[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Venkat ji

1. In the case of sukha, icchA, dveSha etc , these vRttis are sAxibhAsya.

2. VP accepts vRttis are their own objects. (meaning - we don't need
another vRtti to objectify them)

Isn't this the same as the absence of वृत्त्यन्तरापेक्षा for sukha and
dukha talked of by siddhikAra?

I have not yet checked the sAxi pratyaxa discussion in VP, but I was under
the impression that, even according to VP, we don't need a sukha-vRtti
followed by a additional sukhAkAra vRtti.

In other words, when happiness is experienced, only one vRtti occurs
sukha-vRtti (or sukhAkAra vRtti) which is it's own object - this is said by
both - or so I thought.

Kindly correct me if wrong.

Om
Raghav



On Tue, 6 Feb, 2024, 3:41 pm Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>