[Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Raghav ji
See the pratyaksha paricCheda, specifically:
एवाञ्चान्तःकरणतद्धर्मादीनां केवलसाक्षिविषयत्वेऽपि तत्तदाकारवृत्त्यभ्युपगमेन
उक्तलक्षणस्य तत्रापि सत्त्वान्नाव्याप्तिः ।
He means antahkaraNa dharma like sukha need a sukhAkAra vRtti for it to be
sAkshibhAsya.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan



On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, 19:54 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>