sākṣātkāra or realization

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�


Sākṣātkāra is evident or intuitive perception , realization�. Of what? Of one's own nature, of Being.

Yet let me ask the HDF reader for your views, opinions, perhaps even experiences of this realization.
What do you believe it is? What to you think changes or remains the same? What do you think a person's daily experience becomes?

How would you contrast this to ignorance?

praṇām


words
realization some call enlightenment , moksa, kevalya.

[hrdayananda]

Namaste, Yajvan

I believe sakshat means witness? So sakshatkara is the state of uninvolvement or detached awareness, where you act without longing for the fruits of your action, where your consciousness is not lost among external objects, but instead encompasses everything. I have glimpses of this state, but considering the fact that I don't have that all the time, I guess it was just a temporary mental state that I experienced. The real sakshatkara should be permananent and is identical to self-realisation. However, I have had blissful states where the I was not confined to the body, but encompassed everything. The bliss that is felt when in that state cannot be described.

Ignorance, on the other hand, is characterised by wrong-identification and wandering consciousness. The mind is always preocupied with external objects, so much that it forgets the Source. It is directed outward and bound by the senses.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté hrdayananda

What you offer is very appropriate . Sākṣāt means 'with one's own eyes' and hence is applied and used as 'witness' as in the term sākṣin observing , witnessing , an eye-witness.

As you mention

sakshatkara is the state of un involvement or detached awareness, where you act without longing for the fruits of your action, where
your consciousness is not lost among external objects.

Yes this is the initial stage of mokṣa - there is seperation. There is the experience of the Self, and the rest of the world. Yet one now
identifies with the Self and not with the body or diversity of life, but anchored in the Self 7x24x365 days a year in wake , dream and sleep.
One becomes established in turīya ( the 4th).


Now this word is very revealing - sākṣātkāra. We can look at it this way for appreciation purposes: sāk +ṣāt + kāra

• sāk - for now I am going to view this as sā(k) and leave the 'k' off for now; sā is a name for viṣṇu or śiva ; knowledge;
  This sā ( 3rd derivative) is a weak form of √ san , giving , bestowing , granting , yet will play a role in the definition I offer.
• ṣāt - when put after a word ( sā in this case) suggests a total change into the thing expressed by that word (sā)
• kāra - is doing, making; determination

Hence this word means from my POV the making (kāra) or the total changing into (ṣāt ) viṣṇu or śiva (sā).

When I think of viṣṇu or śiva I am lead to unboundedness and that which holds everything. These notions are in the words viṣṇu or śiva
i.e. viṣṇu is rooted in √ viṣ defined as all-pervader ; and śiva is rooted in √ śī , ' in whom all things lie ' ; which leads us to √ śvi defined as auspicious , propitious.


Sākṣātkāra is that transformation into Unboundedness of the Self, rooted in viṣṇu or śiva.

praṇām

[saidevo]

namaste Yajvan and others.

I thought of another connotation for the word sAkShAtkAra, whose direct meaning is 'eye-witnessing'. Since the Sanskrit term for eye is 'chakShu', where is the connection of the eye in the term 'sAkShAtkAra'?

• Now, chakShu--eye, is derived from chakSh--to see, which in turn is a reduplicated form of kAsh--to shine. However, it seems that neither chakShu--eye, nor chakSh--to see, appear to be part of the term 'sAkShAtkAra'.

• There is another term for the eye--akSha. Now, akShAt is the fifth--ablative case of akSha, meaning 'from the eye'; 'kAra' is 'making/doing, maker/doer'; and 'sa' is a prefix substituted for sah--prevail, possess.

• Therefore, sAkShAtkAra = sa(h) + akShAt + kAra = 'prevail with the action of being seen by the eye', that is, 'a vision obtained from the eye by the seer'.

Combined with Atman, Brahman, Ishvara, we get the terms Atma-sAkShAtkAra, brahma-sAkShAtkAra and Ishavara-sAkShAtkAra, in which context it amounts to the realization of the Atman, Brahman or Ishvara, as if they are seen visibly.

Here is an interesting article about how sAkShAtkAra relates to the three streams of VedAnata, namely, Advaita, Dvaita, and VishiShTAdvaita.
http://saileelas.org/articles/SAKSHATKARA.htm

Incidentally, Yajvan, in your explanation in post no.3, you said that 'sA' 'is a name for ViShNu or Shiva'. I think it should be 'sa' (with the short vowel), because 'sA' means 'of LakShmI, of PArvatI'. However, if we break the term as sa+akShAt+kAra, your explanation "transformation into Unboundedness of the Self, rooted in viShu or shiva" also fits nicely.

Owing to my being not adequately Sanskrit-literate, to obtain my explanation given above, I had to consult some dhAtu books, Apte's dictionary, and online MWD, pouring over them for an hour or so. These dhAtu books include:

01. 'dhAturUpakoSha' in Sanskrit-English, by D.N.Gandhi and R.J.Kanade
02. 'The Roots, Verb-Forms and Primary Derivatives of the Sanskrit Language' by W.D. Whitney
03. 'rUpachandrikA' edited by Dr.Brahmanand Tripathi
04. 'bRhaddhAtukusumAkaraH' by 'harekAnta mishraH'

Not that I have read or in anyway familiar with the contents of these books! I keep them for some painstaking reference, when a doubt persists: perils of the habit of some intellectual fast food in the place of a wholesome, regular meal, as you might say.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté saidevo,

namaste Yajvan and others.

• There is another term for the eye--akSha. Now, akShAt is the fifth--ablative case of akSha, meaning 'from the eye'; 'kAra' is 'making/doing, maker/doer'; and 'sa' is a prefix substituted for sah--prevail, possess.

Owing to my being not adequately Sanskrit-literate, to obtain my explanation given above, I had to consult some dhAtu books, Apte's dictionary, and online MWD, pouring over them for an hour or so. These dhAtu books include:

01. 'dhAturUpakoSha' in Sanskrit-English, by D.N.Gandhi and R.J.Kanade
02. 'The Roots, Verb-Forms and Primary Derivatives of the Sanskrit Language' by W.D. Whitney
03. 'rUpachandrikA' edited by Dr.Brahmanand Tripathi
04. 'bRhaddhAtukusumAkaraH' by 'harekAnta mishraH'

Not that I have read or in anyway familiar with the contents of these books! I keep them for some painstaking reference

A nice review indeed. Yes I know of this going from book to book (often) .

Let me offer this idea to the association of what you have brought ... how it applies to rudrākṣā

• akṣa अक्ष is for akṣi the eye; also it’s a seed; it is also considered the beam of a balance or string which holds the pivot of the beam; and this akśa is also a measure of weight.
• rudra रुद्र- we know as crying , howling , roaring , dreadful , terrific , terrible , horrible;
• yet this rudra is also red , shining , glittering from its root rud or rudh. And we know this rudra is another name for śiva, so no news here.

So one can say by definition that the bead is his akṣa , eye. Others say it is his tears. And others say rudrākṣa means it is pleasing to the eyes -akṣa of rudra.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Sākṣātkāra is evident or intuitive perception , realization�. Of what? Of one's own nature, of Being.

Why does this realization to stay firm , start within , beyond the senses or atīndriya� ? Knowledge starts the process and it is via the senses ( observing, reading, listening), yet for this realization to take hold all the sense objects , even learning must be left behind. Why so?


praṇām

words

• atīndriya beyond the (cognizance of the) senses
• realization some call enlightenment , moksa, kevalya

[sringeri]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�



Why does this realization to stay firm , start within , beyond the senses or atīndriya� ? Knowledge starts the process and it is via the senses ( observing, reading, listening), yet for this realization to take hold all the sense objects , even learning must be left behind. Why so?


praṇām

words

• atīndriya beyond the (cognizance of the) senses
• realization some call enlightenment , moksa, kevalya

Pranams


It is a pleasure always to read and try imbibe the discussion in this forum. I am doubly pleased as this is between two active cogninatii ( can we use this term ) here

Let the year bring health and prosperity to all

Sringeri

[saidevo]

namaste Yajvan and others.

Just as a ladder, a car, or even our own body has to be abandoned after it is used for the specific purpose/destination/life, knowledge of the absolute reality has to leave behind the tools of learning that were used to accomplish it.

The eyes, ears, mouth, mind and other senses involved in the learning process, are exclusive to their own areas. For example, the eyes cannot know what the ears can and vice versa. The mind attaches itself readily to the inputs of all other senses and gets an inclusive knowledge, but because the mind is guided by the ego, this knowledge is insufficient. Although the mind might intellectually understand the absolute reality, it would still be a belief (with the doubt lurking behind), not a realization, and thus would be insufficient.

To have the realization--sAkShAtkAra, the mind thus needs to look inside rather than at the external world. As it meditates to look inside, all the senses converge on a single point like the rays of the sun through a lens, and with enough tapas--heat, generated, the veil is pierced, giving momentary glances of the absolute reality that is immanent as the Self.

Once the momentary glances are accomplished, the seeker becomes a mumukShu--desirous of mokSha, and withdraws himself more and more towards personal realization of the Self. Ultimately, when the seeker is able to sustain the realization of the Self in his other three states of existence, he finds as the wise say, that he has his senses a thousandfold, and yet they all merge at all times into a single Reality.

[Onkara]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�



Why does this realization to stay firm , start within , beyond the senses or atīndriya� ? Knowledge starts the process and it is via the senses ( observing, reading, listening), yet for this realization to take hold all the sense objects , even learning must be left behind. Why so?


praṇām

words

• atīndriya beyond the (cognizance of the) senses
• realization some call enlightenment , moksa, kevalya

Namast� Yajvanji
The mind is said to consist of elements. It is therefore material in nature. So too is the information we learn a part of the mind's ability to store and recall subject to the elements, such as food, intoxicants and of course time.

Chandogya:
"VI-v-1: �Food, when eaten, becomes divided into three parts. What is its grossest ingredient, that becomes faeces; what is the middling ingredient, that becomes flesh; and what is the subtlest ingredient, that becomes mind."

Therefore Self-realisation cannot be of the material mind, although the mind must be used to see the Self clearly, through the senses as you say:

Katha Upanishad 2-I-11. By mind alone is this attainable; there is no difference here whatsoever. Whoso here sees as though different, passes from death to death."

The Self is here described for us:
Katha Upanishad 1-II-20. The Self that is subtler than the subtle and greater than the great is seated in the heart of every creature. One who is free from desire sees the glory of the Self through the tranquillity of the mind and senses and becomes absolved from grief.
1-II-21. While sitting, It goes far, while lying It goes everywhere. Who other than me can know that Deity who is joyful and joyless.
1-II-22. The intelligent one having known the Self to be bodiless in (all) bodies, to be firmly seated in things that are perishable, and to be great and all-pervading, does not grieve.
1-II-23. The Self cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, not by intelligence nor by much hearing. Only by him who seeks to know the Self can It be attained. To him the Self reveals Its own nature."

We must be alert as it is the infirm mind which will distance this teaching, making it appear to address someone different to ourselves or reduce it to academics. This is another reason we must start within, stay firm and look for the Self inside ourself.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté snip, saidevo ( et.al)

Both of your responses are most insightful. If I may I'd like to add one more notion for your consideration. When one is ~looking~ for something it seems to start at the closest point to begin the investigation. What then is closer then one's own Self?

There is no doubt that the environment is permeated by Being . Every fiber , every molecule or strand of creation is bathing in Being ( so say the wise via their direct and personal experience). Yet for us to begin there is a bit difficult. Why so? Because of distractions. The ears wish to go here-and-their ( hear and there); the eyes are accustomed to look for change, the nose is attracted to the next sent in the air. Like that there are multiple distractions for the person doing the investigation of Being, brahman.

Hence it seems then to ~turn off~ the senses and look within. Just as a horse or other animal is quieted by putting a cover over its head to block out sight/seeing, we too can close our eyes and the mind begins to settle down. It triggers the rest response in us ( like sleeping, we begin with shutting the eyes). We then can start the inward march.

Now this ~march~ is just words, to give a picture of what is occurring. What occurs is finer and finer levels of our Being is being experienced. What is occurring ? Nyāyena - from the root ni that into which a thing goes back i.e. an original type , standard , method. And what do we to accomplish with this ~going back~ ? Patañjali-ji would say stilling (nirodhaḥ) the active (vṛtti) mind (citta). It is in this perfect still-ness we find Being.

praṇām