[Advaita-l] Saakshii-Jiiva-Iswara Analysis III

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Analysis of
Saakshii, Jiiva And Iswara
Based on
Vichaarasaagara of Nischaladaasa - IV
 
Now advaitin
responds to the objection in detail:
 
True, mind cannot
illumine itself, since it is not self-conscious entity. It depends something
other than itself for it to be illumined (here illumination is the same as
being an object of knowledge). What illumines the mind is saakskhii. It is like
moon. Moon cannot illumine itself, it being non-luminous entity. Moon light can
illumine the object on the earth on a full-moon night. What illumines the moon
is sunlight. The reflected sunlight from the moon illumines the earth also on
the full-moon night. While perceiving the objects in the moon light, we need to
recognize that it is not the moonlight but it is the sunlight that illumines
the objects on the earth on the full-moon night. We mistakenly say that moon is
illuming the objects on the earth on the full-moon night. The same sun-light
can simultaneously illumine the other objects in the sky.  Mind is like a moon (moon, in fact, is
considered as the presiding deity of the mind), and the world is like the
objects on the earth. Saakshii chaitanyam illumines the mind and via the mind
illumines the world of objects. Without the mind the world of objects cannot be
known- just as without the moon the world of objects in the night cannot be
seen, when there are no other lights. 
 
When the saakshii
chaitanyam illumines the mind, it is called chidaabhaasa – since mind –as
though- becomes a conscious entity – like moon becoming a luminous body in the
sky. 
1.  When
I say I know my mind and its emotions, I am the saakshii chaitanyam and the
mind is an object of my knowledge. 
2.  Here
knower of the mind is not the saakshii but the saakshii-illumined mind only.
This above knowledge is gained and is understood by the mind only since
saakshii chaitanyam cannot become a pramaata or knower. If it becomes a
pramaata then we have divisions in the indivisible that involves a triad
–knower, known and knowing. Saakshii chaitanyam being Brahman is division-less. 
3.  Even
to say that ‘I am the saakshii chaitanyam that is illumining the mind’, I need
the mind since pure saakshii chaitanyam by itself has no instruments to know
and/or to communicate.
 
When we say saakshii
chaitanyam alone illumines the mind – alone - here means there is nothing else
that can illumine the mind – thus sense organs, the mind with or without
thoughts cannot illumine the mind. In fact the saakshii chaitanyam reflected by
the mind as chidaabhaasa illumines the sense organs and the subtle and gross
objects via the mind; and thus via the mind only everything else is known.  
 
When a jiiva says I
am – question now pertains to whether - I am – here refers to ahankaara or
saakshii. Furthermore, when the puurvapaksha or objector says saakshiis are
plural, is he identifying the saakshii with ahankaraara or ego or is he
referring to pure saakshii without ahankaara, since he says everybody knows
only his own mind and not the minds of others, considering that the mind by
itself cannot know itself, neither the other minds can know this mind. 
 
Nischaladaasa says
do not commit such a blunder of mistaking saakshii or witnessing consciousness with
ahankaara or ego. When Jiiva says - I am – it is always a mixture of the two.
It consists of ahankaara or ego + aatma.   All transactions are done with this mixture. Mere ahankaara without
aatma cannot be possible, nay it cannot exist independent of aatma. Mere aatma
can exist but cannot do any transactions alone. Therefore a transacting jiiva
is always a mixture of aatma and anaatma. anaatma includes all the three
bodies  – causal (kaaraNa), subtle (suukshma
and gross (sthuula) bodies or shariiras. Ego or ahankaara is part of the subtle
body. Even though ahankaara is a mixture, it exists as one and behaves unified
as one, since ontologically the components involves aatma and ahankaara, or
self and the ego, are of two different orders of reality. It is similar to the
mixture of gold and a ring – gold is satyam or the substantive truth while ring
is only a name-sake object for purpose of transactions - vaachaarambhanam
vikarao naamadheyam – or nom ke vaste in Hindi. Ring is only a name for a form,
which is an attribute. Ring has no independent existence apart from Gold, while
gold can exist without being a ring. Similarly ahankaara or ego cannot exist
independent of aatma while aatma has independent existence since it is of the
nature of pure existence, says the scripture. Hence ring is a mixture of gold
plus ungold (for lack of better word) which is a ring. Ring has transactional
utility that differs from that of a bangle, which is also a mixture of gold and
ungold or object with a name and form. In this example, ontologically, gold is
of the higher order of reality since it is the adhiShTaanam or substantive for
all the ornaments of gold. When ring changes into bangle and then to bracelet,
gold still remains as gold in all these modifications or vikaaras. All these
modifications are only at the level of names and forms or in the attributive
content – vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH, and they not real transformations. They
are transformation-less transformations called vivarta vikaaraH.  
 
Hence we can say
ring, bangle and bracelet are similar to ahankaaras or egos that undergo
modifications while the gold as the essence or aatma of the ring, bangle and
bracelet, and is unchanging and single. This example illustrate the fact that
this mixture is not made up of two entities that are ontologically of the same
order of reality but are made up of different orders of reality. The example is
from scripture only from sad vidya of Ch. Up. One can consider that ring,
bangle and bracelets are –as though – superimpositions or adhyaasa on gold
which is their adhiShataanam – from which they came, by which they are
sustained and into which they go back. Thus gold becomes the material cause for
these ornaments. 
More in the next
Hari Om!
Sadananda