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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment