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

[Guest guest]

Many Pranams all

 

anandaji had written :

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

> 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.

>

-----

further

--------

> 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'"

 

My ( Sridhar) notes:

 

This is a crowning conclusion to the witness Prakriya. I could feel

some lingering discomfort with it dissolve as the discussions on the

teachings 5 have gathered momentum. It is all flowing so wonderfully.

 

Two different questions arise at this point:

1. Is the teaching 5 another model wherein we say ' Observe an

object -say the chair, see the disturbance it creates in the mind,

trace it back to the consciousness ( seeing beyond the Vyavaharika

truth of how it was made, how it functions, my attachment to it....)?

 

2. Given our conditionings, unfortunately most seekers have to do a

flip-flop between the vyawaharika and Parmarthika truths.So I am

wondering what kind of aspirant at what state of readiness should

attempt the direct path. In a different context four-fold

qualifications of a student have been discussed in this forum. Would

they apply in toto to seekers of this path as well? For example,

would a hesitant seeker be better off trying to get to a state of

praying to a personal god? Similarly, let us take someone who has

been conditioned over several years with strong attachments to

numerous objects, fame, family, relatives and people etc. If this

person were to look at objects, would not his strong passionate

attachments for these objects make it impossible for him to see that

they actually point to consciousness? Would he be better off trying

the Bhakti Marga? Hence my question of whether Direct path is better

suited for someone who is inclined to intellectual enquiry ( Indian,

western or from wherever ). Are there any pre-requisites/

qualifications to be a seeker in this path.

I am afraid the second question does not address the teachings

directly but I hope it will be useful.

Many Pranams to all

Sridhar