Means of Knowledge - 12

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

My comments & observations are here below...

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

(a) vishiShTa caitanyam (b) upahita caitanyam and ©

nirupAdhika caitanyam. Limiting reflected consciousness identified with

attributes (visheShaNa) of the upAdhi is jiiva caitanyam or vishiShTa

caitanyam. Limiting illuminating consciousness (it is actually not

doing the illumination also) constrained by uaPadhis (with no

identification with the qualities of the upaAdhis) is upahita caitanya

or sAkshI caitanya. The lost one is without any upAdhis, that is, when

jiivanmukta drops his upaadhis during videha mukti.

 

bhaskar :

 

Is there any difference in jnAna obtained after vidEha mukti & jnAna

obtained when living with the upAdhi-s?? Prabhuji I would like to know the

bhAshya reference with regard to the differece between sAkshi chaitanya &

nirupAdhika chaitanya...And I am not able to understand your sentence that

*limiting illuminating consciousness* (it is actually not doing the

illumination also)..what does it mean?? does this mean, nirupAdhika

chaitanya in the upAdhi kruta jIva illuminating both vishishTa & sAkshi

chaitanya?? Prabhuji, you are saying here sAkshi chaitanya is not doing

illumination...but shankara in kEna bhAshya (1-2-18) says : taThA manasaH

antaHkaraNasya manaH, na hi antaH karaNam antarENa chaitanya jyOtishA

deepitaM svavishaya saNkalpAdhyavasAdi samarThaM syAt...Here shankara

saying the through sAkshi chaitanya only we are having the knowledge of

sharIra indriya & manaH...Same opinion expressed more precisely in upadEsha

sAhasri also (17-35) buddhaU bOdhO na taddharmasthathaiva syAd

vidharmataH..

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

VP says this jiiva-sAkshI in each individual

is different, for the limiting upAdhis are different, just as spaces in

different pots are different due to constraining walls of the pots.

Hence for this reason, what one individual, Caitra, knows, another

individual, Maitra, cannot recollect. Similarly if one individual

realizes the other individual does not, since as we discussed before,

realization involves recognition that the limiting reflected

attributive consciousness is nothing but the original unqualified or

attributeless conscious that is causing illumination and reflection.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

Again, I am failed to find any shruti reference for this various types of

sAkshi-s in various types of individuals..

No where in the upanishad there is a mention about multiple sAkshi-s...On

the other hand shruti explicitly says: yEkO dEvaH sarva bhutEshu

gUdhA.....sarvabhutAdhi vAsaH sAkshI chEtA..etc. From this it is very

evident that the sAkshi is one and the same in all *bhUta-s*...Here, point

to be noted is the existence of sAkshi cannot be proven with the help of

mere pratyaksha and anumAna pramANa...The sAkshi chaitanya can be known

only through shabda pramAna ( i.e. shruti)..That shabda pramANa promptly

telling us it is *yEkaH* in sarvabhUtA....Moreover, if we say there are

multiple sAkshi in various vishishTa chaitanya, it plainly goes against

shankara's declaration in sUtra bhAshya (1-1-4) ...Shankara's express

statement goes like: tatsAkshi sarvabhUtastaH, samaH, yEkaH, kUtasTha

nityaH..IMO, we should not try to prove the existence of *nAnAtva of

sAkshi* with the help of mere logic..As sri shAstri prabhuji, morning

rightly said, without shruti pramANa & shruti pramANAdhArita AchAryOpadEsha

if we use mere logic, we will be strayed from the siddhAnta..upadEsha

sAhasri poem section (7-2) says, yaThAtma buddhichArANAM sAkshi tadvat

parEshvapi, naivApOdhuM navAdAtuM shakyastasmAtparO hyahaM....By the way,

for the arguments sake, even if we agree that there are multiple sAkshi-s,

to know that multiplicity of sAkshi-s, we have to have one sAkshi is it

not?? Moreover if we say these sAkshi-s are sAkshya rUpa, does it not lead

to *vyAhata vachana* according to tarka shAstra prabhuji?? So, nAnAtva of

sAkshi is tarka viruddha also..And again, it is not logical necessity that

whatever chaitra knows, maitra also should recollect it...since it is said

in sUtra bhAshya that from different upAdhi-s only there seems different

jIva-s and whenever there are different upadhi-s there cannot be

jIvaikya...So, this logic does not applicable here due to different

upAdhi-s..Kindly refer sUtra bhAshya (2-3-46) for further clarification on

this prabhuji.

 

Finally, prabhuji, my humble request to you is, if you are elaborating some

logical texts like vedAnta paribhAsha etc. kindly give shruti & shankara

bhAshya vachana reference also as much as possible in support...So that it

is immensely beneficial for those who want to follow shankara siddhAnta to

the core.

 

Hope you would consider my request in future posts..

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

 

With all due respects, please do not ask me to quote Shankara Bhaashya

whenever you have disagreements with what I have written. I know I am

not a scholar. What I wrote is based on my understanding and you are

welcome to reject it.

 

Vedanta Paribhaasha is recognized text on Advaitic views on

Epistemological issues. I have provided whatever references he has

given.

 

Besides Shankara, others have contributed to the understanding of the

epistemological issues. In Panchadasi -Vidyaranya discusses

exhaustively about the sAkshI chaitanya. Sureswara, Catsuki AchArya,

Madusudhana Saraswati also contributed. VP analysis is based on

VivaraNa School.

 

I think most of the questions you raised were methodically developed in

the earlier posts. If more clarification is needed I will be happy to

provide, of course, based on my understanding.

 

In stead of me providing quotations to support, I will let you provide

the quotations that contradict what I wrote. Then we can discuss the

implications and contextual applicability of those quotes, since I am

following basically VP while also pointing out when I am deviating too

from the text. Michael and Sastriji can also help me if you are

disagreeing with VP statements, since they have good understanding of

the subject.

 

Hari Om!

 

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Respected Sri Sadananda prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Kindly accept my humble prostrations in apology if I hurt your feelings.

Since you know me for the past several years in this list, you very well

know that it is not at all my intention. What I thought was, since logical

texts like VP etc. are basically discussing the philosophy of advaita, it

must have appropriate support from Shruti & our mUlAchArya, shankara

bhagavadpAda' works...But to my surprise, I've found most of the assertions

are plainly going against shruti siddhAnta & bhAshya vachana...For example,

when shruti without any ambiguity says sAkshi is yEkaH in sarva bhUta &

when our paramAchArya too endorsing it by saying tatsAkshi is yEkaH, samaH,

kUtashTha nityaH etc. what is the need for the VP author to use only dry

logic (shushka tarka) without the aid of shruti & AchAryOpadEsha to

propagate the theory of nAnAtva of sAkshi ?? Dont you think tarka should

be based on shruti pramANa or shrutyanugrahIta?? I am really surprising to

see your unwillingness to give shruti & AchArya pramANa vachana in support

of VP's verdicts on epistemological issues...

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

 

Vedanta Paribhaasha is recognized text on Advaitic views on Epistemological

issues. I have provided whatever references he has given.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Neither pratyakha nor anumAna can prove the nAnAtva of sAkshi...It has to

be proved only from the shabda pramAna but this pramANa saying it is only

ONE...And this sAkshi is shankara says aupanishad purusha, it is upanishad

vEdya only...So, IMHO, mere logic would not help us here to deduce the

concept of nAnAtva of sAkshi.

 

 

Sri S prabhuji:

 

 

Besides Shankara, others have contributed to the understanding of the

epistemological issues. In Panchadasi -Vidyaranya discusses exhaustively

about the sAkshI chaitanya. Sureswara, Catsuki AchArya, Madusudhana

Saraswati also contributed. VP analysis is based on VivaraNa School.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Kindly let me know where surEshwara talks about multiple sAkshi

chaitanya-s?? (really I donot know, it is my sincere query)..

 

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

I think most of the questions you raised were methodically developed in the

earlier posts. If more clarification is needed I will be happy to

provide, of course, based on my understanding.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Kindly let me know where did you clarify the following questions :

 

 

(a) Is there any difference in jnAna obtained after vidEha mukti & jnAna

obtained when living with the upAdhi-s??

 

 

(b) what does it mean when you say : *limiting illuminating consciousness*

(it is actually not doing the illumination also)

 

 

© what is jIva bhAva apart from upAdhi?? can we imagine a jIva/vishishTa

chaitanya bereft of upAdhi-s & upAhita chaitanya i.e. sAkshi??

 

 

On the contrary, shankara in sUtra bhAshya says : upAdhi taNtrO hi jeevaH

ityuktaM, upAdhyasanantAnAccha *nAsti jIva saNtAnaH*...

 

 

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

 

In stead of me providing quotations to support, I will let you provide the

quotations that contradict what I wrote. Then we can discuss the

implications and contextual applicability of those quotes, since I am

following basically VP while also pointing out when I am deviating too

from the text.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Again, I am surprising to see your demands for quotations from my side :-))

I hope, I've already given enough references from shruti, sUtra bhAshya &

prakaraNa text (upadEsha sAhasri)...If I quoted those reference completely

out of context, kindly educate me how it should be understood according to

the context..I dont think you have put a question mark on VP's nAnAtva of

sAkshi chaitanya....

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> Kindly accept my humble prostrations in apology if I hurt your

> feelings.

 

Bhaskar - PraNams –

 

No need for any apologies. As you know, I write what I understand

only. I do provide quotes from the scriptures as much as possible or to

the extent I remember, but it is difficult from me to justify to others

quoting shankara Bhaashya. If you do not think my statements are not in

tune with Shankara Bhaashya, you are welcome to disagree or reject them

all together - That is your prerogative and there is no question of

hurting any feelings here.

 

But I must say, what I write is based on my clear understanding of

advaitic position based on Shankara Bhaashyas as well as all other

great aachaarayas of the tradition. Since I have been teaching this

stuff, I try to make sure to the extent that I can that I am correct

before I pass it on to others. The point of discussion is about the

upahita chaitanya and Shree Sastriji also indicated that it is based on

correct understanding of Advaitic position. I had extensive

discussions about this with Shree Paramarthanandaji also before I left

India. Therefore I am sure I am not incorrect.

 

> What I thought was, since

> logical

> texts like VP etc. are basically discussing the philosophy of

> advaita, it

> must have appropriate support from Shruti & our mUlAchArya, shankara

> bhagavadpAda' works...But to my surprise, I've found most of the

> assertions

> are plainly going against shruti siddhAnta & bhAshya vachana...

 

I have not found any, so I have no problem.

 

For

> example,

> when shruti without any ambiguity says sAkshi is yEkaH in sarva bhUta

> &

> when our paramAchArya too endorsing it by saying tatsAkshi is yEkaH,

> samaH,

> kUtashTha nityaH etc.

 

Bhaskar - before jumping into conclusions, one need to examine

correctly from what reference these statements are made.

 

From the point of caitanya, it is one only – I have made that point

also in the post 12 - there cannot be many, since it is indivisible.

However, from the point of vyavahaara, the witnessing consciousness

gets that particular role with reference to the witnessed. Upahita

caitanya is the witnessing consciousness. Without witnessed the word

witnessing consciousness has no meaning. This is somewhat similar to

the discussion I had few months ago on Saakshii swaruupam. Saakshii

and saakhyam duality pertains to the localized states.

 

However, jnaani understands (since the discussion is from that point);

he recognizes that while with reference to the witnessed, he is

witnessing consciousness, but with reference to pure consciousness he

is ekam eva advitiiyam, implying he is one without a second and that

there is nothing other than consciousness that he is. From the point of

global state, the word witness has to be dropped too, since witness has

a meaning only with reference to the witnessed – that is when the

duality is perceived. Jnaani sees the duality but does not take it as

reality. Jnaani now knows that duality is apparent and not real.

Apparent duality remains apparently limited. Jnaani also understands

that he is the absolute consciousness as Adviata Makaranda says –

nistaranga cidaambude - pure unperturbed ocean of consciousness, one

without a second – that is when both witness and the witnessed duality

is recognized as one. In that understanding he understands that

upahita caitnyam is the same as pure indivisible caitanya that he is.

Hence when Shankara refers to the ekam – it is understanding that

witnessing consciousness is the same as the indivisible consciousness

wherein both witness and witnessed are one.

 

Also to be understood, as Sureshwara emphasizes, that witnessing

consciousness is from the point of witnessed, since in reality

consciousness does not even play the role of witness; but in its

presence the apparent things get witnessed or become apparent. Hence it

is ekam or one but playing apparently a dualistic role – witness and

witnessed; the duality arises from the point of witnessed not from the

point of witness. Hence it is very important to understand from what

reference this discussion is made. The discussion about jnaani is also

from the point of vyavahaara only, since from the point of

paaramaarthika, who is jnaani and who is ajnaani? Hence when you say

sAkshI is ekam, it is no more called sAskhI or witness since ekam

involves absence of sAkshyam or witnessed too.

 

Jnaani knows what is apparent and what is absolute also. In fact I

should say when he knows the he is absolute, he understands that what

he thought was real is only apparent. That is the knowledge or jnaanam.

Apparent duality even in upahita chaitanya is not real but apparent

only.

 

what is the need for the VP author to use only

> dry

> logic (shushka tarka) without the aid of shruti & AchAryOpadEsha to

> propagate the theory of nAnAtva of sAkshi ??

 

I would be careful before I pass such judgments. Knowledge does not

violate logic, it only goes beyond logic. Hence when VP says,

witnessing consciousness of Caitra does not know what Maitra is

thinking – it only means the minds that are localized in Caitra and

Maitra are different. Hence illuminated consciousness in Caitra is

different from the illuminated consciousness in Maitra. This is logical

as well as is experienced. Hence VP statements are correct. Shankara

bhaashya also has to be interpreted correctly and that is why we have

other aacharyas who have elaborated on these. Vidyaranya discusses

these in both Pancadasi and Anubutiprakasha and Sureshwara in Naiskarma

siddhi. Hence Vedanta’s insistence on study of the scriptures, using

the terminology of Swami Paramarthanandaji, under live competent

teacher is important to get the correct import of scriptures and

bhaashyaas. Just as a general statement, those who are lucky should

avail those opportunities if the Lord provides those opportunities,

since these are very rare. The word competent for a teacher is as

important as live. Competent teacher is one who was a competent

student, says Swamiji. Hence Shankara says – the three things are

different indeed to get – a) being born as human being, b) desire for

liberation and c) association with a competent live guru – these are

blessings from the many merits done in past lives.

 

Bhaskarji what I wrote is keeping in mind a general reader, not

necessarily intended for you. You are welcome to disagree with the

issues raised and we can agree to disagree.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda