Brahman is unqualified, consciousness or chit, and as jagat kAranam is also 'sat'.
This unqualified chit, is not available for knowledge, as an object, it cannot be available as any object of ones knowledge, since , any object is 'qualified'. Which means it will have some qualfication, to be qualified as an object. Object means qualifications only, when we say 'it is' we have to say something, about 'it'.
So any object, first is qualified as being an 'object' , same time is also having additional qualifications.
So any object, first is qualified as being an 'object' , same time is also having additional qualifications.
Now what is this chit, how is it to be known, if it can never be an object of knowledge.
ShAstra points out, that chit is already known, but not recognized as such, for what it is, which is chit.
It is simply 'I'. I is thought to be 'body', 'mind', 'bodymind', 'subtle body,' 'causal body,' waker', 'dreamer', 'sleeper', 'samadhi I' and so on, which are all 'qualified, attributeful objects'.
But no, that is not I, since I say, my body, my mind and so on, I am not the object, which is objectifiable.
Even when someone scolds me, I, remains unobjectifiable, they look at my body and say, he did this and scold me, but I am not subject to objectification. I cant be called 'subject' also, the body I , is subject with reference to the rose , when it is said, I see rose, but by 'itself' , I is not intrinsically a seer. In deep sleep, in fact in between two thoughts there is a gap, without which thoughts would criss cross,here there is no subject object division, yet I am.
ShAstra points out, that chit is already known, but not recognized as such, for what it is, which is chit.
It is simply 'I'. I is thought to be 'body', 'mind', 'bodymind', 'subtle body,' 'causal body,' waker', 'dreamer', 'sleeper', 'samadhi I' and so on, which are all 'qualified, attributeful objects'.
But no, that is not I, since I say, my body, my mind and so on, I am not the object, which is objectifiable.
Even when someone scolds me, I, remains unobjectifiable, they look at my body and say, he did this and scold me, but I am not subject to objectification. I cant be called 'subject' also, the body I , is subject with reference to the rose , when it is said, I see rose, but by 'itself' , I is not intrinsically a seer. In deep sleep, in fact in between two thoughts there is a gap, without which thoughts would criss cross,here there is no subject object division, yet I am.
Thus through vedantic enquiry it is revealed as true that, I am indeed the unqualified chit or consciousness, unqualified consciousness, I am.
Now once we have understood this clearly, shastra goes on to say, this chit, is the SATYAM BRAHMA.
This , 'I' is 'sat'.
This , 'I' is 'sat'.
Now sat means what.Sat is said to be the cause of the universe.
The cause is ontologically satyam. Which means its any so called effect is non different from it, and it itself does not undergo any change to become the effect.
The effect is said to be the jagat, both manifest and unmanifest, also both known and unknown.
Any satyam, from its own standpoint does not undergo any change, in fact does not admit to have become the effect also, it is only from the standpoint of the effect that we call the satyam as cause. From its own standpoint satyam is not even a cause ( eg: clay and pot).
The cause is ontologically satyam. Which means its any so called effect is non different from it, and it itself does not undergo any change to become the effect.
The effect is said to be the jagat, both manifest and unmanifest, also both known and unknown.
Any satyam, from its own standpoint does not undergo any change, in fact does not admit to have become the effect also, it is only from the standpoint of the effect that we call the satyam as cause. From its own standpoint satyam is not even a cause ( eg: clay and pot).
From our own experience, body mind is known, planets, world etc. some parts of universe is known, a lot is unknown and is being explored as we speak. The manifest universe, part of it we know, partly we dont know and we are exploring, in fact in manifest universe, we know only infinitesimally small , and infinitely much of it, we dont know anything about it.
Then there is unmanifest also, that which is not even knowable. Such as a tree which is yet to sprout from its seed, is not knowable, but there may a tree in some mountain, yet unseen. waiting to be known.
Then there is unmanifest also, that which is not even knowable. Such as a tree which is yet to sprout from its seed, is not knowable, but there may a tree in some mountain, yet unseen. waiting to be known.
ShAstra says, all the objects, which are by nature qualified, in fact being an object is itself a qualification, all of this manifest, unmanifest, known unknown, has brahman or satyam as its cause.
The effect which is whatever is known ( manifest known) , unknown (manifest knowable), and unknowable ( unmanifest unkown), all of it, is an effect.
Effect by nature is non separate from its cause, any pot is non separate from clay, iron instrument is non separate from iron, the jewels are non separate from gold, the shirt is non separate from cloth, same way all qualities, qualifications, name, shape , form, function etc. all this is knowable, unmanifest also, is all non separate from brahman.
So body, if you say, body is brahman, it has qualifications, like being an object called body, being knowable, having a form, being called matter etc. all these are its qualifications, but by becoming qualified, the satyam brahman, qualified and now called as body, does not undergo change, in fact it does not become subject to objectification, hence when I say, ' I objectify this body', I being subject, body being object, the subjectification of I is a qualification for I the chit, the objectification of body is a qualification of chit ( chit is sat) , the 'objectification and subjectification' as verbs in them-self are also qualifications of a verb, this qualification is what we call 'mithya'. This qualification is mithya, is knowledge , is all knowledge. And this all knowledge one is whom we call ishvara.
All this magic is due to ishvara. Ishvara is satchitananda, you are that satchitananda, there is no other chit.
With respect to the samashti (total), chit is qualified and called as parama Ishvara or parameshvara, and with respect to a body mind , sat (or chit) is qualified and called as jiva-Ishvara or jiveshvara.
This satyam brahma, is not available for objectification of course, it is unqualified chit itself, which is you.
Everything else is mithya ontologically, mithya means non separate from sat, its top bottom, inside outside all if it is sat, including its attributes etc, is all sat, the attributes are of satyam, but do not affect or change satyam brahman in any way. So you can pick up a rock, and simply say, I the picker of the rock is brahman, the rock is brahman, the act of picking is brahman, all this ' I pick up a rock' , is a tremendous knowledge, is mithya, ishvara.
Om Sairam. Om satgurave namaH. Om paramAtmane namaH. Om shri gurubhyo namaH.
