[Advaita-l] A Perspective - 7

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 24 04:48:00 CST 2009

Dear Anbuji,

I am asking too many questions. I hope you will not mind. I perfectly agree with you statement regarding the Dvaita and Advaita, when you said as follows:

////  Dwaithis hold that the Jeeva and Easwara will remain separate for ever.  In Visishtaadvaitha, these two though separate, can blend in harmoniously. Though there are thaaraathmya or heirarchy among Gods the jeeva can seek to get promoted to those ranks by dint of sat karma. ////

Does this not show that the Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins have a trace of ego in not giving up the separateness from the Brahman? It may mean that they do not intend to leave the last Kosha (the Anandamaya kosha). Any comment?



--- On Tue, 11/24/09, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A Perspective - 7
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 2:00 AM

"Now let us discuss some problems or pratibandhakas that inhibit the correct
understanding of the mahaavaakya. Mind always has a tendency to project or
objectify any knowledge, since it works in the field of tripuTi alone. tat
vijijnaasaswa – one has to inquire into the nature of reality, says the
Upanishad. The inquiry can only be done with the mind.  That is, I, with the
mind is the enquirer, since mind by itself cannot do any inquiry without the
support of a conscious entity. Hence, I say I am conscious of the inquiry
too. That is what pramaata means involving the tripuTi-s. Hence even in the
self-inquiry, the mind habitually has a tendency to project or objectify
what that ‘I am’ is, while the scripture is trying to guide the inquiry by
saying that you are not this – na iti– na iti – not this – not this.  Mind
is used to objectify and the scripture says it is the subject that is
involved in all objectifications.  In the very habitual objectification, I
miss the subject, the conscious entity, or to state exactly I do not pay
attention to the subject. This is the major problem for many spiritual

Yes indeed the inquiry can only be done with the mind, specifically by its

The idea that 'I am this body that is different from other bodies'
constitutes the awareness of "i" as opposed to the non-i where both "i" and
non-i are known as bodies.  In this idea the "i" is the witness of both.
There is definitely a discord between the "i" and the non-i.  This is
jeevathwam (pasu).  In the idea 'I am all the bodies' the awareness does
exist of all bodies but they are all identified with "i".  Here too the "i"
is the witness of both of bodies and the sense of "i" that is not specific
to any one single body.  However the discord is absent.  This is
Easwarathwam (pathi). It is likened to the many parts of human body
functioning in concord.

Dwaithis hold that the Jeeva and Easwara will remain separate for ever.  In
Visishtaadvaitha, these two though separate, can blend in harmoniously.
Though there are thaaraathmya or heirarchy among Gods the jeeva can seek to
get promoted to those ranks by dint of sat karma.

The idea of witness has to be gleaned from the above.

*However, for advaitins a witness, whatever is his nature, is part of the
guNa-karma or the 'big mind' that I talked about before.  Such witness is
entangled.  The Self-realization takes place only when this karma is totally
denied of its existence through self-inquiry.** In this inquiry a person
travels from 'karmaNye vaa adhikaarasthE..' to 'na karmaNa na prajaya na
dhanaa thyaagEnaikE amrithathvamaanasuhu'.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> (continued from the previous posting)
> Now let us try to understand the 'mind' in two ways viz.
> (i) the 'big mind' which comprises of (a) the 'small mind', (b) the
> intellect, (c) "i" the ahamkara and (d) the chittha the memory and
> (ii) the 'small mind' that presents the world of objects to the "i" the
> ahamkara.  The world of objects is indeed body galore!
> The intellect is present only during the waking state and its function is
> to straighten out the world of objects presented by the 'small mind' in time
> and space in a neatly fashioned way.  This is its role of determination. The
> "i" is the one to which the world of objects is presented to and this "i"
> 'experiences' the world of objects.  The chittha records these experiences
> of the "i" constantly.  Thus in waking state all the four parts of the 'big
> mind' are present.
> The intellect is absent during dream time but the 'small mind' that
> presents the world of objects to the "i" is present.  Because of the absence
> of the intellect during dream time the world of objects are convoluted and
> this confounds the "i".  This confusion is recorded by the chittha.  Thus in
> the dream state only the three parts of the 'big mind' viz. the 'small
> mind', the "i" and the Chittha are present.
> In deep sleep state both the intellect and the 'small mind' are absent.
> That leaves only the two entitites viz. the "i" and the chittha to be
> present.
> *The "i" knows itself by identifying itself with a body presented to it by
> the 'small mind'.  This is its self-awareness.* In deep sleep the mind is
> absent and so there is no body presented to be identified with.    Thus,
> even though "i" is present during deep sleep its self-awareness is not
> there.  "Both the world and "i" are not there" is its experience! Such
> experience is recorded by the chittha.
> *But this chittha also records the 'Ananda' experienced by the "i"!*
> This 'Ananda' was not apprehended by the "i" because of lack of
> self-awareness.  The Vedas bring it the attention of "i" of the existence of
> this 'Ananda'.
> In summation, the "i" is a saakshi for it is present in all the three
> states.  Because of its self-awareness is linked to a body that it
> identifies itself as "i" it considers itself as kartha and bhoktha in waking
> and dream states and non-existent during deep sleep.  However being part of
> the 'big mind'it is part of the world of karma and thus it is inert.  Karma
> kim param?  Karma thajjadam exclaims Bhagavan Ramana.  Jadam indeed has no
> self-awareness.
> Yet the awareness was ever present despite the jadam nature of the "i".
> That indeed was revealed by the experience of 'Ananda'.  This is first
> postulated as the True Saakshi (as in the Geetha verse quoted), however when
> the false 'big mind' is rejected by the self-inquiry the survivor is known
> as the "I" the True Saakshi that has nothing to witness! Yes, the True
> Saakshi is beyond anubhava!  It is pure Ananda.
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Quote: "The one who was awake even in the deep-sleep state cannot be
>> called as pramaata, since the status of pramaata comes with tripuTi with
>> prameyam and pramANa present. In the deep-sleep state, I am pure saakshii,
>> the witnessing consciousness, witnessing ‘nothing or no-thing’.  In fact
>> Vedanta says I, as witnessing consciousness, am present all the time, in the
>> waking, dream and deep-sleep states. ‘tvam’ in the ‘tat tvam asi’ refers to
>> that pure witnessing consciousness.  All the states of experience come and
>> go; I am ever present and ever awake as saakshii. Krishna says that saakshii
>> is the universal consciousness, the ever present, knower of all fields,
>> KshetrajnaH; Kshetrajnam ca api maam viddhi sarva kshetreShu bhaarata; and
>> that forms the mahaavaakya."
>> The "i" who, in deep sleep, experienced nothing (of the world of
>> multiplicity) did experience the Ananda of the Self for that was the only
>> thing that kept his company and so he recalls this experience when awake in
>> the words "I slept happily".  That was his pure positive bhogam.   While
>> dreaming and while awake he experiences the bhogam in the form of misram,
>> that is both positively and negatively.  While awake he claims that he is a
>> karmi for the mere fault of being pressured into doing karma which is always
>> painful while in other two states he is merely a bhogi.  This 'experiencing'
>> is suggested as being a witness.  This is vaachyaartham.  In vaachyaartham
>> 'i'-who claims to be kartha and bhoktha- is part of the mind which in the
>> ultimate analysis is found to be false.  Therefore the 'i' of the
>> vaachyaartham is false.
>> The Kshethragnya is the Self that keeps his company in all three states
>> and the suggestion is that He is the true Witness.
>> The jeeva in ordinary course would not know of the Kshethragnya and that
>> would make him conclude that he is merely a kartha and a bhoktha
>> alternatively, who is born and dead either for one time or to repeat in
>> endless cycles.  It is to the credit of Prasthaanathrayam that brings to his
>> attention of the existence of the Kshethragnya that sends him into the fresh
>> enquiry on the relation between him and the Kshethragnya.
>> Addvaitins contend that the Jeeva is the Kshethragnya in lakshyaartham and
>> if indeed he achieves his lakshya by the Grace of his Guru he is sure to
>> find that there was never a kshethra in the first place!
>> The suggestion is: Know the true Witness (the 'one who was awake even in
>> deep-sleep' as Sadanandaji put it) and that true Witness is none other than
>> you!
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list