[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Upadesha SAhasrI 18.43

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste *Subbu ji.*

Thanks for amazing verse from Advaita Makaranda

Thanks* Raghav* *ji* for valid inputs.

Hare Krishna *Bhaskar prabhu ji*.


>
>    - What is AtmA AbhAsa here?? Is it jeeva??  You said avidyA per se
>    cannot be determined by logic.  What exactly is this avidyA per se??  apart
>    from pramANita bhAvarUpa ( or bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa which you are insisting
>    whenever it is said bhAvarUpa), anirvachaneeyatvaM, jnAna nivartakatvaM??
>
>
AtmA-AbhAsa is jIva. Please note that this is within the framework of
AbhAsa-vAda.

avidyA per se, which is sAkshi-bhAsya, is jnAna-virOdhI sa-vishayaka vastu.
Only this much is experienced by sAkshI in connection with ajnAna. And
since it is sAkshi-bhAsya, everyone will agree on it.

You and I will agree that we are ajnAnI.
You and I will agree that our being ajnAnI implies that there is no jnAna.
Had jnAna been there, there would have been no ajnAna.
You and I will immediately answer if someone ask - what you ajnAna is
about! We will answer that I have ajnAna of Finnish language, Russian
language etc etc.

However, you and I will not agree on what vastu ajnAna is. I may say that
it is bhAvarUpa while you may insist on it being abhAva.
I may say that ajnAna is triguNAtmaka. You may not agree on it.

So, these visheshaNAs are pramANa-gamya.

So, ajnAna per se is simply a jnAna-virOdhi sa-vishayaka vastu. [Please
note that vastu is a general term here which encompasses even abhAva within
its ambit.] Its visheshaNAs are subject to pramANa.



>    - Again is this sAkshi which is avidyA upahita Chaitanya =jeeva for
>    which avidyA is bhAsya??
>
>

jIva is not avidyA-upahita-chaitanya. jIva in the instant discussion is the
AtmA-AbhAsa. avidyA-upahita-chaitanya in the instant case would be mukha,
when described from the reference of mirror.



>
>    - What is avidyA svarUpa here apart from above visheshaNa-s??
>
>
 As discussed above.



>    - Very interesting, avidyA per se is sAkshi-bhAsya but avidyA
>    visheshaNa-s are NOT sAkshi bhAsya but can be proved as existent through
>    pramANa!!??
>
>
It is true that visheshaNAs-of-avidyA are not sAkshi-bhAsya, rather
pramANa-gamya. However, it does not imply that they are existent. They are
as illusory as the avidyA itself. Being pramANa-gamya does not make them
existent. They remain mithyA.



>
>    - I asked this query to Sri Raghav prabhuji also, what is sAkshitva
>    without sAkshi or in other words what is sAkshi without sAkshitva??  This
>    would help me to draw the line between sAkshi and sAkshitva.
>
>
sAkshI without sAkshi-tva is shuddha chaitanya.

sAkshi-tva per se is defined as "अकर्तृत्वे सति द्रष्टृत्वं हि साक्षित्वम्".

द्रष्टृत्वम् is defined as स्वरूपचैतन्यस्य तत्-तद्-विषयावच्छिन्नम्
तत्-तद्-वृत्त्यवच्छिन्नं वा प्रतिसम्बन्धित्वम् द्रष्टृत्वम्.

Such precise definition of sAkshi-tva and drashTri-tva is taken from
Advaita DeepikA by NrisimhAshrama Swamiji. You can check the same, if you
like, at page 274-275. (
https://archive.org/details/advaita-deepika-01/Advaita%20Deepika%2001/page/n288/mode/1up
)

Now, please note that drashTri-tva, which requires vishaya-avachchhinnatA
or vritti-avachchhinnatA, is an inalienable part of definition of
sAkshi-tva. And hence, it can never be the swarUpa of suddha chaitanya
because there are no vishaya therein. Therefore, Advaita DeepikA explains:

*अत एव द्रष्टृत्वघटितं साक्षित्वं न स्वरूपम्* । *अपि तूदासीनबोधात्मकमेव
साक्षित्वं स्वरूपम्* । तस्य निष्प्रतियोगिकस्वरूपस्वात् ।

The sAkshI without sAkshi-tva is prakAsha-mAtra which is bOdha-mAtra. And
that is shuddha chaitanya.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.