[Advaita-l] Discussion on sAxI and sAxyam

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Clear explanation. Thank you.

But sometimes Ishwara is also called Sakshi. Is this correct? If he is
giving Karma Phala to all he is also doing some Karma. We have to admit
Karma Phala is coming from Ishwara otherwise it will not be according to
Adi Sankara's Sutra Bhashya. Then how can Ishwara be a Witness only?




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> PraNAms
>
> A question was asked in private about sAxI and sAxYam using the movie
> analogy - for those who are interested.
>
> Seeker:
>
> 1. In movie analogy, the watcher of the movie cannot control any action of
> the actor and the storyline, the watcher of the movie cannot interact with
> the actor and the world inside the movie. So the movie watcher is never a
> doer in the movie. and for sakshi, sakshi is only as though witnessing the
> ego transacting with the external and internal world, sakshi cannot control
> the ego (actor of the movie) and of course cannot control and interact with
> the world. so sakshi is only watching the movie of life, doesn't have free
> will to change anything in the movie because the free will itself is only
> part of the movie,doing nothing, not experiencing anything (even the movie
> actor is being shot, the watcher is still safe), and sakshi also cannot
> choose to change the story of life. and of course, sakshi and sakshyam are
> not different, only as though different because of maya, and so there is no
> watching because all of them is only consciousness. Is that true
>  Acharya?
> -----------------------
> Sada:
>
> Yes. SAkshI from the absolute reference is pure sat chit ananda that is
> Brahman which is infiniteness. Hence from that reference there is no
> sakshyam (the objects of witness) too. From that absolute reference it
> ceases to have even sAkshI status since there is nothing to witness.
>
> Hence even the instruction - Be a sAkshI or witnessing agent - is also at
> transactional level. As a part of saadhana or spiritual exercise we are
> using the BMI as upAdhi or instruments to shift our attention from BMI to
> that which enlivens the BMI, which is nothing but pure
> consciousness-existence-limitless.
>
> Thus, when we say we are sAkshI or witnessing agent, we are again using
> the mind that is with reflected consciousness, and shift our identification
> from BMI to the consciousness part observing the operation of the mind and
> the thoughts, and thus perceptions the world of objects, etc. Ego or I am
> so and so, involves I am = so and so, starting from BMI. Hence when I say I
> am a conscious entity, I am identifying with the BMI. Scriptures instructs
> us to cognitively shift our attention from the BMI part to the - I am -
> part which is pure sAkshi, using the mind only. Consciousness reflected in
> the BMI is called upAdhi limited consciousness or upahita chaitanya. We
> should always remember that realization is at this level and not at the
> pure sat chit ananda level or paaramaarthika level.
>
>
> Hence all this witnessing is also with reference to the upahita chaitanya
> or enlivened mind in the presence of all-pervading consciousness. Hence,
> all these sAkshI and sAkhyams are from transactional or vyavahaara point
> only. When we say sAkshI is watching the movie of life, that again is not
> from Brahman point, since Brahman being infinite cannot do any watching
> also, but only from the reflected consciousness (RC) point only.
> Cognitively I, using RC in the mind, have to understand that I am that pure
> existence-consciousness, using the upAdhi or the mind only. Understanding
> involves mentally de-identifying with the BMI identification and shifting
> my identification with I am, the pure consciousness that is currently
> getting reflected here and making the mind an enlivening entity. I can see
> myself getting reflected by the mind when I say I know my mind since
> knowing means I am conscious of my mind, and also I can see myself as
> conscious entity when I say I
>  know the rest of the world that is being perceived via the mind. It is
> like the illuminated moon looking at itself and also looking at the objects
> that it further illumines, and recognizing that I am that pure sunlight
> that is getting reflected by the moon, and further via the moon, the
> objects out there. I need the moon to recognize the sunlight. Similarly I
> need the mind or its RC to recognize that I am the original consciousness
> (OC). Just as I need the mirror and the image to see my original face.
> Without the mirror I cannot see my face. Mirror does not bring face into
> existence but only reveals the face that I cannot see otherwise.
>
> I, using the upAdhi (mind) only, can - AS THOUGH - stand apart and say I
> am the witnessing consciousness and in my presence all the activities are
> going on, and that I have nothing to do with them. Who is standing apart
> here?  It is again the RC using part of the mind, as though, stands apart
> as sAkhshI identifying myself with - I am, the pure consciousness, and look
> at the operations of the rest of the mind and the thoughts in the mind and
> via the mind the world outside.
>
> Realization therefore also involves RC, cognitively recognizing the
> reflection and the mind that is reflecting, and claiming that I am that
> pure consciousness because of which I am conscious of the mind and via the
> mind the thoughts. Realization does not involve absence of the mind or the
> thoughts. Mind in fact is required for realization.
>
> Hence Krishna, thus, identifying himself with the total consciousness says
> - all being are in Me - nay, no beings are in Me. These statements are made
> by Krishna using his local mind, but with understanding and identifying His
> consciousness with the all-pervading consciousness - as I am.
>
> When I shift cognitively, using the mind, my attention to the
> consciousness that is getting reflected by the mind, and identifying with
> it, then I am a pure sAkshI that is not involved in any activities at the
> BMI level. In the very shift of my attention, I de-clutch my identification
> with the BMI and therefore become non-doer non enjoyer - akarthaaham
> abhoktaaham. To claim and to say that I need the BMI again, but with the
> knowledge that I am not the BMI. They are all in Me, but I am not in them.
> One can say - as Krishna says - mayaa adhyakshena prakRitiH suuyate sa
> charaacharam - In my presidentship, the prakRiti (or maaya) projects the
> whole creation involving movables and immovable.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh