[Advaita-l] A short explanation on 'adhanDAkAra vRtti' by Sri Mani Dravid Sastrinah

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

sAkShI needs something other than itself of which it can be a sAkShI. What is there which is non-Brahman of which Brahman can be a sAkShI? So Brahman can never be sAkShI. But that which is sAkShI i.e. kshetrajna/pratyagAtmA is not different from Brahman. Brahman is the swaroopa of sAkShI.

If you impute sAkShitva to Brahman, then the anantatva of Brahman will be contradicted.


Ø     If the sarvavyApakatvaM of Atman emphasized then there was no need to say kshetrajna svarUpa is NOT sAkshi but brahman as brahman is sAkshi (the witness) and witnessing object as well.  ( ahamannaM, annAda, shlOkakarta).  As we know there is nothing apart from THAT :  nAnyOtOsti drashtA, nAnyOtOsti shrOtA, nAnyOtOsti manta and vijnAtA.  And this brahman is what explained as stree, puM, kumAra, kumAri and finally jAtO bhavasi vishvatOmukhaH…And same up. Subsequently says he is sAkshi cheetah, karmAdhyaksha, karma phala dAta, sarva bhUtAntarAtma and finally kevalO nirguNascha.  In that sense all labels pertain to brahman only 😊

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar