I am consciousness

I am consciousness, I do not have any name , form , attributes, and am limitless existence.

I create this universe from within myself.

I resolve this universe into myself.

I do so without doing so.

It is just a change of names and forms from manifest to unmanifest and to manifest

The names and forms are not intrinsic to me, they are incidental.

They are as good as non existent.

I am ekaH,

The mind feels

1. The names and forms are present, no one can deny their existence.

A: We dont deny their existence, we comment on the reality of their existence.
They dont have their own existence, it is only borrowed existence from atma.

2. How is it borrowed, borrowing is a transaction in space time

A: Borrowing is in terms of understanding of satyam mithya. That which is mithya has no independent existence, and has no separate existence either. When we say ring exists, the existence of ring is the existence of gold alone, where gold is the satyam.

Same way when we say a name exists, the name is non separate from atma, the existence of name is existence of atma, atma is independent existence.

3. So when we think of name and form, are we not thinking of anything second?

Correct, any thought of a name and form, is atma alone, and the name and form is also atma alone.

This alone is the understanding of brahman.

4. So when I have an experience, the mithya experience is none other than atma?
Yes the experienced entities are none other than atma, as their being lies in atma alone.

5. So should I see all names and forms also as atma.

Of course names and forms must be seen as both atma, as well as mithya as well.
What is mithya is also atma.
What is satyam is of course atma.

6. When we say mithya atma, do we have to minus something and see the satyam?

Nothing needs to be minused, the presence of names and forms of course is like rings and chains and bangles and is not a matter to be debated. The very name and form makes the object mithya, as the satyam object has no name and form.But the very existence of the name and form vastu, is the advaita paramartha vastu atma.

7. So whenever I see any object that has name and form, should I see the atma?
No, you need to gain only the understanding, not see as in literally sight. Sight itself is a power, then a object name and form is a sight knowledge, all of this is mithya names and forms, and their being is none other than the self evident atma alone.

Recognize consciousness

Recognize atma as the I in ones heart.

As the thinker in ones thoughts

As the seer in ones eyes

As the hearer in ones ears

As the toucher in ones touch

As the smeller in ones sense of smell

As the taster in ones sense of taste

As the life in ones life breath

As the strength in ones body

As the intelligence in ones cells

As the objects one sees, since atma is the cause and objects the effects

As the order governing the world of objects

As the all pervading brahman

As all through these flavors

The consciousness remains entirely unchanged

Atma is said to be satyam

Scientist and god particle

Scientists are looking for god particle, a substantive for the universe.

But we say that the substantive "need not be known", the substantive is the cause. the self, available as self evident "I".
So knowing thus we dont look for substantive, we can keep finding more names and forms, and I am the substantive, that need not be found or known.

Can awareness have attributes

We do say that awareness has names and forms and functions.

How do we say that, we say that w.r.t the srshti.

When we say space IS, spaceness is the attribute and the IS refers to awareness.

However the mind raises a "doubt" that any attribute is the seen, and separate from the seer.

This isnt true, there is no separateness in terms of space. Seer isnt even available as an object, to be seen to be separate in terms of space. Then what is it which we call as seer , seer simply is the very vastu which is referred to in terms of its attributes of spaceness and so on, when we say "space is" for instance. We can instead say "spacy atma is", atma being self evident I,need not be known, and what is known is its spacyness alone.

Absence of subject object division

When the shAstra says "ekameva advitiyam", only one reality or vastu is being referred.

If we were to say the vastu brahman, which is ekameva advitiyam is a object that is revealed, such as an apple is revealed as an object, then we would be logically against the shruti, as this does not gel with advitiyam statement. There will be a knower known split, between knower consciousness and brahman.

On the other hand if we were to say that the knower alone is brahman, and the known is prakriti or matter, then also we are faced with a contradicting logic , that goes against advitiyam statement.

Therefore the only correct understanding is that the "knower" is a transactional status or attribute, w.r.t to a knowable attribute, such as "appleness", "treeness" etc. The entire jagad can be looked at as a attribute that is comes to knowledge, thereby giving oneself the status of a knower, hence the jiva is nothing but consciousness the reality of the knower, who is said to be a "knower" only with respect to attributes he is aware of.

The entire jagad can also be looked at from the standpoint of ishvara.Ishvara being the cause that is brahman. In this regards, the VERY SAME consciousness, who plays the role of knower w.r.t the individual body mind, exact same consciousness plays the role of srshti karta.

And what kind of srshti is it, it is purely mithya says the shAstra. Mithya entailing, the exact same atma or brahman, manifests purely names and forms and attributes. The names and forms and attributes do not have any substantive or being, OTHER than brahman or atma itself.

This understanding lives up to the promise that the reality is ekameva advityam, which is consciousness or atma, and attributes, names , forms and the status of being a knower or a cause are mithya in terms of their reality.

Order in ishvaras creation

There is order in the form of actions and resulting spiritual growth. The actions in the human Janma define the path of a jiva. Either jiva can grow spiritually or jiva can decline spiritually based on the actions he chooses. Rather based on how much he applies his purushartha or faculty of choice. Usually desires pull him down , and unless he uses purushartha and intelligently directs all his actions, he cannot grow spiritually. Hence one must be awareful of the goal and the means to achieve the goal of life, i.e. liberation. Desires must be fulfilled only by dharma means, and also live ones life in such a way that he eventually outgrows desires. Outgrow and not supress. Direct and and not block. Direct the desired to dharma, hold onto dharma till it becomes natural. Seek guru and Shastra and gain liberation . This is the way out of samsara whirlpool.

Knowledgeable, skillful, powerful brahman is maya

What is maya. Maya is nothing but the cause of this universe. Or jagad. Jagad or srshti is intelligently arranged, it's an intelligent arrangement . Therefore the cause for this jagad has to be consciousness. Thus maya is consciousness. The jagad also needs material. This material is also the same maya. What is maya, maya is endowed with 3 gunas, sattva rajas and tamas, and has its being in brahman. Hence maya is not a parallel entity. 

Maya is Mithya it's being or satyam is brahman.
Brahman with this maya Shakti is jagad kAranam.

This maya manifests itself, in its knowledgeable form as a srshti. Like our dream, where dream consciousness manifests dream objects, dream beings etc.
Space manifests, space is maya or brahman.
Time manifests time is brahman.
Brahman manifest then as air.
Brahman manifests as water.
As fire.
As earth.
First it is as subtle forms.
Then it undergoes grossification to become gross elements. These gross elements are indeed inert.
Tamas guna of mAya accounts for this inertness.with Tamo guna maya manifests as inert objects, maya being none other than brahman.
It is all the way brahman with the Shakti for srshti.
We appreciate the manifedtation, all that is here as srshti, as a manifestation, as brahman manifested.
So all that is here is ishvara or brahman.
Includes the individual body mind.
The consciousness or Sakshi of this body mind is itself the Maya endowed brahman. Brahman which is from one standpoint the cause of the universe , also happens to be the individual Sakshi chaitanyam from the standpoint of a jiva.

Atma is not available as an isolated entity

The sakshi chaitanyam , that is atma, is not available as an isolated entity. What is isolated, is essentially time bound and space bound, which means it has a location in terms of space and in terms of time a beginning and an end. 

But we see , that which is consciousness atma is the knower, and never the known, hence is never time or space bound.

If one were to think of chaitanyam or atma, with regards to the jagad, one has to rely on shruti alone, which says that this atma is the kAranam or cause, and it pervades the jagad, since jagad is nothing but effect.

Thus, there is no other way to think of atma, as anything BUT the whole, all that is here is one whole, and that atma can be none other than the whole. Knower, known , knowledge all 3 is the whole, one brahman, that is atma.

Chit is Sat

How can chit , self be the reality sat? When I look at an object, the object has its reality "is" and the knower of the object is the "self" which is chit. This chit is not in the object that "is", then how can we say "chit" the knower, is "sat" the known?

This question comes from improper understanding about atma. Atma while is indeed both sat and chit, and atma is indeed the knower, one has to understand that the status of being a knower is not intrinsic to atma. The knower is a status attributed to atma, which is chit as well as sat.

This same atma, alone is the known also, wherein the status of being known object is attributed to atma, or superimposed on atma.

Ok, let it be agreed that the status of knower and known are superimposed upon the same atma , which is chit as well as sat. However I do say I am atma, and this I am is the knower alone, and never the known, then how can we say atma is also sat?

When it is said atma is chit, we have to minus the "knower" status, to be an attribute superimposed on atma, and consider the reality of this atma, which is chit. This resolves the issue of knower being equated to known,it is the reality of knower is what is equated and said to be the same as the reality of the known, knower known duality being mithya having its existence in satyam atma.

Ok, let me consider that the atma in reality is chit, and this chit is not available for objectification. However I do objectify things, which is sat , since I say "object is". If I say object "is" and that isness is sat, which is chit, am I not now saying that this chit is indeed objectified?

When I say the "wall is" the objectification is only for the name and form namely wall, the wall name and form is objectified, and the the one who objectifies is named or called the subject.
However the truth or reality of both subject and object are one and the same reality chit.

Ok, let it be one and the same reality chit. If that is so, then the subject already IS, the object already IS, then what is new , that is taught in vedanta? Vedanta is supposed to reveal brahman as a vastu, how can it reveal a vastu, that is neither subject nor the object, yet exists?

Vedanta does indeed reveal the vastu. The vastu brahman is not known afresj, but it is not as if the vastu is entirely unknown or new also. The fact is that the vastu happens to be self revealing, in the sense, self evident. In every knowledge, or every cognition, brahman is available as the svarupa of the knower, which is chit or chaitanyam. So it is in the buddhi, where the self is recognized as chit, the very svarupa of the knower is chit.
The mahavakya reveals that this chit, which is available in the buddhi for recognition as "I" that same chit, is sat the cause of the jagad. Which means in every cognition, when we say " apple 'is'" it is this same chit, which happens to be the existence referred to by the word "is". This confirms the understanding that the apple, in facr entire  jagad is mithya, with no being of its own, and in fact the being belongs to the non subject, non object , chit.

In that case the is ness of the apple, need not be specified, as with the apple cognition, the cognizer chit already Is, then why do we say apple "is", doesnt that specify another "existence" that belongs to the apple?

No, when I cognize an apple, the cognizer subject is, and the cognized apple is. Here apple and cognizer are name and status which are mithya, and do not have a being of their own. The word 'is' connects the name and form of apple and status of being a cogniser to that which is referred to by 'is' , which is Brahman or atman.

So 'is' 'am' refer to the non dual chaitanyam , atman, self , while knower , apple etc. Refer to the name form function.

Appreciation of the reality as ishvara

The assimilation of atma vidya, involves a certain objectivity.

When you are objective, you see what is, how it is.

When you are not objective, you do not see what is.


To see what is, means to gain knowledge of the reality of what is.

Scientists are trying to come up with the reality of what is, while common people do not see the need to know what is.

We believe that in order for us to consider having lived a good life, we only need material comforts, and some sense of security, whereas, the truth is , one is looking for permanent security, peace, happiness, and a freedom from sense of limitation.

As a mortal human being, one is subject to limitation, and therefore, what one is after, seems to be never attainable.

Now how is this seeking of freedom, and permanency linked to "what is".

The bhagavad gita, looks at two ways to bring in "objectivity" and defines how "objectivity", which is the "seeing of what is" can indeed make oneself achieve freedom, and security, peace and happiness.

The gita, proclaims that the universe is not a soup of matter only, rather there is an intelligent order that is evident. Things do not happen randomly, even scientist will agree, that there is natural phenomenon, a sense of order.

Because there is order only we are able to live. There is a physical order of the environment, a biological order of the human beings and other living things. You take a doctor, a doctor is able to treat a infection, because the infection has a certain order to it. It has a certain cause effect relationship that is common to most humans, hence treatable. How our body works is a matter for study, for doing MBBS, MS and then even PHDs, because it follows a certain order.

So on the one hand there is matter, on the other hand, the matter is put together in a fashion, in a manner that is intelligent.

Veda goes on to talk about this order, in terms of actions and results. Every action leads to a result, and the results of actions have to be related in a cause effect order. This order is called as dharma. And the results of actions are said to be papa and punya.

The order of karma is talked about, it talks about three types of karma, sanchita karma ( the totality of all karmas from previous births), agami karma ( the karma that we are performing fresh), prarabdha karma ( the karma that is fructifying in and as our life now).

The one who is the wielder of the order of karma, is said to be dharma, and this dharma takes the status of being , a conscious being.

Since this universe is put together in an intelligent fashion , there is order, and this order can only reside in a conscious being. Order implies knowledge, knowledge implies a conscious being, implies a presence of consciousness.

This conscious being, who is the order behind the entire universe, the knower of how the universe is put together, the knower of karmaphala, is said to be ishvara, a conscious being.

In fact the material is also ishvara, ishvara is both the maker and material. 

Atma Vidya Q n A

What is the message of vedanta?

Vedanta conveys that "brahma satyam, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiya naparaH"

Brahman is the one reality, the experienced universe is mithya or 'subject to falsification', and the jiva or individual is none other than this brahman.

How can this knowledge be conveyed?

This knowledge is conveyed through the mahavakya, or great statement.

What is a mahavakya?

Any statement in the upanisad and related texts, where the acharyas from the parampara, equate jiva and ishvara is called a mahavakya

What is jiva in a mahavakya?

The jiva refers to the individual with a body mind self complex, who is born of karma

What is ishvara in a mahavakya?

Ishvara refers to the totality of all names and forms and the progenitor of this totality, is ishvara, from whom all the names and forms have come.

Ishvara is abhinna nimitta-upAdana kArana, which means ishvara is both the intellgent cause of the material universe, as well as the materials that make up this universe that we see. So the totality is ishvara, and the individual who is a part of the totality is a jiva.

How can a statement equate the individual and the total, and yet be considered a valid statement?

It is indeed possible to equate jiva and ishvara, by understanding the statement appropriately.

It is not possible to equate a small individual with a limited body - limited strength, limited mind - limited knowledge, as equal to ishvara who is all material, all strength to handle the material ( like krsna lifting govardhana with little finger), and all knowledge that governs and mantains the universe as an order.

An equation of jiva and ishvara is only possible by taking the lakshyartha or implied meaning rather than the direct meanings of jiva and isvara 

What is the lakshyartha or implied meaning of jiva?

It is only in the waking state the jiva says "I am this body". In the dream state, he has a dream body, and in sleep state he is just awareness or consciousness , aware of nothing in particular, and upon waking up says I slept well.

It is established that essentially the body is an incidental addition to who the jiva really is.

Through anvaya-vyatireka, it is seen that awareness or knowerness, i.e "sakshi chaitanyam" is the svarupa of a jiva, while personhood, dreamerhood etc. are incidental and time bound. On the other hand the very nature of jiva awareness, is ever the experiencer consciousness and never the experienced.

Such an awareness is hence not the same as what is "aware of", such as body, mind etc.

Only an object of awareness has attributes, names , forms, is time bound and location bound, as well as subject to arrival and departure.

Awareness on the other hand has no such features. Awareness is simply awareness or chit, and is self existent sat and limitless or anantam.
Hence atma is satchitananta.

Atma is self evident as I, not needing to be known like objects need to be. Self is the very truth of the knower. This is the lakshyartha or implied meaning.

What is the lakshyartha or implied meaning of ishvara ?

Only in the differentiated manifest form ishvara is said to have so many names and forms, materiality etc. The upanisad says that ishvara is brahman, that from which the universe evolved. In brahman, universe was in unmanifest and undifferentiated form. 

This brahman is said to be ishvara.

Even if we take implied meanings, ishvara is brahman from which universe manifests, while jiva is awareness or pure chit. How are both said to be one and same. Since in that case atma is the one that evolves into universe, whereas, we see atma as simply being unchanging awareness or consciousnes? If brahman has manifest into this universe like a seed has become a tree, then the seed is no more present as seed rather is a tree, whereas, atma is very much unchanging consciousness , hence how can atma be brahman that has become manifest?

Atma is indeed brahman, since the nature of manifestation is to be understood. Shastra says that the manifestation is kalpita, or mithya. It is not real . For eg: we say there are gold ornaments like chain bangle etc. however the gold has not undergone any change to become bangle or chain. Same way brahman has not undergone any change to become the manifest universe.

Thus the manifest universe itself is mithya, which means it has no reality of its own. It is just name and form with no reality of its own. The name and form are not intrinsic to brahman, rather they are superimposed on brahman. The genesis or janani of this manifest universe of names and forms is otherwise called maya which is the power of brahman to manifest.This maya sakti is falsified or subject to negation as mithya too.

What is this maya, and how is this subject to negation as mithya?

In the undifferentiated state, when the universe is in pralaya or unmanifest, this state is what we say is brahman with maya shakti. 

This brahman is self existent, and being nimmitta karana has to be  a conscious being as well.

When we say the satchitananta atma is brahman, we understand brahman to be none other than atma, which is unchanging, and which is self existent consciousness. The svarupa of brahman is satchitananta svarupa.

 The whole universe , manifest universe being kalpita or mithya, is having its reality in satyam atma, which is brahman. What makes brahman capable of manifesting the mithya universe from itself is its shakti which is maya, brahmin is called mayin or ishvara.This automatically means that the causal mayin brahman, is also mithya, kalpita alone. Thus the maya shakti powered brahman is the cause, and universe is the effect.The effect which is universe is mithya, and so is the cause which is brahman with maya. A mithya effect can has a mithya cause. The reality of the mithya cause-effect is satyam brahman which is but atma alone.The reality of brahman , is satyam atma, which is neither cause nor effect.

Thus maya is subject to negation , being mithya.

So are we saying that the jiva and ishvara duality is superimposed duality, is mithya, and the reality is one unchanging consciousness principle that is atma alone?

Yes, this is how the mahavakya is to be understood, it reveals the ekatma, which is pure consciousnes as the only reality. The jiva hood and ishvara hood are negated as mithya, and the reality is understood to be the one consciousness/awareness that is atma.

Satyam and Mithya

What does not have a reality of its own is mithya.

We take anything in this jagad, including oneself the knower, it is found to not have a reality of its own, rather its reality is derived from a cause.

Just similar to how ornaments made of gold, derive their reality from gold, and do not have their own reality.

Same way the triad of knower, known and knowledge derive their reality from one cause, which is atma, or chit.

Atma is the truth of the knower, the reality of the knower, The reality of the knower is indeed the one reality, which is the reality of the known as well as the thoughts or knowledge.

This is confirmed from our own experience also. Not only shastra says it, but it is corrobrated by our own experience.

You take a tree, the tree has its reality in wood, wood has its reality in fibrous material, which has its reality in the fibrous elements, which has  its reality in fibrous molecules, which has its reality in atoms and particles, which we can keep going on and on.....

In one name there are many names and forms "namani namAni". The reality of the jagad is self evident atma, the truth of the knower. Atma happens to be the knower w.r.t what is known, and by itself is free from being the knower.

Ishvara is both vyavaharika and paramarthika

The reality of any material is found in another material.

Within one name, there is another name, that is the truth of that name.

For eg: if one takes a carpet, is but jute, jute is but jute fibres, fibre is but the fibrous element, the element is but molecules and atoms, atoms are but particles, particles are but some other name and form. In this way anything that we take, any material, is having its reality in another material name and form.

There is no material with a reality of its own, the reality is a dependent reality, depending on something else for its reality.

So when we say anything, if that thing has no reality of its own, then what is it that we refer to as "is".

The answer to that question, is nothing but "atma". It is atma alone that "is" , whenever we say anything "is" such as 'space is' , 'sky is', 'water is', 'air is', 'fire is' ,' earth is', we refer to atma, as the reality of that.

Atma is self evident, oneself, and has no name and form, neither is objectified or objectifiable either.

It is the truth or reality of the subject, otherwise called as chit.

This chit is independent, cause, it is the cause of space and time itself, with kalpana shakti, and hence is beyond space and time, while space and time are dependent on chit or atma.

This atma alone is called as brahman.

So nothing is away from you, other than you, remote from you, you are the whole, all that Is is yourself.