[Advaita-l] [advaitin] “Vighneshwara is the Jagat-karana Brahman” - says Shri Sarvajnatma Muni ji

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

//I would think that sakshi is an adhyaropa done by the shaastra for the
sake of using it to finally transcend it.//

KAraNa-tva and sAkshi-tva in Brahman are both adhyArOpa.

Through adhyArOpa of kAraNa-tva in Brahman, Shruti teaches that kArya-world
is not and cannot be different from Brahman. And subsequently through
apavAda, neha nAnA asti kinchan, Shruti teaches that world is absent in
Brahman. Thus, it teaches mithyAtva of world and non-duality of Brahman is
established.

SAkshI-tva of Brahman implies asangatva and swaprakAshatva of Brahman.
However, it presumes a prakAshya-vastu, the witnessed. That presumes
avidyA. So, persistence of sAkshi-tva implies persistence of avidyA.

So, despite kAraNa-tva and sAkshi-tva being adhyArOpa, their
avidya-krita-tva is not violated.

But Sudhanshu Ji, is the concept of sakshi known to the uninitiated without
> being taught?
>

I feel through rational logical enquiry, one can arrive at this conclusion
that he is sAkshI.

In fact, "I am non-dual reality" is also rationally derivable as shown in
Advaita PrakaraNa or MANDUkya.

It is important to appreciate that sat and chit aspects of Brahman are not
covered by ignorance. Only our Ananda-swarUpatA is covered.

Do all have the understanding of there being something beyond the pancha
> koshas?
>

No. But with enquiry, one can arrive at this understanding. Let us see:

I see this table. Hence, I am different from this table. Seer has to be
different from seen.

I see everything. Hence, I am different from these.

I see even this "I". It comes and goes. So, what I actually am, let us say
x, is different from I. I might be using the word I for x, but x is
certainly not I. So, x is the sAkshI of everything including I.

With this logical analysis supported by experience, one can understand
sAkshI.


In fact the Advaita Makaranda says that:
>
> The Advaitamakaranda of Lakshmidhara Kavi puts this so beautifully:
>
> चेत्योपरागरूपा मे *साक्षिताऽपि न तात्त्विकी ।*
>
> *उपलक्षणमेवेयं* निस्तरङ्गचिदम्बुधेः ॥
>
> The concept of sAkShI, which is of the form of a connection between the
> anAtmA, the seen, and the Me, the Pure Consciousness (PC), too, is not
> ultimately real. It is only an indicator, upalakShaNa, for the waveless
> ocean that is the Pure Consciousness.
>

True.

A detailed discussion of this verse is available here:
>
>
> http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/advaita-makaranda-a-blog-in-sanskrit/
>

बहु शोभनं लेखनं महोदय। तत्त्वं सम्यग्व्याख्यातम्। अत्र इदम् अपि अवधेयम् -
कर्मयोगानुसारेण साधको व्यवहारकाले एवं चिन्तयति - "अहं कर्ता, ईश्वरस्य भृत्यो
ऽहम्, ईश्वरस्य कृते एव मम सर्वाणि कर्माणि सन्ति"। ज्ञानयोगे परं तु न एवं
विचारः सम्यक् - तत्र तु स्वकीयं साक्षित्वम् एव अभ्युपगन्तव्यम्, न तु
जीवत्वम्। स्वस्य साक्षित्वनिश्चयं प्रकाश्यं जगत् प्रति तीव्रवैराग्यं
दृढीकरोति। गच्छता कालेन साक्ष्यं प्रति  पूर्णोदासीनता वहन् साधकः स्वकीये
साक्षित्वरहिते शुद्धस्वरूपे सुखेन तिष्ठति। स्वरूपस्थितौ दृश्यस्य भानमेव
नास्ति, अतः साक्षिता न तत्र कथमपि भवितुम् अर्हति।

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.