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

[Guest guest]

Greg wrote:

 

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.

 

Hello Greg,

Does this 'deconstruction' mean that you are choosing to think of

various existents i.e. the furniture of the world loosly termed external, as

though it were all items within consciousness and not actually perceptions

of tables, chairs, peacocks, this keyboard and console etc. Consciousness

at various points in the philosophy of Sri Atmananda seems to mean the

Jiva's awareness, Pure Consciousness, representations within the purview of

the witness, appearances and so forth. The imprecision of this catchall

use of 'consciousness' is quite bewildering in contrast to the usage within

classical advaita in which we always know whether we are dealing with Pure

Consciousness, consciousness, mental modifications (memories, dreams,

reflections, perceptions, sensations etc.).

 

Is the witness(by Sri Atmananda) the saksin( Pure Consciousness with the

upadhi of mind) or consciousness or both? It seems to flow between the two.

 

Existence is not an attribute but the condition of attribution. If you

asser that it is meaningless to say of something that it exists

independently I presume that this is shorthand for 'independently of

someone's experience of it'. This is the classical Berklean position which

he promoted as being simple enough for the vulgar (common folk) to take in,

for the cogniscenti objects were permanent possibilities of sensation which

you will agree is an altogether more moderate position.

 

Which brings me to a supplementary difficulty.

 

You write: Yes, it comes down to this, that he is reiterating what the

words mean. But I think the reason he phrased it that way, "no thought

leaves consciousness and goes outside" is to drive home the parallel between

the thought and the tree. Sometimes, when one examines thoughts and their

nature, there's a lingering suspicion that they go somewhere when they are

not noticed. As if they go to some holding tank, like the unconscious,

waiting to arise again. That's parallel to the physical realist's (i.e.,

most peoples') feeling that the chair is really out there waiting for

perception to come into contact with it. And as you said, this makes no

sense.

 

'No thoughts leaves consciousness' seems an odd way to say 'I think' as

though one could think without being conscious. It is analytic of the

concept of thought, it is a tautology.

 

And now the chair. On this analysis you have no face when you are walking

away from me and I don't see it. When I blink you cease to exist. How

conveniant that the chair materialises under me when I sit!

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

And just when Benjamin said he thought everyone agreed! I've gotta go now, will

write more later.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Dennis,

> 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.

>

>> Ananda

 

 

Namaste all, Benjamin, Ananda, Greg and Dennis.

 

I am glad to be told that "we all agree". I enjoyed the whole

discussion. Particularly, with my traditional background in

advaita, I felt at home with the above passage from Anandaji's

post. Let me not claim that I have understood every nuance of the

discussion, but certainly I can assure you I tried hard.

Here is a question of mine on a concordance between the traditional

advaitic language and the pure English language that you have been

using -- which I admire, of course.

 

In the Bhagavadgita 5th chapter, there is a mention of akshara-

purusha. This is called kUTastha. The contention among many

advaitins is (Source, Pancadashi) that this kUTastha is the same as

Absolute Consciousness. It is this kUTastha which stands as a

witness to everything, howev er unaffected by any goings-on. In the

above paragraph of Anandaji that I have quoted, it is perhaps this

kUTastha which is firm as a rock, neither going anywhere nor coming

from anywhere, but illumining everything. "jAnAmi iti tam-eva

bhAntam anubhAti" says Adi Sankara in the fourth shloka of his

dakshiNAmurti ashhTakaM. Meaning: By Its effulgence everything

shines; we speak of it as "I know". My question to Anandaji and

others is the following:

 

Can I take kUTastha is the Consciousness to which all objects point?

 

But Sankara's commentary says:

"the other person is the aksarah, immutable, opposite of the former,

the power of God called Maya, which is the seed of the origin of the

person called the mutable. That which is the receptacle of the

impressions of desires, actions, etc. of countless transmigrating

creatures is called the immutable person" (Translator: Swami

Gambhirananda).

 

Though many advaitins take kUTastha as Consciousness, Sankara

himself does not say so. In this particular place (Gita:XV-16) he

comments in the above manner.

 

Question: What does Shri Atmanandaji have to say on this?

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

I am sorry I have to make a simple correction, in my previous post.

 

The reference to Gita in my post is to the 15th chapter and not to

the 5th chapter as was typed by me. Sorry.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Yaduji,

Thanks for your mail.

Purayati or Purayatwad iti Purusha. I do not know whether I am correct.

However, I wonder how we can give the status of Ansha to Atma, as Consciousness

i.e. Brahman is Partless, and therefore my understanding is that Atma is not a

Part. The Amsha Amshi approach, I think, can lead to Dwaita again.

Please do correct me, sir

R.S.Mani

 

ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected ManiJi:

 

purishete iti purushH. shete - means (latent) one sleeping in that

body.

 

Thus prurusha is the one who is enjoying the body (presider, the

chairman) but is not the actual body although he enjoys it. It is

easy to confuse it as daita but that creates more problems that it is

worth. Therefore, I will try to explain it using practical examples.

 

There is no dvaita here.

 

Eyes see the food. Hands take it to the mouth, tongue tastes it,

teeth chops it into pieces, stomach digests it smaller units the

nutrients are absorbed in the intestines.

 

On individual organ level one sees it as daita. But the overall

process is nourishment is for the one and the same individual. The

prurusha, the presider is the enjoyer of that body. Thus advaita.

 

One works for a company. Company has many departments. All of them

are working towards the goal to make the company successful. Overall

efforts is for one company. Thus adita.

 

The day one individual thinks that he is "Superior" than others in an

organization. Gets eliminated through variety of mechanisms.

Regardless of his/her previous contributions. Goal is ONE - Thus

advita. This example also throws some light on the famous saying, "

dharmo raxati raxitaH". Here dharma (accepted duty) was to work to

achieve the goals of the organization. So trying funny stuff as

individualistic (selfish) goals (dvaita) as being more important than

that of the organization are never tolerated. Thus adaita.

 

This principle is universally applicable. Any fuzzy logic results

in a disaster. Thus advita.

 

davita or vishTa daita works well as long as the individual accepts

to role of total surrender to the higher authorities. This leads to

nothing more than technicians and gate keepers for the higher

authorities. I feel this practice of daita was responsible for India

being ruled by foreigners.

 

Even the British education system was designed to manufacture

technicians, Clarks and baboos not scientists and thinkers. If the

folks had practiced advita then it would have been a totally

different picture. Thus advita.

 

So similar principles apply to :

 

One Individual

One Family.

One Community.

One Nation.

One Humanity.

One Universality. (that encompasses everything).

 

dnyaneshva maharaj tell us -

he vishvaci maazhe ghara, aisi mati jayaa.nci shtira

kibahunaa caraa cra aapaNaci zhaalaa

 

His recommendation was to accept whole universe as home. (that

includes everything). Once you really accpet whole universr as your

home then duality cannot exit. Thus adita.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> Dear Respected Yaduji,

> Thanks for your mail.

> Purayati or Purayatwad iti Purusha. I do not know whether I am

correct.

> However, I wonder how we can give the status of Ansha to Atma, as

Consciousness i.e. Brahman is Partless, and therefore my

understanding is that Atma is not a Part. The Amsha Amshi approach, I

think, can lead to Dwaita again.

> Please do correct me, sir

> R.S.Mani

>

> ymoharir <ymoharir> wrote:

> Sponsor

>

> 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

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Anandaji, thanks a lot for the detailed reply of yours.

Now,here is my understanding .

Below I repeat your words, interleaven with my words

shown in parentheses [ ] , so that the context is clear.

The idea is, when you remove the parentheses and read it

through, my way of looking at it comes out. I would

appreciate your telling me whether I have slipped anywhere

or have gone against Atmananda’s teaching. Now I start,

pardon me, with a little introduction through my words:

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

[There are four selves.

1. The outer self of man: this is the psychological

personality which includes the physical, mental and

intellectual parts of man.

2. The inner self of man: This is the one which travels

from body to body. To it clings all the vAsanAs and the

balance of karma that has to be experienced. It is called

jIva in Sanskrit,also as the kshara-purusha, the perishable

purusha (of the 15th chapter of the gItA). Expositors on

advaita philosophy use also the English term 'the lower

self'.

 

The identification by No.2 with No.1 is what starts the

dvaita-samsAra. It is the wrong identification that all

Vedanta warns us against.

 

3. The Self of man: This is the one which 'witnesses'

without attachment or involvement,all actions and thoughts

of the individual. In Sanskrit it is the Atman, also

jIvAtman, also akshara-purusha (of the 15th chapter) . This

is the 'tvaM' of 'tat-tvam-asi' or the 'aham'of 'aham

brahma asmi'.

 

The identification by No.2 with No.3 is what all advaita

prakriyA is about.

 

4. The Self: This is the param-Atman, purushottama, 'tat'

or brahman. It is the transcendental Absolute.That there

is no essential difference between No.3 and No. 4 can be

logically (?) argued out.The mahA-vAkyas 'tat tvaM asi'

and 'ahaM brahma asmi' say there is no essential

difference between No.4 (brahman) and the 'tvaM' or 'ahaM'

denoted by ‘The inner self of man identifying itself with

The Self of man (namely No.2 identifying with No.3)].

 

The truth of [The S]elf is found by clarifying ego's

confusion, which falsely mixes up [because of wrong

identification] the knowing self with known acts of

personality. To clear the confusion, the self that knows

[--this is No.3--] must be discerned completely from

anything that's known as a differentiated object or a

changing act.Through a clear and impartial discernment,

there must be a full completion of this duality between the

knowing subject [-- No.3 --] and its known objects or acts

[ -- No.1 --], so that no trace remains of any mixing up

between the two.[in other words, the identification of No.2

with No.3 should be complete].

 

As the duality becomes complete, the witness stand [, the

stand of No.3] is reached. Viewed from ego in the world, a

last remaining trace of confused duality

remains, in the idea of the witness [, because the stand

that has been reached is only an identified stand, that of

No.2 with No.3]. There [consequently] still remains a

witnessing of changing activities that show up in the mind.

And, despite all intellectual arguments to the contrary,

the witnessing still looks a little like one of those

changing activities, as it illuminates appearances and

records what it has lit.

However, when the witness concept has been fully followed

through, to where it points, it is no longer an idea, but

an actual stand. And then, immediately the stand is

actually reached, the idea of the witness gets dissolved,

[there is no more any trace of No.2] without a trace of

duality remaining there. Accordingly, the witness is a

completion of duality that straightaway

gives itself up, to non-duality.

 

When fully understood, the 'witness' concept thus dissolves

itself, of its own accord, in that non-dual truth of 'self'

[No.3] which is also called by other names like

'consciousness' and 'kutastha'.

 

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

Also see the webpages on Paramacharya's Soundaryalahari :

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/DPDS.html

[Guest guest]

Hello Michael,

 

You wrote (ombhurbhuva, 24 Nov):

 

"... Consciousness at various points in the philosophy of Sri Atmananda

seems to mean the Jiva's awareness, Pure Consciousness, representations

within the purview of the witness, appearances and so forth. The

imprecision of this catchall use of 'consciousness' is quite

bewildering in contrast to the usage within classical advaita in which

we always know whether we are dealing with Pure Consciousness,

consciousness, mental modifications (memories, dreams, reflections,

perceptions, sensations etc.)."

 

So far as I know, on this question of how consciousness relates to

mental modifications, Shri Atmananda took exactly the same position as

classical advaita. Consciousness itself is realized by distinguishing

it completely -- with exact precision -- from all modifications or

appearances (mental and sensual and physical). As seen from the

confusion of ego, each of these modifications or appearances is a

confused mixture of consciousness itself with something physical or

sensual or mental that appears to be different from it. And the whole

point of advaita sadhana is to clarify this confusion, by precise

distinction.

 

Once the distinction has been fully achieved, and only then, it turns

out that no modification has any reality or existence that is

independent of consciousness. In short, consciousness is the complete

and precise reality of all modifications and of each one in particular.

But *not* the other way around. No modification, nor any combination of

modifications, nor all of them together can amount to the ultimate

reality that is identical with consciousness.

 

To use your phrase, the "catchall use of 'consciousness'" would be

appropriate only after a complete precision has taken a sadhaka to

dissolution in the ultimate reality, where words are no longer needed

to discuss or point to anything further. So yes, Shri Atmananda would

agree with you and with classical advaita that such a "catchall use" is

wrong.

 

It is not clear just where you find Shri Atmananda making such a

"catchall use" that blurs distinctions rather than clarifying them. I'd

be most interested if you would point to something specific in his

writings or discussions or teachings. Then it would be clearer what you

mean.

 

And of course, if you could point to such a blurring in Greg's or Shri

Rajkumar Nair's or my or anyone else's reporting of Shri Atmananda's

teachings, then you would be doing us a much needed service, for which

we should be most grateful. For it would give us a chance to try

clearing up what I would regard as a dreadful misrepresentation on our

part. And it might help us to try avoiding further such mistakes.

 

Perhaps it might help if I point out that Shri Atmananda did use the

word 'consciousness' in a way that is a little different from yours.

 

In the above passage (from your 24 Nov posting), you make a threefold

distinction: between (1) "Pure Consciousness", (2) "consciousness" and

(3) "mental modifications (memories, dreams, reflections, perceptions,

sensations etc.)". Shri Atmananda used the word 'consciousness' in a

way that corresponds to item (1) of your triad. For him, consciousness

itself is always pure consciousness. Any mixture with something taken

to be different is a mistaken confusion that produces a false

appearance of consciousness, not the real thing.

 

When the word 'consciousness' is thus used, your item (2) must be

removed. It must either be pure consciousness, and thus identical with

item (1); or it must be a mistaken appearance, a mental modification

masquerading as consciousness, and thus identical with item (3).

 

In classical advaita, there is a similar reduction of a triad to a

dyad, on the way to non-duality. Of course the similarity is not quite

exact, because your triad is not quite the same as the classical triad

of knower, knowing and known. And here I must admit that I can't quite

make out how your triad might be translated from (or into) classical

advaitic terms. 'Pure Consciousness' could of course be 'shuddha bodha'

or 'shuddha jnyana'. And mental modifications could be 'vrittis'. But

the middle term: 'consciousness'? Would it translate just 'jnyana'? Or

perhaps 'vijnyana', or 'prajnyana'? It might help to clarify.

 

You went on to ask:

 

"Is the witness (by Sri Atmananda) the saksin (Pure Consciousness with

the upadhi of mind) or consciousness or both? It seems to flow between

the two."

 

Yes, what Shri Atmananda called the 'witness' is exactly the 'sakshin'

of classical advaita. But I think he might have found it a little

imprecise to describe that 'sakshin' as 'Pure Consciousness with the

upadhi of mind'. For him, this phrase, 'Pure Consciousness with the

upadhi of mind', would describe the mind in general. The mind is always

a false superimposition of its upadhi (its mental expression) onto

consciousness itself. The witness would more accurately be described as

pure consciousness with a last remaining trace of mind that is about to

dissolve itself completely in non-duality. (This conception of the

witness, in Shri Atmananda's teachings and in classical advaita, is

further discussed in a posting that I wrote in reply to Professor

Krishnamurthy just yesterday, 24 Nov.)

 

Please forgive me if I am being intrusive, but I get the feeling that

your dissatisfaction and objections may concern an underlying problem,

on which it may be easier to find an agreement. The problem is that the

initial emphasis of advaita enquiry is so strongly subjective. To the

extent that any mental association is left in that subjectivity, it

tends to trivialize the reality of objects and the world. That of

course is not true advaita, for it evades and ignores the object side

of the non-dual equation.

 

The witness prakriya does not address this problem directly. It

withdraws from the objective world, rather than confronting the

question of how objects are real. In the consciousness prakriya, this

problem and this question start to be addressed more directly, by

showing that consciousness itself is the reality of each object. But it

is not directly shown just how that consciousness is a positive

reality, which motivates all life and activity throughout the apparent

world. For that, there are further prakriyas: of 'happiness', of the

'background' and of 'merging into non-duality'.

 

There will not be time this month to discuss these further prakriyas,

but I will try to post some short accounts of them, as indicated

earlier. Of course, they will only raise more questions ...

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor Krishnamurthy,

 

Thank you for your kind and interesting reply (25 Nov). It's very

helpful and clarifying to me personally, to see how you interpret what

I've been trying to say. As I see it, what comes across is that the

difference between classical advaita and its modern interpretations is

not one of substance but rather of approach and terminology. Shri

Madathil Nair (22 Nov and before) has of course been pointing this out,

asking why such a fuss is being made about the difference. Moreover

Shri Ram Chandran (19 Nov) and Shri Satyan Chidambaran (22 and 23 Nov)

have been providing clear illustrations from the Gita and other

classical perspectives.

 

It might be interesting to consider briefly how your terminology of

four selves (quoted below as a postscript) differs a little from Shri

Atmananda's equivalent. He used the word 'jiva' (same in his native

Malayalam as in Sanskrit) to mean 'personality', including both your

'outer self' (No. 1) and 'inner self' (No. 2). And he described it at

just two levels: body and mind. He tended to avoid describing either of

these by the word 'self'. Instead, he just spoke of them as objects:

the body as a gross object, and the mind as a subtle object.

 

As mere objects, neither body nor mind is living in itself. It's only

through the confusion of ego that these two can seem to be alive and to

constitute a 'jiva' (literally 'that which lives'). The self is just

consciousness, but ego confuses it with body and mind; and this mixed

up confusion appears as a 'jiva' or a 'living personality'.

 

So, in place of your four selves, Shri Atmananda thought more in terms

of three levels: body, mind and consciousness. This is the classic

advaita triad (in reverse). The knower is pure consciousness, the real

self (atma) that only knows. The known is body, a gross object that

appears to be perceived by its senses in the world. The mind is

consciousness appearing to go out to objects. Mind is thus a seeming

intermediary, which mediates between the consciousness of self and the

objects of the world.

 

These three levels are exactly equivalent to Bhartrihari's three levels

of language: vaikhari (literally 'elaborated'), madhyama ('in between')

and pashyanti ('seeing'). The commentator on Bhartrihari's

'Vakyapadiya' (said to be Bhartrihari himself) quotes some archaic

'agama' verses about these three levels -- thus suggesting that they

are of ancient origin, from the timeless shrutis. My hunch is that this

distinction of three levels is very old. It has a logical simplicity

which suggests that to me.

 

After Bhartrihari, for the purposes of Shaivite theology, Bhartrihari's

three levels were elaborated to four. This was done by splitting the

original pashyanti into two levels. The two new levels were: a slightly

changed 'pashyanti' ('seeing') and an added 'para' ('beyond'). In this

elaboration, what is now called 'pashyanti' has been slightly degraded

to the level of the witness. And the ultimate, non-dual self is now

called 'para'. These are of course your selves No. 3 and No. 4.

 

In 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses ...', Shri Atmananda specifically

interprets these four levels as body, mind, the witness and the real

self. And it isn't difficult to see that these four levels correspond

to the four levels (catush-pat) of the Mandukya Upanishad and the

mantra 'Om'. But, in Shri Atmananda's view, the witness and the real

self belong intrinsically together. The witness is simply an intimate

aspect through which the real self is correctly viewed and thus

realized, from the perspective of the world. Non-dual consciousness is

the reality itself, known in identity when it is actually reached.

 

Naturally, this kind of terminology is not by any means to everyone's

taste, nor suited for all purposes. And Shri Atmananda was very clear

with his disciples that they should not push it on anyone who finds it

unhelpful or unappealing.

 

Ananda

 

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

 

Professor Krishnamurthy wrote (25 Nov):

 

There are four selves.

 

1. The outer self of man: this is the psychological personality which

includes the physical, mental and intellectual parts of man.

 

2. The inner self of man: This is the one which travels from body to

body. To it clings all the vAsanAs and the balance of karma that has to

be experienced. It is called jIva in Sanskrit, also as the

kshara-purusha, the perishable purusha (of the 15th chapter of the

gItA). Expositors on advaita philosophy use also the English term 'the

lower self'.

 

The identification by No.2 with No.1 is what starts the dvaita-samsAra.

It is the wrong identification that all Vedanta warns us against.

 

3. The Self of man: This is the one which 'witnesses' without

attachment or involvement,all actions and thoughts of the individual.

In Sanskrit it is the Atman, also jIvAtman, also akshara-purusha (of

the 15th chapter) . This is the 'tvaM' of 'tat-tvam-asi' or the 'aham'

of 'aham brahma asmi'.

 

The identification by No.2 with No.3 is what all advaita prakriyA is

about.

 

4. The Self: This is the param-Atman, purushottama, 'tat' or brahman.

It is the transcendental Absolute. That there is no essential

difference between No.3 and No. 4 can be logically (?) argued out. The

mahA-vAkyas 'tat tvaM asi' and 'ahaM brahma asmi' say there is no

essential difference between No.4 (brahman) and the 'tvaM' or 'ahaM'

denoted by 'The inner self of man identifying itself with The Self of

man (namely No.2 identifying with No.3).

[Guest guest]

Many humble Pranams to All. Krishnamurthiji; reference to your

posting about '4'

types of self ( below my message).

The self is but one - Beyond the 5 sheaths,three bodies, a witness of

the 3 states etc.

In your four fold classification the 'beyond' and 'witness of' above

are getting lost? for example - The self 1 - is sthula + sukshuma

sarira;

self 2 - part sukshuma + karana sharira.

We can attempt a similar description with the 5 sheaths and 3 states

as well.

 

Self 3 and self 4 - As you have said can be argued not to be

different and seem to be the Self/ Brahman.

 

I am only concerned about attributing several states ( or types)

to 'self' - four here.

 

By picking up some attributes from each of three states ( or 5

sheaths or 3 worlds) and mixing them in various proportions we could

arrive at several types of 'self' and loose sight of the fact that it

transcends all these?

 

My question would thus be ' Is it correct, even as a framework to

help enquiry, construct 4 ( or more) types of self?'

 

I however, did enjoy the discussion Juxtaposing your four types on

Anadaji's presenation on Objects pointing to consciousness. His reply

from where you had left was also enchanting and had taken me a bit

further on the road to understanding Teachings '5' . So the

framework has been useful in that context but could lead to confusion

in the hands of a not so skilled wielder. I could be corrected if the

four types of self you have described have been part and parcel of

advaitic discussions and are named and defined .

 

Like others before me, I'd also record my thanks to Anandaji for

painstakingly and with care taking every thread of reasoning that has

come in that much further.

 

 

 

Many humble Pranams to All advaitins

Sridhar

> [There are four selves.

> 1. The outer self of man: this is the psychological

> personality which includes the physical, mental and

> intellectual parts of man.

> 2. The inner self of man: This is the one which travels

> from body to body. To it clings all the vAsanAs and the

> balance of karma that has to be experienced. It is called

> jIva in Sanskrit,also as the kshara-purusha, the perishable

> purusha (of the 15th chapter of the gItA). Expositors on

> advaita philosophy use also the English term 'the lower

> self'.

>

> The identification by No.2 with No.1 is what starts the

> dvaita-samsAra. It is the wrong identification that all

> Vedanta warns us against.

>

> 3. The Self of man: This is the one which 'witnesses'

> without attachment or involvement,all actions and thoughts

> of the individual. In Sanskrit it is the Atman, also

> jIvAtman, also akshara-purusha (of the 15th chapter) . This

> is the 'tvaM' of 'tat-tvam-asi' or the 'aham'of 'aham

> brahma asmi'.

>

> The identification by No.2 with No.3 is what all advaita

> prakriyA is about.

>

> 4. The Self: This is the param-Atman, purushottama, 'tat'

> or brahman. It is the transcendental Absolute.That there

> is no essential difference between No.3 and No. 4 can be

> logically (?) argued out.The mahA-vAkyas 'tat tvaM asi'

> and 'ahaM brahma asmi' say there is no essential

> difference between No.4 (brahman) and the 'tvaM' or 'ahaM'

> denoted by `The inner self of man identifying itself with

> The Self of man (namely No.2 identifying with No.3)].

>

 

--

> profvk

>

>

> =====

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

> My website on Science and Spirituality is

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

> You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought

Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's

manuscripts from the site.

> Also see the webpages on Paramacharya's Soundaryalahari :

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/DPDS.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Sri Yaduji,

Thank you for your kind clarification.

Whatever it be, whether it is dwaita, advaita, or vishishta advaita, etc. the

knowledge should culminate in

"Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam".

And I think that is the purpose of all these schools.

With kind regards

R.S.Mani

 

ymoharir <ymoharir wrote:

Dear Respected ManiJi:

 

purishete iti purushH. shete - means (latent) one sleeping in that

body.

Sponsor

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now