[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

The laghuchandrikA says avidyAviShayaka avidyAvRtteh pralayAdau asvIkArAt
na avidyAyAm taditi bhAvah - meaning such an avidyAviShayaka avidyAvRtti's
existence is not accepted during pralaya, so the factor required for the
sAditva of avidyA (pratibhAsa-kalpaka-samakAlIna-kalapaka-vattva) is not
present.

That is, in pralaya, only avidyA is present and nothing else, and there is
no avidyAvRtti which can be argued for the appearance of avidyA, so avidyA
does not have pratibhAsa-kalpaka-samakAlIna-kalpaka-vattva, and thereforr
does not have a beginning.

That is why he later says avidyAyAstu kalpanA svopahitacideva na vRttiriti
bhAvah - the appearance of avidyA is because of avidyA upahita caitanya and
not a vRtti.

He concedes that there could be another system where there is another
avidyAvRtti also and gives the other factor for sAditva,
vidyA-anivRtty-aprayukta-nivRtti-pratiyogitvam.

In any case, as I said there are two views - one where there is a
requirement for a vRtti for sAkshibhAsya entities and another where there
is not.

The vivaraNa quote also has some other intent. Anyway, we are straying far
from the original question.

I have already given you my view for why there are two definitions of
sAkshi - one is from avacCheda vAda and another from AbhAsa vAda.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, 19:40 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.
>
> In continuation of last e-mail, I would just like to add that in case of
> avidyA-lakshaNa-vichAra, where sAditva is accepted as vyApaka of
> pratibhAsa-kalpaka-samAna-kAlIna-kalpaka-vattvam, there the
> avidyA-pratibhAsa-kalpaka is accepted to be different from avidyA-kalpaka.
> So, two sAkshI are admitted by SiddhikAra -- one is
> avidyA-upahita-chaitanya (avidyA-kalpaka) and other
> avidyA-pratibhAsa-kalpaka (avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya). If you
> see the Laghuchandrika thereupon, it is clear that
> avidyA-vishayaka-avidyA-vritti is being talked about.
>
> For kind consideration.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:53 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.
>>
>> Many thanks for the response and Laghuchandrika citations.
>>
>> I am aware that there is a divergence of view regarding sukha, dukha etc
>> requiring avidyA-vritti. I had the understanding that it is the view of
>> Shri Nrisimhashram that it is not necessary in case of sukha, dukha etc.
>>
>> However, whatever I have read of advaita siddhi implied to me that
>> SiddhikAra accepts sukhAkArA-avidyA-vritti, dukhAkArA-avidyA-vritti,
>> avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti etc. Even ahamAkArA-avidyA-vritti is also accepted
>> whose object is jIva.  तदुक्तं विवरणे–‘जीवाकाराहंवृत्तिपरिणतान्तःकरणेन
>> जीवोऽभिव्यज्यत' इति । अस्यार्थः–जीवाकाराहंत्वप्रकारकाविद्यावृत्तिः, तया
>> परिणतान्तकरणेनान्तःकरणपरिणामभूतज्ञानरूपवृत्तिसंसर्गेण जीवोऽभिव्यज्यत इति ।
>>
>> The very fact that jIvAkArA-ahamtva-prakAraka-avidyA-vritti is accepted
>> (and in sushupti we have sukhAkArA-avidyA-vritti), led me to believe that
>> for every sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya, there is an avidyA-vritti-required except
>> in case of antah-karaNa-vritti and avidyA-vritti as they are
>> swa-para-nirvAhaka.  अन्त:करणवृत्त्यादौ न वृत्त्यपेक्षेति नानावस्था -- this
>> merely says that to know antah-karaNa-vritti, we do not need another
>> antah-karaNa-vritti. Same holds true for avidyA-vritti as demonstrated in
>> avidyA-prateeti-vichArah.
>>
>> The requirement of vritti is, as you rightly pointed out, is
>> swachchhatA-sampAdana. There is no AvaraNa-bhanga required for
>> sAkshi-bhAsya but swachchhatA-sampAdana is required.
>>
>> Thus, it still appears to me that avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti will be needed
>> to know avidyA.
>>
>> Be that as it may, the instant topic is - how to reconcile
>> avidyA-upahita-chaitanya and avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. Kindly
>> share your views on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:39 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
>>> One correction (see item in bold) below
>>>
>>> ननु - सुखादेरिव शुक्तिरूप्यादेरपि स्वच्छत्वसंभवात्तत्र वृत्तिकल्पना न
>>> युक्तेति - चेन्न। अस्वच्छव्यावहारिकरजतादिजातीयं  कामयमानस्य पुरुषस्य
>>> प्रवृत्तिरस्वच्छरजतादावेव जायत इति अनुरोधेन भ्रमस्थले तादृशमेव रजतादिकं
>>> कल्प्यते ।
>>> The postulation of where a vRtti is needed and where it not, *is
>>> dependent on whether the object is intrinsically able to reflect
>>> consciousness, where it is not so capable, there is a vRtti needed*.
>>>
>>> avidyA is intrinsically capable of reflecting consciousness, like sukha,
>>> but despite that being so, there is an avidyAvRtti postulated for
>>> shuktirUpya. The laghuchandrikA passage above explains why. This does not
>>> mean that in every instance of sAkshibhAsya, there is a need for
>>> avidyAvRtti.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, 18:11 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>>>
>>>> There are two views with respect to this. In one view, the perception
>>>> of sAkshi bhAsya things like happiness, sadness needs a corresponding
>>>> sukhAkAra and dukhakAra vRtti (in addition to sukha and dukha). The
>>>> vedAntaparibhAShA takes this view.
>>>>
>>>> The other view is that sukha and dukha itself is sufficient, there is
>>>> no need for there to be a sukhAkAra vRtti and dukhAkAra vRtti. The
>>>> siddhikAra takes this view, as can be discerned in the very text posted by
>>>> you - अन्त:करणवृत्त्यादौ न वृत्त्यपेक्षेति नानावस्था - there is no need to
>>>> postulate another vRtti in the case of antahkaraNavRtti etc, he says.
>>>>
>>>> So what is needed for consciousness to reveal objects?
>>>>
>>>> Light will illuminate everything that it directly shines upon, where
>>>> there is no direct contact with the object because of an obstruction, there
>>>> is the need for an instrument to remove the obstruction. Similarly sAkshi
>>>> will illuminate everything it directly shines upon - where there is an
>>>> ajnAna covering the object, there is the need for a vRtti, to remove the
>>>> obstruction. In the case of avidyA that is sAkshivedya, there is no need to
>>>> postulate another vRtti to reveal it as the connection between
>>>> consciousness and ignorance is direct.
>>>>
>>>> This sambandha is defined in the laghuchandrikA as तथा च
>>>> स्वप्रतिबिम्बवद्वृत्तिविषयत्वघटितसंश्लेशसंबन्धेनावच्छेदकत्वसंबन्धेन
>>>> प्रतिबिम्बसंबन्धेनैव वा जीवस्य भासकत्वम्।
>>>> The sambandha with consciousness that leads to the illumination of an
>>>> object is one of 1) the object (thing) being the object (viShaya) of a
>>>> vRtti bearing the reflection of consciousness 2) the object being the
>>>> delimiter of consciousness or 3) the object reflecting consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> That is, for a thing to be illuminated by consciousness, there has to
>>>> be a direct sambandha (it being a delimiter of or being capable of
>>>> reflecting consciousness) or a remote sambandha through a vRtti bearing the
>>>> reflection of consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> The second thing that is needed is for the object itself to be capable
>>>> of reflecting consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> To explain, in commenting on the words स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बाग्राहके
>>>> चैतन्यस्य तदाकारत्वायोगात् of the siddhi, the laghuchandrikA says स्वतः
>>>> स्वरूपेण चिद्बिम्बाग्राहके  चित्प्रतिबिम्बायोग्ये वृत्तिं वृत्तिसंश्लेशं ।
>>>> तदाकारत्वायोगात् स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बाग्राहके  प्रतिबिम्बितत्वायोगात् ।
>>>> सूर्यादेः जलादिसंयुक्तमृदादाविव जीवचितो वृत्तिसंश्लिष्टे घटादौ
>>>> प्रतिबिम्बस्य संभवः - where the object is incapable of reflecting
>>>> consciousness, it is not possible for consciousness to be reflected without
>>>> the intervention of a vRtti. Like clay etc can reflect sunlight only if it
>>>> is wet, the reflection of consciousness can take place in pots only when
>>>> the latter come into contact with vRtti-s.
>>>>
>>>> So why is there a necessity for avidyAvRtti in the case of the
>>>> perception of shuktirUpya, but not in the case of sukhAdi? The
>>>> laghuchandrikA raises a question here and answers it -
>>>> ननु - सुखादेरिव शुक्तिरूप्यादेरपि स्वच्छत्वसंभवात्तत्र वृत्तिकल्पना न
>>>> युक्तेति - चेन्न। अस्वच्छव्यावहारिकरजतादिजातीयं  कामयमानस्य पुरुषस्य
>>>> प्रवृत्तिरस्वच्छरजतादावेव जायत इति अनुरोधेन भ्रमस्थले तादृशमेव रजतादिकं
>>>> कल्प्यते ।
>>>> The postulation of where a vRtti is needed and where it not, is
>>>> dependent on whether there is a direct contact with the object or where
>>>> there is no direct contact, whether the object is intrinsically able to
>>>> reflect consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike the case of sukha etc, the silver seen in an illusion is
>>>> incapable of reflecting consciousness - because the person who sees the
>>>> silver desires a vyAvahArika silver that is intrinsically incapable of
>>>> reflecting consciousness, one must provide for the illusory silver to be
>>>> similar to the real silver, and thus also not be capable of reflecting
>>>> consciousness - and hence there is a need for a vRtti.
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean that avidyA itself is incapable of reflecting
>>>> consciousness - we have seen several instances where
>>>> avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya, avidyA-pratiphalita-chaitanya is spoken
>>>> about. Therefore, there is no need to postulate an avidyAvRtti for
>>>> sAkshichaitanya to reveal avidyA.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, 14:29 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.
>>>>>
>>>>> //That is, is the vRtti the *means* for the sAkshi to know? Or are
>>>>> you saying that vRtti is the *object* of the sAkshi?//
>>>>>
>>>>> In my understanding, it is the former. Just as pramAtA needs
>>>>> antah-karaNa-vritti to know pramAtri-gamya-vishaya, sAkshI needs
>>>>> avidyA-vritti to know sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya. So, if sAkshI were to know
>>>>> illusory silver, it would need rajatAkArA-avidyA-vritti and the illusory
>>>>> silver will be known by rajatAkArA-avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. If
>>>>> sAkshI has to know avidyA, an avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti would be required
>>>>> and avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya would be knowing avidyA.
>>>>>
>>>>> //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.//
>>>>>
>>>>> As I described above, in case of sAkshibhAsya objects alone,
>>>>> avidyA-vritti is required. In case of vishaya which are not sAkshibhAsya
>>>>> but pramAtri-gamya, antah-karaNa-vritti is required.
>>>>>
>>>>> अत एवं ‘इदं रजत' मिति भ्रमे इदमाकारवृत्यवच्छिन्नचैतन्येन
>>>>> रजतभानानुपपत्तेः #रजताकाराप्यविद्यावृत्तिरभ्युपेयते;
>>>>> स्वतश्चिद्विम्बाग्राहके चैतन्यस्य तदाकारत्वायोगात्, स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बग्राहके
>>>>> त्वन्तःकरणवृत्त्यादौ न वृत्त्यपेक्षेति नानवस्था ।
>>>>>
>>>>> //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.//
>>>>>
>>>>> avidyA-vritti is a special case wherein another avidyA-vritti is not
>>>>> needed to know it despite it being sAkshI-bhAsya. However, for every other
>>>>> sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya, that respective vishaya-AkArA-avidyA-vritti would be
>>>>> a mandatory requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> न पुनरनवस्था; अविद्यावृत्तिप्रतिभासके चैतन्ये अविद्यावृत्तेः स्वत एव
>>>>> उपाधित्वेन वृत्त्यन्तरानपेक्षत्वात् ।
>>>>>
>>>>> //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.//
>>>>>
>>>>> ....differing definitions of sAkshi as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya and
>>>>> #avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya# ...... AchArya has consistently used
>>>>> the term avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya and not
>>>>> avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya. The upAdhi are different, in one case, it is
>>>>> avidyA-upahita-chaitanya... while in the other, it is
>>>>> avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. Had it been avachchhedavAda and
>>>>> AbhAsavAda, the upAdhi would have been identical.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me -- vritti is a must for actual knowing. In case of
>>>>> sAkshI, there are two types of knowing -- one is mere illumination and
>>>>> second is actual knowing. While avidyA-upahita-chaitanya is the
>>>>> illuminator, avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is the actual knower of
>>>>> sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya just as antah-karaNa-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya
>>>>> actually knows the pramAtri-gamya-vishaya.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since, avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is adhyasta in
>>>>> avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, as avidyA-vritti is nothing but a pariNAma of
>>>>> avidyA, avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya can be called as sAkshI.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
>> Pune
>>
>> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
> Pune
>
> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>