[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

It was  not my intention to convey that VP is superior to or supercedes AS.
Only in respect of Advaitic epistemology, views presented in VP are
considered to supercede earlier such expositions. It is quite possible that
the arguments presented in AS can be substantiated even where the views of
VP are accepted in so far as epistemological issues are concerned.

Regards

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:15 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> Reg  //  Can you please cite the reference for this understanding wherein
> ArUdha-chaitanya and pratibimbita-chaitanya are distinguished //,
>
> I am not sure if the following is satisfactory for you.
>
> Vichara Sagara, Topic 157
>
> //   (१५७) सकल त्रिपुटा मानसमये साक्षिभानमवश्यं भवतीति निरूपणम् - अथवा
> कूटस्थदीपे विद्यारण्यमुनिभिरित्थमुक्तम् --- 'अन्तःकरणस्य
> वृत्तिश्चिदाभाससहिता चक्षुरादिकरणद्वारा बहिर्निर्गत्य घटादि विषयान् प्रकाश-
> यति । तत्र घटादिरूपो विषयः, चिदाभाससहितवृत्तिरूपं घटादि विषयकं ज्ञानम्, चिदाभाससहितान्तःकरणरूपो
> ज्ञाता ; एतत्त्रयमपि साक्षी प्रकाशयति' । इति ।
>
> अस्यायमर्थ :- 'अयं घटः' इति ज्ञाने साभासान्तःकरणवृत्त्या घटमात्र प्रकाशते
> । 'घटमहं जानामि' इत्यत्र तु ' अहम् ' इति शब्दस्यार्थो यो ज्ञाता, 'घट' इति
> यो ज्ञेय:, ' जानामि इति यत् घटविषयकं ज्ञानं, इत्येतत् त्रयमपि
> त्रिपुटीरूपं साक्षी प्रकाशयतीति । ज्ञाता, ज्ञेयं ज्ञानं चेत्येतत् त्रयमपि
> त्रिपुटीत्युच्यते । इत्थमेव सर्वत्र निखिल त्रिपुटीप्रकाशकः साक्ष्येव । यदि
> साक्षी स्वयमज्ञातः स्यात् तदा त्रिपुटीज्ञानं न साक्षिणा जायेत । तस्मात्सकल
> त्रिपुटी- ज्ञानदशायां साक्षिज्ञानमप्यवश्यं जायत एव स्वयंप्रकाशत्वात्साक्षिणः,
> इत्यभ्यु- पेयम् । //
>
> //  (157) At the time of illumination of the entire triad there is
> certainly the illumination of the witness, is established -'Otherwise, it
> is said thus by Vidyaranya in (PD, chapter VIII) Kūtasthadipaprakarana –
> “The thought-mode of the mind along with the reflected consciousness goes
> out through the sense of sight and illumines the object like pot. Here, the
> form of pot is the object; the thought-mode with the reflected
> consciousness that objectifies the pot is the knowledge, the reflected
> consciousness along with mind is the knower; all these three are illumined
> by the witness principle."
>
> The meaning of this is as follows - 'This is pot', in this knowledge the
> mental thought-mode with thereflected consciousness illumines only the pot.
> 'I know the pot' in this case, the meaning of the word 'I' indicates the
> knower, 'pot' is the object of knowledge, 'know' indicates the knowledge
> pertaining to the object pot, these three together in the form of a triad
> is illumined by the witness principle. Knower, known and knowledge-these
> three are known as the triad. In this manner, in all cases, the entire
> triad is illumined and they are the objects of the witness principle. If
> the witness principle by itself is ignorant then the knowledge of the triad
> cannot be through the witness principle. Therefore, in the state of
> knowledge of the entire triad, there is certainly the knowledge of the
> witness principle, since the witness principle is self- illumining, thus it
> is to be discerned //.
>
> Reference can also be made to Panchadashi, Chapter 8, Kutastha Deepa,
> verses 15 and 16 with Commentary of Acharya Modak. This is what is quoted
> in the above Vichara Sagara text also.
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:22 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji.
>>
>> //The definitions of adavaita epistemologic terms appearing in texts
>> prior to Vedanta Paribhasha are generally considered to have been
>> superceded by the definitions given in VP. This applies to texts like
>> Advaita Siddhi, Siddhanta Bindu, Ishta Siddhi  etc.//
>>
>> I do not think VedAnta ParibhAsha is accepted to supercede
>> advaita-siddhi. advaita-siddhi takes the issues to unimaginable depth
>> whereas VedAnta ParibhAsha appears to only scratch the surface. With all
>> due respect to VedAnta ParibhAsha, I don't think it can be even compared
>> with advaita-siddhi. Similarly with SiddhAnta Bindu. I am so much in awe of
>> Madhusudan Saraswati Ji that his appears to me to be the final word on
>> advaita.
>>
>> //As per VP, a vritti is accepted to be its own vishaya as well.//
>>
>> That is true.
>>
>> //An object is revealed in a vritti by either pratibimbita or AbhAsa
>> Chaitanya (termed प्रमातृ pramAtRRi Chaitanya) while the same vritti
>> with its content is revealed by the आरूढ (ArUDha) (mounted) Chaitanya on
>> the same vritti. This आरूढ (ArUDha) (mounted) Chaitanya is termed sAkshi
>> Chaitanya. This is neither pratibimbita nor AbhAsa Chaitanya.//
>>
>> Can you please cite the reference for this understanding wherein
>> ArUdha-chaitanya and pratibimbita-chaitanya are distinguished.
>>
>> //This is in respect of vrittis. In general, उपहित चैतन्य (upahita
>> chaitanya) is termed sAkshi Chaitanya. It is this same Chaitanya which is
>> mounted on the vrittis.//
>>
>> Upahita-chaitanya can have no contact with upAdhi. In any case, I would
>> love to read the reference text.
>>
>> //It is not  (shuddha) chaitanya. It is (shuddha) chaitanya subjected to
>> आवरण (AvaraNa).//
>>
>> Basically, the adhyAsa of avidyA-mAtra as upAdhi to shuddha chaitanya
>> gives us sAkshI. So, shuddha chaitanya subject to AvaraNa (which is defined
>> as avidyA-chit-sambandha #आवरणं च तद्योग्यता #अज्ञानसंबन्धरूपा
>> सुषुप्त्यादिसाधारणी आब्रह्मज्ञानमवतिष्ठते । ) can be said to be sAkshI.
>> There is no problem.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>>