A rationalist does not believe that he has fully lived the reality of something until he has worked it out intellectually. The jnani (enlightened) has no need for this. He abides in knowledge.
Yes, ok, but how does that work out in Advaita, you ask, needing to know even without a need to know. You’re here, so I’ll try to sketch in general terms how this might be understood. Bring your own irony, we cannot guarantee supply.
There is a reflection of the Self in the intellect which is to say that the intellect is not the Self because it is not conscious. It only seems to be conscious through being pervaded by the Self which is pure Consciousness. Being qualified by the intellect makes the Self seem to be a limited entity. In this way we come to identify the Self and the non-Self. The three facets of the individual i.e. body, mind, intellect qualify the Self. ‘I’ , ‘mine’, are an expression of this qualification.
At this point the notion of the Saksin (Witness) is brought in. At first sight it seems a bonus explanation that merely serves to confuse? Perhaps it induces aloofness as an ascetic strategy. But if we have already scored 100% what use are bonus points?
My understanding of it is; that the Self as qualified by B.M.I. is the Witness.
#94: Everything pervaded by the intellect together with the ego, is the qualification of the Witness. Without being connected with anything and pervading everything by means of Its reflection, the Self is therefore, always of the nature of Knowledge Itself.
{The jnani’s statutory rights are not affected.}
#95: All this, described according to popular ideas is the reverse (of what is true) and exists for the undiscriminating; it does not exist at all for men of Knowledge. (from Chap.XVIII Upadesa Sahasri)
No comments:
Post a Comment