Random thought

[Satyamavejayanti]

Definition of terms, (Not absolute Unchallengeable Meanings).
Sakshi: Witnessing principle; seer; Kutastha which
passively observes the actions of the body and the senses;
witness.
Kutastha: Absolutely changeless; who is found without
exception in all creatures from Brahma or the creator down
to ants and Who is shining as the Self and dwells as witness
to the intellect of all creatures, rock-seated, unchanging;
another name for Brahman.

Namaste,

I have been thinking lately, and would wish to discuss and get some input.

The core principal and intention underlying the claims of Hinduisms many Darshans is the realization of the role the Atman/Sakshi plays in knowing any object of this existence, there are many words to describe this, the most relevant for my post are these terms.

In Hinduism we recognise and presuppose the “Witness/Observer”, as being important and in some cases more than the actual objects of witness and observation, there is no rejection outright of the existence of any object but there is philosophy that accepts that objects are only apprehended by the means of Parmanas/Manas/Indriyas but final yogya (union in this context) of knowledge of an object is realized by the Sakshi or the one observing, therefore objects are somewhat “Created”, and given Nama and Rupa by the witness, and in context of Nama and Rupa the objects are relative and changeable.

The Hindu idea is that we must first have complete knowledge of this Sakshi on its own before the Sakshi has knowledge of what is observed, some may consider the Sakshi as an object of observation because of this, but if we do this is it not still giving a Nama and Rupa to the Saakshi? which would make it also relative and changeable? But How do we realize the Sakshi in the first place? and What then observes the Observer? Is it even possible? Is it even relevant?

There are many practices such as AdhyatmaVidya, Yoga, Tantra ect ect which have been developed as a tool by great Rihis and Yogis to achieve this state of being, and no one is bared from experiencing the Sakshi or Knowing the Atman, it is a claim that is reproducible by any diligent and honest seeker. The ego has to be transcended in order for our Manas/chit to become free of the Vrittis that inhibit it and obstruct our inner Sakshi from realizing itself, also it is believed that the complete knowledge of any object becomes more clear through certain practices that enhance our perceptions of that object, we know fully an object once we (as the observer) have (somewhat) merged as it were with the object of observation. And if that object is the subject itself then is that not a form of ADVAITA? maybe?

What does your Sampradaya/Darshan teach in regards to attaining the state of the Sakshi?

My last question, how do we know or how do we come to know that the Sakshi is real?

I leave you with a Quote: Abhinavgupta

Relative distinction between two realities is not impossible. This is the doctrine of Supreme Unity in which relative distinction is neither shunned nor accepted. While there is an external difference between phenomena, there is none inwardly.

Dhanyavad

 

[Prana Pastime]

Definition of terms, (Not absolute Unchallengeable Meanings).
Sakshi: Witnessing principle; seer; Kutastha which
passively observes the actions of the body and the senses;
witness.
Kutastha: Absolutely changeless; who is found without
exception in all creatures from Brahma or the creator down
to ants and Who is shining as the Self and dwells as witness
to the intellect of all creatures, rock-seated, unchanging;
another name for Brahman.

Namaste,

I have been thinking lately, and would wish to discuss and get some input.

The core principal and intention underlying the claims of Hinduisms many Darshans is the realization of the role the Atman/Sakshi plays in knowing any object of this existence, there are many words to describe this, the most relevant for my post are these terms.

In Hinduism we recognise and presuppose the “Witness/Observer”, as being important and in some cases more than the actual objects of witness and observation, there is no rejection outright of the existence of any object but there is philosophy that accepts that objects are only apprehended by the means of Parmanas/Manas/Indriyas but final yogya (union in this context) of knowledge of an object is realized by the Sakshi or the one observing, therefore objects are somewhat “Created”, and given Nama and Rupa by the witness, and in context of Nama and Rupa the objects are relative and changeable.

The Hindu idea is that we must first have complete knowledge of this Sakshi on its own before the Sakshi has knowledge of what is observed, some may consider the Sakshi as an object of observation because of this, but if we do this is it not still giving a Nama and Rupa to the Saakshi? which would make it also relative and changeable? But How do we realize the Sakshi in the first place? and What then observes the Observer? Is it even possible? Is it even relevant?

There are many practices such as AdhyatmaVidya, Yoga, Tantra ect ect which have been developed as a tool by great Rihis and Yogis to achieve this state of being, and no one is bared from experiencing the Sakshi or Knowing the Atman, it is a claim that is reproducible by any diligent and honest seeker. The ego has to be transcended in order for our Manas/chit to become free of the Vrittis that inhibit it and obstruct our inner Sakshi from realizing itself, also it is believed that the complete knowledge of any object becomes more clear through certain practices that enhance our perceptions of that object, we know fully an object once we (as the observer) have (somewhat) merged as it were with the object of observation. And if that object is the subject itself then is that not a form of ADVAITA? maybe?

What does your Sampradaya/Darshan teach in regards to attaining the state of the Sakshi?

My last question, how do we know or how do we come to know that the Sakshi is real?

I leave you with a Quote: Abhinavgupta


Dhanyavad

The only thing I can reply is the following. We place attention and focus on the focal awareness center within us. We keep re-attending to it. We can ask the question, " how does this I arise?, or how does the substrate of this I arise? If we do this in meditation paying awareness to our breathing as well sooner or later we are the witness principle in itself without difference.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

The Hindu idea is that we must first have complete knowledge of this Sakshi on its own before the Sakshi has knowledge of what is observed, some may consider the Sakshi as an object of observation because of this, but if we do this is it not still giving a Nama and Rupa to the Saakshi? which would make it also relative and changeable? But How do we realize the Sakshi in the first place? and What then observes the Observer? Is it even possible? Is it even relevant?

Simply observe your ego (the "I" thought) non-judgementally. If you feel that Witness is collapsing in the mind as a thought, breathe and witness your breathe and create a new Witness. I think Atman is not Sakshi, but we assume so for practice. There is no seen/object to witness for Atman, only the seer/subject exists.

how do we know or how do we come to know that the Sakshi is real?

I think in the end, Sakshi "I" is dissolved in the Self, so its something we assume for practical convenience.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Easy to get bogged down in words. The observer has to have senses/mind to evaluate the input, otherwise no observation. So that can be done only by a person in Vyavaharika. If the person looks through a colored glass, then the observation will be colored. But no problem, look through a colorless glass. That is, abjure ego, prejudices and you are Sakshi. A word props up in my mind 'Sarvajna, Sarvajnanin'. That I will term as a foot in Parmarthika.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

The only thing I can reply is the following. We place attention and focus on the focal awareness center within us. We keep re-attending to it. We can ask the question, " how does this I arise?, or how does the substrate of this I arise? If we do this in meditation paying awareness to our breathing as well sooner or later we are the witness principle in itself without difference.

Dhanyavad for the reply,

Yes Dhyaan does help to steady the mind so we can actually think more clearly, i guess just pondering on the question of "I", is in itself helpful towards understanding who this "I", is.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"Acintya_Ash, post: 4466792, member: 54648"].......................... I think Atman is not Sakshi, but we assume so for practice. There is no seen/object to witness for Atman, only the seer/subject exists.

Namaste and Dhanyavad for the reply,

I think maybe the Atma is the Saksi, Sakshi is synonymous with the Atman or maybe Sakshi is the nature or the Atman, and I don't see the two as separate in this sense.

I think in the end, Sakshi "I" is dissolved in the Self, so its something we assume for practical convenience.

Maybe, but Who knows?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Easy to get bogged down in words. The observer has to have senses/mind to evaluate the input, otherwise no observation. So that can be done only by a person in Vyavaharika. If the person looks through a colored glass, then the observation will be colored. But no problem, look through a colorless glass. That is, abjure ego, prejudices and you are Sakshi. A word props up in my mind 'Sarvajna, Sarvajnanin'. That I will term as a foot in Parmarthika.

Namaste and Dhanyavad for the Reply Aup Ji,

May be, but i rekon if one does not comprehend the intent of the Words, or is ONLY interested in definitions and Meanings without actual experience of what is being described that is where we can get bogged down.

Observation is of an object, and there are many tools to be used to gain knowledge about a object, but the final knowing is by the Sakshi, what is the tools to know the Sakshi iteself, this is more my dilemma.

 

[kalyan]

Namaste and Dhanyavad for the Reply Aup Ji,

May be, but i rekon if one does not comprehend the intent of the Words, or is ONLY interested in definitions and Meanings without actual experience of what is being described that is where we can get bogged down.

Observation is of an object, and there are many tools to be used to gain knowledge about a object, but the final knowing is by the Sakshi, what is the tools to know the Sakshi iteself, this is more my dilemma.

i am on the weaker end today but very Interesting post...Keep up if this is a thought indeed that occurred to you by your own.......Basically you are asking to understand 'adhyasa' in advaita or there is dharmi/dharma bhoota jnanam in Visista advaita that should dispel your doubts,

As you rightly said ......Sakshi is atma, there are no tools to know the sakshi, atma other than the shabda pramana, the vedas/BhagawadGita....Many of the attributes of the atma are mentioned there..So to know the atma, you need to know about it more through the shastram. That is it......meditation helps but it will not reveal sakshi, sakshi can be known from vedas and what comes after should be your distinction between atma/ anaatma.......After knowing about atma and the physical body, you can clearly distinguish between the two (very difficult but with the help of practice as outlined from vedas for a serious seeker) and hence you can attain what is called as 'atma saakshaatkaaram' .....

There is a concept in advaita called adhyasa which should help in separating atma from anaatma or physical things....There is an excellent concept in Visista-advaita that does the same but in a different way...Explaining it from a visista advaita is more complex, so I would like to take in a different post sometime later. But this is advaitic view. for this you need to understand the objection raised to adhyasa or superimposition.

objection is: Adhyasa can occur only if the substratum is not known. Superimposition of silver can take place only if the nacre is not known. The Atma is known to every one as ‘I’. The difference between the self and the not-self, namely, body, mind and sense organs, is known to all because no one says ‘I am the body’. Moreover, only another substance can be superimposed on a substance. The illusion is in the form of ‘This is silver’ and not as ‘I am silver’. The seen cannot be superimposed on the seer, or vice versa. The Atma being the seer, nothing can be superimposed on it. Moreover, there has to be some similarity between the substratum and the superimposed object. One mistakes nacre for silver because they are similar in that they are both bright. No one mistakes nacre for an elephant. Atma and Anatma are totally contradictory like light and darkness.

For all these reasons superimposition of the self on the not-self or vice versa is not possible.
Even though, for the reasons stated above there cannot be superimposition between the self and the not self as such-, let us consider whether superimposition of the qualities of the one on the
other is possible -, like the superimposition of the red colour of a flower on a crystal. This is also not possible. Even in the case of the crystal there is dharmi-adhyasa also, because there is superimposition of the reflection of the flower on the crystal. Dharma-adhyasa is not possible without dharmi-adhyasa. Every one is aware of the difference between nacre and silver, still superimposition of silver on nacre does occur.
answer goes like this:

Though the difference between ‘man’ and ‘I’ is known, every one says, ‘I am a man’ though no one says ‘I am the body’. So knowledge of difference does not prevent superimposition.
According to the Advaita theory of ‘anirvachaniya’ there is superimposition of knowledge, and also, superimposition of theobjects. In the superimposition of silver on nacre, one gets the knowledge
‘This silver’. This is jnana-adhyasa. Knowledge is not possible without an object. So Advaita says that there is actually silver in front. This is supported by the fact that the person goes forward to grab the silver. In the same way, the world which is superimposed on the Atma (Brahman) is accepted as existing, though it has no absolute realty.

It has been established that the reasons given by the opponent for rejecting superimposition are not valid. Every one looks upon his body as himself. The body has birth and death and so the self is also thought to have birth and death. Similarly the qualities of the self are attributed to the body and so the body is very dear, though this is actually a quality of the self. This superimposition is a fact experienced by every one and so it cannot be denied. This identification of the self with the body cannot be considered to be merely secondary (gauna) on the ground that every one knows that he is different from the body because no one says “I am the body”. Though the difference between nacre and silver is known to every one, still nacre is sometimes mistaken for silver. This is because of lack
of discrimination at the relevant time. It is therefore said in the Bhashya that because of lack of discrimination between the self and the not-self --, there is ignorance-- and this is the reason for the
wrong identification. Moreover, though “I’ and ‘man’ are different, no man says “I am not a man”. So there is no realization of the difference between ‘I’ and ‘man’. The same is the case when one says “I am the doer”. Thus, though the difference is known, there is lack of discrimination between the self and the body and this is the reason for the identification of the two.

well this is the adhyasa understanding that I could take from internet anyway......

 

[Aupmanyav]

But no problem, look through a colorless glass. That is, abjure ego, prejudices and you are Sakshi.

.. what is the tool to know the Sakshi iteself, this is more my dilemma.

I have tried to answer your question in my second sentence.

There is a concept in advaita called adhyasa which should help in separating atma from anaatma or physical things.

A contradiction here, Kalyan. How does one separate atma and anaatma when it is already a-dvaita? Any separation will mean dvaita and dvandva.

Listen to what Lord Krishna is saying:
te brahma tad viduḥ kṛtsnam, adhyātmaḿ karma cākhilam BG 7.29
dvandvair vimuktāḥ sukha-duḥkha-saḿjñair, gacchanty amūḍhāḥ padam avyayaḿ tat. BG 15.5
dvandvātīto vimatsaraḥ .. kṛtvāpi na nibadhyate BG 4.22

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"Aupmanyav, post: 4468510, member: 11823"]I have tried to answer your question in my second sentence.

Namaste,

I know and I thank you for that Aup Ji. This is getting a bit hard to explain as i lack the vocabulary to be more clear, maybe because i assumed what you mean is one would have to give a sense of objectivity to the Sakshi?, So to me when we look through the "colorless glass", is it only transcending the ego and the attachments in relation to what is observed, so we are only the Sakshi (passively observing, not involved) of the Objects, but how does the Sakshi become a Sakshi to itself? do you know what i mean.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"kalyan, post: 4468256, member: 47528"]i am on the weaker end today but very Interesting post...Keep up if this is a thought indeed that occurred to you by your own.......Basically you are asking to understand 'adhyasa' in advaita or there is dharmi/dharma bhoota jnanam in Visista advaita that should dispel your doubts,

As you rightly said ......Sakshi is atma, there are no tools to know the sakshi, atma other than the shabda pramana, the vedas/BhagawadGita....Many of the attributes of the atma are mentioned there..So to know the atma, you need to know about it more through the shastram. That is it......meditation helps but it will not reveal sakshi, sakshi can be known from vedas and what comes after should be your distinction between atma/ anaatma.......After knowing about atma and the physical body, you can clearly distinguish between the two (very difficult but with the help of practice as outlined from vedas for a serious seeker) and hence you can attain what is called as 'atma saakshaatkaaram' .....

Namaste,

Dhanyavad for the detailed post, Kalyan.

Ill have to re-visit my Vedanta books to remind myself of the Vashishta-Advaita view, more reading coming my way i guess.

Now i am a bit different then you regarding the use of Shastras, i value them and respect them greatly as i always have and will, but there is a point when one transcends texts, especially when the subject is the object, one does not need books to know one exists in my opinion. The great Rishis and Purushas have done their bit and we owe them our entire being, but i doubt they expected us to only follow what they taught in their Shastra, Even Bhagvan Krishna tells Arjun to make his own decisions after listening to his Gita. I take this as advise from Bhagvaan direct.

your response is greatly appreciated.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. so we are only the Sakshi (passively observing, not involved) of the Objects, but how does the Sakshi become a Sakshi to itself? Do you know what i mean.

A contradiction here too. Yes, I know what you mean. For the 'Sakshi', there is no you or me. The Sakshi has already transcended these bonds. 'Sakshi' will observe everything with sameness, 'samata', be it 'you' or 'me'.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Maybe, but Who knows?

Read Ramana Maharshi's conversations, you may get your answers.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

what is the tools to know the Sakshi iteself, this is more my dilemma.

Sakshi can be perceived by Atma-anatma-viveka. Self Enquiry is the tool.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

. 'Sakshi' will observe everything with sameness, 'samata', be it 'you' or 'me'.

Namaste,

yes i do already understand that, but the question is not about the Sakshi's observations but the Sakshi itself,....actually don't worry, i think we will get bogged down in words if i contnue...lol

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you mean what 'sakshi' is in Paramarthika reality - I will say 'energy'. For normal understanding (which is not correct, you cannot separate something from 'sakshi', 'Sakshi' is the whole), a blob of energy.

"Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnamudacyate,
purnasya purnamadaya, purnameva vasisyate."

The only thing that correctly describes it is 'Aham Brahmasmi' and "Ayamatma Brahman' ('I am that' and 'This self is That').

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste Satya ji,

Sakshi: Witnessing principle; seer;

The term sākṣī as sākṣāḋ draṣṭari (ref Pāṇini) doesn't only mean a bare witness - it refers to the cognizing principle, an innate capability of all cetanas (~conscious beings).

Kutastha: Absolutely changeless; who is found without
exception in all creatures from Brahma or the creator down
to ants and Who is shining as the Self and dwells as witness
to the intellect of all creatures, rock-seated, unchanging;
another name for Brahman.

Kūṭḥastha is also a term that doesn't necessarily denote only brahman. For in the BG, we see that it is applied to akṣara which is different from the brahman who is puruṣottama, the BG itself establishes the difference - uttamaḥ puruṣaḥ tu anyaḥ .

there is philosophy that accepts that objects are only apprehended by the means of Parmanas/Manas/Indriyas but final yogya (union in this context) of knowledge of an object is realized by the Sakshi or the one observing, therefore objects are somewhat “Created”, and given Nama and Rupa by the witness, and in context of Nama and Rupa the objects are relative and changeable.

Sākṣi gocara (~realization by the sākṣī) leaves no room for any doubt/question. The prākṛta karma & jñānendriyas, as well as antaḥkaraṇas are susceptible to erroneous perception/assumptions/etc. The sākṣī is not. It is that faculty of any caitanya that can really 'know' and discern truth (validity) of any such knowledge. Being innate, it is not different from the (jīva)ātman. Now, one can see/hear/feel/smell/taste thru the respective indriyas, so though physical contact is actually taking place in the individual indriyas, and the brain assimilating and/or approximating various other inputs to form a cogent understanding, the judgement w.r.t. its reality is not happening there. For instance, a magician tricks our perception into seeing something else, but it is already apparent to the audience that what is perceived is not true, in the sense that thought both the rabbit and the hat are real, the former coming out of the hat is already cognized by the discerning audience as a trick. Whereas the mind would have you believe it is magic, the sākṣī cognizes it as merely a trick that involves taking advantage of the limitations of sensory perception and uses intelligence to reason it out. All karaṇas from ahaṁkāra, buddhi, manas, to pāda are instruments functioning as conduits for the ātman. So indeed, the objects are dependent on them being perceived by the sākṣī, however, that does not deny their existence altogether, for whether one perceives it or not, say, an elephant exists nevertheless, unlike śukti-rajata (silver in the nacre) where the tenability of silver is only as long as the (mis)perception lasts. The latter is only erroneous perception, and cannot be generalized and extended to impose similar ontological reality of all other vastu. Similarly, whether you call an elephant gaja or kari or āne, or as kesari or siṁha, its reality doesn't change, only practical interactions become difficult. Similarly, if one knows about clay, he knows about the nature of pots, owing to the fact that pots derive their nature from what they are composed of, though you cannot extend the same knowledge to that of a nail-cutter made of iron, for which you need to understand the properties of iron.

The Hindu idea is that we must first have complete knowledge of this Sakshi on its own before the Sakshi has knowledge of what is observed, some may consider the Sakshi as an object of observation because of this, but if we do this is it not still giving a Nama and Rupa to the Saakshi?

but how does the Sakshi become a Sakshi to itself?

which would make it also relative and changeable?

But How do we realize the Sakshi in the first place?

The ego has to be transcended in order for our Manas/chit to become free of the Vrittis that inhibit it and obstruct our inner Sakshi from realizing itself, also it is believed that the complete knowledge of any object becomes more clear through certain practices that enhance our perceptions of that object, we know fully an object once we (as the observer) have (somewhat) merged as it were with the object of observation.

My last question, how do we know or how do we come to know that the Sakshi is real?

Realizing the sākṣī means untangling the unassailable cognizing principle from the prākṛta upakaraṇas that the sākṣī has grown to be dependent on in its natural functioning. When you can see with your eyes closed, hear without the ears, etc you can be sure that these are the indicators of sākṣī being awakened (pls read allegorically). There is a difference b/w prākṛtendriya perception and sākṣigocara for, the latter is direct experience. Sākṣī knowing itself doesn't result in the internal subject-object contradiction because self-cognzing is saviśeṣābheda, i.e., difference from the point of view of reference and not essence. If you say apple cannot know its own sweetness, it is acceptable, but to extend it to non-jaḍa caitanya is not appropriate, and also contradicts the experience of the entire human race in their individual experience of being (i am), being in pain, happiness, misery, etc. One cannot ever explain the exact amount of happiness to another, but that doesn't mean you yourself don't know how happy you are. Sākṣī is svaprakāśa - capable of knowing itself, by nature.
Transcending ahaṁ, cittavṛtti-nirodha are merely external indicators, the more one tries to control cittavṛttis, the more one gets entangled in them. In fact, correct knowledge arises not from immersion/merging but from discernment. Can a man drowning in the sea ever estimate its extent? The very term viveka means the ability to see the distinction. From our own experience it is clear we are not jaḍa-prākṛta body, from our own prākṛta faculties, this is all we can gather. These prākṛta faculties themselves function due to their governing principles - recognized in the śāstras as devatas. The śāstras guide us on the a-prākṛta or nirguṇa, the viveka to discern is that of the sākṣī. Śāstras indicate three principles, two sentient and one insentient - brahman, jīva, and prakṛti, {ajāmekāṁ lohitashuklakṛṣṇāṁ.... ajo hyeko..anuśete...ajaḥ anyaḥ - śve.up} The ātman identifies with the prakṛti and undergoes misery, identifying with the brahman enjoys mokṣa - now just as identifying with the body doesn't make the ātman body itself, identifying with the brahman doesn't make it brahman. Well, until it is crystal clear, it is only thru inference. Inference is only to the extent of considering and pursuing the possibility. There are many sciences involved in the "how" part and is a gradual process and the Gītā provides an excellent and comprehensive manual.

And if that object is the subject itself then is that not a form of ADVAITA? maybe?

Try not to think of any philosophy at the moment, for they are meaningless unless one has the capability to discern their respective merits/demerits by analyzing and comparing them with svānubhava without prejudice. The very term advaita means knowledge about something as it is, the opposite of dvaita from dvi-ita which means knowledge about something that is not as it is; the usage of its lexical meaning of non-dualism is fairly recent. The sākṣī as the immediate intuitive faculty operates in both the prākṛta and a-prākṛta realms and it is this faculty that beholds the Veda mantras which is why the terms mantra-drṣṭa, and because such sākṣī is accepted to be the ultimate validating principle, vedavākyas are accepted as such. However, this also implies that when trying to understand the śrutis, one has to consider the sākṣipratyakṣa, especially w.r.t those śrutis that speak of prākṛta domain available for immediate experience by the untainted sākṣī. Śrutis that expound aprākṛta satya, are given precedence in that domain. As for non-dualistic experience, nobody has/can vouch that they have realized absolute unity with brahman, and if they haven't there is not much credibility in proposing such a thing.

Ideally a different thread, but very relevant is Yājñavallkya's discourse to Maitreyi - two maitreyi brāhmaṇas in the Brh.Up. This very idea of losing individuality is raised and refuted.

What does your Sampradaya/Darshan teach in regards to attaining the state of the Sakshi?

1. Practice your nityakarma without fail. Never indulge in deva, śāstra nindana. Saṁpradāya matters only here.
2. Meditate at least for 45 mins preferably during brāhmī muhūrta
3. Seek, if possible, or pray for divine guidance from Guru
4. The possibility for knowing one's own self is possible only thru the right Guru - the svarūpoddhāraka Guru - darśana is actually a darśana only after this point, it is mere tautology until then.
5. Deemphasis of tarka - reasoning - replaced by svānubhava - immediate intuition/experience not accepting anything unless tested by one's own experience but not out of ego.
[General until here; from here on, path is very specific to each individual]
6. Instruction by Guru on deeper penance in seclusion OR sharing knowledge (without self-advertisement) OR both - depends on the svabhāva of the individual
7. Unique form of antaryāmin in flashes - indicates partial cittaśuddhi and svarūpa-abhivyakti. Now begins real sādhana.

*Based on my experiences following the path of Śri Madhva's tattvavāda. This is also the only darśana that speaks and interprets śāstras entirely from the point of view of sākṣī of jīvas - sākṣipratyakṣa is accorded the status as the unassailable basis of realizing the veracity of all pramāṇas and is unique to tattvavāda.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"तत्त्वप्रह्व, post: 4468953, member: 55730"]Namaste Satya ji,

Namaste and Dhanyavad,

The term sākṣī as sākṣāḋ draṣṭari (ref Pāṇini) doesn't only mean a bare witness - it refers to the cognizing principle, an innate capability of all cetanas (~conscious beings).

Kūṭḥastha is also a term that doesn't necessarily denote only brahman. For in the BG, we see that it is applied to akṣara which is different from the brahman who is puruṣottama, the BG itself establishes the difference - uttamaḥ puruṣaḥ tu anyaḥ .

Dhanyavad for defining the terms more clearly, quite detailed reply i might add, thank you for your perspective, ill just ask minor questions as now i feel quite a beginner in the field (that is compared to your and everyone else reply so far).

May i ask from your perspective, what is the purpose of this Sakshi, in the Ultimate sense?

Try not to think of any philosophy at the moment, for they are meaningless unless one has the capability to discern their respective merits/demerits by analyzing and comparing them with svānubhava without prejudice.

I have always steered clear of identifying with just one Darshan/Samprada/Samaj ect, i have had my moments where i have supported Dvaita generally, but i consider this as my lack of knowledge and understanding of Advaita. But I have respect for all our systems.

Ideally a different thread, but very relevant is Yājñavallkya's discourse to Maitreyi - two maitreyi brāhmaṇas in the Brh.Up. This very idea of losing individuality is raised and refuted.

This thread will have me dusting the dust off my Book shelf..lol

1. Practice your nityakarma without fail. Never indulge in deva, śāstra nindana. Saṁpradāya matters only here.
2. Meditate at least for 45 mins preferably during brāhmī muhūrta
3. Seek, if possible, or pray for divine guidance from Guru
4. The possibility for knowing one's own self is possible only thru the right Guru - the svarūpoddhāraka Guru - darśana is actually a darśana only after this point, it is mere tautology until then.
5. Deemphasis of tarka - reasoning - replaced by svānubhava - immediate intuition/experience not accepting anything unless tested by one's own experience but not out of ego.
[General until here; from here on, path is very specific to each individual]
6. Instruction by Guru on deeper penance in seclusion OR sharing knowledge (without self-advertisement) OR both - depends on the svabhāva of the individual
7. Unique form of antaryāmin in flashes - indicates partial cittaśuddhi and svarūpa-abhivyakti. Now begins real sādhana.

Vary interesting, Dhayavad.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

If you mean what 'sakshi' is in Paramarthika reality - I will say 'energy'. For normal understanding (which is not correct, you cannot separate something from 'sakshi', 'Sakshi' is the whole), a blob of energy.

"Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnamudacyate,
purnasya purnamadaya, purnameva vasisyate."

The only thing that correctly describes it is 'Aham Brahmasmi' and "Ayamatma Brahman' ('I am that' and 'This self is That').

Namaste,

Dhanyavad Aup Ji,

You know i have said it many time here AUP ji, Apart from your nonsensical support of the Aryan theory (i do mean this in a light manner) . your a smart and knowledgeable old feller.

Dhanyavad

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do take it lightly, but that is the best theory at the moment till 'out of India' theory is proved. There is no gain in considering Aryans to be indigenous and no harm in considering them as immigrants. Actually the latter view is more beneficial to Hinduism. 'They came, were won over and lived happily ever after'. Story of many people who came to India, the Tibeto-Burmans, the Sakas, the Hunas, and so many others.

On another matter, only Brahman is 'akshara'. "Sakshi' has no purpose, it just 'is'.