Objects and consciousness

[Guest guest]

Namaste Felipe,

 

You asked me (Jan 28, post 30089, subject 'Re: Belief and faith') to

elaborate on that aspect of 'objects' in which they are conceived to

face against the subjective illumination of consciousness.

 

In Advaita Vedanta, this aspect is conceived in the witness

prakriya. Here, objects are conceived to come and go, before the

knowing light of consciousness. As consciousness continues through

experience, it witnesses what comes and goes. That witnessing is not

a changing action towards passing objects. Instead it is a

self-illuminating light which is the very being of the witnessing

consciousness.

 

As objects appear, they do not shine like consciousness, by their

own light. Instead, they must depend upon the knowing light of

consciousness, as they shine out in their external appearances. They

must reflect that knowing light, in order to appear. Their

appearance always comes from a reflected shining, whereby they

reflect a light that comes from elsewhere.

 

Thus, in our experience of objects, they only appear by a reflected

light which comes from consciousness and which is then reflected

back into it. As any object comes into appearance, the light that

shines in it has come from consciousness, expressed through outward

faculties of mind and body in the world. And as the appearance of

this object is perceived and interpreted, the light expressed from

consciousness is thereby reflected back.

 

But here, where we think of objects as confronting consciousness,

there is still a duality between the consciousness that knows and

the objects that are known. Each object is known through appearances

that pass before the light of consciousness. But then, what is the

object's reality? When an object appears, what reality is shown by

this appearance?

 

Whatever object may appear, it appears in the presence of

consciousness. Objects appear and disappear; and all of their

appearances get changed, as one appearance is replaced by another in

our minds. But consciousness stays always present. Whatever may

appear or disappear, consciousness is always there.

 

For any object that is known, consciousness is there before and

during and after each one of this object's appearances. The knowing

presence of consciousness is therefore shown by each appearance and

disappearance of any object.

 

During an appearance, consciousness is shown as a silent witness,

whose actionless illumination is reflecting back in what appears.

After the appearance, consciousness remains, while the object has

now disappeared; so that this disappearance also shows

consciousness. And if one looks back to a time before the

appearance, then consciousness is inevitably there as well, shown

yet again by this remembered lack of appearance in the past.

 

Thus consciousness is always shown, no matter what may appear or

disappear. But this is exactly what we mean by the word 'reality'.

What's really shown by differing appearances is just that common

principle which each of them shows, in their differing ways. And

that common reality is independent of its appearances -- as

perceived or conceived through body, sense or mind.

 

For example, when a mountain is seen from different places,

differing appearances are seen from different points of view. But

through these differing appearances, what's really shown is the

mountain itself, the mountain's own reality. That reality is

independent of its differing appearances. The mountain's reality is

just the same, no matter how it appears, nor disappears -- as seen

or described by body, sense and mind.

 

If we then ask what's meant by 'consciousness' or by 'reality', it

turns out that each of them describes a common principle which is

quite independent of the differing appearances that show it

differently. In either case, the principle described remains the

same, no matter how it is perceived or conceived by any of our

faculties. But then, there can't be any way of distinguishing two

different principles that are described like this. Thus,

'consciousness' and 'reality' are just two different words for the

same thing.

 

Whatever object may appear, in anyone's experience, that appearance

must express the consciousness that carries on through time, knowing

what appears and disappears. That consciousness is the reality of

all appearances, since it is shown by each one of them. But we

confuse that consciousness with faculties of body, sense and mind.

So we mistakenly think of consciousness as a personal activity of

seeing. In this activity, a personal see-er undergoes a changing

process of physical and mental seeing, towards objects that are to

be seen in some physical and mental world.

 

So we have a triad of see-er, seeing and seen. This is our usual

picture of experience in the world. The witness prakriya points out

that there is a problem in the middle term of this triad. Since the

seeing is a process of physical and sensual and mental activity, it

belongs to the seen world. This activity does not appear by itself.

In order to appear, it must be known, as a part of the seen world.

 

The trouble is that the world is not seen properly. The personal

faculties that see it are partial and they make mistakes. To improve

them, they must be examined. But from what standpoint should the

examination be attempted? If the see-er sees from a personal

standpoint that is still involved with our partial and faulty

faculties of physical and mental personality, then the examination

will itself be compromised thereby.

 

Our physical and mental faculties of seeing are thus caught in a

degrading confusion between knowing and doing. On the one hand, they

are identified as belonging to the body and the mind of a personal

see-er, who knows a world of physical and mental objects. But on the

other hand, they are also taken to be physical and mental activities

that take part in the known world.

 

Because of this involvement in the world, our faculties are

inevitably partial and biased, in the physical and mental

appearances that they produce. And these appearances are accordingly

compromised by prejudices and distortions that need further

examination and correction, in order to achieve a truer knowing.

 

That truer knowing is achieved by detachment from personality. To

achieve a knowing that is fully true, all faculties of body, sense

and mind must be seen for what they are. They are no more than

physical and sensual and mental doings that produce a variety of

changing appearances, which we conceive as changing parts of a

physical and mental world. None of these doings can be knowing in

themselves. None of them can ever know anything. As they produce

appearances, that production is no more than a doing in the world of

appearances. Their doing is no more than a varied production, It is

no more than the putting on of a changing act, in a great show of

unlimited variety.

 

Throughout this changing act, each one of its appearances and the

entire show of world must be illuminated by the light of

consciousness. That self-illuminating light is the one knower, in

everyone's experience. It is completely impersonal and actionless --

completely detached from all physical and sensual and mental

faculties, which belong to the world that's known.

 

This aspect of detachment is approached through the witness

prakriya. It starts out from the triad of see-er, seeing and seen;

and it goes on to replace that triad, by a duality of knower and

known. The 'seeing' of our sensual and mental faculties is

progressively examined, and accordingly found to belong to the world

that is known. The true knower is thereby approached, as an

actionless witness that is utterly detached from the limited and

biased faculties that are habitually confused with it.

 

As that witness is approached, a sadhaka stands further and further

back into a pure consciousness that is impersonal. The 'seeing'

personality is transferred more and more from confusion with the

knower -- by an inclusion where it properly belongs, in the realm of

the known. The confusions of personal 'seeing' are thus clarified,

by the discernment of a strict duality between the knower and the

known.

 

But when that strict duality is fully achieved, it fully and utterly

dissolves itself. For then, in the final completion of the witness

duality, it turns out that the knower is identical with all reality.

As consciousness illuminates appearances, it underlies them all --

as the one subject that is their common knower. Each one of these

appearances expresses that one knower, from which they all arise. It

is their one reality, which they all show.

 

In it, there's no duality between what knows and what is known. It

is a self-shining reality, which knows itself, just by its own

identity. All that appears shines by its light, and shows no more

nor any less than its non-dual reality.

 

I'm sorry that this sounds so paradoxical. What's true is simple and

straightforward in itself, of course. But when some poor creature

like yours truly tries to speak of how what's true is reached,

what's said gets convoluted by all sorts of twisting and turning

paradoxes that are what the word 'paradox' quite literally suggests.

They sadly tend to go against or beyond ('para-') what is habitually

believed ('-dox').

 

I must admit to being always defeated by this problem, when trying

to compare notes with fellow sadhakas. What's said is so miserably

inadequate, for what needs to be described.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Ref. Post 30114

 

Namaste Ananda-ji!

 

You are in fact quite wrong. When you say you are defeated by paradoxes, it

is quite the opposite. Would there be any other way to explaining such

beautiful yet disturbing "truths" (in light of the recent discussion about

faith and belief, what could one say about truth)?

 

Thank you very much for a wonderful and insightful post. Along with

Chitta-ji's Anirvacanya post, i can now at least understand where the

outstretched hand hangs from the other shore.

 

As i have said in my last two articles, i am still dwelling on the aspects

of the mind constructs and superimpositions that further block the true

nature of things and its relation to ultimate reality. As it must have

become obvious, i am still dangling around the mis-conception that "i am the

seer, since i am seeing". And towards this matter, your paradoxical post

circled straight to the point {)) (as i have said earlier, i don't think

there's a way to approach this subject directly, since it is beyond words

and our only choice to articulate seems to be by "tangentiating" what is

beyond concepts).

 

I am currently processing all this info i have been graced with and am about

to devise the next logical step into understanding the way to shifting

perspective from seeing to seer. How many steps should there be in such a

long road, i am unaware of. But it becomes almost obvious now that once

creation is seen from the see-er perspective, not much needs to be done

anyway.

 

Thank you very much for a wonderful article. I am very happy for being a

part of this incredible list. And i believe many posts will follow yours,

helping us all along the way.

 

Namaste and my warmest regards to you and all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

doce lar. Faça do sua homepage.

http://br./homepageset.html

[Guest guest]

Sorry, some typos in my last post...Where it says "to explaining" it should

have said "to explain", and the smiling uni-brow seems much funnier in my

computer... {))

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

doce lar. Faça do sua homepage.

http://br./homepageset.html

[Guest guest]

Ananda Wood <awood wrote: Namaste Felipe,

 

You asked me (Jan 28, post 30089, subject 'Re: Belief and faith') to

elaborate on that aspect of 'objects' in which they are conceived to

face against the subjective illumination of consciousness.

 

Are you, sir, trying to say that Consciousness is the only reality in and

behind all phenomena, the objects being bereft of any light but being ligheted

up by the one light, which is the Witness? But, is it not that this Witness

does not witness anything alien, all objects apparently witnessed also being

nothing but Consciousness? Further, is it not that in the initial stage there

is the witness and the witnessed, this being relatbale to the sadhana stage? Is

it also not that for this experience to transpire-the word experience, although

not correct, is used perforce- a perception of oneself unmediated by objects,

which is also not a state of deep sleep, necessary? Would you kindly explain

this as a process involved in meditation, as all of us know theoreticlly that

consciousness alone constitutes our true being, but still are involved very

much in experiences in our life, demanding the exercise of mind as a seperate

reality, which is a metaphysical illusion?

How can we wriggle out of this predicament? Do we have to dismiss all

psychological states involving the process of becoming and merely abide in

the,'What is', which does not have any opposites? Any search for the opposite

as a process of becoming seems to be a terrible illusion that has insinuated

itself into our being.

with warm regards,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and

used cars.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think that to speak of objects "reflecting" the light

of consciousness implies a duality which leads to

confusion from an Advaitic point of view. Indeed,

I found your logic hard to follow, but of course the

fault may be mine.

 

Benjamin

 

 

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

>

> Namaste Felipe,

>

> You asked me (Jan 28, post 30089, subject 'Re: Belief and faith') to

> elaborate on that aspect of 'objects' in which they are conceived to

> face against the subjective illumination of consciousness.

>

> In Advaita Vedanta, this aspect is conceived in the witness

> prakriya. Here, objects are conceived to come and go, before the

> knowing light of consciousness. As consciousness continues through

> experience, it witnesses what comes and goes. That witnessing is not

> a changing action towards passing objects. Instead it is a

> self-illuminating light which is the very being of the witnessing

> consciousness.

>

> As objects appear, they do not shine like consciousness, by their

> own light. Instead, they must depend upon the knowing light of

> consciousness, as they shine out in their external appearances. They

> must reflect that knowing light, in order to appear. Their

> appearance always comes from a reflected shining, whereby they

> reflect a light that comes from elsewhere.

>

> Thus, in our experience of objects, they only appear by a reflected

> light which comes from consciousness and which is then reflected

> back into it. As any object comes into appearance, the light that

> shines in it has come from consciousness, expressed through outward

> faculties of mind and body in the world. And as the appearance of

> this object is perceived and interpreted, the light expressed from

> consciousness is thereby reflected back.

>

> But here, where we think of objects as confronting consciousness,

> there is still a duality between the consciousness that knows and

> the objects that are known. Each object is known through appearances

> that pass before the light of consciousness. But then, what is the

> object's reality? When an object appears, what reality is shown by

> this appearance?

>

> Whatever object may appear, it appears in the presence of

> consciousness. Objects appear and disappear; and all of their

> appearances get changed, as one appearance is replaced by another in

> our minds. But consciousness stays always present. Whatever may

> appear or disappear, consciousness is always there.

>

> For any object that is known, consciousness is there before and

> during and after each one of this object's appearances. The knowing

> presence of consciousness is therefore shown by each appearance and

> disappearance of any object.

>

> During an appearance, consciousness is shown as a silent witness,

> whose actionless illumination is reflecting back in what appears.

> After the appearance, consciousness remains, while the object has

> now disappeared; so that this disappearance also shows

> consciousness. And if one looks back to a time before the

> appearance, then consciousness is inevitably there as well, shown

> yet again by this remembered lack of appearance in the past.

>

> Thus consciousness is always shown, no matter what may appear or

> disappear. But this is exactly what we mean by the word 'reality'.

> What's really shown by differing appearances is just that common

> principle which each of them shows, in their differing ways. And

> that common reality is independent of its appearances -- as

> perceived or conceived through body, sense or mind.

>

> For example, when a mountain is seen from different places,

> differing appearances are seen from different points of view. But

> through these differing appearances, what's really shown is the

> mountain itself, the mountain's own reality. That reality is

> independent of its differing appearances. The mountain's reality is

> just the same, no matter how it appears, nor disappears -- as seen

> or described by body, sense and mind.

>

> If we then ask what's meant by 'consciousness' or by 'reality', it

> turns out that each of them describes a common principle which is

> quite independent of the differing appearances that show it

> differently. In either case, the principle described remains the

> same, no matter how it is perceived or conceived by any of our

> faculties. But then, there can't be any way of distinguishing two

> different principles that are described like this. Thus,

> 'consciousness' and 'reality' are just two different words for the

> same thing.

>

> Whatever object may appear, in anyone's experience, that appearance

> must express the consciousness that carries on through time, knowing

> what appears and disappears. That consciousness is the reality of

> all appearances, since it is shown by each one of them. But we

> confuse that consciousness with faculties of body, sense and mind.

> So we mistakenly think of consciousness as a personal activity of

> seeing. In this activity, a personal see-er undergoes a changing

> process of physical and mental seeing, towards objects that are to

> be seen in some physical and mental world.

>

> So we have a triad of see-er, seeing and seen. This is our usual

> picture of experience in the world. The witness prakriya points out

> that there is a problem in the middle term of this triad. Since the

> seeing is a process of physical and sensual and mental activity, it

> belongs to the seen world. This activity does not appear by itself.

> In order to appear, it must be known, as a part of the seen world.

>

> The trouble is that the world is not seen properly. The personal

> faculties that see it are partial and they make mistakes. To improve

> them, they must be examined. But from what standpoint should the

> examination be attempted? If the see-er sees from a personal

> standpoint that is still involved with our partial and faulty

> faculties of physical and mental personality, then the examination

> will itself be compromised thereby.

>

> Our physical and mental faculties of seeing are thus caught in a

> degrading confusion between knowing and doing. On the one hand, they

> are identified as belonging to the body and the mind of a personal

> see-er, who knows a world of physical and mental objects. But on the

> other hand, they are also taken to be physical and mental activities

> that take part in the known world.

>

> Because of this involvement in the world, our faculties are

> inevitably partial and biased, in the physical and mental

> appearances that they produce. And these appearances are accordingly

> compromised by prejudices and distortions that need further

> examination and correction, in order to achieve a truer knowing.

>

> That truer knowing is achieved by detachment from personality. To

> achieve a knowing that is fully true, all faculties of body, sense

> and mind must be seen for what they are. They are no more than

> physical and sensual and mental doings that produce a variety of

> changing appearances, which we conceive as changing parts of a

> physical and mental world. None of these doings can be knowing in

> themselves. None of them can ever know anything. As they produce

> appearances, that production is no more than a doing in the world of

> appearances. Their doing is no more than a varied production, It is

> no more than the putting on of a changing act, in a great show of

> unlimited variety.

>

> Throughout this changing act, each one of its appearances and the

> entire show of world must be illuminated by the light of

> consciousness. That self-illuminating light is the one knower, in

> everyone's experience. It is completely impersonal and actionless --

> completely detached from all physical and sensual and mental

> faculties, which belong to the world that's known.

>

> This aspect of detachment is approached through the witness

> prakriya. It starts out from the triad of see-er, seeing and seen;

> and it goes on to replace that triad, by a duality of knower and

> known. The 'seeing' of our sensual and mental faculties is

> progressively examined, and accordingly found to belong to the world

> that is known. The true knower is thereby approached, as an

> actionless witness that is utterly detached from the limited and

> biased faculties that are habitually confused with it.

>

> As that witness is approached, a sadhaka stands further and further

> back into a pure consciousness that is impersonal. The 'seeing'

> personality is transferred more and more from confusion with the

> knower -- by an inclusion where it properly belongs, in the realm of

> the known. The confusions of personal 'seeing' are thus clarified,

> by the discernment of a strict duality between the knower and the

> known.

>

> But when that strict duality is fully achieved, it fully and utterly

> dissolves itself. For then, in the final completion of the witness

> duality, it turns out that the knower is identical with all reality.

> As consciousness illuminates appearances, it underlies them all --

> as the one subject that is their common knower. Each one of these

> appearances expresses that one knower, from which they all arise. It

> is their one reality, which they all show.

>

> In it, there's no duality between what knows and what is known. It

> is a self-shining reality, which knows itself, just by its own

> identity. All that appears shines by its light, and shows no more

> nor any less than its non-dual reality.

>

> I'm sorry that this sounds so paradoxical. What's true is simple and

> straightforward in itself, of course. But when some poor creature

> like yours truly tries to speak of how what's true is reached,

> what's said gets convoluted by all sorts of twisting and turning

> paradoxes that are what the word 'paradox' quite literally suggests.

> They sadly tend to go against or beyond ('para-') what is habitually

> believed ('-dox').

>

> I must admit to being always defeated by this problem, when trying

> to compare notes with fellow sadhakas. What's said is so miserably

> inadequate, for what needs to be described.

>

> Ananda

>

[Guest guest]

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

snip

>

> Whatever object may appear, in anyone's experience, that

appearance

> must express the consciousness that carries on through time,

knowing

> what appears and disappears. That consciousness is the reality of

> all appearances, since it is shown by each one of them.

 

snip

> Ananda

 

Namaste Anandaji,

 

Thank you for this very interesting post.

 

My teacher often says, when pointing at objects

in the room, "It is. It is. It is.

It is known. It is known. It is known."

 

'It is' and 'It is known,' that is the reality of the objects.

 

I am. I am known. Isness and Amness are the

same. As is Known.

 

It seems to me that this is what you are referring

to. All is consciousness. It took me a very

long time to understand what my teacher was saying,

because I was so used to focusing on the apparent

difference of the objects, rather than noticing

'isness' and 'known.'

 

Durga

[Guest guest]

Benjamin - After a long time.

Greetings.

What Anandaji described is what the first and some aspects of the second

quarter of the aatma that is discussed in the Madukya Upanishad. The

turiiya transends both the illuminater and the illuminated. Am I right

Anandaji?

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>"Benjamin" <orion777ben

>

>I think that to speak of objects "reflecting" the light

>of consciousness implies a duality which leads to

>confusion from an Advaitic point of view. Indeed,

>I found your logic hard to follow, but of course the

>fault may be mine.

>

>Benjamin

> >

> > I must admit to being always defeated by this problem, when trying

> > to compare notes with fellow sadhakas. What's said is so miserably

> > inadequate, for what needs to be described.

> >

> > Ananda

> >

>

>

>

>

>

 

_______________

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Are you, sir, trying to say that Consciousness is the only reality in and

behind all phenomena, the objects being bereft of any light but being

ligheted up by the one light, which is the Witness?

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I think shankara himself clarifies this doubt in tattusamanvayAt

sUtra bhAshya. While refuting the theory of identity with individual ego

(jIvAtman) with that of The upanishadic puruSha, shankara brings forward

an objection and provides a clarification with respect to the upanishadic

concept of Atman :

 

pUrvapakshi's Objection : Atman being the object of the notion * I *

(ahaM pratyaya vishayatvAt) it is not reasonable to say the he is known

only from the upanishads??

 

Shankara's Reply : Not so, for we have refuted this position by

saying that this Atman is the *witness* of that

ego..(ahampratyayaviShayakartrutvyatirEkENa tatsAkShI) ...Other than the

agent who is the object of the notion * I * there is the Witness thereof

residing in all beings...

 

As we all know this is a bold claim that the Atman as the Witnessing

consciousness which is distinct from the individual ego...but shankara

saying this with the support of shruti vAkya which says *sAkshi chEtaH

kEvalO nirguNascha*...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : Thank you Sri Ananda Wood prabhuji for this illuminating

article on * appearance & disappearance of objects* and ever existing

Witness which illuminates both appearance & disappearance of objects......

But I am afraid how far it holds good amidst the advocators of * eternal

reality of objects* in Atman...

[Guest guest]

Re: Objects and consciousness

 

Namaste Shri Sankarraman, Felipe, Benjamin, Shrimati Durga, Shri

Sadananda, Shri Subrahmanian and others,

 

Shri Sankarraman wrote (post 30121, Feb 1): "Further, is it not

that in the initial stage there is the witness and the witnessed,

this being relatable to the sadhana stage? Is it also not that for

this experience to transpire - the word experience, although not

correct, is used perforce - a perception of oneself unmediated by

objects, which is also not a state of deep sleep, necessary? Would

you kindly explain this as a process involved in meditation, as all

of us know theoretically that consciousness alone constitutes our

true being, but still are involved very much in experiences in our

life, demanding the exercise of mind as a separate reality, which is

a metaphysical illusion?"

 

Yes, thank you Shri Sadananda and Shri Sankarraman, for pointing out

that I was trying to suggest an enquiry towards a realization which

"transcends the illuminator and the illuminated" (as Shri Sadananda

has put it helpfully).

 

But when Shri Sankarraman asks me to explain this enquiry "as a

process involved in meditation", I have to ask what's meant here by

the word 'meditation'. Yogic meditation or 'dhyana' is an exercise

that cultivates mental force, through samadhi states where the

mind's powers are expanded beyond their normal limits. I would say

that such yogic meditation is not essentially nor necessarily

involved in the 'vicara' enquiry of Advaita philosophy.

 

Yogic meditation can of course help as a preparation or an aid to

Advaita questioning, but there is an essential difference between

the two.

 

In yogic meditation, various goals of mental and physical

development are specified in advance, on the basis of assumed

beliefs about mind and body and their development through exercise.

 

In Advaita enquiry, the questions turn upon their own assumptions,

so that no goal can be specified in advance. Words like 'truth' or

'self' or 'reality' or 'consciousness' or 'happiness' or 'love' or

'non-duality' are used to describe the goal, but these descriptions

don't refer to any object that is specified by body, sense or mind.

 

Instead, an Advaitic description can only indicate some possible

direction of a reflective enquiry that turns relentlessly and

skeptically upon assumed beliefs, which are thereby thrown into

doubt. The doubt must be so relentless that it cannot be given up,

so long as the smallest trace of uncertainty or obscurity or

confusion or trouble remains.

 

That skeptical questioning is not a forceful exercise, intended to

develop any physical or mental powers, Instead, it is a reflective

undoing of false make-belief, of mind-created ignorance. But this

does not mean that it is merely theoretical. I would say that there

is no 'knowing theoretically'. Theory is mind-constructed and

therefore ignorant. 'Knowing theoretically' is merely saying that

one knows, while actually remaining ignorant.

 

In fact, the doubting questions of Advaita are essentially

practical. But with one essential proviso. The doubt and the

skepticism must turn back upon the questioner's beliefs. If doubt is

used to put down what someone else believes, then that is at best

theoretical, and at worst it is a malicious way of reinforcing one's

own prejudice. But if one's own beliefs are genuinely under attack,

to uncover their mistakes, then one's own understanding is at stake

and it stands to be clarified thereby.

 

That clarification is directly practical, without the need for any

yogic or other technology to put it into effect. When understanding

has been clarified, at the underlying depth of mind, it is

spontaneously expressed in more effective feelings, thoughts and

actions that quite naturally arise from it.

 

In this sense, the ideas and theories of Advaita are applied by the

practice of 'vicara' questioning. As its attack is turned

skeptically back to dig up its own foundations, it's meant to

uncover and clarify mistakes of understanding, so that a sadhaka may

stand more firmly and more steadily in truth. That stand in truth is

the only thing of value in itself, as it gives rise to various

cultural and personal values that get expressed in our feelings,

thoughts and actions and perceptions in the world.

 

As Shrimati Durga says, the 'am-ness' of the knowing 'I' and the

'is-ness' of known objects are the same. Each is that unobtrusive

shining which is found in all appearances.

 

But Ben is of course right that there is still confusion left when

we "speak of objects 'reflecting' the light of consciousness". I've

been wondering if there isn't a simpler way of describing the

witness prakriya. So I've tried a description in blank verse, which

sometimes helps to put things more shortly and simply. The verse

description is appended below, with apologies for repeating some

things that were said earlier.

 

Ananda

 

 

============================

 

Witnessing and consciousness

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

 

Mind thinks of knowing as an act

towards some object in a world

of physical and mental things.

 

The knower here is thought to be

a person acting in the world,

through instruments of body and

through faculties of sense and mind.

 

These instruments and faculties

bring information that mind takes

to be its knowledge of a world

which is perceived and thought about.

 

But what is it that's thus achieved?

As our perceiving senses see

and as our thinking minds conceive,

how do we know what is perceived

and what it is that's thought about?

 

Our senses and our minds in fact

don't actually know anything.

They only function to produce

a changing show -- of physical

and mental appearances

that are not knowledge in themselves.

 

This changing show of sense and mind

remains to be interpreted.

It is not knowing in itself.

 

Instead, it's something that we know.

And it thereby implies in us

a depth of knowing underneath --

a depth where knowing carries on,

while seen and thought appearances

replace each other in our minds.

 

At that depth beneath the mind,

consciousness is actionless.

Its knowing is no changing act

that alters in the course of time.

Nor is it different in the least

in different personalities.

 

It is a quiet witnessing,

remaining always undisturbed

and utterly unlimited --

beneath all the appearances

that clamour for attention in

the narrow limits of our minds.

 

Without that quiet witnessing,

there'd be no continuity

through passing states and changing time.

And we could not communicate

across our various differences.

 

Whenever any change is known,

or any kind of difference,

it's always by referring back

to that continued witnessing --

where consciousness remains unchanged

no matter what may be perceived

or thought or felt by anyone.

 

It's only that same consciousness

which can be knowing in itself.

It knows by being what it is,

by its own true identity,

found always present underneath

all the appearances of world

in anyone's experience.

 

The being of that consciousness

is thus complete reality.

It's all that's ever truly known.

In it, what's known is that which knows.

 

That is a non-duality

where objects are all known dissolved

in that which knows each one of them.

In that non-dual consciousness,

all differences are at an end.

 

 

But, in a world where consciousness

is seen confused with dual mind,

the truth of knowing must be sought

by clarifying differences.

 

To find what knows, it may at first

be sought out by discerning it

from acts of personality.

The idea of a 'witness' helps

to clarify what knowing is.

 

Each faculty that acts is seen

as different from its witnessing,

by something else that knows within.

 

This changing act is thereby shown

to be outside what truly knows.

Thus, it is separated out

from what is seen as consciousness.

 

As knowing is thus clarified

from faculties confused with it,

a sadhaka stands further back

into the core of knowing self.

Confusion is reduced thereby.

 

When all confusion is removed,

the knowing self is realized

as that which knows itself alone.

 

It's only there that differences

no longer need to be discerned.

For, only then, all conflicts and

confusions are at last resolved.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Ananda-ji

 

Wonderful. You have explained in the clearest terms why Adi

Shankara in his Bhashya of Gita XV-16, makes the subtle distinction

between `kUTastha' and the Ultimate. Your blank verse rendering in

the following words must be considered as an Upanishad!

 

"Our senses and our minds in fact

don't actually know anything.

They only function to produce

a changing show -- of physical

and mental appearances

that are not knowledge in themselves.

 

This changing show of sense and mind

remains to be interpreted.

It is not knowing in itself.

To find what knows, it may at first

be sought out by discerning it

from acts of personality.

The idea of a 'witness' helps

to clarify what knowing is.

..............

………………………

Each faculty that acts is seen

as different from its witnessing,

by something else that knows within.

 

This changing act is thereby shown

to be outside what truly knows.

Thus, it is separated out

from what is seen as consciousness.

 

As knowing is thus clarified

from faculties confused with it,

a sadhaka stands further back

into the core of knowing self.

Confusion is reduced thereby."

 

Thank you, Ananda-ji! I would like to call it Anandopanishad!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Ref. post 30141 ;

 

Namaste Ananda-ji;

 

Thanks for another beautiful and insightful post. I am afraid i have been

"speaking" more than my fare share recently, but posts such as yours

inspired me to do so. I apologize if i have been loud and impertinent

recently, but in any case i did not have the intention to be so.

 

Thanks a lot and my warmest regards to you and all...

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso.

[Guest guest]

Just to prove that i have been speaking more than my "fair" share, i lost

the opportunity of remaining quiet by sounding illiterate in the last

message... {))

 

regards...

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso.

[Guest guest]

Benjamin

 

 

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

>

> Namaste Felipe,

>

> You asked me (Jan 28, post 30089, subject 'Re: Belief and faith') to

> elaborate on that aspect of 'objects' in which they are conceived to

> face against the subjective illumination of consciousness.

>

> In Advaita Vedanta, this aspect is conceived in the witness

> prakriya. Here, objects are conceived to come and go, before the

> knowing light of consciousness. As consciousness continues through

> experience, it witnesses what comes and goes. That witnessing is not

> a changing action towards passing objects. Instead it is a

> self-illuminating light which is the very being of the witnessing

> consciousness.

>

> As objects appear, they do not shine like consciousness, by their

> own light. Instead, they must depend upon the knowing light of

> consciousness, as they shine out in their external appearances. They

> must reflect that knowing light, in order to appear. Their

> appearance always comes from a reflected shining, whereby they

> reflect a light that comes from elsewhere.

>

> Excuse me sir. Have you been influenced by the teachings of Sri

Atmananda alias Krishnamenon whose writings are almost similar to what you have

described about consciousness etc; rather it is the other way about, your

writings resembling that of Sri Atmananda, especially as beautifully summarized

by his disciple one John Levy in his book, "Immediate knowledge and happiness?'

This is a tremendous book containing the teachings of advaita in its pristine

purity, but rather intellectual than intuitive unlike that of Bhaghavan Ramana

Maharishi. I find the teachings of Atmananda to be very fine and insightful,

but it is very logical, discursive and very mathematical. I think advaita has

to be irrational; otherwise it is untrue. The rational mind cannot gainsay the

terrible reality of the world. However much you talk, philosophize, you are

back to the world of the five elements and the thought process. That which is

irrational alone should be true and liberating.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My dear Sankararamanji,

 

Apologies for my intrusion into your dialogue with Anandaji.

 

To summarize, you have accused Bhagawan Ramana of being irrational!

Can't help saying this after reading your comparative analysis of

Shri Atmananda and Bhagwan Ramana.

 

The manner and style in which both these great sages unravelled the

Truth may look different. But, they were saying the same thing

standing firmly rooted on rational understanding.

 

Intuition is defined as "immediate insight or understanding without

conscious reasoning". That sounds like an oxymoron - an

*understanding* without *reasoning*. The word "conscious" is very

important here. This would mean that even an intuition, before it is

accepted by the person to whom it occurs, has to pass the test of

reasoning in the conscious realm.

 

That, in my opinion, is the reason why enlightened ones, who have had

no touch with the profundity of scriptures, are able to clarify our

doubts through crystal-clear reasoning.

 

And why are you so very much worried about the 'terrible reality of

the world of five elements and thought processes'? That is all what

we have to work with, isn't it? Why wait in uncertainty for the

Godot of *truly irrational* epiphany to strike us down like a

thunderbolt from out of the blue when we are blessed with a lot of

rational faculty?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

> > Excuse me sir. Have you been influenced by the teachings of

Sri Atmananda alias Krishnamenon whose writings are almost similar

to what you have described about consciousness etc; rather it is the

other way about, your writings resembling that of Sri Atmananda,

especially as beautifully summarized by his disciple one John Levy

in his book, "Immediate knowledge and happiness?' This is a

tremendous book containing the teachings of advaita in its pristine

purity, but rather intellectual than intuitive unlike that of

Bhaghavan Ramana Maharishi. I find the teachings of Atmananda to be

very fine and insightful, but it is very logical, discursive and

very mathematical. I think advaita has to be irrational; otherwise

it is untrue. The rational mind cannot gainsay the terrible reality

of the world. However much you talk, philosophize, you are back to

the world of the five elements and the thought process. That which

is irrational alone should be true and liberating.

[Guest guest]

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: My dear

Sankararamanji,

 

Apologies for my intrusion into your dialogue with Anandaji.

 

To summarize, you have accused Bhagawan Ramana of being irrational!

Can't help saying this after reading your comparative analysis of

Shri Atmananda and Bhagwan Ramana.

 

Respected sir,

My use of the word irrational is only by way of

paying tribute to adavaita and is not an insinuation. I did not want to use

the word supra-rational which would have been alright; but I was worried that

this had the connotation of becoming, some objectification, which is surely

against the advaitic thought, and even in any genuine search for truth through

any other world view, when the individual finds that life calls the bluff to

rationality, reason and logic, all these things having been left far behind in

the matter of coming upon, rather to be that which is. I have great respect for

both the great masters. There is a verse in yogavasishta to the effect: "Study

this scripture with devotion. you will surely come upon truth. If you find this

scripture not suited to your predisposition, study some other scripture or

pursue some other path to free yourself from this dreadful samsara.

yours etc

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sankararamanji.

 

Your clarification about the word "irrational" is well-taken.

 

Are you saying one can study Yoga Vasishta without reasoning and

logic? Understanding necessarily precedes the 'coming upon truth'.

Parrot-like reading, closing dooors and windows on logic and

reasoning, won't take us anywhere. Mind you, true devotion (I mean

bhakti)also sprouts from right understanding.

 

I have read Yoga Vasishta.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

> There is a verse in yogavasishta to the effect: "Study this

scripture with devotion. you will surely come upon truth. If you

find this scripture not suited to your predisposition, study some

other scripture or pursue some other path to free yourself from this

dreadful samsara.