Showing posts with label Light on the internal self. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Light on the internal self. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

(Oct 29,2013) Spiritual Message for the Day – The Individual Nature by Swami Krishnananda

The Individual Nature
Divine Life Society Publication: Chapter 8 Light on the Internal Self- The Philosophy of the Panchadasi

In luminosity the Chidabhasa resembles the Atman, and it is for this reason that the Jivas mistake themselves for reality and mistake the objects of the world also for similar realities. The difference, however, is that the Atman is never attached, because it is universal, while the Chidabhasa is not. The Atman never undergoes transformation, because it is absolute, while the Chidabhasa does. The former is different from the latter because of its material nature and is distinguished from the latter which has the characteristic of luminosity.

In the Aitareya Upanishad, it is stated that it is the Atman that enters into the various individuals and gives them the character of a Jiva. The Jiva, thus has a twofold nature, that which limits, namely, the Antahkarana, and that which shines, namely, the Atman. The Upanishad says that the Atman enters into the variety of creation and the latter become the Jivas, on account of their partaking of the Consciousness and Existence aspects of the Atman. Hence, the formation of the Buddhi and the Antahkarana is a subsequent act in creation, not originally connected with the Atman. But how the Absolute, All pervading One manages it is wonderful, indeed. This wonder is similar to the wonder of the whole of creation. Creation, being relative to the Jivas, cannot be regarded as an ultimate truth, and the entry of Brahman into the Jivas, being a part of the process of creation, remains, then, a mystery.

Sage Yajnavalkya mentions, as we have it in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, that the Jiva rises by being connected with the various limiting agents, such as the elements, body, mind, etc., and ceases to be when these limiting agents cease to be. The sage says that there is no consciousness after the destruction of individuality, meaning thereby that there cannot be externalized consciousness in the state of salvation of the soul in Brahman, where there is no duality in order that one may perceive another. The Atman is declared as indestructible and is equated with the Kutastha-Atman. While the Atman is supposed to operate in the Jiva by an apparent contact with the elements, the Jivahood is destroyed in Moksha, or final liberation, but not the essence of the Jiva, which is the Atman. It is the Jiva that undergoes transmigration in different worlds; the Atman is unaffected.

How does one know that one is Brahman when Jivahood is destroyed? It is quite obvious, because, knowledge is not the prerogative of the Jiva, and as a matter of fact, it is only a semblance of knowledge. It shines, in fact, in borrowed feathers, and has no consciousness of its own. The identity of the Jiva with Brahman is established by a method known as Samana-Adhikaranya, which means the identity of one thing with another that can be known only when the obstructing characters of the things identified are removed. In the present case it means the union of the Jiva with Brahman, not literally in its present form, but essentially after the Jiva is divested of its limiting features such as the three bodies; but the identity of the Kutasha-Atman with Brahman is direct and primary, and, hence, it is called Mukhya-Samanadhikaranya, or primary identity, like the identity of space within a vessel with the all-pervading space. Just as one may mistake in the dusk a standing post for a human being, but after going near it and carefully observing it one generally knows that it is a post alone and not a man, so, in the darkness of our ignorance we have mistaken Brahman for the Jiva, but by a careful investigation into the subject, and observing the situation correctly, we will realize that the Jiva is only an appearance and it is really Brahman, after all. When this realization takes place, there is an immediate destruction of the false notion of doership, enjoyership, etc., which are attributed to the Jiva. The identity of the world with Brahman, or of the Jiva with the Kutastha-Atman, is to be understood in the sense of the Badhasamanadhikaranya, or sublative identity, mentioned above. When the names and forms are separated from the essence, the essence is known to be Brahman.

There is the question of the identity of the Jiva with Brahman by negating certain attributes, only if we regard the Jiva from the point of view of its essence, as Consciousness. If we define Jiva as a limited individual with a reflected consciousness, etc., then naturally, in that state, it cannot be identified with Brahman, and to effect identification there should be the abandoning of its limiting characters. If it is regarded as Consciousness in its innermost being, then there is this direct identity of substratum. When the Jiva is investigated into and its true nature is researched, then it will be known that it is the same as what we call Kutastha, and in this condition it is immediately one with Brahman.

Kutastha and Brahman mean one and the same thing. That is called Kutastha which is Consciousness acting as the substratum of the appearance of the Jiva with the appendages as body, mind, senses etc. Brahman is the same Consciousness existing as the substratum of the whole cosmos. When the entire cosmos is something super-imposed on Brahman, what to speak of this Chidabhasa, which is only a part of creation? We make a distinction between Isvara (God) and Jiva (individual) by introducing a difference between the whole and the part, namely, the universe and the body. The one Brahman in relation to the universe is called Isvara, and it alone in relation to the body is called Jiva. The substance is one, Consciousness is one, appearances are two. Jivahood, therefore, is ultimately to be sublated, it being an appearance, because it is a false constitution made up of the erroneous notions of doership, enjoyership, etc., and belongs to the world and the semblance of consciousness borrowed from the Atman.

Excerpts from:
Chapter 8 The Individual Nature - The Philosophy of the Panchadasi by Swami Krishnananda

If you would like to purchase the print edition, visit:
http://www.dlshq.org/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?

If you would like to contribute to the dissemination of spiritual knowledge please contact the General Secretary at:

Friday, October 25, 2013

(Oct 25,2013) Spiritual Message for the Day – The Nature of Perception by Swami Krishnananda

The Nature of Perception
Divine Life Society Publication: Chapter 8 Light on the Internal Self- The Philosophy of the Panchadasi

The perception of an object is due to the activity of the mind, or the intellect, in regard to it, together with the Chidabhasa attending on it. It is these that become responsible for an active perception of the object. It is not the General Consciousness of Brahman but the reflected consciousness, Chidabhasa, that particularizes knowledge. As Brahman is present always, it cannot be said that it is manifesting itself only during the perception of an object. It is the Chidabhasa that rises and falls, but Brahma-Chaitanya is always there, and has no beginning or end.

There is a verse quoted from Suresvaracharya (a pupil of Sri Sankara) to the effect that Consciousness which manifests itself as an illuminating factor in all external perceptions is really the ultimate object to be known. Here, while Suresvara regards Consciousness as the ultimate end of endeavor, what he means is that the ultimate Consciousness, for all perception, being Brahman itself, it is the Goal of all aspirations, but he does not mean that this Consciousness is the Chidabhasa, because, the latter is absolutely dependent upon the Kutastha. This has been mentioned also by Sankara in his Upadesasahasri.

When there is a manifestation of the Chidabhasa there is external perception, but the Chidabhasa is itself illumined by another Consciousness as even the absence of any particular object is known by it. The mental modifications, the Chidabhasa and the object, all these three, are simultaneously illumined by the General Consciousness, but the Chidabhasa can illumine only the object. Thus, the distinction between the two is clear.

In the perception of an object, there is a twofold consciousness, one particular and another general. Some schools of thought regard the General Consciousness as Knowledge of knowledge or Knowledge of perception, calling it Anuvyavasaya. The knowledge, “This is an object” is due to the activity of Chidabhasa, and the knowledge, “I know the object” or “the object is known by me,” is due to the existence of Brahman. This distinction between the particular and the General Consciousness made, thus, in external perception, is also to be made in internal perceptions.

The Chidabhasa lights up the modifications of the psychological instruments in the form of the ‘I’, as well as its ramifications such as desire, anger, and so on, as fire can heat up an iron ball. Just as a red hot iron ball can illumine itself, but does not illuminate other objects, so do the psychoses within (Vrittis) illumine themselves, being enlightened by the Chidabhasa, but do not directly illumine other objects. These psychoses within come in a series as bits of a process, with intervals between the different links of the process, and do not flow continuously. Also, they get dissolved in sleep, swoon and Samadhi (Super-Consciousness).

The intervals between the various processes of thought as well as the absence of thought itself are illumined by an Unchangeable Consciousness, which is the Kutastha, as in the perception of an external object; the object is known distinctly and the General Consciousness is not so known. The psychoses as thoughts and feelings etc. are known more clearly than the General Consciousness of the Kutastha which is continuously present, whether thoughts come or go. In the case of the psychoses of the Antahkarana (internal organ) there is no question of known-ness and unknown-ness, because they are self-luminous and, hence, there is no chance of their either knowing themselves as objects or not knowing themselves at all. This happens also in the case of inert objects where Consciousness is absolutely absent and in which case there cannot be any such thing as known-ness. The subject does not become an object where either Consciousness is totally absent or where there is self-luminosity.

 In the two types of awareness mentioned, the particular one which gets itself connected to objects has a beginning and an end, and because of its changeful nature, it is different from the General Consciousness behind it, which is immutable and is, therefore, called Kutastha. There has to be posited a witness of the modifications of the mind; otherwise they cannot be known even to exist, and as it is in the case of the reflection of a face in a mirror, where the mirror is the medium and the face is the original with its reflection, in the case of the Self, too, the Anthahkarana is the medium, the reflection is the Chidabhasa, and the Atma, or Kutastha, is the original.

It is not that the Atman by its being at the back of even the process of transmigration undergoes any change. The limitation referred to here as the Chidabhasa is not merely like the limitation of the vast space by the walls of a jar for example, because the Atman does not become a Jiva, or the individual, merely by an enclosure. We cannot say that the Atman has become the Jiva, just because we have raised some walls around with material substance. The difference is that in the case of the Jiva, the Buddhi is transparent, but mere transparency is not the sole conditioning factor, because there may not be any difference in certain cases even when there is transparency such as in a glass measure, which, after all, can contain only as much quantity of grain as wooden measure. What makes the essential difference is not merely the limitation but the reduction of quality by quantity by reflection, and it is here that we notice a difference between the original and the reflection. We call that a reflection which appears to be like original, but does not have really the characteristics of the original.

Excerpts from:
Chapter 8 The Nature of Perception- The Philosophy of the Panchadasi by Swami Krishnananda

If you would like to purchase the print edition, visit:
http://www.dlshq.org/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?

If you would like to contribute to the dissemination of spiritual knowledge please contact the General Secretary at: