PramAta and prameyA

The pramAta, is the atma.

PrameyA is clearly anAtma.

This is atma anAtma viveka.

PramAta and prameya also have fundamental differences.

PramAta is attributeless, prameya has attributes.

PramAta is aprameya, prameya is prama through pramAnas such as pratyaksa iti.

PramAta is 'asti' svarupa, by itself exists and has no  nAma rupA, Prameya is also 'asti' but comes with nAma rupA.

ShAstra calls pramAta atma as satyam, since it is independent, while prameya is mithya, since its astitiva is not its own.

You cannot find any prameya vastu, with its own astitiva.

Hence satyam, is atma alone.

Any mithya prameya vastu, we say it exists, due to the prama that it exists.

This prama that it exists is maya shakti.

It exists, when it is said, that is all of shrshti, with all of its knowledge.

This knowledge gains existence from the atma alone, which is astitva.

But atma is like a shining sun, which itself, does not become the prameya vastus.

So the prameya vastus, only appear to have their own astitva, it is a borrowed from atma.

By itself, in fact there is nothing other than atma, atma is advitiyam.

The mithya jagad, appears with atma as Ashraya.

By gnAna it is known that atma alone is real, therefore the mithya jagad is merely a khyAti or adhyAsa.

With the jagad adhyAsa, atma becomes pramAta, and also atma becomes the various vastus.

Also atma becomes parameshvara, and there is also a jiva, with ignorance upAdhi and so on.

Hence the jagad does not arise from brahman, rather jagad is a beginingless 'khyAti' or 'superimposition' which really speaking 'ends' with gnanam.

Since atma is sathyam, the pursuit of moksa stands negated, and there is nothing to pursue for the mukta , by way of achieving moksa.

All pursuits are as they naturally occur, and this is in order, since the jagad is orderly, and known as parameshvara.

A dedication to the pitrus

OM

Namaste to the venerable ones
The upholders of the pitru loka
This is a prayer from Shivaramakrishnan
The scion of Naidruva kashyapa gotra
Son of Subramaniam Shivaramakrishnan
And grandson of Shivaramakrishnan Subramaniam.

By the travails and accounts of endless karmas,
Was born myself, in the loka of manava.

Hail the great blessing of the pitrus
Whose blessings are the sole reason
For every son of the dynasty
To be continuing this great lineage

I make my prayers to you in despair
But with the strength of my gurus and the lords blessings
For you are the most esteemed ones,
And you are the most accomplished.

You are the great dAtAs of manava loka
You bless men folk with progeny
And good health and wealth
As well as with confidence

I do have a debt , that I repay.

I thought one day, how best to repay,
There are so many efforts that one can make


Conduct grand yagnas, an shine as a million suns
Do great punya yagnas, and earn the blessings of the devas
Be of great sevice to mankind, and to devas and pitrus
Should I not set an example to be worthy of your blessings

Forgive me for naivety in my young and early adulthood,
For what I had not found was my beloved guru
To the earlier question as to how best I repay
I shall narrate , that finding a guru is indeed the best way.

Men do try , with all their limited powers.
And limited knowledge, and limited friendships
Even if they go on to befriend the devas,
And indra and all the celestials
They shall also make enemies with the asuras,
They can never ever enjoy limitless freedom.

In each and every of our limited pursuits,
The pursuit has to be understood in clarity,
May I invoke lord mahaganapthy
The very icon and devata of clarity alone
Since he is the very remover of all vignAs or obstacles.

Such clarity he lent, by the blessings of the pitrus
To seek the limitless, in this limited loka.
What is the limitless, isnt that what we seek,
isnt that what you seek, oh beloved pitrus
the manes the fathers the great great grandfathers

Oh great karma yogins and follower of the vedas
All your efforts were for worshipping the lords
The great yagnas you performed and the greatness you achieved
We are forever in praise of you

But isnt it true the self is the most beloved
And all that you did was for praising brahman

The fire is brahman, and so is the laddle
The ghee that is poured is also brahman
The one who pours the ghee is non separate from brahman
and brahman alone is the results of the karma

So what is done is for the sake of brahman
And brahman alone does what is to be done
And how it is done is none other than brahman
What else one wants other than the limitless goal

All karmas are useful to attain the readiness
Attain the greatness that takes one to a guru
And it is indeed the fruits of your greatest penances
That I had the greatest fortune of meeting my guru in this life itself

OM Shri DakshinAmurtaye namaH
OM Shri Swami Paramarthananda Saraswatiye NamaH
OM Shri Dayananda Saraswati Swamine Namaha
OM Shri Svatmavidananda Saraswathi Swamineem NamaH
OM Shri Viditatmananda Saraswatiye Namaha
OM Shri Ramakrishnaya Namaha
OM Vigneshvaraya Namaha
OM Shri Lalithatripurasundari namaH
OM Shri GaneshAya namaH
OM Karthikeya Swamine NamaH
OM Bhagavan DevakiNandanAya namaH
OM RudrAya namaH

OM Shri BAlakrishnAya namaH
OM Shri Ayyappa Swamine NamaH

OM Shri Samartha Sadguru SainAthaya Namaha

HarihOM Shri gurubhyo NamaH Harih OM.

Such a guru whom I met in my lifetime,
Isnt it a fruit of your blessings alone
I know you can hear my plea
And you can hear my prayer
And you can respond since you are the blessed ones

Anger is always possible
But so is possible to bless and cool happiness
Swami Narsmha himself had cooled down
After such an ugra form
Into the benefic form of lord laksmi Narasmha

You who are the great devotees of lord nrsmha NArAyana
I plead thy to lend your ears and  your great attention
To this secret that my guru had taught me

Knowing the true value of a guru,
Here is what he taught me,
That I dedicate and pass onto you
In the true spirit of the guru SIshya tradition


OM, is the word, that denotes the three worlds.
It denotes the waking, dreaming and sleeping states.
It denotes the three bodies of a jiva.
It denotes the three bodies of ishvara.

OM is hence a name for the lord
The lord who is all pervasive
The lord whom you worship.

But this is only the direct meaning of OM

There is indeed an implied meaning for the word OM
And this is the meaning that was taught to me
By my exalted gurus ,
Who are brahmavids and shrotriya brahmaNishta

When I say 'I', the I is indeed atma
This atma is formless, shapeless, attributeless, limitless, consciousness that is different from known objects which are matter, and of the nature of limitlessness

Such an atma is the satyam, it is indeed the truth,
It alone exists, and nothing else exists whatsoever other than this atma

This atma is tvam, this atma is aham, this atma is tad

This atma is the basis on which,
The mithya jagad is sustained

All that is here, which is OM, is sustained, or exists with atma as the basis,
But all that is here, does not enjoy the same degree of reality as atma

While atma is truth the blemishless and beginingless truth
This world only seemingly exists, and enjoys its existence, with atma being the maker as well as the material,
That is what is parameshvara, parameshvara is indeed the parambrahman, which is atma.
The great intelligent being, bhagavan is atma,
And soham iti, so am I.

Where is duality, other than just a dream,
From the paramArthika pov, there is only blemishless truth,
Satyam Gnanam Anantham brahma.

What else is possibly there, other than Aham,

What else is their to achieve,
Is this to be achieved or to be known

Soham iti, is to be known
And only to remove ignorance,
Since soham is manifest as me,
as you of beloved pitrus
Tat Tvam Asi.

OM Shri Parvathi Pathaye, Hara Hara MahAdeva.

Astitiva and nama rupa

One problem is the problem with respect to existence of nama rupa, as separate from astitiva.

The word separate is a problem.

Separate should not be used, since separate conveys 'separation in terms of space'.

or 'separation in terms of time'.
With nama rupa, it is not like that.

We see a tree, we call it a tree, this is the vyavahara. This is how the universe is.

When one talks about what is it that has treeness, and says that treeness is chaitanyam, like pot and clay. there is an issue.

Pot is a name and a form, it is a knowledge.

Same way tree is a name and form, it is a knowledge, and in a tree there is infinite knowledge.
Limitless knowledge.

Name, within names with names.

Word and meaning, millions of words and meanings, each made possible by means of knowledge being operated and meanings mined.
This which is means of knowledge operating and mining meanings, IS.
That is ishvara.

That is how ishvara is, he is the karakas and the karanas, the instrument, means of knowledge, the knower as well as known object, is what ishvara IS.
This ishvara is by oneself, atma.

Atma is the ashraya, in the sense, of atma not being the underneath layer. There is no underneath layer for ishvara.

Underneath itself is a name, a word and meaning.

Then what is this atma. This atma is anantha, in all names and forms, that which is invariably present is sat, ISness, and satAnanta hence. This satananta, happens to be you, chit.

So we say that which is invariable present, not in terms of some invariable substance.

Like in clay pots, we say clay is invariable present, in a pot?? nono, clay is not present in a pot, rather pot IS clay. All of the pot is clay alone.

Same way all of the jagad, in any name and form, IS atma alone.

Atma is hence satAnanta, and happens to be oneself, hence chit.

Hence there need not be any vrtti to keep remembering about atma. What is here is atma, that is all. It is self evident, but the ignorance has to be removed.

The thing is that, in a gold chain and bangle, the fact that it is gold is known through seeing.
However, as far as jagad is concerned that fact that jagad is chaitanyam is not known through seeing, since seeing itself is chaitanyam seeing, 'seeing chaitanyam'.
Hence it is known through shabda pramana.
Shruti has to tell, ok, see all that you hear, see, shrotrasya shrotram, chakshushah chakshu, manso manoyat, tad brahma advayam aham asmi.

In the leaf, and the sky and the tree, inside of it is not atma, rather atma itself is leafy atma, skyii atma.

I need not see atma separately, since seeing is 'seeingy' atma.
I the seer is 'seery' atma.

How can such an atma, which is ever evident, but still hidden be revealed.

It is present, but hidden, How can that be. What is here is atma alone, but still it is hidden how can that be. That can be due to ignorance. I dont know that atma alone is, and atma is non dual.

That fact I dont seem to know, and shruti makes me know.

The knowledge

We have only functional knowledge. Knowing how to do karma, and how to quench hunger etc.
We know the means and ends, thats all. Knowledge of means and ends, is not really knowledge. It is simply a recognition that this is the means and this is the ends. It is preexisting shakti or power, which is gnana shakti.

However, the real gnanam is to know that which IS.

There is only one thing, which is what you are. You are transcending all this that you know. You are transendental reality.

Revel in this reality. Because that is your nature.

Mithya Nama Rupam

When we analyse our own experience, we can see aspects of experience.
Every experience means
1. Experiencer
2. Experience thought form
3. Experienced object
4. Awareness of difference beween all these 3

If you look at each knowledge
1. Experiencer

I know I am experiencer. Which means I have the status of being an experiencer of a thought modification in my mind.
I become experiencer w.r.t the vrtti and the object. For vrttii to take place there has to be a body mind self complex. This is also an experienced object.

Another aspect of experiencer is that, experiencer IS, the ISness. Also the experiencer is different from the experienced, in nature also. We recognize the fact, that the experiencer is aware of the experienced object, but the experienced object is not aware of the experiencer.
This makes the experiencer , fundamentally different in terms of quality from the experienced objects.
We hence call this aspect of being aware, or the ability to be aware, or the quality of awareness as non separate from the experiencer, and in fact intrinsic to the experiencer, the svarupa of the experiencer. This is a key point, which serves as a svarupa lakshana of the experiencer atma, a definition for the atma, that uniquely identifies atma. Mere awareness is not enough, since awareness, is in every living being. We will talk about the essential awareness later.

2. Experience thought form
Now this is another sort of object that the experiencer is aware of, but due to its subtle nature and its ability to remove ignorance, we call this vrtti out separately, instead of clubbing it with the experienced objects.
Vrtti has ability to remove ignorance.
Any vrtti hence comes with a shakti, a power, a capability, which is the capability to remove ignorance.
Ignorance for a jiva sareera, is natural, a jiva is born with this ignorance sharira, or ignorance present.

Also point to note is that, the experienced vrtti, also conveys another knowledge, that this vrtti IS. vrtti Asti, iti. This isness is also communicated by any knowledge vrtti.

3. Experienced object
This is the third component. This is the experienced object. Any object has a certain name, form, function which it has inherent to that object. This much is known to us through our brain, our karaka, we get this knowledge through a vrtti.
Now we also get to know the specifics of this power or name form and function of any object, again by employing the brain, and the karakas, the instruments of knowledge, they reveal the particular, name , form and function of the experienced object.

One again important thing, the karakas reveal is that the experienced object, also IS. The object IS, is our knowledge from the karakas , the instruments of knowledge themselves.

4. Awareness of difference

This difference awareness, is something the mind is capable of by itself, this seems to be the learning capacity of the mind, which the mind is endowed with.

The ignorance ( mula avidya)

Now in general, any human being takes it for granted, that these separate objects, which is experiencer, experienced, experience vrtti, the awareness of differences, means that, the objects are independent of each other, the 3 or 4 are independent of each other.
But we do not fully understand the meaning of the word independent, and without any analysis, we say they are independent, which means not related. That is also ok, they may not be related directly, we tend to agree they are perhaps related indirectly through natural cycles, this much we come to know from observation and science , that they are all related.
But still we believe, the moment an object has name form and function, its existence, is intrinsic to that particular name form and function. So we do a mix up of namarupa, with the astitiva.

This mix up, is purely an assumption, it is not obtained from any valid means of knowledge.

Due to mere proximity, we assume they are mixed up. We assume that every object has existence, that is unique to itself.

For example 'tree'. we believe, that which has 'treeness' is tree. Then that which has 'treeness' is it tree or non tree? We say non tree. Then non tree has treeness? Of course not, then is it something else? Of course it is the treeness vaala isness. What is the proof, no proof, no means of knowledge to claim that the trees isness is specific to the tree.
Nor do we have any means of knowledge to say that treeness IS when we say, that isness is related to the tree, we assume it is related.
This assumption is ignorance.

Shastra tells us otherwise. Shastra tells us, that the treeness IS when we say, the ISness is a borrowed isness. It is borrowed from a fundamental isness, which is the isness of oneself. oneself meaning the expriencer, that experiencer, who has the quality of awareness or consciousnesss, he is also ISness intrinsically and is also, limitless, as in, not having any specific attribute of itself. Like gold and gold jewellery.

This knowledge comes from a valid means of knowledge which is shruti or shastra.

Another issue is space. We say tree is in that co-ordinate. The co-ordinate is also further namarupa, the co-ordinate IS, that ISness is not dependent to be on the space co-ordinate. the isness is independent, isness, it is svarupa isness, it needs no evidence, it is no in turn dependent.

THe maya shakti , of experiencer , experienced and experience vrtti, is a manifestation, of knowledge, knowledge of names and forms, and for it to manifest, it needs an astitiva, astitiva alone provides a base to manifest upon. And this knowledge has to rest in a conscious being. The conscious being is I, is ishvara, is atma.

Any knowledge has its base in atma. Is atma in fact. What is knowledge, I know this tree IS.
What is this knowledge? It is a recognition. I say , I know. Which means absence of ignorance.
Ignorance means I dont know, but even here, I know ignorance, I know that I dont know.
So this I know, is inseparable.
I comes along with know.
But I know is a potential, it is not necessarily that I have to keep knowing something all that time, in order to be I.
So this one who has the potential for gnana, to be a gnani, is the gna dhatu, is the chit. since quite clearly , the jada does not have potential for gnana.
Hence all the nama rupas rest in ishvara, who is gnana svarupa, atma that is gnana svarupa.
So you look at ishvara as sarva gnana. All gnana.
Tree gnana, is ishvara as a tree.
Sky gnanan is ishvara as the sky.
So this tree knowledge manifest is nothing but atma. This sky knowledge manifest is also atma.
The knowledge is atma, and then a specific knowledge is manifest.

Gnana and bhakti

A bhakta who desires results waits for Darshan till results come , worships ishvara as results
A bhakta who prays without wanting anything strives for constant remembrance in various forms, and worships ishvaras forms
A bhakta who wants to know the lord , spends time in study of vedanta and tries to know ishvara as he really is, and worships ishvara as guru and the scriptures
A bhakta who has gained the knowledge , knows him as chaitanyam, and is ever non separate, as all that is here is chaitanyam.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 8 (Revisiting the pursuit of gnanam)

The previous post, made it known , that you are sathyam chaitanyam, the non dual consciousness, which is from the standpoint of totality , known as ishvara and from standpoint of an specific body mind called as jiva.

These standpoints, are purely from a mithya point of view. From the standpoint of mithya ishvara, and mithya jiva.

Even the ajnana, or ignorance of a jiva, is also mithya, and a mithya knowledge, from mithya ishvara, removes this ajanana.

When ajnana is removed, the self that you are, remains as you are, but you dont have any ignorance that you are body mind. As a matter of fact, being chaitanyam which is sathyam, you never ever were ignorant, never knowledgable.

Who you are, which shAstra calls as limtless chaitanyam and so on, has always been the same, changeless reality.

You are reality itself.

You were never 'really' ignorant, ignorance is mithya.
You never 'really' needed gnanam or knowledge, that is also mithya.
You never 'really' had to become free, both bondage and freedom is 'mithya'.

Do I need to tell you who you are, I AM. Om.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam -7 (Jiva ishvara aikyam)

Now that we know sathyam , mithya of vedanta, and we also know jiva chaitanyam, ishvara chaitanyam from previous posts, it is time to communicate the primary pratigna of shAtra, which is to reveal the oneness of jiva and ishvara.

When we say the jiva chaitanya, and ishvara chaitanya are one and the same, it has to be understood by using the right method to understand the meaning of this mahavakya ( sentence communicating oneness of jiva and ishvara)

There are various ways to understand meanings of a sentence.

Let us look at a few sentences.

Direct meaning
Ramu says, " I am hungry , I ate at the hotel next to the temple."
Here the meaning is straightforward.

1.Supplying implied meaning, and also keeping entire direct meaning intact
But next day, I ask you "Where did you go?" and Ramu say "Next to the temple". Here 'I supply' the additional implied meaning that there is a hotel, next to the temple, while keeping the 'next to temple' part intact, and I understand, "that ramu ate at a place next to the temple".

2. replacing entire direct meaning with implied meaning
Then after a few days ramu sees me and says, " I again went to the temple tonight". 
Here , I , knowing that ramu is not so religious, and based on previous conversations, I completely replace the direct meaning, and look at the implied meaning that he 'ate at a hotel near the temple'.

3. keeping half of direct meaning, and replacing other half with implied meaning
Today ramu gives out a secret. He says " You know what, I was saying all these days I went next to the temple, but truth is, temple IS the hotel".
Here now, the meaning is basically that ramu used to go to temple to eat temple prasAdam ( temple food).
This is understood, by keeping the half the direct meaning that ramu DID go to the temple, but remove the direct meaning that temple IS the hotel, but replace it with the meaning that he went there to eat.


To understand the one-ness of jiva and ishvara chaitanyam, shAstra uses the 3rd type of meaning, which is keeping half of the direct meaning, but replacing other half  with an implied meaning.

This is technically called 'lakyartha' (implied meaning) or 'bhaga thyaga lakshyartha' ( 3rd type among implied).

Let us now apply this bhaga thyaga lakshyArtha, to the equation jiva IS ishvara, or jiva chaitanya IS ishvara chaitanya.

The direct meaning which is retained, is chaitanya, and that which is let go off is jivaness and ishvaraness.
This means the attribute of being the owner of the body is let go off for jiva chaitanya, and attribute of being lord of the universe ( maker and material) is let go off for ishvara chaitanya.
What is looked at,  is the truth of this 'ishvara form' and 'jiva form', which is simply chaitanya itself, which is in fact sathyam, which is formless, like our clay in the clay pot and gold in the gold chain , formless, attributeless, limitless, non negatable truth, or sathyam.

The ishvaratvam ( ishvaraness) and jivatvam ( jivaness) is Mithya.

Chaitanyam is satyam. This chaitanyam is you only.

So truly speaking, the truth is that, you are chaitanyam, and you just 'happen' to be playing the role of a jiva. Ishvara happens to be a role.

There is only one chaitanyam, and that is who you are, the non dual chaitanyam, truth of both ishvara and any jiva, is you.

This is the shift, you have to make, from identifying with body mind, which is mithya, you shift identity to your true identity, which is the non dual chaitanyam.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam -6 (Mithya in Vedanta)

Afrer introducing jiva and ishvara chaitanyam, we started to understand how shAstra communicates the oneness of two opposite principles of jiva and ishvara.

We went onto understanding the meaning of the word 'sathyam' in the general wordly way, and then understood in previous post, how vedanta, lends a special meaning to the word sathyam, and sathyam in vedanta, refers to absolute, non negatable, limitless truth.

ShAstra says chaitanyam is this absolute anatham sathyam, or limitless truth, and saying so, we wanted to understand, if chaitanyam is sathyam, then what about the manifold universe of names and forms.

That is where we introduced the word mithya, and said mithya refers to, a degree of reality, that is neither altogether false ( like horn of a hare, that does not even exist for any functional utility), nor as true as sathyam of vedanta, which is a word that can ONLY be used for the non dual cause of the universe, which is ishvara, and ishvara being chaitanyam, means the word sathyam can only be used for chaitanyam.

The question can be, if ishvara is chaitanyam, and he has become this world, why do we even need a new word mithya. Since by definition, it appears sathyam chaitanya became sathyam universe.

This is where we need to add discuss in more detail about the nature of sathyam.

What is the nature of clay in a clay pot, or gold in a bracelet. From the golds point of view, has it become anything other than gold? From golds point of view, there is gold ALONE, it has not undergone any change whatsoever to become a bracelet, it remains GOLD as it is.

Thus if we are to say, if ishvara chaitanyam, were satyam, then ishvara chaitayam, never ever should have desired or created this world out of himself ( as claimed by upanisad), since creation, means change. ShAstra says tad AkAshaH sambhootaH, akAshAt vayuH, vayoh tejaH, etc.
Which means from chaitanyam, came space, from space came air, from air fire, from fire water, from water earth.This means change in name and form.

However if we are to look at chaitanyam as 'sathyam' ( like gold of a bracelet), gold never has any name and form of itself, other than being just gold. Gold does not BECOME the bracelet from its OWN point of view, but the bracelet will say ' I am gold'. Same bracelet if you melt and make it a bangle, bangle will also say ' I am bangle', but if you ask gold, gold will say, well I was , am and will be ONLY gold .

So it appears shastra is contradicting itself. It says chaitanyam is changeless satyam. It also says from chaitanyam universe arose and resolves back into chaitanyam that makes it appear as though chaitanyam undergoes change.

Well shAstra solves this problem, by saying, in truth, or as far as absolute truth is concerned, chaitanyam, never became many, never underwent change, never took up the role of creator, preserver or destroyer, never created the world out of itself, but is was and will simply remain as it is, as chaitanyam.

The ishvartvam, ishvaraness, of chaitanyam, which we call as ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact an incidental FORM or attribute to chaitanyam, like a bracelet is form of gold. So chaitanyam becoming the universe, being the cause for the universe, this causal status is mithya. a dependant reality.

Hence ishvaratvam, or ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact mithya. Same applies to jiva chaitanyam also, jivaness is also mithya.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam -5 (Sathyam in Vedanta)

In the previous posts, we introduced jiva chaitanya, ishvara chaitanya and raised the question how shAstra can claim oneness of these two opposite principles.
This is where we raised the two fold nature of chaitanyam, which is sathyam and mithya , and started talking about what we mean by sathyam.

Sathyam as we said in the previous post, we understand its general meaning to be that which is true, known through a valid means of knowledge to be true.
We gave examples such as , 'A tree exists outside ramus home'. If I go to Ramus home and check, and I see the tree, the 'sight' reveals, that OK, this is indeed 'true' and that is what we call as 'sathyam'.

However in the vedantic context, vedanta has a pratigna, a vow, that is has to reveal the oneness of ishvara chaitanya and jiva chaitanya. This is indeed the truth, since veda is valid pramAna.

The veda has to use words to communicate this knowledge, and necessarily by design, it has to use the words, that the jignasu,the one who wants to know can understand. Words that are within the understanding of the jignAsu.

Now one such word, we discussed and clarified, is sathyam, however the word sathyam alone is not enough to communicate what veda seeks to convey.

We previously talked about ishvara chaitanyam or consciousness as ishvara, and jiva chaitanyam or consciousness in the form of jiva and we were wondering, how in the world, can veda says that jiva and ishvara are one and the same, inspite of having directly opposite attributes.

That is when we introduced the two fold nature of sathyam and mithya.

Right not we are unfolding the word sathyam.

Now shAstra, has more to say about chaitanyam or consciousness.

Shastra says 'vAchArambanam vikAram nAmadeyam, mrtikka eva satyam'.
This translates to 'Pot exists only in terms of name and form, clay alone is sathyam or truth'.

Hence shAstra now loads the word sathyam, with a special meaning, rather than the general meaning we talked about in the previous post for sathyam.

This is the vedantic meaning, and in fact a more complete meaning given to sathyam, sathyam is not simply true, it has to be in fact THE truth. What do I mean by THE truth.

Here is what it is. In a world of gold ornaments, gold is THE truth, while chain, bracelet, earring and so on are the forms and names of that gold.

In a word of clay objects clay is THE truth, while the pots, and jugs and mugs and so on are the names and forms of clay.

Same way, chaitanyam, says the shAstra is THE truth, while all that exists here, which is essentially ishvara chaitanyam, ishvaras knowledge as multifarious forms and names and objects, of which jiva chaitanya is an amsa ( small part) , that chaitanyam , is not just sathyam, but in fact THE satyam. We can use the word anantham sathyam. Chaitanyam is sathyam in the manner, how clay is the sathyam for all objects made of clay, and gold is sathyam for all objects made of gold.

In case of gold jewels, or clay pots and jugs, while the maker of the jewel, is separate person, in the cause of the jagad, shAstra says
'He desired, He became many'.

That HE or SHE as we know is chaitanyam. So here the chaitanyam is BOTH the maker as well as the material, and chaitanyam is also sathyam, THE truth of the jagad, THE truth of all  that is here, including the jiva chaitanyam , who is an amsA or a part.

Hence sathyam of vedanta, is not simple sathyam, rather is THE sathyam, non negatable sathyam, or in other words anantham sathyam, limitless sathyam.

Hence shAstra loads further meaning to the word sathyam, to now refer to absolute non negatable, limitless 'truth' and not just simple truth.

This chaitanyam, the vastu the , thing, that is chaitanyam, is ekam, is ONE, is non dual, advitiyam, and is also sathyam or truth of all that is here.

Note carefully, the word sathyam here, does not qualify chaitanyam as an adjective, rather reveals the 'reality' of chaitanyam to be 'truth', and not just conventional truth, rather  communicates the knowledge that chaitanyam is 'absolute truth', non negatable, limitless truth, using the example of clay and pots, gold and jewels in order to load meaning.

Now OK, I understood, that sathyam means absolute truth, then what about the jagad, what word , what reality word will you use for all that this chaitanyam has become. What word will you use for chaitanyam as ishvara, as all knowledge, as every object? can we say anrtham? can we say 'false'? NO. Since there is functional utility for this world, it cannot be said to be false.

Therefore shAstra now introduces the word 'mithya', that can be used for jagad.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam -4 (Sathyam)

In previous posts we talked about jiva chaitanya, ishvara chaitanya, and two fold nature of reality.

We ended by saying, sathyam and mithya is the two fold nature.

In this post, we will talk about sathyam.

It is important to understand the kind of word sathyam and mithya is.

There are various words that describe an object.

We can use an adjective. We can say, this flower is a 'red' flower.
An adjective 'differentiates' an object, from rest of the objects of the same species. So an adjective qualifies a noun, and brings out its difference. That is the job of an adjective.

Ramu is a station master. Shamu is an honest station master. The word 'honest' qualifies shamu the station master, and differentiates him from other station masters.

However, there are certain words, which are simply reality words. They also qualify the object, but do not differentiate it. Instead they communicate its reality.

For example if we say, 'hair of a tortoise'. Now we all know that in reality, in the objective reality that we observe, the animal, that we call as tortoise, has no hair. Therefore, hair of a tortoise, is a 'false' object. Another example of 'horn of a hare'. There can be many such examples.

"False" is hence a word that qualifies an object but does not differentiate it from within its species.
In sanskrit we use the word 'anrtham' , the reality word, for 'false'.

In opposition stands the word 'true' or 'sathyam'. A tree, sky and so on, can be said to be true. If an object is said to exist, when known through a valid means of knowledge, it can be said to be 'true' in the general sense.

Hence we now have a nice and straightforward meaning for the word Sathyam.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 3 ( Two Fold Nature of Reality)

In post 1 and post 2 the ishvara chaitanya, and jiva chaitanya was mentioned.

Now what is the svarupa, of this chaitanya?

This is to be known, since earlier, we only said that chaitanya, is sAkshi.
We also talked about ishvara, and said ishvara is also a conscious being, chaitanya svarupa.

Now comes the main part of the teaching of vedanta, which is the oneness of this ishvara chaitanya and jiva chaitanya.

The very valid question put forth by a seeker, is, OK, I agree ishvara is chaitanya svarupa, and jiva is chaitanya svarupa, which means conscious being, or consciousness.

However, if you see ishvaras consciousness, it is qualifed, ishvara is qualified with the MEGA knowledge, with all knowledge, with all power, in fact the entire creation is ishvara.

However, jiva chaitanya, can at best only be called an amsA, a small part, like the little finger in the body, perhaps we can say , jiva chaitanya is a small PART of ishvara chaitanya.

That is the best we can see, then how come, do you say, there is NON DUAL? There is only duality, ishvara and jiva. Both may be conscious principles, both may be consciousness, however That ishvara consciousness is All Glory, but this little jiva consciousness that I am, is nothing in comparison. I am a dependant person, for every small thing I depend on others, or for ishvara, from food down to sleep , I am dependant. How can we then say ishvara and jiva are one and the same?

This is where we stand, at cross roads.

This is where shAstra talks about the nature of reality being "two fold", depending on how we look at it.

This two fold is sathyam and mithya.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 2 (Ishvara)

Chaitanyam means consciousness. This was the understand we gained in previous post 'Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 1 (jiva)'

Now let us look at ishvara.

The upanisad tells us that, he desired, he created, he became all this.
From his own knowledge, he manifest the unmanifest universe into manifestation. The universe is his knowledge, and it cyclically becomes manifest as an organic being, which also non separate from him, and goes back into seed form, which is also his knowledge.

Noe let us look at this HE. This HE, can he be 'material object' ? What is his nature, is it material, or is it consciousness.

We look around universe, there is order, there is water cycle, nitrogen cycle, gravity, nine planets rotating revolving in geometry, human body has so much complexities, that there is specialist doctor for every part.

Certainly for such order to be present, it requires a conscious being.

Upanisad tells us the same thing, that ishvara is satchitAnantha, he is limitless conscious being, who is the cause of existence.

So certainly ishvara is also consciousness.

Ishvara is chaitanyam with the attribute or function of being creator, maintainer and dissolver of entire universe.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 1 (jiva)

Chaitanyam means consciousness. For us to understand the meaning of the word, consciousness, we have to rely on knowledge we already have, generally have. Vedanta only takes our current experience and teaches with 'known words'.

So consciousness , when we say, chaitanyam, refers to a known meaning, it is a meaning, which indicates the difference between , myself, the knower, and NOT me, the known.

I know, the rock.
I know, the tree.
I know my body.
I know the book.
I know the laptop.

Here 'I' is 'understood' generally, by even folks not interested in vedanta, it is understood, to be different in terms of quality, from the object that is known.

I, is understood to be knower, capable of knowing, capable of being conscious of another object, capable of being conscious as such, we convert that to a noun, instead of everytime saying the big phrase 'that which is capable of being conscious of another object' we replace the phrase with a noun form, 'awareness' or 'consciousness', or in sanskrit we say 'chaitanyam'.

So this is the way we understand the meaning of the word chaitanyam, referring to myself, who , w.r.t any object, is a sAkshi or witness or knower or awarer, is sAkshi chaitanyam, witness consciousness, knower consciousness, or simply consciousness.

JIva is chaitanyam with the attribute of being the controller of this body mind self complex.