Vakyapadiya 1.15-22

[Guest guest]

Vakyapadiya 1.15-22

 

As the investigating therapy of linguistics asks its way back into

the depth of meaning, how does this inward questioning enable us to

educate our living faculties, towards a less partial knowing of the

objective world? As this world is so differently seen, through

partial appearances of personal perception, how can we know it more

impartially?

 

How do we develop scientific disciplines which show us common

principles, beneath the variety of differing appearances perceived by

various persons from their changing points of view? How can such

principles be known impersonally, as found to be shared in common,

beneath our many differences of personal perception?

 

In answer to these questions, the Vakyapadiya points to an intimate

connection between seeing and speaking. The way we see things depends

on how we name them. When anything is seen in particular, its

interpretation depends upon a general similarity that is remembered

from the past.

 

This particular thing now seen is recognized as belonging to a

general class, with a generic name. And that name applies to each

particular member of the class -- on the basis of recognizing a

common principle which different members share, beneath their

differences. Our particular perceptions thus depend upon classifying

them. And in each case, this classifying works through a generic

name, which inherently recognizes a common principle.

 

For example, suppose that I see a tall branching shape, and I

interpret it as showing me a tree. Then, in this particular

perception, what's seen is classified through a generic naming of all

trees, with an implicit recognition that some common principle has

somehow been found to underlie each different instance of a tree.

 

The Vakyapadiya thus goes on to point out that all classification

depends inherently upon generic naming and its recognition of common

principles -- beneath all particular appearances which we perceive in

the objective world, through our differing and changing personalities.

 

As all our disciplines proceed to classify and to describe the world

and its phenomena, they have to depend upon linguistic analysis, to

clarify the statement of basic principles from which they start.

 

 

1.15

----

 

yathA 'rtha-jAtayaH sarvAH shabdA-'kRti-nibandhanAH .

 

yathA(just as) artha(object)-jAtayaH(classes) sarvAH(all)

shabda(word)-AkRti(generic)-nibandhanAH(tied back) .

 

All classes of the things we see

are tied back to generic names.

 

tathai 'va loke vidyAnAm eShA vidyA parAyaNam ..

 

tathA(so too) eva(indeed) loke(in the world) vidyAnAm(of disciplines)

eShA(this) vidyA(discipline) parAyaNam(final basis) ..

 

So too, among all disciplines,

on this that analyses speech

the others can be seen to start.

 

 

But, having now established a central position for linguistic

analysis, the Vakyapadiya has to admit that this analysis does not

serve merely as a starting point for objective achievement in the

world.

 

It has a more direct use, which is of value in itself. There, it

reflects subjectively -- towards a spiritual freedom that is

completely uncompromised, by any trace of limiting entanglement with

the objective world.

 

 

1.16

----

 

idam AdyaM pada-sthAnaM siddhi-sopAna-parvaNAm .

 

idam(this) AdyaM(primary, starting) pada(step)-sthAnaM(stand, place)

siddhi(achievement)-sopAna(staircase)-parvaNAm(of the steps) .

 

It is the starting place on which

the staircase of achievement stands,

from which all steps achieved arise.

 

iyaM sA mokShamANAnAm ajihmA rAja-paddhatiH ..

 

iyaM(this, it) sA(the) mokShamANAnAm(for those intent on being freed)

ajihmA(direct) rAja(royal)-paddhatiH(path) ..

 

It is the direct, royal path

for those intent on being freed.

 

 

1.17

----

 

atrA 'tIta viparyAsaH kevalAm anupashyati .

 

atra(here) atIta(beyond) viparyAsaH(overturning, illusion, error)

kevalAm(the unmixed absolute) anupashyati(sees)

 

Here, that which is beyond all error

sees the unmixed absolute.

 

chandasyash chandasAM yonim AtmA chando-mayIM tanum ..

 

chandasyaH(fit for the chants) chandasAM(of the chants)

yonim(source) AtmA(the self) chandaH(chant)-mayIM(true nature)

tanum(fine, subtle, accomplished) ..

 

The self that's fit to speak the chants

here sees the source from which they come.

It sees that source for what it is --

as the true nature of the chants,

in all their finer subtlety.

 

 

1.18

----

 

pratyastamita-bhedAyA yad vAco rUpam uttamam .

 

pratyastamita(reflected back)-bhedAyA(of difference)

yat(which) vAcaH(of speech) rUpam(form) uttamam(highest) .

 

That is the highest form of speech

where differences are given up,

reflected back to where they rise.

 

yad asminn eva tamasi jyotiH shuddhaM vivartate ..

 

yat(which) asmin(in this) eva(only) tamasi(in obscurity)

jyotiH(light) shuddhaM(pure) vivartate(manifested) ..

 

It is pure light, seen manifested

only where it seems obscured.

 

 

1.19

----

 

vaikRtaM samatikrAntA mUrti-vyApAra-darshanam .

vyatItyA loka-tamasI prakAshaM yam upAsate ..

 

vaikRtaM(modified, changeable)

samatikrAntAH(those who have transcended) mUrti(embodiment, bodies)-

vyApAra(transacting)-darshanam(seeing, sight) .

vyatItyAH(have gone beyond) loka(world)-tamasI(obscurity)

prakAshaM(light) yam(which)

upAsate(they meditate on, are intent on, abide in) ..

 

The sight of bodies doing things

is modified and changeable.

Those who transcend it go beyond

the world's confused obscurity.

They are intent on light itself,

and it is there that they abide.

 

 

1.20

----

 

yatra vAco nimittAni cihnAnI 'vA 'kShara-smRteH .

shabda-pUrveNa yogena bhAsante pratibiMbavat ..

 

yatra(where) vAcaH(of speech) nimittAni(the instruments)

cihnAni(signs) iva(seemingly) akShara(changeless)-

smRteH(of [speech] which calls to mind) .

shabda(speech)-pUrveNa(through what is prior)

yogena(through harnessing to [prior] unity) bhAsante(they shine)

pratibiMbavat(made up of reflection, nothing but reflection) ..

 

Speech calls to mind what does not change.

Speech-signs appear in harness to

an underlying unity

that's prior to all speech.

And they are nothing but reflection

shining in the light of speech.

 

 

1.21

----

 

atharvaNAm a~NgirasAM sAmnAm Rg-yajuShasya ca .

yasminn uccA vacA varNAH pRthak-sthiti-parigrahAH ..

 

atharvaNAm(of the atharvan)

a~NgirasAM(of the a~Ngirasan[included in the atharva-veda])

sAmnAm(of the sAman) Rg-yajuShasya(of the Rg and yajur) ca(and) .

yasmin(in which) uccAH(emphatically pronounced) vacAH(speakings)

varNAH(sound elements) pRthak(separately)-sthiti(stand)-

parigrahAH(comprehending the surrounding context) ..

 

The vedic chants -- atharvan, saman

rig and yajur -- are made up

from various elements of sound.

It's in the light of speech that

every element stands chanted

separately, while also taking outside

circumstances into count.

 

 

1.22

----

 

yad ekaM prakriyA-bhedair bahudhA pravibhajyate .

 

yat(which) ekaM(one) prakriyA(procedures, approaches)-

bhedaiH(through different)

bahudhA(in many ways, differently, manifold)

pravibhajyate(divided forth) .

 

That light is one -- although it's seen

divided forth in different ways,

through different ways of reaching it.

 

tad vyAkaraNam Agamya paraM brahmA 'dhigamyate ..

 

tat(that) vyAkaraNam(linguistics) Agamya(to be attained)

paraM(ultimate) brahma(reality) adhigamyate(is approached) ..

 

It's that which is to be attained

as ultimate reality.

Linguistics is a means to that.

 

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Anandaji, PraNams.

I found this post very interesting and I hope this is the first of a series

of posts. I also hope what I am going to say will not be too off-topic for

the moderators:

I work/study in the area of cognitive neuroscience and one of the questions

being addressed here are 'how does the brain process language? " and " how do

we form meaning - conceptual representations? " -- An attempt to ground

everything in the neural bases. It is interesting that your quote below gets

to the essence of what researchers are trying to get to - (and to frame it

in your words)- what is the 'common principle that has somehow been found to

underlie each different instance of a tree' or in layman terms, if for

example, an apple is all smashed up or cut in different shapes or is of

different colors, how do we still recognize it as an apple? what is it that

helps us recognize that object as an apple even if it undergoes many

transformations? The Vakyapadiya slokas cited say that language is the means

to be able to do this- isn't it correct to say that language just expresses

the understanding --- how does the understanding take place? 1.20 talks

about the underlying unity that is prior to all speech and then 1.22

suggests that this underlying unity = the light which is the ultimate

reality. Then is it correct to say that these verses suggest that forming a

conceptual representation or forming meaning = Brahman? Is that a big leap?

or is there something else that can be said to be a given and that drives

meaning before we invoke Brahman? similar to the gravitational principle -

earth's gravity explains a lot of things but gravitational force itself is a

given..one cannot explain why it exists.....

I look forward to seeing your thoughts on this.

Regards,

Veena.

 

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

> Vakyapadiya 1.15-22

>

> As the investigating therapy of linguistics asks its way back into

> the depth of meaning, how does this inward questioning enable us to

> educate our living faculties, towards a less partial knowing of the

> objective world? As this world is so differently seen, through

> partial appearances of personal perception, how can we know it more

> impartially?

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Sarvam ShreeKrishnaayaSamarpayami.

Om Namo Narayanaya...!!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shrimati Veena,

 

Thank you for your message #40375 of Apr 18, asking if this was the

first of a series of posts. Actually, it was the sixth of a series of

11 posts, of which 5 remain to be sent. (The first 5 posts

were 'Vakyapadiya -Intro', 'Vakyapadiya 1.1', 'Vakyapadiya 1.4,5,8'

and 'Vakyapadiya 1.9-10'. I will send you these previous posts by a

private e-mail.)

 

Concerning cognitive neuroscience, you raise two questions " how does

the brain process language? " and " how do we form meaning - conceptual

representations? " As I see it, these questions need to be

investigated at various different levels.

 

First of all (as people like Roger Penrose have been pointing out),

there are a series of mechanical levels in modern physics:

 

1. The Newtonian level, which describes a world that is made up from

pieces of matter.

 

2. A quantum level, which describes quantized systems of Newtonian

activity (like atoms and molecules). These quantized systems are each

described through a field description that is much subtler and more

complex than the Newtonian description. And the results of

measurement through material instruments are predicted statistically,

as a linear superposition of many probable results. It is thus

admitted that something more subtle is being measured by grosser

material instruments, and that the results of measurement are

correspondingly jerky (hence quantum discontinuity) and uncertain

(hence quantum indeterminacy).

 

3. A special relativistic level, which describes space, time, speed

and energy as relative observations, made differently by different

observers whose relative movements are unaccelerated. Through these

relative observations, the differing measurements of moving observers

show a common space-time continuum, with invariant principles and

laws (like the speed of light) which are shared in common.

 

4. A quantum field level, which describes quantized fields of force.

Here objects are conceived to interact through unlimitedly large

fluctuations of energy which keep on taking place throughout all tiny

neighbourhoods of the space-time continuum (the tinier the

neighbourhood the larger the fluctuations that keep on occurring in

it). The fluctuations are so minutely close and so blindingly rapid

that our material instruments cannot detect them directly. But they

have an overall effect that can be detected, as various kinds of

force that get to be exerted on the objects we observe.

 

5. A general relativistic level, which describes observers whose

relative movements may be accelerated. Here all objects are described

as paths of events that travel in straight lines through the space-

time continuum. In these paths of events, the line of travel is

always quite straight (taking the shortest distance between its

various points). Thus movement is described as essentially unforced,

in four-dimensional space-time. But lines that are straight in four

dimensions may appear to be bent, when they are viewed through a

changing world of three-dimensional space. Then it appears that

motion has been forced into changing its speed or its direction. This

appearance of forced motion is a superficial show. It arises from a

background continuity that is more fundamental. There, nature is

connected geometrically, beneath all mechanisms that appear to work

through interacting force. This is of course a very deep description,

related closely to the ancient idea of 'akasha' or 'ether'. But so

far it has been used effectively only for the force of gravity, with

other forces (like electromagnetism) left as yet unsuccessfully

described in this way.

 

Concerning these five levels of modern physics, only the first (the

Newtonian) level has been effectively used for modern biology and

neuroscience. The reason is very simple. When quantization and

relativistic considerations are introduced, they complicate the

descriptions of modern physics. In particular, the complications of

quantization are such that they become unmanageable for anything but

the smallest and simplest of molecules. The complex molecules of

molecular biology are thus completely indescribable in practice, for

all but the Newtonian level of modern physics, as things stand at

present.

 

So, as Roger Penrose points out, our currently mechanical biology is

very unsatisfactory, in principle. It can only make use of the

Newtonian level of physics, which we know is very crude. And yet, we

are trying to reduce the subtle phenomena of life to this crudely

material description. Roger Penrose says quite logically that the

basic principles of physics will need to be described far more

subtly, in order to describe our nervous and brain functioning. And

he has made some starting efforts in this direction, but with very

little practical result.

 

Please don't misunderstand me to be saying that modern physical

biology and neuroscience are of no use. Yes indeed, I acknowledge

that they have their uses, but I would add that this use has

limitations which need to be clearly understood.

 

First, there are the limitations in respect to modern mechanical

physics, which I have just pointed out. And second, there are rather

more profound limitations in respect to the traditional sciences,

which are organic in their conception.

 

In modern mechanical physics (including all five levels as described

above), action is conceived mechanically, as proceeding from one

object to another. In this mechanical approach, both observation and

application are external. They are carried out through instruments

which are externally standardized, as objects in the world outside

our perceiving and thinking and feeling personalities. A subjective

reflection back (into our perceptions, thoughts and feelings) is here

permissible only for the purpose of creating new theories to try out.

The theories must be tested and applied through outside instruments,

which are outwardly specified through industrial and bureaucratic

institutions. Einstein's famous thought experiments were part of the

creation of his theories of relativity. But those theories have had

to be tested and applied through mechanical instruments, which are

standardized by industrial organizations and research laboratories.

That is the external discipline of modern mechanical physics.

 

By contrast, in the old sciences, the approach is essentially

organic. There, action is conceived organically, as arising from a

knowing subject that underlies all changing experiences of objects in

the world. Thus, action is conceived to arise through a living

energy, which expresses an underlying consciousness in all the

purposes and meanings and values that we observe and interpret and

judge through our living perceptions, thoughts and feelings.

 

In that organic approach, both observation and application are

reflective. There, nature manifests itself to us, through our living

faculties that are included in it. Organic theories are thus tested

and applied by living faculties that must be standardized by

reflection back into our personalities. That inner standardization

requires an educating discipline of trained and clarified faculties

through which organic sciences must be applied. Those faculties are

exercised through a practitioner's living energy, as it acts

microcosmically in a reflectively educated co-ordination with the

living macrocosm of a world at large outside.

 

Through that living correspondence of microcosm and macrocosm,

further levels of description and investigation are uncovered, as

will be considered later in this series of posts on

Bhartrihari's 'Vakyapadiya'. And after that, I am planning a series

on 'Science and Advaita', which will further consider different

levels of scientific investigation.

 

For the present, in response to your specific question about how

common principles are understood, let me just say that they have to

be understood at the inner depth of mind, which Bhartrihari

calls 'pashyanti' (as will be explained in the last posting of this

series). There, at the unchanging depth of mind, consciousness stays

present in the background, as the common principle of all experience,

while differing particulars keep changing at the surface of attention.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

PraNams Anandaji.

Thanks for the reply. I was able to retrieve the previous posts in this

series (Thanks Dhanyasaraswatiji, for pointing that out). Interestingly

there has been some discussion related to this subject in Sept 2004 (#24536)

too where you draw some parallels between the stages of vaikhari, madhyama,

pashyanti and shravana, manana, and niddhidhyasana.

Also there is a mention about a 4th stage 'para' and then the impression I

got was that 'para' may be = 'pashyanti'? = the absolute reality.

I would be interested to see if there will be more details on getting from

madhyama to pashyanti. Can it be thought of as an evolutionary process (in

the sense of growing from one stage to another by some methods) or is it

that the pashyanti stage follows naturally from the madhyama? If we think in

terms of speech and meaning, the second option seems more likely, because

irrespective of where one stands in terms of one's understanding of

consciousness, all are able to extract meaning in a general sense despite

the change in particulars. Then what is it that makes this possible....I

would think there is another step before pashyanti?!!! I'll appreciate any

inputs.

 

Regards,

Veena.

 

 

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

> Namaste Shrimati Veena,

>

> Thank you for your message #40375 of Apr 18, asking if this was the

> first of a series of posts. Actually, it was the sixth of a series of

> 11 posts, of which 5 remain to be sent. (The first 5 posts

> were 'Vakyapadiya -Intro', 'Vakyapadiya 1.1', 'Vakyapadiya 1.4,5,8'

> and 'Vakyapadiya 1.9-10'. I will send you these previous posts by a

> private e-mail.)

>

> Concerning cognitive neuroscience, you raise two questions " how does

> the brain process language? " and " how do we form meaning - conceptual

> representations? " As I see it, these questions need to be

> investigated at various different levels.

>

> First of all (as people like Roger Penrose have been pointing out),

> there are a series of mechanical levels in modern physics:

>

> 1. The Newtonian level, which describes a world that is made up from

> pieces of matter.

>

> 2. A quantum level, which describes quantized systems of Newtonian

> activity (like atoms and molecules). These quantized systems are each

> described through a field description that is much subtler and more

> complex than the Newtonian description. And the results of

> measurement through material instruments are predicted statistically,

> as a linear superposition of many probable results. It is thus

> admitted that something more subtle is being measured by grosser

> material instruments, and that the results of measurement are

> correspondingly jerky (hence quantum discontinuity) and uncertain

> (hence quantum indeterminacy).

>

> 3. A special relativistic level, which describes space, time, speed

> and energy as relative observations, made differently by different

> observers whose relative movements are unaccelerated. Through these

> relative observations, the differing measurements of moving observers

> show a common space-time continuum, with invariant principles and

> laws (like the speed of light) which are shared in common.

>

> 4. A quantum field level, which describes quantized fields of force.

> Here objects are conceived to interact through unlimitedly large

> fluctuations of energy which keep on taking place throughout all tiny

> neighbourhoods of the space-time continuum (the tinier the

> neighbourhood the larger the fluctuations that keep on occurring in

> it). The fluctuations are so minutely close and so blindingly rapid

> that our material instruments cannot detect them directly. But they

> have an overall effect that can be detected, as various kinds of

> force that get to be exerted on the objects we observe.

>

> 5. A general relativistic level, which describes observers whose

> relative movements may be accelerated. Here all objects are described

> as paths of events that travel in straight lines through the space-

> time continuum. In these paths of events, the line of travel is

> always quite straight (taking the shortest distance between its

> various points). Thus movement is described as essentially unforced,

> in four-dimensional space-time. But lines that are straight in four

> dimensions may appear to be bent, when they are viewed through a

> changing world of three-dimensional space. Then it appears that

> motion has been forced into changing its speed or its direction. This

> appearance of forced motion is a superficial show. It arises from a

> background continuity that is more fundamental. There, nature is

> connected geometrically, beneath all mechanisms that appear to work

> through interacting force. This is of course a very deep description,

> related closely to the ancient idea of 'akasha' or 'ether'. But so

> far it has been used effectively only for the force of gravity, with

> other forces (like electromagnetism) left as yet unsuccessfully

> described in this way.

>

> Concerning these five levels of modern physics, only the first (the

> Newtonian) level has been effectively used for modern biology and

> neuroscience. The reason is very simple. When quantization and

> relativistic considerations are introduced, they complicate the

> descriptions of modern physics. In particular, the complications of

> quantization are such that they become unmanageable for anything but

> the smallest and simplest of molecules. The complex molecules of

> molecular biology are thus completely indescribable in practice, for

> all but the Newtonian level of modern physics, as things stand at

> present.

>

> So, as Roger Penrose points out, our currently mechanical biology is

> very unsatisfactory, in principle. It can only make use of the

> Newtonian level of physics, which we know is very crude. And yet, we

> are trying to reduce the subtle phenomena of life to this crudely

> material description. Roger Penrose says quite logically that the

> basic principles of physics will need to be described far more

> subtly, in order to describe our nervous and brain functioning. And

> he has made some starting efforts in this direction, but with very

> little practical result.

>

> Please don't misunderstand me to be saying that modern physical

> biology and neuroscience are of no use. Yes indeed, I acknowledge

> that they have their uses, but I would add that this use has

> limitations which need to be clearly understood.

>

> First, there are the limitations in respect to modern mechanical

> physics, which I have just pointed out. And second, there are rather

> more profound limitations in respect to the traditional sciences,

> which are organic in their conception.

>

> In modern mechanical physics (including all five levels as described

> above), action is conceived mechanically, as proceeding from one

> object to another. In this mechanical approach, both observation and

> application are external. They are carried out through instruments

> which are externally standardized, as objects in the world outside

> our perceiving and thinking and feeling personalities. A subjective

> reflection back (into our perceptions, thoughts and feelings) is here

> permissible only for the purpose of creating new theories to try out.

> The theories must be tested and applied through outside instruments,

> which are outwardly specified through industrial and bureaucratic

> institutions. Einstein's famous thought experiments were part of the

> creation of his theories of relativity. But those theories have had

> to be tested and applied through mechanical instruments, which are

> standardized by industrial organizations and research laboratories.

> That is the external discipline of modern mechanical physics.

>

> By contrast, in the old sciences, the approach is essentially

> organic. There, action is conceived organically, as arising from a

> knowing subject that underlies all changing experiences of objects in

> the world. Thus, action is conceived to arise through a living

> energy, which expresses an underlying consciousness in all the

> purposes and meanings and values that we observe and interpret and

> judge through our living perceptions, thoughts and feelings.

>

> In that organic approach, both observation and application are

> reflective. There, nature manifests itself to us, through our living

> faculties that are included in it. Organic theories are thus tested

> and applied by living faculties that must be standardized by

> reflection back into our personalities. That inner standardization

> requires an educating discipline of trained and clarified faculties

> through which organic sciences must be applied. Those faculties are

> exercised through a practitioner's living energy, as it acts

> microcosmically in a reflectively educated co-ordination with the

> living macrocosm of a world at large outside.

>

> Through that living correspondence of microcosm and macrocosm,

> further levels of description and investigation are uncovered, as

> will be considered later in this series of posts on

> Bhartrihari's 'Vakyapadiya'. And after that, I am planning a series

> on 'Science and Advaita', which will further consider different

> levels of scientific investigation.

>

> For the present, in response to your specific question about how

> common principles are understood, let me just say that they have to

> be understood at the inner depth of mind, which Bhartrihari

> calls 'pashyanti' (as will be explained in the last posting of this

> series). There, at the unchanging depth of mind, consciousness stays

> present in the background, as the common principle of all experience,

> while differing particulars keep changing at the surface of attention.

>

> Ananda

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Sarvam ShreeKrishnaayaSamarpayami.

Om Namo Narayanaya...!!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shrimati Veena,

 

In your message #40396 of Apr 21, you ask about Bhartrihari's three

levels of vaikhari, madhyama and pashyanti.

 

First, you ask if there are " more details on getting from madhyama to

pashyanti " . Yes, there are. This addition of detail is achieved by

analysing a little further, from Bhartrihari's threefold distinction

to a slightly more complex fourfold distinction which is developed in

later Shaivite theology.

 

Bhartrihari's three fold division is philosophically stark and simple:

 

1. Vaikhari (which means " elaborated " ) refers to the level of *body*

and its various different objects. This body and its objects are

perceived to co-exist, in elaborated structures that make up a world

of structured space.

 

2. Madhyama (which means " mediating " ) represents the level of *mind*

and its succession of conceiving states. These states of mind don't

co-exist. Instead, they replace each other in the course of a mental

process that occurs in passing time. This mental process is a stream

of flow that mediates both horizontally and vertically. Its

horizontal mediation occurs along the stream of changing flow,

between earlier and later states of mind. Its vertical mediation

rises up, from underlying consciousness into the co-existing objects

that are observed through body to make up a structured world.

 

3. Pashyanti (which means " seeing " ) refers to the level of

*consciousness* that carries on through the changing states of mental

process and through the differentiated objects of body's structured

world. That level is a finally subjective ground from where arise all

changing states of conceiving mind and all differentiated objects of

perceiving body. No difference of any objects nor any change of state

applies to that plain ground of consciousness. It is just that which

plain and simply knows itself, as its unchanged identity. Returning

there, all different and changing appearances dissolve entirely, in a

non-dual reality where known and knower are at one.

 

This threefold distinction -- of body, mind and consciousness -- is

fine for reflecting back from differentiated body, through changing

mind, into non-dual consciousness. Thus Bhartrihari uses it for his

study of language, to show that all meaningful experience is

ultimately based on a non-dual reality. But if we want to improve our

pictures of the world, a purely reflective approach is not enough. A

purely reflective analysis must lead to consciousness itself, where

all pictures have dissolved.

 

In order to construct some better picture of the world, we have to

assume that a slightly degrading complication has been subtly

superimposed upon the uncomplicated reality of non-dual

consciousness, so as to explain how some mentally or sensually or

bodily pictured appearances of world can rise from an unpictured

consciousness.

 

Such an assumption of slightly degrading complication is made in the

concept of the " witness " (also called " sakshi " in Sanskrit, or " nous "

in ancient Greek philosophy). In this concept, knowing is an

actionless and unaffected illumination at the depth of insight,

beneath all changing appearances that are produced by bodily and

sensual and mental activities of perception, thought and feeling.

Here, it is conceived that a disinterested witness stays completely

unchanged, while its knowing light illuminates all changing

appearances, in a differentiated show that nature is inspired to

perform for it.

 

That witness is conceived to stay silently and unaffectedly knowing,

beneath all noisy and distracting objects which clamour for attention

at the mind's apparent surface. The knowing of the witness is thus

objectless. As objects appear, their appearances are illuminated by

that witness; but it illuminates their show quite objectlessly,

completely uninvolved with any action towards objects.

 

The witness is thus a purely subjective knowing at the unchanging

depth of mind, from which many different appearances of objects

become illuminated at the changing surface of limited attention. As

particular appearances of objects come and go at the surface of

attention, it's at the underlying depth of mind that generic

principles are known, as shared in common by particular appearances.

A generic knowing, of common principles, is thus enabled silently. It

is enabled by the quiet knowing of the witness, at an underlying

background of understanding.

 

But, in this conception of the " witness " , consciousness is still

approached a little indirectly. Here, consciousness is not known

quite directly from within, for what it is just as it knows itself,

in its own true identity. Instead, it is approached through the

outward face that it presents, through our mental and sensual and

bodily actions towards objects in the world.

 

As consciousness is approached through the conception of the witness,

our knowing has to be detached progressively: by standing deeper back

into underlying consciousness, beneath our personal perceptions,

thoughts and feelings. As the detachment progresses, our

personalities get better taken into what is known, and our knowing

gets accordingly clearer and more impersonal. Thus we progress

reflectively back, towards the true clarity of an impersonal

witnessing.

 

So long as that true clarity is not completely attained, the concept

of the witness remains to that extent its degrading complication of

true consciousness. So it may be described as a slightly degraded

level, which has to be traversed on the way to a final knowing in

identity.

 

It's thus that Bhartrihari's three levels may be complicated a little

into a fourfold distinction of three levels and an underlying ground.

In the threefold distinction, vaikhari-madhyama-pashyanti may be

taken as referring to body-mind-consciousness. In the fourfold

distinction, vaikhari-madhyama-pashyanti-para may be taken as

referring to body-mind-witness-nonduality.

 

Both distinctions have their uses, but they shouldn't be mixed up. In

particular, it needs to be born in mind that the term " pashyanti " is

differently used in these two distinctions of levels. In the

threefold distinction, pashyanti is the ultimate (including both the

witness and the final knowing in identity). In thee fourfold

distinction, pashyanti is degraded to the witness and the term " para "

is used to describe a non-dual knowing in identity.

 

Later on in your posting, you raise the question of whether these

levels can be regarded as stages of progress. Yes, indeed they can.

I'm personally inclined to think of them as stages in an inward

journey. So long as a genuinely reflective questioning continues, the

progress from one stage to the next is natural.

 

For example, if one questions how vaikhari or elaborated structure is

experienced, this leads naturally to a consideration that structural

parts which co-exist in space must be observed and interpreted

through madhyama, as a mental process of succeeding states in which

the parts appear and are related together. Next, if one questions how

succeeding states of mind are experienced, this leads naturally to

the consideration of a witnessing consciousness (pashyanti) that

stays present through the change of states. And finally, if one's

questions ask closer and closer back to that witnessing

consciousness, the very questioning leads deeper and deeper down into

the changeless depth of consciousness, until that depth is actually

reached. Then reaching there, no change or difference can remain, and

there is nothing other than consciousness itself to be witnessed. The

witness concept thus dissolves of its own accord into non-duality

(para).

 

About Bhartrihari's three-fold distinction, it corresponds in a way

to the threefold distinction of the gunas and to the three states of

waking, dream and deep sleep.

 

About the fourfold distinction which was used after Bhartrihari in

Shaivaite theologies, it corresponds to the four padas or states of

the Mandukya Upanishad (waking state, dream state, deep sleep state

and the 'fourth' which is no changing state at all).

 

About more detailed and complicated analyses, I would point out that

the panci-karana or five-element distinction is an elaboration of the

tri-guna distinction (with " tamas " corresponding to " earth " ; " rajas "

divided into " water " , " fire " and " air " ; and " sattva " corresponding

to " ether " ).

 

There is of course no end to such elaborations, except that they tend

to weaken as they get more complicated. The complication makes them

more suitable for extensive descriptions of a messily differentiated

world and less suitable for an intensive questioning back to non-dual

reality.

 

Ananda