The Actor (Advaita Vedanta/Nondualism Only)

[SalixIncendium]

Antar-atma, the inner soul. To some it speaks, some others don't listen to it, quell it. You may call it conscience.

Antar-atma is a new term for me. Would you say this is the same as the jivatman/subtle body?

 

[Shantanu]

Antar-atma is a new term for me. Would you say this is the same as the jivatman/subtle body?

There is no such thing as conscience, or antar-atma as the voice of God. In some mental patients there are voices and hallucinations that can be easily explained by science of the brain which causes disorders.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is no such thing as conscience, or antar-atma as the voice of God. In some mental patients there are voices and hallucinations that can be easily explained by science of the brain which causes disorders.

I don't think anyone was making the argument that conscience is the voice of God.

But now that you bring it up, who, in your experience, is conscience the voice of?

 

[Shantanu]

I don't think anyone was making the argument that conscience is the voice of God.

But now that you bring it up, who, in your experience, is conscience the voice of?

Conscience is the Christian sense of justifying the morality that is imposed on people by the State.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Conscience is the Christian sense of justifying the morality that is imposed on people by the State.

Are you suggesting that the concept has no place outside of Christianity?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't think anyone was making the argument that conscience is the voice of God.
But now that you bring it up, who, in your experience, is conscience the voice of?

Antar-atma is a new term for me. Would you say this is the same as the jivatman/subtle body?

I would not give a scientific/technical answer here. We are discussing beliefs. Yes, some people take it as the voice of their deity. Our people have different Gods or Goddesses as their chosen deity. So, when you talk about Hindus, it is not one God or Goddess. It could be any of the many, unless the person believes in Brahman as a God. It is the same as Jeevatma and a spark of the divine. It guides if the person chooses to listen to it.
More here: https://www.google.com/search?q=Antar-atma&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

 

[Shantanu]

Are you suggesting that the concept has no place outside of Christianity?

Every person is entitled to his or her own views: that is why there is diversity in Hinduism. However, in advaita one acts according to ones instincts on how to survive not on morality-based conscience derived from established religions. That is to say that there is no dharma in advaita, merely doing what is necessary to survive.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Every person is entitled to his or her own views: that is why there is diversity in Hinduism. However, in advaita one acts according to ones instincts on how to survive not on morality-based conscience derived from established religions. That is to say that there is no dharma in advaita, merely doing what is necessary to survive.

From where do these instincts to survive originate?

 

[Shantanu]

From where do these instincts to survive originate?

These instincts originate in the atman's guna consciousness (recall I said that the jiva lives in atman and that is composed of physical energy and consciousness energy which in turn has various blends of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic gunas): ones instinct and sense of paranoia that alerts one to dangers to one's survival depend on what attributes a person has acquired in birth (ie genetics) from sattvic, rajasic and tamasic gunas. Of these the instincts are sharpest when one has a preponderance of sattavic guna where one is able to discern truth and so is tuned to reality. When one sees reality one takes appropriate steps that aid survival.That is what advaita is.

 

[ameyAtmA]

When the egocentric impressions or vasanas in the unconscious, which are the source of desire in the form of cravings and aversions, are wiped out by practice of awareness/mindfulness, total love or other spiritual practices, the Jivatman realizes itself or its true nature, to be the Atman/Paramatman or Self.

And this only happens when the Highest Self the [param]AtmA wills it.
You see, [param]AtmA drives, not the jeev.
The jeevA's false notion of being the doer is what causes people to think "I realized" rather , the false-i is given the realization, understanding, and all it takes (yoga-kshema) by the True-I.

In reality, prakRuti is the doer of all actions. The triguNAtmak prakRuti.

The paramAtmA yanks the token-ID-ego-mind out of the material desert as
The Compassionate Witness
The Beloved Companion
The Divine Guide

the token-ID-jeev cannot come out of samsAra otherwise. Also,

(i) merely choosing/picking and yanking the sincere seeker out is not the end of the story.
After this the paramAtmA works very hard with Infinite patience, to

(ii) accompany the jeeva that has turned to the [param]AtmA -- this is true satsang, and makes the jeev complete, without the emotional need for other beings.

(ii) Guide, be their Guru, and provide limited freedom to explore adhyAtma. Study, while waiting for the one to come back to them , having exhausted all sankalpa -- "missions" or resolves -- "I want to do this , I want to do that, I am curious about this and that. Let me go to this place to find this out..."

(i) (ii) and (iii) is that Golden period of sweet Divine LeelA between the dehI and the [param]AtmA -- which , please note - is mostly driven by the [param]AtmA, not the dehI

In this process, the dehi has turned completely inward, vairAgya - renunciation, has matured, and they have no further resolves left. All the relevant knowledge has been aqcuired and no questions remain.

Then one fine day, the loving [param]AtmA decides it is time, and says to the beloved jeev , opening His arms wide, as the Vishwaroop

"Are you ready to blend into Me? Think about it...."

The jeev thinks for a moment, and says "Yes, I am"

... and then there is Complete Silence.....

---
In answer to the OP, for additional pointers ...
Please refer to this post : Chaturvyuha :

Dehi is the transmigrating token-identifier , the ahaMkAr , the ego

The Chaturvyuha - the 4 whorls (vyuha) of the inner Lotus :

0. AtmA = Pure Self = VAsudev, Myself -- innermost whorl
1. ahaMkAr = functional ego = SankarshaN (token-identifier I am X, this is mine, I live here...)
2. mAnas = feeling, emotional mind = Pradyumna
3. buddhI = logical intellect = Aniruddha

BG 10.20 aham AtmA guDAkesha, jeeva-bhUtAshaya shtitah: |
aham Adischa madhyam cha bhUtAnAm anta eva cha ||
I am the Self, O Arjun-who-has-conquered-sleep (GuDAkesh), situated (sthita) as the base and foundation (Ashaya) of all living beings (jeeva) and elements (bhUta).
I am their beginning, middle as well as their end.

[They start with Me, and end with Me, I am the Source and the Sink]


BG 15.7 mAmaivaMsho jeevaloke jeevabhUta sanAtanah: |
manah:shashThAnI indriyANi prakRuti sthAna karshati ||
The [temporary identifier token-tag for] the living entity, is but My part** . This one, gets attracted by and entangled in the mind and 5 senses which are situated in (a result of) prakRuti - material Nature.

**My part, not exactly Me, because they are entangled, allow prakRuti (prAkRut mind) to control them.

Also,
VAsudev = Self, AtmA, who , as sAkshI - witness , watches the Whole Universe and all happenings.

As kshetradnya, (BG Chapter7) - knower of the field (kshetra) of 8 material elements - earth water fire air space mind intellect ego - it is the kshetradnya.

Between the witness and doer there are many hops - the knower, the thinker, then comes the doer. Please refer to the 4 whorls of the Inner Lotus - quote above.

 

[Aupmanyav]

From where do these instincts to survive originate?

Two components (according to believers in reincarnation) - Samskaras (impressions) of the past lives and Samskaras of this life (training by family and society, education, experiences).

 

[Shantanu]

Two components (according to believers in reincarnation) - Samskaras (impressions) of the past lives and Samskaras of this life (training by family and society, education, experiences).

I am not sure at all that there is genuine reincarnation in terms of soul or atma transmigration as there is no scientific evidence for it. As for samskaras of this life and training received, it takes away ones freedom or free will that should be the only guide to what one needs to do in life. In other words there is no set dharma for me as a satya-advaitist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ah, a free bird.

 

[Shantanu]

Ah, a free bird.

Over my 62 years I have toyed with the idea of duties and continually searched for my 'dharma' as a son, brother, husband, friend or a devotee of God, and considered religious practices from the shastras of dos and don'ts in terms of morality, or following the duties of the caste that I was born (Brahmin) with or that I acquired for a time (Khsatriya), or following the norms of society as patriot, and I ended up learning that none of that is prescribed by God as sanatan dharma: the only actions that are justified are using one's intelligence and energy to survive through to old age as comfortably as possible so as to make the most of the valuable life that we are given to live out.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Since the tile says "Advaita only", from an Advaitic perspective, none of these positions hold, including the question. No sarcasm intended.

It is understood that the Atman is the witness, that which is aware.

Witness to what? Witnessing requires a seer and seen. What is this Atman seeing and whatever is being seen - is it part of the Atman or is it external?

It does not make sense to me that the Atman can be the actor as well as the witness. In your opinion and/or interpretation of scripture, who is it that is the actor, the one that makes decisions? Is it the jiva? Jivatman? Paramatman?

Action is predicated on time and space. Neither of the two are real in Advaita.

How is it that you arrived at this conclusion?

Common sense, mostly.

Sentiment is the biggest obstacle here. Once sentiment is set aside, it can be seen that most views on Advaita are incorrect as they are all dependent on

1. the reality of time
2. Some kind of transformation of Brahman.
3. Some type of oneness/difference

But there is no transformation of Brahman in Advaita and time/space are not real. Hence, all these views are incorrect. There is no one who can become Brahman and there is nothing for Brahman to witness.

Who is to realize what, and how, when all that exists is the Self and nothing but the Self? - Ramana

The objects that seem to be hidden in the mind and those that appear outside the mind - both are produced by imagination - Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika 2.15

Therefore, everything is imagined - including time and space. But imagination requires an "imaginer". So, who is the "imaginer"? The "imaginer" is part of the imagination, too. Hence, there is no exiting the imagination - for there is nothing outside imagination. And without time, there is no beginning or end..

Nothing is born nor does anything die. This is the highest truth - Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika 4.71

Preemptively, yes, I am aware that making the distinction may imply duality.

There is no "may". Why be vague? It is duality and hence, the question does not work in the Advaitic context.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Since the tile says "Advaita only", from an Advaitic perspective, none of these positions hold, including the question. No sarcasm intended.

None taken. Whether or not one determines if these positions hold from an Advaitic or nondual perspective is purely in how one interprets the positions presented and on one's premise in considering the positions. Please allow me to elaborate.

Witness to what? Witnessing requires a seer and seen. What is this Atman seeing and whatever is being seen - is it part of the Atman or is it external?

Your premise of witnessing requiring two participants is inaccurate. Witnessing requires an observer. Witnessing is experiencing. Nothing more.

Action is predicated on time and space. Neither of the two are real in Advaita.

Of course not. Please point out where I implied time and space are real?

Sentiment is the biggest obstacle here. Once sentiment is set aside, it can be seen that most views on Advaita are incorrect as they are all dependent on

1. the reality of time
2. Some kind of transformation of Brahman.
3. Some type of oneness/difference

But there is no transformation of Brahman in Advaita and time/space are not real. Hence, all these views are incorrect. There is no one who can become Brahman and there is nothing for Brahman to witness.

Sentiment is a product of ego. We've already established the ego is illusory.

Who is to realize what, and how, when all that exists is the Self and nothing but the Self? - Ramana

The objects that seem to be hidden in the mind and those that appear outside the mind - both are produced by imagination - Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika 2.15

Therefore, everything is imagined - including time and space. But imagination requires an "imaginer". So, who is the "imaginer"? The "imaginer" is part of the imagination, too. Hence, there is no exiting the imagination - for there is nothing outside imagination. And without time, there is no beginning or end..

Nothing is born nor does anything die. This is the highest truth - Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika 4.71

Again, I am in agreement that time is illusory. But again, I do not perceive the witness, what you are calling the "imaginer" in this paragraph, as part of the illusion. I contend that a witness does not imply duality. The illusion is not real, and therefore is not part of a dichotomy.

There is no "may". Why be vague? It is duality and hence, the question does not work in the Advaitic context.

Indeed there is a may, and I explained the reason in my opening statement in this post. If it is your opinion that the concept of a witness has no place in Advaitic context, that's all well and good. But as I demonstrated above , the illusion is not real, therefore, in my view, there is no dichotomy.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Witness to what? Witnessing requires a seer and seen. What is this Atman seeing and whatever is being seen - is it part of the Atman or is it external?

True - and I knew this argument was coming, but people have answered only so that the non-existent one understands, because only the non-existent will ask questions - always. The goal is to awaken.

chaitanya AtmA -- sAkshI -- kshetradnya -- ahaMkAr -- buddhi -- mAnas -- aparA-prakRuti

The dream characters try to understand the plot, not the dreamer in his/her real state of wakefulness.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Your premise of witnessing requiring two participants is inaccurate. Witnessing requires an observer. Witnessing is experiencing. Nothing more.

The problem is the same, though. If Brahman is all there is, who is experiencing what? This question is easily answered in other forms of Vedanta, but not in Advaita. Not unless one's particular flavor of Advaita is actually oneness-difference - which is not really Advaita.

Of course not. Please point out where I implied time and space are real?

Action requires pre-action (determining cause, etc.,), the actual action and the ensuing result. These are chronologically sequenced and hence, require time to be real. If time is not real, there is no action and consequently, no actor.

 

[Jainarayan]

why would Brahman need to create a play??

Brahman doesn't need to. It just does it. It's what it does. It has no needs, wants or desires because it is everything. The sun doesn't need to shine, it just does. The planets don't need to orbit the sun, they just do. I see it as not unlike the Daoist concept of wei wu wei: "action without action" or "effortless doing" Wu wei - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

The problem is the same, though. If Brahman is all there is, who is experiencing what? This question is easily answered in other forms of Vedanta, but not in Advaita. Not unless one's particular flavor of Advaita is actually oneness-difference - which is not really Advaita.

Experience is an illusion just like the experiencer. Just Brahman exists. But SalixIncendium has a particular view and does not want a pure non-dual explanation. He has clarified that in his OP.

Brahman doesn't need to. It just does it. It's what it does. It has no needs, wants or desires because it is everything. The sun doesn't need to shine, it just does. The planets don't need to orbit the sun, they just do. I see it as not unlike the Daoist concept of wei wu wei: "action without action" or "effortless doing" Wu wei - Wikipedia

Brahman does not do anything other than existing (and perhaps sometimes not existing. I do not know if Brahman is bound by the laws of existence). To perceive something happening is illusion. And the illusion is because of only the existence of Brahman. It seems to happen, as in wei wu wei.