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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment