Shift all Kanna to Krsna. PWCR60

The Opposites collapse into the Absolute. GS

World’s wildlife down 73% since 1970,

EB

 Deep Dive: Samskaras Are Like Seeds; Arisings Are Like Sprouts

Exploring direct experience through the lens of Advaita, Witnessing, and the assumed “I”

The central invitation in Ekta Bathija’s inquiry is to shift from thinking about consciousness to observing the immediate experience of being conscious.

Rather than trying to discover Samskaras as hidden objects in the mind, the inquiry asks us to observe thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions as they arise—and investigate the relationship between these experiences, familiarity, conditioning, and the sense of personal doership.

Let’s unpack the inquiry step by step.

1. The fundamental distinction: Seed versus Sprout

The seed-and-sprout metaphor distinguishes between latent conditioning and its observable manifestations.

Aspect	Seed: Samskara	Sprout: Arising
Nature	Latent impression or tendency	Manifest experience
Visibility	Not necessarily consciously accessible	Present in immediate experience
Examples	Learned associations, habitual reactions, dispositions	A thought, fear, attraction, bodily sensation
Relationship to time	May reflect previous experiences and conditioning	Occurs in the present
How we investigate it	Infer its influence from patterns and reactions	Observe it directly as it occurs

Consider a simple example.

Someone makes a mildly critical remark to you.

An unpleasant feeling arises. Your mind produces thoughts such as, “They don’t respect me.” You feel an urge to defend yourself.

The sequence can be understood as follows:

• Seed: A learned sensitivity to criticism.
• Sprout: The immediate feeling of hurt.
• Further growth: Thoughts, interpretations, and defensive impulses reinforce the reaction.

The original impression need not appear in consciousness as a clearly identifiable memory. Its influence may become apparent through the reaction.

Important distinction: The seed metaphor is a model of conditioning, not proof that every arising has one identifiable Samskara as its cause.

Our experiences may be shaped by many factors, including present circumstances, bodily states, memory, attention, and learned associations.

2. Can you directly experience a Samskara?

This is the central question posed in the article.

The answer requires distinguishing two meanings of direct experience.

First: Directly experiencing an arising.

You can notice a thought appearing, a feeling changing, or a sound becoming known.

For example:

A thought appears: “I should have said something different.”

You did not necessarily plan to think that thought. You simply notice that it has appeared.

The thought itself is directly experienced.

Second: Directly recognizing the conditioning associated with an arising.

You notice that the thought has a familiar pattern.

Perhaps you often replay conversations, criticize yourself, or anticipate disapproval.

You may recognize a recurring tendency without consciously retrieving the experience in which it first developed.

This is what the article invites you to investigate.

However, there is a subtle epistemic distinction:

• The thought’s appearance is directly observable.
• Its resemblance to previous patterns may also be observable.
• The claim that a particular latent Samskara caused that particular thought is an interpretation, unless independently established.

In the article’s contemplative framework, recognizing the familiar quality is described as sensing the Samskara.

In a more cautious psychological description, you are noticing a manifestation of conditioning.

You do not need to perceive a Samskara as a separate mental object to recognize that conditioning influences experience.

3. What does it mean that a thought arises spontaneously?

Try this experiment.

For the next few seconds, wait for your next thought.

Before it appears, ask yourself:

“What will my next thought be?”

Do not deliberately construct an answer. Simply wait and observe.

Perhaps a memory appears. Perhaps a plan, an image, or a fragment of a conversation enters your awareness.

Now investigate:

1. Did you know the exact content of the thought before it appeared?
2. Did you consciously select that particular thought?
3. Can you identify the precise moment at which it became present?
4. Did you notice it only after it had already begun to form?

Many thoughts appear without deliberate planning.

This observation challenges the assumption that we consciously manufacture every mental event.

But it does not establish that all thoughts are involuntary. We can intentionally recall a memory, solve a problem, or direct attention toward a particular subject.

The distinction is between deliberately initiating a mental activity and noticing that particular mental contents emerge without deliberate selection.

The deeper Advaita inquiry

The inquiry then asks:

If a thought appears before you consciously choose it, what exactly is the relationship between the thought and the one who claims ownership of it?

This question leads us from spontaneous mental activity to the sense of “I.”

4. Familiarity: The scent of a Samskara

This is one of the most interesting parts of the article.

A thought may be new in its precise wording yet familiar in its emotional pattern.

For example, imagine that someone does not respond to your message.

A thought arises:

“Perhaps I have done something wrong.”

You may not have consciously summoned this thought. Yet the accompanying anxiety feels familiar.

Perhaps similar situations have repeatedly activated the same concern.

Notice three distinct elements:

A. The arising

“Perhaps I have done something wrong.”

B. The familiar quality

The recognizable feeling of uncertainty, self-doubt, or anticipated rejection.

C. The interpretation

“This happens because I have a Samskara associated with rejection.”

The first two can be investigated in immediate experience. The third is an explanatory account of what you have noticed.

The article emphasizes the second element: the familiarity accompanying an arising.

Instead of immediately asking, “Why am I like this?” you pause and recognize:

“This pattern is familiar.”

You need not reconstruct your childhood, identify an original event, or create a narrative about your past.

An important subtlety

Not every familiar feeling proves that a latent Samskara has become active in the specific way proposed.

Familiarity can arise through memory, recognition, learned associations, or repeated experience.

The contemplative value lies in noticing the pattern without immediately becoming entangled in its content.

Recognize the familiar pattern before turning it into a story about yourself.

5. The difference between an arising and the claim “I think”

The article introduces a subtle sequence:

A thought arises.

Then the thought “I think” may appear.

A feeling arises.

Then the claim “I am experiencing this” may appear.

An impulse occurs.

Then the assumption “I am the one doing this” may accompany it.

The author invites us to investigate whether the sense of personal ownership is always present before an experience or whether it sometimes becomes apparent alongside or after the experience.

Consider a familiar example.

You are walking when suddenly a song begins playing in your mind.

Initially, there is simply the song.

Then you notice it and think, “Why am I thinking about that song?”

The mental event and the commentary about the mental event are distinguishable.

Similarly, irritation may appear before you consciously formulate the judgment, “I am irritated.”

This reveals something important: the experience and the mental narrative about the experience are not necessarily the same event.

However, it would be too strong to conclude that every sense of agency arises only after an action. Intentions and deliberate decisions can also precede actions.

The inquiry is not asking you to accept a universal theory about how the mind works. It is inviting you to examine what happens in your own experience.

6. Who is the assumed “I”?

In Advaita inquiry, this question points toward the distinction between the egoic sense of individuality and awareness itself.

Suppose the thought appears:

“I am anxious.”

Examine the experience closely.

There is an anxious feeling.

There may be bodily tension.

There may be thoughts predicting an unpleasant outcome.

There may also be the thought, “This anxiety is happening to me.”

These elements can be observed separately.

The inquiry asks:

Is the anxiety itself the same thing as the awareness in which the anxiety is known?

Is the thought “I am anxious” identical to the anxious sensation?

Can the experience be known without immediately accepting every thought about who you are?

In the Advaita framework, this is a movement toward recognizing oneself as the Witness rather than identifying exclusively with passing mental and bodily experiences.

The Witness is not treated as another thought or sensation. It refers to the knowing presence in which experiences are revealed.

A crucial distinction

There is a difference between observing that the thought “I am anxious” is an experience and establishing a metaphysical conclusion about the ultimate nature of the observer.

The first is available as contemplative investigation.

The second belongs to the philosophical interpretation of that investigation.

Advaita invites the practitioner to explore the relationship between awareness, experience, and identity directly rather than merely accepting a doctrine.

7. The Witness is not another hidden entity

A common misunderstanding is to imagine the Witness as a tiny observer sitting somewhere inside the head, watching thoughts pass by.

But that would simply introduce another imagined object into experience.

Try this:

A sound is heard.

A thought appears.

A bodily sensation is felt.

Ask yourself: What makes these experiences known?

Do not answer by constructing another thought.

Instead, notice that the sound, thought, and sensation are already known as experiences.

In the language of Advaita, awareness is not another object that must appear before experience can be known.

The Witness is the name given to this knowing presence.

This does not require you to imagine an invisible observer or create a special meditative state.

It is an invitation to examine the fact of knowing itself.

The inquiry moves from what is experienced to the nature of experiencing.

8. Sensations: The body as a field of arising

The article extends the seed-and-sprout inquiry to bodily sensations.

Consider a sensation of tension in your shoulders.

Before analyzing it, observe it.

Is it localized or spread out?

Is it constant or changing?

Does it have a recognizable quality?

Does it intensify when a particular thought appears?

Does it diminish when attention moves elsewhere?

You may notice that a familiar emotional pattern is accompanied by a familiar bodily response.

For example, anticipation of a difficult conversation may coincide with tightness in the stomach.

The sensation is the immediate experience. The association between that sensation and a familiar emotional pattern may reveal something about your conditioning.

However, bodily sensations can also arise from posture, exertion, illness, and other physiological processes.

Therefore, the inquiry does not require you to interpret every sensation psychologically.

Simply notice what is present before deciding what it means.

The deeper lesson

You do not need to eliminate a sensation to witness it.

Tension can be known as tension.

Fear can be known as fear.

Discomfort can be known as discomfort.

The experience does not have to disappear before it can be observed without immediate resistance.

9. Perception: Seeing, hearing, and recognizing

The article also includes perceptions of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.

Imagine hearing a familiar melody.

The sound becomes known, and recognition may arise almost immediately.

You might recognize the melody before deliberately recalling the singer or the circumstances in which you first heard it.

Or imagine seeing someone you know in a crowded room.

Recognition may occur before you consciously describe the person’s facial features.

This illustrates how much of our recognition depends on learned familiarity rather than deliberate reasoning.

The Advaita inquiry invites you to distinguish between:

• The perception that appears.
• The recognition or familiarity accompanying it.
• The thoughts that subsequently interpret it.

These may unfold so quickly that they seem like one event.

Careful attention can help reveal their differences.

Yet not every perception is necessarily the manifestation of a personal Samskara in the same sense as a habitual emotional reaction. Sensory perception also depends on present stimuli and the functioning of the perceptual system.

The seed-and-sprout metaphor is most useful when it helps you investigate conditioning without forcing every experience into a predetermined explanation.

10. How Samskaras reinforce themselves

The metaphor becomes especially practical when we examine repeated reactions.

Consider this sequence:

1. Someone disagrees with you.
2. A familiar feeling of being disrespected arises.
3. The thought “They don’t value me” appears.
4. You react defensively.
5. The disagreement escalates.
6. The resulting conflict reinforces your expectation that disagreement is threatening.

A recurring pattern has now been strengthened.

This does not mean every stage is inevitable. It means that reactions can contribute to the persistence of learned tendencies.

We can represent the process as:

Conditioning → Trigger → Arising → Interpretation → Reaction → Reinforcement

This is a useful psychological model of habitual behavior.

The Advaita approach adds another question:

Can the arising be observed before it automatically becomes identification and reaction?

Suppose you notice the familiar hurt immediately.

Instead of responding defensively, you pause.

You recognize the feeling without treating it as conclusive evidence that the other person intended to disrespect you.

You may still decide to speak firmly. The difference is that the response is no longer entirely dictated by the initial impulse.

This is where witnessing can become practically transformative.

Awareness does not necessarily prevent the sprout from appearing. It can change how you respond to it and whether you reinforce the pattern.

11. Does witnessing mean becoming passive?

No.

This is an important distinction.

Witnessing does not require you to suppress emotions, abandon discernment, or stop acting in the world.

Imagine that someone repeatedly violates your boundaries.

Anger may arise.

You can recognize the anger without being completely governed by it. You can investigate its familiar quality, assess the situation, and decide how to respond.

You may establish a boundary, leave the situation, or communicate clearly.

The practical distinction is between:

• Reacting automatically from a conditioned pattern.
• Recognizing the pattern and responding with greater clarity.

In this sense, witnessing is not necessarily the opposite of action.

It can create room for a more deliberate action.

Nor does witnessing guarantee that every response will be wise or free from conditioning. It is a practice of observation, not a claim of instant psychological perfection.

12. The deepest question: Can you observe a Samskara without knowing its history?

The article suggests that you do not need to identify precisely which past impression produced a particular arising.

This is a valuable distinction.

Suppose criticism repeatedly triggers self-doubt.

You may not know whether this tendency developed through family interactions, school experiences, workplace situations, temperament, or a combination of factors.

You can still recognize the recurring pattern.

You can notice that the reaction is familiar.

You can observe how it influences your interpretation of events.

And you can investigate whether you must automatically act upon it.

The absence of a complete historical explanation does not prevent present-moment observation.

However, if your goal is to understand the psychological origins of a persistent difficulty, historical reflection may sometimes be useful. The article’s method is an invitation to direct witnessing, not proof that examining the past is never helpful.

You can recognize a pattern without knowing its complete origin.

13. A practical exercise: Observe the seed and the sprout

Try this gentle inquiry for five minutes.

Do not attempt to create unusual experiences or force the mind to become silent.

Step 1: Sit and notice

Allow your body to settle.

Notice the sounds around you and the sensations in your body.

There is nothing special you need to achieve.

Step 2: Observe the next thought

Wait for a thought to arise.

Notice its content without deliberately following it.

Ask:

“Did I consciously select this exact thought before it appeared?”

Remain open to whatever you notice.

Step 3: Notice familiarity

If the thought feels familiar, recognize that quality.

You might notice a recurring tendency to plan, criticize, anticipate, remember, or compare.

Do not immediately construct a story about its origins.

Simply acknowledge the pattern.

Step 4: Observe the feeling

Notice whether an emotion accompanies the thought.

Is there anxiety, pleasure, irritation, sadness, or curiosity?

Can you distinguish the feeling from the thoughts describing it?

Step 5: Notice the bodily response

Observe any associated sensations.

Perhaps the jaw tightens, the chest feels heavy, or the stomach contracts.

Do not assume that every sensation has a psychological meaning.

Simply observe what is present.

Step 6: Notice the ownership claim

Listen for thoughts such as:

“I shouldn’t feel this.”

“Why am I always like this?”

“I must get rid of this thought.”

Recognize these as further mental events.

They may be useful thoughts, unhelpful thoughts, or a mixture of both. They do not have to become the unquestioned definition of who you are.

Step 7: Rest in observation

For a few moments, let the experience be present without deliberately feeding it or pushing it away.

If you become distracted, notice that too.

There is no need to maintain perfect concentration.

Step 8: Return to ordinary life

When you finish, continue with your day.

The purpose is not to become detached from life. It is to recognize your patterns more clearly and develop greater freedom in how you respond.

14. What direct seeing is—and what it is not

The article concludes that intellectual understanding must give way to direct seeing.

This does not mean that reasoning is useless.

Reasoning can clarify the concepts of Samskara, arising, identification, and Witnessing. It can also help us distinguish observation from interpretation.

But understanding a concept is different from recognizing its relevance in an actual moment of experience.

Consider the difference:

Intellectual understanding:

“Past conditioning influences present reactions.”

Direct observation:

“A critical remark has just triggered a familiar feeling of inadequacy. I notice the feeling, the accompanying thoughts, and the urge to defend myself.”

Further contemplative inquiry:

“This feeling and these thoughts are being known. Must I identify with them or react to them automatically?”

The first is a general proposition.

The second applies it to an immediate experience.

The third investigates the relationship between experience, identification, and awareness.

In the Advaita tradition, this third movement is especially significant because it turns attention toward the nature of the one who claims to experience.

Nevertheless, an experience of spontaneous thought or detached observation does not, by itself, prove every metaphysical claim associated with Advaita.

The practice is an invitation to investigate, not a demand to reach a predetermined conclusion.

15. The entire teaching in one sequence

We can condense the article into five stages.

Stage	What is happening?	What can you notice?
1. Latency	Conditioning may influence experience.	Recurring tendencies and associations.
2. Arising	A thought, feeling, sensation, or perception appears.	The immediate experience itself.
3. Familiarity	The arising may resemble a known pattern.	Recognition, emotional tone, or a habitual tendency.
4. Appropriation	A sense of personal ownership may accompany the experience.	Thoughts such as “This is happening to me” or “I am like this.”
5. Witnessing	The experience and the ownership claim are observed.	The possibility of responding without automatically identifying with every arising.

These stages are a contemplative framework, not a rigid sequence that every mental event must follow.

Sometimes a reaction occurs too quickly for its elements to be distinguished. Sometimes deliberate intention precedes a thought or action. Sometimes the familiarity is unmistakable; at other times, it is absent or ambiguous.

The purpose of the framework is to make inquiry possible, not to impose a theory on every experience.

16. The ultimate Advaita pointer: What remains unchanged?

The article begins by asking us to observe the changing contents of experience.

Thoughts come and go.

Feelings change.

Sensations appear and disappear.

Perceptions continually shift.

Even the thought “I am experiencing this” can itself become an object of observation.

The Advaita inquiry then asks:

Amid these changing experiences, what is the nature of the awareness in which they are known?

Do not answer too quickly.

If you say, “It is my mind,” notice that the thought about the mind is also known.

If you say, “It is the Witness,” notice that the word Witness is a concept appearing in awareness.

If you say, “It is me,” investigate what you mean by me.

The inquiry is not asking you to manufacture a special state or discover an invisible object hidden inside yourself.

It invites you to examine the immediate fact that experiences are known and to question whether your essential identity must be limited to their changing contents.

In Advaita, this investigation points toward Atman: the Self understood as awareness, rather than the collection of thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories, and personal narratives ordinarily taken to constitute the individual.

That is the philosophical direction of the inquiry. Its significance is not established merely by repeating the terminology; it is something the tradition invites the practitioner to investigate directly.

Final reflection

Return to the original statement:

“The impromptu performance happening on the stage of Me-the-Consciousness is triggered by the programming of Samskaras.”

Its contemplative invitation can be expressed in simpler language:

A thought appears. A feeling follows. A familiar reaction begins. The mind claims ownership of what is happening.

Can you notice each of these without immediately becoming entangled in the whole sequence?

You do not need to discover a hidden seed, reconstruct every memory, or stop the performance.

Begin with what is observable.

Notice the arising.

Recognize the familiar pattern when it is present.

Observe the claim of ownership.

Then investigate the awareness in which all of this is known.

The seed is a metaphor for latent conditioning. The sprout is the experience that manifests. Witnessing is the practice of recognizing what arises without automatically becoming identified with it.

And perhaps the most useful practical insight is this:

You may not control every thought that appears, but you can learn to recognize a familiar pattern without automatically allowing it to determine your next response.