[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Atman and Witness - transcending

[Bhaskar YR]

So, sAkshi-tva is not and cannot be the swarUpa of Atman as it is avidyA-krita.

So, the ultimate truth which the Atman is, has to be transcendental to the sAkshI (unattached witness).

SAkshI is defined as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya whereas Atman is chaitanya.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

All the above three statements as usual go against bhAshyavachana and holding ‘some’ vyAkhyAna as authority for this.  As per bhAshyakAra and shruti, ‘sAkshi’ is upanishanmAtra vedya, he is Chaitanya and ekaH as per shruti (sAkshi chetaH, kevalO nirguNascha), sAkshi is NOT avidyA upahita Chaitanya he is kevala Chaitanya and sAkshi is its svarUpa, ahaM pratyayavishaya kartru vyaterekeNa tatsAkshee, sarva bhUtasthaH, samaH, ekaH, kOtastha nityaH, this asaMsAri Atma is aupanishad purusha.  He is not different in different pramAtru-s to declare sAkshi is avidyAkruta or aneka.  And more importantly sAkshi svarUpa cannot be deduced by mere shushka tarka or through some pramANa  or giving some mundane examples because of the simple fact he is the witness to even these mental jugglery.  He is sAkshi, svayaM siddha whether there is anything to be witnessed or not.  And this sAkshi is manasOpi manaH clarifies bhAshyakAra elsewhere.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar