PDA

View Full Version : Cidabhasa again..



Tirisilex
21 April 2010, 09:02 PM
OK.. I've been thinking on this some more. I think I may have been looking at this wrongly. It is called the reflective consciousness. I took this as something being reflected like an image in a mirror.. But Now I'm thinking I'm wrong.. The word reflective is an action and not an "image" For example.. "I would like to now reflect onto my childhood." It's a part of the mind that can process and look at a concept and make judgments.

Is this correct? Or is it really a Mirror like thing.. If so Then I'm having a really hard time with this.

atanu
22 April 2010, 08:59 AM
OK.. I've been thinking on this some more. I think I may have been looking at this wrongly. It is called the reflective consciousness. I took this as something being reflected like an image in a mirror.. But Now I'm thinking I'm wrong.. The word reflective is an action and not an "image" For example.. "I would like to now reflect onto my childhood." It's a part of the mind that can process and look at a concept and make judgments.

Is this correct? Or is it really a Mirror like thing.. If so Then I'm having a really hard time with this.

Dear Tirisilex

The main meanings of aabhaasha are: fallacious appearance or semblance. Hope you get the indication (which again is another meaning of aabhasha).

Ekanta
22 April 2010, 11:35 AM
I find these lines from Pańcadaśī quite clear:

bhrama adhiṣṭhāna bhūtātmā kūṭastha asaṅga cit vapuḥ |
anyaḥ anyāt adhyāsataḥ asaṅga dhī stha jīvaḥ atra pūruṣaḥ || PA_7.5 ||
7.5. The substratum of illusion is Brahman, the immutable [kūṭastha], associationless, pure consciousness, the Self of all beings. When through mutual superimposition Brahman becomes associated with the intellect, an association which is phenomenal and not real, He is known as Jiva or Purusha.
na asaṅge ahaṃkṛtiḥ yuktā katham asmi iti cet śṛṇu |
ekaḥ mukhyaḥ dvau amukhyau iti arthaḥ trividhaḥ ahamaḥ || PA_7.9 ||
7.9. (Doubt): How can the idea of egoity arise in the detached Kutastha? You have to attribute egoity to it. (Reply): ‘I’ is used in three senses, of which one is primary and the other two secondary.
anyaḥ anya adhyāsa rūpeṇa kūṭastha ābhāsayoḥ vapuḥ |
ekībhūya bhavet mukhyaḥ tatra mūḍhaiḥ prayujyate || PA_7.10 ||
7.10. The immutable Kutastha becomes identified with the reflected intelligence, Chidabhasa, due to mutual superimposition. This is the primary meaning of ‘I’ in which the spiritually dull people use it. [i.e. not differentiating Chidabhasa from Kutastha]
pṛthak ābhāsa kūṭasthau amukhyau tatra tattvavit |
paryāyeṇa prayuṅkte ahaṃ śabdaṃ loke ca vaidike || PA_7.11 ||
7.11. ‘I’ in the two secondary senses refer to either Kutastha or Chidabhasa but one is differentiated from the other. The wise use the same word ‘I’ either in the worldly or in the philosophical sense, meaning Chidabhasa or Kutastha respectively.
laukika vyavahāre ahaṃ gacchāmi iti ādike budhaḥ |
vivicya eva cit ābhāsaṃ kūṭasthāt taṃ vivakṣati || PA_7.12 ||
7.12. From the conventional standpoint, the wise use the expression ‘I am going’, meaning Chidabhasa, differentiating it from Kutastha.
asaṅgaḥ ahaṃ cidātmā aham iti śāstrīya dṛṣṭitaḥ |
ahaṃ śabdaṃ prayuṅkte ayaṃ kūṭasthe kevale budhaḥ || PA_7.13 ||
7.13. From the philosophical standpoint the wise mean by their ‘I’ the pure Kutastha. In this sense they say: ‘I am unattached. I am the Spirit Itself’.
antaḥkaraṇa sāhitya rāhityābhyāṃ viśiṣyate |
upādhiḥ jīvabhāvasya brahmatāyāḥ ca na anyathā || PA_7.85 ||
7.85. The difference between Jiva and Brahman is due to the presence or absence of the conditioning medium of Antahkarana; otherwise they are identical. There is no other difference.

Tirisilex
22 April 2010, 03:55 PM
I still don't get it even after reading that.. I did some more web searching and I found this.

Some people say that this self-image (ego) is non-created and does not even exist. The neo-vedantists refer to this self-image as CHIDABHASA and say that it is the intervening medium that obstructs the experience of oneself as GOD. They say, "I am God, but due to chidabhasa I have forgotten my real nature."

So. It's a reflection of Brahman falsely seen as self?

devotee
22 April 2010, 09:44 PM
Namaste Trisilex,


It is called the reflective consciousness. I took this as something being reflected like an image in a mirror.. But Now I'm thinking I'm wrong.

The mirror-reflection analogy is the correct analogy. There should not be any difficulty understanding this analogy.

What does a mirror do ? It reflects the rays falling on its surface. However, you don't see the rays or at least don't feel that you are seeing the "rays". You feel that you are seeing a picture (of an object from which the rays intially "originated" before falling on the mirror). The quality of the picture (i.e. the resemblence of the image with the original object) depends upon the quality of the mirror. It shows you some unreal image of something real. Pure Consciousness is the reality .... it is the "seer" having attributes beyond our mental concepts .... but that reality is reflected as "seen" within mental realm as this world which is understandable through our mental concepts.

Chidabhaas is made of two words, "Chit" meaning "consciousness" and "abhaas" means "what is apparently perceived". So, Chidabhaas is the work of Maya or the mental realm within the waking and dreaming states. The world as see it or the identification of Self with this body-mind entity are due to Chidabhaas or it is all Chidabhaas.

You can also understand it like this :

There are two things. One is the reality and the other is the perception of the reality. The perception of the reality may not be same as the reality. Our perception is distorted by limitations of our sense organs and limited capacity of mind to perceive the things as they are. So, this perception of reality as perceived by our sense-organs-mind entity is Chidabhaas. Here the sense organs and mind together create the mirror which reflects the image of reality as we perceive it.

I hope it helps.

OM

Tirisilex
23 April 2010, 01:55 PM
Yes.. I think I'm getting it now.. Thank you

atanu
26 April 2010, 01:19 AM
Yes.. I think I'm getting it now.. Thank you

Namaste Tirisilex

Actually it is first essential to understand the concept of superposition to understand chidAbhAsa.

This is most easily done with an example of a 'red hot iron ball'. The redness and the heat are due to fire but falsely one may associate these attributes to the iron ball. On the other hand, one may attribute hardness and heaviness of the iron ball to the fire/heat.

Similar relation is said to exist between the Self and the Mind. Mind is the iron ball (material). Self is like the fire (subtle). But what happens is that the pure intelligence of Self is attributed to Mind and the inertness of Mind is attributed to the Self. This is two way adhyasa (superposition) that is the cause of chidAbhAsa.

The intelligent mind is only apprently intelligent.

Om Namah Shivaya