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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor Krishnamurthy:

 

You wrote (24 Nov):

>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?

>

 

Delicate question, of course.

 

In the preface to 'Atma Darshan', Shri Atmananda speaks of 'kutastha'

as 'one's real being', upon which 'the idea of minuteness ... is often

superimposed'. So yes, as he used the term, 'kutastha' is atma or

consciousness itself, to which all objects point.

 

But he made a delicate distinction between the witness and the real

self called 'kutastha' or 'atma'. The witness is not consciousness

itself or atma itself. Instead, the witness is a last staging post on

the way to realizing self.

 

The truth of self is found by clarifying ego's confusion, which falsely

mixes up the knowing self with known acts of personality. To clear the

confusion, the self that knows 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 and its known

objects or acts, so that no trace remains of any mixing up between the

two.

 

As the duality becomes complete, the witness stand is reached. Viewed

from ego in the world, a last remaining trace of confused duality

remains, in the idea of the witness. There 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, 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' which is also called

by other names like 'consciousness' and 'kutastha'.

 

Literally, 'kutastha' of course means 'standing at the topmost peak'

('kuta' meaning 'topmost peak' and 'stha' meaning 'standing'). So I

would make the following interpretation of the Gita, 15.16 and a couple

of subsequent stanzas:

 

Here, in this world, there are two

principles of life: one changing, while

the other stays unchanged. All beings

that have come to be are changing.

The changeless is called 'kuta-stha'

-- found 'standing at the topmost peak'. (15.16)

 

As I transcend all change and even

that which does not change, I'm often

called the 'highest principle',

both in the Vedas and the world. (15.18)

 

Whoever knows me unconfused,

just as that highest principle,

joins into me, entirely,

with heart and mind completely merged. (15.19)

 

In the first stanza (15.16), the name 'kuta-stha' is associated with

the changeless witness, thus indicating that it is the highest

standpoint of experience in the world. The next stanza (15.18) suggests

an 'I' that is even higher, beyond the world entirely. And the last

stanza (15.18) tells of a complete dissolution into that final truth of

self, simply by knowing unconfused.

 

According to Shri Atmananda, that unconfused knowing is attained

immediately the witness stand is actually reached. There, dissolution

in the real self is immediate and spontaneous, requiring no further

thought or effort. In other words, on reaching the topmost height of

the witness standpoint, it immediately dissolves its seeming separation

as a distinct peak or point, as it merges itself into non-duality.

 

So yes, there does seem to be a slight difference of terminology

between the Bhagavad Gita and advaitins like Shri Atmananda, in the use

of the term 'kuta-stha'. But the difference is very slight, having to

do with the delicate distinction between witness and self. Advaitins

like Shri Atmananda tend to use 'kuta-stha' as it occurs in the

Ashtavakra Samhita, 1.13:

 

kUTastham bodham advaitam AtmAnam paribhAvaya

AbhAso 'ham bhramam muktvA bhAvam bAhyam ath' Antaram

 

Release yourself from the delusion:

'I am this apparent person

who has somehow come to be --

perceived outside or felt within.'

 

Thus, recognize yourself as that

true individuality

which stands above all seeming else:

 

as unconditioned consciousness,

unclouded by duality.

 

Here 'kuta-stha' is clearly not just the witness, but consciousness

itself or non-dual self, which is the one true individuality.

 

Ananda