Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 4. Witness of thoughts

[Guest guest]

In the statement 'I am consciousness', there are two parts. As anyone

experiences the world, these two parts get differently expressed. The 'I' gets

expressed as a changing personality. And 'consciousness' becomes expressed in

changing perceptions of many different objects. This results in two further

prakriyas. One prakriya examines personal perceptions, reflecting back into

their changeless witness. The other prakriya examines objects, reducing them to

consciousness.

 

The witness prakriya starts out with a negative, as described in Shri

Atmananda's fourth point for sadhana:

 

"Body, senses and mind are not always with me (examination of the three states).

Therefore I cannot be the body, senses or mind."

 

Here, a process of elimination is begun, to distinguish what exactly is true

self. One's own true identity is that from which one can never be apart, which

can never move away. Anything that can be distanced must be eliminated from

consideration as the truth of one's own self.

 

The elimination is progressive. It starts with one's physical identity, as a

body in an outside world. But that outside body disappears from experience, in

dreams and deep sleep. Even in the waking state, the body disappears when

attention turns to other objects or to thoughts and feelings in the mind.

 

In fact, the body that perceives a world is present only fitfully, in actual

experience. Most of the time, it's gone away. On some occasions when it appears,

it is identified as self -- thereby claiming that it continues present all

along, even when attention turns elsewhere. But this claim of bodily identity is

clearly false, in actual experience. When the mistake is realized, the body is

eliminated from one's sense of self.

 

As bodily identity proves false, the sense of self falls back into the mind.

Then self appears identified as that which thinks a stream of thought

experiences, as they succeed each other in the course of time.

 

At any moment in the stream, only a single thought appears. For in that moment,

there's no time to think two thoughts or more. Nor is there time to think of

different things, in that single moment. To think of more than just one thing,

there must be more thoughts than one, taking place at different times.

 

So when the mind thinks of itself, it's there alone, thought momentarily, in a

passing moment. Most of the time attention turns to other things, and then the

mind has gone away. In its own stream of thought, mind only shows up now and

then -- as a passing thought of ego, where the mind conceives itself. On the

occasions when this fitful ego-thought appears, mind identifies it as a self

that knows experience. This passing ego-thought thus claims that it somehow

carries on, even when it gets replaced by many other thoughts which keep

succeeding it in time.

 

This thought of ego is self-contradictory, confused and absurdly inflated in its

claims. Most people realize there's something wrong with ego, in the way that it

centres what they see and feel and think upon their partial bodies and their

shifting minds. But then, what exactly is the problem? And how might it be

corrected?

 

The problem is that when mind thinks, it does not really know. The thoughts of

mind are only changing acts, each of which distracts attention from the others.

Each drowns out the others with its noisy clamouring. As these thoughts replace

each other, knowing is what carries on. It is a silent witnessing that is

completely detached and impartial, not at all involved with any changing action.

 

The self that knows is thus a silent witness to all thoughts which come and go.

As mind and body do their acts, the witness only witnesses. Its witnessing is

not a changing act. In its pure and quiet knowing, it does not do anything. It

just stays the same, utterly unchanged and unaffected, completely free and

independent of what is witnessed.

 

By the mere presence of that silent witness, what appears gets illuminated and

recorded. On that witness, everyone depends, for all memory and communication.

To remember or communicate, there has to be a standing back into its quiet

knowing presence, which is shared in common by all changing times and different

personalities. From there, all things are known, impartially and truly.

 

Thus, to correct the partialities and the confusions of ego, all that's needed

is a change of perspective, achieved by realizing that all knowing stands in the

silent witness. That is the only true perspective -- standing as the silent

knower, quite detached from thinking mind, perceiving senses, doing body, happy

or unhappy personality.

 

In the end the detachment does not come from any physical or mental change, nor

from any forced renunciation. It comes just by taking note of where in fact one

stands, as described in Shri Atmananda's fifth point for sadhana:

 

"I happen to be the knower of everything. Therefore I am the witness or knower.

Being always a knower, I cannot be a thinker, perceiver, doer, enjoyer or

sufferer."

 

This is clearly a position that is endorsed by traditional advaita scriptures.

In many places, they do so with a different emphasis, upon a cosmic witness of

the world. But they also allow for the individual approach -- which first

reduces world to a succession of thoughts in the sadhaka's mind, and then goes

on to ask what witnesses those thoughts. In the end, the witness is of course

the same, whether cosmic in the world or individual in the microcosmic

personality.

 

Like other prakriyas, the 'witness' approach gives rise to confusions that need

to be clarified. A note (by Nitya Tripta) on one main confusion is appended as a

postscript.

 

Ananda

 

----

 

How confusion arises with regard to the witness

('Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda', 4th September 1952, note

217)

 

Suppose you are the witness to a particular thought. A little later, you

remember that thought and you say you had that thought some time ago -- assuming

thereby that you were the thinker when the first thought occurred, though you

were then really the witness of that thought.

 

This unwarranted change in your relationship with a particular thought -- from

when the thought occurs to when you remember it -- is alone responsible for the

whole confusion with regard to the witness.

 

When you seem to remember a past thought, it is really a fresh thought by itself

and it has no direct relationship with the old one. Even when you are

remembering, you are the witness to that thought of remembrance. So you never

change the role of your witnesshood, however much your activities may change.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

Concerning the witness prakriya, the new subtopic in Shri Atmananda's

teachings, I have a question for you.

 

You report your position that "Everything is consciousness." By this

you evidently mean that everything perceived or thought or felt is

consciousness -- including the perceptions, thoughts and feelings of

course. In other words, by thinking about the physical and mental

world, you are able to reduce all physical and mental objects to

perceptions, thoughts and feelings; and in turn, you are able to reduce

all perceptions, thoughts and feelings to something which you call

'consciousness'.

 

And yet, you admit that this is not quite enough. You admit that this

is just an intellectual understanding, and that something more is

needed for what you call 'enlightenment'. Well, if you see that

"Everything is consciousness", then only one question can logically

remain. What is consciousness itself?

 

You conceive of 'consciousness' as central to your understanding, but

are you clear exactly what is meant by this central concept that you

use? From your remaining puzzlement and dissatisfaction, evidently not.

 

Let me try to make the question more specific. When someone is

identified as a personal ego, the self that knows is identified with a

limited body and a limited mind. Accordingly, by this personal

identity, consciousness is identified with physical and mental

activities of perception, thought and feeling. But can it be right to

identify consciousness like this? Can consciousness be rightly

identified as a physical or a mental activity of any kind? Can

consciousness be any kind of activity that any body or any mind may

perform towards a physical or mental object? Can any kind of perceiving

or thinking or feeling be equated with consciousness?

 

In the witness prakriya, these questions are answered in the negative.

The knowing self is carefully distinguished from body and from mind. It

is an undistracted and impartial consciousness that witnesses the

distracted and partial activities of body, sense and mind. Thus

consciousness is carefully distinguished as unchanging and unlimited,

quite distinct from perceptions, thoughts and feelings that are each

changing and limited.

 

Here, in the witness prakriya, consciousness is approached as the

silent knowing of detached illumination. It is utterly detached from

the noisy perceptions, thoughts and feelings that distract the mind's

attention as they come and go. It is detached from them, though they

cannot exist even for a moment when detached from it. Each one of them

completely disappears, the very moment that it parts with illuminating

consciousness. That's why they appear and disappear -- while

consciousness remains, as their one reality.

 

Even when a perception or a thought or a feeling comes into appearance,

it is not different from consciousness. For it has then been taken into

consciousness, where all seeming separation is immediately destroyed.

Without consciousness, no perception, thought or feeling could appear

at all. But the moment a perception or thought or feeling comes to

consciousness, it is immediately taken in and is not separate at all.

 

So it turns out that the separation of the witness is a separation of

appearance only. That very separation leads to a non-dual reality of

unaffected consciousness, where no separation can remain. It's only

then that consciousness is clearly realized, known exactly as it is,

identical with one's own self.

 

If the impersonal witness is not separated from the personal ego, there

remains a danger in your statement that "Everything is consciousness."

In order to understand the statement truly, each perception, thought

and feeling must be seen as nothing else but consciousness. All

differing perceptions, thoughts and feelings must be reduced to

consciousness. They must all be seen as appearances or expressions,

which show or express the underlying reality of consciousness.

 

The danger is that the statement may be misinterpreted, by doing the

reduction in reverse. Then consciousness is falsely limited, by

reducing it to something that has been made up, from perception,

thought and feeling. In particular, consciousness may be conceived as

some mental totalling, by a mind that puts together all the

perceptions, thoughts and feelings in its limited imagination. Or, more

subtly, consciousness may be conceived as some further perception,

thought or feeling of everything, which yet remains to be discovered by

the mind.

 

In either case, a limited conception in the mind is trying to conceive

a consciousness that is unlimited. This is clearly a mistake. Is it

one that you are making, when you insist that consciousness cannot

exist without some mental thought or feeling seen in it?

 

Of course the absence of such thought or feeling would put

consciousness beyond the mind's imagination. But could you not step

back from mind, to a knowing in identity where consciousness is your

own self?

 

In that knowing, there'd be nothing in between what knows and what is

known. And so there could be no mistake. That knowing doesn't have to

be remembered from the past, nor imagined as some future goal. It's

fully present now; and it is found by merely stepping back from mind

and body's seeming acts, into the self that knows them.

 

The witness prakriya is specially designed to achieve that stepping

back from the confusions of ego. The ego's problem is that it sloppily

confuses consciousness with limited appearances of perception, thought

and feeling, instead of discerning properly the true identity between

them.

 

For you in particular, this raises a question. When you say "Everything

is consciousness", how far is that a sloppy confusion of consciousness

with false appearances and how far is it a clear discernment of

consciousness itself?

 

According to advaita, if there were none of this confusion left, you

would have attained to enlightenment. If not, the witness prakriya

might help.

 

However, you'd have to give up your dictum that "it never makes sense

to speak of mind and body as being in any way different from

consciousness" (your message of Nov 15). That dictum applies only where

consciousness is clearly understood.

 

Where consciousness is wrongly understood, of course it makes sense to

distinguish what consciousness really is from what it mistakenly

appears to be. This is a distinction of appearance, to which your

dictum does not apply. Your dictum against distinction rightly applies

to reality; but to be clear about reality, distinctions of appearance

must be made. You keep making such distinctions yourself. It's only

through such distinctions that ignorance is clarified, in search of

knowledge.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

>

> The self that knows is thus a silent witness to all thoughts which

come and go. As mind and body do their acts, the witness only

witnesses. Its witnessing is not a changing act. In its pure and

quiet knowing, it does not do anything. It just stays the same,

utterly unchanged and unaffected, completely free and independent of

what is witnessed.

>

> By the mere presence of that silent witness, what appears gets

illuminated and recorded. On that witness, everyone depends, for all

memory and communication. To remember or communicate, there has to be

a standing back into its quiet knowing presence, which is shared in

common by all changing times and different personalities. From there,

all things are known, impartially and truly.

 

 

I have been wondering about this very point, memory. As one looks at

the events in one's life, one is aware that "something" has always

been there, the same, aware of the event. What I can't understand is

how the event is "recorded", although it clearly is.

 

"Illumined", in the present moment, I can understand, but how

recorded?

 

Somehow it seems as if the concept of time enters into this, and my

understanding is that knowing is not timebound.

 

I don't know if my question makes sense. Please pardon me if it

displays an ignorance too thick to penentrate.

 

 

 

Thank you. Sincerely, Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

I've just remembered a quotation which Shri Atmananda made from the

poet Alfred Tennyson. It concerns the dissolution of personality into

'the only true life'. And it is relevant to the question we have been

discussing, about the dissolution of perceptions, thoughts and feelings

into consciousness itself. Here is the passage quoted (from a letter by

Tennyson to Mr R.P. Blood, quoted in the book 'Atmananda Tattwa

Samhita' which transcribes Shri Atmananda's tape recorded talks):

 

"... a kind of waking trance, I have frequently had, quite up from my

boyhood, when I have been all alone. This has generally come upon me by

repeating my own name two or three times to myself, silently, till all

at once, as it were out of the intensity of consciousness of

individuality, the individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade

away into boundless being; and this not a confused state, but the

clearest of the clearest, the surest of the surest, the weirdest of the

weirdest, utterly beyond words, where death was almost a laughable

impossibility, the loss of personality (if so it were) seeming no

extinction, but the only true life ..."

 

Shri Atmananda introduces this quotation by saying: "Go beyond all

personalities, and then you get to the Individual. There begins the

true life, as Tennyson has beautifully put it."

 

Here, Tennyson describes a state which was induced by repeating his own

name, the name that represents his individuality. This brought about an

"intensity of consciousness of individuality"; and out of that

intensity, "the individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade away

into boundless being". This 'boundless being' is of course the 'all',

in your aphorism: "All is consciousness." Shri Atmananda remarked that

this 'boundless being' still has a taint in it, because it still

implies a conception of some world of things that are added up into an

unlimited 'all'. There is still there a sense of things additional to

consciousness -- either in a world outside, or brought in from outside.

 

Where it is truly realized that there is nothing outside consciousness,

then there cannot be anything that adds conditioning or quality of any

kind to consciousness -- neither by sending any influence from without,

nor by being brought themselves inside. Without any such addition,

there can be no bounds or limits in consciousness; and so there can't

be any sense of the 'boundless' or the 'unlimited' or the 'all'. So,

according to Shri Atmananda, this 'boundless being' is not the end of

the road, but a last remaining stage of transition, with a last

remaining taint that dissolves itself into the final end.

 

The end is described when Tennyson goes on to say that this is "not a

confused state, but the clearest of the clearest, the surest of the

surest, the weirdest of the weirdest, utterly beyond words, where death

was almost a laughable impossibility, the loss of personality (if so it

were) seeming no extinction, but the only true life". For now the sense

of a somewhat blurred 'all' has given way to a clarity of consciousness

that is completely pure, utterly beyond all dying words and

conceptions. And there, beyond all seeming death, its shining purity is

fully positive, as "the only true life".

 

When perceptions, thoughts and feelings appear, that pure consciousness

is present as their unaffected witness. Each perception, thought or

feeling is a passing and a dying appearance. It only shows for a

moment, as it gives way to the next such appearance. Thus, as it dies

away into disappearance, there follows instantly a timeless moment,

before the next appearance has arisen. In that timelessness,

consciousness shines by itself, as the living source from which the

following appearance comes. That pure shining is the living self, the

only true life, from which all seeming things burst forth into

appearance.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Thanks Anandaji,

 

For a poetic evocation of the timelessness of these certain moments, the

subsidings of appearances, and Tennyson's oceanic experiences.

 

One thing that makes Atmananda's teaching so cogent, and such an effective

presentation of the direct path, is his emphasis on consciousness being

"between, within, and beyond appearances." When one is at peace with this, then

one has taken one's stand as consciousness. And one sees that there is no

necessity to seek these "timeless moments."

 

Another Atmananda phrase, "Conscousness shining in its own glory" -- Sometimes

this can be misunderstood to be the case *only* during those certain moments

that seem timeless. If this is one's understanding, then it will be natural to

seek more of these timeless moments and draw them out so that they last longer.

 

But this shining is now, it is never not. It is never covered or obscured by

appearances, even when it seems to be. Even when the student is frustrated

that a "timeless moment" has just subsided! -- even that is consciousness

shining in its own glory. The greatness of Atmananda's approach is explaining

how this is the case.

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

 

 

 

At 08:51 AM 11/18/2003 +0530, Ananda Wood wrote:

>Dear Benjamin,

>

>I've just remembered a quotation which Shri Atmananda made from the

>poet Alfred Tennyson. It concerns the dissolution of personality into

>'the only true life'. And it is relevant to the question we have been

>discussing, about the dissolution of perceptions, thoughts and feelings

>into consciousness itself. Here is the passage quoted (from a letter by

>Tennyson to Mr R.P. Blood, quoted in the book 'Atmananda Tattwa

>Samhita' which transcribes Shri Atmananda's tape recorded talks):

>

>"... a kind of waking trance, I have frequently had, quite up from my

>boyhood, when I have been all alone. This has generally come upon me by

>repeating my own name two or three times to myself, silently, till all

>at once, as it were out of the intensity of consciousness of

>individuality, the individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade

>away into boundless being; and this not a confused state, but the

>clearest of the clearest, the surest of the surest, the weirdest of the

>weirdest, utterly beyond words, where death was almost a laughable

>impossibility, the loss of personality (if so it were) seeming no

>extinction, but the only true life ..."

>

>Shri Atmananda introduces this quotation by saying: "Go beyond all

>personalities, and then you get to the Individual. There begins the

>true life, as Tennyson has beautifully put it."

>

>Here, Tennyson describes a state which was induced by repeating his own

>name, the name that represents his individuality. This brought about an

>"intensity of consciousness of individuality"; and out of that

>intensity, "the individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade away

>into boundless being". This 'boundless being' is of course the 'all',

>in your aphorism: "All is consciousness." Shri Atmananda remarked that

>this 'boundless being' still has a taint in it, because it still

>implies a conception of some world of things that are added up into an

>unlimited 'all'. There is still there a sense of things additional to

>consciousness -- either in a world outside, or brought in from outside.

>

>Where it is truly realized that there is nothing outside consciousness,

>then there cannot be anything that adds conditioning or quality of any

>kind to consciousness -- neither by sending any influence from without,

>nor by being brought themselves inside. Without any such addition,

>there can be no bounds or limits in consciousness; and so there can't

>be any sense of the 'boundless' or the 'unlimited' or the 'all'. So,

>according to Shri Atmananda, this 'boundless being' is not the end of

>the road, but a last remaining stage of transition, with a last

>remaining taint that dissolves itself into the final end.

>

>The end is described when Tennyson goes on to say that this is "not a

>confused state, but the clearest of the clearest, the surest of the

>surest, the weirdest of the weirdest, utterly beyond words, where death

>was almost a laughable impossibility, the loss of personality (if so it

>were) seeming no extinction, but the only true life". For now the sense

>of a somewhat blurred 'all' has given way to a clarity of consciousness

>that is completely pure, utterly beyond all dying words and

>conceptions. And there, beyond all seeming death, its shining purity is

>fully positive, as "the only true life".

>

>When perceptions, thoughts and feelings appear, that pure consciousness

>is present as their unaffected witness. Each perception, thought or

>feeling is a passing and a dying appearance. It only shows for a

>moment, as it gives way to the next such appearance. Thus, as it dies

>away into disappearance, there follows instantly a timeless moment,

>before the next appearance has arisen. In that timelessness,

>consciousness shines by itself, as the living source from which the

>following appearance comes. That pure shining is the living self, the

>only true life, from which all seeming things burst forth into

>appearance.

>

>Ananda

>

>

>

>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

[Guest guest]

Many Pranams to All, Reference to Anandaji's elucidation of the

Witness prakriya (below my question):

I am trying to relate the witness prakriya to a personal experiment.

I know that a certain situation provokes feelings of confusion,

anxiety and anger in me. I decide, next time round, when the

situation appears,I will detach myself and observe what is happening

to my body, thoughts and mind. As I observe, this time round, when

the situation recurs, there does seem to be a rising anxiety, rush of

thoughts and certain reactions in the body. However, it subsides much

faster than in the earlier instances and there seems to be more

calmness. Later on I congratulate myself that this technique seems to

be working. Now When I became an observer, that which observed, is it

pure consciousness or is it somewhere in between this limited ego and

the pure consciousness ?

My question could thus be , are there several levels/ states of

witnessing, the ultimate one being pure consciousness where the ego

is dissolved?

Many pranams to all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> Here, in the witness prakriya, consciousness is approached as the

> silent knowing of detached illumination. It is utterly detached from

> the noisy perceptions, thoughts and feelings that distract the

mind's

> attention as they come and go. It is detached from them, though they

> cannot exist even for a moment when detached from it. Each one of

them

> completely disappears, the very moment that it parts with

illuminating

> consciousness. That's why they appear and disappear -- while

> consciousness remains, as their one reality.

----------

[Guest guest]

namaste.

dear all,

yes, there seem to be many levels.

the levels have to be attained like the

peeling off of the onion skin.

the number of levels may depend on the

thickness of the tamasik sheath of the particular

seeker????

a.v.krshnan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Hello Sridhar,

 

These are excellent questions. In the forward to Atmananda's ATMA DARSHAN, he

mentions the standpoint of the witness as a prakriya. The function of the

witness in this prakriya is to find a vantage point from which it can be seen

that objects normally considered to be mind, body and world are not independent

existents. They are not separate from the witnessing consciousness. Rather, it

can be seen that all these objects arise and subside within the witnessing

consciousness. Indeed, if there were a "proof" that an object existed outside

the witnessing consciousness, everything known about the proof and the object

occurs within the witnessing consciousness.

 

If you are relating to the witnessing model, it is often easier to begin

*before* the confusion starts :-) !! "Get into the witness" during something

mild or pleasant, so that the viewpoint can stabilize a bit. Then when the

confusion or distress begins, the witness viewpoint won't be knocked aside as

easily. And it will be easier to see the distressing events and personal

reactions as arisings and subsidings in the witnessing consciousness. Indeed,

in the witness prakriya, the very "person" itself is an arising and subsiding.

 

And because the witness *is* a prakriya, at some time its utility will come to

an end. There are quite definite ways this happens. The very notions upon with

the prakriya depends will dissolve. Of course the witness prakriya can be

criticized and picked apart, as can any model. But then it won't have the

chance to prove the non-independence of all subtle and gross objects.

Ironically enough, the more firmly and peacefully the witness takes hold, then

the swifter and cleaner will be its dissolution.

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Shrimati Durga,

 

You wrote (18 Nov):

>

> I have been wondering about this very point, memory. As one looks at

the events in one's life, one is aware that 'something' has always been

there, the same, aware of the event. What I can't understand is how the

event is 'recorded', although it clearly is.

>

> 'Illumined', in the present moment, I can understand, but how

recorded?

>

> Somehow it seems as if the concept of time enters into this, and my

understanding is that knowing is not time-bound.

>

> I don't know if my question makes sense....

 

The question makes sense alright, to me at least. It's a very

penetrating question; but correspondingly tough as well. It can be

considered at different levels. If you want an attempt at a simple

answer that concentrates on the level of knowing, just read the next

paragraph and then go on to the last three paragraphs of this message.

If you want a more detailed intellectual attempt, going more through

levels of the mind, you can read the passage in between.

 

At the level of knowing, as you point out, there is no time. So there

can't be any memory or recording. There is no past, nor future, nor any

present that's opposed to them. There's only pure illumination, by

itself. That's where your question points, but the question and its

ideas must dissolve completely on the way, before the timeless knowing

that it targets can be reached.

 

At the level of time-bound ideas, there is the paradox that you

describe. A changeless witness quietly illuminates what happens, with

its ever present light; but how it can make any record which persists

through time, except through some changing action that impresses past

events upon an objective record -- like writing things down upon a

piece of paper?

 

Actually, if one looks carefully at any objective records, like writing

symbols on paper or making coded configurations in an electronic

computer or in a more sophisticated brain, such records cannot solve

the problem of memory. For the record has to be interpreted by mind, so

as to make a past perception, thought or feeling present. And for that

interpretation, a continuing witness is implied, shared in common by

the past experience and its present recall.

 

For words on paper or configurations in the brain to recall a memory I

had in the past, the same 'I' that is here now must also have been

there in the past -- witnessing what happened then and what is now

recalled. There'd be no meaning in the word 'recall' if it were not a

calling back to the one same witness. Where someone else's perception,

thought or feeling is called into mind, that isn't direct memory, but a

more indirect communication which is more dubious to interpret. If two

different witnesses are involved, that is not properly 'recall' or

'calling back', but rather 'calling out' or 'calling onward' from one

witness to another.

 

So we are back with the same problem. How can any changing record be

made by a witness that is not at all involved in any changing act, but

only stays the same? The answer is that the witness does not make the

record. It only enables the record to be made, by its mere presence

that continues through experience.

 

The witness does not know from any shifting standpoint in changing

mind, but rather from the changeless background underneath. It's from

there that mind's and world's appearances arise. They arise as

feelings, thoughts and perceptions -- each of which expresses

consciousness, through previously conditioned understanding and memory

accumulated from the past.

 

But then, as soon as an appearance is expressed, it gets interpreted

and taken in -- reflecting back through its perception, thought and

feeling into underlying consciousness. Its apparent form and purpose is

perceived by sense, its meaning and significance interpreted by

thought, its quality and value judged by feeling -- as it gets

understood and taken back into quiet consciousness, where it is utterly

dissolved.

>From that same quiet consciousness, further feelings, thoughts,

perceptions rise, expressed through a new state of understanding and

memory -- which now incorporates the recent appearance that has just

been expressed from consciousness and reflected back there again. This

cycle of expression and reflection keeps repeating every moment,

producing the impression of a mind with continued memory and

understanding that enables its perceptions, thoughts and feelings to

accumulate a growing knowledge of the world.

 

But, in fact, the impression is quite false. At every moment, the world

is completely recreated from a consciousness in which there truly are

no perceptions, thoughts or feelings nor any memory or habituation or

conditioning. In that consciousness, there is never any time, for any

perceptions to form, nor any memory to continue.

 

At each seeming moment, there is an instantaneous creation of the

world, with one partial object appearing at the limited focus of the

mind's attention and the rest of the world imagined to be understood in

the background of experience. And at this very moment (or if you prefer

immediately after), as the appearance is interpreted and taken in,

there is also an instantaneous and complete destruction of both seeming

object and its containing world.

 

So there's no real memory, no real continuity, in the noisy flashes of

appearance that seem to keep on rising up from consciousness and

falling back again. The only continuity is timeless and changeless, in

the quiet background where the witness always knows. That is the only

connection between different moments. And it is a connection that

completely destroys all difference, so that there's nothing to connect.

 

In the end, there's only one proper direction for advaita reasoning. It

must always be from appearances to truth. It cannot rightly be the

other way around. True reason can't derive the compromised appearances

of mind and world from truth.

 

Your question about memory was simply asked and is best simply answered

that there is no real memory, but only a misleading appearance of

mental recording and recall. Where there is true recording, it is not

mental. Instead, it is a taking back of what's perceived into the

heart. That's literally what is meant by the word 'record'. 'Re-' means

'back' and '-cord' means 'heart' (related to the English 'core' and to

the Latin 'cor' or 'cordis').

 

So to record truly means to take what is expressed back into the depth

of heart, where all expression is dissolved in pure knowing that stays

unaffected through all seeming time. That is the true recording of the

silent witness.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

>

> If you are relating to the witnessing model, it is often easier to

begin *before* the confusion starts :-) !! "Get into the witness"

during something mild or pleasant, so that the viewpoint can

stabilize a bit. Then when the confusion or distress begins, the

witness viewpoint won't be knocked aside as easily. And it will be

easier to see the distressing events and personal reactions as

arisings and subsidings in the witnessing consciousness. Indeed, in

the witness prakriya, the very "person" itself is an arising and

subsiding.

>

> -----

Thanks Greg

This is a wonderful and lucid pointer to the witnessing

consciousness .

Just one more question. I was trying to understand this from the

point of view of a seeker 'acting/feeling/thinking' in this world and

simultaneously seeking.

 

Let us say the mind and intellect are relatively calm. If 'I' ( 'I'

could be the ego or the receptive mind at the moment)make an effort

and get into the witness state, search for the vantage point and find

it.Then there will be no action or anything to be observed if it has

happened perfectly. I guess getting into the witness state and

finding the vantage point will happen through repeated practise and

meditation.

 

Until that happens, in the in between stages of seeking, can it be

said that there are levels and levels of witnessing which may not be

pure witnessing and that the vantage point may not be perfect?

In fact in such intermediate states of seeking, from the not- so-

pure -witness- state actions/ thoughts / feelings are positively or

otherwise influenced.

 

I am afraid I may have come back a full circle to my original

question. If it dosen't make sense I will understand.

Many Pranams

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> So to record truly means to take what is expressed back into the

depth

> of heart, where all expression is dissolved in pure knowing that

stays

> unaffected through all seeming time. That is the true recording of

the

> silent witness.

>

> Ananda

 

Dear Shri Anandaji

 

Thank you so much for the reply to my question, the last part of

which reply was much more comprehensible to me than the middle as you

had indicated might be the case. Especially thank you for the last

paragraph. Please accept my heartfelt respects, Durga

[Guest guest]

Hello Sridhar,

 

Yes, for the one interested in the witnessing prakriya, it will be felt in

degrees, fuller and fuller. It's actually a form of jnana yoga, and you find

that discrimination gets sharper. As one continues with the prakriya, one may

have several insights sort of like this. One will realize that one had been

taking certain things for granted, and bits of clarity will follow. Perhaps I

was taking for granted that the witness had a spatial location. Maybe located

in the same general place as my body. Then I will come to realize that the

witness is not spatial at all - rather, this notion of located-ness is a passing

thought based on bodily sensations and beliefs that themselves are witnessed.

 

There are several things that help - one, to understand the witness model

relatively well (anything phenomenal is an arising and a subsiding occurring to

the formless, non-phenomenal, impersonal witness, and you are that). Two, have

an intense interest in getting to the bottom of things. Three, be honest with

one's self about what is going on. That is, if you get the nagging feeling that

there are certain phenomena that are unreachable by the witness (such as perhaps

emotions, or links between thoughts, etc.), then you can investigate in that

area.

 

I wouldn't concern myself with how pure the witness is at any time. It is a

prakriya, and is not meant to be dialectically perfect or to last forever. It

is meant to reveal the non-independence of the world of phenomena. It is meant

to reveal the dependence of the world on that which the world appears to. When

the witness has done that, it has served its purpose. The more "pure" or

stabilized the viewpoint becomes, the less you will be concerned about how pure

it is. Because as it stabilizes, you'll find you won't be attributing

external, independent reality to any model or state of purity. The witness

prakriya contains the seeds of its own dissolution, which happens quite

naturally when the witness is stable.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

At 05:11 PM 11/18/2003 +0000, asridhar19 wrote:

>advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

>>

>> If you are relating to the witnessing model, it is often easier to

>begin *before* the confusion starts :-) !! "Get into the witness"

>during something mild or pleasant, so that the viewpoint can

>stabilize a bit. Then when the confusion or distress begins, the

>witness viewpoint won't be knocked aside as easily. And it will be

>easier to see the distressing events and personal reactions as

>arisings and subsidings in the witnessing consciousness. Indeed, in

>the witness prakriya, the very "person" itself is an arising and

>subsiding.

>>

>> -----

>Thanks Greg

>This is a wonderful and lucid pointer to the witnessing

>consciousness .

>Just one more question. I was trying to understand this from the

>point of view of a seeker 'acting/feeling/thinking' in this world and

>simultaneously seeking.

>

>Let us say the mind and intellect are relatively calm. If 'I' ( 'I'

>could be the ego or the receptive mind at the moment)make an effort

>and get into the witness state, search for the vantage point and find

>it.Then there will be no action or anything to be observed if it has

>happened perfectly. I guess getting into the witness state and

>finding the vantage point will happen through repeated practise and

>meditation.

>

>Until that happens, in the in between stages of seeking, can it be

>said that there are levels and levels of witnessing which may not be

>pure witnessing and that the vantage point may not be perfect?

>In fact in such intermediate states of seeking, from the not- so-

>pure -witness- state actions/ thoughts / feelings are positively or

>otherwise influenced.

>

>I am afraid I may have come back a full circle to my original

>question. If it dosen't make sense I will understand.

>Many Pranams

>Sridhar

>

>

>

>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

[Guest guest]

Thanks Greg.

I must say you have understood the underlying concern behind my

questions and addressed it squarely. I am actually beginning to look

forward to the intermediate states The two point Prescription is

also perfect. Thanks once again.

Many Pranams all

Sridhar

advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

[Guest guest]

Glad to hear this, Sridhar. Wish you well with it!

 

--Greg

 

At 07:14 AM 11/19/2003 +0000, asridhar19 wrote:

>Thanks Greg.

>I must say you have understood the underlying concern behind my

>questions and addressed it squarely. I am actually beginning to look

>forward to the intermediate states The two point Prescription is

>also perfect. Thanks once again.

>Many Pranams all

>Sridhar

[Guest guest]

Dear Shrimati Durga,

 

I've been thinking of a shorter way to answer your question about

recording and the witness. Here's the result.

 

In the purusha-prakriti distinction, the witness is the actionless

consciousness of purusha. And the appearances that come and go are the

work of prakriti or nature.

 

Though the witness does not act, all actions are inspired by its

knowing presence. They rise from it, spontaneously and naturally,

expressing it in the appearances of mind and world. That arising of

expression shows appearances, which are seen by reflecting the

illumination of the witness.

 

As the illumination is reflected back, each physical and mental

appearance is interpreted and taken back into consciousness. That

taking in is the recording of nature's actions. For every happening or

action that appears, its recording takes it all the way back down, into

the depth of heart -- to consciousness itself, in which all seeming

action must dissolve.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> Dear Shrimati Durga,

>

> I've been thinking of a shorter way to answer your question about

> recording and the witness. Here's the result.

>

> In the purusha-prakriti distinction, the witness is the actionless

> consciousness of purusha. And the appearances that come and go are

the

> work of prakriti or nature.

>

> Though the witness does not act, all actions are inspired by its

> knowing presence. They rise from it, spontaneously and naturally,

> expressing it in the appearances of mind and world. That arising of

> expression shows appearances, which are seen by reflecting the

> illumination of the witness.

>

> As the illumination is reflected back, each physical and mental

> appearance is interpreted and taken back into consciousness. That

> taking in is the recording of nature's actions. For every happening

or

> action that appears, its recording takes it all the way back down,

into

> the depth of heart -- to consciousness itself, in which all seeming

> action must dissolve.

>

> Ananda

 

Dear Shri Anandaji

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question again,

re: memory and witness or knowing and how this occurs. After reading

your answer, I have to admit that I am completely over my head. I

have only just begun to the study of vendanta, and perhaps the terms

which my teacher uses are different from the ones used in this forum,

so I am becoming a bit confused. Or perhaps, which may be more

accurate, I am only truly capable of grasping a few very basic

concepts at this point in my studies. I will continue to ponder

about memory and timeless knowing and ask my teacher as well.

Thank you again for trying to explain this to me. Your kindness is

very much appreciated. It is only a lack on my part which

prevents my understanding. I apologize for my ignorance which places

your wisdom beyond my comprehension. It was very kind of you to take

the time with my question, and I am most grateful to you for your

efforts. Namaskar, durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ram Chandran,

 

Thank you for the quotations from the Gita. They aptly focus on a

central question that the advaita tradition poses for Benjamin. He is

quite clear that all perceptions, thoughts and feelings are contained

in consciousness. But he isn't equally clear whether consciousness

itself is contained in the variety of perceptions, thoughts or feelings

that come and go in it. Is it some especially broad and deep

perception, thought or feeling which somehow sums up and contains all

other perceptions, thoughts and feelings?

 

If that is so, a sense of 'otherness' remains, in such an expanded and

deepened perception or thought or feeling that is taken to be

consciousness. There is still a remaining sense that it contains

'other', more partial perceptions, thoughts and feelings which have

been summed up in it. The overt sense of an 'outside' has gone, but the

sense of an 'inside' still remains -- surreptitiously implying an

'otherness' that has been brought into consciousness from some previous

'outside'. That still implies a confused duality.

 

The witness prakriya approaches non-duality through a complete

detachment of knowing consciousness from all perceptions, thoughts and

feelings that are known. In the Gita 9.8-10, that detachment of the

witness is described. Freely translated, it says:

 

Just from my own established nature,

I give rise, time after time,

to this entire multitude

of beings: motiveless itself.

All motivation is from nature. (9.8)

 

Actions thus arise, but they

do not restrict me, Arjuna.

While present in the midst of actions,

I am present there apart:

in that same unaffected state

where I am always unattached. (9.9)

 

As I look on, it's by this

witnessing that nature urges forth

what's made to move or stay in place.

This witnessing, Arjuna, is

the motivating cause by which

the changing world goes turning round. (9.10)

 

As Benjamin points out, this is paradoxical. A final non-duality is

approached through a completion of the duality between knower and

known. Only when these two have been completely separated are they

truly realized to be identical. The question is how to get through the

paradox to clarity.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Many Pranams to all

I am still taking in the witness prakriya- teachings-4. A small doubt

in

this mind prone to extrapolation ( hopefully the last for a while).

Sometimes when masters attempt to point to the nature of consciousness

or Brahman, they use extrapolation; They say, all beings, having

emanated from that tend to seek and gravitate to absolute happiness.

Thus their eventual destination ( Brahman) must be of the nature of

fullness (Poorna), bliss etc.( However, because of maya, the beings

choose wrong methods, get identified with Body, mind, intellect and

suffer instead of finding complete happiness).

 

It is also in human nature to intervene in some fashion whenever

something is witnessed. Whatever we see, we want to do something

about it.By extrapolation it may not be really in the nature of

consciousness to be a pure witness?

 

Is it really possible to understand consciousness as a pure witness

which will not intervene in some fashion no matter what happens in

this illusory world?

 

Does it not intervene at all?

 

Why else would Bhagvan Krishna ( who could be synonymous with

consciousness..... after all is it not consciousness speaking

whenever we hear Krishna Uvacha) promise that whenever there is

excessive adharma I will appear to liberate.

 

I suspect my confusion/delusion may have to do withmixing up dual and

non dual modes. I am just hoping someone will confirm/ clarify.

 

Many Pranams

[Guest guest]

>

> As Benjamin points out, this is paradoxical. A final non-duality is

> approached through a completion of the duality between knower and

> known. Only when these two have been completely separated are they

> truly realized to be identical. The question is how to get through

> the paradox to clarity.

>

> Ananda

 

Dear Anandaji,

 

Thank you for summarizing the essence of the paradox and for

persisting with the discussion.

 

This is one aspect that is found to be confusing. Traditional

teaching talks about two prakriyas: Viveka Prakriya and Sarvatma

Prakriya. In Viveka Prakriya, the student is asked to discriminate

between the Atma and Anatma. This may involve various forms of Atma

Anatma viveka:

Drik Drishya Viveka (contemplation on I am the very seer. I am not

the seen. I cannot be the seen because the seen is inert)

 

Avastha Traya Viveka (I am none of what appears or disappears in the

three states. I am the constant substratum)

 

Nitya Anitya Viveka (I am not anything that is found to be changing.

I am the changeless principle).

 

On the other hand, Sarvatma prakriya says that the Atman is

everything. I am the whole perceived universe with all its myraid

names and forms.

 

The two prakriyas seem to be apparently paradoxical and seem to have

emphasis in contradictory directions. My teacher explained this

apparent paradox using the 'Jeweler's shop' parable:

 

Once a Jeweler's son returned home after his studies to take over

the operations of the store. One day after his arrival, when the

Jeweler was not well, he told his son: 'Please go to the shop and

get me all the gold'.

 

The boy went to the store and tried to find gold but he couldn't. He

looked under shelves to see if was hidden someplace. He stared at

all the jewelry in the store but he couldn't find any gold at all.

He returned home and told his father that there was no gold in the

store.

 

The jeweler understood what was going on: 'My boy, your attention is

on the jewelry. In addition to the various forms of the jewelry, you

need to see that there is gold underlying them. You need to look at

what is the substratum. You need to see that there is gold

underneath every one of them. You need to see that the Ornaments are

mithya and only the underlying Gold is satyam'

 

The boy nodded his head acknowledging the obvious that he had

missed. The Jeweler asked the boy to contemplate on the truth of

what he had learnt that day.

 

The next month, the Jeweler called him and asked him: 'So, are you

able to see the gold underlying the various ornaments?' The boy said

yes 'Whenever I see the mithya ornaments, I also see the satyam

gold'.

 

The Jeweler retorted: 'Who told you that the ornaments are Mithya!

They are satyam too! See that they are only the Gold in various

shapes and forms'.

 

Now, the boy couldn't help but nod his head again. The next time the

Jeweler asked him to get all the Gold, he went to the store and got

all the ornaments. No mistake this time!

 

When the attention is *only* on the names and forms and the names

and forms are given independent reality, the vivekas are required to

see that Awareness is the substatum (satyam) and all the names and

forms are dependent realities (mithya).

 

Once this is clear, comes the next prakriya that *only* Awareness is

and even the names and forms are only names and forms of that one

Awareness.

 

When the Jagat (full of names and forms) is seen as separate from

Bramhan, it is Mithya. When it is seen as one with Bramhan, it is

Satyam.

 

warm regards,

--Satyan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji,

 

You asked (Nov 21):

 

"Is it really possible to understand consciousness as a pure witness

which will not intervene in some fashion no matter what happens in this

illusory world?

 

"Does it not intervene at all?

 

"Why else would Bhagvan Krishna (who could be synonymous with

consciousness..... after all is it not consciousness speaking whenever

we hear Krishna Uvacha) promise that whenever there is excessive

adharma I will appear to liberate."

 

When consciousness is understood as a pure witness, that means it does

not intervene as a changing body or a changing mind. Nothing pushes it

to intervene or changes it in any way. Instead, all actions are

inspired to arise from it, spontaneously and naturally, completely of

their own accord.

 

Though Krishna may appear in the physical or mental form of a changing

body or a changing mind, that apparent form is not his real nature

(according to Shri Shankara's advaita). As a pointer to that real

nature, Krishna describes himself as a witness, in the Gita, 9.8-10.

This passage was quoted only yesterday, but here it is again, with

apologies to those who have already seen it:

 

Just from my own established nature,

I give rise, time after time,

to this entire multitude

of beings: motiveless itself.

All motivation is from nature. (9.8)

 

Actions thus arise, but they

do not restrict me, Arjuna.

While present in the midst of actions,

I am present there apart:

in that same unaffected state

where I am always unattached. (9.9)

 

As I look on, it's by this

witnessing that nature urges forth

what's made to move or stay in place.

This witnessing, Arjuna, is

the motivating cause by which

the changing world goes turning round. (9.10)

 

Whatever happens is inspired by that witnessing. All actions thus

depend on it, while it stays fully independent of them. Thus Krishna

seems to intervene, through a mind and body that are changed by the

intervention. But that mind and body show an unaffected truth, which

stays utterly unchanged.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridhar,

 

You ask,

 

It is also in human nature to intervene in some fashion whenever

something is witnessed. Whatever we see, we want to do something

about it.By extrapolation it may not be really in the nature of

consciousness to be a pure witness?

 

In Atmananda's witness prakriya, *all* phenomena is seen as that which appears

to the witness. Gross and subtle phenomena. Witnessing is not an interactive

process. It is not a function, as Atmananda likes to say. A more modern way to

say it is that witnessing is not psychologically rich, with psychological

attributes, reactions, etc.

 

For example, let's take your example and spell it out a bit more explicitly. In

your example, there are two kinds of things:

 

(A) Phenomena that are witnessed.

(B) Actions that intervene when something is witnessed.

 

But in the witness prakriya, all B's are actually A's. Actions, reactions,

interventions - they are all phenomena that are witnessed. The very feeling

that "this is happening in reaction to witnessing" is itself a witnessed

phenomenon.

 

Sometimes this seems too airtight, as if it leaves no room to breathe. That is

partly why Krishna says, as you cite, that "whenever there is excessive adharma

I will appear to liberate." It leaves a bit of hope! In the witness prakriya,

Krishna's statement can be understood like this: When the phenomena that are

witnessed begin to include the search for truth, then Krishna has come to

liberate.

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Many thanks Anadaji and Greg for painstakingly understanding the

question and shedding light with so much Kindness. Like I said

earlier, I had the lingering feeling that witness state is in between

the bound state and consciousness. In your replies and in the

elaboration on teachings five you have cleared this rather

conclusively. Thanks once again

Many humble Pranams to all advaitins

sridhar

> Whatever happens is inspired by that witnessing. All actions thus

> depend on it, while it stays fully independent of them. Thus Krishna

> seems to intervene, through a mind and body that are changed by the

> intervention. But that mind and body show an unaffected truth, which

> stays utterly unchanged.

>

> Ananda