Clearly understanding what mithya means?

Mithya is a word with a meaning.

Mithya is not an object , that we know, nor any object that Is knowable,nor an object that cannot be known.

Some words are not words that give object knowledge, they simply are reality words.

Devadatta is here. Devayan is not here.

‘is’ and ‘is not’ are reality words. They indicate the presence or absence of an object. These words can be applied to any object, reveal the nature of its existence.

For example we say, the horn of a hare does not exist. It is false.

In case we see horn of a hare, a hare with a horn , made with some video trick, we call it as illusion, or a trick, and hence we say it is false.

In Sanskrit we call this tuccham. We call an object as tuccham in our understanding, knowing that it does not really exist.

Whereas, we know that hare itself exists. So the hare we call it as satyam.

What we can know through sense perception, or inference and is determined to be true we call as satyam or true. We say it is true, it is a reality word, there Is no object called ‘true’.

Now in vedanta, we have to communicate something, what we call as brahma vastu, so in order to communicate that vastu, which is not available as an object of experience, the word satyam is given a new meaning. We call satyam, only as that, which is kAla trayepi tistathi, is evident in all 3 periods of time, which means does not undergo any change with respect to time.

Then what will we call the tree, the human body etc. all these things, we used to call as satyam.

Shastra has to account for these object which are time bound.

Before accounting for, shastra constructs a word called mithya, for which it also has to provide an appropriate meaning.

And the meaning for mithya is ‘mithya is a reality word, where the reality being conveyed is that, the thing exists, but its existence is not an independent existence, whereas, its existence is dependant on another thing. We call that thing as adhistAnam. The adhistAnam does not undergo any change to become this thing. Such a thing is mithya.’

ShAstra further gives examples, a chain made of gold, chain while it is gold, gold is not chain.

So chain, the thing, chain, is mithya chain, in terms of its reality.

Please note the chain is not negated, chain very much exists, and its existence is understood to be gold.

Similarly rope and snake.In darkness we think the rope is a snake. The snake does exist, but if you try to grab snake, a rope will come in your hand.

With this understanding of the word mithya, we can now look at the brahma vastu.

Brahman is said to be sAkshi chaitanyam. Which is simply, ‘I’ understood thoroughly.

‘I’ am self evident. In waking state I am the knower/doer, in sleeping state I am the sleeper, in deep sleep, I sleep well.

I am the gross body, I am the subtle body, I am the causal body.

Being all these, at the same time, I am independent of all these.

I am not subject to time, since I am aware of time. I am not subject to acquiring the attributes of the body, since I am aware of the body , and being independent. I am aware of being the waker, dreamer and sleeper. Hence intrinsically, I am simply , conscious being, who is self evident.

Conscious being means, not always conscious of something, rather means, the one who is conscious of anything in waking state, the one who is aware I slept well, the one who is aware I dreamt, the very person, who is all the three. Hence I am not subject to time, not time bound.

I, hence, am ‘satyam’ , I qualify for shAstras definition of satyam.

Now anything that I am aware of, such as body, mind, waking state , dreaming state, deep sleep, all these, depend on I, do not exist independent of I.

The waker I, is not independent of I.

The dreamer I, is not independent of I.

So the dreamer and the waker is also ‘I’, and, in terms of reality, dreamer waker, body I, etc. is mithya.

So any mithya is non separate from satyam, and satyam is unchanging, and has no relationship with what we call as mithya.

Like a pot is always clay, clay never accepts that it became pot, from its own standpoint it is always clay.

Now we may argue, this is not true for ‘I’. ‘I’ which we call with the name brahman, we say is subject to becoming the knower of a thing, the doer etc. If that were the case, there will be no continuity, I will always remain knower of flower if I see a flower, but flower goes, tree comes, tree goes light comes, then sleep comes, then no knower, then wake up, world knower, then day dreaming  dream knower and so on.

So I am not subject to change at all.

Hence the knower I, is a certain understanding of I, which is non separate from the changeless I.

Hence we call it as mithya in terms of its reality.

Then satyam we call what, we call only brahman, what we understood to be sAkshi chaitanya as satyam.

Does it mean the waker I ,is not I. No , like we said, mithya means it has its being in satyam, and satyam undergoes no change.

This is what shastra communicates.  In this we may have doubt.

We may say, how it is possible that the achetana body, has chetana I, as its adhistAnam?

Answer is , why not, what you mean by chetana.Chetana, means the content of the knower, this I IS. And everything else is, including waker, dreamer, sleeper, and body mind etc. It is clear these have no independent existence, and only since the sAkshi IS, that is why waker is and so on.

So it is known in your experience this is possible.

Now what about other than my body mind etc. what about objects, space time etc.

Well these are all upadhis. Even body mind is an upadhi, it is not you. From standpoint of body mind upadhi, you call I as waker I.

Now who is the maker of this upadhi.

We say there is no maker, the upadhi is there all the time. It is timeless. It only becomes manifest and then goes back into seed form.

Oh, then that which is in seed form, where does it exists?

It is mithya, which means it has its being in adhistAnam brahman.

We call this seed form as ishvara.Since its brahman with all power, all knowledge and all material.

Ishvara is brahman, you are also brahman.

So all that is here is brahman.