[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

In continuation of last e-mail, I would just like to add that in case of
avidyA-lakshaNa-vichAra, where sAditva is accepted as vyApaka of
pratibhAsa-kalpaka-samAna-kAlIna-kalpaka-vattvam, there the
avidyA-pratibhAsa-kalpaka is accepted to be different from avidyA-kalpaka.
So, two sAkshI are admitted by SiddhikAra -- one is
avidyA-upahita-chaitanya (avidyA-kalpaka) and other
avidyA-pratibhAsa-kalpaka (avidyA-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya). If you
see the Laghuchandrika thereupon, it is clear that
avidyA-vishayaka-avidyA-vritti is being talked about.

For kind consideration.

Regards.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:53 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com