Advaita for the Novice - Who is the doer-experiencer? - 3

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Series on Advaita for the Novice

"I am neither the Doer nor the Experiencer" - 3

Jiva, the Empirical Self

 

[For #2 go to post #35061]

 

[A reference, say, to Ch.2, Shloka 7 of the Bhagavad-Gita would simply be

given as

"(2 - 7)" without mentioning the Bhagavad-Gita]

 

[CAUTION: Read carefully and proceed slowly. There are many hair-pin bends.

Alternatively, by-pass the speed-breakers, go forward,

but come back to re-traverse the path several times.]

 

The punchline of the operating part of advaita, is, as we said at the end of

the previous post, that the IP (Imperishable puruSha) is a non-participating

witness. He is the real I within us, and he does not do any action, he does

not think any thoughts, he does not feel any emotions. He is unaffected,

unperturbed, uncontaminated, unsullied by any of the happenings to the PP

(Perishable puruSha). He is the One introduced by Krishna very early in the

Gita in verses 23, 24, 25 of the 2nd chapter and later, in many other

contexts. He, being the real 'I', can therefore very well say: "I am not the

doer or the experiencer". Like the street light that witnesses everything

that happens under the light but is itself neither the doer nor the

experiencer of the happenings, He is the non-participating witness to

everything that happens to the PP. We shall now try to comprehend some of

the nuances of the concepts of non-participating Witness and the

superimposition that we do on this.

 

At the final end of the theory of non-duality one is told that the knower,

the known and the knowledge are all one. But, ordinarily, the knower is the

subject and the known is the object. The subject which knows the object is

the centre of consciousness. It exists, and it knows. The object only

exists.

 

The JIva (the soul) is the subject of all experience. It is a complex of

Consciousness (Sanskrit: ChaitanyaM) and Matter. When objects are in

relation to the subject we have the stream of presentations called Vrittis.

When there are no objects there will be no presentations but the

consciousness that lights up the presentations will remain. That

consciousness is the Witness, the non-participating Witness. Objects are

not presented to Consciousness as such. They are directly presented to the

JIva (the soul) and only indirectly to the Witness. There can be no

relationship between Consciousness and objects, because they belong to

different orders of reality, like the rope and the snake. The subject, the

centre of consciousness, is experienced directly in an intuition, like an

'I-feeling' (Sanskrit: aham-pratyaya), but the object is known only from

the outside like 'this-feeling' (Sanskrit: idam-pratyaya).

 

Then how did this Pure Consciousness become the JIva or the empirical self

and how was the JIva made the subject of all experience? Strictly speaking,

there is no 'becoming, no making, no transition, no transformation'. Pure

Consciousness (= Atman, Brahman) does not undergo any change of form or

character. JIva is only Brahman in an empirical dress of BMI in which the

sprouting of the thought of distinctness from Brahman has occurred. This

thought of individuality is the Ego, the starting point of the JIva. JIva

is therefore Consciousness conditioned by Ignorance in the form of an ego

of individuality. The Self can have no direct knowledge of the world except

through the apparatus of the BMI. This apparatus as well as the small world

which becomes the object of its knowledge is spoken of as the adjunct

(Sanskrit: upAdhi) of Consciousness. All this adjunct is matter.

Consciousness ('Chaitanyam') which has this limited portion of matter for

its adjunct is the JIva. Each JIva has its own knowing apparatus and moves

in a small world of its own, with its own joys and sorrows and thus has its

own individual existence. Though the Self is one, the JIvas are many.

 

Acharya Shankara draws attention to this fact of one Self and several JIvas,

for instance, in his commentary on (2-12) where the Lord says "There was

never a time when I was not there nor you were not there, nor these

leaders of men nor that we, all of us, will come to be hereafter". He

comments: "The plural number (in we) is used following the diversity of the

bodies, but not in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self". Generally in

his commentaries, Shankara resorts to two illustrations to bring home this

point. One is the sun appearing as many reflected images in different pools

of water. If the waters are dried up the several images get back to the

original sun. The other illustration is the infinite space being delimited

by artificial barriers. If these barriers are knocked down there will be no

occasion to speak of the different spaces. These two illustrations of the

exact mode of conceiving the relation between the Self and the Soul gave

rise to two schools of argument in later advaita, namely, the argument of

original and its reflection ('bimba-pratibimba-vAda'), and the the argument

of delimitation ('avaccheda-vAda'). The former is the Vivarana school and

the latter is the Bhamati school. (See Dennis-ji's definition of the JIva

for a full explanation of these names).

 

Thus when Consciousness is conditioned by its association with Ignorance or

Matter it is no longer Pure Consciousness but a complex of both, called

JIva, the soul. This does not mean however that Matter or Ignorance is

outside of the Reality of Consciousness, because that would contradict

non-duality. The relation between Self and Soul has therefore to be

conceived in the following way.

 

The addition of the adjunct is only a difference in the standpoint that we

adopt. There are two standpoints - the intuitive and the intellectual. The

intuitive is that of immediate and direct realisation. It is the method of

the mystics. There is no dualism of subject and object there, nor that of

doer and the deed, nor that of agent and enjoyer. These distinctions of

duality arise only in the intellectual method of looking at reality. That

is why the Gita says that it is "beyond the intellect" (III - 43). It is the

nature of the intellect to break up the original unity and revel in these

distinctions. At this intellectual level what we are doing is actually a

come-down in the level of perception. The JIva is now perceived in relation

to its own small world, the subject in relation to the object and the doer

in relation to the deed. The Self thus reflected in the medium of the

intellect becomes the JIva. As per the Vivarana school, the Atman or the

Self is the original, the intellect is the reflecting medium and the JIva is

the reflected image. In the case of the Bhamati school, the Atman is the

infinite space, the adjuncts (upAdhis) are the limiting barriers and the

JIvas are the small spaces.

 

The reflection idea is used skilfully by Kapila Maharishi in his exposition

of Vedanta in Bhagavatam (III-27: 12, 13): "The presence of the Supreme Lord

can be realized just as the sun is realized first as a reflection on water,

and again as a second reflection on the wall of a room, although the sun

itself is situated in the sky. The self-realized soul is thus reflected

first in the threefold ego and then in the body, senses and mind".

 

An explanation is necessary for this analogy. The topic is how one

recognises that the Supreme Consciousness is the One Power behind every

action and every presence in the universe. Imagine a room in which there is

a large vessel of water that receives direct sunlight and reflects it onto

the opposite wall in the room. What is the source of this light on the wall?

It is the reflected Sun in the water (contained in the vessel). And what is

the source of that reflected Sun? The actual Sun in the blazing sky. So

also we individuals seem to be having awareness of the outside world. The

source of our awareness is our consciousness within. But this consciousness

itself is a reflection of the real supreme Consciousness, the reflection

being in our own ego-mind.

 

The JIva is thus a complex of Consciousness (Chaitanyam) and matter. It is

Pure Consciousness with a limited adjunct of matter, namely, the BMI. This

limited adjunct is spoken of as the Ignorance (Sanskrit: avidyA) of the

JIva. Stripped of its adjunct the JIva loses its individuality and is then

nothing but Pure ChaitanyaM. The analysis of the three states of waking,

dreaming and sleeping is intended to show that Consciousness is the only

constant factor running through them all. Even in the sleeping state, this

Consciousness is there. "That the soul does not see in that state is

because, although seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the

Witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But then no second

thing exists there separate from it which it can see." (Br. U. IV - 3-23).

Shankara quotes this passage in his commentary to Brahma Sutra II-3-18 and

adds his own explanation: "This appearance of absence of awareness is owing

to the absence of objects of knowledge, but not owing to the absence of

consciousness. It is like the non-manifestation of light, spread over space,

owing to the absence of things on which it can be reflected, but not owing

to its own absence."

 

It is in the fourth state called 'turIya', that transcends the three states

of waking, dream and dreamless sleep, all traces of Ignorance disappear.

When the JIva is thus disassociated from Ignorance and therefore from all

material vesture, the spiritual core of the JIva comes into its own.

 

Shankara sets forth (in his commentary on Br.S. I-3-19) the nature of this

transcendence of all adjuncts in the following way. A white crystal placed

by the side of something red or blue appears red or blue on account of the

adjunct. But in reality the crystal is only white. It does not 'acquire'

its white colour but only shines in its own natural colour. (Recall the

story of the 'tenth man').

 

[Optional note that may be skipped: The above is known as the 'argument of

appearance' (AbhAsa-vAda). (AbhAsa also means 'shadow' or 'semblance'). It

is akin to the argument of ''reflection' that we saw earlier. There the

reflection was taken to be an 'empirical' (Sanskrit: vyAvahArika) reality.

The argument was then called 'bimba-pratibimba-vAda'. But now the

reflection is taken as a 'phenomenal' (Sanskrit: prAtibhAsika) reality.

For an explanation of 'phenomenal', 'empirical' and 'absolute' realities,

see the definition of 'adhyAsa' in the files section].

 

Before the onset of true enlightenment the Spirit (Consciousness) on account

of its association with the BMI appears as the JIva. But the rise of true

knowledge does make a real difference. All false notions disappear and

Spirit rises to its true stature. The self-hood of the empirical self falls

to the ground and the Self shines forth in its original splendour. To know

the highest truth is only to know the self in its true nature. The moment

true enlightenment dawns on man he realises that he is no other than the

non-dual self, that very moment he sheds his finitude and rises to his full

stature. There is no question of the JIva merging in anything other than

itself. It simply comes to its own.

 

In truth there is no entity as the JIva at all. It is not among the things

created. It is a false creation due entirely to adventitious (Sanskrit:

'Agantuka') or incidental circumstance, that is, coming from without and

not pertaining to the fundamental nature. "The idea of embodiedness is a

result of nescience. Unless it be through the false ignorance of identifying

the Self with the body, there can be no embodiedness for the Self" (

'sa-sharIratvasya mithyA-jnAna-niimittatvAt .. kalpayituM' : Shankara's

Commentary on Br. Su. I-1-4 ). JIva has always remained Brahman. Only the

adjuncts have to be removed for this truth to stand out. Once this

realisation is there, the finitude of the JIva will disappear, as also its

misery and its supposed agency and enjoyership. "When that Brahman, the

basis of all causes and effects, becomes known, all the results of the

seeker's actions become exhausted" (Mundaka U. II - 2 -8). The

transmigration of the JIva which is due to its false association with the

adjuncts, will also come to a close. That is when the ego-thought of

separateness from the Supreme Self, with an 'I' of its own, will get

destroyed. That is what we mean by saying 'Jiva attains mokSha'. The two

things are simultaneous, like the simultaneity of disappearance of darkness

with the lighting of a match. But that does not mean that Jiva 'reaches

some destination' or 'obtains something'. 'JIva sees the Truth' simply means

that it sees that it is itself Brahman. In other words, it wakes up to the

Truth that was always there. Not waking up to the Truth was the Ignorance.

Ignorance is not in Brahman, which is pure and self-illumined, but in the

JIva. So long however as the latter does not realize his identity with

Brahman, ignorance is said, rather loosely, to envelop Brahman.

 

All the injunctions that are given by the Vedas to man are given to him in

his state of ignorance because activity is natural to man in that state.

The Self is never the doer. The injunction is only a restatement following

what is given in experience. All the ritual purifications through chanting

of mantras and the results of such actions are enjoined on, and enjoyed by,

that entity which has the idea "I am the doer", as stated in the Mundaka

Upanishad mantra "One of the two enjoys the fruits having various tastes,

while the other looks on without enjoying" (Mu. U. III-1-1). The misery that

falls to the lot of the JIva, the empirical self, is entirely due to its

fancied association with its adjuncts. This association imagines such

'realities' as 'I am a brahmin', 'I am a renunciate', 'I am a JIva' and the

like. When the JIva sheds these imagined realities and all adventitious

adjuncts and realises its true nature by a discrimination between the

permanent and the ephemeral, then there is an end of all its misery. Except

by such knowledge of the Ultimate Self, misery and finitude cannot be

overcome.

 

Question: So then we come back to the oft-mentioned idea, 'Self-Knowledge'.

But who is the knower of this knowledge here? Is it the Self, who is always

illumined, or the JIva in his unillumined state?

 

We shall take this up in the next post.

 

(To be Continued)

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

For almost everything you wanted to know about Hindu philosophy, go to

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

For an English translation of Kanchi Mahaswamigal's Discourses on Advaita

Sadhana go to

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Advaita_Saadhanaa.html