[Advaita-l] More on sAkshI-D

[Jay Nelamangala]

Namaste All,

The truth of knowledge does not originate from anything other
than the entities that are responsible for the rise of knowledge.

Under normal circumstances,  the truth of knowledge does not
require to be determined.  We do not doubt the truth of
knowledge when the knowledge happens to us.  Immediately
after the appearance of knowledge we have the activities that
naturally follow the fact of knowledge.  On meeting our friends
we greet them.  On meeting our elders we show respect.
All this happens spontaneously. On these occasions we do
 not sit leisurely deliberating over the
truth of our perception and to regulate our course of action
in accordance with our decision.   The activities 'without-doubt'
that follow the occurence of knowledge clearly indicate the
svatah-prAmANya or self-evident character of knowledge with
its truth.

But when the conditions are not normal,  we get all this rope-snake
silver-shell confusions.  So,  'sAkshI-D apprehends knowledge
with its truth' is only a general rule.  Under particular circumstances
when the truth of knowledge is doubted,  in those cases sAkshI-D
apprehends only the knowledge but not its truth.  That is when
the conscious presence of consistency and successfulness are needed
for sAkshi-D to apprehend the truth of knowledge.

In my example I only considered the case when the rope (snake)
did not move after kicking.   ( Some crawlies   become
stiff on attack,   that is their defence mechanism ).   But when you
touch it,  it does not feel like a rope at all.   Now sAkshI-D is
provided with inconsistent knowledge generated by the manas,
so it only  illumines that knowledge and does not grasp the truth
of that knowledge.

Even though the object ( rope or snake) did not move after
being kicked,  if there is still an iota of doubt in the mind owing to
darkness etc,  then sAkshI-D will not grasp the truth,  it only illumines
the unreliable determination of the manas.   If we are really searching
for a rope, and that is when all this happens,  then we are going to
make sure it is not a snake before we pick up that rope,
by getting additional lighting,  we poke it with a stick,
kick it again first by foot with shoes on,
kick it again with shoes off to get the 'sparsha'  etc etc while we are
doing all this,   every piece of knowledge generated by mind because of
 these rope - snake determination experiments  that we did,  is illumined
by sAkshI and still it is indifferent to the truth.   If the rope-snake did
not move at all,  it looked more like rope than snake under the additional
light,
it felt more like rope than like snake when we kicked it with bare foot,
only when all these pieces of knowledge are coherent and consistent,  then
only
sAkshI-D grasps the truth - that the object is a rope and not a snake.
Once sAkshI-D grasps the truth,  we have no problem picking it up at all.

Now let us consider the case when the rope moves, after being kicked.
It is a straight forward case that it not a rope.   If you are scared of
snakes,
of course,  you run out of there which is the "saphala-pravrtti",  on the
other hand if you are a snake-charmer,  then you look for tools and a bag
to catch that snake which is the "saphala-pravrtti"  which results.

It is this consistency and  successfulness or activities 'without-doubt'
that
follow the occurance of knowledge,  clearly indicate that knowledge is
svatah pramANa.

There is another important fact, which has not been touched upon so far.
It is the following:

The knowledge of a particular thing is the same as the knowledge of
its difference from other things.  So it must involve the knowledge of
other things.  How is this possible?  The knowledge of a particular
thing is generated by a particular sense organ or some other pramANa.
The sense organ or a pramANa is in contact with a particular entity.
It is not in contact with other things.  WIthout this knowledge the
knowledge of the particular is impossible.  How do we have the general
idea of 'all' ?.   An external sense organ does not cause this idea,
manas cannot give rise to this idea.  But the idea is a fact.   This implies
that it is the function of the remaining organ, sAkshii-D.

    sAkshii-D knows in a very general manner all,  and helps the
knowledge of a particular as particular.  Ex : This is a jar.
The eye is in contact with the jar.  At the sametime sAkshii-D grasps
all in a general manner and helps the eye in grasping the jar as a
particular.  Then there is the knowledge of the jar as a particular as
"This is a jar".

    So,  all our knowledge is the result of the combined activity of
sAkshii-D and a particular pramANa in question.  The pramANa gives
rise to the knowledge of the things to which it is related.  The idea
of those things to which the pramANa is not related are caused by
sAkshI.   So,  the objects of experience are particulars, each of which
has its own unique feature.  Experience as pramA is yathArtha.