[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

Many thanks for the response and Laghuchandrika citations.

I am aware that there is a divergence of view regarding sukha, dukha etc
requiring avidyA-vritti. I had the understanding that it is the view of
Shri Nrisimhashram that it is not necessary in case of sukha, dukha etc.

However, whatever I have read of advaita siddhi implied to me that
SiddhikAra accepts sukhAkArA-avidyA-vritti, dukhAkArA-avidyA-vritti,
avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti etc. Even ahamAkArA-avidyA-vritti is also accepted
whose object is jIva.  तदुक्तं विवरणे–‘जीवाकाराहंवृत्तिपरिणतान्तःकरणेन
जीवोऽभिव्यज्यत' इति । अस्यार्थः–जीवाकाराहंत्वप्रकारकाविद्यावृत्तिः, तया
परिणतान्तकरणेनान्तःकरणपरिणामभूतज्ञानरूपवृत्तिसंसर्गेण जीवोऽभिव्यज्यत इति ।

The very fact that jIvAkArA-ahamtva-prakAraka-avidyA-vritti is accepted
(and in sushupti we have sukhAkArA-avidyA-vritti), led me to believe that
for every sAkshi-bhAsya-vishaya, there is an avidyA-vritti-required except
in case of antah-karaNa-vritti and avidyA-vritti as they are
swa-para-nirvAhaka.  अन्त:करणवृत्त्यादौ न वृत्त्यपेक्षेति नानावस्था -- this
merely says that to know antah-karaNa-vritti, we do not need another
antah-karaNa-vritti. Same holds true for avidyA-vritti as demonstrated in
avidyA-prateeti-vichArah.

The requirement of vritti is, as you rightly pointed out, is
swachchhatA-sampAdana. There is no AvaraNa-bhanga required for
sAkshi-bhAsya but swachchhatA-sampAdana is required.

Thus, it still appears to me that avidyAkArA-avidyA-vritti will be needed
to know avidyA.

Be that as it may, the instant topic is - how to reconcile
avidyA-upahita-chaitanya and avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. Kindly
share your views on this.



On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:39 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
> One correction (see item in bold) below
>
> ननु - सुखादेरिव शुक्तिरूप्यादेरपि स्वच्छत्वसंभवात्तत्र वृत्तिकल्पना न
> युक्तेति - चेन्न। अस्वच्छव्यावहारिकरजतादिजातीयं  कामयमानस्य पुरुषस्य
> प्रवृत्तिरस्वच्छरजतादावेव जायत इति अनुरोधेन भ्रमस्थले तादृशमेव रजतादिकं
> कल्प्यते ।
> The postulation of where a vRtti is needed and where it not, *is
> dependent on whether the object is intrinsically able to reflect
> consciousness, where it is not so capable, there is a vRtti needed*.
>
> avidyA is intrinsically capable of reflecting consciousness, like sukha,
> but despite that being so, there is an avidyAvRtti postulated for
> shuktirUpya. The laghuchandrikA passage above explains why. This does not
> mean that in every instance of sAkshibhAsya, there is a need for
> avidyAvRtti.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, 18:11 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>
>> There are two views with respect to this. In one view, the perception of
>> sAkshi bhAsya things like happiness, sadness needs a corresponding
>> sukhAkAra and dukhakAra vRtti (in addition to sukha and dukha). The
>> vedAntaparibhAShA takes this view.
>>
>> The other view is that sukha and dukha itself is sufficient, there is no
>> need for there to be a sukhAkAra vRtti and dukhAkAra vRtti. The siddhikAra
>> takes this view, as can be discerned in the very text posted by you -
>> अन्त:करणवृत्त्यादौ न वृत्त्यपेक्षेति नानावस्था - there is no need to
>> postulate another vRtti in the case of antahkaraNavRtti etc, he says.
>>
>> So what is needed for consciousness to reveal objects?
>>
>> Light will illuminate everything that it directly shines upon, where
>> there is no direct contact with the object because of an obstruction, there
>> is the need for an instrument to remove the obstruction. Similarly sAkshi
>> will illuminate everything it directly shines upon - where there is an
>> ajnAna covering the object, there is the need for a vRtti, to remove the
>> obstruction. In the case of avidyA that is sAkshivedya, there is no need to
>> postulate another vRtti to reveal it as the connection between
>> consciousness and ignorance is direct.
>>
>> This sambandha is defined in the laghuchandrikA as तथा च
>> स्वप्रतिबिम्बवद्वृत्तिविषयत्वघटितसंश्लेशसंबन्धेनावच्छेदकत्वसंबन्धेन
>> प्रतिबिम्बसंबन्धेनैव वा जीवस्य भासकत्वम्।
>> The sambandha with consciousness that leads to the illumination of an
>> object is one of 1) the object (thing) being the object (viShaya) of a
>> vRtti bearing the reflection of consciousness 2) the object being the
>> delimiter of consciousness or 3) the object reflecting consciousness.
>>
>> That is, for a thing to be illuminated by consciousness, there has to be
>> a direct sambandha (it being a delimiter of or being capable of reflecting
>> consciousness) or a remote sambandha through a vRtti bearing the reflection
>> of consciousness.
>>
>> The second thing that is needed is for the object itself to be capable of
>> reflecting consciousness.
>>
>> To explain, in commenting on the words स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बाग्राहके चैतन्यस्य
>> तदाकारत्वायोगात् of the siddhi, the laghuchandrikA says स्वतः स्वरूपेण
>> चिद्बिम्बाग्राहके  चित्प्रतिबिम्बायोग्ये वृत्तिं वृत्तिसंश्लेशं ।
>> तदाकारत्वायोगात् स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बाग्राहके  प्रतिबिम्बितत्वायोगात् ।
>> सूर्यादेः जलादिसंयुक्तमृदादाविव जीवचितो वृत्तिसंश्लिष्टे घटादौ
>> प्रतिबिम्बस्य संभवः - where the object is incapable of reflecting
>> consciousness, it is not possible for consciousness to be reflected without
>> the intervention of a vRtti. Like clay etc can reflect sunlight only if it
>> is wet, the reflection of consciousness can take place in pots only when
>> the latter come into contact with vRtti-s.
>>
>> So why is there a necessity for avidyAvRtti in the case of the perception
>> of shuktirUpya, but not in the case of sukhAdi? The laghuchandrikA raises a
>> question here and answers it -
>> ननु - सुखादेरिव शुक्तिरूप्यादेरपि स्वच्छत्वसंभवात्तत्र वृत्तिकल्पना न
>> युक्तेति - चेन्न। अस्वच्छव्यावहारिकरजतादिजातीयं  कामयमानस्य पुरुषस्य
>> प्रवृत्तिरस्वच्छरजतादावेव जायत इति अनुरोधेन भ्रमस्थले तादृशमेव रजतादिकं
>> कल्प्यते ।
>> The postulation of where a vRtti is needed and where it not, is dependent
>> on whether there is a direct contact with the object or where there is no
>> direct contact, whether the object is intrinsically able to reflect
>> consciousness.
>>
>> Unlike the case of sukha etc, the silver seen in an illusion is incapable
>> of reflecting consciousness - because the person who sees the silver
>> desires a vyAvahArika silver that is intrinsically incapable of reflecting
>> consciousness, one must provide for the illusory silver to be similar to
>> the real silver, and thus also not be capable of reflecting consciousness -
>> and hence there is a need for a vRtti.
>>
>> This does not mean that avidyA itself is incapable of reflecting
>> consciousness - we have seen several instances where
>> avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya, avidyA-pratiphalita-chaitanya is spoken
>> about. Therefore, there is no need to postulate an avidyAvRtti for
>> sAkshichaitanya to reveal avidyA.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, 14:29 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>

-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com