How can the paramatma which is always a witness, be at the same time a permitter & experiencer?

[The Crimson Universe]

It is mentioned in Gita ch. 13 verse 22, that the supreme purusha (paramatma) is a upadrashta (witness), anumanta (permitter), bharta (supporter) and bhokta (experiencer).

I agree that It is a witness, but how can It be at the same time,
a permitter and experiencer?
If paramatma is actionless and simply remains as a witness, then how does it permits and experiences?

It is mentioned by Swami ChidbhavaNanda (an advaitin) in his gita commentary, that the paramatma witnesses the activities of the jivatman, knows them in their true perspective and permits those activities which are good for the progress of the jivatman.

But according to advaita, the paramatma IS the jivatman, then why would IT permit ITSELF? ... Also being an actionless entity why would the paramatma experience or feel the world?

Can someone please explain these things to me. Thanks.

 

[George-ananda]

Thoughtful questions.

If this helps here is my best explanation. Brahman/paramatma is eternally unchanging in its ground of sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss).

But then there is the mystery of Maya where Brahman's creative aspect thinks this cosmic play/drama and incarnates limited finite forms with a ray of himself or jivatma.

Brahman is permitting itself to experience finiteness for drama. Like when we watch a play identifying the characters as real but at a higher level we also know these are regular human beings acting.

Perhaps others here can improve on my understanding and I would appreciate that too.

 

[ajay0]

But according to advaita, the paramatma IS the jivatman, then why would IT permit ITSELF? ... Also being an actionless entity why would the paramatma experience or feel the world?

Can someone please explain these things to me. Thanks.

According to advaita , paramatman is the same as the atman.

The Jivatman or the unenlightened soul is under the bondage of karma or dominating influence of Prakriti, and hence cannot be the same as Paramatman or Atman.

The Jivatman and Paramatman are essentially the same in the same way that iron ore and purified iron are essentially the same, but not exactly the same.

Why don't you put the verse that you read in here for understanding it in proper context !

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@ajay0 Here you go. The verse with its commentary.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is mentioned in Gita ch. 13 verse 22, that the supreme purusha (paramatma) is a upadrashta (witness), anumanta (permitter), bharta (supporter) and bhokta (experiencer).

I agree that It is a witness, but how can It be at the same time,
a permitter and experiencer?
If paramatma is actionless and simply remains as a witness, then how does it permits and experiences?

It is mentioned by Swami ChidbhavaNanda (an advaitin) in his gita commentary, that the paramatma witnesses the activities of the jivatman, knows them in their true perspective and permits those activities which are good for the progress of the jivatman.

But according to advaita, the paramatma IS the jivatman, then why would IT permit ITSELF? ... Also being an actionless entity why would the paramatma experience or feel the world?

Can someone please explain these things to me. Thanks.

You are making a cocktail of Hindu Philosophies. They have to be taken neat.
If Brahman / Paramatma is the only entity existing in the universe, then the doer and the seer is the same. That the doer is different from the seer is an illusion. But in this philosophy, they are not taking Paramatma as doing nothing. He permits and experiences. Here Paramatma is a 'monist God'. The SriVashnava - Vishishta Advaitists and others, perhaps Dvaita-advaitists of Nimbarka also believe in this kind of God. Same but with some distinction. See the Advaita Vedanta page in Wikipedia, you also have Prabhupada or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Acintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita and Vallabha's Shuddha Advaita.

For example in my belief which is a bit different, Brahman never does anything, has no need to do anything, no need to experience anything, and all that is perceived to be happening is but an illusion. My Brahman is not a God, though it is 'monist'. I follow Guadapada, Sankara or perhaps Bhaskara's 'Bheda-Abheda', a philosophy which has not survived in time. In my kind of philosophy, there is no difference at all. I am wholly and completely Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi, Ayamatma Brahma - This self is Brahman), but I am not a God. You too are that (Tat twam asi).
Basically, Advaita is not a monolith, there are various views.

 

[ajay0]

It is mentioned in Gita ch. 13 verse 22, that the supreme purusha (paramatma) is a upadrashta (witness), anumanta (permitter), bharta (supporter) and bhokta (experiencer).

I agree that It is a witness, but how can It be at the same time,
a permitter and experiencer?
If paramatma is actionless and simply remains as a witness, then how does it permits and experiences?

The focus here is on Saguna Brahman, not Nirguna Brahman.

Nirguna Brahman is attributeless and in a sense sterile, while Saguna Brahman with attributes acts as the witness, permitter and experiencer, so as to bring about the upliftment of Jivatman from the bondage of Prakriti or matter.

I have written about the difference between Nirguna and Saguna Brahman in this post of mine.

Dvaita v. Advaita