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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Raghav Kumar prabhuji
Hare Krishna

sAxitva is an upAdhi

>  but sAkshitva is svarUpa of Atman it is not an adjunct to nirupAdhika Atman.  The sAkshitva is quite inherently there in its svarUpa like sarvajnatva and sarvashaktitva.  

That's Advaita 101 surely.

>  I don’t know in which class it is the basic lesson when shruti itself saying brahman is sAkshi chetaH kevalO nirguNascha.  

Sudhanshu ji was clearly mentioning sAkshitva as avidyAkRta. He did not say sAxI is avidyAkRta.

>  OK please define the sAkshi here without sAkshitva.

Michael ji too reiterated the same viz., that witnesshood is avidyAkRta.

Not sure why that triggered the usual words of bhAShya-viruddha, shuShka tarka (ie inconvenient logical truths),' later vyAkhyAna-kAras' etc etc etc.

>  when some assertions go against what bhAshyakAra said obviously I have to say it is the fabricated contribution from later vyAkhyAnakAra-s like other gems i.e. avidyA lesha, mulAvidyAvAda etc.  Have you checked samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya where bhAshyakAra says : nanu AtmA ahaM pratyaya vishayatvAt upanishatsveva vijnAyate ityanupapannaM, tatsAkshitvena pratyuktatvAt..na hi ahaM pratyayavishaya kartru vyaterekeNa tatsAkshi sarva bhUtasthaH, samaH, ekaH,  kUtastha nityaH ....See the other adjectives attributed to Atman here do you still say this sAkshi is brahma and sAkshitva is avidyAkruta??  If his sAkshitva is avidyAkruta, you have to say samaH, kUtashtha nityaH, ekaH etc. also avidyAkruta.  By the way through which karaNa you are making the sAkshitva of Atman as Vishaya and concluding that it is avidyAkruta??  When sAkshitva of sAkshi concluded as avidyAkruta how sAkshi can be said sAkshi is having the svayaM prakAsha, kUtashtha nityaM and svayaM siddha??  I am not saying this bhAshyakAra himself saying : sAkshiNovagantuH svayaM siddhatAm when he is differentiating between vijnAnaM and sAkshitvaM.  And don’t you remember in adhyAsa bhAshya what bhAshyakAra clarified and asked us to get the Viveka of sAkshi svarUpa and ahaM pratyayi ??  and how this ahaM pratyayi is adhyasta in sarvasAkshi??  pratyagAtmani adhyasya taM cha pratyagAtmanAM sarvaskshiNam tadviparyayeNa antaHkaraNaadhishu adhyasyati??  Elsewhere bhAshyakAra also says :  Atman as sAkshi and his drushti is nityaM and there is no lOpa to it at any point of time (vide bruhad bhAshya) Even after knowing all these when someone say sAkshi is borrowed quality of Atman and it is avidyAkruta how can you resist yourself from saying it is just later vyAkhyAnakAra-s contribution, bhAshya viruddha and apasiddhAnta?? IMO, no one should dare to categorically announce that Atman is something different from sarvasAkshi and his sAkshitvaM is avidyAkruta when it is not possible to make sAkshi and his sAkshitvaM as Vishaya, as he is manasOpi manaH.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar