Mananam Questions

a. How can atma be the reality of the jagad, atma is nirguna, and we dont see any nirguna objects in the jagad,

Of course any object that is 'seen' has gunas that are 'seen'. What is seen, is not nirguna, only the seer is nirguna. So it is obvious, that the satyam is not seen, rather the seer is the reality of the seen objects.

b. Does this mean seer is hidden behind the seen, and yet is the seer?

Seer is not behind in terms of space and hidden in terms of space. Nothing is hidden, what is hidden also is another findable object, so it comes under objects, it comes under 'seen', both known and knowable objects come under seen, come under jagad.

So the reality is never hidden in fact, since seer can never be hidden.

c. Well if seer is the reality, isnt the seer situated behind the mind, and limited to the mind, so how can the seer be reality of all that is?

No , seer is the seer lighting up the mind for sure, however we cannot say the seer is limited by the mind. The seer lights up every thought, but remains untouched, unclaimed, independent of every thought. Even space, seer is aware of space, therefore is not within space, is in fact untouched by concept of space, neither inside, nor outside space, we can say transcends space, transcends time also by the exact same logic.

d. Well this in case makes seer transcend all that is here, completely, yet we say seer is reality of everything, how so?

It may transcend, yet it remains as the reality of all. Since existence is the nature of seer, whenever we say, anything 'is' it is the seer whom we say 'is'.

e. How is that possible, seer is consciousness, but we say 'is' for inert objects also. So how can consciousness we can say is inert, isnt that contradictory?

Yes it is contradictory, which is why we say the jagad is mithya. While seer cannot be inert, what is inert can be in fact an appearance that is mithya, wherein the satyam is the seer.

Same as we see clay has no qualities or functions. But when we say pot IS, clay is very much all through the pot, yet transcends the pot.

Same way we can say any inert object with inert attrributes IS, that ISness comes from satyam the seer. So it is not the inert attributes that one takes to be oneself, one says oneself is the non inert consciousness seer, and the inert objects are nothing but mithya, wherein we say inert object is, due to error. So error becomes cause of the universe.

It is simply an error, when we say this 'is' inert, wherein that which 'is' , is consciousness, not subject to objectification.

f. So if we are saying there is an error, does it mean, under the object , there is actually a conscious object that we mistake as inert.

Again we cannot apply the gunas of being under etc. to consciousness, as it transcends space etc.

g. So how do we then know the cause?

Simply by understanding that the ever present seer, that is oneself is indeed the cause

h. And when the cognition of objects is there?

When cognition of objects is there, then also, oneself is the cause, and the cognition is a superimposition of attributes upon oneself, which includes the very 'witnessing'.

i. So the witness status, isnt that also attributable to mithya?

Yes both witness status (subject) and witnessed status (object) are attributable to superimposed gunas alone. Nirguna chaitanyam atma is neither subject nor object.

j. So we have both manifestation and entry right?

Yes nirguna atma brahman, it manifests as inert objects. Then enters those very objects, as the subject (jivatma).

k. Since the gunas and are mithya, so is manifestation and entry right?

Yes , srshti is mithya. Reality of srshti is satyam.

l. So mithya is satyam right. We say mitya in terms of attributes and function alone, while the very reality of anything is satyam brahman?

Correct when we say mithya, it is all the way that sat we talk about as mithya. Sat alone is all along, showing up as having gunas and so on, so we understand it as mithya level of reality. Never is there not isness.

Looking around

Looking around one sees many objects, all these objects are non separate from me. they in fact refer to me alone, I am the reality of all these objects.

I am the reality of these words that are being typed, they do not exist other than me, then the laptop is also IS, that IS refers to me, then words refer to me, suddenly words can become alive, as they are impelled via me, I am their reality.

Same manner, what is being typed, the typefont, is me, the cursor is me, I am the reality of the blinking cursor, the understanding of what is blinking and the fact that there is blinking, both I am the reality of both. It is what we say is 'knowledge' what is, is knowledge , I am the reality of all knowledge.

I am the reality of chair also, chair IS, I am.

When chair IS, time is, space is. I am the reality of time, space and chair that IS in time and space.

Sounds 'is', I am sakshi chaitanyam that is the reality of all sounds, sound exists and I am its reality. Space IS, and I am reality of space, thought is, I am reality of thought, mind and eye IS, I am reality of both.I am the one reality 

Who is shakti

Shakti has 3 forms, iccha shakti, kriya shakti, and gnana shakti.

With iccha shakti comes desire to manifest, desire is not enough, knowledge of something is needed, so that knowledge is also shakti, then the actual ability to manifest in a form, is kriya shakti.

So we look at the jagad, alongwith atma, or brahman, as shakti.

The jagad or ishvari alone manifests and goes back to unmanifest.

When the matter manifest, we say she has manifested, and when she resolves we say she is in pralaya.

Within this alone there is desire, there is karma, there is dharma, there is attraction, there is moha or delusion, there is ignorance, there is samsara, there is liberation, all within the maya of parashakti alone.

Parashakti alone is in her leela seeing various jivas in ignorance, and then she herself is helping them out via gnana, that all this is play only, in reality one is pure awareness.

It is a parashaktis leela , all that is here.

The leela is the parinami upAdAna kArana, and her reality is vivarta upAdana kArana.

I am that reality.

Therefore parashakti is none else than a name with which I am talked about, although I myself am free from that name also, that function also.

So that shakti IS, but ultimately shakti herself am, nirguna, nirAkara.

One should place a physical body as a child of parashakti, and parashaktis leela is unimaginable in a human mind.

In a human mind, only limited glories can be discussed, and talked about, since the glorys of parashakti are endless and limitless in nature.

She has limitless measure of aishvaryam, yashas, viryam, vairagyam , sri, jnana all 6 glories in limitless measure. These glories all exist in her, but she remains free from all gunas.

So when any action is done by the individual ego, in this universe, action has to be blessed by the totality. That is what we call as dharma.

The one reality

When we say the one reality, this one reality is the reality of the one who is saying, the instruments that say, as well as the things that is seen by the person.

So knower, known, knowledge, all the three are said to be the one reality.

This one reality when we say is both the knower and the known, obviously thought of an object isnt going to reveal the one reality. So what is revealed, as well the the one to whom anything is revealed, if both are one reality, then the usual process of knower, and known interaction, wherein an object is revealed via a thought, cannot reveal the one reality.

However if we were to look at what the upanisad says, that the light , which is responsible for any act of revealing, the one in whose presence alone, revelation can happen, the one to whom alone anything can be revealed, is none other than awareness. The awarer, is none other than awareness.

It is in the presence of awareness, that anything can be ever revealed.

Now if upanisad says, that awareness is the one reality, then a confusion arises, that isnt the awareness limited to the knower.

Firstly the truth of the knower isnt someone in time and space, as we talk about the super knower here.

The ordinary knower is the knower of thoughts in waking state, knower of dream in dream state, and knower of deep sleep, all the time associated with the body.

But when we see that instead of talking about knower, in reference to the body always, if we see the fact, that in deep sleep body awareness 'is not', but awareness 'is'.
In between two thoughts also, awareness 'is' but body awareness 'is not'.

So what is this awareness if we explore it isnt really limited to the body, only being reflected in the body.

When we talk about it, as a person, we talk about oneself, with reference to a particular body.

Essentially when shastra says this awareness is brahman, we are simply talking about brahman in reference to a particular body, which all this while was falsely considered to be 'oneself'.

On the other hand, oneself is the ultimate revealer, the consciousness, the awareness itself.

So I the awareness am being discussed in this body.

In this discussion, another knowledge comes from guru, that I the awareness, is also the cause for this body and all bodies, all matter.

How can that be the case, is the question.

Answer is simple in the sense, that all that 'is' has no existence of its own.

Therefore when anything at all is being referred to as 'is' with a name and form, the name and form , the very speech, the very speaker, all the three are enjoying existence , borrowed from oneself the awareness, while awareness oneself has undergone no change whatsoever.

So the speaker, the spoken object, the speech, all the three reset upon the self, therefore the self is none other than brahman.

Vande guru paramparA

It is our guru parampara, that brings sanity and clarity to moksa purusharta, and the pursuit of moksa.

That moksa is nothing but gnana phalam, that words such as self 'realization', experience based 'liberation', as though its an end to be achieved, the myriad confusions, and projections, it is the guru parampara, and the firm conviction , and shraddha in the 'pramana', and the depth of understanding the fact of mahavakya pramanatvam, and the whole guru + shastra combination, via Shravana manana nidhidhyasanam, the punya of having being exposed to the valid guru parampara, is nothing but the grace of the lord, and the guru, and the parampara.

sadAshiva samArambham, shankarAcharya madhyamAm,
asmadacharya paryantAm, vande guru paramparAm.

The cause is pure consciousness atman without form

The cause is pure chit, atman without cause. Pure chit, is oneself, atman, truth of the one who says I am the knower.

If I am the knower, I am the truth, I am of the nature of consciousness. I am all pervasive, which means I do not have a space wise constraint, and in fact I am aware of space.

Space is in me.

In space alone I alone appear to be manifest as various objects, as the knower, I alone shine in the mind, and make the mind shine through sense organs and shine out to cognize the nature of objects. The objects themselves are manifestations of myself, and vrtti also are manifestation of myself.

Consciousness myself alone is manifest as matter also. Matter is nothing but consciousness,  manifest as though consisting of gunas or attributes.

The manifest consciousness with attributes, such as a table, such as wood etc. is a mithya manifestation. Mithya means these attibutes are not intrinsic to atma.

Therefore the only cause for manifestation is really speaking 'unreal' superimposition of attributes, and not a true presence of attributes.

Thus this jagad in its enterity is a superimposition and not a reality.

Assimilating the realitywords

What is essentially unchanging is the prarabdha that unfolds and runs the life of a person.
As per prarabdha, the triad of knower, known, and knowledge, the reality of experience, daily life unfolds as it is.

For the one who is engaged in jnana yoga, what is to be assimilated is essentially an understanding of the degree of reality ascribed to ones own experience and daily life.

There are two levels of reality that are discussed in detail, there is the vyavaharika, and the paramarthika. Each degree of reality is always ascribed to a vastu.

The vastu to which the mithya reality is ascribed to , are the triad of knowledge, known objects, and the knower, and each of these we are able to see there are associated gunas. What is known is primarily gross or tamo guna, while in the case of bodily emotions, hunger etc. can be said to be little more subtle nevertheless is tamo guna. When in action, and in movement one sees rajo guna at play.
The knower is primarily sattva guna pradAna, so are the sense organs, not just oneself, but in every living being. So the vyavahara plane of reality is essentially made of 3 gunas.

When it is said that "I am sakshi chaitanyam" , what is to be clearly understood is the fact that I am immediately transcending the body mind complex. Therefore immediately I am saying I have no gunas, and hence transcend the body mind, therefore I have to be other than the body mind. So I look at in between two thoughts, and even in deep sleep, I am in fact pure consciousness, the witness consciousness , knower of dream, sleep as well as waking states.This sakshi chaitanyam or atma is nirguna, neither the knower, nor the known, nor the knowledge.It is the very reality of the knower, very amazing fact to begin with.

When I say, I know, I is the consciousness, which alone is as though the knower lighting up thoughts and is associated with sattva guna.So i negate the "knower status" , but I retain myself. I am without being the knower also.This "I am" is what we say is pure chaitanyam, hence I am pure chaitanyam.
This pure chaitanyam, I already am, so it is not a something that is to be accomplished.

What we do is the superimposition of knower, known , knowledge, to those we ascribe a mithya order of reality. We say it is a dependent existence, we say it is a unreal existence. It has no existence of its own.So we see the known objects they exist, in the sense when we use the objects in vyavahara they exist, but in the ultimate reality they do not since that order of reality is mithya.

The vastu is the same, it is not the vastu whom we say is a satyam vastu, and this vastu is a mithya vastu. There is no vastu called satyam or mithya. Satyam and mithya are reality words, depicting or talking about the reality of that vastu. Such as 'is', 'is not'.

Mithya is a reality word, which says the vastu IS, however its existence is dependant on its cause, and it doesnt exist independently from its cause.

Satyam is a reality word, which says vastu exists independently and is uncaused.

So depending upon ones understanding of a vastu one can say satyam or mithya.

Such as in a pot, if I say this is a pot. The word pot , pot understanding is 'mithya' , since there is no vastu called pot. In pot understanding there is understanding of the function of pot, which is carrying water etc. but at the same time there is an invariable clay understanding as well. That clay is satyam, while the pot understanding is mithya , where satyam vastu is invariably present.

Same way consciousness is invariably present in every cognition.

When I say body IS, the one who says that, knower IS, the knowledge or awareness of the body IS, and the body IS.

The awarer, the awareness of the body is actually satyam, while body is a function such as a pot.

So the body is awareness, while awareness is the truth of the body, and in fact truth of everybody.

Mithya and Satyam

The experience of something does not automatically portend the reality of the experienced .
Dream is also very much experienced , while the experiencer of the dream is very much real and present , dream itself cannot be said to be 'real'.
It is only while dreaming that one might consider the dream to be real. And hence invest in 'i am the person undergoing this experience ' , as in a dream one takes the dream to be real. But on waking state I say ' this waking state is 'real' , dream was unreal.

Vedantic wisdom on the other hand , does not even consider the waking state also as absolutely real. It makes a strong statement of fact, that affixes the waking state also a lower degree of reality , as compared to atma or brahman which alone is absolutely real.
Now what does real mean, real for one has to exist and exist as it is , determinably so. It must be non negatable at any stage.

If we take a table, a table loses its reality to wood . Functionally its a table has its utility as a table , but it's reality belongs to wood , which alone can be said to be 'real'. Further if we look at wood also, wood in turn is a name given to the wood form and material and has its reality in cellulose . Like this we can go on. We see the experienced objects do not have a reality of 'their own ' .
On the other hand , we cannot say objects experienced are non existent , such as horn of a man. Horn of a man is non existent, if at all only an imaginary horn of a man can be talked about. There is not even a relatively real horn of a man. However objects that we see such as a tree , sky, our own body etc . have a relative reality . Though when analysed they do not have a reality of their own being made of parts other than itself , such as a tree is made of 'non tree' parts, which themselves are made of further parts . Where is that which is absolutely real , which alone lends reality to all that 'is'. This reality has to be unchanging with time , space , shastra says it is a non dual reality.

We can argue infinite causes , which is where logic seems to take us , but it's not a complete logic as it ends in infinite regress. Cause of b is a, cause of a is c, cause of c is d and so on till ad infinitum. We cannot say cause is unfindable , unknowable. An unknowable cause presumes a non existent cause. What is unknowable cannot exist, as existence automatically implies knowability. But whatever is knowable we have already seen how it has a dependant existence only .

So what shastra says , that atma the self evident , consciousness that is present in all 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping , knower of space itself , sakshi chaitanyam , when it says sakshi chaitanyam alone is absolutely real, and all that we experience as 'exists' , which we have seen has only dependent existence , gains existence from sakshi chaitanyam which is non dual independent , existence , consciousness principle.
This shastri knowledge is assimilable , logic doesn't refute it , cannot refute.