Shri Atmananda's teachings -- 5. All objects point to consciousness

[Guest guest]

In the witness prakriya, a sadhaka approaches the 'sat' or 'existence'

aspect of the self. Body, sense and mind are seen as changing

appearances, illuminated by a changeless witness that stays always

present, standing unaffected at the inmost centre of experience. That

is the real self, beneath its fitful and changing appearances in

personality. Standing back in it, as the witness, all objects seen are

taken back into its unmixed consciousness. There, they are utterly

dissolved, together with their witnessing, in non-duality.

 

Instead of this drawing back, there is a further prakriya which goes

forward, into confrontation with apparent objects. This further

prakriya investigates how anyone can know what objects truly are. It

proceeds though the 'cit' or 'consciousness' aspect of self, to

determine what is 'sat' or 'existence' in the world. The procedure is

summarized in Shri Atmananda's sixth point for sadhana:

 

"All objects gross as well as subtle point to me and assert me

(consciousness)."

 

First, as in the witness prakriya, all gross experiences of outside

objects are reduced to the more subtle experiences of our conceiving

minds. We think of objects in a world that's outside consciousness, but

this is just imagination in our minds. In actual fact, no one ever can

experience any object outside consciousness.

 

In anyone's experience, consciousness is always there, together with

each object that appears. Each object is experienced as a perception or

a thought or a feeling, in the presence of consciousness. Each objects

shows that knowing presence, whatever else may be shown besides.

 

But then, what else does an object show, as it appears? When an object

is perceived, it shows perception. When it is thought about, what it

shows is thought. When it is felt, what's shown is feeling. Our minds

imagine that their perceptions, thoughts and feelings somehow go

outside of consciousness, to an external world. But this never happens,

actually.

 

No perception, thought or feeling can actually leave consciousness and

go outside. When any such appearance goes out of consciousness, the

appearance disappears immediately. Each perception, thought and feeling

always stays in consciousness until it disappears. It never does show

anything outside, as actually experienced.

 

So what is shown is always consciousness, and only that. Nothing else

is ever shown, in anyone's experience. Consciousness has no outside.

Though we imagine that outside things come into it and therefore make

it different from what it was before, this is never true, in fact.

Consciousness is never influenced or changed, in any way that makes a

real difference to it.

 

When anything appears, it seems that something has been added on to

consciousness, so as to make a difference. But again, this difference

is false imagination in the mind. In actual fact, the difference is

unreal. What appears is nothing else but consciousness; and therefore

nothing has, in truth, been added on.

 

When an appearance disappears, it seems that something has been taken

away from consciousness, and this again appears to make a difference.

But again, the difference is unreal. Since the appearance did not

actually add anything, it disappearance cannot then in truth take

anything away.

 

In short, whatever object may appear, what it shows is only

consciousness, as its sole reality. And that reality is always the

same, always unchanged -- as it is shown by all objects that anyone

perceives or thinks about or feels. That consciousness is always

present, throughout experience, as the complete reality of all physical

and mental objects that appear in the entire universe.

 

Our minds and bodies make a changing show, of partial objects that

appear perceived or thought about or felt. But, throughout this made-up

show of partial things, consciousness knows all existence as itself. In

that complete existence, each object is contained.

 

Shri Atmananda had a special way of pointing out how that existence

gets misunderstood. Habitually, we think of existence as something that

belongs to objects. For example, having seen a chair and touched it and

sat in it, a person may say: 'This chair exists.'

 

At first, there seems nothing wrong in such a statement. But it does

have a problem. It puts the chair first, and thus it speaks of

existence as something that the chair possesses. It says in effect:

'The chair has existence.' What then is this existence that belongs to

the chair? It is something that appears only in some part of space and

time. Elsewhere, outside this particular location, the chair's

existence disappears.

 

Thus it turns out that the chair's existence is no more than a partial

appearance of some further and truer existence that is more complete.

When we think that a chair has existence, we are not speaking with full

truth. To speak more truly, it would be more accurate to say:

'Existence has the chair.'

 

For existence to be fully true, all objects that appear (physical or

mental) must belong to it. They must all be its appearances. That is

existence in itself, known truly as identical with consciousness, to

which all objects point.

 

How does this prakriya relate to traditional approaches? An

illustration is given by Shri Atmananda, in one of his tape-recorded

talks (the talk called 'Sahaja', in the book 'Sri Atmananda Tattwa

Samhita'). Here, Shri Atmananda recounts an incident that occurred

towards the end of his sadhana period, which included a yogic training

in some traditional samadhis. In particular, he had come to practice a

jnyana-oriented samadhi, obtained by repetitively thinking, with

increased intensity: "I am pure Consciousness, I am pure

Consciousness..."

 

He says that while intensifying this thought, he would also use

arguments to prove it, through logical deduction. For example, he would

think: "I am not this body, I am not the senses, I am not the mind, I

am pure Consciousness..." So there was a combination of yogic

one-pointedness and jnyana reasoning.

 

One day, while he was thus proceeding towards samadhi, a disturbance

came in from a horse-drawn cart, called a 'jatkas', which was going by

on the roadside. As the irritating noise came in, it made him think: "A

*noise*... I must get somewhere else, in order to take the thought. It

troubles, it disturbs."

 

But then, it suddenly occurred to him: "Well, what nonsense! Is it not

a means? What am I meditating upon, what am I contemplating? 'I am pure

Consciousness!' Is it not so? And when that is so, even the noise that

is heard there, does it not point to Me? 'I am Consciousness,' that is

the thought that I am taking, and the jatkas helps me that way, the

noise that emanates from the jatkas helps me, points to Consciousness.

So, I want to establish myself There."

 

As Shri Atmananda goes on to point out, once it is realized that every

object points to consciousness, then nothing can be a disturbance that

distracts from truth. All seeming obstacles are thus converted into

aids that help to realize what's true. Accordingly, this prakriya leads

on to the 'sahaja' or the 'natural' state, of establishment in truth.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

Your question quoted below puzzles me. I don't think Shri

Atmandaji's interpretation or teachings in anyway differ with what we

stamp as 'traditional'.

 

If I am not making a tall claim, experiences such as

the 'jatka 'episode of Shri Atamandaji have occurred to many

(including me) who follow 'traditional' masters/teachings and they

have understood it rightly as Consciousness or pointing at

Consciousness. I have already mentioned and elaborated on this point

in several of my posts on this forum before. Many traditional

masters, for example, Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji, teach us to

contemplate on the thought "I am Consciousness or Awareness". It is

a proven fact that such contemplation yields faster results and was

known to all so-called traditonalists from Vyasa to Sankara to the

modern Vedantins. Recall

Sankara's "asamgOham....satchidAnandarUpoham" meditaiton verse. I,

therefore, believe Atmanandaji was merely echoing the central truth

in all their teachings and not propounding anything new that was

unknown till his time.

 

Shri Atamandaji laid exclusive stress on the nature of consciousness

leaving aside the heuristic (courtesy: Sunderji) models of vedanta

(e.g. kosAs, pancIkarana etc.) and made advaita more palatable to the

enquiring West. That is the only thing that sets him apart from

other advaitins. Otherwise, he is very much in the advaitic

mainstream. In fact, there is nothing 'traditional' in advaita. It

is always fresh.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________

 

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

>

> How does this prakriya relate to traditional approaches? An

> illustration is given by Shri Atmananda, in one of his tape-recorded

> talks (the talk called 'Sahaja', in the book 'Sri Atmananda Tattwa

> Samhita'). Here, Shri Atmananda recounts an incident that occurred

> towards the end of his sadhana period, which included a yogic

training

> in some traditional samadhis. In particular, he had come to

practice a

> jnyana-oriented samadhi, obtained by repetitively thinking, with

> increased intensity: "I am pure Consciousness, I am pure

> Consciousness..."

>

> He says that while intensifying this thought, he would also use

> arguments to prove it, through logical deduction. For example, he

would

> think: "I am not this body, I am not the senses, I am not the mind,

I

> am pure Consciousness..." So there was a combination of yogic

> one-pointedness and jnyana reasoning.

>

> One day, while he was thus proceeding towards samadhi, a disturbance

> came in from a horse-drawn cart, called a 'jatkas', which was going

by

> on the roadside. As the irritating noise came in, it made him

think: "A

> *noise*... I must get somewhere else, in order to take the thought.

It

> troubles, it disturbs."

>

> But then, it suddenly occurred to him: "Well, what nonsense! Is it

not

> a means? What am I meditating upon, what am I contemplating? 'I am

pure

> Consciousness!' Is it not so? And when that is so, even the noise

that

> is heard there, does it not point to Me? 'I am Consciousness,' that

is

> the thought that I am taking, and the jatkas helps me that way, the

> noise that emanates from the jatkas helps me, points to

Consciousness.

> So, I want to establish myself There."

>

> As Shri Atmananda goes on to point out, once it is realized that

every

> object points to consciousness, then nothing can be a disturbance

that

> distracts from truth. All seeming obstacles are thus converted into

> aids that help to realize what's true. Accordingly, this prakriya

leads

> on to the 'sahaja' or the 'natural' state, of establishment in

truth.

[Guest guest]

At 10:05 PM 11/21/2003 +0530, Ananda Wood wrote:

>Shri Atmananda had a special way of pointing out how that existence

>gets misunderstood. Habitually, we think of existence as something that

>belongs to objects. For example, having seen a chair and touched it and

>sat in it, a person may say: 'This chair exists.'

>

>At first, there seems nothing wrong in such a statement. But it does

>have a problem. It puts the chair first, and thus it speaks of

>existence as something that the chair possesses. It says in effect:

>'The chair has existence.' What then is this existence that belongs to

>the chair? It is something that appears only in some part of space and

>time. Elsewhere, outside this particular location, the chair's

>existence disappears.

 

Hello Anandaji,

 

This is one of the most powerful prakriyas offered by Atmananda. It is parallel

to the witness prakriya but goes deeper. This witness prakriya deconstructs

tables and chairs into thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations. This prakriya

helps deconstruct thoughts, feelings and bodily sensations into consciousness.

 

It is a very good point about existence. Linguistically, "existent" seems to be

an attribute like "blue" or "hot" or "square." But if one investigates into

this, one can see that it is meaningless and tautologous to claim of something

that it exists independently. For only a chair that is already external and

subsistent can be existent in the way this attribute suggests. Same for

"non-existent." In other words, only an already existent chair could exist.

Only an existent chair could fail to exist. So claims of existence just make no

sense. Not to mention there is no evidence in their favor.

 

Pranams to all,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi Ananda,

 

I am happy with the idea that we cannot experience any object outside of

consciousness. In fact, it seems almost a truism. If we accept that, when we

are 'unconscious' (in the usual sense of the word; I appreciate that this is

never actually true), we do not experience anything, then it follows that,

if we are experiencing something then we must be conscious. I.e. this does

not really seem to be saying anything. If you mean this to be taken in a

Berkeleyian sense, then that is fine, too. I accept that we can never be

aware of objects outside of our perception. This is what I understand you to

be saying by "all gross experiences of outside objects are reduced to the

more subtle experiences of our conceiving minds".

 

I seem to be missing the logic of your next assertions, however. You say "No

perception, thought or feeling can actually leave consciousness and go

outside. When any such appearance goes out of consciousness, the appearance

disappears immediately." Surely all you are doing is saying what the words

mean? To 'perceive' something means to be conscious of a percept; to 'think'

something means to be conscious of a thought; to 'feel' something means to

be conscious of a feeling. I.e. it is part of the definition of these words

that they are associated with consciousness. If a thought 'goes out of

consciousness' then the appearance does indeed disappear but is this not

simply that it is no longer a thought, by definition, if we are not

conscious of it? So all that this shows is that (according to dictionary

definition) there are no percepts, thoughts or feelings outside of

consciousness. And 'Nothing else is ever shown, in anyone's experience"

because no one sees anything without being conscious. Back where we started.

 

I also had some problem with the question of existence. You said: "'The

chair has existence.' What then is this existence that belongs to

the chair? It is something that appears only in some part of space and time.

Elsewhere, outside this particular location, the chair's

existence disappears." Again, is this not in fact what the word means? Part

of the definition for the verb 'to exist' given by my on-line OED is this: "

to be found, especially in a particular place or situation". Also, isn't

'existence' an attribute in it's normal usage? I might say that my coffee

has blackness but I wouldn't go on to suggest that blackness belongs to the

coffee.

 

I'm afraid that I did not follow the last parts at all. Why "To speak more

truly, it would be more accurate to say: 'Existence has the chair.'"? What

do you mean by talking about 'existence being fully true'?

 

Again, I am happy with the conclusion (in theory at least!) - that nothing

can be a disturbance because all points to the truth - it's just that I

don't quite see how this follows from what has gone before.

 

It really seems that you are getting to the nub of Sri Atmananda's teaching

now - the aspects that I found most difficult to get to grips with when

reading Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvritti. This is all extremely helpful even

if I seem to be being argumentative!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

______________________

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Madathil Nair and Michael L.,

 

I fully agree with Shri Madathil (22 Nov) that:

 

"In fact, there is nothing 'traditional' in advaita. It is always

fresh."

 

As Shri Madathil points out, when distinguishing a 'direct' path from

cosmological approaches that are called 'traditional', it should be

clarified that the word 'traditional' is being used in a restricted

sense. It is used specifically to indicate those religious and yogic

exercises that have long been prescribed to purify a person's character

and to expand a person's mind, in the physical and mental world.

 

Such exercises have been used as a personal and cosmic preparation,

purifying personal motives and expanding cosmic views, in order to

prepare for an eventual enquiry into impartial truth. In the end, that

enquiry must leave behind all personal development and the entire

cosmos that is seen through body and through mind.

 

Like Ramana Maharshi, Shri Atmananda laid emphasis upon the enquiry

itself. In particular, he taught prakriyas that do not need the use of

religious worship or of yogic meditation. And he encouraged many of his

disciples to focus on these prakriyas, to the exclusion of both

religious and yogic exercise. He told these disciples that this would

be their most direct way to truth. This was not said as a concession to

westerners. It was said for everyone, Indians and westerners and others

alike, in the changed circumstances of the modern world.

 

Unfortunately, there is a prevalent misconception that religious

worship and meditative exercise are essential, to put the theory of

advaita into practice. And this misconception is not Indian, in

particular. It is even more prevalent in the west, as old religious

ways and meditations are returning back into fashion, after a long

period of repression and neglect.

 

But as both Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmananda said very clearly, the

direct practice of advaita isn't character development through worship

or through meditative exercise. The direct practice is enquiry. What

then takes the enquiry from theoretical imagining and postulation into

actual practice?

 

That doesn't happen just by following religious or yogic prescriptions.

Instead, the enquiry gets practical when it turns genuinely back --

when it is one's own beliefs and assumptions that are genuinely in

question. It's only by unseating one's own prejudiced and preconceived

beliefs that questioning can come to clearer truth. That unseating puts

the theory into practical effect. And it depends on love for truth, to

give up cherished falsities on which the ego takes its self-conflicting

and deluded stand.

 

You are of course quite right that there is nothing new about such

genuine enquiry. It always has been there, refreshed with every

generation. And it continues there today, refreshed in current

circumstance. But it does need to be distinguished from the personal

preparations that lead up to it, but which must be left behind. It's

only for the special purpose of this distinction that Shri Atmananda

spoke of religious and yogic practices as 'traditional'. He wasn't

saying that tradition and enquiry are fundamentally opposed. Far from

it, he regarded enquiry as the essential and indispensable basis of

tradition -- while religious and yogic practices are dispensable

preparations at the changing surface, along with merely theoretical

ideas.

 

In particular, the story he recounted was one of being disturbed while

withdrawing into samadhi, and suddenly realizing that the very purpose

of the samadhi would be better served by facing the disturbance. He was

telling his disciples that yes, he had practised this kind of

withdrawal, but he had found it quite unnecessary. Instead of using the

statement 'I am pure consciousness' to enforce a withdrawal into a

nirvikalpa or mindless state, he had found that he could do better by

directly understanding what the statement means. Its meaning is

directly shown by every object that appears, including all the objects

from which the mind withdraws in samadhi.

 

By investigating ordinary experience, it is far more practical to see

that each objects points to consciousness, so that there is no need to

withdraw from it. But the practice now is not a formal exercise of

getting thrown into a special state. Instead it is a questioning

enquiry that faces things for what they are and asks exactly what they

show, beneath all seeming make-belief that isn't tested properly.

 

It's interesting that Michael L. tells us (Nov 22) of Ramana Maharshi's

last instruction: "Put the Teaching into Practice."

 

The instruction is quite simple and few would disagree with what it

says. But since the very practice is enquiry, it does throw up a

practical question: of what exactly 'practice' means. It's rather

differently interpreted, not just in theory but very much in practice,

by different sadhakas.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

> I'm afraid that I did not follow the last parts at all.

> Why "To speak more truly, it would be more accurate to

> say: 'Existence has the chair.'"? What do you mean by talking

> about 'existence being fully true'?

>

 

Dennisji, Anandaji,

 

I apologize for barging in here. The exact point in Sri Atmananda's

teaching stated here has been repeatedly stressed by one of my

teachers and I wanted to bring it in the manner this was explained

by him, which I found to be quite clarifying.

 

When we say that 'The Chair has existence', we usually take

the "Chair" to be the noun and "existence" as an attribute of the

noun called "Chair". "existence" is looked at as an attribute

enjoyed by the object called "Chair". This is our normal, unenquired

way of looking at existence of objects.

 

However, when we state "The table has existence", "The chair has

existence", "The fan has existence", "A feeling has existence", "A

thought has existence", the undeniable commonality is "Existence"

itself, which is all pervasive.

 

Hence "Existence" is really the noun

and "chair", "fan", "table", "feeling" and "thought" are all

qualifying attributes of the one "Existence".

 

Thus we arrive at "Existence has the (name and form of) chair" and

so on, which is the more accurate way of stating it.

 

warm regards,

--Satyan

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

You wrote (Nov 22):

>

>I seem to be missing the logic of your next assertions, however. You

say "No perception, thought or feeling can actually leave consciousness

and go outside. When any such appearance goes out of consciousness, the

appearance disappears immediately." Surely all you are doing is saying

what the words mean? To 'perceive' something means to be conscious of a

percept; to 'think' something means to be conscious of a thought; to

'feel' something means to be conscious of a feeling. I.e. it is part of

the definition of these words that they are associated with

consciousness. If a thought 'goes out of consciousness' then the

appearance does indeed disappear but is this not simply that it is no

longer a thought, by definition, if we are not conscious of it? So all

that this shows is that (according to dictionary definition) there are

no percepts, thoughts or feelings outside of consciousness. And

"Nothing else is ever shown, in anyone's experience" because no one

sees anything without being conscious. Back where we started.

>

 

Yes, guilty as charged. The attempt is to say only what the words mean,

and to come back to where we started. The drift of the argument is

simply this. Though we imagine that a world outside is perceived and

thought about and felt, this never actually happens. All perceptions,

thoughts and feelings always stay in consciousness, and so they cannot

really show anything outside. As you say, from the very meaning of the

words we use, it is quite clear that "Nothing else [but consciousness]

is ever shown..."

 

So, whatever our minds may imagine, we are always back in

consciousness, from where we started imagining. This imagination makes

us think that we have gone somewhere else and seen something else, and

that we come back and bring things in. But none of this ever happens,

actually. We are always back were we started, and even the starting is

false imagination. There never is any going anywhere, nor coming back

again.

 

The amazing thing is that this is so obvious, in the meaning of the

words, as you point out. The very meaning of the words we use

completely contradicts the descriptions that we make of a physical and

mental world. And yet, when this is pointed out, the first reaction is

to dismiss it, as too obvious and too trivial.

 

Yes indeed, the contradiction is obvious; and if one does not seriously

consider its consequences and the questions that it raises, then it

stays trivial. It is then just a curiosity of language, a theoretical

anomaly, of no genuine importance. Then of course one needs mystical

and religious experiences, to make one take it seriously.

 

But, according to the advaita tradition, if this contradiction is

properly considered -- following its questions through to their final

end -- then that questioning alone is enough, to find whatever there is

to be found, to realize plain truth beyond all compromise. Of course,

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

You went on to write:

>

> I also had some problem with the question of existence. You said:

"'The chair has existence.' What then is this existence that belongs to

the chair? It is something that appears only in some part of space and

time. Elsewhere, outside this particular location, the chair's

existence disappears." Again, is this not in fact what the word means?

Part of the definition for the verb 'to exist' given by my on-line OED

is this: "to be found, especially in a particular place or situation".

Also, isn't 'existence' an attribute in it's normal usage? I might say

that my coffee has blackness but I wouldn't go on to suggest that

blackness belongs to the coffee.

>

> I'm afraid that I did not follow the last parts at all. Why "To speak

more truly, it would be more accurate to say: 'Existence has the

chair.'"? What do you mean by talking about 'existence being fully

true'?

>

>Again, I am happy with the conclusion (in theory at least!) - that

nothing can be a disturbance because all points to the truth - it's

just that I don't quite see how this follows from what has gone before.

>

 

First, let me say that Greg's message (22 Nov) on this subject is to

the point and is likely to put things better for you than I can.

 

Second, for my part, I have to say again, guilty as charged. The

attempt is only to examine what the word 'exist' means. And neither

dictionary definitions nor normal usage are beyond question. The

dictionary definition suggests that there are two meanings -- one that

to exist is to be found in general, and the other that it is to be

found in a particular place or situation. The dictionary favours the

particular existence, but an advaita enquiry is not to be settled by

some words in a book. Only by a strictly logical examination of direct

experience, without our habitual compromises of accepting partial

truths that have some misleading and confusing falsity mixed in.

 

The word 'existence' most definitely describes something that stands,

and stands in its own right. It implies a common and independent

reality, seen through different appearances. It's the appearances that

come and go, as what exists is seen from changing points of view. What

exists remains, independent of how it is seen. When something called

'existence' is found to appear and disappear, then that contradicts the

meaning of the word. It means that the word 'existence' is being used

for something that doesn't really exist.

 

Take the so-called 'existence' of a particular chair. Since it appears

at some place and time, but disappears at others, it does not in truth

exist. We speak of it loosely as existing because it is common to some

different views that we see when looking at that part of space and time

from different locations. Each view is partial. It shows something

about the chair, but not everything. But the chair in turn is a partial

view of something bigger which contains it. If we think of the whole

house in which the chair is contained, then the chair is a partial

appearance that we get of whole existence of the house. This is a

partial appearance that we see by looking at the (space-time) location

of the chair.

 

The same consideration would in turn apply to the house. In the end,

the word 'existence' can't be used with full accuracy, unless it

applies to 'all there is'. It can only properly apply to a complete

existence in which all seeming objects are contained. Only that

complete existence can be fully true, without the taint of any

compromise with falsity.

 

When that complete existence is identified as consciousness, then every

object points to it. Every object shows the knowing presence of pure

consciousness, and it thus helps a sadhaka to see what's truly there.

It's only in the seeming world that one object may distract attention

from another. And only then is the distracting object a disturbance

that gets in the way of perceiving other things.

 

But when impartial truth is sought, there can be no real disturbance.

Anything that seems to disturb is only announcing its reality, which is

pure consciousness. The greater the disturbance seems, the louder it

announces that impartial truth. When that is understood, all seeming

obstacles are realized as helpful means to find what's true, and to

become established there.

 

It is, admittedly, a funny sort of paradox, seen from the world's

confusions.

 

Ananda