saksin

[Guest guest]

Hello Ananda,

Coming back to the various views on the

nature of witness and upadhi. The position I was

expressing was that of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra in

Vedanta Paribhasa in which he says: "Now the individual

self is the Consciousness limited (avachinna) by the

mind and the witness in that is the Consciousness that

has the mind as its limiting adjunct (upadhi)....In the

topic under consideration, since the mind is insentient

and hence incapable of revealing objects, it is a

limiting adjunct of Consciousness which reveals things.

The witness in the individual self is different in each

individual. For if it were one, what Caitra has known,

Maitra would also recollect." Swami Madhavananda adds

a note which may pinpoint the source of variance.

"Although the witness is the same as Brahman, yet since

it manifests as possesing the limiting adjunct of the

mind, it is considered to be different according to

different minds."

 

So as I understand it you have (a)structure and paradox

(b) data and error. Error is elevated to a

metaphysical principle and it has two aspects;

confusion (adhyasa) and limiting adjunct (upadhi)

which operates by contiguity. In the commentary on the

Brh.Up. (IV.iii.7) Sankara puts it thus: " The

intellect, being transparent and *next* to the self,

easily catches the reflection of the intelligence of

the self. Therefore even wise men happen to identify

themselves with it first; *next* comes the Manas, which

catches the reflection of the self through the

intellect; then the organs, through contact with the

Manas; and lastly the body, through the organs. Thus

the self successively illumines with its own

intelligence the entire aggregate of body and organs.

It is therefore that all people identify themselves

with the body and organs and their modifications

according to their discrimination......'It shining,

everything else shines; this universe shines through

its light (Ka.V.15)

 

The distinction drawn between Pure Consciousness and

consciousness is an artefact of the Advaita Asrama

translations which is what I'm familiar with being

innocent of Sanskrit. They must think that it allows

for less confusion by marking a useful distinction. It

makes for easier reading though scholars may dispute

the validity of such interpolations.

 

Your Irish heritage will tell you that this quibbling

is my way of enjoying your posts on the teaching of

Shri Atmananda,

 

With Best Wishes, Michael.

 

You wrote:

 

<<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. >>