Just for a change

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri bhaskar,

 

What I wrote is taken from Vedantaparibhasha. It is said there that sAkshi

is of two kinds—jIva sAkshi and IishvarasAkshi. jIvasAkshi is antaHkaraNa

upahitam chitanyam. IshvarasAkshi is described as mAyA-upahitam chitanyam.

This is what my teacher Dr. R. Krishnamurthy Sastri was repeatedly saying in

our class. I do not know whether it is stated in the bhAshya.

 

Sastri.

 

 

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...

 

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.

bhaskar

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Bhaskar ji,

Actually the classification of Jiva and Iswara Saksi is Dharmaraja's

own innovation and it is very important too. Most of the Vivarana

Vadins reject his claim discerning two aspects of Saksi; even

Dharmaraja's guru NrsimhAsrama does not any such specific

inclination to this theory (even in his prakaranas like Advaita

Dipika, Tattva bodhini ..). However Vidyaranya takes an exception.

Saksi is aparOksi – the immediate and inmost Self that is most

subtle which witnesses all activities in its own light. Vidyaranya

in his Brhadaranyaka Dipika while addressing AntharyAmi Nirupanam

conveys the same to say, `atma sarva jIvastu svaprakAsataya svata

eva aparOksa ityartah'. This Aparoksa Caitanya lies, as the

underlying reality of all upAdhi's is known as Saksi while

the `knower' or the Consciousness associated with that of the UpAdhi

is known as Jiva. The knowership is allocated to the Jiva by the

knot of Ignorance known as the Avidya granti or the Visnu granti who

is Saguna. Thus the Saksi that is not associated with any upAdhi is

apparently known to be Nirguna. Such a Saksi Caitanya is the primal

principle that reveals the unity between the Iswara and Jiva to

convey the atma-Brahma abheda. Vidyaranya says `Sarva

antaratmatcokhya (saksi) ca JivaBrahmanOrabEda: sUcita' iti.

Dharmaraja draws this as the ground reference to claim justification

for his claim on the classification of Jiva-Iswara Saksi concept. It

is important to note that such a classification is portrayed only

with the aupAdika bheda – the quintessence of which precisely lies

with abheda alone as the akhandArta of MahavAkyas convey. Vidyaranya

hereagain sanctions this view and accommodates the same with the

Siddhanta view by quoting Br.Sutra `antarA bhutagramavat svAtmana'

where Bagavadpada's Bhasya clearly abridges Usasta and Kahola

readings in Br.up (III.iv.1) & (III.v.1) to mark that there can be

no two inmost selves residing in the same body; that the `one' Self

(Saksi) is free from the assemblage of all upAdhis and that which is

seemingly associated with adjuncts are mere aspects of that `one'

Self only. The identity of Jiva and Iswara Saksi is conveyed by

the `eva' sabda in Br.Up(III.v.1) which mainly exposes the unwelcome

position of delineating difference in such a classification. In

SastraprakAsika , Anandagiri insists on the same sense wherein he

says, the antarAtma conveyed in both the brAhmanas vide Usasta and

Kahola reveals the esoteric primary sense of the same VijnAnAtman

alone that is devoid of all relative attributes. `Ekasmin prakarane

dvayor ukter antarAtmatvam paramAtmany ucyamAnam vijnAnAtman siddham

bhavisyatIti tadukter ityartah |'iti. Nyaya-kalpa-latika shares a

similar view and refers to gUdAdhikarana (Br.Su.Bh I.ii.11) pointing

out the fact that the notion of categorical classification is only

aupAdhika - figurative and not svarUpa; in the latter sense of which

remains devoid of all attributes.

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J