[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

//That is, is the vRtti the *means* for the sAkshi to know? Or are you
saying that vRtti is the *object* of the sAkshi?//

In my understanding, it is the former. Just as pramAtA needs
antah-karaNa-vritti to know pramAtri-gamya-vishaya, sAkshI needs
avidyA-vritti to know sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya. So, if sAkshI were to know
illusory silver, it would need rajatAkArA-avidyA-vritti and the illusory
silver will be known by rajatAkArA-avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. If
sAkshI has to know avidyA, an avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti would be required
and avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya would be knowing avidyA.

//If it is the latter, that is fine, but if it is the former, that is only
true for those objects that are not sAkshibhAsya.//

As I described above, in case of sAkshibhAsya objects alone, avidyA-vritti
is required. In case of vishaya which are not sAkshibhAsya but
pramAtri-gamya, antah-karaNa-vritti is required.

अत एवं ‘इदं रजत' मिति भ्रमे इदमाकारवृत्यवच्छिन्नचैतन्येन रजतभानानुपपत्तेः
#रजताकाराप्यविद्यावृत्तिरभ्युपेयते; स्वतश्चिद्विम्बाग्राहके चैतन्यस्य
तदाकारत्वायोगात्, स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बग्राहके त्वन्तःकरणवृत्त्यादौ न
वृत्त्यपेक्षेति नानवस्था ।

//There is no requirement that the sAkshi needs to have a vRtti as a means
to know something which is sAkshi bhAsya. As the siddhikAra says - न च
वृत्तेरपि वृत्त्यन्तरप्रतिबिम्बितचिद्भास्यत्वे अनवस्था, स्वस्या एव
स्वभानोपाधित्वात्। To know avidyAvRtti, the avidyAvRtti itself is
sufficient.//

avidyA-vritti is a special case wherein another avidyA-vritti is not needed
to know it despite it being sAkshI-bhAsya. However, for every other
sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya, that respective vishaya-AkArA-avidyA-vritti would be
a mandatory requirement.

न पुनरनवस्था; अविद्यावृत्तिप्रतिभासके चैतन्ये अविद्यावृत्तेः स्वत एव
उपाधित्वेन वृत्त्यन्तरानपेक्षत्वात् ।

//Separately, and I can't say if this is the case for sure, I think the
differing definitions of sAkshi as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya and
avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya could simply be from the standpoint of
avacChedavAda and AbhAsa vAda respectively.//

....differing definitions of sAkshi as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya and
#avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya# ...... AchArya has consistently used the
term avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya and not
avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya. The upAdhi are different, in one case, it is
avidyA-upahita-chaitanya... while in the other, it is
avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. Had it been avachchhedavAda and
AbhAsavAda, the upAdhi would have been identical.

It seems to me -- vritti is a must for actual knowing. In case of sAkshI,
there are two types of knowing -- one is mere illumination and second is
actual knowing. While avidyA-upahita-chaitanya is the illuminator,
avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is the actual knower of
sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya just as antah-karaNa-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya
actually knows the pramAtri-gamya-vishaya.

Since, avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya is adhyasta in
avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, as avidyA-vritti is nothing but a pariNAma of
avidyA, avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya can be called as sAkshI.


Regards.