[Advaita-l] How does Brahman witness everything?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

In continuation, to respect/ validate the laukika example usage in the
tradition, one can use literal laukika meanings of sAkShya the witnessed
and sAkShI the witness, only to explain what is the Vedanta perspective
there. To be honest, even I have used the law example in teaching, but only
to explain that sAkShI is never part of sAkShya; one witnessing a crime can
never be faulted for flaws on the part of the criminals witnessed. That is
all that the example should be limited to. All the worldly examples are
also valid as tools to deepen one's understanding of Vedanta or teaching
tools, _as long as they do not compromise the advaita tattva_.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */


On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:48 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Kameswara ji,
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:33 PM KAMESWARARAO MULA via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Then , but your mentioned that: Sakshi cannot be sakshyam. But Sakshyam
>> is Sakshi only.
>>
>
>> I don't agree with the above statement
>
> This is one of the ways in which mithyA is to be understood. sAkShya has
> dependent existence, being a mere appearance of sAkShI sacchidAnanda
> brahma, whereas only brahma exists which has no dependence on anything. As
> the bhAShya quoted says AtmavyatirekeNa vastvantarasyAbhAvAt, since there
> is no existence of anything other than AtmA.
>
>
>> according to Indian LAW:
>>
> Sir, Indian or any law is irrelevant to this discussion since the words
> sAkShI and sAkShya have no literal laukika sense. The statement made is
> based on Upanishad and bhAShya has also been quoted well enough to justify
> the same. Then again, Sreenivasaji almost always quotes pAramArthika
> perspective.
>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>