For Sri Nairji & SriDennisji, “Witness” POPinVA

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nairji and Sri Dennisji, Namaste

 

Hope you will not mind my intrusion.

 

Sri Dennisji wrote:

 

<<<When seeing actually takes place, right at that point of time – let us say

microsecond, am I, the witness, there? I think no. Only the car-image (car

thought) is there.>>>

 

The Chapter “Natakadeepa” (The Lamp of the Theatre) in the Panchadashi gives

some thoughts on Witness. May I quote some of the verses, and also copy down the

Commentary by Swami Swahananda: (My apologies for very poor transliteration)

 

V.9: “Kartaram cha kriyaam tatvadyavruttavishayanapi

 

Sphorayed eka yatnena ya: asou sakshi yatra chidvapu:”

 

That consciousness which reveals at one and the same time the agent, the action

and the external objects is called “witness” in Vedanta.

 

v.10: “Eekshe shrunomi gighrami swadayami spurshyami aham, iti bhasayate sarvam

nruthyashaalaastha deepavad”

 

The witness, like the lamp in a dancing hall, reveals all these as “I see”, “I

hear” “I smell” “I touch” as pieces of knowledge.

 

(It is this witness who makes it possible for one to have at one and the same

time the experience derived from the different senses. It is said above that the

witness reveals at one and the same time the agent, the actions and the external

things. But no knowledge is possible unless they get linked up. This is done by

the witness, not by any action (for it does not act) but by its mere presence;

for example “I see” involves three factors – the “I”, the “seeing” and the

“seen”; and to connect them at one and the same time in order to produce

knowledge is also the ‘work’ of the witness. The witness which is knowledge and

nothing but knowledge does it by its mere presence. The witness envelops them

all together as a light does its surroundings, and the knowledge “I see” is

produced.

 

It is a fine piece of epistemology that Vedanta resorts to. Vrittis are

temporary, which is a reflection of the witness on the Anthakarana but with a

vritti, loses its hold on the cognition when the vritti subsides. Therefore, the

permanence of knowledge is secured by the ever-present witness.)

 

V.11: “Nruthyashaalaasitha: depa:prabhum sabhyancha nartakeem,

deepayeadavisheshena tat abhave api deepyate”

 

The light in the dancing hall uniformly reveals the patron, the audience and

the dancer. Even when they are absent the light continues to shine.

 

V.12: “Ahamkaram dhiyam sakshee vishayan api bhasayed, ahamkaraadi abhave api

swayam bhati eva poorvavat”

 

The witness consciousness lights up the ego, then intellect and the sense

objects. Even when ego, etc. are absent, it remains self-luminous as ever.

 

V.13: “Nirantaram bhasamane kootasthe gnaptiroopataha, tatbhasa bhasamaneeyam

budhi: nruthyathi anekatha”

 

The unchangeable witness is ever present as self-luminous consciousness; the

intellect function under its light and dances in a variety of ways.

 

V.14: “Ahankara: prabhu: sabhyamavishayaa narthakee mati:, taalaadidhareeni

akshani deepa: sakshi avabhasaka:”

 

In this illustration, the patron is the ego, the various sense objects are the

audience, the intellect is the dancer, the musicians playing on their

instruments are the sense-organs, and the light illumining them all is the

witness-consciousness.

 

V.15: “Swasthana samsthita: deepa: sarvata: bhasayed yatha, stirasthayee tatha

sakshee bahiranta: prakashyed”

 

As the light reveals all the objects remaining in its own place, so the

witness-consciousness, itself ever motionless, illumines the objects within and

without (including the operations of the mind).

 

V.16: “Bahi: anta: bhaga: ayam dehapeksha: na sakshini, vishaya bahyadeshasta

dehasyantarahamkruti”

 

The distinction between external and internal objects refers to the body and not

to the witness-consciousness. Sense objects are outside the body whereas the ego

is within the body.

 

- - - -- - -

 

We will not “know” hunger, thirst, etc. in the absence of Witness Consciousness,

Sakshee Chaitanya.

 

I am afraid, I have written too much. In case you feel the above thoughts are

interesting and relevant for further analysis, I can continue the rest in my

next post.

 

Warm regards and Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

Thank you Maniji for quoting "NAtakadeepa". This is the analogy that

inspired my cricket-stadium example.

 

In fact, I have been looking around for this referemce in vain. I

remember that it used to be known as 'Mritchakatikam' (sp?). A

search with that name didn't yield any results. Hence, my recourse

to the cricket stadium.

 

I agree with you fully that the 'light' that shines up *all* should

be known as 'Witness'. But, most of the time, we and our meditation

teachers don't seem to do so. Thus, if the message of the nAtaka is

not properly understood, advaita aspirants will be misled. The

purpose of my post is to highlight this danger - the danger of

assuming the mere 'witness idea' as the real Witness. The point I

was trying to drive home was that even this 'witness idea' (which

Michael rightly equated with the ego) is shined by the Witness (the

Light). That Ultimate Witness cannot be described except through the

statement "I AM THAT" bearing in mind that that "I" is self-evidence

beyond description.

 

I will treasure your quote for future reference. It is simply

beautiful!

 

Thanks once again and praNAms to all.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

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

................>

> The Chapter "Natakadeepa" (The Lamp of the Theatre) in the

Panchadashi gives some thoughts on Witness. May I quote some of the

verses, and also copy down the Commentary by Swami

Swahananda: ...........