Re: [Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
Hare Krishna
sAkshi chetaaH kevalO nirguNascha says shwetaashwatara, karmAdhyaksha, sarvabhUtAdhivAsa also. So, he is sAkshi to even the vibhAga like sAkshi and sAkshya, he is sAkshi to even our deha, buddhi, mana, prANa and ahamkara. So he is sAkshi even there is no thing that can be called 'sAkshi bhAsya'. He is sAkshi to buddhi vrutti also and this sAkshi is uniform in all (sarvabhUteshu ekameva chaitanyaM) No one can take it as Vishaya nor any one throw it away as avishaya. There is a beautiful shloka in upadesha sAhasri poem section : yathA svabuddhichArANAm sAkshi tadvat pareshvapi, naivAphOdhuM na vAdAtuM shakyastasmAt parOhyahaM.
But if we bifurcate this sarvasAkshi from the sAkshibhAsya then yes the sAkshi who is witnessing everything 'in front' of him is kevala avidyAkruta since there is something which is objectifying both sAkshi and sAkshya as Vishaya only. The sAkshitva attributed to brahman just to drive home the point that he is neither kartru nor bhOktru nor pramAtru etc. Over reading it beyond its context may lead to brahma shUnyata IMO because he is not ahaM pratyaya gamya to declare sAkshi is something different from sAkshibhAsya he is sarvasAkshi clarifies bhAshyakAra in samanvayAdhikaraNa : na hi ahaMpratyayavishayaH kartruvyaterekeNa tatsAkshee sarvabhUtasthaH, samaH, ekaH, kUtashtha nityaH...
And that paramatatva parabrahman himself in its sOpAdhika rUpa karmAdhyaksha, devaH, sarvabheteshu gUdhaH etc. but in his svarUpa he is always nirguNaH and this nirguNa sAkshi Chaitanya cannot be said at any point of time as ashuddha Chaitanya because Shuddha Chaitanya is NOT sAkshi and sAkshi Chaitanya is mere avidyA upahita etc. It is mere stretch and IMO it is mere torturing of the word sAkshi with the help of shushka tarka.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji
Hare Krisha
Thanks for the example and clarification. Hence Shuddha sAkshi Chaitanya is called even sAkshi to ahaM pratyaya. And this sAkshi Chaitanya is not separate in each upAdhi sOpAdhika Chaitanya (chidAbhAsa) in its svarUpa is shuddha Chaitanya only and in vyavahAra it is called jeeva chaitanya for all practical purposes. That which sAkshi to his buddhi vrutti the same is sAkshi is there in others also hence Upanishad calls this sAkshi as kevalO nirguNascha and uniform in one and all. sAkshi tadvat pareshvapi ekaH sUkshamaH kUtastha nityaH this cannot be the sAkshi painted in avidyA but it is the sAkshi which is avasthAteeta tureeya, which is pure witnessing consciousness and a witness to the absence of everything including the mind in sushupti. He is sAkshti to even to AnandamayAtma says bhAshyakAra in taittireeya. However as said earlier when this sAksha (reflected consciousness) taking something out of its boundaries and witnessing something else as sAkshi bhAsya sitting in the witnessing chair then it is duality and this sAkshi is definitely a separated entity from sAkshi bhAsya…which is not anyway true parabrahma svarUpa and or eka rUpaH or nityA or sarvabhUtAntarAtma 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
A non-luminous moon becomes luminous by reflecting all-pervading sunlight that falls on the moon. It is similar to the mind becoming a local conscious entity by reflecting the all-pervading light of pure consciousness. That we have - 'as though' part of the all-pervading consciousness that is illuming the local mind and that which gets reflected (chidaabhaasa) as reflected consciousness.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sada,
Could you clarify a little, please. I haven’t come across this precise version of the chidAbhAsa metaphor before.
You say: “That part of sunlight that is falling on the sun before reflection occurs is Sakshee - sunlight.” Obviously you mean ‘that part that is falling on the moon’. But that is not my query.
You say: “Similarly that part of all-pervading pure consciousness that 'as though' falling on the local mind before getting reflection is Sakshee chaitanya.”
But isn’t it the case that we cannot have ‘parts’ of Consciousness? It is akhaNDa.
You also say: “It is there all the time as long as the mind is there to reflect it.”
But surely it is there whether there is a mind to reflect it or not?!
Apologies – I am being deliberately pedantic so as to make it all very clear. Presumably the concept of ‘witness’ is associated with a particular mind. Otherwise, the witness of one mind’s thoughts would also be the witness of all others’ thoughts too. But it is the same Consciousness that is ‘as though’ falling on all minds. This would mean that it is the same witness. Therefore, the concept cannot be associated with a particular mind…
Could you provide a more detailed explanation of how this metaphor works? It would seem that the ‘witness’ aspect, in order to be associated with a particular mind, has to be after reflection, not before. Consciousness alone (which is what there is before reflection) cannot be a witness because Consciousness is akartA.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001c01da58d9%2468158800%2438409800%24%40advaita.org.uk
sreenivasa murthy
//I have already given you my view for why there are two definitions of
sAkshi - one is from avacCheda vAda and another from AbhAsa vAda.//
Fine.
Just for a quick refresh, what according to you is the position of
siddhAntI as per Advaita-Siddhi on following:-
1. Is rajatAkArA-avidyA-vritti required for illusory-rajata-jnAna?
2. Is sukhAkArA-avidyA-vritti required for sukha-jnAna?
3. Is ahamkArA-avidyA-vritti required for aham-jnAna?
4. Is avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti required for avidyA-jnAna?
5. In pratibhAsa-kalpaka-samAna-kAlIna-kalpaka-vattvam, who is
avidyA-kalpaka and who is avidyA-pratibhAsa-kalpaka (i.e.
avidyA-jnAna-kalpaka)? [As per my understanding, avidyA-kalpaka =
avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, avidyA-pratibhAsa-kalpaka =
avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya]
6. What is the primary definition of sAkshI accepted by Advaita-Siddhi?
Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sada,
My problem was with the definition of ‘witness’.
You have now confirmed that a ‘local conscious entity’ comes about (in vyavahAra) by virtue of Consciousness reflecting in a mind. From the pAramArthika perspective, there are no minds. Accordingly, you have agreed that your first statement, that “that part of all-pervading pure consciousness that 'as though' falling on the local mind before getting reflection is Sakshee chaitanya” is not correct. Before reflection, there is only Consciousness.
Once reflection has occurred, a mind can perceive (vyavahAra) external objects and internal vRRitti-s.
You now say that: “Realization involves shifting mind's attention from the reflected consciousness to that sakshee consciousness” but have still not said what that ‘sAkShI Consciousness is, given that it cannot be ‘Consciousness before getting reflection’.
I have no problem with the concept of chidAbhAsa. I have written quite a lot on this, beginning in 2011, and it all essentially agrees with what you have said. These begin with https://www.advaita-vision.org/chidabhasa/. But I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions. Consciousness not only ‘does not think or speak’. Also, it cannot be a witness. Witnessing only takes place by virtue of an upAdhi – mind.
The only thing that seems to make any sense to me is that sAkShI is the same mind (functioning by virtue of reflected Consciousness) but now, in addition to seeing objects and thoughts, it is also now effectively ‘sees’ these ‘seeing operations’ taking place. But this cannot really be in a literal sense, because the brain (whose functions are being used) does not operate in that way. It is rather an ‘awareness’ of these functions taking place with ‘who-I-really-am’ not actually ‘doing’ anything.
Would you agree? If not, how would you precisely define ‘sAkShI’?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2000004298.3242401.1707215593390%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
My problem was with the definition of ‘witness’.
-----------------
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sada,
Yes, I agree with all that you have said – no problem. But you have still not indicated how there is a ‘witness consciousness’ that is presumably a subset of Consciousness. I.e. the implication of your original post was that sAkShI is a subset of Brahman. What you are now saying is that “it is pure consciousness all the time”. This is what I have always understood.
The mind reflects pure Consciousness and the vRRitti-s reflect pure Consciousness. Hence ‘I’ the person am able to perceive them.
If I now start thinking about how all this takes place, ‘I’ the person am directing my attention to vRRitti-s about Advaita and Brahman etc. This is still only possible because Consciousness is reflecting in my mind and from the vRRitti-s.
This is what I understand you to be saying and it is exactly the same as I would explain it.
But you have still not said where the concept of ‘witness’ comes into this. In the explanation above, what is the ‘witness’?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2014165041.3494152.1707277010219%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
Bhaskar YR
Witnessing only takes place by virtue of an upAdhi – mind.
praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I have some observations with regard to this. But before that I would be happy to note that these dialogues with regard to concept of sAkshi in ‘some threads’ is ‘free from tarka karkasha nomenclature to sAkshi-chaitanya’ and we could able to talk about it within the purview of shruti and shankara 😊
In bruhadAraNyaka there is an example of big fish which is moving from one bank to another of the river without being swept away from its strong waves. Likewise jeeva too moving from waking state to dream to sleep and again back to waking state without getting influenced by the kAma karma ( you can refer shankara bhAshya with regard to this in bruhadAraNyaka). Just as the big wish different from waves and currents and also banks, the jeeva also different from these three Avastha-s. The socalled connection with his gross body detached away when he is dreaming, the mind too snapped away when he is going from svapna to deep sleep. Therefore he has to be different from body and the mind as well. And elsewhere there is a mention that this jeeva even transcends the indriya-s and prANa also!! Therefore he is the sAkshi (the witness) the seer of the external world when he is in waking state, seer of the subtle body (mind) and mind projected world in swapna and he is the witnessing consciousness in susupti where the external world and upAdhi-s are conspicuous by its absence. He is beyond all these states it implies that he is only the sAkshi. And this sAkshitva (witness-hood) of the consciousness does not depend on sAkshi bhAsya nor upAdhi (mind) he is in its svarUpa ‘sarva sAkshi’ whether sarva is there or not his own svarUpa is sAkshi svarUpa. Shwetaashwatara and US (poem) establishes this fact beyond any doubt.
Bhaskar YR
that original one that is falling on the mind - we can call it as Sakshee.
praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Don’t you think the above statement us to think that the sAkshee is aneka and different in each and every upAdhi!!??
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 3:45 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI
|
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1585270461.3535038.1707300901540%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Is sunlight falling on moons and planets same or different.
- It is same and that is not my doubt 😊
Just from the point of chidaabhaasa or reflection by the mind, we are trying to identify that part of consciousness that is getting reflected by the local mind ( or minds) - even though consciousness as we understand is partless.
- sAkshi is the one which is witnessing even the reflecting consciousness through upAdhi (in jAgrat and swapna) and its cessation in sushupti. It is sAkshi to vijnAnAtman. vijnAnAtman ( the knowing self) has the birth and death hence in bhAshya it is clearly clarified that sAkshi is svayaM prakAsha and it is not like reflected consciousness (chidAbhAsa). Only chidAbhAsa can be kartru & bhOktru it cannot be sAkshi bhAshyakAra clarifies this in adhyAsa bhAshya itself. The scope of adhyAsa is that we are not able to distinguish between sAkshi svarUpa and ahaM pratyaya (who is kartru and bhOktru), if we are able to distinguish this then the result if saMsAra anartha nAsha. evaM ahaM pratyayinam ashesha svaprachAra sAkshiNi pratyagAtmani adhyasya taM cha pratyagAtmAnAM sarvasAkshiNam tadviparyayeNa antaHkaraNAdhishu adhyasyati. As said earlier sAkshi is svayaM-siddha, sva-prakAshita whereas reflected consciousness is upAdhi siddha. This is what I am trying to convey.
- svarUpa bhUtaya svayaM jyOtiH : svayaM jyOti svarUpa is sAkshi.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sada,
Apologies for being obtuse but your explanation still does not clarify. It seems that you are saying that Consciousness falls on the inert mind and is reflected, just like sunlight falling on the inert moon and being reflected. What we call ‘moonlight’ is just reflected sun. The sun has no knowledge or interest in this. Similarly, the apparent consciousness of the jIva is reflected Consciousness. Brahman has no knowledge or interest in this.
All this is perfectly fine. This is what we both understood before and what we understood now.
But the question remains: where is the ‘witness’ in all of this? You seem to be saying that we give the name ‘witness’ to the pure, disinterested Consciousness that just happens to fall upon the mind and get reflected. But why? That pure Consciousness doesn’t ‘know’ that it has been reflected by that inert mind and does not ‘witness’ anything. It is the now-activated mind that sees things.
Bhaskar-ji: I note that you have now entered the discussion. I will endeavor to understand what you are saying and comment later.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1585270461.3535038.1707300901540%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
H S Chandramouli
Pranams Sadananda Ji,
Reg // Sakshee is just referred to as witness - it does nothing - but word is used //,
Perhaps it would be appropriate to bring in the concept of द्रष्टृत्वम् (draShTRRitvam) while defining साक्षी (sAkShI). Especially while differentiating साक्षी (sAkShI) from jIva. BUB 4-3-23 brings out this very succinctly. An understanding of साक्षी (sAkShI) would be incomplete without reference to BUB 4-3-23.
The mantra and a few excerpts from the Bhashya part is presented below.
BU 4-3-23 // ….. न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वात् । ….. //
// …..na hi draShTurdRRiShTerviparilopo vidyate.avinAshitvAt |…… //
Translation (Swami Madhavananda) // ….. for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. …//.
// भवतु प्रकाशकेषु, अन्यथा असम्भवात् , न त्वात्मनीति चेत् — न, दृष्ट्यविपरिलोपश्रुतेः । पश्यामि — न पश्यामि — इत्यनुभवदर्शनात् नेति चेत् , न, करणव्यापारविशेषापेक्षत्वात् ; उद्धृतचक्षुषां च स्वप्ने आत्मदृष्टेरविपरिलोपदर्शनात् । तस्मात् अविपरिलुप्तस्वभावैव आत्मनो दृष्टिः ; अतः तया अविपरिलुप्तया दृष्ट्या स्वयञ्ज्योतिःस्वभावया पश्यन्नेव भवति सुषुप्ते ॥ //
// bhavatu prakAshakeShu, anyathA asambhavAt , na tvAtmanIti chet — na, dRRiShTyaviparilopashruteH | pashyAmi — na pashyAmi — ityanubhavadarshanAt neti chet , na, karaNavyApAravisheShApekShatvAt ; uddhRRitachakShuShAM cha svapne AtmadRRiShTeraviparilopadarshanAt | tasmAt avipariluptasvabhAvaiva Atmano dRRiShTiH ; ataH tayA avipariluptayA dRRiShTyA svaya~njyotiHsvabhAvayA pashyanneva bhavati suShupte || //
Translation (Swami Madhavananda) //
Objection: This is contradicted by our experi- ence that we sometimes see and sometimes do not see.
Reply: No, for this is simply due to particular activities of our organs. We observe also that those who have had their eyes removed keep the vision that belongs to the self intact in dreams. Therefore the vision of the self is imperishable, and through that imperishable, self-luminous vision the Atman continues to see in the state of profound sleep //.
The entire Bhashya for this mantra is perhaps just enough to understand the concept of साक्षी (sAkShI) and its diference from jIva.
Pranams and RegardsTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/252135683.3557525.1707311676604%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Hi Bhaskar-ji,
Yes. Again, I agree with this. If we think of a single ‘entity’ being aware of the ‘external’ waking state, the ‘internal’ dreaming state and the ‘absence of percepts’ in the deep-sleep state, then we are led to the concept of turIya as that which pervades and is the substantial reality behind all three states. So you are equating the ‘witness’ with turIya?
I hadn’t thought of making this equation. But that is clearly what Sada-ji is doing also, by identifying the ‘witness’ as ‘prior to reflection’.
But how, then, do we get over the problem that ‘witnessing’ must have a witness and a witnessed and a witnessing action? Brahman-Consciousness-turIya does not act and therefore cannot be a witness. (It would also need a mind, wouldn’t it?)
My only reasonable conclusion here is that we are trying to take a metaphor beyond the realms of its applicability, and that, in fact, the ‘witness’ idea is not actually a very good metaphor if considered too deeply!
I will have a look at BUB 4-3-23 as Chandramouli-ji suggests.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 10:33 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65815FD33D765F6FCBEE7F8784452%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Ram Chandran
Pranam Sadaji:
Everyone here is happy to see you back with your Vedanta pravchanam. I like your statement that "Sakshee is just referred to as witness - it does nothing - but word is used - See Bhaskar's description of Sakshee. It is different from chidaabhaasa but it is pure consciousness unaffected by the upadhis."
Your statement is a reminder to all of us that any notion (or definition or framework of thoughts) is introduced to help explain those who have questions and difficulty in their understanding. What is considered helpful to one does not necessarily be helpful to someone else. This is the reason for so many philosophical thoughts that are accepted by significant number of devotees who have faith and convictions on what they believed. Pure vedanta declares that all such notions at somepoint of time need to be thrown out and discarded when one reaches the state of beyond all notions! You pointed out numerous occasions that at the Paramarthika level, there are no notions, thoughts with total unity between the Atman and the Bhraman!!
thanks again,
Ram Chandran
H S Chandramouli
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004001da59dc%24bc2c54b0%243484fe10%24%40advaita.org.uk.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sada-ji,
I have found a good explanation for all of this. See the second half of https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/venugopal/venugopal25.html (and apologies for the fact that the transliteration no longer works here for some reason!)
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:53 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI
Chandramouliji - PraNAms
And thanks for the reference.
Hari Om!
Sada
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I will have a look at BUB 4-3-23
- Yes with that dvA-suparNa in mundaka also would be appropriate I reckon. One is conditioned and who is the kshetrajna / vijnAnAtma / chidAbhAsa who eats, tastes (thinking himself as kartru and bhOktru) the fruits of karma as a result experience sukha-duHkha etc. and the other i.e. the pure consciousness / eternally pure/self-effulgent and absolutely free in its nature remains there as an ‘eternal witness’ neither eats nor tastes anything he merely looks on as sAkshi. Shankara bhAshya further clarifies here ultimately there is no duality it is only one which is the truth and that is keval sAkshi.
My only reasonable conclusion here is that we are trying to take a metaphor beyond the realms of its applicability, and that, in fact, the ‘witness’ idea is not actually a very good metaphor if considered too deeply!
- And yes, I completely agree with it. As I said in my one of the earlier mails the word sAkshi is just there to drive home the point that Atman is neither kartru nor bhOktru nor vijnAnAtman (kshetrajna)it is in this sense shruti-s like shwetAshwatara saying Atman is witness to deny the jnAtrutvaM (knowership) it does not mean he, being a sAkshi, sitting in a witness box and witnessing all these whims and fancies..na that is not the real description of Atman who is kevalO nirguNascha. The best possible way of defining him is ‘neti, neti’ in order to negate all specific attributes including the nature of being a sAkshi. 😊
- And when we know this simple truth there is no need to twist and turn this word sAkshi awkwardly with the help of mere dry logic and we can easily avoid giving the ‘statements like’ name to sAkshi Chaitanya. Those who are involved in tarka pradhAna ascertainment of sAkshi Chaitanya forgetting the simple fact that brahman called as sAkshi just like it has been addressed as satyaM and jnAnam. And in reality it cannot be denoted by any names and forms including terms like brahman, atman, satyam, jnAnam, sAkshi etc. As sada prabhuji clarified, sAkshi literally refers to some certain genus and this term begs the sAkshya (sAkshi bhAsya) and when brahman is described as sAkshi it is only indicated by that term to differentiate it from other ahaM pratyaya, katrutva, bhOktrutva etc. But brahman is not actually expressed by the term ‘sAkshi’. yatO vAcho nivartante aprApya manasa saha.
Rammohan Subramaniam
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Bhaskar-ji,
Well analyzed – I completely agree with you and the ‘two birds’ metaphor is a very good one to reference this.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:16 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI
praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581E93D417C813F4761528984442%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Yes – a very good way of looking at it. In the two birds metaphor in MuNDaka that Bhaskar-ji just pointed out, Ṥaṅkara actually uses the word sAkShI for the Ishvara bird:
“the other one, who is by nature ever pure, ever wise and ever free (nitya Shudha budha mukta svabhAvaH), and aho is all-knowledge (sarvaj~naH), and has the totality of sattva guNa pradhAna mAyA as his medium, does not experience (na aShnAti)the karmaphalam. He, by his simple presence as an eternal witness (nitya sakShitva sattA mAtreNa) is able to direct and connect (according to the law of karma) both the bogya universe (pippalam) which is of varied experiences, as well as the jIva who thinks he is the kartA and bhoktA.” (Varadar Ajan translation and commentary)
Dennis
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/70b7daed-1cb1-4f83-8595-ca3fc982743an%40googlegroups.com.
Vikram Jagannathan
The below is my understanding, primarily based on BU-4.3.22, BU-4.3.23, MU-3.1.1 and VP. This is also inline with Shri Rammohan ji’s opinion.
The term witness has 2 connotations:
1. Chaitanya is the actual revealer of all vrittis and in turn all cognition. The vrittis and corresponding objects are all insentient and require an illuminating sentient principle to reveal them. This is Chaitanya. This is explained in BUBh-4.3.23.
2. Chaitanya, though an essential component in the process of cognition, remains completely unaffected. In the absence of Chaitanya, there cannot be any cognition whatsoever. This is explained in the two-birds analogy MUBh-3.1.1.
3. Thus the two connotations are - being the essential revealer of all things and still being ever pure & unaffected by the process of cognition.
4. Bhagavan Bhashyakara states in BUBh-4.3.23 that being the witness is the very nature of the Atman (Pure Chaitanya); just as heat of fire and luminosity of Sun.
5. Bhagavan Bhashyakara states in BUBh-4.3.22, “the self-effulgence of the witness is proved on the grounds that the witnessed objects are different from the witness subject”.
6. This implies that the appellation ‘witness’ makes most sense with respect to objects of witness (vyavaharika), although the nature of ever being the witness is inherent in Pure Chaitanya.
7. Extending this point to Vedanta Paribhasha, VP says that perception of Chaitanya is in 4 aspects - jiva, jiva-sakshi, Isvara, Isvara-sakshi. While Jiva and Isvara have the antahkarana and Maya as their qualifying attributes (viseshana), the corresponding sakshi only have antahkarana and Maya as a limiting adjunct (upadhi).
8. By being conditioned by only an adjunct, the jiva-sakshi remains unaffected by the antahkarana or its vrittis.
9. More importantly, VP says that this jiva-sakshi is different in each individual, which is explained to be purely based on the distinctions / differences / limitations / individualization of the limiting adjunct antahkarana. The witness is actually one and the same as Brahman / Pure Chaitanya.
From these points, here is my understanding:
10. Although the nature of being the witness, in terms of being self-effulgent, is inherent in Pure Chaitanya, the term ‘witness’ is truly applicable only in the vyavaharika sense in the context of other objects.
11. What is called as the ‘witness’ is the Chaitanya that has antahkarana as its limiting adjunct (antahkarana-upahita-chaitanyam). In other words, the ‘conditioned’ or ‘reflected’ Chaitanya - chidabasa - is itself the witness.
12. When antahkarana is superimposed (adhyasa) on this chidabasa, the resulting entity appears to be the agent ‘jiva’.
13. But the very definition and nature of adhyasa implies that though chidabasa appears as the mutable agent jiva, actually chidabasa, even in vyavaharika, is only a mere witness (unaffected revealer).
14. The same chidabasa, in a collective sense, with Maya as the upadhi is the witnessing Isvara (as the antaryami) as in MU-3.1.1.
Seeking your guidance & corrections on my current understanding.
with humble prostrations,
Vikram
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001801da5a6b%248aba8110%24a02f8330%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Bhaskar YR
Although the nature of being the witness, in terms of being self-effulgent, is inherent in Pure Chaitanya, the term ‘witness’ is truly applicable only in the vyavaharika sense in the context of other objects.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I very often see the compartments like vyAvahArika and pAramArthika in Advaita discussions 😊 When I was having the chat with Sri Jay prabhuji ( a hardcore dualist) he used to say : “you advaitins smart enough to take shelter like this whenever there is contradictions in your siddhAnta. You accept everything in the name of vyavahAra and when questioned, you people, by engaging in that vyavahAra itself declare that it is not paramArtha valid only in vyavahAra. And I replied : Yes that is how it is, even calling brahman as consciousness is within the realm of vyavahAra as per bhAshyakAra and in pAramArthika there is nothing as vishesha to talk about as paramArtha as it cannot be worded, workable, expressible or objectifiable. When the very satyaM, jnAnam, brahman, Atman etc. are mere qualified titles and falling within the realm of vyavahAra is there any doubt about lable ‘sAkshi’ and its applicability to THAT in vyavahAra ?? So I don’t think there is no need to bring this vyavahAra and pAramArthika boxes in each and every discussion and put something in vyavahAra and keep something else in paramArtha. Just see how bhAshyakAra clarifies this in chAndOgya shruti bhAshya :
pUrvapaxi : is not even Atman denoted by the word ‘Atman’ ?
siddhAnti : no, because there are shruti-s like na tatra chakshurgacchati na vAggacchati nO manaH, yatO vAchO nivartante aprApya manasA saha etc.
pUrvapaxi : if that is the case how do you explain shruti vAkya like : Atman alone is left, right, top bottom, Atman Atmanneva pashyati etc. ??
siddhAnti : naisha dOshaH (no problem in these expressions) the word Atman basically used in the world of duality just to denote the jeeva (individual soul) which is distinct from its shareera ‘ the same’ name ‘Atman’ extended to express the entity which remains after the rejection of body and other anAtma vastu-s. In short that tattva which is really inexpressible by any words and deeds.
( just quoting from memory don’t remember exact bhAshya words, but I am sure this is what expressed by bhAshyakAra in essence).
Like above in taittireeya bhAshya, bhAshyakAra talking about tattva being called as consciousness (jnAnam) and clarifies that brahman cannot be explained by the label jnAnam either. Nevertheless it is indicated though not literally expressed by this word. By this word jnAnam which is semblance of consciousness just a modification of the mind. It is not directly denoted by that term because THAT is devoid of any genus and other specific features. And satyaM also explained in these lines only. So ‘neti neti’ is the best possible way of explaining the inexplicable. This has been already clarified by bhAshyakAra himself at somany places.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Bhaskar-ji,
The entirety of Advaita teaching (along with everything else) is vyAvahArika. And yet we want to understand/intuit (whatever) the absolute reality. Saying ‘neti, neti’ to everything is hardly much better than just remaining silent, is it? (At least, when Dakshinamurthy did this, he held up the chin mudrA, which had obviously been explained to the seeker before!)
As soon as we speak, we encounter this dilemma. Surely the only recourse is to use words like vyavahAra and paramArtha?
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65813404EA5FED5F799B17BB844B2%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.