Atman and Witness - transcending
aham brahmaasmi
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Dhanjibhai Prajapati
On Mar 20, 2025, at 10:21 AM, aham brahmaasmi <ahambrah...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CADKAaHtsSoCukATkDeF_nofsQMBfDPjGnOGxqF-cciT3eL6-Cw%40mail.gmail.com.
Aurobind Padiyath
--
Bhaskar YR
So, sAkshi-tva is not and cannot be the swarUpa of Atman as it is avidyA-krita.
So, the ultimate truth which the Atman is, has to be transcendental to the sAkshI (unattached witness).
SAkshI is defined as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya whereas Atman is chaitanya.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
All the above three statements as usual go against bhAshyavachana and holding ‘some’ vyAkhyAna as authority for this. As per bhAshyakAra and shruti, ‘sAkshi’ is upanishanmAtra vedya, he is Chaitanya and ekaH as per shruti (sAkshi chetaH, kevalO nirguNascha), sAkshi is NOT avidyA upahita Chaitanya he is kevala Chaitanya and sAkshi is its svarUpa, ahaM pratyayavishaya kartru vyaterekeNa tatsAkshee, sarva bhUtasthaH, samaH, ekaH, kOtastha nityaH, this asaMsAri Atma is aupanishad purusha. He is not different in different pramAtru-s to declare sAkshi is avidyAkruta or aneka. And more importantly sAkshi svarUpa cannot be deduced by mere shushka tarka or through some pramANa or giving some mundane examples because of the simple fact he is the witness to even these mental jugglery. He is sAkshi, svayaM siddha whether there is anything to be witnessed or not. And this sAkshi is manasOpi manaH clarifies bhAshyakAra elsewhere.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Bhaskar YR
Witness is there only when witnessing happening. Atman being beyond time, space and objects is Self luminous, which illumines when they are present but remains Self-illuminating when there is only Itself.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Yes, witness is witness whether witnessing is happening or not. He was / is / will always be ‘unattached witness’ not unattached to witness (sAkshi). Like whether brahman is doing the creation, sustenation etc. or not, the sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva etc. will always be there in its svarUpa. If this sAkshi is kevala avidyAkruta shruti would have not said it is ‘kUtastha nityaH’. And this kUtastha nitya sAkshi and his vision both are nitya there is no lOpa for this bruhadAraNyaka clarifies this. And in this sAkshi pramAtrutva is kevala adhyastha.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
|
BHASKAR YR |
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Aurobind Padiyath
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 10:31 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Atman and Witness - transcending
|
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP%3DXLmZnzVnU4roQm6nqfkih2E2Kt6veoU73YxXeapH%2BoH%2BUSw%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Michael Chandra Cohen
Quotes teaching that Jnana has no body and sees no world, nor can there be A jnani
Naiskarmaya Siddha 3.62
moha-tat-karyasrayatvaj jhatrtva-vikriyayoh
purvatredam-mama-jhanan vayah pradarsitah .
athadhuna tad-vyatirekena vyatirekapradarsanarthamaha.
It has been said above that Witnesshood and empirical knowership, associated with knowledge as “this” and knowledge as “mine”, accrue to the Self (not really but) through ignorance and its effects alone. We now complete the argument negatively by showing that in the absence of ignorance neither of these two kinds of knowledge arises. (Sambandhokti)
vikriyd-jndna-sunyatvan nedam na ca mamatmanah utthitasya sato 'jhanam naham ajhasisam yatah
[62] In itself the Self is free from ignorance and modification, and hence feels neither “this” nor “mine”. For it is only the one who has woken up from sleep (i.e. the empirical knower) who experiences ignorance and feels “I did not know (anything then)”. 21
"But how is it that when the organs have been merged, and the body also has dissolved in its cause, the liberated sage lives in the body identified with all, but does not revert to his former embodied existence, which is subject to transmigration?
...Just as in the world the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off by it as no more being a part of itself, and lies in the anthill, or any other nest of a snake, so does this body, discarded as non-self by the liberated man, who corresponds to the snake, lie like dead. Then the other, the 'liberated man identified with all-who corresponds to the snake-although he resides just there like the snake, becomes disembodied, and is no more connected with the body. Because formerly he was embodied and mortal on account of his identification with the body under the influence of his desires and past work; since that has gone, he is now disembodied, and therefore immortal. Brbh4.4.7"
The
criticism is also unfounded that no one will be left over to practise the
Vedantic path and that direct perception etc. will be outraged. For the
transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like
perception are confined within that state only, because texts as this,
"But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then
what should one see and through what?" (Br. II. iv. 14), point out the
absence of perception etc. in the state of enlightenment.
Opponent: In the
absence of perception etc. the Vedas also will cease to exist.
Vedantin: That is no defect, since that position is admitted by us. For
according to the texts starting with, "In this state the father is no
father" and ending with "The Vedas are no Vedas" (Br. IV. iii.
22), we do admit the absence of the Vedas themselves in the state of
enlightenment.
Opponent: Who is it then that has this unenlightenment?
Vedantin: We say that it is you yourself who ask thus.
Opponent: Is it not stated by the Upanisad that
I am God?
Vedantin: If that
is so, you are already an enlightened man, and so nobody has unenlightenment.
Hereby is also refuted the criticism of some people who say that the Self
becomes associated with a second entity owing to the very presence of nescience,
so that non-dualism becomes untenable.1 Hence one should fix one's mind on the
Self which is God. BSbh4.1.3
"For when unity is achieved, it is but reasonable that all ideas of duality, involving action, accessories, etc .. should be eradicated, because (the absolute) Brahman is neither acceptable nor rejectable. Not that the perception of duality can crop up again (from past impressions) even after being (wholly) uprooted by the realization of non-duality. //...Nor is the validity of the Upani~ds to be established by inference" BSbh1.1.4
Doubt: Does the merger of the constituents of the body of the man of realization occur wholly as in the case of others, or is some part left out?
Opponent: Since that is a resorption like any other resorption, their potentiality must remain intact.
Vedantin: To this the aphorist says,
16. (Absolute) non-distinction (with Brahman comes about) on the authority of the scriptural declaration. It is a total unification to be sure.
Why so?
"On the authority of the scriptural declaration". Thus it is says, "When their names and forms are destroyed and they are simply called Purusha. Such a man of realization is without the constituents and is immortal" (Pr. VI. 5).
Besides, the constituents that spring from ignorance can have no remnant after their resorption through knowledge. Accordingly, they must become absolutely unified (with Brahman). BSbh4.1.15-6
By the term non-attachment the aphorist implies that the knower of Brahman has no idea of agentship whatsoever with regard to the actions occurring in future. Although the man of knowledge appeared to have some ownership of the past works on account of false ignorance, still owing to the cessation of false ignorance through the power of knowledge, those works also are washed away. This fact is stated by the term destruction.
The knower of Brahman has this realization: "As opposed to the entity known before as possessed of agentship and experiencership by its very nature, I am Brahman which is by nature devoid of agentship and experiencership in all the three periods of time. Even earlier I was never an agent and experiencer, nor am I so at present, nor shall I be so in future." From such a point of view alone can liberation be justified.BSbh4.1.13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBaa1v_iCny6Aar6B1bg5Q8Y8%3D%3DNC%2B1St8hn4qZ7%3D1EfA%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna
More discussion about Atman’s / jnAni’s svAbhAvika unembodiedness can be found in samanvayAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya (1-1-4) here pUrvapaxi asks : ashareeratvaM can come only after the 1falling off of the body and not to one who is still living in his physical body, is it not?? For this siddhAnti clarifies : No, sashareeratvaM is due to avidyA. It is mere false notion hence it is to be concluded that ashareeratvam (bodilessness) is the very nature of a wise one even while living.
Like this somany clarifications have been done and dusted when we were having the discussion with regard to jnAni’s individual BMI. However bhAshyakAra himself somewhere hints about continuation about jnAni’s individual BMI, like in geeta bhAshya, sUtra bhAshya : even after samyakjnAna jnAni would definitely continue to act through his own senses etc.MVV hold this as very potential source to prove avidyAlesha 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
|
BHASKAR YR |
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Michael Chandra Cohen
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 3:20 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Atman and Witness - transcending
|
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
Quotes teaching that Jnana has no body and sees no world, nor can there be A jnani
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHGpQk8%2Bu3dUdeuFRDXg280dvFjdXTrB3XHUm7Owv1QFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael Chandra Cohen
Some words on this topic from The Heart of Sri Samkara, HH SSSS:
If those liberated in life are still in any of the three states, such as waking, they do not have the right to claim that they ha\'e perceived the evil of worldly life themselves, let alone having the right to teach it to others.HOSS p16
19. Nor can it be established by experience of 'the Fourth', Perhaps you will say C Let us assume that the enlightened ones have direct experience of the unreality of the world in a state other than sleep and called "the Fourth". And they give us their metaphysical teaching in the waking state. What is wrong with that?' The fault lies in the fact that it is only in the course of actually having experience of the waking state that they declare it to be unreal. Investigators are not expounding an impeccable means of knowledge when they contradict their own experience. HOSS p17
But this view will not stand examination either. For
Ignorance and metaphysical knowledge cannot co-inhere in the same place (i.e.
in the same person). Contradictories like darkness and light cannot co-exist in the same place. And SureSvara has said,
'Only a fool would claim that Ignorance and knowledge could inhere in the same
seat (the same individual consciousness), and that ignorance of a thing could
remain on, uncancelled, after the thing had been rightly known' (B.B.V. 2.4.209,
cpo B.B.V.S. 2.4.59). HOSS p18
Where there is so much as a faint light, no one can detect darkness even after washing their eyes out. So how can one bring up the idea that light and darkness could exist? HOSS p18
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66256C93E8A12488DC4F084184DB2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
Reg // The statement was by Anandagiri Swami in Brihadaaranyak BhAshya VArtika 1.4.372, which reads as under:
अज्ञानमात्रोपाधित्वादविद्यामुषितात्मभिः ।। कौटस्थ्यान्निर्द्वयोऽप्यात्मा साक्षीत्यध्यस्यते जडैः ।। ३७२ ।।
The vArtika clearly says that ajnAna-upahita-chaitanya is superimposed as sAkshI by jaDa //,
My understanding is as follows.
Please read together with the preceding verse in he vArtika
// अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् ।।
अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुत्यते ।। ३७१ ।। //.
// asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam ||
aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamutyate || 371 || //.
The way Brahman is stated to be the kAraNa for jagat, the same way it is also stated to be sAkshi. Hence ajnAna-vishishta-chaitanya (and not upahita chaitanya) is to be understood as sAkshi.
The verse 372 says that the PratyagAtman (Chaitanya ) though is kUtastha and nirvikAra, but being in association with ajnAna (ajnAna-vishishta-chaitanya ) is conceived by the jaDa, which is unable to cognize its own AtmasvarUpa due to avidyA , as sAkshi due to adhyAsa.
You may like to consider.
Regards
--
V Subrahmanian
Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.//All the above three statements as usual go against bhAshyavachana and holding ‘some’ vyAkhyAna as authority for this.//The statement was by Anandagiri Swami in Brihadaaranyak BhAshya VArtika 1.4.372, which reads as under:अज्ञानमात्रोपाधित्वादविद्यामुषितात्मभिः ।। कौटस्थ्यान्निर्द्वयोऽप्यात्मा साक्षीत्यध्यस्यते जडैः ।। ३७२ ।।The vArtika clearly says that ajnAna-upahita-chaitanya is superimposed as sAkshI by jaDa.
ब्रह्मैवेति तु शब्देन तद्विशेषणमुच्यते || ५२३ ||
न वस्तु स्पृशतस्तस्मात्प्रमाणोत्थप्रबोधतः || ८५२ ||
V Subrahmanian
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I would like to add that in the 13 chapter of the Geeta Bhagwan says that the witness of the body is kshetratrajna.
Immediately He says that that witness in every body is Me that is bramhan.
Aurobind Padiyath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCfH8HY53dQZmASGasX0kNagX03vRMLxfjz_qQRS6gYCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
Namaste Subbu jiI would like to add that in the 13 chapter of the Geeta Bhagwan says that the witness of the body is kshetratrajna.I think when Bhagvan says this, He means jIva and not witness. So, He has kartA, bhOkta, jIva as the meaning of kshetrajna-1.
Immediately He says that that witness in every body is Me that is bramhan.So, it is like tat tvam asi. Tat is kshetrajna-2 (Ishwara/sAkshI) and kshetrajna-1 is jIva.Regards.Sudhanshu Shekhar.
--
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I think it is BSbh 4.1.15 where prarabdha and jnana are related. The interpretation there has to be from vyavaharika perspective not from paramartika drsti. It describes videha mukti not sadyomukti.
- Yes, actually I was talking about bruhad bhAshya (1-4-7) shareerArambhakasya karmaNO niyataphalatvAt “”samyakjnAnaprAptAvapi avashyaMbhAvinee pravrutti vAngmanaH kAyAnaam, labdhavrutteH karmaNO baleeyastvAtmuktEshvAdipravruttivat. This statement is meant for ajnAni-s who still seeing the jnAni as dehavAn, but jnAni has the realization that he is Atman and ashareeratvaM is svAbhAvikaM for HIM. vidvAn sa ehaiva brahma yadyapi ‘’dehavAniva lakshyate’ sa brahmaiva san brahmApyeti says bru. bhAshya. But mUlAvidyAvAdins here taken this statement to prove that jnAni is having the individual BMI and it is not just in the view of onlookers but it is his avidyA lesha or prArabdha karma.
Some words on this topic from The Heart of Sri Samkara, HH SSSS:
If those liberated in life are still in any of the three states, such as waking, they do not have the right to claim that they ha\'e perceived the evil of worldly life themselves, let alone having the right to teach it to others.HOSS p16
19. Nor can it be established by experience of 'the Fourth', Perhaps you will say C Let us assume that the enlightened ones have direct experience of the unreality of the world in a state other than sleep and called "the Fourth". And they give us their metaphysical teaching in the waking state. What is wrong with that?' The fault lies in the fact that it is only in the course of actually having experience of the waking state that they declare it to be unreal. Investigators are not expounding an impeccable means of knowledge when they contradict their own experience. HOSS p17
But this view will not stand examination either. For Ignorance and metaphysical knowledge cannot co-inhere in the same place (i.e. in the same person). Contradictories like darkness and light cannot co-exist in the same place. And SureSvara has said, 'Only a fool would claim that Ignorance and knowledge could inhere in the same seat (the same individual consciousness), and that ignorance of a thing could remain on, uncancelled, after the thing had been rightly known' (B.B.V. 2.4.209, cpo B.B.V.S. 2.4.59). HOSS p18
- One more categorical statement from bhAshyakAra with regard to this in Itareya bhAshya introduction : vidyAm chAvidyAM yastadvedObhayaM saha, eti na vidyAvatO vidyayA saha avidyApi vartate ityamarthaH, kastarhi?? Ekasmin purusha ete ekavaiva na saha sambadhyeyAtAm ityarthaha, yathA shuktikAyAM rajatashukti jnAne ekasya purushasya…..tasmAnna vidyAyAM satyAM avidyAsaMbhavOsti. No one would say this is pearl as well as nacre after realizing the true nature of nacre. No one would say : I know it is rope but the tail of the snake is still bothering me to prove that he has ‘avidyA lesha’ 😊
Where there is so much as a faint light, no one can detect darkness even after washing their eyes out. So how can one bring up the idea that light and darkness could exist? HOSS p18
Ø But as per later vyAkhyAnakAra-s, darkness is not mere prakAsha abhAva, it is a solid thing/Dravya padArtha, if you bring the light to see the darkness, it will run out to somewhere else to give the room to light 😊