Fwd: Who is the knower ?

[Guest guest]

Harsha wrote:

 

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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

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.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

, " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

 

" 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

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

 

advaitin , " Felipe " <fcrema@> wrote:

>

>

>

> Closing this body-mind witnessed thoughts (:-), the witness could

> never be another idea of the mind, if the path to trace-back the

> origin of thoughts to truth is to be coherent.

>

> My warmest regards...

>

Namaste,Felipe-ji imho,

 

'The Sakshin Witness' or Non-Doer is really the Saguna Brahman, in

whichever form one wants to describe it from Sakti to Siva to Self.

In the end result even this concept is unreal for the creation

itself

is unreal and never happened............ONS...Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---