Sakshii swaruupam

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all.

 

There was some interesting discussion on the sakshii

swaruupam by scholars.

 

I would like to present my understanding on the topic,

for whatever it is worth.

 

Saakshii is normally translated as the witness and

witness implies something witnessed or witnessing

which is called saakshyam. Saakshii implies therefore

a saakshyam has to be there. In addition, saakshyam

has to be different from saakshii, for saakshii to be

a saakshii.

 

Conversely without saakshyam, the role of saakshii

also ceases. In principle, saakshii and saakshyam are

mutually exclusive, therefore fall in the realm of

dvaita or duality, or vyaavahaarika satyam or

transactional reality. The reason this is

transactional or vyaavahaarika satyam is both saakshii

and saakshyam are ontologically in par with each

other.

 

But when we apply this to witnessing consciousness,

one has to be very careful. The reason is very

simple. Saakshii is the witnessing consciousness,

which is in the realm of paaramaarthika satyam and

saakshyam or that which is witnessed is in the

vyaavahaarika satyam. Hence ontologically they have

different degrees of reality.

 

Shree Sureswara provides a beautiful example to

illustrate the sakhyatvam of Saakshii. He says let

us take a brilliant Gem which is shining all by itself

(if you want you can take it as radium Gem,

self-shining – which is what consciousness is) Now

when we bring in its close proximity a colorful

object, the object gets illuminated in the brilliance

of the Gem. We can say for discussion purposes that

Gem is illumining the object just as a saakshii is

illumining the saakshyam. The analogy is like

consciousness that ‘I am’ illumining the inert mind,

which is an object for illumination. Now if you look

carefully, Gem has nothing to do with illumination of

the object per sec. Illumination being its swaruupa

lakshaNam or its intrinsic nature, it cannot but be

brilliant all the time whether there is an object near

by or not. Similarly the consciousness has nothing to

do of being a witnessing consciousness, even though we

can say for our understanding the truth that the mind

is being a saakshyam (illumined) or being witnessed by

the witnessing consciousness that ‘I am’. Therefore we

assign a role of saakshii to the consciousness when

the mind gets illumined in its presence and not that a

witnessing consciousness is really doing the job of

witnessing, even we recognize that witnessing is

action less action by itself. – This is to be

considered as upaaya or means to shift our attention

of objective mind to the very subject that illumines

the objective mind. Yan manaasa na manute yenaahur

mano matam - that which mind cannot think but because

of which the mind has the capacity to think - says

Kena.

 

Now when there is no object at all that is to be

illumined – the Gem is still self shining as usual and

there are no objects around that gets illumined. The

sushhupti or deep sleep is like that where the

witnessing consciousness is there but its role as

witness depends on how we look at that deep sleep

state. The mind is folded in deep sleep state. Now we

treat the absence of the mind as pramaa or knowledge

(just as we say – yes there is no pot on the table

where the absence of the pot on the table is knowledge

or pramaa), then saakshii can thought of as illuming

the absence of the mind or essentially – as Mandukya

says there is no desire for any objects in the deep

sleep states only because I do not see any objects

there. The reason that I say there are no objects

there is that I have familiar all the time with the

presence of objects when the mind is there. Hence

when I say there is no pot on the table, I could say

that because I am familiar with the pot before and I

do not see that pot that I am familiar in terms of how

it looks like. But could I say there is no

gaagaabuubu on the table? That makes no sense, even

though it may be knowledge but it is a useless

knowledge since there is no object like gaagaabuubu

anytime before also and I have no knowledge of what

that is to make some sense of the statement that there

is no gaagaabuubu on the table. Similarly since in

the deep sleep state, from the point of vyaavahaarika

satyam, I can say I do (did) not see any objects in

the deep sleep state, that piece of information is

knowledge alright since I am looking from the point of

mind that is always familiar with the objects all the

time. But from the truth point, just as Gem is there

as self shining all the time whether there are objects

in its vicinity or not, consciousness is

self-illuminating even in deep sleep state. Saakshii

ceases to be saakshii since there is no saakshyam in

the deep sleep state. Hence Ch. Up says – I ‘reach’ my

swaruupa state where I am there as usual as

self-shining consciousness. Hence in principle I am

not saakshii also not only in the deep sleep state but

even in the waking and dream states as well, but for

the purpose of saadhana, the saakshii notion is

brought in to shift my attention during meditation

from pramAta to saakshii. Ultimately I am not even

saakshii also since there is no saakshyam separate

from me.

-Could not resist putting in the my own terms the

teaching from Naiskaryma Siddhi of Sureshwara by Swami

Paramaarthanandaji.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Verse 20 of Advaita Makaranda says:

 

caityoparAgarUpa me

sAkshI tApi na tAtvikI

upalakSaNameveyaM

nistarangacidAmbude.

 

(Even my witnesshood is not absolute, but is influenced with

reference to the thoughts appearing in the mind. The witnesshood is

only an assumption in the waveless ocean of Consciousness (that I

am).

 

That is a web translation.

(http://www.advaitin.net/Discussion%20Topics/a-m%20final.pdf).

 

I have the Malayalam translation of Sw. Tejomayanandaji's English

commentary. I didn't have the courage to translate it back into

English for fear of committing serious errors.

 

The verse confirms what Durga-ji recently said here about

witnesshood.

 

I see that Advaita Makaranda was one of the topics on which you have

discoursed at satsanghs in the US. Will you, therefore, kindly

explain the above verse for the benefit of the Group in the context

of our current discussion?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_______________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

> There was some interesting discussion on the sakshii

> swaruupam by scholars.

>

> I would like to present my understanding on the topic,

> for whatever it is worth.

..................

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

 

> Namaste Sada-ji.

>

> Verse 20 of Advaita Makaranda says:

>

> caityoparAgarUpa me

> sAkshI tApi na tAtvikI

> upalakSaNameveyaM

> nistarangacidAmbude.

>

> (Even my witnesshood is not absolute, but is

> influenced with

> reference to the thoughts appearing in the mind.

> The witnesshood is

> only an assumption in the waveless ocean of

> Consciousness (that I

> am).

 

Nairji PraNAms.

 

Yes Advaita Makaranda of Shree Lakshmidhara Kavi is

very beautiful text.

 

 

The above sloka in fact, emphasizes what I wrote in my

previous post on the topic.

There is a small typo in the Chinmaya pub. It should

be -cetyoparAgarpa - that is related to witness.

 

From sloka 7 to 20 Lakshmidhara Kavi provides how to

remove the obstacles for the realization of the truth

'aham brahmaasmi'. Through pancakosha vichaara and

avasthaatraya saakshii analysis. The sloka 11 is very

often quoted related to saakshii.

 

In the analysis up to 19, the author says -I am

conscious of the pancakoshaas as Sakshii and I am

conscious of the three states of consciousness

-waking, dream and deep sleep states, therefore I am

different from the saakshyam or the things that I am

witnessing. They are inert and I am conscious entity -

it is like dRik dRisya viveka - seer-seen

differentiation. Therefore I am not the BMI since I

am conscious of them and I am not waker, dreamer and

deep sleeper - since I am aware of them too.

 

From this sloka on, the poet cum saint takes us beyond

the saakshii-saakshyam duality. He says the relation

ship or sambandha between saakshii and saakshyam - is

still in the realm of duality. Therefore I am

saaskhii is na tAtvakii - that is not the real too

since I am taking the role of sakshii to be conscious

of sakshyam. Then why did we say that we are

witnessing consciousness - That is only to

discriminate the dRik from dRisyam. I am the seer and

this is seen, and seer is different from the seen. I

see my body, mind and intellect and therefore I am

none of them, Similarly I know the waking, dream and

deep sleep states - therefore I am different from all

the three. I am not even ignorant, since I know my

ignorance too. But the discrimination is required to

get the detachment from what I am not to shift my

attention to what I am - dRik - the seer than seen.

Hence the author says sakshii is only upalakshNam a

convenient or incidental or taTasta lakshna -But in

reality I am not even a saakshii - The Gem example

that Shree Sureshwara gives this essence. I have

nothing to do even with any illumination of any

objects or saakshyatvam of any thing that is seen. I

am nistaranga cidaambudhe - an ocean of consciousness

free from any waves - deep and serene without

disturbances of any sort -pure infinite ocean of

consciousness. In fact Shankara says in his bhaasya

that I am not even consciousness since there is

nothing to be conscious off other than myself without

any waves - waves represent world of plurality. The

language fails to describe the truth - yatho vaacho

nivartante apraapya manasaa saH - The speech return

back along with the mind - to speak or conceptualize

the truth of myself.

 

After realization of my true nature, the poet brings

back the creation to show I am still the same infinite

ocean of consciousness with the waves too. The

creations he describes as the bubbles of water sprays

-each bubble is like galaxy that you can see in the

Hubble photos of NASA.

 

Just some advertisement - Advaita Makaranda is one of

the most beautiful contemplative texts by Lakshmidhara

Kavi which I am privileged to take during the last

Memorial Day weekend camp in Washington D.C- These are

16 Hr. Talks and those who are interested can order

MP3 CD from Chinmya Mission Washington D.C. I think

they are selling for #15/-. From my point, I learned a

lot while taking that text. It was a memorable

experience - I find Teaching is the best of learning!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

SvayamprakAsa yati in his commentary never sees any duality between

Saksi-Saksya SambandaH for V20 of Advaita Makaranda. IMHO, Such an

attempt will end up Advaita hAni alone. We must carefully note the

upodgAtha that Yati gives for this verse wherein he addresses the

issue of a purpaksins claim who tries to pull Saksi in the samsAra

dasa to say that there is no scope for Brahmatvam in atman. Replying

to this claim SvayamprakAsa yati extends the nature of Saksi's

niyantrtva to converge it with Saksya's Nirvisesa Svarupa to convey

that the formers' functionality is taken to be figurative and that

both are known for their non-difference alone. In Visaya-Visayi bava

too, Siddhantins accepts abheda as they regard pramAna-Visaya

CaitanyayorabhedaH (ref Vedanta ParibAsa). Sureswaracarya in

Sambanda Vartika says this: Saksya sambandatah Saksi na svatati

sAksitAtmanah | pratyabatraikadrstivAdiyAm VacAmgocarah ||' iti; to

insist on sAksi-sAksya sambanda abheda where it must be noted that

the inner Self is not known by awareness of knowledge, not the

knowledge of the awareness of witness or both, for there is non-

difference in which the innermost self is self-established in. The

witness Self is not mediate but being immediate it transcends all

empirical dualities. Kindly feed us more on the issue.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Shree Devanathanji - PraNAms.

 

First, I could not understand the your post fully due

to the wording and my limited language skills. I will

be happy if you can explain it little more for me to

understand.

 

SvayamprakAsha yati may be right in considering the

sloka as purvapaksha. Personally I do not see the need

for it, as I do not find any advatia haani even if one

takes it as sakshii and saakshyam as apparent duality

in the direct meaning of the sloks, without

considering it as a puurvapaksha.

 

Saakshii has to have saakshyam for it to be a

saakshii. Without saakshyam, saakshi has no role to

play, even if it is an apparent role. Sakshii word

does not mean much without saakshyam. Hence, if one

takes Sakshii as paaramaarthika satyam, as tatvakii,

then sakhii word itself has no meaning - of course, so

is advaita word.

 

Anyway,if I can understand the arguments you have

presented better, I may be able to appreciate

Svayamprakaasha yati's view that the sloka is

puurvapaksha. The next sloka does not seem to provide

a siddhanta if sloka 20 is purvapaksha. Let me know

the details.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

> Hari Om,

> Shri Sadananda ji,

>

> SvayamprakAsa yati in his commentary never sees any

> duality between

> Saksi-Saksya SambandaH for V20 of Advaita Makaranda.

[Guest guest]

>

> This with reference to the post No. 38819 of Shri Devanathan and No.

> 38822 of Shri Sadananda.

>

> The question, as I understand it, is whether the sAkshii is nirguNa

> brahman or brahman with upAdhi, i.e., saguna brahman. I should say that

> sadaji has rightly pointed out in a previous post that there can be a

> sAkshii only when there is a sAkshyam, that is, some thing to be witnessed.

> When we speak of nirguNa brahman, there is nothing else to be witnessed;

> there is no mAyA and consequently no world, since the world is only a

> transformation of mAyA. So nirguNa brahman cannot b a sAkshii. sakshii

> therefore implies duality. This is very clear from the following extracts:--

>

> !. Naishkarmyasiddhi- II. 58- sambandhokti- atha idAnIm avidyAparikalpitam

>

>

> sAkshitvam ASritya kartRitvAdyaSeshya pariNAmapratishedhAya Aha—

>

> " This has been translated by Dr. R. Balasubramanian in his scholarly and

> elaborate annotation on this text as follows : " Now, by presupposing the

> witness-nature of the Self which is a projection of avidyA, the following is

> said with a view to deny (of the Self) all kinds of transformations such as

> agency " .

>

> This makes it clear that sAkshitvam is due to avidya. So how can the

> sAkshi be nirguna brahman ?

>

> In his notes on page 168 of the same book Dr. Balasubramanian says: When

> the self is viewed with the internal organ as its upAdhi, it is called

> antaHkaraNa-upahita-caitanyam, sAkshi. Earlier, on the same page he says:

> The self as qualified by the internal organ is called

> jIva—antaHkaraNa-viSishTa- caitanyam, jIvaH. Thus a distinction is made

> between jIva and sAkshi in this manner. The sAkshi has the upAdhi of the

> antaHkaraNam.

>

> However a distinction must be made between sAkshi and sAkshi-caitanyam.

>

> sAkshi-caitanyam is svarUpajnAnam or pure consciousness or nirguNa brahman

> itself. This is made clear in the same book on page 223.

>

> 2. In SvetASvatara up. 6.11 the word sAkshi occurs. In the bhAshya

> attributed to Sri Sankara the meaning of this word is given as

> 'sarvadrashTA, the seer of all. nirguNa brahman is pure consciousness or

> mere jnapti. It is not a seer. It becomes omniscient, omnipotent, etc., only

> when associated with mAyA or avidyA.

>

> 3. Madhusudana sarasvati says in Siddhantabindu: ajnAnopahitaH AtmA

> sAkshIi, jagatkAraNam, IsvaraH iti ca kathyate- The following is the

> translation of para 67 in which this statement occurs. The translation of

> the entire Siddhantabindu has been posted on my website;

>

> The self, with nescience as limiting adjunct, is not discriminated from

> its own reflection in nescience (chidabhasa) which has become identified

> with nescience. It is therefore described as inner controller, witness, the

> cause of the universe, and Isvara. Because of non-discrimination from its

> own reflection in the intellect, which has become identified with the

> intellect, the same self is known as jiva, agent, enjoyer, and knower. This

> is the view of the revered Vartikakara (Sureshvaracharya).

>

> The world is nothing but an appearance of mAyA. So when we speak of the

> existence of the world we speak only of brahman with mAyA. When we speak of

> nirguNa brahman we cannot at the same time posit the existence of mAyA. When

> there is no mAyA there is no world. To say that brahman is the witness of

> the world and at the same time it is nirguNa is a contradiction. The world

> exists only from the vyavahArika standpoint. From the paramArthika

> standpoint there is only brahman and no world at all.

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sastriji - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your input.

 

I do not know why the whole post came with the marks >

since it is your direct post.

 

Anyway, in my first post on the topic of sakshii

swaruupam, I was referring to the Shree Sureswara's

NaiSkarmasiddhi - sloka II-63to67, Sureswara makes it

clear using self-shining diamond and things it gets

illumined in its mere presence. Although diamond has

nothing to do with the illumination of the object in

its vicinity, from the object point it is getting

illumined by the dimond. Saakshii and saakshyatvam are

all to account advaita brahman appears to be mutitude

of jiivas, through chidaabhaasa.

 

In a related post where Sriramji presenting a swami's

view that Shankara did not suscribe to anupalabdi.

 

 

 

--- " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

> > !. Naishkarmyasiddhi- II. 58- sambandhokti- atha

> idAnIm avidyAparikalpitam

> >

> >

> > sAkshitvam ASritya kartRitvAdyaSeshya

> pariNAmapratishedhAya Aha—

> >

> > " This has been translated by Dr. R.

> Balasubramanian in his scholarly and

> > elaborate annotation on this text as follows :

> " Now, by presupposing the

> > witness-nature of the Self which is a projection

> of avidyA, the following is

> > said with a view to deny (of the Self) all kinds

> of transformations such as

> > agency " .

> >

> > This makes it clear that sAkshitvam is due to

> avidya. So how can the

> > sAkshi be nirguna brahman ?

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

It is only the introductory portion that Svayamprakasa Yati presents

a Purvapaksin's view while he answers it thereafter. The purva

paksin as Yati portrays raises a doubt: `How can the Witnessing Self

inherit the essential nature of Supreme Brahman when the former goes

through the empirical experience of Bondage?' Yati replies to this

to say: `Such a katrtvAdi vikalpas are akin to the bubbles formed by

the waves in a ocean; the witness consciousness is that which

remains unaffected – as the waves are not present in it. The

Prapanca revealed by the witness is known to be the witnessed and

thus the incidental nature of Jagath KaraNatva is held as upalaksana

to the Ultimate PratyagAtman – the inner Self which in reality stays

Nirvikalpa'. Thus Yati strictly iterates the notion of identity

between Saksi-Saksya bifurcations to re-iterate the non-duality

there.

 

Further in verse 9 we may note a mention on Saksi where

Svayamprakasa Yati briefly explains its Swarupam as follows. The

verse reads as: `Saksi sarvAnvitaH preyA; naham nAham kadAcana |

pariNAma paricceda – preritApairupaplavAt ||' iti. The commentary

says this: `All objects of empirical existence `gata' `pata' are

revealed by the pratIti `I know the pot' `I know the cloth' etc

where the witness reveals them not only with their mere knowledge

but also with the anubava such as this; the witness Self manifests

all over as the Anandarupa – manifesting as all pervading Self with

the cognition `I manifest everywhere as everything'. Here Yati

refers `I' to the pratyagAtman (the Nirvisesa Brahman) and connotes

it with the Witness Self to say that AhamkAra is not to be

understood as the individual Ego (that transmigrates) – `na ahamkAro

bavAmityartaH'. The commentator further gives a note on the

term `ParinAma' saying `the aparicinna PratyagAtman is unconditioned

while the transfigurations such as raga dvEsa etc are related to

individual Ego by the relation of Drastr-Drsya SambandaH that

seemingly portrays the difference between the witnessing `I' and the

Real Self. How then they are identified? Yes the identity is

apprehended since the falsity (raga dvEsa) is superimposed on the

inner Self like the redness in hot iron ball. The viveka jnana

results to reveal the true identity between Saksi and Saksya.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Normally my figures are slower than my mind since many

words skip in between to catch up my mind. When I read

my posts I wonder how I could type with so many

mistakes. This time, I must have pressed send button

before I could complete even thinking and typing

process - Fingers work this time faster than the

mind!Here is the full post. Of course I am akartaa and

abhoktaa.

---------------------------

 

Sastriji - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your input.

 

I do not know why the whole post came with the marks >

since it is your direct post.

 

Anyway, in my first post on the topic of sakshii

swaruupam, I was referring to the Shree Sureswara's

NaiSkarmasiddhi - sloka II-63 to 67, Sureswara makes

it clear using self-shining diamond and things that

gets illumined in its mere presence. Although diamond

has nothing to do with the illumination of the object

in its vicinity, from the object point it is getting

illumined by the diamond. Saakshii an illuminating

factor and saakshyam, the illuminated mind – all only

from the mind, or saakshyam. Once I switch my

attention to saakshii or to put it more correctly

identify with saakshii, the status of saakshii also

ceases – I become akarataa and abhoktaa.- perhaps

should not even say ‘I become’ since even when think I

am saakshii, I am not.

 

tad aikshataa – bahushyaam – in the discussion of

creation, Upanishad switches quickly from nirguNa

Brahman to saguNa Brahman. Aikshataa may not be

exactly in the sense of saakshitvam but essentially an

apparent seeing action is implied –Hence quality of

visualization rests with Brahman implying we already

have saguNa Brahman. Brahman visualizing, implying

planning, how the creation should be or would be since

pancabhuutas have not been created yet. Should we say

here saakshyitvam was there before any saakshyam .

 

In a somewhat unrelated post where Sriram Tenneti is

presenting Swami Paramanda bharati’s view about

anupaladbhi as pramaaNa that Shankara did not think it

was. Shree Devanthanji, you and/or bhaskara can

comment on it. Here the relevant point is how sakshii

in the deep sleep states sees the absence of objects –

is deep sleep experience – who has it? Advaita

makaranda points out that it is chidaabhaasa that

sleeps and sakshii does not sleep. The knowledge of

the absence of the objects – who has it – should we

sakshii is seeing the absence of objects – that itself

as saakhyam – is anupalabdhi involved as the pramaaNa

in the deep sleep state? Just raising questions to

discuss.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

> > !. Naishkarmyasiddhi- II. 58- sambandhokti- atha

> idAnIm avidyAparikalpitam

> >

> >

> > sAkshitvam ASritya kartRitvAdyaSeshya

> pariNAmapratishedhAya Aha—

> >

> > " This has been translated by Dr. R.

> Balasubramanian in his scholarly and

> > elaborate annotation on this text as follows :

> " Now, by presupposing the

> > witness-nature of the Self which is a projection

> of avidyA, the following is

> > said with a view to deny (of the Self) all kinds

> of transformations such as

> > agency " .

> >

> > This makes it clear that sAkshitvam is due to

> avidya. So how can the

> > sAkshi be nirguna brahman

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Shri Sastri ji,

 

Naishkarmya Siddhi II.58 defines Saksitvam not in terms of Sagunatva

in it. For it only says that the katrtvAdi parinAmas of Saksi are

attributes of not-Self those which are superimposed on the former.

Due to the absence of the accrued fruits from katrtva and bhoktrtva,

the kevala atmatva to Saksi is never hindered. How can the same

Saksi exist with both the kartrvAdi sambandas and the kevala Atma

svabAva? Sureswara says that it is possible to discern such a claim

using the anvaya vyatireka reasoning. KleshApahArini, a commentary

on this Siddhi literature elaborately explains the application of

anvaya-vyatireka logic to the issue. Doubts may be raised here `

where does the Kevala nirvisesa svarupa being lodged? How does it

befit the anvaya & vyatireka portions? The commentator answers this

saying `the anvaya portion is delineated from the vyatireka resoning

that shows that Saksi is different from Drastr (seer) and eventually

the fruits from the activities of `seeing' does not infect the

essential nature of Saksi; which remains as `svatah Siddha kUtastaH

advaya nitya Suddha Buddha mukta svabAvaH paramArtaH eva' (please

refer Nataka Dipa and Kutasta Dipa of Pancadasi too). Saksi-Saksya

anvaya reveals the identity as Nirvisesa Brahman while Saksya bhUta

kartrtvAdi vyatireka reveals `atmano-apeksa parinAma pratiniseda';

both of which concludes with the esoteric sense of Nirvisesa

CinmAtram Brahma. The term `AvidyAparikalpita' that you have

specified is not to be taken as the `conditioned Consciousness', as

the Commentary reads it to imply the contextual sense for fixing the

ajnAna Ashyayitva. This is to issue the ontological position to

bAvarupa Avidya on Nirvisesa Saksi Caitanyam and not in any other

sense.

 

Dr. R.Balasubramaniam elaborately deals with the issue on Nai.Siddhi

III.1 portion on pp223 where he explicitly marks Saksi as Svarupa

Caitanya – the Svarupa jnAna (which is jnapti mAtra) indicating

Nirvisesa Brahman and not Saguna.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

Shree Devanathanji - PraNAms.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

This is what I understand.

 

From the swaruupa point - for both saakshii and

saakshyam - it is nirvishesha chaitanyam only. Since

it is paaramaarthikam, both saakshii and saakshyam,

has no more meaning, since they belong to naama and

ruupa category as mithyaa vastu-s.

 

Once we use the naama, as saakshii, and that which it

witnesses, saakshyam, we are already in the

vyavahaara. The apparent duality is apparent. It could

be mistanken to be real, due to ajnaana.

 

The confusion arises only if we keep one leg here

(paaramaarthika) and another leg there(vyavahaara).

 

Can you comment on the deep-sleep state? Is the mind

still there in a very subtle form to record the

absence of the objects or experience of the ananda,

for the full mind to recollect (since collection has

taken place) in the waking state to state that I slept

very well? What is the role of saakshii there? As per

my understanding, saakshii has 'role' only when there

is 'saakshyam'. Absence of the mind itself could be

saakshyam, as in anupalabdhi.

 

There was a discussion before that in deep sleep

state, that jiiva merges with nirvishesha chaitanya or

more correctly swapiti that Ch. Up. indicates -

merging means, assuming its swa swaruupam.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

How many ever legs one might have - eka pAd, dvi pAd or bahu pAd

(lol), Advaita always reminds us to have one leg firmly rooted on

the ParamArtika Stand point. It is that Parama PurusArta which

penetrates in all three avasthAs assigning Triputi with respective

facets of reality. There can be no second thought about the Saksitva

being Nirvisesa since the Caitanya by nature itself is untouched

though seemingly associates with objects of empirical activities.

When the sAksi is clearly termed to be asarIra, it apparently

transcends 'prayam-apriyam' 'icca-dvesa' 'agamApAyinaH'.. leaving no

scope for even an iota of relative attributes. Your point on

the 'name' have to assessed with abhidAna-abhdeya sambanda wherein

Advaita Vedanta draws an identity between the both to convey the

implied sense of negating all relative attributes in it. Saksi

Abhidhana actually encaptulates the Saksyatva abhideya not merely

inheriting each of their properties mutually. Such a abhidAna

Abhideya sambandaH is aupacArikah alone, which in reality stands in

tAdatmya to remain in its pure attributeless state of its own

existence. The problem is that we sometimes fail to take the

terms 'svataH siddha' 'nitya suddhah' 'muktah' 'aguna' 'nirguna' etc

seriously especially in this issue regarding Saksi. The purport of

Upakrama UpasamhArAdi tAtparya lingas must always lie with dicerning

the Ultimate character of Nirvisesa tattva alone and not account for

Savisesa dharmas.

 

I am going through your polemical views on epistemology in related

topics... I will present my view on deep sleep n Anupalabdhi very

soon.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

> How many ever legs one might have - eka pAd, dvi pAd

> or bahu pAd

> (lol), Advaita always reminds us to have one leg

> firmly rooted on

> the ParamArtika Stand point. >

> With Narayana Smrthi,

> Devanathan.J

 

Devanathanji - PraNAms.

 

You are absolutely correct about one leg if not both

legs should be rooted on the Paramaarthi stand point.

 

The confusion I was referring to arises only if one is

not clear on what basis the particular statement has

been made. As I see, most of the puurvapakshas and

responses are looking from different stand points and

arguing about it.

 

Take for example the saakshii and saakshyam - as I

noted in my very first post with the above title- as I

stated at the loukika level, if both are ontologically

in par, then they are mutually exclusive and dvaita

immediately follows.

 

When it comes witnessing consciousness and witnessed

mind, ontologically they are not in par. One is of

higher reality and the other is lower reality. One is

independent and the other is dependent - anvaya-

vyatireka follows. ( Just an interesting note on this

anvaya-vyatireka - when there are two things, to

establish one is dependent and the other independent

it is important to apply this tarka in proper order or

at least apply it the second time using converse- for

example take gold and golden ring - ontologically they

are not in par, similar to saakshii and saakshyam -

now apply the logic- anvaya: gold is, ring is; and

vyatireka: gold is not, ring is not - If we apply this

way, it only establishes that they are mutually

interdependent but does not establish which is

independent and which one is dependent – which is

cause and which is effect. To establish the

independence of one we need to apply the second time

but now in converse - that is taking ring as the

stating point - anvaya: ring is, gold is; vyatireka:

ring is not gold IS; Here vyatireka does not work -

Gold is independent and can exist without being a

ring, but ring cannot exist without being a gold. Thus

ring becomes a tatasta laxaNa of gold). The same

applies to saakshii and saakshyam too. Saakshii is,

saakshyam is, saakshii is not, saakshyam is not

(although we know that saakshii is not, imply only as

aparent saakshitvam aspect as it is nirvishesha

chaitanyam)- now apply in converse - Saaksyam is

saakshii is, and saakshyam is not, saakshii IS (but

not as saakshii but as nirvisesha chaitanyam).

 

Now we can examine the slokas that were cited by in

relation to the discussion on the topic. Let me just

look at the sloka 20 of Adviata makaranda that Nairji

posted.

 

cetyoparAgarUpa me

sAkshI tApi na tAtvikI|

upalakSaNameveyaM

nistarangacidAmbude||

 

Saakshii and saakshyam – if one consider ontologically

equal then obviously dvaita applies –

 

But saakshii is chetanam and saakshyam is acetanam,

they are not ontologically equal. Hence one can

consider the first part of the sloka as in the sense

that Shree Devanathanji has brought to our attention

how Swayamprakasha yati interpreted the sloka as

puurva paksha. Then second part of the sloka can be

itself can be considered as siddhaanta, applying

anvya-vyatiraka two times as is discussed above

establishing that one is independent and the other

dependent and therefore when saakshyam is not, then

saakshii IS, BUT as Lakshmidhara kavi says as

nistarangacidAmbude we cannot call it as saakshii

anymore it is pure nirvisesha chaitanyam or waveless

ocean of consciousness– as suggested by Shree

Devanathanji. The objection I had was only that the

saakshii’s APPARENT role ceases when saakshyam is not,

as in the vyatireka – saakshyam is not, but saakshii

is but not as saakshii but as nirvishesha chaitanya or

nistaranga chidaambude only. In that sense I have no

disagreement with Shree Devanathanji. This is all

clear (at least to me) if we are clear from what

reference the discussion is being made. Devanathanji

point is also right we should always have on leg in

Paaramaarthika satyam – I would like to put both legs

there if possible – Of course I would not fall down,

since brahmaivedam amRitaM purastaat … Brahman is

there in the front, in the back, in the east, in the

West, Up, Down, – So How can I fall?

 

I must say it is interesting discussion, at least for

me, as I am currently studying Naiskaryma Siddhi of

Sureswara – it is important in the analysis of

chidaabhaasa part of the mind. My praNams to Shree

Devanathanji and Sastriji.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

> How many ever legs one might have - eka pAd, dvi pAd

> or bahu pAd

> (lol), Advaita always reminds us to have one leg

> firmly rooted on

> the ParamArtika Stand point. >

> With Narayana Smrthi,

> Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Pranams, Sadaji,

 

I have a " beginners " question that has been bothering me for quite a

long time now in relation to the gold/ring analogy, in relation to

the independent/dependent relationship.

 

You wrote:

" Gold is independent and can exist without being a ring, but ring

cannot exist without being a gold. "

 

At the very beginning of studying Advaita Vedanta I found this analogy

quite enlightening, but after a while, on second thoughts, the doubt

appeared: Yes, I understand the concept, but gold, actually, cannot

really exist without a form. For example, even to imagine gold, one is

forced to imagine a " lump " of gold if rings and bracelets are melt

back into... " gold " . I may not be a ring or a bracelet, but it will

always be a lump of a different shape anyway. Or, one can speak also

about the " concept " or the platonic " pure form " of gold, but that

wouldn't mean that I am also giving a conceptual " form " to gold?

In view of these lines of thoughts, would this doubt mean that

although I can see a ring or lump of gold, I would never be able to

see and understand what gold means?, that I am not be able ever to

experience the " gold in the gold " ?

Am I thinking only from the vyavaharika level?

Am I pushing the analogy beyond its limits?

(The same may apply to the wave/ocean or the witness/witnessed analogy...)

 

I'll be honored to receive an explanation from your part or from any

of the learned membres.

 

Bow to All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Mounaji PraNAms.

 

Here is my understanding:

 

You are using the example beyond what was intended.

 

The example is given by Ch. Up. Ch. 6. by

father-teacher to his son-student. When the student

returns home after his 12 yrs of study and being proud

that he knows everything, Father tries to nail him

down and asks in essence - Have you learned that

knowing which you know all other things. Son was

baffled and said that is not possible - How knowledge

of one thing can lead to knowledge of the other? But

father says that is possible - if one knows the

kaaraNa all the kaaryam of that kaaraNa are as well

known. He gives three examples to establish his point

- gold ornaments from gold, mud pots from mud, and

iron tools from iron. In all cases what is being

proved is kaarya kaaraNa sambandha or

samaanaadhikaraNam. If I know the material cause, I

know in essence all the effects since effect is

nothing but cause itself in different form. Different

pots and vessels made of mud - once I know mud, all

effects are cause itself in different from.

 

The thesis is - if we know the material cause, all the

effects are as well known.

 

His son Swetaketu concedes the possibility and

requests his father to teach him knowing which

everything in the creation is known.

 

That is the start of the teaching - the first part

involves creation since father has to show that

creation started from one thing knowing which all the

crated effects are as well known. He says- the

material cause for the universe as SAT - knowing which

everything which is nothing but sat-swaruupam is

known. The first part of the ch. establishes that from

SAT alone panca bhuutas and bhoutikaas are generated.

That establishes Brahma satyam, and jagat mithyaa.

 

The second part of the teaching involves jiiva

brahmaiva naaparaH. Hence the teaching continues to

show that SAT which is Brahman is nothing but you.

Tat Tvam Asi. Hence knowing your own nature, you have

the essence of the knowledge of everything.

 

Hence to answer your question - the gold example is

intended to show only that if one knows the material

cause all the effects of that cause are 'as well'

known since effects are nothing but different forms

with different names just as gold is the cause and

ring, bangle, necklace, and even the lump are names

and forms. Gold is just Au - with some atomic number.

Now tell me what form is true form of gold!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- Mouna <solracartist wrote:

 

> Pranams, Sadaji,

>

> I have a " beginners " question that has been

> bothering me for quite a

> long time now in relation to the gold/ring analogy,

> in relation to

> the independent/dependent relationship.

>

> You wrote:

> " Gold is independent and can exist without being a

> ring, but ring

> cannot exist without being a gold. "

>

> At the very beginning of studying Advaita Vedanta I

> found this analogy

> quite enlightening, but after a while, on second

> thoughts, the doubt

> appeared: Yes, I understand the concept, but gold,

> actually, cannot

> really exist without a form. For example, even to

> imagine gold, one is

> forced to imagine a " lump " of gold if rings and

> bracelets are melt

> back into... " gold " . I may not be a ring or a

> bracelet, but it will

> always be a lump of a different shape anyway. Or,

> one can speak also

> about the " concept " or the platonic " pure form " of

> gold, but that

> wouldn't mean that I am also giving a conceptual

> " form " to gold?

> In view of these lines of thoughts, would this doubt

> mean that

> although I can see a ring or lump of gold, I would

> never be able to

> see and understand what gold means?, that I am not

> be able ever to

> experience the " gold in the gold " ?

> Am I thinking only from the vyavaharika level?

> Am I pushing the analogy beyond its limits?

> (The same may apply to the wave/ocean or the

> witness/witnessed analogy...)

>

> I'll be honored to receive an explanation from your

> part or from any

> of the learned membres.

>

> Bow to All,

> Mouna

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Mouna,

 

Gold is independent and can exist without being a

ring, but ring

cannot exist without being a gold. "

 

I'm not a learned member but the same doubt arose in

my mind also. The analogy DOES break down, gold/ring,

wave/water because what's being described is really

indescribable. In trying to rectify or explain the

relative/absolute difference, the examples must always

be inadequate. In the ring/gold comparison " gold " is

the equivalent of the absolute, " ring " is the

relative. I think we're supposed to leave it at that

for purposes of the exposition. True, I can't think of

'gold' without giving it some form in my mind, but if

I start questioning that, then I've gone beyond the

intention of the exposition.

 

But, deeper than this is the apparent fact that even

" ring " is absolute in the sense that ring is an

archetype, " ring " is something that every human being

knows. I think it's a Platonic deal...so maybe the

joke is that even taking something as " relative " can't

really be done...like comparing one absolute to

another absolute...we're swimming in the sea of the

absolute, yet keep looking for the realative, maybe?

 

Ring must be made out of something, whether of gold or

not. Gold must be given form to be perceivable, no

matter what the shape...we do both of those in our

minds, I think.

 

 

Anyway, one guy's ruminations.

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mounaji:

 

Sadaji and Sri Steve have already provided the answers to your question

and let me add my understanding below.

 

I do believe that the answer to your question can be collected from the

questions that you have posed in the end.

 

Any question and any discussion/explanation does fall within the

vyavaharika level. The question on the " absolute nature of gold " is

similar to finding the " Absolute Nature of the Nirguna Brahman. " The

Upanishads answers this question by saying that " Brahman ONLY knows the

Brahman! " This is not really an answer but it states that as a Jiva

(vyavahrika level) we have limitations and we can't conceptualize the

Brahman. Our conceptualization starts with the notion - that

everything around us is the Brahman including all our sensual

perceptions. This notion works like the Pole used to jump over the

fence (Samsara) to recognize the Brahman and the jumping will be

complete only when we agree to drop the pole (notion) while jumping!

Vedanta uses another example: When the dreamer gets awakenend from the

pouncing tiger instaneously, the tiger and the dream both disappear!

 

Only when we stop all our discussions including the analogies with

contemplation, our doubts will disappear!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <solracartist wrote:

>

> I am not be able ever to

> experience the " gold in the gold " ?

> Am I thinking only from the vyavaharika level?

> Am I pushing the analogy beyond its limits?

> (The same may apply to the wave/ocean or the witness/witnessed

analogy...)

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

Pranams. I thoroughly enjoy the proceedings of this thread and I am

blessed with bliss to investigate the nature of `bliss' under Your

blessings here.

 

Now, I'm afraid about the danger on your mention - " apparent role "

of Saksi. Are you sure that illumination is an `apparent role' in

its true sense? I argue - Saksi that illumines is its Svarupa. When

objects exists they get illumined and if not the Saksi remains

effulgent with its own illumination (Refer Nataka Dipa). Considering

the corollary statements that you have mentioned – `saakshii's

APPARENT role ceases when saakshyam is not,…' – My objection here is

how can we account for cessation of any activity when Saksitva is

its nature and not an attribute ? Contextually speaking, I have

pointed out in one of my earlier post that the activity/role here is

understood as `karana vyutpatti' and not `kartr vyutpatthi' (Refer

Sankaracarya's Nr.Tap Bashyam) where `karana' is not `pramA karana'

but the `Svarupa anubhUti'. The Saksitva is its Svarupa that we

investigate as the topic of the thread precisely indicates ceasing

all chances to remain ceased of its `so-called' `activities'.

 

Lets now move on to our Ontological surveys. It is SvayamprakAsa

yati who endorses `nishtaranga chidAmbude' only to connote the

Nirvisesa tattva to the Saksi prakarana he deals with. Why not we

use the apparatus of `tatparya lingas' and see? Let me apply the

three essential elements of them vide apurvam, phala, abhAdhyam

between the verses 9 and 20 of Advaita Makaranda, Shri Sadananda ji,

you will find yourself to market only the Nirvisesa Cinmatram Brahma

back home. The point is Saksi as conveyed in the verse 9

as `parinAma-aparicceda' indicates the presence of abhAdhya element

while the niseda vAkya `nistaranga chidAmbude' aids to discern the

tAtparya with apUrva artha resulting in discerning the Nirvisesatva

as the phala. So both the hetus (parinAma-aparicceda & nistaranga

chidAmbude) helps to construct a hypothetical syllogism and

logically favours Saksi as Nirvisesa Nirguna tattva.

 

Vidyaranya describes the Kutasta – Saksi as `for it has no death, no

birth, no bondage, no aspirant and none released – it the supreme

end `na nirodo na ca utpatthi baddho na ca sAdhaka; na mumuksur na

vai muktaH ityesA paramArtatA' Why? Since Kutasta – Saksi is `asanga

Eva KutastaH sarvadA nAsya kascana' – it is associationless and it

is never subjected to modifications. More very specifically

Vidyaranya points out that `from scriptures a man may have a

conception of Brahman as existence, Consciousness and bliss

(saccidAnanda) but he cannot have the direct knowledge of it unless

it is cognized as the inner witness – his own reality'. The point to

be noted is that the author here says such a realization

is `direct' `sAksAt (aparoksAt) whence we must imply the fact that

it is the realization of Nirguna Brahman and not Saguna, which

accomplishes mukti only in krama. In the exposition of Kutastha Dipa

on Witness Consciousness, Ramakrsna Tirta in his commentary

advocates that `Suta samhitas and all vaidika purAnas assert that

Saksi – the Kutastha transcends the JiveswarAdi kalpanAs; for it is

the kevalaH-advitdIyah svaprabha (self effulgent) svaprakAsa

Caitanya'.

 

Further, I am not personally convinced with the (general) method of

applying Anvaya-vyatireka in terms of Saksi n Saksya. I intend to

take up this issue with Swami Paramarthananda, my beloved guru, who

first taught me the basics of this reasoning. I will present my

humble opinion to the floor of discussion once I construe the flaws

in direct application of anvaya-vyatireka with Saksi n saksya.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Hi Mouna (and Steve),

 

 

 

You might find it helpful to read my definition of 'advaita' which uses the

name/form/substratum view -

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/advaita.htm

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Steve Stoker

05 January 2008 15:32

advaitin

Re: Re: Sakshii swaruupam

 

 

 

Hello Mouna,

 

Gold is independent and can exist without being a

ring, but ring

cannot exist without being a gold. "

 

I'm not a learned member but the same doubt arose in

my mind also. The analogy DOES break down, gold/ring,

wave/water because what's being described is really

indescribable. In trying to rectify or explain the

relative/absolute difference, the examples must always

be inadequate. In the ring/gold comparison " gold " is

the equivalent of the absolute, " ring " is the

relative. I think we're supposed to leave it at that

for purposes of the exposition. True, I can't think of

'gold' without giving it some form in my mind, but if

I start questioning that, then I've gone beyond the

intention of the exposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAm all,

 

Hari Om, Mouna-ji:

 

I'd like to make a few points in connection to the

questions you raised. Since you indicated it as a

beginner's question, I make an effort to give a

beginner's answer. Kindly bear with me if I sound too

basic.

 

First of all, I think the analogies are doing to you

what they are intended to do, even so, after much time

of accepting the analogies; that is, raising more

questions on the same! The Platonic pure form also

must end in some idea that you, me, or even Plato

couldn't imagine beyond. Thats where our analogies

should lead us. For the gold to have turned into

liquid and still appear to be a lump, it would call

for another substratum that it has to rest on... and

so on, till the end of matter, form, idea, and what

not that the mind fights to bring forth in senses,

analysis and intuitions. That end-all of all

substratums would be The Substratum, which will not be

known till Its Known. Till then, whatever we know, is

to be thrown aside as not That; a lump of gold being

just another lump. That na-iti, na-iti, is the

beautiful journey that the analogies embark us upon.

 

gurorArpaNamastu,

--praveeN

 

--- Mouna <solracartist wrote:

.... but gold,

> actually, cannot

> really exist without a form. For example, even to

> imagine gold, one is

> forced to imagine a " lump " of gold if rings and

> bracelets are melt

> back into... " gold " . I may not be a ring or a

> bracelet, but it will

> always be a lump of a different shape anyway. Or,

> one can speak also

> about the " concept " or the platonic " pure form " of

> gold, but that

> wouldn't mean that I am also giving a conceptual

> " form " to gold?

 

 

--prav

/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! --Br.Up.

4.5.15 */

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

Devanathanji – PraNAms.

 

And thanks for your input. I am writing not as point

of disagreement but for clarification.

 

For general understanding, I am going to address some

of the issues raised by Shree Devanathanji based on my

understanding. Some time semantics can be problem,

therefore a detailed description helps. I am going to

address these concepts: Saakshii (witness)-

saakshyam (witnessed)– saakshitvam (status of being a

saakshii) or apparent role of saakshii when there is

saakshyam and reference from which the discussion is

being made. The objection regarding –the statement

–‘apparent role of saakshii ceases when there is no

saakshyam -

> how can we account for cessation of any activity

> when Saksitva is

> its nature and not an attribute ? - the central

topic of this discussion.

 

Devanathanji – please bear with me as I account my

understanding.

 

First, I see more of problem of semantics than any

specific disagreements.

 

Just as a general background, keeping in mind the

topic is of general interest to many readers of the

list - from the paaramaarthika point, nirvishesha or

nirvikalpa Brahman, infiniteness, alone is – which is

self-evident or self-effulgent consciousness, where

the words and mind fail even to describe, yatho vaacho

nivartante apraapya manasaa saha. Even the words

nirvishesha, nirvikalpa are only pointers to negate

all vikalpaas in Brahman. I am keenly aware that all

this discussion may be redundant for many, but my

professorial habit is difficult to get rid off!

 

Hence, as I see, discussion of saakshii and saakshyam

is relevant only from the point of saadhak, who sees

himself and the world as separate. Scripture, is

essentially addressing a saadhak to bring to his

attention that saakshii is satyam or real or

self-existent, and saakshyam is mithyaa or apparently

real but not really real or with borrowed existence –

like an ornament or a pot or a nail cutter – which are

just names and forms without any substantives of their

own, their substantive being Brahman, the material

cause for this apparent or mithyaa universe (since

Brahman can not be the cause for anything) – From

Brahman point there is no universe even, but from the

seeker’s point there appears to be one. Scripture has

to come to the rescue of a seeker to teach what

appears to be is not really real (satyasya satyaH), it

is only apparently real or mithyaa. The substantive of

mithyaa is real and that is Brahman. Hence Vedas are

addressing only a saadhak, a seeker after the truth or

mumukshu.

 

Hence when the scripture says ekam, eva, advitiiam,

the truth SAT –CHIT is sajaati, vijaati sawagata bheda

rahitaH or devoid of all differences of any kind that

includes even the notion of saakshii (witness)and

saakshyam (witnessed) - we need to educate saadhaka to

appreciate the scriptural declaration through

adhyaaropa apavaada only. Hence when scripture says

after ekam eva advitiiyam, one without a second – tad

aikshataa – It visualized, we are essentially in the

realm of apparent duality – of visualizer and

visualized akin to saaskhii and saakshyam, as

Vidyaranya accounts in anubhutiprakaashika, signifying

Iswaratvam, as nimitta karaNa, and the following

statement ‘prajaayeyeti’ – let me become many –

indicating together abhinna nimitta upaadaana kaaranaM

– obviously referring to saguNa Brahman. Hence I do

( I think Shree Sastiji pointed to this in

one of his posts) to the statement that

saakshii-saakshyam can only be in the duality – where

the duality is only from the reference of jiiva or

saadhak. From the micro level it is jiiva and from

macro level it is Iswara or saguNa Brahman as in the

tadaikshataa, it visualized or planned.

 

Hence as part of this adhyaaropa apavaada, saakshii

and saakshyam – notion (since this has no relevance at

paaramaarthika level) is brought in to make saadhaka,

seeker, to shift his attention from his current

understanding - ‘I am this’ (ego or ahankaara or

chidaabhaasa, with ‘I am’ is identified with

upaadhiis – ‘this’, starting from body, mind,

intellect, or waker, dreamer, deep sleeper states, or

panchakoshaas, etc) to ‘I am’, the witnessing

consciousness, separating himself from ‘this’ which is

saakshyam. This shift of attention as shaadhana is

possible, since seeker is keenly aware of both

subject-object distinctions, and has a feeling that he

as knower is a conscious entity while this that is

known is inert. All pramaaNas (means of knowledge)

that are meant for prameyas (objects to be known) and

not for an aparmeyam (which is not an object for any

knowledge i.e Brahman or self that ‘I am’) are only

valid at this level, including anupalabdhi that is

being discussed. Hence, creation and perception as

well as other pramaaNas operating on prameyam, to gain

pramaa (knowledge) is only at the vyavahaarika level.

 

Saakshii a witnessing consciousness, is to shift the

attention from pramaata-prameya (knower-known)

duality- to the level that I am a sakshii who is

conscious of even the pramaata (aham vRitti) in

addition to prameya (idam vRitti), since I as a

sakshii can exit even when I am in deep sleep state of

consciousness. If the deep sleep state is taken as

knowledge or prameya at vyaavahaarika level, since I

declare in the morning that ‘I slept well’ – which is

not inference but experience, then we can still

account that Saakshii that ‘I am’ does not sleep

since I am conscious of the deep sleep state, and in

the deep sleep state, as saakshii that ‘I am’ is

conscious of saakshyam, the deep sleep state where no

objects are perceived or absence of objects are

perceived, saakshii-saakshyam notion can still be

applied from the point of waker. Since sakshii does

not sleep, he does not wake-up also as Advaita

Makaranada emphasizes, since ‘waking up’ has a meaning

only for the one who slept. Essentially he is saakshii

all the time or in all the three states

(avasthaatraya). Thus shifting from saakshyam to

saakhii is the apavaada, required for saadhana. At

this point I am only shifting from saakhyam to

saakshii or from witnessed ‘this’ – body-mind complex

to the witnessing consciousness. Up to this can be

done even logically using anvaya-vyatireka, using the

procedure two times that I discussed before to

establish that saakshii is independent and saakshyam

is dependent, from the point of their existence.

 

Next the Scripture has to come to our rescue again to

establish that even the saakshyam is not real but only

mithyaa but substantive of saakshyam is Brahman or SAT

that I am. The equation aham brahmaasmi comes through

mayaavaakya vichaara, where separateness of saakshyam

and skaakshii is also mithyaa – the truth is

nirvishesha chaitanyam since all vishesha or vikalpaas

are not real but only apparent as vibhuuti. This is

when abidance in turiiyam takes place – all

pramaata-prameya distinctions fall apart – na anthaH

prajnaH, nabihiH prajnaH, na ubhayataH prajnaH, na

prajnaana ghanam, na prajnaam, na aprajnam, .. etc

follows as ManDukya mantra 7 dictates -where even the

notion of saakshii and saakhyam are dropped to abide

in the nirvikalpaka chaitanyam that ‘I am’ – where in

reality neha naanaasti kincana, there is no other

thing operates - including saakshii-saakshyam duality.

 

 

As I understand, therefore, saakshii is self-effulgent

entity by itself and does not do the so-called

saakshitvam from its own point. I gave the

self-effulgent diamond example for Naishkarmya siddhi

of Sureshwara. Another example is – sun shining by

himself (swayam jyoti) does not shine (as a transitive

verb) anything else, but from the moon’s point, it

is illuminated by the sun and through the moon the

earth, during a full-moon night. Thus role of

illumination is assigned to the Sun from the point of

the moon but from its own point he is not doing any

illumination of any object. He is just sitting there

spending his energy, doing nothing! So Sun cannot be

called any more as illuminator from his own reference,

but he is still illuminator from the point of moon or

the earth through the moon. Hence I was referring to

the discussion from the point of appropriate reference

state. Saakshii term itself is relevant only from the

reference of saakshyam, just as the sun as an

illuminator is of relavence only from the point of the

moon and the world as the reference. The role is only

apparent since Sun does not take the job of

illumination of the world as his action or he is not a

kartaa and the kartRitvam is only from the reference

of saakshyam – just as Iswara has created this world

as jagat kaartaa, that is from the point of kaaryam,

the jagat.

 

Thus chidaabhaasa is illuminated by saakshii, like

moon is illuminated by the sun, and chidaabhaasa

illuminating as pramaata where all pramaaNas operate.

Therefore, we cannot even call saakshii as saakshii

when there is no saakshyam separate. – But from the

point of saadhaka who is identified himself with

saakshyam, there is saakshii 'as though' illuminating

the saakshyam. Hence I still maintain that saakshii

word has no more meaning unless there is a saakshyam,

and saakshitvam which is only 'an apparent role' from

the point of saadhak, who is still in the vyavahaara

level of duality of saakshii-saakshyam. From the point

of saakhii there is no saakshyam to illumine. Then

word saakhii itself has no relavence.

 

As I see, there does not seem to be any fundamental

difference in the understanding – it may be just

semantics.

 

The explanation of Sloka 9 , 11 and 20 of Advaita

Makaranda also not much different, since I see from

the point of saadhana to get rid of the obstacles for

realization of the teaching that is brought in the

slokas 2-7 - hence the relavent discussion on sakshii

too.

 

Hence swaruupataH - both saakshii and saakshyam are

nothing but nirvishesha chaitanyam only but duality -

saakhii and saakshyam which is apparent has a

relavence from a saadhak who sees the duality.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

>

>

> --- antharyami_in <sathvatha <sathvatha%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

>

> Devanathanji – PraNAms.

>

> Hence swaruupataH - both saakshii and saakshyam are

> nothing but nirvishesha chaitanyam only but duality -

> saakhii and saakshyam which is apparent has a

> relavence from a saadhak who sees the duality.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaskar Sadaji,

 

Wonderfully lucid

 

Dinesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> Hence, as I see, discussion of saakshii and saakshyam

> is relevant only from the point of saadhak, who sees

> himself and the world as separate. Scripture, is

>.....

> Brahman can not be the cause for anything) – From

> Brahman point there is no universe even, but from the

> seeker's point there appears to be one.

>

> Hence when the scripture says ekam, eva, advitiiam,

> Hence swaruupataH - both saakshii and saakshyam are

> nothing but nirvishesha chaitanyam only but duality -

> saakhii and saakshyam which is apparent has a

> relavence from a saadhak who sees the duality.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Thank you Sadaji.

 

I think you may have covered this, but I would still like to ask

 

Does 'Brahman' aware of the Maya being in play or as you mentioned,

is he is like Sun not knowing that he is the illuminator.

 

Thanks

 

Sudesh

[Guest guest]

--- Sudesh Pillutla <sudeshpillutla wrote:

> Thank you Sadaji.

>

> I think you may have covered this, but I would still

> like to ask

>

> Does 'Brahman' aware of the Maya being in play or as

> you mentioned,

> is he is like Sun not knowing that he is the

> illuminator.

 

Shree Sudesh - From Brahman point there is no maaya

also - he is one without a second. Maya is like

factor x brought in to solve a problem of how one

appears to be many. It is called 'aghaTita ghaTanaa

paTiiyasi' power that makes impossible into possible.

Example of Sun is to illustrate the self-shining

aspect of the sun and actionless action of

illuminating things with out taking the role of a

kartaa. Illumnination is word that is used to

desginate the jnaana swaruupam of Brahman - as in the

mahaavaakya - prajnaanam brahma. As I discussed

before, it is provided in the converse form to

indicate it is a swaruupa lakshanam for Brahman

Since Brahman is one of kind, all relative examples

are provided only to illustrate one or two aspects of

Brahman.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

I don't think our views are prone to be infected by the problem of

Semantics, since we are only speculating purely on what our

preceptors has conveyed to us hitherto. I see that the dispute is

only due our diversified hermeneutical approach that makes us see a

concept with different perceptions. Having direct acquaintances with

scriptures and great Acharyas, it is our prime duty to touch the

core of the issue and surface up the truth for the sake of all.

 

One desperate instance for difference in the hermeneutical approach

lies with your point on `sadhaka'. I had `Adhikari' in mind and you

talk about `Sadhaka'. The difference between these two grades of

aspirants is subtle and is a significant point, which I would like

to bring to your kind notice. Who is an Adhikari ? Tattvabodha

teaches us `Sadhana catustaya sampannaH AdhikAri' – one who is

richly equipped with four sadhanas is an Adhikari by definition. Who

is a sadhaka then? One who is still in the process of accomplishing

the four fold sadhanas is a sadhaka. An Adhikari with his Viveka

jnana is taken to be a Viveki who can differentiate between the

nature atma-anatma.; in which sense he stands beyond the influence

of duality (in a subjective sense) and that he is potentially

equipped to decipher the true nature of Saksi - Saksya sambandaH.

Hence IMHO the yukti of anvaya vyatireka can make sense only to an

Adhikari and not a sadhaka. Adhikari predicts the feature of `co-

presense and co-absense' between saksi and Saksya and thus he ends

up with the `aparoksa jnana' – the immediate knowledge about the

Saksi Swarupam as Nirvisesa CinmAtra Caitanyam'.

 

With Reference to your post # 38861, I would like to explain anvaya-

vyatireka application over the Saksi- Sakshya relation. You have

explained the anvaya vyatireka with an analogy of Gold- ring causal

relation and then mapped Saksi-Saksi relation; finally concluding

with the difference in it. Let me re-evaluate your yukti please (if

I may do it with my little knowledge). You say: Gold-satve ring-

satvam; gold-abAve ring abAvam; tasmAt Gold'eva ring'asya kAranam'.

Applying this in terms of Saksi-Saksya the premise becomes, `Saksi

satve Saksyam satvam; saksi abAve sAksyam abAvam; tasmAt Saski'eva

Sakshyasya kAranam'. This premise is invalid since Saksi cannot be

the karana for Saksya and more importantly the `hetu' Saksi-abAva'

cannot be accounted as a valid one – since it is against Shruthi

pramana. Hence your application of anvaya – vyatireka to derive

Saksi as Saguna mapping tatasta laksana to it is untenable.

 

I now present the alternative technique for applying anvaya-

vyatireka wherein you can clearly observe Saksi to be Nirvisesa

Caitanyam. Anvaya vyatireka reasoning has two aspects 1) with

reference to Karana-Karya relation and 2) with reference to anuvrtti-

vyAvrtti relation. The former is the one you have considered and is

shown to be untenable. Ramakrsnanda Tirta in his commentary on

Pancadasi hints the second technique of Anuvrtti-vyAvrtti relation

in applying anvaya-vyatireka reasoning. While commenting on Tattva-

viveka-prakarana of Pancadasi, Ramakrsnanda says `Anvaya-vyatireka

sabdAbyAm anuvrtti-vyAvrtti ucyate' iti. Let us now apply the same

in place of Saksi-Saksya. Anuvrtti (repetition) between Saksi &

Saksya conveys the sense of non-difference proving the nature of

Nirvisesa tattva; while the vyAvrtti (non-repetition) helps us to

discern the `functional role' of Witness Consciousness, taking the

presence of Saksyam's objectivity (in its manifested state) into

account. Here the AdhikAri who has the viveka jnana sees the `non-

difference' suddha advaya nirvisesa Saksi svarupa with Anuvrttih

(apavada); while he is aware that the `duality he apprehends'

between `saksi-saksya' with vyAvrttiH is Mithya (adhyaropa). In all

cases, the ultimate purusArta is known to be attributeless Saksi as

the sole reality `satyasya satyam'.

 

I request you Sadananda ji to kindly give the exact reference from

Anubhutiprakasa of Vidyaranya (on Saksi as Saguna ) so that we can

discuss the point further. More I do not differ much on most portion

of your recent post since it elaborates on the tenets of Advaita `as

it is', except for some conceptual difference relating to the

prakarana we deal with. I'm sure you can predict my explanation on

the same notes you have elaborated to favour my stand that `Saksi is

Nirguna'.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J