[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms 
Hare Krishna

sAkshi chetaaH kevalO nirguNascha says shwetaashwatara, karmAdhyaksha, sarvabhUtAdhivAsa also.  So, he is sAkshi to even the vibhAga like sAkshi and sAkshya, he is sAkshi to even our deha, buddhi, mana, prANa and ahamkara.  So he is sAkshi even there is no thing that can be called 'sAkshi bhAsya'.  He is sAkshi to buddhi vrutti also and this sAkshi is uniform in all (sarvabhUteshu ekameva chaitanyaM) No one can take it as Vishaya nor any one throw it away as avishaya.  There is a beautiful shloka in upadesha sAhasri poem section : yathA svabuddhichArANAm sAkshi tadvat pareshvapi, naivAphOdhuM na vAdAtuM shakyastasmAt parOhyahaM.  

But if we bifurcate this sarvasAkshi from the sAkshibhAsya then yes the sAkshi who is witnessing everything 'in front' of him is kevala avidyAkruta since there is something which is objectifying both sAkshi and sAkshya as Vishaya only.  The sAkshitva attributed to brahman just to drive home the point that he is neither kartru nor bhOktru nor pramAtru etc.  Over reading it beyond its context may lead to brahma shUnyata IMO because he is not ahaM pratyaya gamya to declare sAkshi is something different from sAkshibhAsya he is sarvasAkshi clarifies bhAshyakAra in samanvayAdhikaraNa :  na hi ahaMpratyayavishayaH kartruvyaterekeNa tatsAkshee sarvabhUtasthaH, samaH, ekaH, kUtashtha nityaH...

And that paramatatva parabrahman himself in its sOpAdhika rUpa karmAdhyaksha, devaH, sarvabheteshu gUdhaH etc.  but in his svarUpa he is always nirguNaH  and this nirguNa sAkshi Chaitanya cannot be said at any point of time as ashuddha Chaitanya because Shuddha Chaitanya is NOT sAkshi and sAkshi Chaitanya is mere avidyA upahita etc.  It is mere stretch and IMO it is mere torturing of the word sAkshi with the help of shushka tarka.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar