[Advaita-l] what is the technical definition of Drik in Advaita?

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

I do not think there is any fundamental contradiction in our respective
understandings. Same holds good for the observations by Subrahmanian Ji and
Vikram Ji. The difference is in respect of the reference point.

SiddhAnta Bindu mentions अज्ञान (aj~nAna)(ignorance) as the first of a
series of successive adhyAsAs (superimpositions) at Creation. I believe you
had yourself referred to it in one of your recent posts (apologies if I am
mistaken). This अज्ञान (aj~nAna)(ignorance) refers to the आवरण (AvaraNa)
(veiling) aspect  of शुद्धचैतन्य (shuddhachaitanya) which is then addressed
as अज्ञातचैतन्य (aj~nAtachaitanya) (Uncognized Chaitanya). Being adhyAsa,
veil is mithyA. Further successive adhyAsAs (superimpositions) refer to the
विक्षेप (vikShepa) (multiplicity) aspect. The entire multiplicity is
illumined by अज्ञातचैतन्य (aj~nAtachaitanya) (Uncognized Chaitanya), not by
शुद्धचैतन्य (shuddhachaitanya). It is this अज्ञातचैतन्य (aj~nAtachaitanya)
(Uncognized Chaitanya) which is also termed as sAkshi  (in whatever  form
it is defined  depending upon the commentators). It is this to which
reference is made, in my understanding,  in the AS quote cited by you **  सा
चाविद्या साक्षिवेद्या, न तु शुद्धचित्प्रकाश्या  **.

My understanding does not contradict this in principle. There is no other
*event* in between शुद्धचैतन्य (shuddhachaitanya) and अज्ञातचैतन्य
(aj~nAtachaitanya) (Uncognized Chaitanya) except veiling. The illumination
aspect is the same in respect of both. Except that the veiling itself
cannot be illumined by the latter in my understanding. It can only be by
the former. However it does not affect the position in respect of the the
विक्षेप (vikShepa) (multiplicity) aspect. Either of them can be considered
to be the Illuminator. Latter one directly while the former one via the
latter. However, since the current context is illumination of *everything*,
I am tempted to include the *veil* also as part of the entities to be
illumined. It make the entire proposition that much more attractive and
adds to the beauty of the concept. All the same, as I stated earlier on, I
believe there is no fundamental contradiction in our respective
understandings.

Regards

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:42 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> I have not said Shudha Brahman is sAkshi. I understand Drik to be Shuddha
>> Brahman.
>>
>
> You mean (drik = shuddha Brahman) which is not same as sAkshI? But drik
> means seer. How can shuddha Brahman be seer. The logic which differentiates
> sAkshI and Brahman, differentiates drik and Brahman also. SAkshI and drik
> must be same.
>
>
>> I understand Shuddha Brahman to be the Illuminator of everything. That
>> includes avidyA and its kArya like time etc.
>>
>
> Advaita Siddhi clearly holds - सा चाविद्या साक्षिवेद्या, न
> तु शुद्धचित्प्रकाश्या ।
>
> avidyA is not illuminated by shuddha chaitanya but by sAkshI.
>
> Illuminator-hood of Brahman is by avidyA. The moment we say - Brahman is
> illuminator - avidyA stands accepted beforehand. And hence shudda Brahman
> stands manifested as sAkshI, which is drik.
>
> Regards.
>
>>