advaitam eva satyam

Advaitam eva satyam. Only non dual one is real.


I or consciousness or chaitanyam is the non dual reality. The notion of duality, the experience of duality, implies, observer, observed, experiencer, experienced.

The experiencer or observer is satyam , the chaitanyam.

Due to ignorance there is an experienced, or observed, and that experienced observed is jadam.
It being due to ignorance, is in fact mithya, which means has no existence of its own, its existence being none other than the self existence of the self, and its being is the self or chaitanyam.

Thereby the experienced jadam, the experienced object has no reality other than chaitanyam.

Thereby chaitanyam or oneself is the only reality.

So in terms of reality there is only one reality.

The experiencer, experienced duality is mithya.

The existence of jadam is not denied. Jadam very much exists, just like pot exists. Existence of pot is not denied. Rather the existence of pot is seen to be none other than clay.

Same way existence of jadam, is none other than existence of thoughts, is none other than existence of chaitanyam or atman. 

Atman and anatman

Atman is Brahman
Anatman is mithya, which has its being in Brahman
Mithya means not other than Brahman
Mithya has no existence other than that which is Satyam
Satyam is self existent.

Lord Ganesha

Glories of Ganapathy

Life is led day by day. We do set goals for the future and aspirations , but what is to be done is done on a daily basis. We all wake up with thought and worry for the future ahead and need strength . we not only need strength we look forward to being able to surpass all impediments.
It is our prarabdha that comes to us as impediments. Lord ganesha is the causal Brahman who alone doles out our prarabdha as various impediments sometimes. What is also his glory is his infinite ability to grace us. He alone appears as what seem to be insurmountable obstacles. The same Ganapathy also makes the seemingly insurmountable obstacle most easily surpassable. He makes the impossible, possible with ease. No day should begin, no good action should initiate without invoking the winning grace of lord ganesha. He instills courage, wisdom , strength , takes care of enemies along the way, softens blows , strengthens our armor, and what if at all is there which cannot be achieved when lord ganesha is with us. He is maha Ganapathy, the lord of lords, the cause of the universe.

Difference between satyam and mithya

Subject and Object are mithya

Satyam atma is neither subject nor object

Jadam is mithya

Satyam is jnanam

Mithya jagad is with name and form

Satyam atma has no name or form

Mithya jagad doesn't exist independently, its existence is borrowed from satyam

Satyam atma exists independently

Mithya jagad is subject to arrival and departure, manifest and unmanifest

Satyam atma undergoes no change

Mithya jagad is parinami upadana karanam, undergoes change

Satyam atma is vivarta upadana karanam, undergoing no change

Confusions with sakshi chaitanyam

1. Objectifying sakshi chaitanyam when shastra talks about sakshi chaitanyam

Clarification

• I am chaitanyam, I am sakshi
• I objectify everything
• I reveal all objects
• In my presence alone revelation happens for any object knowledge
• I am unchanging in all periods of time

2. If atma is known as sakshi chaitanyam by just drk drshya viveka, what then is brahma jnanam and need for shabda pramana?

Clarification

• Who is brahman? , only shastra is the pramana for what the word means.
• Satchitananda is brahma svarupam. Svarupa lakshanam. This is from shabda pramana.
• The words together uniquely define only brahman and none other than brahman.
• The word chit, refers to Chaitanyam or consciousness.I only know that I am conciousness, but shastra says consciousness is a word for brahman, but not 'individuals consciousness' rather 'consciousness' alongside sat and ananta.
• Shabda pramana says in the beginning brahman alone is. There is no jagad, brahman alone is.
• This brahman is satchidananda svarupam.
• Satchit I am , as per definition of sakshi chaitanyam. How? Anantam means again, timewise anantam. Sakshi is unchanging consciousness in waking dreaming sleeping, past present future, hence is satchit.

Brahman the cause, is satchitananta, satchit, not limited by space and time. Individual consciousness is understood as satchit. When we say individual and total are one and the same, then we have to take the lakshyartha. Wherein the causal brahman satchitananda, is said to be none other than individual satchit. We minus the upadhi of individual body and total body, and arrive at consciousness , which is sakshi chaitanay. Sakshi chaitanyam not limited by upAdhis of individual etc. Sakshi is a status only with respect to 3 states of waking, dreaming and sleep, and other states.Therefore I is pure chaitanyam.

That I am parabrama which is explained as satchidananda has revelations.It means what I consider myself as, which is body, as karta, as bhokta etc. do not hold fort.Since satchidananda, does not have parts, is not subject to coming and going etc.Then what is the source of all this, where it came from, which made me sakshi with respect to a body. Am I as sakshi inside space, no, but we say space IS. So another set of confusions are there to be resolved with regard to jagad.

Shastra says jagad is mithya.

3.  Mithya is other than atma

Clarification

• Mithya is not a vastu. 
• It is an ontological word revealing the reality of a vastu. 
• A vastu having its being or reality in satyam, is mithya. 
• Such as pot, is. Pot is useful. Pot has its reality in clay, pot is clay. Pot is none other than clay.
• Yet there is a pot, with potness. Name , and,  a form to go with the name.
• Same way , space is the name, spaceness is the form, to go with the name 'space'. Word and meaning. They never exist in isolation. With the name space there is always a form to go with it.  
• Space is mithya means, Space is brahman. Space is atma. 
• So as such nothing is to be understood or known other than brahman. 
• Many other shruti statements corroborate, knowing which all is known, everything is as well known.

Now to look at few other projections due to ignorance.

4. If we say mithya is satyam, such as space is brahman, doesn't brahman become an object.

• Object when we say, we refer to  A. spaceness, name space and spaceness form, and we also refer to B. knowledge of space name and space form.
• The knowledge space name and space form, itself IS. 
• The knowledge implies a knower. The one who knows. The one who knows, himself IS. 
• What IS , is the adhistAnam of space, of space knowledge and of space knower.
• The reality of space. Himself he is space. He himself is the knower of space as well as space knowledge.
• So this object subject, is statuses, reality the vastu is one.
• Object 'is', subject 'is'. What is, is neither object, nor subject, it is reality vastu atma brahman.

5. Atma is underneath object and subject

• "Underneath" when we say, objects alone are underneath or above in terms of space. 
• Now space, objects, knowledge of underneath etc. are all atma with name and form.Name and form like pot and pot form.
• Brahman or atman is. Subject object is brahman. Brahman is neither subject nor object.
• So all the way we understand subject object, is brahman.
• All is brahman

OM

Sarvam khalvidam brahma

OM

All that is here is brahman.

I am that brahman.

This is not something to be noticed or seen carefully.

This is purely nothing other than knowledge.

This knowledge is possible, since the brahman that is being referred to is none other than 'I'.

I is self evident consciousness.

This self evident I is self existent.

This self existent , self evident I is the reality.

I am the reality.

Which means any name form 'is', refers to I 'is'.

I 'is'. Similarly object 'is'. Subject 'is'.

The names and forms the words 'is'.

The space 'is'.

The names and forms in space 'is'.

Experience 'is'.

Universe 'is'. Known , knowable unseen universe 'is'.

I is the reality of all that is.

All that is is sarvam.

Sarvam brahman, which is me.

So every name and form is me.

I am not limited to particular name and form.

Every name form is, is I.

Let this universe be, it is mithya.

Universe is mithya.

Anatma is mithya.

Atma is satyam.

Self evident- Sakshi- Pramata- Brahman

• I am self evident, svataH sidhaH.
• I am sakshi chaitanyam
• I am not an object of knowledge, since I am pramAta, and every object becomes evident to me by means of a pramAna
• I am jnana svarupam (consciousness)
• I am satyamJnanam, I am self existent
• I am ekam, advaitam
• I am nirgunam
• I am nirAkaram

With respect to individual body mind, I am sakshi of all 3 states. But what about with respect to totality?

• I alone am sakshi of srshti, sththi, and laya
• I am the seed which has sprouted and grown into the prapancha
• I am the intelligent cause of this manifestation, I am the unmanifest
• I am the upAdana karanam, the material cause
• I am the srshti karta, the one who put together the jagad in intelligent fashion and intelligent manner
• I am all the devatas, who preside over the various functions
• I am prana, the life force
• I am the reality or truth of the jiva
• I am the reality or truth of guru tattva
• I am the reality of vedas
• I am the reality of the knowledge of the vedas
• I am the reality of the jnani bhakta

I dont need ishvara upAdhi (paramesvara) to claim I am that ishvara, since I am the reality of that mithya ishvara (paramesvara) also. So even with jivesvara upadhi , I am simply the sakshi chaitanyam, I claim I am the Only reality, truth of paramesvara upadhi also, the one and Only ishvara, is I am.

Atma is brahman

• Brahman is the cause of the jagad, and also none other than oneself.
• Oneself is brahman.
• Brahman need not be known, since the self alone is brahman.
• Brahman is not one object, rather both subject and object ( known + unknown) Is brahman alone.
• Brahman is all,all is brahman.
• Brahman the word means unqualified big.
• The words sat, chit ananada, are the svarupa lakshnas of brahman.
• when we say satchitananada, it says that which is "existent , consciousness, limitless" , the three words together, can only indicate brahman alone, and none else.
• For eg: a bird is we can say bird exists, bird is conscious, but we cant say bird is limitless.
• But existence-consciousness-limitless, we can say only to refer to brahman
• Since brahman is not an object we cannot say 'satchitananta' is an adjective describing brahman, neither can we say it is attributes of brahman, since brahman has no attributes.
• Thereby 'satchitananada' is a lakshana.
• A definition.
• A special kind of lakshana, which is svarupa lakshana. 
• Other kind of lakshana, is tatastha lakshana. Such as "brahman is cause of the universe". This is similar to saying the house where crow is sitting is ramus house. The "house where crow sits" is a tatastha lakshana, an incidental definition for ramus house.
• Once ramus house is seen, no need for the incidental definition.
• Similarly, when it is said, tad brahman, jagad kAranam , tvam asi, that brahman, the cause of all that is here, is yourself, then what is brahman is known to be yourself.
• So if it is yourself, then there isnt a necessity for retaining all talk about "jagad kArantvam"
• Moreover it is also said jagad is mithya, thereby kAranatvam or causation is also mithya
• Moreover what one wants is freedom or mukti, what one wants is limitless existence, and knowledge.
• So when it is said 'satchitanantha' is brahman, then those issues are also solved once and for all.
• Brahman is timless existence, and consciousness is brahman, thereby for brahman there is no ignorance. Brahman is consciousness to whom ignorance becomes evident, so it is aware of ignorance also.
• Brahman hence is free from ignorance.
• Free from birth, death, ignorance that is the self which is brahman

Modern Physics and Vedanta - Part 4

P: I wanted to take forward our conversation with regard to space and time. What is space time then, if I only experience it in a discrete manner. This understanding completely challenges assumptions about space and time with regard to modern physics. Physics is based on the understanding that space and time are continous. In the descartian coordinates, we have a continous line, that depicts space and time.

V: It is a fact that we experience continuity. And that we experience time. But let us go into our experience of time. We say that the time is 5 o clock, when it is 5 o clock, isnt it "now", When it becomes 6 o clock that time is still the same "now". Then next day morning also it is still the "now".

So isnt it fair to say that "now" is the truth of time itself? Because almost every unit of time is in the now. The unit of time, the fabric of time, we imagine based on the conditions we experience. When we had bullock carts running we called time as 1950s. Now when we have supersonic jets we call time as 21st century, But all along, there was only the "now" which when associated with the state of the universe that we experience, we term as "time".

P: Hmm, what is this now.

V: As we saw earlier, this now is none other than consciousness.

P: Wow thats astounding. That proves the I am beyond time,a timeless being.

V: It indeed does, thats indeed the message of vedanta. Vedanta says I am timeless and I am the truth of time also.

P: I am the truth of time. It rings true but I dont seem to understand this fully.
I agree that time space, matter can be activated by presence of consciousness. But what is this language you use when you say truth of time.
In fact it is ironic, that we are also in search of something similar as scientists.

We want to find the source of macrocosm and microcosm.

V: Can you explain more what you mean from standpoint of physics.

Modern Physics and Vedanta - Part 3

V: So in vedanta, shruti is teaching there is both maya as well as brahman or consciousness.
Matter and conciousness are both beginingless cause.

Matter is what you experience as objects and thoughts. We say thought is also matter only, it is subtle matter and it appears as a conscious thought, due to reflected consciousness only.

So this subtle matter such as thoughts, and gross matter , is all evolutes from the causal matter, which is what we call as maya or prakrti, the material cause of the universe, which evolves into the universe.

However, we never say that this maya or prakrti exists and evolves independently. We say it gains its existence, as well as is able to evolve onto the manifest universe, or basically come out from its unmanifest to manifest state, only due to the presence of consciousness.

This conscsiousness , alongwith the material shakti, or maya shakti, or prakrti, together we call as ishvara, the conscious being who is the cause for the universe manifestation and resolution.

P: But where do I, come into the picture then? you were saying consciousness is myself. Now you say consciousness is ishvara. Then there is your consciousness, consciousness in other living beings.
So doesnt that mean that, there being so many consciousnesses, means that cosnciousness cannot be causeless? Cannot be an uncaused cause.

V: No, we say there is only one consciousness. And the same consciousness based on the material it is manifesting in, appears as different roles. behind the body minds, it is the knower or experiencer.
Behind the total causal matter, maya, same consciousness is ishvara.

P: So you are saying the consciuousness is what creates this meaningful, intelligent manifestation of matter, and that is why I am able to see a link between past present and future, as well as between events. As well as the whole paradigm of cause and effect?

V: Yes, consciousness together with maya or prakrti.

P: And same cosnsciousness also appears behind its individual body mind as the knower or experiencer.

V: Correct.

P: So that is what you are saying is my experience of continuity, Because I am the one who is continous and changeless one.

V: Accurate understanding .

P: I am starting to understand a bit of vedanta. But I still have many questions on how it relates to modern physics and its findinds.

V: Let us discuss that further....

To be Contd..........

Arguments from modern physics against vedanta- Part 2

P: It may be that I am aware of discrete thoughts. But my experience is that of continuity. There is a continuity that I experience. And that is the experience of time. And Space.

V: Have you studied time and space?

P: Of course. We have time and space as a continuum, the universe has space time continuum. So the experience of space time is continous, unlike thoughts that are discrete.

V: How can you say that. Only when you experience an object do you experience space time. You never experience space time independent of an object experience. Do you ever?

P: Hmm. Yes independent of object experience there isnt space time experience. But perhaps in between two thoughts , there is an experience isnt it?

V: Experience entails thought. Thought entails object. Along with object awareness, there is also space time awareness imbued in the object awareness. But object awareness is always discrete.

P: Your explanation seems logical with regard to experience. But it is incomplete.

V: Why do you say so?

P: Because it does not explain the continuity I experience . If thoughts are discrete, then I should not have any experience of continuity of thoughts. You are essentially saying that universe is like a an animation book that is flipped quickly one after the other. So per your explanation, I myself become a discrete entity. So perhaps thats the fact. I do not exist at all. There is an appearance of existence, due to one discrete thought after another.

V: You have now come out of physics and ended up becoming a buddhist. This is how buddhist argue that the truth is sunya or nothing. And everything is shanika or momentary. Lord shankara has already done detailed khandanam of this. But let me explain briefly. If you so posit, that existence itself is momentary, how can you ever experience continuity. Since the you who experiences space and time and objects is not the you who had the previous experience. But clearly you remember, I experienced that.

P: Isnt that due to experience of memory?

V: You also say in between two experiences, I am. What is that?

P: Thats perhaps a trick thought.

V: Again you are going back to square one. We had already established that its not due to the thought that you 'know' I am. Knowing is not same as saying. Knowing is , without any thought.

P: I am unable to beat your logic. So let me consider what you are saying to be true. I am, and my existence is not dependent on thoughts. But how does that explain the fact that the thoughts that occur, the objects I see, are interconnected logically. There is cause and effect. It is not random. How is that possible if its all momentary?

V: This is where ishvara walks in.

P: Ishvara? How , who??

TO be contd...

Arguments from modern physics against vedanta- Part 1

Modern physics makes a number of arguments against vedantic cosmology.


Physicist:  As per vedanta, both consciousness and matter are beginingless cause. As scientists we cannot accept it. Our observations into the universes past reveal the fact, that life evolved in the planets only much later, as matter evolved on earth to enable life on planet earth. This was due to favourable conditions such as formation of water and distance from sun. Therefore there is no such thing as consciousness, till the point that life evolves on a favourable planet.
Before life evolved the universe was pure matter and hence there could not have been any consciousness prior to that.

Vedantin: The assumption of science that the presence of consciousness is 'created' afresh, only once certain elements such as DNA , RNA and unicellular organisms evolve is faulty , and the argument they use against vedanta does not hold fort.

The reason is that, even vedanta does not say that consciousness is manifest in all of matter. Consciousness is manifest only in subtle bodies that are capable of manifesting or of reflecting consciousness.

Science is confusing consciousness with sentience. Consciousness lends sentience to certain matter, based on its ability to reflect consciousness. However in gross forms of matter , there need not be any sentience. Therefore when vedanta says consciousness we do not refer to sentience.

So while vedanta is not in opposition to the evolutionary model of how life forms evolved, but vedanta is misunderstood , when scientists equate "consciousness" in vedanta to mere sentience alone.

Physicist:  If sentience isnt consciousness, then science is not aware of any other consciousness. We as scientists see conscious or sentient beings, and for us, that is what is consciousness.

Vedantin: This precisely is the mistake of modern science. While you study the conscious beings , and there evolution etc. , as scientists you are always studying the world of objects, which includes sentient and insentient. However you do not study the subject, the one who "is" looking at the world of objects.

Physicist: See when you say subject, there isn't any separate subject for us. The body and mind alone is me the subject, and I happen to be conscious , since I am matter that has evolved into life.

Vendantin: As a scientist, you claim to draw your conclusions based on observation and analysis, and then arriving at results either via perception or inference.

How have you arrived at the knowledge that you are the body mind. Have you analysed all 3 states of your experience to arrive at that conclusion?

Physicist: Why do I need to analyse 3 states of experience. I experience anything only because I am alive and have a brain. If I had no brain, I wont have any experience at all.

Vedantin: On what basis have you concluded that you are able to experience because of your brain?

Physicist: Because brain drives thinking

Vedantin: So are you saying that only when you think you know that you exist?

Physicist: Of course, its only because I think, I am able to say I exist.

Vedantin: Do you exist between two thoughts. When one thought occurs, and next one occurs, did you know that there was no thought between two successive thoughts?

Physicist: Yes of course between two thoughts there isnt a thought.

Vedantin: Who knew the absence of thought, between two successive thoughts.

Physicist: I did.

Vedantin: So you know that there is no thought also, which is you know that "I am" even when there is no thought right.

Physicist: Not sure. To say that "I am" , a thought is needed, that says " I am".

Vedantin: Saying is different from knowing. My question is to know that 'fact' that you are, forget about you telling us, but just simply to be aware of that fact that you exist, are you saying that only when a thought occurs you know that you exist?

Physicist: I am not sure.

Vedantin: Why not sure. Lets go into your experience right now. Think of an 'apple', 'mango' , 'pumpkin', 'gold', 'television'. When I said each of these words, a thought came. Did you not know prior to these thoughts that "I am". In between these thoughts, when I wasn't prompting any particular thought, didnt you know 'I am'.

Physicist: Yes perhaps, But that can be attributed to brain activity, wherein there is a constant set of some other thoughts, such as silence. even when I close my eyes and I have no thoughts also, I am aware of silence. So isnt that a thought?

V: Now you contradicted yourself, so you are changing your mind and arguing no that thought is continous.  How can there be a constant set of thoughts. Thoughts by definition have to be discrete. If thoughts arent discrete you can never tell the difference between one thoughts and next. Even if the discreteness interval is a few micro or nano seconds, even then, that discreteness is a necessary condition, to ensure the cognizance of differences, between thoughts A and B. If its one continous thoughts, say you see pumpkin, you will keep on seeing pumpkin throughout and it wont change at all. It does change, and for it to change from state A to state B, there has to be an interval in between when it changes from A to B. Based on that only you say, this pumpkin was one whole pumpkin, which has become two pieces in the last few seconds ( seeing of cutting a pumpkin into two halves).
Isnt it because you saw intervals of time where pumpkins nature changed. In fact while blinking you didnt even see the pumpkin, you concluded this pumpkin alone I saw in before I blinked.

To be contd.....

What is wrong?

What is wrong in greed and avarice, when the one is greedy in gaining ultimate good,

What is wrong in clever thievery, when what is stolen is the ultimate truth,

What is ever wrong in adultery, when the mistress is knowledge and attachment the cheated spouse,

What is wrong in jealousy I'd say, when one is jealous of the wandering jivanmukta,

What is wrong in idleness and sloth, when the mind body and soul are immersed in brahman,

What is wrong in murder and killing, when the victim is none other than ignorance,

What is wrong in anger in fact, when anger is the wrath of rudra upon the ego rakshas,

In fact is there anything at all that is wrong, when the path one takes is the path to self and self alone ( at the exclusion of anything else).

Meditation on mithyatvam

All that is known is mithya, has its being in me , atman the brahman.

The being of all that is, is me.

The attributes are superimposition, they seemingly exist, but I am the reality of every vastu.

Sat chit anantha are defining "words"

Words do not reveal atma, since atma is not an object to be revealed.

However words or the mahavakya does create the knowledge through the meaning one gains , which is brahman knowledge, that removes brahman ignorance, and brahman ignorance is the cause for duality, maya, and maya itself has its being in same brahman.

Chit the word refers to subject, awareness.

I am not any object of awareness, but I am awareness, who is the subject.

There is always a subject , aware of waking state, dream state, sleep state.

In waking state there is body awareness, there is mind awareness, there are objects such and the universe of which there is awareness.

In dream state, there is dream awareness, wherein the dream objects awareness is there.

In sleep there is awareness, that I slept well, that I did not know anything in sleep. There is awareness of not knowing anything in particular.

So in all 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping awareness is, and I am that awareness. Chit is the word used for awareness. So chit here is a defining word, it defines brahman or atman.

But the word chit alone is not enough to define brahman.

Since every body mind, there is for every person, "awareness". Every person is subject.
But of course there happens to be only one subject.

In awareness there is no difference. Is there many subjects, many awarenesses? So lord sankara uses the example of space and pots. Between one pot space and another pot space , is there two different space?

No. Same way the chit is one and only one. So it is non dual, there isn't another awareness. In fact there isnt any comparison for awareness, since the remoteness, location, attributes belong to anatma and not to awareness. So awareness is only one, and it appears to be many due to various upadhis, which it lights up, one as the knower or sakshi, other makes them appear to be conscious, such as the body and thoughts appear to be conscious.

So awareness, the word here is a defining word. It defines brahman. It is a lakshana. It is not an attribute, rather a word which is lakshana. It is a word that defines only brahman, not incidentally , but in a way can be used as a svarupa lakshana, and unchanging definition.

Sat or existence is also used in conjunctoin. Sat meaning unchanging with time and space.

That self which is referred to by the word chit, is also sat. It is also "unchanging with time and space".

It is also anantham, it is no limited by time and space.

So satchitananta, the word defines brahman. Satchit referring to self, and satchitananta is brahman.

Therefore the self, atman , chit awareness is satchitananta svarupaH. Its svarupa lakshana words are being discussed. These words remove the ignorance about brahman. Brahman ignorance they remove.

I am unchanging awareness not limited in terms of space or time. Is the self knowledge.

Now tat and tvam are both equated in tat tvam asi.

Here we have to take the lakshyartha of tat and tvam, lakshyartha of both is this satchitananda brahman, in which case the same satchitananda brahman is being talked about.

Tat and Tvam come into the picture as mithya when looked at the vachyartha, there we say brahman as jagad karanam, maya sahita brahman, and also the tvam pada as ajnana sahita brahman.

Atma is limitless

The problem is not entire self ignorance. Since everyone say 'I am' there isnt a real self ignorance for anyone. Everyone already is aware that 'I am', hence its not a "abhava" or not knowing of self.

The problem I face is not due to my existence, but I dont like the limitations I am subject to. I do not like being subject to various limitations, having inferior attributes, and being considered lesser than others, not being happy and so on. These are my issues, and these are what self knowledge solves.

The reason self knowledge CAN solve such problems, is because it happens to be the means to reveal myself as limitless.

To reveal myself as limitless, I need an understanding of the word limitless,as in, what is the sense in which the word is used.

The word used is brahman, which means limitlessly big,or an unqualified big.

Now ocean is big, sky is big, yet there are boundaries, and also it appears to be outside of me the knower.

Whereas, brahman has to be a limitless unconstrained big, and cannot exclude either the knower or the known.

So we hence use the word "consciousness" and "existence", "chit" and "sat".

Chit means the reality of knowledge and knower, sat means the reality of knowledge and known, the same sat is the same as chit also. Chit is sat and sat is chit.

So chit, or sat, or satchit is the reality of knower, knowledge and known all three , and that is what you are.

You see, I tend to think, I am only the knower. But the knower, is something its just a title, given to the content of the knower w.r.t the knowledge and known objects.

So an accurate understanding is that I am the content of the knower, and this content of the knower per the shastra is also the content of thought, or knowledge. When there is apple thought, space thought, gold thought, cow thought, there is an invariable presence of consciousness in all these thoughts isnt it.

We say apple 'is', cow 'is', gold 'is', we imagine all these in our head, apple consciousness is , cow consciousness is, gold consciousness is, pot consciousness is, clay consciousness is, road consciousness is, space consciousness is, time consciousness is, television consciousness is, screen consciousness is, consciousness is.
When we say consciousness is, there is no thought, no idea, no form, no object, yet there is something "is" , for which we say consciousness, the word consciousness DOES have a meaning, because we did use it for apple consciousness, cow consciousness etc. We can also use the word "unqualified thought", that 'is' , is a being.

So that being we have no means to know, because it isnt an object, that is where shastra says it is the subject, chit. Or rather truth of the subject "chit".

Same way all objects themselves, have their reality in something else, and that something else , we say as "sat" or self existent, and that is none other than same chit, atma.

Hence atma is satchit, the reality of entire universe, knower, known , knowledge, and satchit is hence limitless. It is the reality or satyam of entire mithya jagad, hence is limitless.

So you know yourself as satchitananta,,brahman, the limitless self existent consciousness.

That is what we call as self knowledge.

What is meant by "it is just mithya", "it is just nama rupa"

When we say jagad is mithya, when we say the experienced is mithya, the word mithya is a new word in our dictionary . Many a times we hear 'just mithya, simply mithya'. The word mithya itself we dont understand being a new fresh word, then on top of that , when adjectives such as 'just' or 'simply' are used, then we are even more confounded.

I rely on pujya swamijis definition of what mithya means.

Swamiji says , mithya means , "that which doesnt have existence of its own".

Now our examples given such as pot, such as ornaments, are clear enough to convey just that meaning , "doesnt have existence of its own".

So the message as as follows.

Atma alone is satyam. And everything experienced is mithya. It has no existence of its own, so when we say anything "is" the existence , the "is" , refers to atma and there is no other vastu. Atma is limitless by definition and limitless means non dual by definition.

Now where does that leave objects of the world. What about the body then. Body 'is', but there isnt a thing as body, its existence is from the one vastu atma.

But we cant say body is "not" also, there is a transactional truth for body.

So we cant use the word "non existent". Horn of a hare is non existent. But a tree exists, so we dont use the word "anrtam", which means "non existent".

Hence the word to be used here is 'mithya'. It has no direct english equivalent. That is why in english it is unfolded.

When it is explained only it gains a meaning, as its a new word. Rather a meaning is present, that meaning is assigned a word "mithya".

That meaning we apply to our understanding of the jagad. We say jagad mithya, and atma satyam.

I am

Atma jnanam is always there, since I know 'I am'. For that no vedanta and all is required. But we say 'I am body', this is where vedanta walks in.
Body has attributes, and we also say body 'is'.
Vedanta walks in and says body is 'mithya', which means atma that IS, is the adhistanam, devoid of attributes.
So this I am 'is', is consciousness, is existence, but is attributeless, and happens to be the subject also.
And body gains existence from same 'I am', which is what we call mithya srshti. Body means attributes. Attributes are mithya , and "I am" is satyam the adhistanam. This "I am" is the adhistAnam for entire jagad and ishvara also . This I am is brahman , the non dual reality, which alone is the existence in all that "is", such as when we say 'cloud is', 'hill is' , the cloud , hill etc. are names and forms, and the 'is' refers to the atman "I Am' only....

Even the thought "I am" is a reflection on the mind. Without that thought also atman 'is'. or I am. Being the very agent of that thought, being self shining one. If mind is mithya, then the reflection 'I am' thought, that thought is also mithya.

Fruit of enquiry

On constant enquiry using the words of guru and shastra, we find there is no jivatvam attributes in atma, nor any other attributes at all. Atma is real consciousness self existent and not subject to objectification, neither is atma situated in any particular place, place etc. being attribute for space, and belonging to the world of objects.

You see , we recognize atman behind the mind, as the illuminator, but we do not say that 'location" belongs to atma, it rather belongs to mind or thoughts. Thoughts have a location, the illuminator I has no location also. This I in fact illumines the minds of all jivas. All the mind it illumines, or one can say 'I' illumine and and present in every thought of every mind, and in fact when it is said anything 'IS' the Is refers to oneself the atman alone, wherein, the objects attributes, its location etc. are belonging to that object, and the object being mithya.

Is there really two

Is there really two things, when there is seer, and the seen.

Is the seen, and the seer seperated by some boundary, in that case the seer is also one amongst the seen.

You can never find a boundary of separation between what is seen, and the seer yourself.

You can never find the seer behind the seen, outside the seen, inside the seen and so on.

Those attributes that you superimpose, are superimposed on the seer, the truth of the seer alone, and not any other locus for committing the mistake.

The locus of ignorance is atman alone, the locus of jagad is atma, the locus of ishvara is atman.

Owning up to atman and its real nature

Atman is ever the subject and never the object.

This viveka is very essential to remove the confusion sorrounding atma.

Atma is not the body, atma is not any of the thoughts.

Atma is not hiding behind the thoughts, like some hidden object either.

Atman is in fact independent consciousness principle, self existent, self evident, and everything becomes evident in presence of atman.

Atman alone lends presence to body mind complex, to the rest of the jagad.

While the vichara aound atman is taking place in the mind, the atman itself is free from the mind, it is free from any vichara also, it is free from the entire waking world, dream world as well as from sleep.

This completely free atman, alone is what appears as the jagad. 

It appears to have manifest and resolving back into unmanifest, mithya in terms of reality. 

Consciousness atman is satyam, jagad is mithya superimposition on atman. 

This superimposition makes it look like one is playing roles and there is a world to deal with.

In reality I am and there is no world in me. While the world does not exist apart from me, in me there is no world.

Doing principle

We see there is energy and the body mind acts based on energy as well as intelligence.

Everything acts intelligently, thats what we witness.

If everything acts intelligently it must have evolved from an intelligent principle, this principle is what we call as maya.

Maya is the intelligent principle, it does not have an intelligence of its own.
Maya is brahman, and brahman is the intelligent principle, or consciousness is what brahman is.

Since maya is not other than brahman, maya also acts intelligently, and does not exist separate from consciousness.

So matter when we say, it doesnt really exist apart from consciousness as a second entity.

Consciousness alone appears as matter.

Matter for one acts intelligently, because of consciousness.

That is what consciousness does, makes everything act and work intelligently, because it is what renders presence to all that IS.

Every atom also acts in orderly fashion since its presence is essentially consciousness principle.

Mananam Questions

a. How can atma be the reality of the jagad, atma is nirguna, and we dont see any nirguna objects in the jagad,

Of course any object that is 'seen' has gunas that are 'seen'. What is seen, is not nirguna, only the seer is nirguna. So it is obvious, that the satyam is not seen, rather the seer is the reality of the seen objects.

b. Does this mean seer is hidden behind the seen, and yet is the seer?

Seer is not behind in terms of space and hidden in terms of space. Nothing is hidden, what is hidden also is another findable object, so it comes under objects, it comes under 'seen', both known and knowable objects come under seen, come under jagad.

So the reality is never hidden in fact, since seer can never be hidden.

c. Well if seer is the reality, isnt the seer situated behind the mind, and limited to the mind, so how can the seer be reality of all that is?

No , seer is the seer lighting up the mind for sure, however we cannot say the seer is limited by the mind. The seer lights up every thought, but remains untouched, unclaimed, independent of every thought. Even space, seer is aware of space, therefore is not within space, is in fact untouched by concept of space, neither inside, nor outside space, we can say transcends space, transcends time also by the exact same logic.

d. Well this in case makes seer transcend all that is here, completely, yet we say seer is reality of everything, how so?

It may transcend, yet it remains as the reality of all. Since existence is the nature of seer, whenever we say, anything 'is' it is the seer whom we say 'is'.

e. How is that possible, seer is consciousness, but we say 'is' for inert objects also. So how can consciousness we can say is inert, isnt that contradictory?

Yes it is contradictory, which is why we say the jagad is mithya. While seer cannot be inert, what is inert can be in fact an appearance that is mithya, wherein the satyam is the seer.

Same as we see clay has no qualities or functions. But when we say pot IS, clay is very much all through the pot, yet transcends the pot.

Same way we can say any inert object with inert attrributes IS, that ISness comes from satyam the seer. So it is not the inert attributes that one takes to be oneself, one says oneself is the non inert consciousness seer, and the inert objects are nothing but mithya, wherein we say inert object is, due to error. So error becomes cause of the universe.

It is simply an error, when we say this 'is' inert, wherein that which 'is' , is consciousness, not subject to objectification.

f. So if we are saying there is an error, does it mean, under the object , there is actually a conscious object that we mistake as inert.

Again we cannot apply the gunas of being under etc. to consciousness, as it transcends space etc.

g. So how do we then know the cause?

Simply by understanding that the ever present seer, that is oneself is indeed the cause

h. And when the cognition of objects is there?

When cognition of objects is there, then also, oneself is the cause, and the cognition is a superimposition of attributes upon oneself, which includes the very 'witnessing'.

i. So the witness status, isnt that also attributable to mithya?

Yes both witness status (subject) and witnessed status (object) are attributable to superimposed gunas alone. Nirguna chaitanyam atma is neither subject nor object.

j. So we have both manifestation and entry right?

Yes nirguna atma brahman, it manifests as inert objects. Then enters those very objects, as the subject (jivatma).

k. Since the gunas and are mithya, so is manifestation and entry right?

Yes , srshti is mithya. Reality of srshti is satyam.

l. So mithya is satyam right. We say mitya in terms of attributes and function alone, while the very reality of anything is satyam brahman?

Correct when we say mithya, it is all the way that sat we talk about as mithya. Sat alone is all along, showing up as having gunas and so on, so we understand it as mithya level of reality. Never is there not isness.

Looking around

Looking around one sees many objects, all these objects are non separate from me. they in fact refer to me alone, I am the reality of all these objects.

I am the reality of these words that are being typed, they do not exist other than me, then the laptop is also IS, that IS refers to me, then words refer to me, suddenly words can become alive, as they are impelled via me, I am their reality.

Same manner, what is being typed, the typefont, is me, the cursor is me, I am the reality of the blinking cursor, the understanding of what is blinking and the fact that there is blinking, both I am the reality of both. It is what we say is 'knowledge' what is, is knowledge , I am the reality of all knowledge.

I am the reality of chair also, chair IS, I am.

When chair IS, time is, space is. I am the reality of time, space and chair that IS in time and space.

Sounds 'is', I am sakshi chaitanyam that is the reality of all sounds, sound exists and I am its reality. Space IS, and I am reality of space, thought is, I am reality of thought, mind and eye IS, I am reality of both.I am the one reality 

Who is shakti

Shakti has 3 forms, iccha shakti, kriya shakti, and gnana shakti.

With iccha shakti comes desire to manifest, desire is not enough, knowledge of something is needed, so that knowledge is also shakti, then the actual ability to manifest in a form, is kriya shakti.

So we look at the jagad, alongwith atma, or brahman, as shakti.

The jagad or ishvari alone manifests and goes back to unmanifest.

When the matter manifest, we say she has manifested, and when she resolves we say she is in pralaya.

Within this alone there is desire, there is karma, there is dharma, there is attraction, there is moha or delusion, there is ignorance, there is samsara, there is liberation, all within the maya of parashakti alone.

Parashakti alone is in her leela seeing various jivas in ignorance, and then she herself is helping them out via gnana, that all this is play only, in reality one is pure awareness.

It is a parashaktis leela , all that is here.

The leela is the parinami upAdAna kArana, and her reality is vivarta upAdana kArana.

I am that reality.

Therefore parashakti is none else than a name with which I am talked about, although I myself am free from that name also, that function also.

So that shakti IS, but ultimately shakti herself am, nirguna, nirAkara.

One should place a physical body as a child of parashakti, and parashaktis leela is unimaginable in a human mind.

In a human mind, only limited glories can be discussed, and talked about, since the glorys of parashakti are endless and limitless in nature.

She has limitless measure of aishvaryam, yashas, viryam, vairagyam , sri, jnana all 6 glories in limitless measure. These glories all exist in her, but she remains free from all gunas.

So when any action is done by the individual ego, in this universe, action has to be blessed by the totality. That is what we call as dharma.

The one reality

When we say the one reality, this one reality is the reality of the one who is saying, the instruments that say, as well as the things that is seen by the person.

So knower, known, knowledge, all the three are said to be the one reality.

This one reality when we say is both the knower and the known, obviously thought of an object isnt going to reveal the one reality. So what is revealed, as well the the one to whom anything is revealed, if both are one reality, then the usual process of knower, and known interaction, wherein an object is revealed via a thought, cannot reveal the one reality.

However if we were to look at what the upanisad says, that the light , which is responsible for any act of revealing, the one in whose presence alone, revelation can happen, the one to whom alone anything can be revealed, is none other than awareness. The awarer, is none other than awareness.

It is in the presence of awareness, that anything can be ever revealed.

Now if upanisad says, that awareness is the one reality, then a confusion arises, that isnt the awareness limited to the knower.

Firstly the truth of the knower isnt someone in time and space, as we talk about the super knower here.

The ordinary knower is the knower of thoughts in waking state, knower of dream in dream state, and knower of deep sleep, all the time associated with the body.

But when we see that instead of talking about knower, in reference to the body always, if we see the fact, that in deep sleep body awareness 'is not', but awareness 'is'.
In between two thoughts also, awareness 'is' but body awareness 'is not'.

So what is this awareness if we explore it isnt really limited to the body, only being reflected in the body.

When we talk about it, as a person, we talk about oneself, with reference to a particular body.

Essentially when shastra says this awareness is brahman, we are simply talking about brahman in reference to a particular body, which all this while was falsely considered to be 'oneself'.

On the other hand, oneself is the ultimate revealer, the consciousness, the awareness itself.

So I the awareness am being discussed in this body.

In this discussion, another knowledge comes from guru, that I the awareness, is also the cause for this body and all bodies, all matter.

How can that be the case, is the question.

Answer is simple in the sense, that all that 'is' has no existence of its own.

Therefore when anything at all is being referred to as 'is' with a name and form, the name and form , the very speech, the very speaker, all the three are enjoying existence , borrowed from oneself the awareness, while awareness oneself has undergone no change whatsoever.

So the speaker, the spoken object, the speech, all the three reset upon the self, therefore the self is none other than brahman.

Vande guru paramparA

It is our guru parampara, that brings sanity and clarity to moksa purusharta, and the pursuit of moksa.

That moksa is nothing but gnana phalam, that words such as self 'realization', experience based 'liberation', as though its an end to be achieved, the myriad confusions, and projections, it is the guru parampara, and the firm conviction , and shraddha in the 'pramana', and the depth of understanding the fact of mahavakya pramanatvam, and the whole guru + shastra combination, via Shravana manana nidhidhyasanam, the punya of having being exposed to the valid guru parampara, is nothing but the grace of the lord, and the guru, and the parampara.

sadAshiva samArambham, shankarAcharya madhyamAm,
asmadacharya paryantAm, vande guru paramparAm.

The cause is pure consciousness atman without form

The cause is pure chit, atman without cause. Pure chit, is oneself, atman, truth of the one who says I am the knower.

If I am the knower, I am the truth, I am of the nature of consciousness. I am all pervasive, which means I do not have a space wise constraint, and in fact I am aware of space.

Space is in me.

In space alone I alone appear to be manifest as various objects, as the knower, I alone shine in the mind, and make the mind shine through sense organs and shine out to cognize the nature of objects. The objects themselves are manifestations of myself, and vrtti also are manifestation of myself.

Consciousness myself alone is manifest as matter also. Matter is nothing but consciousness,  manifest as though consisting of gunas or attributes.

The manifest consciousness with attributes, such as a table, such as wood etc. is a mithya manifestation. Mithya means these attibutes are not intrinsic to atma.

Therefore the only cause for manifestation is really speaking 'unreal' superimposition of attributes, and not a true presence of attributes.

Thus this jagad in its enterity is a superimposition and not a reality.

Assimilating the realitywords

What is essentially unchanging is the prarabdha that unfolds and runs the life of a person.
As per prarabdha, the triad of knower, known, and knowledge, the reality of experience, daily life unfolds as it is.

For the one who is engaged in jnana yoga, what is to be assimilated is essentially an understanding of the degree of reality ascribed to ones own experience and daily life.

There are two levels of reality that are discussed in detail, there is the vyavaharika, and the paramarthika. Each degree of reality is always ascribed to a vastu.

The vastu to which the mithya reality is ascribed to , are the triad of knowledge, known objects, and the knower, and each of these we are able to see there are associated gunas. What is known is primarily gross or tamo guna, while in the case of bodily emotions, hunger etc. can be said to be little more subtle nevertheless is tamo guna. When in action, and in movement one sees rajo guna at play.
The knower is primarily sattva guna pradAna, so are the sense organs, not just oneself, but in every living being. So the vyavahara plane of reality is essentially made of 3 gunas.

When it is said that "I am sakshi chaitanyam" , what is to be clearly understood is the fact that I am immediately transcending the body mind complex. Therefore immediately I am saying I have no gunas, and hence transcend the body mind, therefore I have to be other than the body mind. So I look at in between two thoughts, and even in deep sleep, I am in fact pure consciousness, the witness consciousness , knower of dream, sleep as well as waking states.This sakshi chaitanyam or atma is nirguna, neither the knower, nor the known, nor the knowledge.It is the very reality of the knower, very amazing fact to begin with.

When I say, I know, I is the consciousness, which alone is as though the knower lighting up thoughts and is associated with sattva guna.So i negate the "knower status" , but I retain myself. I am without being the knower also.This "I am" is what we say is pure chaitanyam, hence I am pure chaitanyam.
This pure chaitanyam, I already am, so it is not a something that is to be accomplished.

What we do is the superimposition of knower, known , knowledge, to those we ascribe a mithya order of reality. We say it is a dependent existence, we say it is a unreal existence. It has no existence of its own.So we see the known objects they exist, in the sense when we use the objects in vyavahara they exist, but in the ultimate reality they do not since that order of reality is mithya.

The vastu is the same, it is not the vastu whom we say is a satyam vastu, and this vastu is a mithya vastu. There is no vastu called satyam or mithya. Satyam and mithya are reality words, depicting or talking about the reality of that vastu. Such as 'is', 'is not'.

Mithya is a reality word, which says the vastu IS, however its existence is dependant on its cause, and it doesnt exist independently from its cause.

Satyam is a reality word, which says vastu exists independently and is uncaused.

So depending upon ones understanding of a vastu one can say satyam or mithya.

Such as in a pot, if I say this is a pot. The word pot , pot understanding is 'mithya' , since there is no vastu called pot. In pot understanding there is understanding of the function of pot, which is carrying water etc. but at the same time there is an invariable clay understanding as well. That clay is satyam, while the pot understanding is mithya , where satyam vastu is invariably present.

Same way consciousness is invariably present in every cognition.

When I say body IS, the one who says that, knower IS, the knowledge or awareness of the body IS, and the body IS.

The awarer, the awareness of the body is actually satyam, while body is a function such as a pot.

So the body is awareness, while awareness is the truth of the body, and in fact truth of everybody.

Mithya and Satyam

The experience of something does not automatically portend the reality of the experienced .
Dream is also very much experienced , while the experiencer of the dream is very much real and present , dream itself cannot be said to be 'real'.
It is only while dreaming that one might consider the dream to be real. And hence invest in 'i am the person undergoing this experience ' , as in a dream one takes the dream to be real. But on waking state I say ' this waking state is 'real' , dream was unreal.

Vedantic wisdom on the other hand , does not even consider the waking state also as absolutely real. It makes a strong statement of fact, that affixes the waking state also a lower degree of reality , as compared to atma or brahman which alone is absolutely real.
Now what does real mean, real for one has to exist and exist as it is , determinably so. It must be non negatable at any stage.

If we take a table, a table loses its reality to wood . Functionally its a table has its utility as a table , but it's reality belongs to wood , which alone can be said to be 'real'. Further if we look at wood also, wood in turn is a name given to the wood form and material and has its reality in cellulose . Like this we can go on. We see the experienced objects do not have a reality of 'their own ' .
On the other hand , we cannot say objects experienced are non existent , such as horn of a man. Horn of a man is non existent, if at all only an imaginary horn of a man can be talked about. There is not even a relatively real horn of a man. However objects that we see such as a tree , sky, our own body etc . have a relative reality . Though when analysed they do not have a reality of their own being made of parts other than itself , such as a tree is made of 'non tree' parts, which themselves are made of further parts . Where is that which is absolutely real , which alone lends reality to all that 'is'. This reality has to be unchanging with time , space , shastra says it is a non dual reality.

We can argue infinite causes , which is where logic seems to take us , but it's not a complete logic as it ends in infinite regress. Cause of b is a, cause of a is c, cause of c is d and so on till ad infinitum. We cannot say cause is unfindable , unknowable. An unknowable cause presumes a non existent cause. What is unknowable cannot exist, as existence automatically implies knowability. But whatever is knowable we have already seen how it has a dependant existence only .

So what shastra says , that atma the self evident , consciousness that is present in all 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping , knower of space itself , sakshi chaitanyam , when it says sakshi chaitanyam alone is absolutely real, and all that we experience as 'exists' , which we have seen has only dependent existence , gains existence from sakshi chaitanyam which is non dual independent , existence , consciousness principle.
This shastri knowledge is assimilable , logic doesn't refute it , cannot refute.

Vrtti Jnanam

A thought or vrtti is always the source of jnanam, or knowledge.

Now if one has to remove the confusion around the self, the ignorance about the self has to be ended, and for that we need the jnana vrtti.

Akhanda Akara vrtti is a very specific vrtti, it is a thought about both the self, and while removing the ignorant assumptions sorrounding the self, also reveals the truth about the self.

First , when we look at the tvam pada, the jiva side of the equation, the jiva is equated to the pramAta end of the akhandAkara vrtti, so the vrtti that is going to deliver the jnanam, there is a knower of the vrtti, anticipating the jnanam, expecting to know oneself, the expecting person, is purusa, is a knower, is of the nature of chaitanyam, or chaitanya svarupa.

Further this chaitanyam, is not bound by time , space etc. reason being, this pure chaitanyam self is essentially the knower of the body mind etc. and also the witness of the states of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Time space etc. are manifest only in waking and dreaming, and being the knower of the waking and dreaming, the self that is consciousness exists independent of any state.

Hence this consciousness who is the knower in the waking state, is understood to be the tvam pada, the expectant one awaiting to know oneself.

Therefore one side of the mahavakya is ready already , waiting to be understood, who am I, this consciousness, who am I is waiting to be understood, and akhanda kara vrtti is almost ready.

Now comes the tat prada, you are tad.

Tad means ishvara. Now ishvara has to be jagad karana. And jagad is kArya.

The moment it is said you are jagad karana, which is known as brahman, the jiva tvam has to be convinced. We can argue, hey I do not have all knowledge to create the jagad, nor am I the material of the jagad, I distinctly see that I am separate from the material in the jagad, being consciousness, while the jagad on the other hand is material in nature or jadam.

This is where we say jagad is a karya, while atman is the vivarta kArana.

This means that the beginingless jagad, which includes knower, known, and knowledge, knower being a status attributed to the consciousness that is atma, known being jadam insentient things that are known, and knowledge being a vrtti, again an insentient thought form, which in the presence of atman is lighted up.

Now if one were to say that atman is the kArana and vivarta kArana, it essentially means that the kArya is mithya, which means does not have both existence as well as consciousness of its own.

If we take known jadam objects, such as space, air, water, earth, fire etc. these are objects that we say "IS".

So when we say for eg: air is, air is all pervasive almost like space. Water , fire earth etc. are confined, and space is all pervasive. These we say "IS". When we say "IS" there is brahmanda "IS".
The "Isness" of the brahmanda, entails the presence of the vivarta kArana.

If you analyse known objects say "earth" , there is no such substance you can find as the reality of earth, we see a stone is a bunch of other smaller stones, electrons atoms, energy forms, etc.
Different ways of looking at earth.

What is earth, we do not find any particular entity there. The truth of the knower is that entity is what is said here.

So when we say "stone is" , the truth of the knower is not away from the stone.

When we say "I see stone'. I the knower IS, the stone IS, and the knowledge of stone IS.

Now the mahavakya essentially says that the truth of the knower, is the truth of the stone also.

This is because the stone does not have "its own" truth, while the knower having "its another own truth". The truth is one, independent , consciousness. Stoneness, Knowerness, are dependant realities that do not have any existence of their own.

No object in this universe, the universe itself, as well as the jivas, do not have a truth or reality of their OWN. Oneself is the reality, and this oneself alone is the reality of all that is.

So stone reality I am, knower reality I am, fire reality I am, while I am unchanging reality, fire, stone, earth, knower etc. are mithya, forms , such as ornaments are forms of gold, while gold itslef is formless.

tat tvam asi

Tat tvam asi, is more a revelation of the ever evident 'self' to be brahman, rather than a 'self', 'knowing' a brahman other than oneself.

Since oneself is always self evident, the knowledge is only removing the false notions about the self, and communicating that self is satyam-jnanam-anantam. Here self is not known, but the false notions are removed thats all.

By removal of false notions, ones own experience can be resolved in knowledge.

Ones present experience of ones psychological state, and ones present lot is validated, as ishvaras order, one stands validated, both in terms of what one experiences and who oneself is.

Stages of bhakti

The glory of ishvara is such that without his blessings no work or desire will meet a positive end. Every positive end to a good work only happens with the blessings of ishvara. This ishvara is the overlord, the infinite wisdom.
When we say the gayatri mantra, we ask this lord ishvara, as matha savitri , to bless us , by guiding our actions and thoughts, with her infinite wisdom, we say light our minds with your presence, which is of the nature of infinite wisdom.

This bhakti we can develop, by inviting the presence of the lord , of ishvari in ourself.

Here the ourself, and the lord is separately looked at from the standpoint of ahamkara, which is a idenitification with body mind, and the totality, which is looking at ishvara as the totality. Here there can be a relationship, from the standpoint of the body mind, I can have a relationship with the total, with bhagavan.

However when one comes to the vedic knowledge given by bhagavan, bhagavan brings us closer to herself, via knowledge, and makes us non separate from herself, by means of this knowledge.

She gives brahmajnanam, wherein brahman is the all pervading, non dual reality, that pervades the body mind, and pervades the totality, and is in fact the truth of the totality.

So from the absolute standpoint, in absolute truth, ishvara and jiva are both non dual, one reality, and this reality is atma.

It is only in the mithya standpoint, we can talk about ego, identification with body mind, a totality of infinite wisdom, of manifest and unmanifest ishvara and so on, is from the mithya standpoint.

So in and through vyavahara, we need not lose sight of the one all pervading reality, which is the truth of vyavahara. So any actions performed, we see that it is only performed when we look at it form the mithya standpoint.

Even pooja, and so on.. and relationships, all are from the mithya standpoint.

Satyam is the viewer, the very truth of the one who views, and is not something that subjects itself to any analysis at all. Simply pervades every point of view.
Without which no point of view 'is' , it itself is free from all points of view. The very beginning, end and middle of all is brahman, brahman is not a separate subject matter for discussion.

There is a good reason we say that, brahman is knowing that, knowing which, everything is known. Because there isnt anything else left to be known, it is the very reality of knower, known and knowledge. It is the very initiating point of knowledge, the very culmination of knowing, the process of knowledge itself, that being the case how is it possible to miss brahman, but for a peculiar kind of ignorance, that can as though cover it.

The only way to know brahman , is 'I am' brahman.

So why I bring this up, is initially when we start off worshipping the lord with name and form, with a particular form, then as the very totality, then we graduate to worshipping the lord as the very brahman the non dual reality, the atma itself.

Laukika sukham is apUrnam anityam

The lot of the jivas , is to seek laukika sukham, as the 'state of oneself' being 'sukham' is what is desired.

This desire takes various forms, covered under artha, kAma and also under dharma.

Artha is the desire for security, security of the body, and security to conduct ones life with adequate health, financial security to maintain oneself.

Under kama comes what we call as luxuries, and something greater than the necessities. While food, clothing, shelter , come under artha, or necessities, anything more than that comes under kAma or luxuries.

In modern times we are seeing the trend, wherein more and more luxuries are getting converted to necessities, hence life is becoming more and more complex.

The next means to happiness is dharma, a human being is generally not satisfied, especially after a certain degree of maturity, a person wants more than just luxuries and security. We want punya, to do good for others, to contribute to the society, to be a righteous person. These are also desires that bring sukham or happiness, both from the satisfaction of performing these actions, and also from the punya gained as a result of these 'reaching out' activities.

There is also, for the believers in the vedas, various yajnas, karmas are available, that can gaurantee, sukham in other lokas, after passing away of this body, one can desire for svarga and so on, that is another form of desire , for sukham by earning punya.

The common denominator in all these kinds of sukham, is that all these are not nitya sukham, rather they are anitya sukham. Anitya means they are necessarily time bound.

Even for a person who has acquired a great deal of punya, he can go up to svargaloka, and in svarga it is mere spending of punya, until the punya is exhausted, the person again has to be born as a human being , wherein there is the possibility of performing further karmas.

What one seeks all through , in all ones activities and en-devours is a permanent sukham, which appears is not available in the activities and the material gained from the lokas ( be it this , or a higehr loka) , referred to as laukika sukham.

The vedas which initially in the karma kanda, give the means to achieve sukham ends that are anitya, such as svarga and so on, in the later part, known as jnana kanda, give the means to achieve the nitya sukham or permanent sukham.

The means to permanent sukham is presented not as a material, to be gained. This is indeed logical, since no material by itself is something that can contain happiness as its nature.

If one observes in ones own life, the very same acquisition can be both a source of happiness as well as sorrow for different people, and even for the very same person, what is a source of happiness today, the same thing may become a cause for sorrow tomorrow. Whatever is in this world is impermanent, and even its capability to bring happiness is impermanent.

Therefore the happiness that the acquisition brings cannot be construed as a 'property' or 'attribute' that belongs to the material or acquisition, rather the happiness is experienced within oneself.
It is oneself that one finds to be 'happy' , when temporarily the 'wanting person' subsides, a desire is fulfilled, I see 'myself as fulfilled'.

It is this 'seeing myself as fulfilled', 'seeing myself as whole', ' seeing myself as devoid of limitations', this is what we call as 'happiness' or sukham.

This being the case, the shAstra presents the means to permanent sukham, nitya sukham, not as another acquisition, which as we saw , no acquisition can be permanent, neither reliable, neither a source of happiness by itself.

Rather shAstra present nitya sukham, as the reality of oneself, as the very truth about oneself.

Shastra or the vedas, proclaim the cause of sorrow to be very different, and unlike from what we might imagine. This condition of repeated travails and the roller coaster experience of cyclical waves of sorrow and happiness, the shAstra calls as 'samsara', and this condition is purely said to be a product of ignorance.

In truth, says the shAstra, in reality, the atma or the self, is whole, pristine, pure, not subject to birth or death or change, of the very nature of limitlessness or fullness, which is what one experiences as 'the happy self' even in instances when the wanting person subsides for the time being.

ShAstra goes into the very cause of 'why the person finds himself to be wanting'. To answer this question the shAstra points out a beginingless ignorance, due to which the person, the being , atma who is by very nature itself, of the nature of fullness and completeness, identifies with a 'projected' limitation of the body mind. We clearly see that the body mind is full of limitations, and hence are unable to accept ourself, as one subject to limitations.

This refusal to accept oneself as subject to limitations, as well as the fact that we do see ourself as 'whole' and 'not wanting' often, on even hearing something as simple as a joke, does prove that, the contention made by the shAstra, about ourselves being 'of the nature of fullness' and the possibility of their being an ignorance, and the possibility of commiting a mistake in terms of ones own understanding of oneself, as a something that we cannot completely dismiss.

Since the shAstra offers a solution, and we are indeed wanting what the shAstra offers via a solution to ignorance i.e the fulfilled self, a permanently fulfilled self, we have no choice but to consider this solution, and give it a hearing, a chance.

Giving it a chance, means we need to have trust, a trust pending understanding, this is called an attitude of trust. So we buy the possibility of us being ignorant about our true self, and look for knowledge as a solution, as any ignorance is obviously countered by knowledge alone.

ShAstra hence offers the means to nitya sukham, via atma jnanam or self knowledge.
We need not only the shAstra, but also a guide, who knows how to decipher and communicate the teaching of the shAstra. There also happens to be a methodology of teaching the shAstra and giving the knowledge that removes this ignorance. Hence the shAstra comes not alone, but comes along with a guru, from a valid parampara, a teaching parampara or lineage.

We say that the vedas are beginingless , as beginingless as the universe, and so is the guru. We consider ishvara, himself, who manifested as the vedas alongside the universe, as also the very first guru, and this guru parampara, we say is still alive today, as shankaracharya, adi shankaracharya is available to us as the in between link, to this teaching tradition.

Thereby in order to gain this 'nitya sukham' that we all seek, we have an attitude of trust pending understanding, in the shAstra, the guru and the guru parampara, and ishvara who is guiding us all through this means to remove ignorance, and reveal oneself as wholeness.

This 'trust pending understanding' means that we make the guru-shastra as the principal center of our lives, and we tweak our lifestyle, or goals and attitudes to make it conducive towards gaining this knowledge.

The bhagavad gita says that this knowledge is not just available to renunciates or sanyasins, but it is equally available to grhstAs or householders as well. In the bhagavad gita itself, which itself is a means to this self knowledge, both the teacher lord krsna and the student arjuna, are householders and in fact kshatriyas who are always in the very thick of action.

If it is available even in the midst of such happening battlescene of the mahabharatha, it can certainly be available to us in our daily lives , where all we do is go to office, and build some software or do some accounts.

It is upto our own free will, and the intelligent use of our free will, to first identify the problem, see the shAstra and guru as a possible in fact a probable means to solve this problem, and finally gain the complete confidence trust, and of course the very knowledge that validates the trust and makes it more real than anything else.

This is what we are all born, as humans for. 

sakshi chaitanyam is not in space behind the mind

sakshi chaitanyam is not inside space and behind ones mind.


Sakshi chaitanyam is the very self , the awareness that is unchanging in all 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping.

The states come and go, but awareness undergoes no change.

Awareness is witness to time, to the changing states, to the body mind, undergoing changes but it itelf remains changeless.

Awareness is an independent, self existent , and awareness is self evident, I need not be aware myself, myself being awareness itself.

Now space, time, mind and so on, are upAdhis , or superimpositions on awareness, I am aware of these superimpositions. I become as though the knower in the presence of the mind and objects during the waking state, and as the dream knower in the dream state, am aware of the dream objects.

These objects do not have a being of there own, and I am indeed the reality of the names and forms.

I am pure non dual consciousness

I am , is brahman, brahman is the cause of all that is here.

Brahman does not become the cause, by undergoing change, or on account of its will.

Whereas the state of having a desire, having a will, and undergoing change and so on, are mithya in terms of reality.

When the word mithya is used, we cannot say "untrue" altogether, since we are talking about something that is, jagad is , manifestation is.

However, we can say that brahman hasnt undergone any change, and for that matter, there is neither the unmanifest, nor the manifest, and there is no jagad in the case of brahman, from the standpoint of absolute truth or satyam.

However from the mithya standpoint, there is very much a manifestation, and this same brahman is seen as the cause of the manifestation. Since the manifestation is mithya, the causal brahman is also mithya, satyam being brahman devoid of any status whatsoever , such as the status of being a cause or effect.


This brahman that is seen as the cause, has to be understood as the self oneself, I.

It is only due to ignorance that I take myself to be a jiva. As a "I have a body" person.

Rather I am the absolute being , formless, happen to be the knower, rather am the truth of the knower, hence of the nature of consciousness, in fact I am consciousness or awareness itself.

When I say I am aware of the flower, I am the awareness, that is self evident, awareness itself, hence I dont need to be aware of myself.

See if I say I am aware of myself, then it is as though there is awareness, and there is a myself that I am aware of.

In reality I am awareness itself, hence where is the need to be aware of awareness, awareness is the very being or reality of every perception.

This awareness happens to be the knower, w.r.t. thoughts and the mind and so on.

This awareness happens to be the nimitta kArana with maya upAdhi,

This awareness is the material cause , when we say any object "is" the "is" refers to awareness.

Awareness is self existent.

What really is consciousness

Consciousness, is a word, that indicates the reality of the self.

The self is mistaken for the body and mind, and various levels of body and mind.

These are the self mistaken to have attributes of the body and mind.

Whereas in truth, self is said to be consciousness free from body mind attributes.

Consciousness means what, it means that which is the reality of the seer.

The reality of the knower.

See, upanisad says 'shrotrasya shrotram,  manaso manaH', the ear of the ear, and the mind of the mind. The knower via which mind and ear, mind and nose, mind and eye, mind and togue, mind and skin become "perceivers".

This knower is not a physical entity that is at any point "known" , knower is the not the known, is very clear.

Hence the knower is that being which is the self evident reality in whose proximity, the ear and mind can hear, the eye and the mind can see and so on.

This consciousness is called as the knower only with respect to the mind and the sense organs , and the presence of objects, in reality it is an independent self evident being of the nature of existence.

ShAstra says in fact this chit, or consciousness is in fact non dual, since it is satyam, the very cause.

This universe of names and forms, that are also manifest as the mind and the sense organs too, this universe is projected out of the very consciousness as the substratum or the reality.

The projection is due to beginingless ignorance , avidya or maya, which has it basis or existence or being in brahman which is consciousness. Consciousness is brahman.

The names , forms, functions are superimposed on this brahman by maya shakti.

Duality is a result error out of ignorance

There is ignorance, and naturally ignorance leads to error.

Ignorance of rope, is what leads to error of seeing the snake where there is only the rope.

Where there is only brahman, the jagad, and its evolution and devolution is seen, the cause here is error due to ignorance or avidya.

Avidya operates at the universal level as that which projects infinite names and forms, and brahman the consciousness serves as the adhistAnam or the substratum or truth, the basis for the error, as rope is the basis for the snake.


Avidya has no being of its own, hence brahman itself  lends being or existence to avidya, here in this case avidya is nothing but mAya, the all knowing, all powerful, being, that manifests various names and forms.

Brahman with the upAdhi of mAya is hence both the nimitta kArana as well as upAdana kArana.

upAdana kArana means the material cause. For the jagad, jagad being a product of avidya, the reality of material of the jagad is certainly going to have the adhistAanam or basis which is brahman, that alone as the material cause.

However point to note here is that brahman is the vivarta upAdana kAranam, which means its cause that undergoes no change at all.

Whereas, from the unmanifest to the manifest, it is avidya, which undergoes change, from being the pure ignorance unmanifest, to projecting a plethora of names and forms.

In the case of jiva, the jiva on account of ignorance, sees that which is "not", and hence is 'subject to ignorance'. Whereas in the case of isvara, isvara is using ignorance or avidya as a power, to project the various names and forms, thereby manifesting himself in various forms as AkAsha, vAyu, Agni, Apah, Prtvi and all their modifications.

The 5 koshas of the body of the jiva, namely, annamaya, prAanamaya, manomaya, vijnAnamaya and anandamaya are combinations of the five elements alone. Thereby brahman which manifests as the universe, is the same brahman which manifests as the individual body as well.

The same brahman is also present as the witness consciousness, or sakshi chaitanyam within ones mind, as "I am".

If that is the case, it is purely ignorance which covers this already manifest brahman 'I', and avidya alone becomes the cause for the dehAtama buddhi, which alone leads to first deha abhimAna, then kartrtva bhava, once there is karma, there is the cycle of birth and rebirth.

Hence the jiva is as beginingless as avidya itself.

Only by removal of avidya, the jiva is not born anymore, since there is no jiva, rather only the already manifest brahman shines as it were.

Al the way it is mithya, and satyam is all the way

All the way from being the very cause of srshti or manifestation, from having names, forms and function, from being the doer, to the very maintainer of this manifestation, all the roles, names and forms of brahman, namely saguna brahman , is mithya.

Mithya means that whose existence is purely name and form, whose existence is purely namesake, exists only in the manner of speaking about it, but the actual vastu is something else.

When we say anything IS, that IS , is not that vastu with a name or form, but that IS is something "else".

When we say "pot IS" , the pot is only a name and a form and function of being a pot, but for all practical reality, reality of pot is clay, and clay is NOT pot. Clay has nothing to do with pot.

Here we say clay is satyam, and pot is mithya.

Same way we say chaitanyam atma is satyam, and this around atma having a maya shakti, and with this shakti, manifesting as various names and forms, then entering the very creation, this is all at the level of mithya, or vyavaharika.

Vyavaharika in the sense as not being the innate nature of chaitanyam, rather being a superimposition on chaitanyam.

Chaitanyam has no attributes, is changeless.

So for it to be the cause, it must be something extra, which we call as maya shakti, which is addition without real addition. Nothing can be added to the whole, as the whole is all infinite. So addition of maya shakti is not a real addition, it is an addition without the substance undergoing any change at all.

It is a point of view,

It is a drshti, a way of being,  which has nothing to do with the being itself.

What is mithya need not be contended with, as atma is satyam, unrelated to mithya.

Whereas mithya has no being other than satyam.