[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Definition of sAkshI

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Dennis ji & Shri Acharya ji,

The below is my understanding, primarily based on BU-4.3.22, BU-4.3.23,
MU-3.1.1 and VP. This is also inline with Shri Rammohan ji’s opinion.

The term witness has 2 connotations:

1. Chaitanya is the actual revealer of all vrittis and in turn all
cognition. The vrittis and corresponding objects are all insentient and
require an illuminating sentient principle to reveal them. This is
Chaitanya. This is explained in BUBh-4.3.23.
2. Chaitanya, though an essential component in the process of cognition,
remains completely unaffected. In the absence of Chaitanya, there cannot be
any cognition whatsoever. This is explained in the two-birds analogy
MUBh-3.1.1.
3. Thus the two connotations are - being the essential revealer of all
things and still being ever pure & unaffected by the process of cognition.
4. Bhagavan Bhashyakara states in BUBh-4.3.23 that being the witness is the
very nature of the Atman (Pure Chaitanya); just as heat of fire and
luminosity of Sun.
5. Bhagavan Bhashyakara states in BUBh-4.3.22, “the self-effulgence of the
witness is proved on the grounds that the witnessed objects are different
from the witness subject”.
6. This implies that the appellation ‘witness’ makes most sense with
respect to objects of witness (vyavaharika), although the nature of ever
being the witness is inherent in Pure Chaitanya.
7. Extending this point to Vedanta Paribhasha, VP says that perception of
Chaitanya is in 4 aspects - jiva, jiva-sakshi, Isvara, Isvara-sakshi. While
Jiva and Isvara have the antahkarana and Maya as their qualifying
attributes (viseshana), the corresponding sakshi only have antahkarana and
Maya as a limiting adjunct (upadhi).
8. By being conditioned by only an adjunct, the jiva-sakshi remains
unaffected by the antahkarana or its vrittis.
9. More importantly, VP says that this jiva-sakshi is different in each
individual, which is explained to be purely based on the distinctions /
differences / limitations / individualization of the limiting adjunct
antahkarana. The witness is actually one and the same as Brahman / Pure
Chaitanya.

>From these points, here is my understanding:

10. Although the nature of being the witness, in terms of being
self-effulgent, is inherent in Pure Chaitanya, the term ‘witness’ is truly
applicable only in the vyavaharika sense in the context of other objects.
11. What is called as the ‘witness’ is the Chaitanya that has antahkarana
as its limiting adjunct (antahkarana-upahita-chaitanyam). In other words,
the ‘conditioned’ or ‘reflected’ Chaitanya - chidabasa - is itself the
witness.
12. When antahkarana is superimposed (adhyasa) on this chidabasa, the
resulting entity appears to be the agent ‘jiva’.
13. But the very definition and nature of adhyasa implies that though
chidabasa appears as the mutable agent jiva, actually chidabasa, even in
vyavaharika, is only a mere witness (unaffected revealer).
14. The same chidabasa, in a collective sense, with Maya as the upadhi is
the witnessing Isvara (as the antaryami) as in MU-3.1.1.
15. Therefore, the substratum chidabasa is the 'witness' and the result of
the adhyasa is the 'agent'.

Seeking your guidance & corrections on my current understanding.

with humble prostrations,
Vikram


On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 2:48 AM <dwaite at advaita.org.uk> wrote:

> Yes – a very good way of looking at it. In the two birds metaphor in
> MuNDaka that Bhaskar-ji just pointed out, Ṥaṅkara actually uses the word
> sAkShI for the Ishvara bird:
>
>
>
> “the other one, who is by nature ever pure, ever wise and ever free (nitya
> Shudha budha mukta svabhAvaH), and aho is all-knowledge (sarvaj~naH), and
> has the totality of sattva guNa pradhAna mAyA as his medium, does not
> experience (na aShnAti)the karmaphalam. He, by his simple presence as an
> eternal witness (*nitya sakShitva* sattA mAtreNa) is able to direct and
> connect (according to the law of karma) both the bogya universe (pippalam)
> which is of varied experiences, as well as the jIva who thinks he is the
> kartA and bhoktA.” (Varadar Ajan translation and commentary)
>
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> *From:* advaitin at googlegroups.com <advaitin at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Rammohan Subramaniam
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:30 AM
> *To:* advaitin <advaitin at googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Definition of sAkshI
>
>
>
> " Consciousness not only 'does not think or speak'. Also, it cannot be a
> witness. Witnessing only takes place by virtue of an upAdhi - mind. "
>
>
>
> Fact 1 : Consciousness is reflected in the mind - a serene mind
> [introverted]  reflects consciousness perfectly as it is albiet limited to
> the individual.
>
> Fact 2 : A conditioned mind [extroverted] reflects consciousness as before
> + morphs it according to mind's conditions = a notional individuality
> [Ahamkara] + world as perceived - the notion of individuality morphs
> according to perceived world - agent and one who experiences.
>
> In both cases we are discussing reflected consciousness  in the first case
> we call it witness consciousness and in the second case Jiva.
>
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 10:55:22 AM UTC+5:30 kuntimaddi sadananda
> wrote:
>
> Bhaskarji - PraNams
>
>
>
>
>
> I give a simple example of sunlight and moonlight.
>
>
>
>
>
> A non-luminous moon becomes luminous by reflecting all-pervading sunlight
> that falls on the moon. It is similar to the mind becoming a local
> conscious entity by reflecting the all-pervading light of pure
> consciousness. That we have - 'as though' part of the all-pervading
> consciousness that is illuming the local mind and that which gets reflected
> (chidaabhaasa) as reflected consciousness.
>
>
>
>
>
> That part of sunlight that is falling on the sun before reflection occurs
> is Sakshee - sunlight.
>
>
>
>
>
> Similarly that part of all-pervading pure consciousness that 'as though'
> falling on the local mind before getting reflection is Sakshee chaitanya.
>
>
>
>
>
> It is there all the time as long as the mind is there to reflect it.
>
>
>
> I think in the 'Advaita Makaranda' Lakshimidharakavi provides a beautiful
> analysis of Sakshee Chaitanya.
>
>
>
> Hari Om!
>
>
>
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 09:37:35 AM GMT+5:30, Bhaskar YR via
> Advaita-l <adva... at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> sAkshi chetaaH kevalO nirguNascha says shwetaashwatara, karmAdhyaksha,
> sarvabhUtAdhivAsa also.  So, he is sAkshi to even the vibhAga like sAkshi
> and sAkshya, he is sAkshi to even our deha, buddhi, mana, prANa and
> ahamkara.  So he is sAkshi even there is no thing that can be called
> 'sAkshi bhAsya'.  He is sAkshi to buddhi vrutti also and this sAkshi is
> uniform in all (sarvabhUteshu ekameva chaitanyaM) No one can take it as
> Vishaya nor any one throw it away as avishaya.  There is a beautiful shloka
> in upadesha sAhasri poem section : yathA svabuddhichArANAm sAkshi tadvat
> pareshvapi, naivAphOdhuM na vAdAtuM shakyastasmAt parOhyahaM.
>
> But if we bifurcate this sarvasAkshi from the sAkshibhAsya then yes the
> sAkshi who is witnessing everything 'in front' of him is kevala avidyAkruta
> since there is something which is objectifying both sAkshi and sAkshya as
> Vishaya only.  The sAkshitva attributed to brahman just to drive home the
> point that he is neither kartru nor bhOktru nor pramAtru etc.  Over reading
> it beyond its context may lead to brahma shUnyata IMO because he is not
> ahaM pratyaya gamya to declare sAkshi is something different from
> sAkshibhAsya he is sarvasAkshi clarifies bhAshyakAra in samanvayAdhikaraNa
> :  na hi ahaMpratyayavishayaH kartruvyaterekeNa tatsAkshee sarvabhUtasthaH,
> samaH, ekaH, kUtashtha nityaH...
>
> And that paramatatva parabrahman himself in its sOpAdhika rUpa
> karmAdhyaksha, devaH, sarvabheteshu gUdhaH etc.  but in his svarUpa he is
> always nirguNaH  and this nirguNa sAkshi Chaitanya cannot be said at any
> point of time as ashuddha Chaitanya because Shuddha Chaitanya is NOT sAkshi
> and sAkshi Chaitanya is mere avidyA upahita etc.  It is mere stretch and
> IMO it is mere torturing of the word sAkshi with the help of shushka
> tarka.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> listm... at advaita-vedanta.org
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/70b7daed-1cb1-4f83-8595-ca3fc982743an%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/70b7daed-1cb1-4f83-8595-ca3fc982743an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001801da5a6b%248aba8110%24a02f8330%24%40advaita.org.uk
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001801da5a6b%248aba8110%24a02f8330%24%40advaita.org.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>