[Advaita-l] A unique 'attribute' of Sākṣī

[H S Chandramouli]

Reg  << right knowledge of
the form 'this is a rope and not a snake' arises, that knowledge as well is
illumined by the sakshi.>>,



Is this not termed “pramatr bhasya” and not “sAkshi bhAsya” ?  I agree that
the statement only states  “illumined by the sAkshi” and not “sAkshi
bhAsya” . But taken with the general flow of the post, it is very likely to
be understood to mean  “sAkshi bhasya”.



Also the term “pramatr bhAsya” does not find a place at all in the post,
and the difference between it and “sAkshi bhAsya” is not broughtout at all.
Is it intended?



Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 2:38 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> In Advaita the status and role of the 'sākṣī', (witness consciousness) is
> of great importance. One dimension of sakshi is that it is the illuminer of
> the mental transformations. Sukha, duḥkha, bhaya, etc. are all
> sākṣi-bhāsya. So too jnana, ajnana, bhrama are all illumined by the sakshi.
>
> Here, the unique attribute of sakshi is that it only illumines the
> existence, sadbhāva, of that entity which is an object to it, as enumerated
> above. However, the sakshi does not illumine the attributes, the causes,
> the right or wrong, etc of what it illumines. For example, when I am happy,
> the sakshi just illumines that I am happy but not why I am happy, what
> caused my happiness, what efforts I spent to acquire that happiness, etc.
> So with misery. When I have erroneously comprehended a rope as a snake, the
> sakshi just illumines the bhrama, but it cannot, does not, illumine *that
> it is* a bhrama.  When the bhrma nivrtti takes place and right knowledge of
> the form 'this is a rope and not a snake' arises, that knowledge as well is
> illumined by the sakshi.
>
> This point was highlighted in a discussion on an aspect in the Advaita
> siddhi. The presence of ajnana is illumined by the sakshi but that the
> ajnana is anadi, bhava rupa, jnana nivartya, etc. is not within the range
> of the sakshi. That requires a separate anumāna to establish.
>
> In the world of parlance the 'eye-witness' is also ideally akin to the
> vedantic sakshi. The witness does not take sides; he/she just reports or
> confirms the event as he had seen it happen. That is why he is called
> 'a-pakṣpātī', an epithet that applies to the Vedantic sakshi too.
>
> The Bhagavadgita terms such a phenomenon 'udāsina':
>
> सुहृन्मित्रार्युदासीनमध्यस्थद्वेष्यबन्धुषु ।
> साधुष्वपि च पापेषु समबुद्धिर्विशिष्यते ॥ ६.९ ॥
>  भाष्यम्
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/
> Gita?page=6&id=BG_C06_V09&hlBhashya=%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%
> E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%
> A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%81#bhashya-BG_C06_V09>
> ‘सुहृत्’ इत्यादिश्लोकार्धम् एकं पदम् । सुहृत् इति प्रत्युपकारमनपेक्ष्य
> उपकर्ता, मित्रं स्नेहवान् , अरिः शत्रुः, *उदासीनः न कस्यचित् पक्षं भजते,*
> मध्यस्थः यो विरुद्धयोः उभयोः हितैषी, द्वेष्यः आत्मनः अप्रियः, बन्धुः
> सम्बन्धी इत्येतेषु साधुषु शास्त्रानुवर्तिषु अपि च पापेषु प्रतिषिद्धकारिषु
> सर्वेषु एतेषु समबुद्धिः ‘कः किङ्कर्मा’ इत्यव्यापृतबुद्धिरित्यर्थः ।
> विशिष्यते, ‘विमुच्यते’ इति वा पाठान्तरम् । योगारूढानां सर्वेषाम् अयम् उत्तम
> इत्यर्थः ॥ ९ ॥
>
> regards
> subbu
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>