I am the seer

That I am the conscious seer is clear enough in every cognition, I am the unchanging cogniser, hence my nature is chit, that much is clear.

But this merely is not enough, there also seems to be a sense of remoteness for chit, as though chit is behind the sense organs in terms of space.

That is not true, I am not behind in terms of space, i am aware of space.

Shastra says I chit, who is the unchanging one, is the satyam or adhistAnam of space.

Space IS when we say, space is a name and form and chit is the adhishtAnam or the material + intelligent cause of space.

This cause of space need not be objectified it is me.

Space is objectified, space IS, when we say that isness refers to me.

I am sat is something to be understood, pratyagAtman is the sat, the reality the adhishtAanam of all that IS.Hence it is One non dual reality, which is indeed myself, who is available as the knower w.r.t the mind upAdhi,


I am not again an imagined colorless entity under the space, which is the immediate imagination.

That is a stupid unncessary imagination, which I the pratyagAtman is aware of.

I who is aware of this stupid imagination, I am the adhishtAnam of this imagination also.

So what is meant by adhistAnam if not like gold seen engulfing a ring. We have to take only the meaning of pervasiveness and not the literal comparison with a gold ring for myself as the pratyagAtman being sat.

I should say, I pervade all that is here.

Now if we analyse what pervasiveness means, when I say space, I should pervade space, which means when i say "space is" , space is a name and form whose reality is myself.

that is what makes me chidambareshvara, the space aspect which is me I am the reality of the space aspect.

When you say space is, it is essentially I am.

When I say I am, I do not refer to me w.r.t any name and form and that is my svarupa.

Jumping jack

When the mind jumps from cognition to cognition, it is merely a jumping jack and merely jumping from experience to experience isnt going to find a "brahman" object.

As the jumping jack mind is jumping, who is the knower of the jumping jack mind?
That knower is me, who is changless shining conscious being.

In relation to the mind, I am aware of the mind, it is not that I am a knower, only in relation to the mind am I the knower.

As such I am of the nature of chit, am self existent and have no limits.

I am whole.


It is not the mind, it is me.

The objective world is myself as ishvara, as the author and the material.

The material is me.

Table is me, table is mithya.

Table it exists as a name and form, while I am the reality of the table.I am sat, also, the one who is chit, IS sat.

While using words as a mirrror

While using the words, not this, not this as a mirror for I am, we are not saying that "this" is non existent.
Neither are we eliminating various objects and picking any specific object as the self.

Rather we acknowledge the reality of "idam" or this universe, and when we say not this, we talk about the nature of "this".

We say the nature of this is mithya, which means it is not ultimately real.

And we keep mainitaining that it is the real I, which appears as this, and hence we say this is unreal .

So the real I, we have to know , by removing notions about I.

When we say "about" I, there is an assumption that I, or reality is describable.

But the describer is itself I.

So all these issues we face. We have to use the shastra to see the essential nature of I, which is non negatable. Everything else is subject to change, to negation, can be earmarked as inicidental, and an atttribute.

Everything else is a superimposition.

It is me, but I am not it.

Body is me, but I am not the body.

When I say body is me, seems reasonable, when I say I am not the body, then body doesnt have to go away. With the body being present I can say I am not the body.

I am the consciousness who inhabit the body.

Here again I am the witness of my mind.

Here again I am in fact completely independent of the mind.

So in this manner we slowly see existence of me, indenpedent of objectvive field.

I am independent of the field, the body is a temporary manifestation subject to change.
It again has no existence of its own. In fact it resolves itself in atma, which is not available in this field.

The field arrives from a cause. The causal atma is also unreal.
So the real is non cause atma which is non cause. It happens to be a cause n effect.

Where to place I?

How does one think of "I" becomes paramount for a student of vedanta, who seeks a correction in vision.

I can no more be thought of as remote in any manner.


For eg: when I see a room, I cannot be thought of as being inside the room, or outside the room, or limited by space and objects in the room.

Mere fact that all this "is" indicates my presence, and my presence is not limited.

Now is my presence outside of this experience of the room and its content, including the body mind, no there is no inside outside, as that is also a concept in space and time.

Therefore there is no real placing of the I at all as a matter of fact.

I need not be placed anywhere.

The reason being I being brahman, all that is , places in the I alone.

Room, its contents, places in the I as an effect from the cause, while I "assumes" the status of being the cause that is pervading the effect. Cause effect being a manifestation.

So with that understand, where we place idam, or "this" is where we place "I" as well.

So when we say this "is", that itself is the I, and includes seer also.

So we have seer and seen, both resolve into I.

Both ARE and that areness is I.

So there is only myself, and hence I do not feel the need to place myself anywhere, i being all,


So am I a body, am I a table, am I a fan if I ask, we do have to say yes, this is how I appear, but I am really not a table, really not a fan, really not a room, and really not this body, I am really not the knower in this body.

Then what I am really, I am, thats all, I am consciousness satyam jnanam, what I am not defines what I am. I am not this reality this mithya. I am not required to be objectified.

I am the non negatable reality.

Cosnsciousness, formless non objectifiable, non subject being is me, but now in this transaction reality, I alone appear as the seer and the seen. And I am not oppossed to that in anyway, it doesnt affect me. What is not real cannot affect me.

That it is not real, this knowledge delivers, all the while it is not real, was never real.
Self alone is real.

Discomfort is a result of ignorance

There can be discomfort only if I identify myself with duality which is a dependent reality.
It is not me, I am advaitam.

I am the higher reality that is non dually one.

In fact I am the source of what we call as duality.

I am the seer, and the seen is also me.

From me comes the seen, and the seer is also me.

I myself manifest as what is seen, and as the seer.

Manifestation doesnt put myself in space or time, space and time itself are my manifestation.

I transcend space and time, I cannot say I am outside space, as space itself arises off me.

The words here become limited more and more, really speaking limitless sat chit, are the words there is none other to describe the undersribable describer.


I am all is the sense.

All is me.

But I am independent of all.

It is not a matter of objectification, knowledge via objectification, rather it is knowledge via shabda pramana, using words as a mirror.

Once you use words as a mirror and remove doubts, you can continue your normal routine in transactional reality. Absolutely no change to transactional reality.

You can have umpteen doubts though, you will find it will go away with logic.


When you say, how can matter arise out of me, I am consciousness, we say there is no such rule.

If you say, ok if matter arose out of me, am I separate from matter in terms of space, then we say, it didnt arise as a smoke out of fire, wherein fire and smoke are separate, rather it arose as a tree out of a seed, wherein the seed IS now the tree.

Then if you ask, if that means I have undergone change, we say no, we say the seed state and tree state are mithya.

So I am neither cause nor effect we say.

We resolve the universe into myself as the cause.

Then we say causal status is also mithya, and become free from being the cause also.


We arent left with anything to discuss.

The formless need not be known

When I am in form awareness, which is the waking state, I need not know the formless, since formless I is self evident. It is evident in every cognition.

In every form cognition, the formless is evident already as the truth of the seer.
Formless is evident means what, the reality of the formless self is evident, which is chit or consciousness. It is not self evident as an object, rather has to be noticed, as I am. We generally ignore I am, but when we focus on I am, it isnt as if I am has revealed itself suddenly, it is just that we have now focusing on ourself, using the words as a mirror.

I am is a word that refers myself, and hence serves as a darpana or a mirror, words can serve as mirrors to understand myself.

I am refers to both chit consciousness , and sat existence, these are words that refer to me.
They arent attributes, rather they are word mirrors. Attributes can define something knowable as an object, for the subject we need a mirror, and the mirror here can be any word, such as I am.
Such as sat, such as chit. Chit meaning I am. Sat meaning self existent. We recognize the meaning of these words as referring to me alone.

And which is sat, that transcends or that itself doesnt have any specific name or form.

See we use satchitananda as a word, sat alone isnt a pointing word as the table also IS, but I am not a table.

So we have to say satchit. Satchit is also not enough, as I can take myself to be limited by the body, then I again become the field, and not knower of the field of spacetime.

So satchitanantha is needed. Anantha when we say, the word removes the limitations of sat chit.
Frees me from the limitations of the body, space wise limitation, time wise limitation.

And this is also assimalable logically, I being the unchanging knower of changing states, changing time, and knower of space, it is logically assimilable when we say satchitananda.

Sadhya vastu, I am, satchidananda.

It is not a subject matter for imagination, brahman or atman is not a something to be imagined, as it is evident in every cognition as the very self, seer, the reality of the seer is brahman.

Again, it is not available for objectification.

We say space if formless also, but the formlesseness of atman is not like space as such, since space is objectified, as "that which accomodates" it has a function.

However atma is not available for objectification at all, so there is no possibility of it being a formful entity.

Neither is atma remote , some things we cannot know the form of that, since it is remote to the observer. But such a thing cannot be said to be formless, it is just that the form is remote and has not been objectified yet.

However atma is never available for objectification.

When we say never available for objectification, again we arent referring to a remote non findable object. A remote non findable object lends itself to a possibility of being objectified, and if we say something IS but never has the possibility of being objectified, and is "other " than the subject, then such a thing is unknowable, and what is unknowable is non existent object.

Such is the nature of atman, the pure subject that is never the object, and never available for objectification either.

This creates a problem for the vedantin as he is now cornered as a subject, but the cornering is due to habitual faulty thinking again.

As a subject I am not cornered, what is corenering, its a construct in space. I am not stuck behind the body , as that makes me an object in space, which I am not.

I try to understand myself in the parlance of object, as the mind is used to knowing only objects, hence when one approaches vedanta, the objectifying mentality is strong. There has to be repeated shravanam mananam to loosen the mind of this objectification tendency, WHEN it comes to atma, the objectifier is atma. And not in space or time, so limitless.

I am limitless.


So when it is indeed determined that I am sat chit anantham, there is only one thing left to be done, which is to explain the seer seen duality, in wake of the limitlessness of the seer.

The fact that the seer is not IN space and time, we need to put space and time and objective reality into context.

I transcend space and time, but then how does space and time relate to me, that I need to be clear about.

I have succesfully separated myself cognitively from all that is objectified, however I am not satisfied with just that, I still have two left, the seer and the seen.

Where is advaita is my question?

There has to be a clear understanding here, we can never say that the chit atma, has the exact same degree of reality as the seen or drshya.

If indeed it has the same degree of reality, then we have the problem of one limitless being, coming within the field of the seen. Which is not true.

Also if it isnt within the field of the seen, then we need an understanding of the field of the seen.

I should not keep myself stuck to the field of the seen.

I have to unstick myself from the field of the seen, and then see the field in the right context.

I have to see myself as brahman, and then I have the right context. As brahman I am not even the seer.

When I say brahman I do not merely mean sat chit anantha, I mean the level of reality as satyam, and the status of being a satyam cause.

A satyam cause and a mithya effect.

A satyam cause is what I am, therefore everything resolves in me, the field resolves in me, as a lower order of reality, wherein the field is non separate from me, but I myself am independent of the field as brahman the reality.

I do not have any friction, as the field is not other than me, the field arises out of me, and resolves in me, and as far as i am concerned , I am unchanged, it is a lower order of reality from whose standpoint we talk about the field, and the reality of the knower of the field sits atop a higher order of reality, wherein in fact, the knower isnt even a knower so to say.

He is the knower Only with respect to the field that belongs to the mithya order of reality w.r.t to mithya field there is also a knower and a known also, and the parmartha satyam is not even the knower and of course neither is it the known.

So I see myself cognitively using a word mirror, i see that I am paramartha satyam, while transacting, while being in this relative field which is mithya.

Leela

When I say that I am brahman or ishvara , I should have names and forms, but this me having names and forms I shouldn't think it is only like a blue ball red ball , where blue and red are colors of the ball.  Because even ball is me . So what does me really mean if ballness , skyness, spacenes , time, air, water, fire is all me.  I am one, therefore I being the non dual one, these names of mme, forms of me , indicate formful state.
My formful state is not something to be felt , but it is something evident. And shastra also says brahman is the cause. And I am brahman.
Since I am jnanam, I am actually pure jnanam without name or form just jnanam . And name or form is my vibhuti incidental to me , incidentally I happen to have names and forms. And I manifest then un manifest state I go into , then again I manifest.

But to know me i dont have to know all names and forms, I am formless . I am nameless. I am the one who knows. I am chit. I am self existent. I am non dual hence limitless. These words are mirrors to recognize myself. Formless I am. Nameless I am. I am is available always, but I understand my nature with th3Se words.
Formless I am. Nameless I am. Self existent I am. I am limitless w..r t space , knower of space I am not within space . Chit or consciousness I am. This is the I am. Then name and form comes into fore. I remain myself and happen to have names and forms incidentally . Body I am , where I am my own nature of satchitamamtha yet body attribute k happen to have, attribute in th4 sense when we say body, refers to a knowledge a set of knowledge . Refers to me with some attributes. Simple as that. What is attribute any name or form. If all u know is name and form u r wrong as subject is nameless . Ao with that as the basis I having name and form is object. So object is subject with refer3mce to a particular name and form which has manifest.  I am sarvajna . All knowledge
 Sun kand mountain is knowledge. It is me manifest as sun and mountain one among my many names. One among many names of me. Many forms of me. I kno2 all forms of me. And I myself manifest as the forms . Why due to karmas I am willed. I desire I manifest. I recede back. I am all powerful ishvara. My nature. All power and all kmowledge and who has all forms , total forms infiNite forms. And ability to manifest those names of me forms of me. And recede them. To hide them . To reveal them. I am leela .

Reality of jiva and ishvara

My reality , as jiva is nothing but chit, I am, is chit. I am formless, do not have any attributes, I am not space or time bound, I am pure existence.

The jagad has its reality in ishvara. Which means origin in ishvara.

When we say jagad it includes the inert objects, bodies and the beings enlivening the bodies.

The inert objects do not exist in isolation.

The word inert means, there is absence of expression on part of consciousness, or in fact consciousness is not having any mind, or any activity is not seen.

Even our nails and hair are inert only. It is the body alone that is conscious.


No inert object exists separately, it has no existence of its own, in the sense it is not a second object.

Consciousness is the vastu, and when we say for eg: inert earth, the earthness is an attribute like pot is an attribute to clay.

The earthness entails a certain set of attributes that convey earthness, and the sense organs percieve these attributes to determine "this indeeed is earth". The sense organs themselves are an attribute like pot, an attribute to consciousness.

So nothing is separate from consciousness. Do not exist as a second thing.

It is simply an attributeful consciousness, that is the ishvara.

Misplaced beliefs on what is

Oneself is always "what is".

Oneself can never be a concept, as oneself is, and what "is" cannot be a concept, what "is" is real.
It exists.

Same way oneself exists.

So the existence of oneself is not an issue as such, as oneself being existent is ones own svarupa or nature.

What seems to cause issues is the idea that oneself is subject to birth, death etc.

Oneself can be said to be subject to birth death etc. only when we say that I am as good as the body.

See the body is me, however I am the consciousness that enlivens the body.

I am not the body, but the body is me.
I am the consciousness that inheres the body, that pervades the body.


Therefore I cannot conclude that I am the body, and the bodies attributes belong to me.

On the other hand if you take isvara, isvara has a great shakti, which is his body. The maya body resolves into him during pralaya, just as I dont experience this jagad during sleep, including my body.

And then during srshti, the maya evolves, it evolves from a causal state to a manifest state, with ishvara enlivening, or inhering the maya sharira.

The body mind, where I am, which I inhere, this body mind itself is a product of maya.

Maya has become this body mind also, amongst other elements and objects and bodies.

The question is regarding the reality of maya.

When we say Maya IS, the isness belongs to atma. Atma being chetana is existent, maya achetana has no existence of its own, due to chetana atma , we say achetana maya IS,

A sculptors (sirpis) work

I have laid down the tools now
The sculpture is built , it's complete
I can rest and lie back

The breath is now balanced
And the awareness is still,
So is the Lord in front of me

I have lifted out all remaining stones of desire within my heart
And sculpted this secret form
Naay, the sculptor is him

While I was mistaken that I am sculpting ,
All along he was the one sculpting me, from within

The vishvarupa darshana of attributeless cosnciousness - A mahavakya.

When we talk about consciousness being satyam, and jagad mithya, we keep in mind the fact that satyam is arUpa, and mithya is sarupa.

Satyam is attributeless or formless, and mithya has form or attributes.

So when we say vishvarupa darshana of satchidananda, one has to marvel at the usage of the words.

When we see a gold chain, it is chain rupa darshana of the satyam gold. In that case the drshta is different from drshya, since the drshya is a gold chain, while the drshta is a conscious seer.

However in the case of vishvarupa darshana, the drshya is the visva, which includes ones own body and mind, and the one whom we "qualify" with the title of drshta, is in fact the attributeless consciousness , the satyam.

So a vishvarupa darshana of satchitananda is a wonderful mahavakya if we understand it in essence.

Satchidananda is none other than the drshta. The vishvarupa is also none other than than the drshta alone, the rupa being that of the entire visva, known + unknown.

The mind , body, the instruments, the experienced objects, ALL of this is the visvarupa, the seer is very much a part of this visvarupa, is there is a"seen" without a "seer" ever, of course not. i am taking about the here and now experience of oneself, in ones own experience there is always seer and seen, so it is part of the vishvarupa. And what is the satyam of this "vishvarupa", the satyam is the reality which is the drshta oneself.

This really makes it "real" , the fact that "I" is not the experiencer or the experienced, rather "I"is the truth , and the "experienced experienceR" paradigm is the rupa, or visvarupa.

This knowledge alone is what qualifies to be called "visvarupa darshana of attributless consciousness".

The knowledge leaves nothing else to be attained, as everything is engulfed in oneself, and oneself is ever attained.

Gulping the psychological "issues" into ishvara

Isvara is a gulper, the reason being he is the truth of all that is here.

Where there are seemingly problems and issues, the presence of ishvara, gulps up the issues, and makes them seem effortless , or issueless, problemless.

The state of "absence of problems", "Absence of vikalpa/indicisiveness" is in fact a positive presence, which is the presence of ishvara, and this presence can be invited into ones own life, when one is confronted with problems.

The human being for a large part, is the mind, and his own psychological state of action and reaction. Fuelled by ignorance, the human in his psyche is exposed to constant fear, desires, then desire leading to either greed or else to supression or failure based anger, then anger to other states of mind such as jealousy and so on so forth.

This is perceived to be a problem, as every human seeks "peace" and "peace of mind", in fact even if we were to think from a non divine, and transactional or secular perspective, peace of mind is very much needed even for health and conscious excellence in ones daily activities.

As isvara is the gulper of problems, one has to invite isvara within ones own psyche, and this can be achieved by simply "acknowleding" and "recognising" the presence of ishvara, or intelligence, within the psyche, as a psychological "order" or "causal state of being the intelligent order of psychology of humans".
The desire unfulfilled leads to anger is a psychological order of cause and effect, and one has to recognize the very much "helplessness" in terms of the very creation of appearance of these states of mind, one can never looking at it objectively ask the question, why anger occurs to me, as some sort of self criticism, as the occurence of anger and so on, are natural cause effect paradigm or order.
So it is not the very presence of anger that one should seek to solve, as that is simply the gulper ishvara who is appearing as anger or fear.

When one is able to welcome fear and anger as a manifestation of the psychological order, there is enough objectivity to visit the very cause of the fear and anger, and if indeed it is based on any wrong conclusions, driven off the lack of "knowledge".

As the very famous rope snake analogy, if there is a "superimposed" snake on what is really rope, there is BOUND to be fear, the fear if you analyse is , is based on an unreal cause, whoever, appears to be a real fear of snake pending the knowledge that the rope is indeed snake.

If one were to immediately sweat, and start running at the sight of snake, there is not enough objectivity to even discover the rope.

It generally appears we are afraid of fear itself, and angry at the fact that we are angry, based on "sermons" ,  such as "dont be afraid, hide your fear", or else "angry people are bad people and hence control your anger".

These kinds of sermon are  based on a non understanding of the psychological order.

By recognizing the arrival or fear , anger, other emotions as a manifestation of "order" as ishvara, one is able to immediately "relate" to ishvara in ones own states of mind. As a very presence in ones own mind. This "presence" in ones own mind is worshipful, he is the being that is the very psychological order.

Vedanta teaches us about this being, and in fact ends with the conclusion and the message, that this being is in fact oneself, the very truth of the mind as well as the psychological order.

One can enjoy total freedom, no matter the state of mind.

One always tends to place oneself at the receiving end, I am the experiencer of fear and anger, and it ocurs to "me" , hence I am a victim of fear and anger.

However if you analyse objectively with the valid shruti pramana, this is based on a false conclusion about oneself due to ignorance, that one is a bhokta or experiencer only.

Consciousness is not just the experiencer, it is the truth of the experienced and the experience itself.

Consciousness is the non dual ishvara, that happens to be also the experiencer.
This being the case it is objectively untrue that consciousness is "subject to" anger or fear as some form of undesirable state. The conclusion that "I am limited" drives the "desire" to "experience" states of happiness, whereas the knowledge that I am limitless consciousness negates this desire as not required, given and in light of the fact that I am eternally free, rather nitya mukta, and the states of mind , I am simply the awareness lighting them up.

We do not oppose the desire " I must experience happy state of mind", rather we do not get "fixated" with the desire for experiencing happiness, your freedom, or your limitlessness doesnt depend upon it, is what we mean to say.

Bodham Bodham prati viditam

How to see brahman, or know brahman, is pointed out in kena upanisad, i.e kenopanisad

Pratibodha viditam matam

In every cognition, we should recognize brahman.

How to recognize brahman in every cognition?

What is involved in a cognition, in an act of cognition?

We can take an example of an act of cognition.

I see an apple. I is the one who sees, apple is an object of sight, and apple thought is the knowledge or thought that is seen, through which mind ascertains, that I see an apple.

Now how to recognize brahman here?

Brahman, first of all has to be non dual existence, as per the definition given by the shastra.

Secondly brahman has to be consciousness, as well.

Thirdly brahman has to be limitless.

So now how to recognize brahman in "I see the apple".

If we analyse what I refers to, it refers to atma, not the eye or the mind, as the kena upanisad has already clarified, what does I refer to?

I refers to chakshusaH chakshuH, manaso mano yat.

Eye of the eye, and mind of the mind. Hence I here refers to consciousness, because of which eye becomes seer, mind becomes knower, the truth of seer, knower , is consciousness, I.

So here I refers to brahman, in I see the apple, I refers to brahman.

Now what about the "apple thought" and the apple object?

Can we see it is other than brahman?, no we cannot .

If we see it is other than brahman, then the seer brahman, becomes another space bound object. And brahman necessarily has to be limitless.

So how to now see apple thought, and apple object.

Apple thought, is a thought. what is the reality of any thought, the reality of thought is consciousness only.

When we say, apple, mango , banana, each of these are a thought, and what is invariable present, as the truth of the thought, as the reality of the thought is not available as an object of course. If it were an object we cannot say brahman is limitless.

Also if we say it is limited to being subject alone, again we cannot say so, as the truth of the subject is not limited by space.

So only explanation is one given by shastra, the reality of the thought is "I" the consciousness or brahman.

Then finally the reality of the object, apple is also "I".

It seems hard to believe at first, due to the dehatma buddhi, but it is indeed the truth. What is the apple object, apple object has its reality in something else, all that is "seen" is mithya, has its reality in satyam. Brahman is that satyam.

We habitually lend reality to object, reality of their "own", but on little analysis itself, we cannot find any object with a reality of its own.

When we examine a tree, a tree is made of non tree parts, such as leaves, stem, etc.

The leaf itself breaks into multiple "is's" as cholorphyll IS and so on, again multiple "is'es" for different names and forms we say "is" and that makes up the jagad, names within names, nAmani, nAmAni. Many names within one name, there are infinite names. All these are names of what, of the one reality, that reality is sat, and that sat is I.

When we say I see the apple, the truth of I, is indeed the truth of seeing, as well as seen.

Reality of seer, seen, seeing is one atma, oneself. In the seer recognise atma as seer. In the seem recognise it is atma when we say "apple is". The apple thought is also brahman. Thus let the vyavaharik be, in the vyavahara itself recognize seer is brahman, seen is brahman, seeing is brahman. Bangle is gold, ring is gold, chain is gold.

Thus one can recognize, oneself as brahman, in every cognition I remain the non subject, non object brahman. As the subject also, I remain brahman  and non dual, so the subject I becomes a role, which is mithya. The object and the thought is also brahman or atman.

At the level of ahamkara alone we say "I am the seer". That is vyavaharika.  We do not deny the vyavaharika reality that you are indeed the seer of the apple. But when we talk about moksa we recognize the reality to be only vyavaharika, and recognize the fact that I am the truth of all that is here, brahman.

Then only vyavahara is seen objectively as ultimately untrue, only transactionally true.

Atma jnanam is not a theoretical knowledge

There are many branches of worldly knowledge which are theoretical in nature. Mathematics physics etc. Have theoretical knowledge . An example is electron, protons etc. These are theories , we cannot see an electron like we see a tree or an apple. It's a theory.

Students of science when they tend to approach an intellectual field such as vedanta tend to fall into this theoretical trap , approaching vedanta as a philosophical theory .

Nothing can be far from truth, with this wrong approach vedanta loses its purpose.

Vedanta is not practical knowledge either. People might think when I say it's not theory will overlook what I am trying to say and imagine I am now going to say vedanta is a practical thing which leads to peace of mind etc. No that may be a side effect but that's not what I mean here either.

Vedanta reveals a vastu , much like eyes reveal an apple. It's a direct pramana that reveals a vastu.
The only difference being , the nature of the vastu. If the vastu is a remote vastu , new vastu like a wilder beast (a rare wild Buffalo variety in Africa), I can take you to africa and show you wilder beast. But here the vastu is atma. Atma need not be revealed in africa like a wilder beast , , you need not say ahaa atma , amazing . Atma is the one who says ahaa. Or oho. Or ouch. Yourself.
This yourself I already know 'IAm ' then why a means of knowledge ?
That indeed is the issue. You know 'IAm ' , but you say 'i am body'. What this 'i am ' is that you don't know. So shastra points at this 'i am ' and says this 'i am' is ishvara or brahman. Thus atma becomes a to be known vastu. Shastra promises at the end of shravana manana , you will know "I am attributeless consciousness , सतचिदानंद, sat chit anantha, I am " brahman I am.
No other understanding will interfere in this firm knowledge. Where is the question of theory ,it is as good as, it is as good as , in fact even more clear than direct perception , seeing an apple in america sometimes we doubt whether this is green apple or pear or what is this avocado even if the eyes are sharp , but atma no such problems if the mind is cleared up by sadhanas and guru shastra available.

Vedanta is not impersonal, yet objective

Although Vedanta deals with knowledge and is essentially an inellectual pursuit , how we the nature of the knowledge is not like modern science , which is imperonal.

Vedanta cannot be imperson, since Vedanta is about 2 persons, purushas, jiva and isvara. So Vedanta is about as personal as it can get, it is about the fundamental reality about oneself . Oneself is the most dear to oneself and is usually fraught with complexes and emotions , it is very hard to make a study of oneself, as it is such an a emotional thing. How can I be objective a bit myself , people tend to think that in order to be objective and become a study of knowledge it has to be necessarily an impersonal study. However for atma Vidya, impersonal study cannot work, as atma is oneself the person.
But at the same time as it is in any field of knowedge there has to be a certain objectivity involved, just because it is a personal study of isvara and atma, when it comes to knowledge it cannot be subjective.

Vedanta if one truly understands it , is as a matter of fact both deeply personal at the same time totally objective.  And this becomes possible only due to the fact that atma is priyaH, loved. There is tremendous love for oneself, since oneself is worthy of being loved. On self is happiness itself , Ananda and worthy of love. All that human being look for in life is happiness and to be loved and Vedanta tells you , you are worthy, you are the object or love, you are indeed that limitless happiness itself.
Hence Vedanta is in fact deeply personal, at the same time it acknowledges the emotional issues , and attributes them to ignorance. Raga, bhaya, krodha, it attributes to the cause which is ignorance.  It promises objective knowledge that is deeply personal and reveals oneself as the vary nature of wholeness and sweetness.