Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 --- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote: > 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'... Devanathanji - PraNAms First, thanks for bringing out the difference between saadhaka and adhikaari. I also commend you for being firm in making sure that the teaching is proper. Since I am not a scholar, I relay on my scientific training for my consistency and logic than pure hermeneutical or canonical approach - knowing very well that logic falls short in knowing the ultimate. That limitation, I am conscious of. I have no problem in making the distinction between saadhaka and adhikaari, even though; I have put all mumukshus under one category -a saadhaka. Then, let us take the adhikaari only. I do not see why the arguments I have presented do not apply to him. The reason is simple, as I see. Until he becomes jnaani and realizes the paaramaarthikam, he is still operating within vyavahaara, right? I realize that you are giving him more credit that he can stand apart from dvaita, while I see that standing apart is dvaita too. Your statement that he now ‘potentially equipped to decipher the true nature of saakshii and saakshya sambandha’ using anvaya-vyatireke implies to me that he is not jnaani yet and therefore operating with in the duality or vyavahaara, even the need to apply the tarka. Therefore, I still fell that my statements apply to him too. - He may be using the scripture to do the inquiry of what is eternal and what is ephemeral (nitya anitya vastu vicaara) and in that inquiry using anvya-vyatireka yukti, the adhikaari is trying to shift himself from the identification with anitya to claim his nitya aatma swaruupam, which is the swaruupa of saakshii. There is no problem in any of these. I may be able to shift myself as I am the witnessing consciousness, witnessing every thing 'this' or 'idam' to that 'I am as witnessing consciousness different from witnessed. I still maintain that the duality of saakshii and saakshitvam is there for me to claim the nitya saakshii swaruupam negating identification with any anitya saakshyam. The nitya-anitya vicaara is vyaavahaarika only. As I mentioned this can be done even without shastra support - using simply the logic - assuming I am adhikaari for that. Shaastra comes to my help to teach me something more – just saakshii-saakshya sambandha is not sufficient. To understand the absolute nature of saakshii - which requires an understanding that the saakshyam is also myself only - sarvam khalu idam brahma, since saakshyam is all that idam only and tat tvam asi. Then the realization of true saakshii swaruupam - where there is no separate saakshii and saakshyam and their sambandha - but that saakshii – saakshyam is nitya suddha jnaana swaruupam. When that jnaanam occurs I have clear understanding that saakshii that I am is nirvisheSha brahma and therefore there is no saakshyam too separate from saakshii – and both words saakshii and saakshyam have no more meaning in the nirvisheSha chaitanyam – That is the state of understanding that I am nistaranga chidaambudhi- where in that realization that the assumed reality to all dualities ceases. That culminates even the nitya-anitya vastu vicaara and the need to apply anvya-vyatireka too. Hence I still feel that naama - ruupa involving - saakshii and saakshyam - similarly Iswara and jagat -at micro and macro levels are transcended in the realization that I alone am -as Mandukya mantra 7 that declares. I must say I have not found so far anything that disputes this understanding. The sloka that I was referring to in the Abubhutiprakasha about bahusyaam and prajaayeyeti is Ch.III- V43 – and of course based on Swami Paramarthanandaji’s commentary on that where saguNa Iswaratvam is involved as the nimittakaaraNa with aikshata standing for planning for creation. > 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'. Devanathanji – just to refresh again - I did find problem in concluding from this that gold eva ringasya kaaraNam – since all that established is both are interdependent. One has to apply the logic again in converse form taking the ring as the primary. Ring satve gold satvam and ring abhaave gold satvam, and not gold abhaavam – so vyatireka does not work here. This yukti alone can establish the independence of gold and dependence of ring – as kaaraNa kaarya sambandha – then only eka gold vijnaanena sarva swarna aabharaNa vijnaanam bavati can be valid– kaarya-kaarana samaanaadhikaraNa applies. In the case of saakshii-saakshyam – I did caution in applying this to witnessing consciousness. The correct way to apply is only in the converse form starting from saakshyam only – as in na idam, na idam – or ‘not this’ type of scriptural statement, since I cannot negate myself at any time. Hence saakshyam satve saakshii satyam and saakshyam abhaave saakshii satyam – anvaya works and vyatireka does not work – and this converse form only can establish the dependent and independent entities of the two related entities. In order to know what it is the converse form, one has to try both ways and the first way can not be applied as you mentioned as saakshii abhaave cannot be done. Yes you are right about the limitations and the correct way of doing it too – If I remember Vidyaranya uses this correctly in the Ch.1 of Pancadasi. It is pleasure again to discuss the topic from various perspectives. I realize where you stand and as I still feel that it is semantics only because of the use of the term ‘saakshii’ when it is nirvisheSha chaitanyam and when there is no saakshyam separate from it as the very meaning of visheSha rahita implied in the nirvisheSha caitanyam, since three is no saakshitvam when there is no saakshyam. I suggest that you take up a text for us and provide the sat sangh to keep Vedanta vicaara going. My praNAms again. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Hari Om, Shri Sadananda ji, PranAms. You are from science and im from technology. This may be the reason that the arguments ongoing are sufficely fed with proper logic and frequency. Anyways your scholarship is like an Italian delight for me J. I am honoured by your Readiness to work with some one who is not on par with your diligence to our Sampradaya. Let me start my music again. As far the argument goes, I do not see any symptom of semantical problem. Semantics – per se is never a problem atleast to me. It becomes so only when you try to speculate it with an exegetical mood that sometimes defers knowing the essential nature. We must be very careful when we use expressions like " No Saksi " etc. these are some sensitive terms which ought to be critically dealt with. Please lend your eyes to see some related expressions like Nityatvam – amrtatvam etc as connoted by our preceptors for Saksitvam that craves a place in your argument that claims `no sAksitvam'. The very face value of your premise " No Saksitvam / saksi " is incompatible with Nityatva amrtatvatva svarUpa of the same Saksitva as deliberated by the Sruthi and the preceptors of our tradition. I would also like to rephrase your statement " there is no Sakshyam different from Saksi " . This is exactly what I am trying to explain. It must not be conceived that Saksi is purely subjective and it exists only in the Jiva. Saksi is that which is all pervasive " Niravayava " as Sureswara puts it, it is hidden in the Saksyam too. The objectivity is `enshined' by the Saksi's effulgence inside the object – the sAksyam. Even in Nataka Dipa, the Kutasta tattva is inherently immanent in all while ultimately transcendant by all. The niyantrtva that reflects from the antahkarana of the Master, the audience and everyone is extracted from the beaming rays of pure attributeless Witness consciousness. The antahkaranAvacinna Caitanya plays the role of Niyanta while the aparicinna Saksi is Suddha and Nirguna. Tat-tvam-asi ! Yes ~ Saksi = Tat; Saksyam (Jivatva is objective – kincinjnatva – Apropita) = Tvam pada. The very same indwelling Saksi reveals Saksyam. So Saksitvam is common to both Saksi (essentially) and in Saksyam (incidentally). Applying SamAnAdhi karana in three steps vide: 1) Adhikara sambanda. Adhikarana – the substratum is nothing but the Saksitvam in inherited by the co-present Saksya and hence the underlying principle that persists is Saksitvam alone. Step 2) Visesana Visesya SambandaH – the mutual relation of qualities. Saksyam is qualified with Saksitvam; hence called the niyata (tatasta laksana) while the Saksitvam that qualifies Saksi is its svarUpa laksana – the very essential nature. Step 4) Laksya Laksana SambandaH – Laksana is the implication while Laksana is the implied. Saksitvam is implied in both the padas while the Saksya is the implication. The laksyArta of all the three levels of identity thus reveals the attributeless – Nirguna Saksi alone. I still maintain the `gradation' of Sadhaka, Adhikari and a JivanmuktaH. But let me also note 3 main points here. 1) All adhikAri's are sAdhakas and all sadhaka's are not adhikAri's. 2) Being a potential AdhikAri does not warrant a prospective JivanmuktaH. 3) AdhikAri (with inherent Paroksa jnAna) + AparOksa jnAna = JivanmuktaH. My intention here is to give an Adhikari a special place that he deserves in the process of accomplishing the Brahma SaksAtkAra. Here an AdhikAri with the (nityAnitya vastu) viveka jnAna apparently delineates the inherent ParOksa jnana in Sravana mAtra while the AparOksa anubhUti is awaited after continuous Manana and NidhidhyAsana (personally I do not to Vivarana view on Sabda-Aparoksa vada). Hence AdhikAri with the Paroksa jnAna, exists apart from the orbit of VyavahAra as he is regarded to be the real `seer' of truth – the pramAta who sees nothing but what is taught in the Sruthi. I would like to quote SadAnanda's description of an AdhikAri which goes like this: " Janmani janmAntareva Kamya nishiddha varjana purasaram nitya naimittika prAyascitta upAsanAnena; nirgada nikila kalmashatayA nithAnta Nirmala svAntah; Sadhana catustaya sampannaH pramAtA – AdhikAri " This is one of my favourite quotations. Here the author says `one who does no more karmas like kAmya Nishiddha etc, he is one who performs the nitya naimittika and upAsanas; who then withdraws from all metempsychic activites (with his vairAgya); he becomes pristine pure (citta suddhi – Nirmala); who is rich with the four fold (moral) wealth; is one who is known to be the real `seer' – the AdhikAri. Such a seer has realizes the parOksa to be mediate (known) which is immanent – as a brahmavitt while he still awaits for the apUrva (unknown) ApapOksa anubhUti to be established in Brahman itself. `Brahmavit Brahmaiva Bhavati'. Bhamati discusses this much polemically in the second Sutra segment. So my point on sanctioning special status is valid on the note that - bringing Sadhaka into picture will only weaken your stand instead of strengthening it. Sadananda ji, recently (on Jan 11th'08) I had an oppurtunity to meet Prof Bina Gupta (Univ of Missouri) on her visit to Chennai. She gladly introduced me to her book `The Disinterested Witness' which is published by Northwestern University' that elaborately deals with the concept and nature of Saksi. The book is not available in market here in India (chennai). I would request you humbly if you can try making this book available here sometime during your next trip back to Chennai please. Mean while I will also consult with main libraries here and check with the availability. Sincerely I am yet gain competence so as to take classes on Vedanta; I lack Citta-Suddhi. Rather I intend to post some small Advaitic treatises that remain unpublished hitherto. Currently I am working on few Manuscripts on small Advaita prakaranas and will surely come out with successful ones in another 6 months or so. With Narayana Smrthi, Devanathan.J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 --- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote: .. You are from science and im from > technology. This may be > the reason that the arguments ongoing are sufficely > fed with proper > logic and frequency. Shree Devanathanji - PraNAms. Actually I am on technology side only - and get paid for breaking things. They want keep paying me even after my retirement to make sure that things do not break without their knowledge, when I leave for my next assignment after this life! Since I am material scientist, it is fun to learn and teach that there is no real material there. But I am not going to tell them as long as they are paying me. Thanks for your beautiful sentiments. Coming from you, it speaks a lot. Yes, Logic is good particularly when supported by the scriptures. > Let me start my music again. Your music sounds good, particularly in this December-January season in Chennai. My wife is busy dancing here and I am busy watching the dance of life. >The very face value of your > premise " No > Saksitvam / saksi " is incompatible with Nityatva > amrtatvatva svarUpa > of the same Saksitva as deliberated by the Sruthi > and the preceptors > of our tradition. Devanathanji - I have no intension of extinguishing or breaking the nitya amRitatva swaruupam - the eternal, immortal nature of the reality - it is impossible anyway - it will be self immolation. What I meant, through out our discussions is " I am " cannot be called even as saakshii with quality (even if it is apparent) of saakshitvam, when there is no saakhyam separate from me. As the sloka 20 of Advaita Makaranda, that started this discussion, says it is for upalabdaat eva - for taTasta lakshaNa only for adhyaaropa apavaada. Once I have recognized my nitya amRitatva swaruupa, the saakshii swaruupa has no more meaning. Satyam jnaanam anantam - are only positive swaruupa lakshanaas that Upanishads provide - the rest are for upalabdaat eva including, as you know, jagat kaaraNam etc. > I would also like to rephrase your statement " there > is no Sakshyam > different from Saksi " . This is exactly what I am > trying to explain. > It must not be conceived that Saksi is purely > subjective and it > exists only in the Jiva. Devanathanji - There are two points I would you to consider here. 1. When I recognize that saakshyam is not different from saakshii - the seer-seen distinction is also gone - since it is one appearing as two. When I switch from the two - saakshii-saakshyam to the one that is beyond, one cannot call it either as saakshii or saakshyam - That is what Lakshmiidhara Kavi says -as nistaranga chidaambudhe. The notional subdivision is transcended too. 2. The second point I have been trying to stress is that in saakshii-saakshyam analysis the use of tarka - anvaya-vyatireka - only establishes what is dependent and what is independent at jiiva level. Tarka can take up only up to that. Tat tvam asi statement came in Ch. Up from VI-8 to VI-16, after sRitShTi prakaraNa starting from Ch.VI-2 to VI-7. Shriti first has to establish that Brahma satyam and jagat mityaa before it takes up - tat tvam asi or jiivo brahma eva naaparaH. After establishing through tarka that I am sakshii and not saakshyam, and sakshyam depends on I and I do not depend on saakshyam, I have to be equated to SAT that is the cause for the entire creation too. Through the analysis of swapiti - or deep sleep state - that my nature is sat swaruupam and from the previous 6 chapters' teaching that the sat swaruupam that I am is Brahma swaruupam. Essentially I have to move from saakshii-saakshyam swaruupam to Braham-jagat swaruupam to establish the Tat tvam asi. Then only nirvishesha chaitanya swaruupam analysis is complete. In Advaita Makaranda, poet first establishes the jiiva-brahma identity - athoham na katham brahma - how can I not be Brahman? Then only he tackles why this teaching does not sink in - and provides the saakshii-shaakshyam analysis. Sakshii is that which is all > pervasive " Niravayava " as Sureswara puts it, it is > hidden in the > Saksyam too. ……. >The > antahkaranAvacinna > Caitanya plays the role of Niyanta while the > aparicinna Saksi is > Suddha and Nirguna. Yes agreed to all of the above! Only the caveat is there is no need to call it as sakshii or saakshyam anymore. Those words have no more meaning once I have understood that I am suddha and nirguNa (that includes even the apparent saakshitva guNa!) > > Tat-tvam-asi ! Yes ~ Saksi = Tat; Saksyam (Jivatva > is objective – > kincinjnatva – Apropita) = Tvam pada. The very same > indwelling Saksi > reveals Saksyam. >…….. >The laksyArta of all the three > levels of identity > thus reveals the attributeless – Nirguna Saksi > alone. Then Devanathanji - why do you want to call as NirguNa Saakshii alone - where there is nothing other than it. Just the nirvishaya or nirvisheshaNa chaitanya swaruupam, where as Guodapaada says even the word advaita has no meaning. > I still maintain the `gradation' of Sadhaka, > Adhikari and a > JivanmuktaH. But let me also note 3 main points > here. 1) All > adhikAri's are sAdhakas and all sadhaka's are not > adhikAri's. 2) > Being a potential AdhikAri does not warrant a > prospective > JivanmuktaH. 3) AdhikAri (with inherent Paroksa > jnAna) + AparOksa > jnAna = JivanmuktaH. Devanathanji - what is paroksha and aparoksha jnaanam as per your understanding? - particularly when we are discussing about sakshii which is nitya satya vastu. For the adhikaari that you have qualified, advaita anubhava is always there and all that is needed is the jnaanam - tat tvam asi for aparoksha. My intention here is to give an > Adhikari a > special place that he deserves in the process of > accomplishing the > Brahma SaksAtkAra. Here an AdhikAri with the > (nityAnitya vastu) > viveka jnAna apparently delineates the inherent > ParOksa jnana in > Sravana mAtra while the AparOksa anubhUti is awaited > after > continuous Manana and NidhidhyAsana (personally I do > not > to Vivarana view on Sabda-Aparoksa vada). Devanthanji - If I understand, the manaNam is to have clear understanding without any trace of doubts. That should end the teaching. Aparoksha jnaanam has taken place. Nidhidhyaasana is required to establish firm abidance in that knowledge - it is not the lack of knowledge but emotional blockage or habitual mental derailment preventing that jnaana nishhTa or firm abidance in that knowledge - aham brahmaasmi - We need chitta suddhi - and this vichaara to continue for the mind to dwell on that reality and to take it away from giving importance to trivialities more than what they deserve. like to quote > SadAnanda's description of an AdhikAri which goes > like this: Thanks for the quotation from Vedanta Saara of Shree Sadananda yogiindra saraswati. He provides the jahaajahal lakshaNa for the tat tvam asi – using soyam devadattaH as example. If I understand, Saakshii-saakshyam analysis can give only tvam paadaartha analysis. For Tat padaartha analysis – we need to have understanding of satvidya in terms of kaaryakaaraNa sambandha at macro level. That exactly what I was bringing in. > Sadananda ji, recently (on Jan 11th'08) I had an > oppurtunity to meet > Prof Bina Gupta (Univ of Missouri) on her visit to > Chennai. She > gladly introduced me to her book `The Disinterested > Witness' which > is published by Northwestern University' that > elaborately deals with > the concept and nature of Saksi. The book is not > available in market > here in India (chennai). I would request you humbly > if you can try > making this book available here sometime during your > next trip back > to Chennai please. Mean while I will also consult > with main > libraries here and check with the availability. > Definitely, I will. I am familiar with her other book – Perceptions in Advaita Vedanta. That was difficult to read. I just got hold of the book that Dennis recommended from Ramakrishna Mission – Methods of Knowledge by Swami Satprakashananda. I am studying it and may interject some of my understanding in my mind analsysis series. Very interesting analysis of the discussion of saakshii swaruupam in the book. I will try to find Prof. Bina Gupta’s book that you mentioned. > Sincerely I am yet gain competence so as to take > classes on Vedanta; > I lack Citta-Suddhi. Rather I intend to post some > small Advaitic > treatises that remain unpublished hitherto. > Currently I am working > on few Manuscripts on small Advaita prakaranas and > will surely come > out with successful ones in another 6 months or so. Devanathanji – that will be great. You can take up any text that you would like. My PraNAms. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Hari Om, Sadananda ji, After realization of the true nature of Brahman and Jiva, the entities exist no more, for the knower becomes one with Brahman. An adhikAri, endeavors the non-difference between saksi and saksyam; that he finds the latter sublated and he becomes one with sAksi. Now that he sees nothing as sAksi, since he himself is one, where sAshitvam remains unsublated. This is the tAtparya and this explanation alone will treat well the nityatva amrtatva connotations by Sruthi. Coming back to Nistaranga ChidAmbude, I think you are over emphasizing the expression loading it too much with your attempt to make it sound Saguna. Try following these points please. What is Taranga – waves? It is the functional notion of a sea. Now does `sea' cease to exist when there is no `waves' in it? Not so. Like wise, the `sAksitvam' exists even after the objective domain `saksya' ceases to exist. Here Saksitvam in Saksi persists so; even after exhausting its functional notion. When Ramakrsnanda in his commentary to Pancadasi, applies anuvrtti- vyAvrtti in place of actual anvaya vyatireka, where he intends to supplement the Saksi-Sakshya abheda to the very thesis that establishes independence to Saksi. What is derived here is to have more logical ceherence and correspondence between two modes of applying same logic in different methods that derives a same conclusion that Saksi is `essentially' non-different from Saksya and that the formers funstionality in no more seen to be an attribute but for its `essential' nature being Nirguna. Actually Mandana Misra in his Brahma Siddhi first gave an exclusive significant explanation on the `sat' aspect of Brahman, where in he makes an elaborate analysis of deep sleep for a triputi. There, Mandana intensely talks about the presence of Saksi in deep sleep that which manifests the samksaras immediately after the tripti wakes. Saksi basya that illumines the samskAras makes the `seeming' presence of Saksya in the Jagradavasta while in susupti itself the latter exists not. The paramarsa is the reflection upon the supti to jagrat and that indicates the `sat' aspect of Saksi, as it is `svaprakAsa'. He speaks about `SabAtman', which is the alambana for even the Supti, and that it has no ucceda. For an AdhikAri, Brahman as Nitya Suddha Buddha muktaH svabAva, which he knows from Sravana Matra from Vedanta Vicara along with Shraddha and cittaH suddhi, is Paroksa jnAna. Such an AdhikAri makes further investigation on his own nature by contemplating (cintana (Mandana's usage) = manana) and `anu-cintana = nidhidhyAsana' that gives the Aparoksa jnana. This jnana is the `pratipatti hetu' for subsequent `anubhUti'. How can mere Manana or cintana fetch you Aproksa jnanam? It only aids to have a drda niscaya of what you have known through Sravana. More, your explanation on NidhidhyAsana severely ridicules the `abhAdita' tattva of Aparoksa jnana. Aparoksa jnana is that which remains unsublated, and we need not attempt to prevent any `derailment' there. With Narayana Smrthi, Devanathan.J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 Devanathanji – PraNAms --- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote: > After realization of the true nature of Brahman and > Jiva, the > entities exist no more, for the knower becomes one > with Brahman. An > adhikAri, endeavors the non-difference between saksi > and saksyam; > that he finds the latter sublated and he becomes one > with sAksi. I would say he sublates saakshyam he has to realize that he is Brahman where saakshii, saakshyam, saakshitvam, saakshyatvam, etc, all dissolved into one homogeneous nirvishesha chaitanyam. without saakshyam, the word saakshii has no more meaning. Now > that he sees nothing as sAksi, since he himself is > one, where > sAshitvam remains unsublated. If saakshitvam remains unsublated, he still sees himself as saakshii for to recognize the unsublated saakshitvam. For me those two words have relative meaning. Without any saakshyam, no need to call me as sakshii. I think the words saakshii has significance only with reference to saakshitvam; and saakshitvam has significance only with reference to saakshyam. I am called a subject with reference to an object that is being objectified. They use the word objectless awareness only to differentiate with reference awareness of objects. It is like advaitam – to negate dvaitam that is seen. Once all the dvaitam is negated, there is nothing other than nirvishesha chaitanyam alone. All language fails. No need to call it as saakshii any more since saakshii word demands saakshyam and saakshitvam. This is the tAtparya > and this > explanation alone will treat well the nityatva > amrtatva connotations > by Sruthi. Devanathanji – I have just provided the tatparyam without the need of the word saakshii. I would be concerned about the word alone in your statement. I can just transcend both saakshii and saakshyam to realize that I am nirvishesha chaitanyam - without the route you are suggesting. > > Coming back to Nistaranga ChidAmbude, I think you > are over > emphasizing the expression loading it too much with > your attempt to > make it sound Saguna. No Devanathanji – Tarangaas will make me saguna Brahman. It is the other way. I am emphasizing when one transcends both saakshii and saakshyam – which as per the sloka 20 of advaita Makaranda says is na taatvakii – it is only for upalabdvaat eva – only for teaching to negate the saakshyam. When Saakshyam is negated, saakshii's apparent role as saakshii is also gone. I would call all tarangaas as tripuTi – involved saaskhii-saakshyam and saakshitvam. Try following these points > please. What is > Taranga – waves? I would call the thought waves which are VRittiis – related to the world of objects. As long as I have notion that they are separate from me, the reality associated with the vRittis remain. You can call as that my glory only - or like Goudapaada says- Pot is not there before and pot is not there later, where is the pot now- it is just clay in a form. There is no pot anytime! It is the functional notion of a > sea. Now > does `sea' cease to exist when there is no `waves' > in it? Not so. Yes. But for those who are concerned and getting carried way with the waves only, for them they only count, not the serene sea underneath which is addhaara. Is it not the cause of samsaara? When I realize that waves are my nature then I am just water – both in the ocean and in the waves – I am one without internal differences – sajaati bheda rahita. > Like wise, the `sAksitvam' exists even after the > objective > domain `saksya' ceases to exist. Here Saksitvam in > Saksi persists > so; even after exhausting its functional notion. Sorry Devanathanji – I must differ here. For me when the saakskyam is sublated – what we are sublating is the notions that they are separate from saakshii – then the word that saakshii stands for has no more meaning to me. I am Brahman, period. That is what I would call nistranga chit ambudhe – the analogy is to negate the separate reality to the waves apart from ocean. Apparent is not real. ----------------------------- > > When Ramakrsnanda in his commentary to Pancadasi, > applies anuvrtti- > vyAvrtti in place of actual anvaya vyatireka, where > he intends to > supplement the Saksi-Sakshya abheda to the very > thesis that > establishes independence to Saksi. What is derived > here is to have > more logical ceherence and correspondence between > two modes of > applying same logic in different methods that > derives a same > conclusion that Saksi is `essentially' non-different > from Saksya and > that the formers funstionality in no more seen to be > an attribute > but for its `essential' nature being Nirguna. I still consider the discussion is only semantics, which I know you would not agree. For me it is very simple – saakshii has meaning with reference to saakshyam. If they are recognized as one homogeneous consciousness, then both saakshii and saakshyam both drop out – like I am the consciousness the substratum for both subject and object. I am beginning to suspect the difference of our opinions because of differences between vivarana and bhaamati schools of thought. Second point is I am sure you would agree that logic can take us only with reference to negating the VRittiis as nothing but consciousness alone. In that sense saakshii and saakshyam analysis using anvya-vyatireka logic can take me only up to the point that I am source or the substantive of subjective and objective thoughts. That is end of the logic. Where logic cannot take me is to relate myself to Brahman which is substantive of jagat. Vedas, and not logic, can only be pramaaNa for that. > Actually Mandana Misra in his Brahma Siddhi first > gave an exclusive > significant explanation on the `sat' aspect of > Brahman, where in he > makes an elaborate analysis of deep sleep for a > triputi. There, > Mandana intensely talks about the presence of Saksi > in deep sleep > that which manifests the samksaras immediately after > the tripti > wakes. No problem – Advaita Makaranda sloka 11 essentially talks about the presence of saakshii in the deep sleep state. The saakshyam is the absence of cognitive mind. There is an experience that I slept well which was collected during deep sleep and recollected in the waking state. >Saksi basya that illumines the samskAras > makes the `seeming' > presence of Saksya in the Jagradavasta while in > susupti itself the > latter exists not. The paramarsa is the reflection > upon the supti to > jagrat and that indicates the `sat' aspect of Saksi, > as it > is `svaprakAsa'. He speaks about `SabAtman', which > is the alambana > for even the Supti, and that it has no ucceda. Devanathanji – Frankly I could not understand the above technical words and what they mean. I will go with the knowledge that ‘sleep experience’ is recorded as the absence of the mind – like Nixon’s 18 min missing gap in the tape – The mind can recognize its absence as absence of vRittiis – that is the lack of particular knowledge in deep sleep as the knowledge that is recalled – I slept very well and I did not know anything – awareness of the absence of vRitti jnaanam – similar to my awareness of darkness or ignorance. > For an AdhikAri, Brahman as Nitya Suddha Buddha > muktaH svabAva, > which he knows from Sravana Matra from Vedanta > Vicara along with > Shraddha and cittaH suddhi, is Paroksa jnAna. This I must differ here. I must go by Sureshwara’s Naishkarmya siddhi – that indicates that knowledge takes place by shravaNam only - aparoksha jnaanam - since the object that is being pointed is not remote, spatially and temporally – like in 10th man’s story. >Such > an AdhikAri makes > further investigation on his own nature by > contemplating (cintana > (Mandana's usage) = manana) and `anu-cintana = > nidhidhyAsana' that > gives the Aparoksa jnana. This jnana is the > `pratipatti hetu' for > subsequent `anubhUti'. Devanathanji – Is there any time I do not have experience of Brahman or experience of myself. What is lacking is my identity that I am that Brahman. The things that are equated with identity equation are right there in the present, where there is no time. Because of the lack of saadhana catuShTaya, the knowledge does not get internalized. Hence nidhidyaasana is required to firmly abide in that knowledge. Anyway these are two schools of thoughts – better to leave it there. >How can mere Manana or > cintana fetch you > Aproksa jnanam? Aparoksha means direct and immediate – Brahman is direct and immediate as Bri. Says that VP also quotes. I am direct and immediate undeniable fact. When the teacher and shastra say tat tvam asi – the equation is clear and direct – I do not have to go in search for Brahman or I do not have to go in search of myself – it is as direct as This is that devadatta – when I already know that devadatta and I seeing one in front of me – tat tvam asi is direct and immediate. I may not believe that that devadatta looks like this devadatta – but if I have faith in the teacher words – the knowledge has to be immediate. Mananam comes if I have doubts - if that devadatta did not have back mole on his cheeks but this devadaata has one and that devadaata had his teach all crocked but this devadatta had all nice teeth – the teacher has to explain that he got burned is the cause for the black mark and he went to orthodontist and got his teeth fixed. – Nidhidhyaasana comes in only if the knowledge is not internalized and firm abidance in that knowledge that has occurred. – that is explained due to old habits. >t only aids to have a drda niscaya > of what you have > known through Sravana. More, your explanation on > NidhidhyAsana > severely ridicules the `abhAdita' tattva of Aparoksa > jnana. Devanathanji – I do not see any thing being ridiculed here. Aparoksha > jnana is that which remains unsublated, and we need > not attempt to > prevent any `derailment' there. That is true. Firm abidance in that knowledge will lead to jiivanmukta. Looks like we have exhausted the topic from several angles. Please go ahead and summarize our understandings in a post. May be you want to separate the topic on saakshii and saakshyam . The last topic is more related to Bhaamati and vivarana schools. I leave it to you. And thanks again for patiently listening to my side of the story, whether we agree or not. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Devanathanji – PraNAms > > > --- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote: > > > After realization of the true nature of Brahman and > > Jiva, the > > entities exist no more, for the knower becomes one > > with Brahman. An > > adhikAri, endeavors the non-difference between saksi > > and saksyam; > > that he finds the latter sublated and he becomes one > > with sAksi. > > I would say he sublates saakshyam he has to realize > that he is Brahman where saakshii, saakshyam, > saakshitvam, saakshyatvam, etc, all dissolved into > one homogeneous nirvishesha chaitanyam. without > saakshyam, the word saakshii has no more meaning. > > since the object that is being pointed is not remote, > spatially and temporally – like in 10th man's story. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda Dear Shri Sadananda, AS you rightly say, there can be no sAkshi without a sAkshyam, which is the world. So sAkshi cannot be nirvisesha brahman, but is only upahita brahman or upahita jIva. I quoted statements from Dr. R. Balasubramanian's book in support of this. But Devanathan, who is a very good friend of mine, persisted in his view and so I stopped arguimg with him. A few days ago I happened to meet Dr. Krishnamurthi Sastri, the former principal of Madras Sanskrit College, an acknowledged scholar in vedanta, and asked him. He concurred with my view. I therefore request Devanathan to ask Dr. Mani Dravid whose class he attends and find out what he says. If Dr. Mani Dravid concurs with Devanathan's view, I shall accept it. Regards, S.N.Sastri > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.