What is objective, has to confirm to what IS.
Unless one is objective, one is subject to likes and dislikes, and the world has the capacity to get the better off the individual who has likes and dislikes.
On the other hand, for the one who is objective with regard to what IS, the objectivity in itself, the frame of mind, wherein one is objective, means that there is no possibility of likes and dislikes having a hold over the individual.
Per the vedas, what IS, is ishvara, hence in order to be objective, one has to know what is, which is ishvara.
Therefore, one has to understand ishvara.
Now this ishvara, in general, people consider god as external to oneself.
But if we look at the vedic definition of ishvara, ishvara is sarvam, idam sarvam ishAvAsyam.
Therefore ishvara includes oneself as well.
When we say oneself, the individual, the individual has a certain order in terms of individuals priorities, attitudes, and psychology.
The individual includes a certain psychological order. This order is not something the individual should consider as external to ishvara, one has to recognize, in order to be objective, the individual has to see ones own thoughts, and psychology to be confirming to a certain order, that is ishvara.
Hence if the individual feels angry, or disappointed, such feelings may come out from the unconscious has to be seen a ishvara, as orderly.
This gives space for the individual to make oneself , to consider oneself as unfolding, every moment, in accordance with the order that is ishvara.
Ones desires, and ones own needs have to be examined in the light of the reality of isvara, in order to be truly objective, one has to understand, ishvara ,all the way one has to understand.
This also includes the confusion around oneself, and a removal of that confusion.
The confusion that one is as good as the body mind, is confusion that plagues the individual, it is nothing but lack of objectivity.
If one looks at the reality of oneself, through the vedanta pramana, unfolded per the vedanta sampradaya , by means of a sadguru, it is clear, that oneself is not the body mind, rather oneself is consciousness.
Consciousness is non limited in terms of space. And also being non limited in terms of time, i.e. unchanging in terms of time, consciousness happens to be sat as well. 'sat' the word denoting, a vastu which is unchanging in terms of time, and chit or consciousness is that vastu.
Also the terms non limited itself indicates ananta, limitlessness. Ananda or happiness is a laksana of ananta, hence atma or the self is said to be of the nature of happiness, satchitananda.
Now this consciousness is manifest as the witness in ones own buddhi, in the individual body mind , in the individual buddhi it is manifest as 'I' the witness, who is generally said to be the thinker, knower, doer etc.
The thinker, doer, knower are nothing but statuses, superimposed on the consciousness, only with respect to the individual body mind, and the fact happens to be that the consciousness is not a doer, not a thinker and so on.
The other question is , with respect to the body mind, and the rest of the universe, what is it? If ishvara is sarvam idam, all that is here, then necessarily ishvara has to include the objects as well. If the subject I, is said to be consciousness available as I, then what is the body mind and so on.
The body mind and the objects of the universe , the vedas say, the cause is none other than consciousness itself. Thus atma is the cause, otherwise known as Brahman.
This atma itself is both the material and intelligent cause for the manifest universe.
Manifest universe includes space, time, and the 5 elements.
And when we say the manifest universe is the karya, then it is non separate from the karya.
Here atma is both nimmitta and upAdana kAranam, therefore, the kArya is also absorbed into atma since the effect is non different from the cause.
Here that atma is satyam, unchanging, whereas the kArya is mithya, it is changing and has its reality in atma which is unchanging.
The kArya is not said to be real, concsiousness alone is real.
There is no dvaitam, there is only advaitam, whether you see in terms of vyavahara as the all pervading cause, or as the parmartha as pure conciousness.
vyavahara is mithya.
Unless one is objective, one is subject to likes and dislikes, and the world has the capacity to get the better off the individual who has likes and dislikes.
On the other hand, for the one who is objective with regard to what IS, the objectivity in itself, the frame of mind, wherein one is objective, means that there is no possibility of likes and dislikes having a hold over the individual.
Per the vedas, what IS, is ishvara, hence in order to be objective, one has to know what is, which is ishvara.
Therefore, one has to understand ishvara.
Now this ishvara, in general, people consider god as external to oneself.
But if we look at the vedic definition of ishvara, ishvara is sarvam, idam sarvam ishAvAsyam.
Therefore ishvara includes oneself as well.
When we say oneself, the individual, the individual has a certain order in terms of individuals priorities, attitudes, and psychology.
The individual includes a certain psychological order. This order is not something the individual should consider as external to ishvara, one has to recognize, in order to be objective, the individual has to see ones own thoughts, and psychology to be confirming to a certain order, that is ishvara.
Hence if the individual feels angry, or disappointed, such feelings may come out from the unconscious has to be seen a ishvara, as orderly.
This gives space for the individual to make oneself , to consider oneself as unfolding, every moment, in accordance with the order that is ishvara.
Ones desires, and ones own needs have to be examined in the light of the reality of isvara, in order to be truly objective, one has to understand, ishvara ,all the way one has to understand.
This also includes the confusion around oneself, and a removal of that confusion.
The confusion that one is as good as the body mind, is confusion that plagues the individual, it is nothing but lack of objectivity.
If one looks at the reality of oneself, through the vedanta pramana, unfolded per the vedanta sampradaya , by means of a sadguru, it is clear, that oneself is not the body mind, rather oneself is consciousness.
Consciousness is non limited in terms of space. And also being non limited in terms of time, i.e. unchanging in terms of time, consciousness happens to be sat as well. 'sat' the word denoting, a vastu which is unchanging in terms of time, and chit or consciousness is that vastu.
Also the terms non limited itself indicates ananta, limitlessness. Ananda or happiness is a laksana of ananta, hence atma or the self is said to be of the nature of happiness, satchitananda.
Now this consciousness is manifest as the witness in ones own buddhi, in the individual body mind , in the individual buddhi it is manifest as 'I' the witness, who is generally said to be the thinker, knower, doer etc.
The thinker, doer, knower are nothing but statuses, superimposed on the consciousness, only with respect to the individual body mind, and the fact happens to be that the consciousness is not a doer, not a thinker and so on.
The other question is , with respect to the body mind, and the rest of the universe, what is it? If ishvara is sarvam idam, all that is here, then necessarily ishvara has to include the objects as well. If the subject I, is said to be consciousness available as I, then what is the body mind and so on.
The body mind and the objects of the universe , the vedas say, the cause is none other than consciousness itself. Thus atma is the cause, otherwise known as Brahman.
This atma itself is both the material and intelligent cause for the manifest universe.
Manifest universe includes space, time, and the 5 elements.
And when we say the manifest universe is the karya, then it is non separate from the karya.
Here atma is both nimmitta and upAdana kAranam, therefore, the kArya is also absorbed into atma since the effect is non different from the cause.
Here that atma is satyam, unchanging, whereas the kArya is mithya, it is changing and has its reality in atma which is unchanging.
The kArya is not said to be real, concsiousness alone is real.
There is no dvaitam, there is only advaitam, whether you see in terms of vyavahara as the all pervading cause, or as the parmartha as pure conciousness.
vyavahara is mithya.
No comments:
Post a Comment