[Advaita-l] Saakshii-Jiiva-Iswara Analysis III

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 17 09:56:43 CDT 2013

Sorry - the introductory paragraph is missing -here it is attached. Together is only Part III.
Hari Om!
Analysis of
Saakshii, Jiiva And Iswara
Based on
Vichaarasaagara of Nischaladaasa - III
Objector further
expands his objection:
It is true that mind
cannot objectify itself. Mind being inert, there has to be something other than
the mind to illumine the mind. That, advaita says, is saakshii. This much we
all agree. I am the conscious entity and as a saakshii I am aware of my mind. However
as a saakshii, I am not aware of other minds. Minds are plural, which advaitin
also accepts. Each saakshii is only aware of that particular mind or illuming
one particular mind and not everybody’s mind. Each mind must be illuminated by
its saakshii and that saakshii cannot illumine other minds, as the experience
shows. Since every subject ‘I’ knows only his mind not minds of others, and
every mind is known or illumined by its saakshii, we conclude that there are as
many saakshiis as there are minds that are getting illumined.  If there is only one saakshii as advaitin
claims, then everyone should know the contents of every mind since that one
saakshii is illumining all the minds. Hence as many upaadhis (BMI) are there,
so many saakshiis should be there, says puurvapakshii or objector. Since there
are many saakshiis illumining different minds, there cannot be identity of many
saakshiis with one Iswara. We are back to square one.  

> From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
>To: adviata-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; "advaitin at yahoogroups.com" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> 
>Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:48 AM
>Subject: [Advaita-l] Saakshii-Jiiva-Iswara Analysis III
>Analysis of
>Saakshii, Jiiva And Iswara
>Based on
>Vichaarasaagara of Nischaladaasa - IV
>Now advaitin
>responds to the objection in detail:
>True, mind cannot
>illumine itself, since it is not self-conscious entity. It depends something
>other than itself for it to be illumined (here illumination is the same as
>being an object of knowledge). What illumines the mind is saakskhii. It is like
>moon. Moon cannot illumine itself, it being non-luminous entity. Moon light can
>illumine the object on the earth on a full-moon night. What illumines the moon
>is sunlight. The reflected sunlight from the moon illumines the earth also on
>the full-moon night. While perceiving the objects in the moon light, we need to
>recognize that it is not the moonlight but it is the sunlight that illumines
>the objects on the earth on the full-moon night. We mistakenly say that moon is
>illuming the objects on the earth on the full-moon night. The same sun-light
>can simultaneously illumine the other objects in the sky.  Mind is like a moon (moon, in fact, is
>considered as the presiding deity of the mind), and the world is like the
>objects on the earth. Saakshii chaitanyam illumines the mind and via the mind
>illumines the world of objects. Without the mind the world of objects cannot be
>known- just as without the moon the world of objects in the night cannot be
>seen, when there are no other lights. 
>When the saakshii
>chaitanyam illumines the mind, it is called chidaabhaasa – since mind –as
>though- becomes a conscious entity – like moon becoming a luminous body in the
>1.  When
>I say I know my mind and its emotions, I am the saakshii chaitanyam and the
>mind is an object of my knowledge. 
>2.  Here
>knower of the mind is not the saakshii but the saakshii-illumined mind only.
>This above knowledge is gained and is understood by the mind only since
>saakshii chaitanyam cannot become a pramaata or knower. If it becomes a
>pramaata then we have divisions in the indivisible that involves a triad
>–knower, known and knowing. Saakshii chaitanyam being Brahman is division-less. 
>3.  Even
>to say that ‘I am the saakshii chaitanyam that is illumining the mind’, I need
>the mind since pure saakshii chaitanyam by itself has no instruments to know
>and/or to communicate.
>When we say saakshii
>chaitanyam alone illumines the mind – alone - here means there is nothing else
>that can illumine the mind – thus sense organs, the mind with or without
>thoughts cannot illumine the mind. In fact the saakshii chaitanyam reflected by
>the mind as chidaabhaasa illumines the sense organs and the subtle and gross
>objects via the mind; and thus via the mind only everything else is known.  
>When a jiiva says I
>am – question now pertains to whether - I am – here refers to ahankaara or
>saakshii. Furthermore, when the puurvapaksha or objector says saakshiis are
>plural, is he identifying the saakshii with ahankaraara or ego or is he
>referring to pure saakshii without ahankaara, since he says everybody knows
>only his own mind and not the minds of others, considering that the mind by
>itself cannot know itself, neither the other minds can know this mind. 
>Nischaladaasa says
>do not commit such a blunder of mistaking saakshii or witnessing consciousness with
>ahankaara or ego. When Jiiva says - I am – it is always a mixture of the two.
>It consists of ahankaara or ego + aatma.   All transactions are done with this mixture. Mere ahankaara without
>aatma cannot be possible, nay it cannot exist independent of aatma. Mere aatma
>can exist but cannot do any transactions alone. Therefore a transacting jiiva
>is always a mixture of aatma and anaatma. anaatma includes all the three
>bodies  – causal (kaaraNa), subtle (suukshma
>and gross (sthuula) bodies or shariiras. Ego or ahankaara is part of the subtle
>body. Even though ahankaara is a mixture, it exists as one and behaves unified
>as one, since ontologically the components involves aatma and ahankaara, or
>self and the ego, are of two different orders of reality. It is similar to the
>mixture of gold and a ring – gold is satyam or the substantive truth while ring
>is only a name-sake object for purpose of transactions - vaachaarambhanam
>vikarao naamadheyam – or nom ke vaste in Hindi. Ring is only a name for a form,
>which is an attribute. Ring has no independent existence apart from Gold, while
>gold can exist without being a ring. Similarly ahankaara or ego cannot exist
>independent of aatma while aatma has independent existence since it is of the
>nature of pure existence, says the scripture. Hence ring is a mixture of gold
>plus ungold (for lack of better word) which is a ring. Ring has transactional
>utility that differs from that of a bangle, which is also a mixture of gold and
>ungold or object with a name and form. In this example, ontologically, gold is
>of the higher order of reality since it is the adhiShTaanam or substantive for
>all the ornaments of gold. When ring changes into bangle and then to bracelet,
>gold still remains as gold in all these modifications or vikaaras. All these
>modifications are only at the level of names and forms or in the attributive
>content – vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH, and they not real transformations. They
>are transformation-less transformations called vivarta vikaaraH.  
>Hence we can say
>ring, bangle and bracelet are similar to ahankaaras or egos that undergo
>modifications while the gold as the essence or aatma of the ring, bangle and
>bracelet, and is unchanging and single. This example illustrate the fact that
>this mixture is not made up of two entities that are ontologically of the same
>order of reality but are made up of different orders of reality. The example is
>from scripture only from sad vidya of Ch. Up. One can consider that ring,
>bangle and bracelets are –as though – superimpositions or adhyaasa on gold
>which is their adhiShataanam – from which they came, by which they are
>sustained and into which they go back. Thus gold becomes the material cause for
>these ornaments. 
>More in the next
>Hari Om!
>Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>To unsubscribe or change your options:
>For assistance, contact:
>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list