The Seer and The Seen
Question: Is not the Self the only witness [sakshimatra]?
The Seer and the Seen are also called the witness and the witnessed. There are two kinds of witnesses; what is called the “opaque” and the “transparent witness”. The opaque witness is the jiva with qualities looking at Consciousness through its conditioning; the transparent witness is pure Consciousness with no qualities conditioning it. It is the witness of the opaque witness.
Quote from Ramana:
THE WITNESS REALLY MEANS THE LIGHT THAT ILLUMINES THE SEER, SEEN AND THE PROCESS OF SEEING
‘Witness’ is applicable when there is an object to be seen. Then it is duality. The truth lies beyond both. In the mantra, sakshi cheta kevalo nirgunascha, the word sakshi [witness] must be understood as sannidhi [presence], without which there could be nothing. See how the sun is necessary for daily activities? However, it does not form part of the world of actions; yet they cannot take place without the sun. It is the source and the witness of all activities. So it is with the Self.
Talking of the ‘witness’ should not lead to the idea that there is a witness and something else apart from him that he is witnessing. The ‘witness’ really means the light that illuminates the seer, the seen and the process of seeing. Before, during and after the triads of seer, seen and seeing, the illumination exists. It alone always exists.
Cheryl: I have been reading Swami Dayananda’s Vivekachudamani, and it clarified the reflection/reflector and opaque/transparent witness for me. He says on page 24: Atma is already self-evident and it is alupta-drk, a seer that never ceases, it never even winks. It is always a witness. But it is a witness only with reference to whatever is seen. By itself it is in the form of Consciousness. This self-evident Atma is Brahman, that is the teaching.” Dayananda has such a clarity–a clarity Ram equally possess– that it’s unbelievable at times. That quote clarified the distinction of saguna and nirguna brahman.
Sundari: Yes, this is a great quote. I would say that the Self is a seer that never begins or ceases and is the all seeing-eye or “I” that sees only itself because there are no objects for it to see. It is self-effulgent and there is nothing but itself. It is also not ‘in the form of consciousness”; it is Consciousness, Brahman. This is why it is impossible for the ego to see the Self; the effect cannot know the cause.
Cheryl: So saguna brahman (the words opaque and translucent witness are appropriate, up to a point, but in reading swamiji’s quote above, the witness isn’t even an appropriate term for simple Consciousness) is apparently influenced by sattva, and as the mind is sattvic, the witness seems to be clear and this clarity, or pureness, is what people assume to be holy?
Sundari: Yes, correct. One has to drop all these terms, even nirguna brahman because that implies saguna. It would be more appropriate to say that the Self, seeing only itself, is that which knows the seer with reference to the seen only when Maya is operating. The Self-aware self appears as a seer; but it never actually is a seer, unless seeing refers to its own Self. When ignorance is operating the jiva thinks that the seer is different from the seen: the subject and object are different. The seer, Isvara is also known as saguna brahman and because it operates maya (the gunas) it is never deluded by them, i.e. it is pure sattva. When tamas and rajas arise in saguna brahman, then Consciousness apparently becomes a jiva and is deluded by maya. Sattva seems to be clear and pure only with reference to the objects appearing in it, which are impure. Isvara is the wielder of Maya but is never deluded by Maya. Purity and holiness are projected by the jiva when it is under the spell of sattva.
Cheryl: But, as you’ve stated below, and as my experience actually confirms, Consciousness is without parts; being part-less purity and impurity are moot dualisms. Yes, they are experienced and continue, because the jiva never leaves Maya, but aren’t real.
Sundari: Yes, correct they may appear but are known to be unreal. When avidya is removed and your nature is known to be non-dual, duality is no longer an issue although Macrocosmic Maya does not disappear. Duality is only a problem when you do not know what it is.
Cheryl: This is the collapse of it all–which implies (a) a “final” enlightenment, and (b) this is an event. As I state below, that’s not the case. And as you wrote in our last email, there isn’t even a collapse. The Self isn’t a doer, so it can’t collapse anything. And Isvara doesn’t rule over the Self, because as you say, the cause is untouched and subtler than the effect. It’s the simple dropping of ignorance viz-a-viz Self-knowledge.
Sundari: Correct. The big deal and hype around enlightenment being a special experience, and turning it into a goal, is a very common trap in the spiritual arena. Both are experiential terms. Vedanta says that there is nothing to collapse or drop because the one who is doing the collapsing and dropping has been negated by Self-knowledge. But the last part of self-inquiry, nididhysana, is tricky because it not only involves the final negation of residual likes and dislikes, it also involves cleaning up the remnants of the teaching. More on this in another satsang.
Cheryl: This is a very important fact, and it really is all so simple and easy to miss. The king of secrets, as the Gita says. Who knows purity and impurity? Who knows the witness? Who is aware that I’m witnessing (or not witnessing)? ME! Who knows all the states of existence, bodies, or koshas? ME!
Sundari: Vedanta is a valid means of knowledge to realize the nondual Self (satya), and it does so initially by provisionally accepting duality. Meaning, it explains what or who the creator of the field is (Isvara wielding Maya/hypnosis of duality) how the field of experience functions, what forces run it (the three gunas), how they condition the mind and create it’s binding likes and dislikes (personal identity/mithya).
Sundari
