[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Atman and Witness - transcending

[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




On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> I don't know whether vArtika is also held by you as
> bhAshya-viruddha-vyAkhyAna. If not, then please explain the meaning of this
> vArtika.
>
>
>  //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//
>
> Sir, you are contradicting BUBV 1.4.372 and innumerable other vArtika
> which hold sAkshI as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya.
>
> The swarUpa of sAkshI is obviously shuddha chaitanya. There is no
> discussion on that. However, sAkshi-tva is avidyA-krita. That is the
> Advaita siddhAnta.
>
>
> //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. //
>
> No one is claiming several sAkshI. avidyA is one chaitanya is one, so
> avidyA-upahita-chaitanya.
>
>
> //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.//
>
> Please define shushka tarka.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe at 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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBaa1v_iCny6Aar6B1bg5Q8Y8%3D%3DNC%2B1St8hn4qZ7%3D1EfA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>