aSarIratva [unembodiedness]

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

 

This discussion on 'Unembodiedness' has taken us all into deep advaita

vedanta. The central question seems to be 'What is the prakriyA (=

Methodology ?) by which one arrives at a realisation of the unembodiedness

?'.

 

Durga-ji rightly took us on to the drig-dRshya-viveka:

" dRRigdRRishya

works by guiding the mind in this way. Seer/seen, Seer/seen, Seer/seen.

And then eventually the Seer is seen, but not as an object. "

But then as Durga-ji continues,

" The best way to practice dRRigdRRishya, IMO, is to

find oneself a very good Vedanta teacher, who

can clear all doubts, and answer all questions,

who is a brahmanishta, and a shrotria " .

 

In my way of understanding all these subtle concepts of vedanta and bringing

them into an inner realisation, the " good Vedanta teacher " is the Lord

Himself. For instance in this case of comprehending the incomprehensible

'Unembodiedness', I go to Vishnu Sahasranama (Thousand names of the Lord

Vishnu) where Shankara gives us the hint in his commentary on the name:

*anirdeshya-vapuH*.

It comes in two places (shloka #s19 and 70) in the text. The name means,

literally,

" (He has) the form that cannot be indicated as 'this' or 'that'. "

'vapuH' means body or form.

'a-nirdeshya' means 'not indicatable'.

 

Shankara's commentary on the name:

In shloka #19:

*idam tad-iti nirdeshhTuM yat na shakyate parasmai sva-samvedyatvAt

tat anirdeshyaM vapuH asya iti*

It is not possible to indicate Him to others as 'this' or 'that'; because

of His self-revealing nature. Therefore he is said to have the unindicatable

form.

In shloka #83:

*idam tat IdRshaM vA iti nirdeshhTuM yat na shakyate guNAdy-atItatvaT

tad-eva rUpam-asya iti*

It is not possible to point it out as this or such, because of its

transcendence of all guNas. And that (impossibility) is its form!

 

Thus the very non-indicatability is itself spoken of as its form. In other

words, the very 'formlessness' is its form! This is the advaita-type genius

of Shankara!

 

Well, what has this got to do with " Unembodiedness " which is the subject of

this thread? There are two directions of relevance.

 

The first one is the very quotation *asharIratA hi AtmanaH svarUpaM* from

Shankara's commentary on Chandogya U. VIII - 3- 4, with which this thread

started. The nature of the Self is 'unembodiedness'. The 'formlessness' is

His form. To comprehend the unembodiedness of the Self which is said to

be the 'the resident' of this body, one has to attempt to dwell on the

incomprehensible form of His which is 'formlessness'.

 

This takes us to the second of the two directions of relevance that I

mentioned above. This second relevance is my answer to the question " What is

the 'prakriyA'? " . The only way to comprehend the incomprehensible is to

seek His guidance - He is the Vedanta teacher --. That is why I brought in

the Vishnu Sahasranama at the beginning of this mail. We have to resort to

Him to make our intellect sharp enough for this 'comprehension'. It is the

Gayatri Japa that helps us get this kind of intellect - as Shailendra-ji

pointed out. For those of us who may not have been initiated into the

Gayatri or who do not have access to this mantra through a Guru, there are

certain other shlokas or methods with which one can do the nidhidhyAsana for

the purpose of the intellect to hold on to the incomprehensible nature of

the Self. Here are these valuable shlokas. There are six quoted below;

probably there are more of the same kind and value - of which the

contemplation on the Vishnu Sahasranama itself or the 10 verses by Shankara

on Dakshinamurti can be taken as a possible prakriyA . These are equivalent

to sacred mantras almost reaching up to the level of the Gayatri. By

constant repetition (in the mind) of any one of these and continuous deep

dwelling on its meaning and content, one is led on by God's Grace, to the

mansion of advaita Truth. This is what I have heard from inspired wise men.

None of these need any further formal teaching from a guru. One who has

Faith in the Ultimate can take them up right away!

 

1. acchedyo'yam-adAhyo'yam akledyo'shoshhya eva ca /

nityas-sarva-gataH sthANuH acalo'yam sanAtanaH // B.G. 2 - 24

2. gatir-bhartA prabhus-sAkshhI nivAsas-sharaNaM suhRt /

prabhavaH praLayaH sthAnaM nidhAnaM bIjam-avyayaM // B.G. 9 - 18.

3. nAham deho nendriyANy-antarango nAhamkAraH prANavargo na

buddhiH/

dArApatyaH kshhetra-vittAdhi-dooraH sAkshhI nityaH pratyag-AtmA shivo'haM //

4. atmA nityo'vyayaH shuddha ekaH kshhetrajna AshrayaH /

avikriyaH svadRg-hetuH vyApako'sangy-anAvRtaH //

Etair-dvAdashabhir-vidvAN Atmano lakshhaNaiH paraiH /

aham mamety-asad-bhAvaM dehAdau mohajaM tyajet //

(Shrimad Bhagavatam: )

5. tvaM nitya-mukta parishuddha vibuddha AtmA

kUTastha Adipurushho bhagavAns-tryadhIshaH /

yad-buddhy-avasthitim-akhaNDitayA-sva-dRshhTyA

drashhTA sthitA vadhimakho vyatirikta Asse //

(Shrimad Bhagavatam : )

6. rakshhitA svasya dharmasya svajanasya ca rakshhitA /

Veda-vedAnga-tattvajno dhanur-vede ca nishhTitaH //

sarva-shAstrArtha-tattvajnaH smRtimAn pratibhAnavAn /

sarva-loka-priyaH sAdhuH adInAtmA vicakshhaNaH //

(Valmiki Ramayana: )

 

Nos.1 and 2 are Gita shlokas. I have written about #2 in

advaitin/message/15302

 

 

#3 is an oft-quoted shloka from Shankara. It means:

I am neither the body nor the senses; nor am I the ego, nor the gang of

prANas (vital airs), nor the intellect; I am far far removed from the

so-called spouse, offspring, property or money etc. I am the everlasting

Witness. I am the indweller. I am Shiva, the auspicious.

 

#4 is the key shloka of the Pinnacle of Praise (a 12-shloka piece) that the

boy-sage Dhruva showered on the Lord at the monumental darshan he had of the

Lord. I have written about it in

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/92page14.html

and the succeeding four or five pages.

 

#5 is the boy Prahlada's teaching to his boy-contemporaries. I have written

about it in

advaitin/message/681

 

 

#6 is the only one of which I have not written on this list. It is part of

Narada's character-sketch of Lord Rama. I shall write about it in a separate

post.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

 

 

Have a look at my homepage at

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

which now has a new enhanced look .

[Guest guest]

> Durga-ji rightly took us on to the drig-dRshya-viveka:

> " dRRigdRRishya

> works by guiding the mind in this way. Seer/seen, Seer/seen,

Seer/seen.

> And then eventually the Seer is seen, but not as an object. "

> But then as Durga-ji continues,

> " The best way to practice dRRigdRRishya, IMO, is to

> find oneself a very good Vedanta teacher, who

> can clear all doubts, and answer all questions,

> who is a brahmanishta, and a shrotria " .

>

 

Dear esteemed members, I have a very simple question on this topic but

it might be related to Mandukya. In the dRRigdRRishya methodology, we

are taught to differentiate between the seer and seen (objectifying the

known and that is different from the knower). Body, mind, intellect,

ego, thoughts are all objectifiable. However, this 'knower' is fast

asleep at night and this 'knower' disappears in deep sleep. But

consciousness never sleeps. So this knower is nothing but the intellect

itself ? How do we address this issue ? The real 'knower' requires

material equipment for expression ?

 

regards,

 

Shailendra

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhatnagar_shailendra "

<bhatnagar_shailendra wrote:

 

> Dear esteemed members, I have a very simple question on this topic but

> it might be related to Mandukya. In the dRRigdRRishya methodology, we

> are taught to differentiate between the seer and seen (objectifying the

> known and that is different from the knower). Body, mind, intellect,

> ego, thoughts are all objectifiable. However, this 'knower' is fast

> asleep at night and this 'knower' disappears in deep sleep. But

> consciousness never sleeps. So this knower is nothing but the intellect

> itself ? How do we address this issue ? The real 'knower' requires

> material equipment for expression ?

>

> regards,

>

> Shailendra

 

Namaste Shailendraji,

 

Your questions are very good. These questions

are the questions which, in my experience, arise

in the minds of many Vedanta students.

 

How is it that 'I' (Consciousness) am

the sakshi (the witness) to all three

states of mental experience, waking,

dream and deep sleep?

 

For the waking and deep sleep states there

does not seem to be a problem for the seeker

in understanding that 'I,' the witness, am

always present.

 

But what about the deep sleep state? That

state doesn't seem to be the same. It presents

a problem for us. We think that we have no

memory of that state, no awareness of that state,

and therefore 'I' the witness, the sakshi, or

Consciousness am not present at that time.

 

First of all, I think it might be good to

briefly discuss the word, 'Consciousness,'

because that word in the English language

implies something different from the way

the word is used in the teachings of Vedanta.

In this context, we might also include the word

`Awareness' in the same category as the word

`Consciousness.'

 

In the English language these two words,

`awareness' and `consciousness' are not

used in the same way as they are used in

the teachings of Vedanta. In Vedanta they

are used directly as synonyms of the self

which I truly am, as synonyms of atma,

of Brahman.

 

In English we associate those two words only

with the mind, because we don't know that

there is anything which is `lighting up the

mind' as it were. In Vedanta, in order for

a word to be used effectively as a pointer

to the Self, the initial, or primary meaning of

the word needs first to be knocked off, and then

the teacher needs to handle the word skillfully

in order to allow you to see how the word is

being used in teaching.

 

So, I think in the context in which you are asking

the question, it would be better to use as a pointer

to the Self, the word, `sakshi' or witness.

(And then lo and behold Sri Anandaji has provided a

definition for same.)

 

As an aside, I often have seen the teachings of Vedanta

work in this way. One has a question, and then in the

next verse or class that question is answered, such is

the compassionate nature of Bhagavan's creation.

 

However, in English even the word `witness' can

be taken to imply the mind.

 

So let's just look at the deep sleep state. Here is

the answer, which in my experience, is most often

given to your question, and you can see if it makes

sense to you.

 

When I wake up from a very good night's sleep, I

can say, " I slept very well last night. "

 

Now, how do I know that I did? One person might

say, " Well, my body feels very rested, so that's

how I know. "

 

But a Vedantin would say, `You know, because even the

deep sleep state (as are all states) is sakshi vedya,

(known by the witness), or sakshi pratyaksa (direct

perception by the witness).

 

Even though in deep sleep, your mind is resolved, as

it were, the witness, the sakshi remains. It is often

said that deep sleep is a very pleasant state because

the mind is resolved. It is no longer active or thinking.

Its contents are not the daily worries and woes of samsara.

 

Even though the mind retains the kernel of self-ignorance,

the content of the mind in deep sleep is purely the Self.

There is no thought or object, only the Self which I am,

and therefore we love that deep sleep, because the Self

is that which we love the most. The Self is that which

is the most dear to us.

 

So deep sleep is sakshi pratyaksa. We know that we

had a good sleep because the sakshi is ever present.

The mind does not need to be active, or awake, or the sense

organs engaged, in order for the sakshi to be present.

In fact, there is never a time, past, present or future,

when the sakshi is not present. And there is never a

mental state, neither waking, dream or deep sleep, which

is not sakshi pratyaksa.

 

Every experience is sakshi pratyaksa, whether it is deep

sleep when the mind is resolved, dream when the mind

is active with its own thoughts, or waking when many of

our experiences are given to us through our sense organs.

All are sakshi pratyaksa.

 

Any other means of knowledge such as sense perception,

given to us in the waking state, is an addition to sakshi

pratyaksa. That experience, as are all variable,

changing mental experiences, is backed by sakshi pratyaksa.

Sakshi is ever present, invariable, and shining throughout.

 

I don't know if that answers your question. I have been

in class with seekers, who after four or five years of

very thorough teaching, still do not 'get' the answer.

So don't give up, or be discouraged, if the answer does

not make complete sense to you at first.

 

The reason one does not 'get' the answer is the

dehatmabuddhi, the strong notion that the Self,

(the witness), the atma, is a product of the body/mind.

 

The sakshi, the Self, the witness, is ever present to

the mind. But when one has the dehatmabuddhi, the sakshi

has not yet been untangled from the changing states and

experiences which the mind passes through. So the sakshi

is taken to be one with, dependent upon, and subject to

the mind and its changing experiences.

 

As Rome was not built in a day, so too Self-knowledge

is not `gained' through one answer on an e-list.

(If it were to be, I for one, would be very surprised).

 

However, I would say to you, `keep at it.' Your questions

are good. They show a real desire to know. I hope that

Ishwara soon blesses you with a genuine, virtual, live,

and in person teacher, who can answer your questions,

clear your doubts, who knows the methodology which the

Upanishads have to give us, and who can wield Vedanta

as a pramana (a direct means of knowledge), and who can

lead you to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you

indeed are not your mind, but rather that by whose light

every mental experience is known.

 

You are the sakshi (the witness) of all changing

experiences of the mind, and that by which all is known,

and indeed that by which you, your Self, is known, because

you are entirely Self-evident, and always have been.

Hence the saying, `the sought is hidden in the seeker.'

But when seen is then seen to never have been hidden at all,

but rather mistaken for what it was not.

 

Best wishes,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> You are the sakshi (the witness) of all changing

> experiences of the mind, and that by which all is known,

> and indeed that by which you, your Self, is known, because

> you are entirely Self-evident, and always have been.

> Hence the saying, `the sought is hidden in the seeker.'

> But when seen is then seen to never have been hidden at all,

> but rather mistaken for what it was not.

>

> Best wishes,

> Durga

>

Namaste All,

 

I think that this only refers to conditions within samasar and Saguna

Brahman. Ultimately there is no 'sakshin' or witness for there is

nothing to witness or ever was...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Thank you Durga ji for your very kind response. I don't know if Durga is

your pen name or real name but here is a tribute to your knowledge of

Vedanta

 

Ya devi sarvabhuteshu buddhi rupena samsthita

 

Namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namo namaha

 

 

 

with regards and respects,

 

Shailendra

[Guest guest]

Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: --- In

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> You are the sakshi (the witness) of all changing

> experiences of the mind, and that by which all is known,

> and indeed that by which you, your Self, is known, because

> you are entirely Self-evident, and always have been.

> Hence the saying, `the sought is hidden in the seeker.'

> But when seen is then seen to never have been hidden at all,

> but rather mistaken for what it was not.

>

>

>

Namaste All,

 

I think that this only refers to conditions within samasar and Saguna

Brahman. Ultimately there is no 'sakshin' or witness for there is

nothing to witness or ever was...Tony.

Dear All,

The concept of Saksi also seems to be only a working

hypothesis to enable one to ward of objectification, confounding the Self also

to be an object, a final object though. It is worthwhile remembering Ramana's

profound statement, " Without the Sannidhi, where is the Sakshi. " In Ribu Geetha

also, Saksi is termed only to be a vritti. If we understand Saksi to be the

ultimate observer, who is aristocratically outside the realm of all relative

subjects and objects, we understand it alright. Saksi is only the pristine light

of the self, illumining only, as it were, all the illusory subjects and all

objects. There is only one Chaitanya illumining the Pramatar, Pramana and

Prameya, or to use the words of Patanjali Yogi, Grahna, Grahya and Grahitha.

Even the dichotomy of the Saksi as Iswara Saksi and Jiva Saksi, is only for

entertaining the intellectuals.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding fabulous fares is fun.

Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel

bargains.