Who is the knower ?

May 26, 2006

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste, I have some fundamental questions related to the notion

of "I". When I think about a software bug, I am thinking about many

things at the same time - piece of code, logic, how it is used, test

case, data initialization etc. There is also an "observer" who is

apparently aware of all these things - an "observer" who "knows"

something or somebody is trying to analyze or think. For example I

know that right now I am writing this email and also thinking about

the person who is typing and thinking. Who is this observer ? Is it

not just another thought in the mind ? It is often said that if I can

think about my the mind and its thoughts, I cannot be the mind. Same

question - isn't the analyzer or knower also in the mind ?

Dennis Waite provides a very good example in his book - if Mr. X and

Mr. Y exchange their brains (maybe at some point in future with

advances in medical science), and Mr. X speaks after the operation,

who is this I - is it X or Y or neither ?

Why does this "I" sense develop only at the age of 3 or 4 ?

Consciousness requires growth in material equipment before it can be

expressed ? What exactly is death ? Is it withdrawal of consciousness

or rejection of material equipment by consciousness or something

else ? When a person is administered medicine before an operation,

what exactly happens to the consciousness of the person ? Is it not

expressed due to temporary disablement of material equipment ? Then

isn't consciousness equally dependent on brain ?

thanks,

Om Namah Shivaya

May 26, 2006

mahadevadvaita wrote:

> Why does this "I" sense develop only at the age of 3 or 4 ?

It is much much prior to that. The "I" is already embedded in our

consciousness at the time of birth (and before birth) but comes forward

in the context of stimuli within relationships. First typically with

the birth mother, than with father, etc. Gradually one broadens ones

perceptions and starts making fine distinctions between others (uncles,

aunts, grandparents, etc).

The road back to the Self is to lose infatuation with perceptions and

become aware of the perceiver. Just as the "I" sense develops and leads

one to the jungle of perceptions (in which all questions are raised and

answered and then more questions are raised), in the same way if this

"I" sense is focused on and followed, it leads back to its origin.

May 26, 2006

Namaste Mahadevadvaita-ji;

Your questions are very much timely put, and would require a huge

effort to be answered at once. I'll attempt a simple reply to one of

them, since this thought occured to me just this morning, as i

bathed(!?) before going to work...

I hope our group rises together in the answering of all theses

questions, so that we all could benefit from the serious mass of

knowledge gathered in this cyber-space of ours...

1) Who is this observer ? Is it

not just another thought in the mind ?

A simple, yet puzzling answer may come to place. First of all, a

rather implicit consensual agreement exists, asserting the locus of

the mind as part of, or inside, or even generated in complete

relation/dependency with the brain. Physically speaking, this would

mean that the mind should be located somewhere within the brain,

inside the cranial box, as perceived spatially by touch (from within

and without).

Any thoughts pertaining to this mind would, then, procceed from the

brain, being rooted inside the cranial box, and thus, answering your

question, if the observer were merely another thought in this

hypothetical mind, the center of observation would easily be perceived

as somewhere "inside" the cranial box, limited by our perception of

touch in the cranium, starting from the radius of the skull outwards.

Now comes the bath part, and this is what i witnessed today. Watching

thoughts and sensory response, in the aforementioned context, would

mean that all nerve inputs should end (or emerge from) around the mind

locus, asserted to be within the brain and the cranial box. Is it

really so?

I should say categorically "no". Next time you wash your hair (or

head, if all the hair is gone...), pay special attention to when you

wash the back of your head. Tilting your head forward, watch closely

the feel of your hands running along the back of the skull, specially

around the occipital protuberance (the bony lump on the back of the

head), and witness calmly the whole setup, with all your thoughts,

singing in the shower etc, as it all unfolds naturally.

In a glimpse, you should understand that even though your head is

tilted forward, the "mind" is not. Misteriously, while watching

thoughts take place and receiving sensory input, both from the hands

washing the head and from the head itself, "mind" will likely be found

witnessing a head that is spatially situated tilted in front of the

body, however, the locus of the witness will be somewhere where the

head was, but is not (since it is tilted forward).

The consciousness center is likely to remain as an extension of the

spine, and with eyes closed, you should instantly perceive that the

knower is not in the cranial box, as it was asserted, according to

common sense. Instead, the knower is likely to be found in a virtual

space as an extension of the spine, outside the head.

Two conclusions can come out of this:

1) The mind is neither "in" the cranial box, nor in the brain;

2) The knower is not in the mind;

Permutations of the 2 conclusions above may apply. Find out yourself,

as i am looking for myself in turn...

My warmest regards...

May 26, 2006

Shree mahadevaadivata - PraNAms

The question you have rised is the essential subject of the Mandukya.

The pramaata, the knower and the Prameya, the known are both treated

with respect to waking state,dream state and deep sleep state (where

both are in potential form).

I, the consciousness, take the role of both, in each state - visva and

viashvaanara in the waking state, Taijasa and Hiranyagarbha in the dream

state and Praajna and antaryamin in the deepsleep state. I have to

start my Mandukya series soon, currently busy with preparing myself to

teach that text (aagama prakarana with kaarika)at Chinmya Mission in

Washington DC that Shree Ram Chandran organizing. If anyone is

interested about the camp they can go to www.chinmayadc.org for details.

Hopefully I will start the series after the camp is over. The question

you have raised will be answered to the best of my understanding.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--- mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote:

> Om Namah Shivaya

> Namaste, I have some fundamental questions related to the notion

> of "I". When I think about a software bug, I am thinking about many

> things at the same time - piece of code, logic, how it is used, test

> case, data initialization etc. There is also an "observer" who is

> apparently aware of all these things - an "observer" who "knows"

> something or somebody is trying to analyze or think.

May 26, 2006

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

>

> Om Namah Shivaya

> Namaste, I have some fundamental questions related to the notion

> of "I". When I think about a software bug, I am thinking about many

> things at the same time - piece of code, logic, how it is used,

test

> case, data initialization etc. There is also an "observer" who is

> apparently aware of all these things - an "observer" who "knows"

> something or somebody is trying to analyze or think. For example I

> know that right now I am writing this email and also thinking about

> the person who is typing and thinking. Who is this observer ? Is it

> not just another thought in the mind ? It is often said that if I

can

> think about my the mind and its thoughts, I cannot be the mind.

Same

> question - isn't the analyzer or knower also in the mind ?

RESPONSE:

In Vedanta, the knower of the mind is given the name: Saakshi

chaitanyam, Witness Consciousness. It is this that knows the

happenings of the mind. It is a vital step in the vedanta sadhana to

recognise the Sakshi in oneself and identify with it. This would

necessitate disidentifying from the mind (including buddhi, chitta

and ahankara), the sensory and motor organs and the prana and the

gross body. The aspirant is taught to identify himself with the

Sakshi, the Witness and objectively 'see' whatever happens to

the 'conglomerate'. He is taught to contemplate: 'This does not

happen to me. I am only a witness to these happenings'. While every

knowledge requires an instrument, a medium, the Sakshi does not; it

directly sees. It is defined as 'saakshaat draShTari samjnaayaam'.

The Guru instructs the disciple to take his foothold in the Sakshi

and remain firm there. Some Gurus even ask their disciples to keep a

note book and record the number of times a 'slip' from the Witness

Consciousness was experienced. This is studied and corrective steps

taken like being more alert, etc.

Having said this, let us consider the status of the Sakshi. There is

a verse in the Advaita Makaranda:

ChetyoparaagarUpA me sAkShitaapi na taattvikI |

upalakShaNameveyam nistaranga-chidambudheH ||

This verse gives the nature of the Sakshi: That which is observed is

the chetya. An association with the observed is what is the Saakshi-

hood. Even this status of mine is not the absolute. Then why is the

Sakshi pedestal taught? It is a launchpad to finally get established

in the Absolute Consciousness.

To sum up, the shastram recognises that there is an ability in humans

to 'know' the contents of their mind. It cashes in on this and makes

this the step one to bring about the 'disidentification' from the

mind-body complex. Once success is achieved in this step, the next

step of identifying with the absolute becomes easy.

It is right to say that the Witness is a part of the mind. For, in

the Absolute Consciousness there is no 'ability' to 'know' anything

objectively.

Your other questions might get answered in due course.

Pranams,

subbu

May 27, 2006

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

>

This verse gives the nature of the Sakshi: That which is observed is

the chetya. An association with the observed is what is the Saakshi-

hood. Even this status of mine is not the absolute. Then why is the

Sakshi pedestal taught? It is a launchpad to finally get established

in the Absolute Consciousness.

To sum up, the shastram recognises that there is an ability in humans

to 'know' the contents of their mind. It cashes in on this and makes

this the step one to bring about the 'disidentification' from the

mind-body complex. Once success is achieved in this step, the next

step of identifying with the absolute becomes easy.

It is right to say that the Witness is a part of the mind. For, in

the Absolute Consciousness there is no 'ability' to 'know' anything

objectively.

Your other questions might get answered in due course.

Pranams,

subbu

From

Sankarraman

In a place Bhaghavan Ramana says: " Where is the Sakshi without the Sannidhi," thereby meaning that the Sakshi does not see the relative contents of the mind like the pramatar, the individual I. Will not knowing the relative contents of the mind through the attitude of Sakshi result in identification with the mind? What is the distinction between standing apart and remaining as the Sakshi, and knowing the relative conents of the mind?May it not be a better approach to stop paying attentions to the thought even through the mode of Sakshi through the conceptualization that the Sakshi is different from the mind and looks at it as a detached witness, and instead trying to know the very source of thoughts by tracing them back to the source through the question, " who am I?" I welcome your views in the matter.

with warm regards,

Sankarraman

Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls with Messenger with Voice.

May 27, 2006

> From

> Sankarraman

> In a place Bhaghavan Ramana says: "

Where is the Sakshi without the Sannidhi," thereby meaning that the

Sakshi does not see the relative contents of the mind like the

pramatar, the individual I. Will not knowing the relative contents of

the mind through the attitude of Sakshi result in identification with

the mind? What is the distinction between standing apart and remaining

as the Sakshi, and knowing the relative conents of the mind?May it not

be a better approach to stop paying attentions to the thought even

through the mode of Sakshi through the conceptualization that the

Sakshi is different from the mind and looks at it as a detached

witness, and instead trying to know the very source of thoughts by

tracing them back to the source through the question, " who am I?" I

welcome your views in the matter.

>

> with warm regards,

> Sankarraman

Namaste Sankarraman-ji;

It was in this light that i narrated my experience... I cannot

understand that the knower is a part of the mind, on the account of

the spatiallity problem this involves. Something as simple as a

sensory experience is enough to contradict this.

However, the problem could be of another nature (as i said in the case

of permutating the 2 aspects grasped by me without any intention to do

so).

The knower is either not in the mind, or the mind is not "in" the

body. Any way you arrange those two views, as the witness, it is not

possible to contradict or assert the other, at least in the

traditional way mind is perceived.

As a side note, this could be about kosas, but i am also not sure.

What is your take on this?

My warmest regards...

May 27, 2006

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

>>

> From

> Sankarraman

> In a place Bhaghavan Ramana says: "

Where is the Sakshi without the Sannidhi," thereby meaning that the

Sakshi does not see the relative contents of the mind like the

pramatar, the individual I.

Response:

Namaste Sir,

I do not quite understand that statement of Bhagavan. Can you kindly

present the context, if possible, the paragraph itself?

It is agreed that the Sakshi's view is not like that of the pramatr.

While the latter has likes and dislikes, the Sakshi does not. That

is why it is 'non-partisan' in nature.

You write:

Will not knowing the relative contents of the mind through the

attitude of Sakshi result in identification with the mind?

Response:

No, it will not. The Sakshi does not interfere with the contents of

the mind. That it sees everything is itself a kind of wake up call

to the pramatru, the jiva. To pay heed to the Sakshi's being aware

of the contents of the mind, or to leave it, is the pramatr's

prerogative. Even in common parlance we have expressions like: Do

you not have a conscience? (unakku manas-saakshiye illaiyaa?).

You write:

What is the distinction between standing apart and remaining as the

Sakshi, and knowing the relative conents of the mind?

REsponse:

The two are one and the same. In the sastraic terminology, the modus

of the Sakshi 'knowing' is :'Akartrutve sati bodhrutvam' meaning,

there is no 'effort' on the part of the Sakshi to know. Whatever

happens in the mind presents itself to the Sakshi.

You write:

May it not be a better approach to stop paying attentions to the

thought even through the mode of Sakshi through the conceptualization

that the Sakshi is different from the mind and looks at it as a

detached witness, and instead trying to know the very source of

thoughts by tracing them back to the source through the question, "

who am I?" I welcome your views in the matter.

Response:

Again, here i do not see any difference between the two approaches.

In order to trace the thoughts back to the source....one will have to

recognise that a thought has arisen. This is not different from

paying attention to the thought.

Namaste, Sankarraman ji,

subbu.

>

May 28, 2006

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

>>

> From

> Sankarraman

> In a place Bhaghavan Ramana says: "

Where is the Sakshi without the Sannidhi," thereby meaning that the

Sakshi does not see the relative contents of the mind like the

pramatar, the individual I.

Response:

Namaste Sir,

I do not quite understand that statement of Bhagavan. Can you kindly

present the context, if possible, the paragraph itself?

It is agreed that the Sakshi's view is not like that of the pramatr.

While the latter has likes and dislikes, the Sakshi does not. That

is why it is 'non-partisan' in nature.

From

Sankarraman

Moderators may bear with some errors in stroke that might creep in in this message, which I am very much trying to avoid. If it is full of errors, message may not be approved.

Dear Subramanian,

Thank you very much for your kindly response. Regarding the concept of Sakshi elucidated by Bhaghavan Ramana, please refer to the book, â€œTalks with Sri Ramana Maharishi.â€ In the index you find out the page for the word witness. As my book is 1976 edition, I cannot quote the correct page number. I am not sure whether I have properly projected the idea of Bhaghavan. Here, I understand Bhaghavanâ€™s elucidation of the concept Sakshi vis-Ã -vis Sannidhi to mean that, in reality, Sakshi does not have any objects to be seen. But in our present state of predicament we find ourselves implicated in the subject-object duality, an I looking for another, which in traditional Vedanta involves the error of superimposing the characteristics of the non-self on the Self and vice-versa. In order to overcome this error, we are required to understand the avasthathriya and pancha-kosa viveka, and meditate on the truth of the Mahavakyas to understand the unreal

elements in the jiva and Iswara, and abide in the common element of the one Self which is the substratum of avidya of the jiva and the maya of Iswara.. In the process of eliminating the thoughts and knowing the Self, no meditation or conceptualization is involved according to the method of, â€œWho am I,â€ taught by Bhaghavan. The conversation between Ellappa Chettiyar and Bhaghavan ( Please see the index. I am not producing it to avoid this being lenghy) indicates the idea that self-enquiry is different from meditation, meditation involving invoking ideas such as, â€œI am Brahman, I am witness,â€ this presupposing the idea of subject trying to see something external and identify it as Self; whereas self-enquiry stresses the need to investigate the I thought, keeping the I always in view, instead of paying attention to thoughts. It is in this context that I raised the doubt,â€Will not knowing the relative contents of the mind through the attitude of Sakshi result in

identification with the mind?" I am able to see eye to eye with your following reply to the above query, except one difficult aspect. You say, â€œ The Sakshi does not interfere with the contents of the mind. That it sees everything is itself a kind of wake up call to the pramatru, the jiva. To pay heed to the Sakshi's being aware of the contents of the mind, or to leave it, is the pramatr's prerogative. Even in common parlance we have expressions like: Do you not have a conscience? (unakku manas-saakshiye illaiyaa?).â€ I feel that Sakshiâ€™s seeing everything is only a pointer towards the fact of its being the unfailing Light illumining all illusory phenomena, and that in the vision of Sakshi there are no objects to be seen. Paying heed to the Sakshi constituting true awareness, rather than being aware of the relative contents of the mind, is a step towards the realization of the distinction between the pramatar and the Sakshi, which are enveloped together in the

perceptions of both the knowers and the non-knowers except that the knowers are able to be aware of the pramata for what it is, being merely a fabrication of avidya.Pramatarâ€™s not paying this heed is its bondage. The common parlance Mana-Sakshi is different from the Sakshi of Vedanta, I think. In the common parlance it is a judgment, whereas the Sakshi is neither judging nor non-judging anything, unlike the witnesses examined in a court of law. In response to my query, â€œ May it not be a better approach to stop paying attentions to the thought even through the mode of Sakshi through the conceptualization that the Sakshi is different from the mind and looks at it as a detached witness, and instead trying to know the very source of thoughts by tracing them back to the source through the question, " who am I,â€ you say, â€œ Again, here i do not see any difference between the two approaches. In order to trace the thoughts back to the source....one will have to recognise

that a thought has arisen. This is not different from paying attention to the thought.â€ I think there is a subtle difference between knowing that a thought has arisen, and paying attention to thoughts. The former is self-enquiry, not involving subject-object duality, one I trying to know another I, whereas the latter is a form of bhavana-conceptualization. It is in this context that I attempted to convey the teachings of Bhaghavan, of course only as understood by me. These are only my thoughts, which may not be correct. Please, do not misunderstand me to be sitting in judgment on your views. As my eye-sight is somewhat bad, please bear with me if I have conveyed contradictory ideas by virtue of lack of concentration, which sometimes happens.

With warm regards

Sankarraman

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

May 28, 2006

mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste, I have some fundamental questions related to the notion

of "I". When I think about a software bug, I am thinking about many

things at the same time - piece of code, logic, how it is used, test

Sir,

' I' am the knower. 'I' am the question and 'I' am the answer.There is no second one in any of the three stages. Whether as an enlightened one or as an ignorant one, it is the same "I" that ever remains. It is the same lion cub, which, mistaking its identy, living the life of a lamb, awoke into a true lion by "seeing itself" in the water(the thoughtless mind),prodded by a lion which knows itself to be a lion(the Guru).

And it is wrong to say that I ness devolops only after the third or fourth year. Only the 'objective' I ness remains elusive at that age, where as the 'subjective' I ness remains.

A true contemplation with the sole aim of discovering the knower shall answer your own query much better.

Spguptha

May 29, 2006

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

>In the process of eliminating the thoughts and knowing the Self, no

meditation or conceptualization is involved according to the method

of, â€œWho am I,â€ taught by Bhaghavan. The conversation between

Ellappa Chettiyar and Bhaghavan ( Please see the index. I am not

producing it to avoid this being lenghy) indicates the idea that self-

enquiry is different from meditation, meditation involving invoking

ideas such as, â€œI am Brahman, I am witness,â€ this presupposing

the idea of subject trying to see something external and identify it

as Self; whereas self-enquiry stresses the need to investigate the I

thought, keeping the I always in view, instead of paying attention to

thoughts.

RESPONSE

Namaste Sir,

While i have not yet seen the portion in the Book, let me clarify

that it would be helpful if we make a difference between 'paying

attention to the thoughts' and 'dwelling upon the thoughts'. While

the former involves a detached attitude to the thoughts that arise in

the mind and the sadhaka adopting a Sakshi bhava, the latter is what

would end up in identifying with the mind. Acharya Shankara has

taught in the DRig-dRishya viveka (24):

KAmAdyAH chittagaaH dRishyAH tat-sAkShitvena chetanam |

dhAyet dRishyAnuviddho'yam samAdhissavikalpakaH ||

(Desire and the like, which are located in the mind, are perceptible

objects. One should thoroughly concentrate on consciousness as their

witness. This constitutes savilkapa samadhi associated with a

perceptible object.)

This verse brings into clear relief many points raised by you above.

One, Sakshi has objects; that is why it is called so. If there were

no objects for Sakshi to objectify, what else is the Sakshi for?

Next, The exercise mentioned herein is a concentration on

consciousness as the witness of the contents, perceptible, of the

mind and not an identification with them. Third, the concept

involved here is not trying to see something external to oneself;

the witness or Brahman are not external to oneself. They are what

oneself is. The only difference is that the exercise will culminate

in a situation when one drops his identity with the witnesshood,

which is a deliberate inclusion in order to facilitate the aspirant,

Brahman being extremely subtle to grasp initially.

Instead of keeping the I thought always in view, this exercise

involves keeping the sakshi bhava in view. I think the difference is

just in the nomenclature and not in the essential content.

You write:

It is in this context that I raised the doubt,â€Will not knowing

the relative contents of the mind through the attitude of Sakshi

result in

> identification with the mind?" I am able to see eye to eye with

your following reply to the above query, except one difficult aspect.

You say, â€œ The Sakshi does not interfere with the contents of the

mind. That it sees everything is itself a kind of wake up call to

the pramatru, the jiva. To pay heed to the Sakshi's being aware of

the contents of the mind, or to leave it, is the pramatr's

prerogative. Even in common parlance we have expressions like: Do

you not have a conscience? (unakku manas-saakshiye illaiyaa?).â€ I

feel that Sakshiâ€™s seeing everything is only a pointer towards the

fact of its being the unfailing Light illumining all illusory

phenomena, and that in the vision of Sakshi there are no objects to

be seen. Paying heed to the Sakshi constituting true awareness,

rather than being aware of the relative contents of the mind, is a

step towards the realization of the distinction between the pramatar

and the Sakshi, which are enveloped together in the

> perceptions of both the knowers and the non-knowers except that

the knowers are able to be aware of the pramata for what it is, being

merely a fabrication of avidya.Pramatarâ€™s not paying this heed is

its bondage. The common parlance Mana-Sakshi is different from the

Sakshi of Vedanta, I think. In the common parlance it is a judgment,

whereas the Sakshi is neither judging nor non-judging anything,

unlike the witnesses examined in a court of law.

RESPONSE:

There is not much to say regarding the above. I mentioned the

parlance example only to show that how even in the world one expects

one to be aware of what one's mind indiscriminately throws up and act

with a discriminate view. In the vedanta connotation of Sakshi,

there is still the judgemental element retained: here it is to tell

oneself that the thoughts are not me but only a vishaya for me and

that i am the vishayi.

You conclude saying:

In response to my query, â€œ May it not be a better approach to stop

paying attentions to the thought even through the mode of Sakshi

through the conceptualization that the Sakshi is different from the

mind and looks at it as a detached witness, and instead trying to

know the very source of thoughts by tracing them back to the source

through the question, " who am I,â€ you say, â€œ Again, here i do

not see any difference between the two approaches. In order to trace

the thoughts back to the source....one will have to recognise

> that a thought has arisen. This is not different from paying

attention to the thought.â€ I think there is a subtle difference

between knowing that a thought has arisen, and paying attention to

thoughts. The former is self-enquiry, not involving subject-object

duality, one I trying to know another I, whereas the latter is a form

of bhavana-conceptualization. It is in this context that I attempted

to convey the teachings of Bhaghavan, of course only as understood by

me. These are only my thoughts, which may not be correct. Please, do

not misunderstand me to be sitting in judgment on your views. As my

eye-sight is somewhat bad, please bear with me if I have conveyed

contradictory ideas by virtue of lack of concentration, which

sometimes happens.

>

> With warm regards

> Sankarraman

> My response to the above is:

In Vedanta there is a nice example given to convey the point that

even the illumining of the entire objective universe by the Absolute

Consciousness is not the ultimate truth. When we say 'The Sun

shines', 'SavitA prakAshate', it is an expression involving an

intransitive verb. When it is said 'the Sun illumines...' we

presuppose an object which is illumined. The expression 'savitA

prakaashayati' is what would mean this. The latter is used to draw

the attention of the seeker to the 'source of illumination'. Once

this is achieved, the deliberately superimposed attribute of

illuminating is withdrawn.

With the explanation provided above, i think there should be no

difficulty in seeing the two approaches as non-different if not

exactly identical. It all depends on the sadhaka's temperament, and

many other factors like what one's Guru teaches him to adopt, etc.

Thank you Sir for engaging in this truly advaitic discussion.

Regards,

subbu

>

May 29, 2006

Namaste Subbuji.

We have made this sAkSi issue so complicated that I don't now know

who wrote what.

Assuming that the para quoted below is yours, let me just put forward

my two cents worth - just to elaborate on the point you are trying to

drive home. Hope I have your permission to do so.

We are asked to be the sAkSi not to 'witness' anything in the sense

of 'doing the witnessing'.

What is expected is a dispassionate kind of 'looking'.

Then, when the eyes are open, objects come and go; when closed,

thoughts stream in succession and disappear. The one 'looking'

remains realxed in himself unaffected like the King of Mrichakatikam

watching the danseuse perform.

The danseuse departs when the dance ends and music abates. The lights

still shine the stage. The King knows that he is the light that

light the lights and shone the dance. He remains - placid, absorbed

in himself. He is Himself and he was himself despite the dance, the

danseuse and the music on the stage.

I am Myself despite the thoughts that stream my mental sky. I am I

am whether they are there or not. I am I am whether the world is

there or not for me to 'witness'. I am the 'Witness' of all and yet

I am "I AM".

MANIJI OUT THERE! PLEASE REPOST 'MRICHAKATIKAM'. I HAVE LOST IT.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

P.S.: DON'T TRY 'WITNESSING' IN HORIZONTALITY. YOUR SNORE WILL WAKE

YOU UP.

_________________

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

> While i have not yet seen the portion in the Book, let me clarify

> that it would be helpful if we make a difference between 'paying

> attention to the thoughts' and 'dwelling upon the thoughts'. While

> the former involves a detached attitude to the thoughts that arise

in

> the mind and the sadhaka adopting a Sakshi bhava, the latter is

what

> would end up in identifying with the mind.

May 29, 2006

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbuji.

>

> We have made this sAkSi issue so complicated that I don't now know

> who wrote what.

>

> Assuming that the para quoted below is yours, let me just put

forward

> my two cents worth - just to elaborate on the point you are trying

to

> drive home. Hope I have your permission to do so.

>

> We are asked to be the sAkSi not to 'witness' anything in the sense

> of 'doing the witnessing'.

>

> What is expected is a dispassionate kind of 'looking'.

>

> Then, when the eyes are open, objects come and go; when closed,

> thoughts stream in succession and disappear. The one 'looking'

> remains realxed in himself unaffected like the King of

Mrichakatikam

> watching the danseuse perform.

>

> The danseuse departs when the dance ends and music abates. The

lights

> still shine the stage. The King knows that he is the light that

> light the lights and shone the dance. He remains - placid,

absorbed

> in himself. He is Himself and he was himself despite the dance,

the

> danseuse and the music on the stage.

>

> I am Myself despite the thoughts that stream my mental sky. I am I

> am whether they are there or not. I am I am whether the world is

> there or not for me to 'witness'. I am the 'Witness' of all and

yet

> I am "I AM".

>

> MANIJI OUT THERE! PLEASE REPOST 'MRICHAKATIKAM'. I HAVE LOST IT.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> P.S.: DON'T TRY 'WITNESSING' IN HORIZONTALITY. YOUR SNORE WILL

WAKE

> YOU UP.

> _________________

>

> advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

> <subrahmanian_v@> wrote:

> > While i have not yet seen the portion in the Book, let me clarify

> > that it would be helpful if we make a difference between 'paying

> > attention to the thoughts' and 'dwelling upon the thoughts'.

While

> > the former involves a detached attitude to the thoughts that

arise

> in

> > the mind and the sadhaka adopting a Sakshi bhava, the latter is

> what

> > would end up in identifying with the mind.

>

Namaste Madathilji,

Many many thanks for truly 'enlightening' the topic of Sakshi. You

have put it so beautifully. The nataka deepam chapter of the

Panchadashi is placed before us in an aphoristic way by you.

I would beg the learned members here to say something about the

Mrichchakatikam. I just understand the meaning of the word: it is a

compound word consisting of two words: mRit and shakatikaa. Mud

(earthen) and cart. I do not even know whether in the literary work,

it means a cart made of earth or a cart laden with earth. This is my

ignorance. Unfortunately i have not had the opportunity to read any

of the Kavyas or natakams. I did not study Sanskrit in school or

college. I picked up just a little purely for vedanta purposes.

Maybe Madam Dhyanasaraswati or Sri Sundarji will provide us a link to

a treat of that literary work.

Warm regards,

subbu

May 29, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v> wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> Mrichchakatikam.

> a link to a treat of that literary work.

Namaste,

English translation is available at:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0571 (html)

http://olldownload.libertyfund.org/EBooks/Shudraka_0571.pdf (pdf)

Regards,

Sunder

May 29, 2006

Nair-ji writes :

( I am Myself despite the thoughts that stream my mental sky. I am I

am whether they are there or not. I am I am whether the world is

there or not for me to 'witness'. I am the 'Witness' of all and yet

I am "I AM".)

well, our Sankararamanji- one situated in Bhagwan Ramana- may improve

on this above statement and say

" I am NOT there ! I am NOT there ! i am Not there ! until

the *i* disappears

the *am* disapperas

the *there* disappears

and what remains is just 'not' or nothing!

no experiencer, nothing to be experienced !

am i really?

ONLY, REALLY!

May 29, 2006

Namaste all.

sAkSi issue and just my 2c on this -

Possibly, sAkSi may perhaps be visualized as the

consciousness of -

existence [ in the form of -

bliss ]

As Sant Jnaneswara says, either the Siva or Sakthi is

sleeping and that both are not awake at the same time.

When Sankara declares, "Where is the universe gone?" -

the Sakthi is sleeping. Hence, the sAkSi is not aware

of the manifested universe. It is the sAkSi, possibly

of the unmanifested Brahman with the

awareness(consciousness,chit) of all of

existence(sat).

Regards,

Raghava

Send instant messages to your online friends http://in.messenger.

May 29, 2006

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

>

> It is the sAkSi, possibly

> of the unmanifested Brahman with the

> awareness(consciousness,chit) of all of

> existence(sat).

>

> Regards,

> Raghava

>

Namaste Sri Raghava ji,

The above observation of yours reminds me of a Nama in the Lalitha

Sahasra Nama: MahApraLayasAkShiNi.

Maybe the Shakti worshippers like Madam Dhyanasaraswati or Sri

Madathil Nair will elaborate on this Name which appears to echo the

above message of yours.

Pranams,

subbu

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends

http://in.messenger.

>

May 29, 2006

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

>

-

>

> Possibly, sAkSi may perhaps be visualized as the

> consciousness of -

> existence [ in the form of -

> bliss ]

>

> As Sant Jnaneswara says, either the Siva or Sakthi is

> sleeping and that both are not awake at the same time.

> When Sankara declares, "Where is the universe gone?" -

> the Sakthi is sleeping. Hence, the sAkSi is not aware

> of the manifested universe. It is the sAkSi, possibly

> of the unmanifested Brahman with the

> awareness(consciousness,chit) of all of

> existence(sat).

Namaste,

This has to be reconciled with and understood in the context

of three statements from the Gita, and Shankara Bhashya:

1. 9:10 -mayaadhyakSheNa prakRRitiH suuyate sacharaacharam.h ....

2. 9:18 -gatirbhartaa prabhuH saakShii....

3. 9:19 -sadasachchaahamarjuna...

Shankara's commentary:

1. mayaa adhyakSheNa sarvato dRRishimaatrasvaruupeNa

avikriyaatmanaaadhyakSheNa mayaa....by Me presiding : as a mere

viewer on every side and the immutable witness..... [Ref.

Shvetashvatara upan. 6:11, and Taitt. Brahmana 2:8:9]

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/shveta.itx

eko devaH sarvabhuuteshhu guuDhaH sarvavyaapii

sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa. karmaadhyaxaH sarvabhuutaadhivaasaH saaxii

chetaa kevalo nirguNashcha .. 11..

`The One, the luminous, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the

Inner Self of all, the superintendent of all acts, the abode of all

beings, the witness, the perceiver, alone, and free from qualities.'

Because I am the witness, because I preside, this universe

comprising the moving and the unmoving objects, the manifested and

the unmanifested, moves on through all stages. Indeed, all activity

in the world,-- such as `I shall enjoy this, `I see this', `I hear

this', `I feel pleasure', `I feel pain', `To gain this I shall do

it', `Ishall learn this', --arises by way of forming an object of

consciousness and has its end in consciousness. Such chants as ` Who

in the Supreme Heaven (of the Heart) is the witness of this (Tai.

Br. 2:8:9) point only to this view. Accordingly as there is no

conscious entity other than the One Divine Being, there cannot be a

separate enjoyer; and it is therefore irrelevant to ask or to answer

the question `Of what purpose is this creation by the One, the

Divine, the pure all-witnessing Spirit or Consciousness, having

really no concern with any enjoyment whatever?' So says the shruti:

`Who could perceive (It) directly, and who could declare whence born

and why this variegated creation?' (Tai.Br.2:8:9)

http://www.sanskritweb.net/yajurveda/tb-2-08.pdf

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

2. saakShii praaNinaaM kRRitaakRRitasya ...the Witness of what is

done and what is not done by all living beings.

3. sat yasya yat sambandhitayaa vidyamaanaM tat, tadvipariitaM

asachcha eva aham.h . na punaH atyantameva asat bhagavaan, svayaM

kaaryakaaraNe vaa sadasatii......I am existence (the manifested, the

effect), which manifests itself in relation (to the cause); and I am

the reverse, the non-existence (the unmanifested, the cause). Indeed

the Lord can never be altogether non-existent; nor (can it be said)

that the effect is existence and the cause is non-existence.

(transl. Alladi Mahadeva Shastry).

Regards,

Sunder

May 30, 2006

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: --