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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji,
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.

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

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 6:32 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <
advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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:* advaitin at googlegroups.com <advaitin at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Michael Chandra Cohen
> *Sent:* Friday, March 21, 2025 3:20 PM
> *To:* advaitin at googlegroups.com
> *Cc:* A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at 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.
> If this email looks suspicious, *report it* by clicking 'Report Phishing'
> button in Outlook.
> See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.
>
> *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>
> .
>
> --
> 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/CAAz9PvHGpQk8%2Bu3dUdeuFRDXg280dvFjdXTrB3XHUm7Owv1QFQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvHGpQk8%2Bu3dUdeuFRDXg280dvFjdXTrB3XHUm7Owv1QFQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> 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/AM7PR06MB66256C93E8A12488DC4F084184DB2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66256C93E8A12488DC4F084184DB2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>