[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Re "(III) sAkshI cannot know sAkshya without a vritti. Hence, avidyA-vritti
shall be needed to know avidyA and vishayAkArA-avidyA-vritti shall be
needed to know the respective sAkshi-bhAshya-vishaya. The actual knowing of
the sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya will be carried out by
avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. However,
avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is adhyasta in avidyA-uahita-chaitanya
(primary defintiion of sAkshi) which is same as
avidyA-vritti-upahita-chaitanya. Since there is adhyAsa of
avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya in sAkshI, the former is also termed
as sAkshI."

Would be helpful if you can clarify what you intend to say with the first
sentence.

That is, is the vRtti the *means* for the sAkshi to know? Or are you saying
that vRtti is the *object* of the sAkshi? If it is the latter, that is
fine, but if it is the former, that is only true for those objects that are
not sAkshibhAsya.

There is no requirement that the sAkshi needs to have a vRtti as a means to
know something which is sAkshi bhAsya. As the siddhikAra says - न च
वृत्तेरपि वृत्त्यन्तरप्रतिबिम्बितचिद्भास्यत्वे अनवस्था, स्वस्या एव
स्वभानोपाधित्वात्।
To know avidyAvRtti, the avidyAvRtti itself is sufficient.

Separately, and I can't say if this is the case for sure, I think the
differing definitions of sAkshi as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya and
avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya could simply be from the standpoint of
avacChedavAda and AbhAsa vAda respectively.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:08 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om V Subrahmanian ji, Venkatraghavan ji, Chandramouli ji, Praveen Bhat
> ji and other learned members.
>
> How exactly do we define sAkshI? In advaita-siddhi, several prima facie
> different definitions of sAkshI can be found:-
>
> 1. किञ्च केवलचिन्मात्रं न साक्षि, #किन्त्वविद्यावृत्त्युपहितम्
>
> 2. चैतन्यस्य स्वरूपतो दोषाजन्यत्वेऽपि तदवच्छेदिकाया
> अविद्यावृत्तेर्दोषजन्यत्वात् ; #तत्प्रतिफलितचैतन्यस्यैव #साक्षिपदार्थत्वात्
> ।
>
> 3.  सा चाविद्या साक्षिवेद्या, न तु शुद्धचित्प्रकाश्या । साक्षी
> #चाविद्यावृत्तिप्रतिविम्बितचैतन्यम् ।
>
> 4.  #तथाचाविद्यावृत्तिप्रतिफलितं चैतन्यं साक्षी;
> सुप्तावप्यविद्यावृत्तिस्वीकारस्य प्रागुक्तेः ।
>
> 5.  कथं दृग्रूपस्य ब्रह्मणः साक्षाद्द्रष्टृत्वरूपं साक्षित्वम् ?
> ‘साक्षाद्द्रष्टरि संज्ञाया'मित्यनुशासनादिति चेत्,
> #अविद्यातत्कार्यान्यतरप्रतिफलितचैतन्यस्यैव साक्षित्वात् । तथाच
> दृग्रूपस्यापि उपाधिना द्रष्टृत्वम् । न चोपाधेरपि
> साक्ष्यधीनसिद्धिकप्रातीतिकाविद्याकार्यत्वेन चक्रकाद्यापत्तिः।
>
> उत्पत्तिज्ञप्तिप्रतिबन्धस्याभावादविद्यातदुपाधिकद्रष्टृत्वयोरुभयोरप्यनादित्वात्
> ।
>
> 6. अयमभिप्रायः – यथा #अज्ञानोपहितस्य साक्षित्वेऽपि नाज्ञानं साक्षिकोटौ
> प्रविशति; जडत्वात् , किन्तु साक्ष्यकोटावेव, एवं वृत्त्युपहितस्य विषयत्वेऽपि
> न वृत्तिर्विषयकोटौ प्रविशति; स्वस्याः स्वविषयत्वानुपपत्तेः, किन्तु
> स्वयमविषयोऽपि चैतन्यस्य विषयतां सम्पादयतीति न काप्यनुपपत्तिः ।
>
> From these references, the following are derived:
>
> a. Shuddha Chaitanya is not sAkshI.
>
> b. avidyA-upahita-chaitanya is sAkshI.
>
> c. avidyA-vritti-upahita-chaitanya is sAkshI.
>
> d. avidyA_vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is sAkshI.
>
> I have made an effort to understand the concept of sAkshI and the same is
> presented as under:-
>
> (I) Shuddha chaitanya is not sAkshI because sAkshI, by its very definition,
> requires a sAkshya -- something other than sAkshI. That is impossible if
> shuddha chaitanya were to be the sAkshI. From the frame of reference of
> shuddha chaitanya, there is nothing other than it. And hence shuddha
> chaitanya cannot be sAkshI.
>
> (II) avidyA-upahita-chaitanya is sAkshI. This is the primary definition of
> sAkshI. It is basically shuddha chaitanya described from the frame of
> reference of avidyA. Since avidyA acts as upAdhi, there is no contact of
> shuddha chaitanya with avidyA. Thus, sAkshI is shuddha chaitanya with the
> adhyAsa of avidyA as an upAdhi.[Since avidyA is admissible only from the
> frame of reference of avidyA and not from the frame of reference of shuddha
> chaitanya, sAkshI is also admitted only in the frame of reference of
> avidyA]
>
> (III) sAkshI cannot know sAkshya without a vritti. Hence, avidyA-vritti
> shall be needed to know avidyA and vishayAkArA-avidyA-vritti shall be
> needed to know the respective sAkshi-bhAshya-vishaya. The actual knowing of
> the sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya will be carried out by
> avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. However,
> avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is adhyasta in avidyA-uahita-chaitanya
> (primary defintiion of sAkshi) which is same as
> avidyA-vritti-upahita-chaitanya. Since there is adhyAsa of
> avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya in sAkshI, the former is also termed
> as sAkshI.
>
> (IV) Thus, avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is called sAkshI due to
> adhyAsa whereas avidyA-upahita-chaitanya is the primary definition of
> sAkshI. However, the very sAkshi-hood is on account of adhyAsa of avidyA as
> upAdhi to shuddha chaitanya (This is confirmed in BBV 1.4.372
> - अज्ञानमात्रोपाधित्वादविद्यामुषितात्मभिः। कौटस्थ्यान्निर्द्वयोऽप्यात्मा
> साक्षीत्यध्यस्यते जडै:।।)
>
> Is my understanding correct? Is there a modification needed? Kindly share
> your valuable inputs.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>