Just for a change

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Devanathan,

 

This is in continuation of my previous post on this subject.

 

You had quoted only one-half of shloka 33 of chapter 3, brAmaNa 7 of

Sureshvaracharya's Vartika on br. up. This no doubt refers to nirguNa

brahman. But you have to read this along with the subsequent shlokas. The

next shloka is:-svakAryabhUtAm tAmeva prithivIm mohavartmanA|

 

tatralabdhavisheshhaH samstAmevAyam niyacchati ||

 

This shloka speaks of the kArya, which implies that the brahman spoken of in

this shloka is brahman with mAyA which alone can be a cause. Moreover, the

activity 'niyacchati', controlling, is attributed to it. Activity is

attributable only to the saguNa brahman and not nirguNa.

 

Moreover, I have with me the vartika published by Mahesh Research Institute.

In this there is a detailed Introduction in Sanskrit by the eminent scholar

Brahmasri S. Subrahmanya Sastri. On page xv of this Introduction he says:--

 

antaryAmI tu bhagavAn nArAyaNa eva. sa ca saguNam brahma,

niyantrutvavyApAravattvAt, na nirguNam brahma.

 

Since the activity of controlling (niyantrutvam) is attributed, it is only

saguNa brahman and not nirguNa. nirguNa brahman has no activity at all.

 

You have also quoted Anubhutisvarupacharya's Ishtasiddhivivaranam. This work

has been published as an appendix to my English translation of Dr. R.

Krishnamurthy Sastri's Critical Study of this work, which I hope you have.

Please quote the page No, in that book so that I can examine this point. But

there is no doubt that he could not have said that the antaryAmi is nirguNa

brahman.

 

 

 

This may be found to be rather heavy stuff by some of the members. Anyway I

wanted to bring out the correct position.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

 

>

> Moreover, the jIva is defined as antahkaraNa-visishTa-caitanyam.

> The sAkshi is antahkaraNa-upahita-caitanyam.

>

> So sAkshi must have an upAdhi.

> Please give the exact references of the statements which you say

support the

> view that sAkshi or antaryAmi is unconditioned brahman, so that we can

> examine them further.

> S.N.Sastri

 

Namaste Sri Sastriji,

 

Although I cannot provide exact references, I

have been taught, (and I do remember this was

when we were studying the text 'Vakya Vritti')

that the term 'sakshi' serves as lakshana (pointer)

to brahman.

 

If one follows the logic (and practice) of

seer/seen discrimination, which is used in

particular to allow the individual mind to

discriminate between that which does not

change (brahman) and that which does (everything

else), then according to this logic as one

'knocks off' objects as 'not I,' one

arrives at the 'sakshi' the witness.

 

But then the question is asked, " Is there

really a witness a sakshi? Or is it that

every object is just 'known?' "

 

Up to a certain point, we take the mind as

the 'knower,' but then it is pointed out

that the thoughts in the mind are known.

 

So here a sakshi is sometimes posited as the

knower. But later sakshi is taken back. It is

pointed out that sakshi is used as a lakshana.

It is a teaching device which resolves into

brahman. In reality there is no sakshi.

 

How is it that the thoughts are known?

They are known because the nature of the

self is 'known,' (as in chit).

 

The self is known because the self is

self-evident, and every thing is known

('shines') in the light of the self.

 

Thus in reality there is no sakshi,

only 'known,' and 'known' is my

nature, whether objects are or are

not.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Pranams Shri Shri Sastri ji,

The following are some of the references I have used in my previous

post:

Brahma Sutra Bashyam – AntharyamyAdhikaranam – I.ii.(18-20) ,

I.i.21, III.ii.27 and IV.1.3. Brhadaranyaka Upanisad III.vii.2-3

and Vartika with Vidyaranya Dipika.. Kathopanisad I.ii.22

mentions `AsarIram SarIresvanavastesvastitam | mahAnta vibhumAtmAnam

matvA Dhiro. Sankara comments `the non-dual self, that is all

pervading and is above all distinctions identical with the Self is

conveyed by the word Atman which primarily means Inner Self.

Sureswara's Vartika clearly mentions that the inner Self is

different from the nature of the deity within the earth (III.vii.33)

and he points out in Verse 30,where the Deity is identified with the

inner Self itself. From these both verses we may come to a

conclusion that the Iswaratva is adhyaropa on the Saksi – the

antharyami where the Sagunatva is discerned only for accounting for

niyantrtva, but actually Antharyami is Nirguna, aguna and asarIra in

Reality. Sakitva is connoted with the NiyantA Iswara while the sAkya

is Suddha Nirguna Caitanya. The Saksi has the tAdAtmya sambanda with

all motions and notions of empirical transactions; `prakAsayitr' the

revealer of all existence, while the sAksya is that consciousness

that is devoid of all relative attributed `tAdAtmya sambanda abAva'.

The functionality of `controllership' is not the real nature of

sAksi, the appearance of such is mere conditioning effect, while in

reality he exists as the Highest reality (Vartika V-43). Thus the

Saksi Saksya relation must be discerned well with Discrimination

where the AntharyAmi is known to be both Saguna and Nirguna –

knowing Latter as its real nature and the former as mere nature in

effect.

 

AnubhutisvarupAcArya (I am referring to Sastri ji's translation of

Istasiddhi Vivaranam Pg 137 – the only available translation – Prof

Veezhinathan presented me this awesome book of yours) defines inner

self as `upAderdrasyatvEna tat sAksi' – `even the limiting adjunct

is `seen' (revealed – `prakAsayitr' – here `trc' pratyaya is taken

as the `karana' vyutpatthi not kartr utpatti and hence Nirguna

tattva is explained) – please refer Nrsimha Purva tApini 4th

upanisad 1st mantra Sankara bashyam for kartr – karana vyutpatti

definitions; also Istasiddhi vivaranam states `tatA ca tAdrsa-

upAdyantargatatvAt sa: antharyAmi ityucate' – here Saksi is

not `conditioned' Consciousness but given to be the Consciousness

that penetrates the condition itself – making a difference'. All

these amounts to say that the Saguna Vakyas are gauna vrtti padas

which ought to be reconciled with the Nirguna tatparya to finally

mean that AntharyAmi is conditionless-attributeless Brahman alone.

Sankara himself says ` Sarva karma – abhAvah antharyAmino nitya

muktatvAt; further adding to say `sva vyApare antaro

abyantaratistan – na esata Atma te tava mama ca SarvabhUtAnAm ca-

ityupalaksanArta etad antharyAmi yastvA prstO amrtaH – Sarva

samsAradarma varjita ityetat | - where Nirguna Tattvam is Spastam.

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

Moreover, the jIva is defined as antahkaraNa-visishTa-caitanyam.

The sAkshi is antahkaraNa-upahita-caitanyam.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, kindly give me shankara bhAshya reference for this...As far as my

limited knowledge goes antaHkaraNa upahita brahman is *kArya brahman*,

kindly recall shankara's words in sUtra bhAshya *asya hi kArya brahmaNO

gantavyatvaM upapadyate etc...

 

Sri Sastri prabhuji :

 

So sAkshi must have an upAdhi.

 

bhaskar :

 

IMHO, the declaration *sAkshi must have upAdhi* is little problematic!!

Shankara clearly says upAdhi & pramAtrutva is kEvala adhyasTha in sAkshi

chEtaH...and upanishad say, Atman/brahman can see without eyes, can hear

without ears etc.etc. so it is not mandatory that sAkshi should always

operate with upAdhi-s in all the three states or he should/must have

upadhi(s) in all the avasthAvas...after all, what upAdhi does sAkshi have

in sUshupti?? Moreover, Shankara clearly says brahman's Ishitavya or

saguNatva holds good only in vyavahAra & avidyAkruta...and sAkshi here we

are talking is nitya buddhA, mukta svarUpa chaitanya which is

nirguNa..shankara says in kEna bhAshya (1-2-18)that na hi antaHkaraNaM

antarENa chaitanya jyOtishA deepitaM svavishayasaNkalpAdhyavasAyAdi

samarThaM syAt, tasmAt manasOpi manaH iti...So prabhuji, in short, saying

upAdhi is *the must* for sAkshi is something farfetched & this conclusion

may drive us away from shankara's mUla siddhAnta. Kindly correct me if I

said anything wrong here.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar