who stands apart from the Physical, the Emotional, and the

Causal Vestures; who is beyond the five Veils; who is witness of the

three Modes; whose own nature is Being, Consciousness, Bliss -- this

is the Self. - Tattvabodha

 

and

 

135. The true self, of the nature of pure consciousness, and

separate from the productions of nature, illuminates all this, real

and unreal, without itself changing. It plays in the states of

waking and so on, as the foundation sense of 'I exist', as the

awareness, witness of all experience. - Vivekachudamani

 

 

Hello Concordance909,

An apt handle for the gatherer of that collection of references on what I take

to be the theme of the saksin/witness. It is a consistent concern of Sankaras

and not just an easy to follow entree into Advaita. It may sound like a type

of psych-physical dualism when he discusses the locus of pain in Upa.Sah. #

33,34,35. If pain were in the Self it could not be perceived by the Self as

the Self could not grasp itself. So it is are other than the Self. This is an

important statement of the Witness/Saksin which is readily mistaken for a

mental subject/mental object theory. "People point out pain caused by burns

and the like to be in that place where they occur but not in the perceiver."

 

#35 has the statement which seems to imply an inner distance. "Moreover, (if

it were in the Self) the pain could not be perceived by the Self like the

colour of the eye by the same eye. Therefore, as it is perceived to have the

same seat as burns, cuts and the like, pain must be an object of perception

like them. Since it is an effect it must have a receptacle like that in which

rice is cooked. The impressions of pain must have the same seat as pain

itself."

 

How then does this differ from psycho-physical dualism? As Sankara says in

B.S.B. it is because the nature of the witness is different that there is no

falling into infinite regress as is claimed by the Vijnanavadin.

 

The first and chiefest difference between the Saksin and the Ghost in the

Machine is that sense impressions are in the same place as lust, deliberation

and doubt viz. the intellect. Stimuli and universals, concepts etc are all

distinguished from the Self. The Self in this case is bearing the upadhi of

the mind which is what turns it into the saksin. The saksin is individuated

because minds are individual. But it is essentially of a different nature.

 

It is this which distinguishes Advaita from Buddhism. Sankara emphatically

rejects the notion of self-luminousity. Too big a gap to fudge.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

> Hello Concordance909,

> An apt handle for the gatherer of that collection of references on

what I take

> to be the theme of the saksin/witness. It is a consistent concern

of Sankaras

> and not just an easy to follow entree into Advaita. It may sound

like a type

> of psych-physical dualism when he discusses the locus of pain in

Upa.Sah. #

> 33,34,35.

 

 

Thanks, Michael

 

I assume Upa.Sah is Shankara's Upadesa Sahasri? If so, which chapter

are these verse numbers from? The edition I have of the Upadesa

Sahasri is the one published by the Sri Ramakrishna Math, translated

by Swami Jagadananda. I assume that the numbering system is as found

in the original Sanskrit, but I'm not too educated on the different

numbering systems of Sanskrit works.

 

Thanks once again.