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.