Meditation on mithyatvam

All that is known is mithya, has its being in me , atman the brahman.

The being of all that is, is me.

The attributes are superimposition, they seemingly exist, but I am the reality of every vastu.

Sat chit anantha are defining "words"

Words do not reveal atma, since atma is not an object to be revealed.

However words or the mahavakya does create the knowledge through the meaning one gains , which is brahman knowledge, that removes brahman ignorance, and brahman ignorance is the cause for duality, maya, and maya itself has its being in same brahman.

Chit the word refers to subject, awareness.

I am not any object of awareness, but I am awareness, who is the subject.

There is always a subject , aware of waking state, dream state, sleep state.

In waking state there is body awareness, there is mind awareness, there are objects such and the universe of which there is awareness.

In dream state, there is dream awareness, wherein the dream objects awareness is there.

In sleep there is awareness, that I slept well, that I did not know anything in sleep. There is awareness of not knowing anything in particular.

So in all 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping awareness is, and I am that awareness. Chit is the word used for awareness. So chit here is a defining word, it defines brahman or atman.

But the word chit alone is not enough to define brahman.

Since every body mind, there is for every person, "awareness". Every person is subject.
But of course there happens to be only one subject.

In awareness there is no difference. Is there many subjects, many awarenesses? So lord sankara uses the example of space and pots. Between one pot space and another pot space , is there two different space?

No. Same way the chit is one and only one. So it is non dual, there isn't another awareness. In fact there isnt any comparison for awareness, since the remoteness, location, attributes belong to anatma and not to awareness. So awareness is only one, and it appears to be many due to various upadhis, which it lights up, one as the knower or sakshi, other makes them appear to be conscious, such as the body and thoughts appear to be conscious.

So awareness, the word here is a defining word. It defines brahman. It is a lakshana. It is not an attribute, rather a word which is lakshana. It is a word that defines only brahman, not incidentally , but in a way can be used as a svarupa lakshana, and unchanging definition.

Sat or existence is also used in conjunctoin. Sat meaning unchanging with time and space.

That self which is referred to by the word chit, is also sat. It is also "unchanging with time and space".

It is also anantham, it is no limited by time and space.

So satchitananta, the word defines brahman. Satchit referring to self, and satchitananta is brahman.

Therefore the self, atman , chit awareness is satchitananta svarupaH. Its svarupa lakshana words are being discussed. These words remove the ignorance about brahman. Brahman ignorance they remove.

I am unchanging awareness not limited in terms of space or time. Is the self knowledge.

Now tat and tvam are both equated in tat tvam asi.

Here we have to take the lakshyartha of tat and tvam, lakshyartha of both is this satchitananda brahman, in which case the same satchitananda brahman is being talked about.

Tat and Tvam come into the picture as mithya when looked at the vachyartha, there we say brahman as jagad karanam, maya sahita brahman, and also the tvam pada as ajnana sahita brahman.

Atma is limitless

The problem is not entire self ignorance. Since everyone say 'I am' there isnt a real self ignorance for anyone. Everyone already is aware that 'I am', hence its not a "abhava" or not knowing of self.

The problem I face is not due to my existence, but I dont like the limitations I am subject to. I do not like being subject to various limitations, having inferior attributes, and being considered lesser than others, not being happy and so on. These are my issues, and these are what self knowledge solves.

The reason self knowledge CAN solve such problems, is because it happens to be the means to reveal myself as limitless.

To reveal myself as limitless, I need an understanding of the word limitless,as in, what is the sense in which the word is used.

The word used is brahman, which means limitlessly big,or an unqualified big.

Now ocean is big, sky is big, yet there are boundaries, and also it appears to be outside of me the knower.

Whereas, brahman has to be a limitless unconstrained big, and cannot exclude either the knower or the known.

So we hence use the word "consciousness" and "existence", "chit" and "sat".

Chit means the reality of knowledge and knower, sat means the reality of knowledge and known, the same sat is the same as chit also. Chit is sat and sat is chit.

So chit, or sat, or satchit is the reality of knower, knowledge and known all three , and that is what you are.

You see, I tend to think, I am only the knower. But the knower, is something its just a title, given to the content of the knower w.r.t the knowledge and known objects.

So an accurate understanding is that I am the content of the knower, and this content of the knower per the shastra is also the content of thought, or knowledge. When there is apple thought, space thought, gold thought, cow thought, there is an invariable presence of consciousness in all these thoughts isnt it.

We say apple 'is', cow 'is', gold 'is', we imagine all these in our head, apple consciousness is , cow consciousness is, gold consciousness is, pot consciousness is, clay consciousness is, road consciousness is, space consciousness is, time consciousness is, television consciousness is, screen consciousness is, consciousness is.
When we say consciousness is, there is no thought, no idea, no form, no object, yet there is something "is" , for which we say consciousness, the word consciousness DOES have a meaning, because we did use it for apple consciousness, cow consciousness etc. We can also use the word "unqualified thought", that 'is' , is a being.

So that being we have no means to know, because it isnt an object, that is where shastra says it is the subject, chit. Or rather truth of the subject "chit".

Same way all objects themselves, have their reality in something else, and that something else , we say as "sat" or self existent, and that is none other than same chit, atma.

Hence atma is satchit, the reality of entire universe, knower, known , knowledge, and satchit is hence limitless. It is the reality or satyam of entire mithya jagad, hence is limitless.

So you know yourself as satchitananta,,brahman, the limitless self existent consciousness.

That is what we call as self knowledge.

What is meant by "it is just mithya", "it is just nama rupa"

When we say jagad is mithya, when we say the experienced is mithya, the word mithya is a new word in our dictionary . Many a times we hear 'just mithya, simply mithya'. The word mithya itself we dont understand being a new fresh word, then on top of that , when adjectives such as 'just' or 'simply' are used, then we are even more confounded.

I rely on pujya swamijis definition of what mithya means.

Swamiji says , mithya means , "that which doesnt have existence of its own".

Now our examples given such as pot, such as ornaments, are clear enough to convey just that meaning , "doesnt have existence of its own".

So the message as as follows.

Atma alone is satyam. And everything experienced is mithya. It has no existence of its own, so when we say anything "is" the existence , the "is" , refers to atma and there is no other vastu. Atma is limitless by definition and limitless means non dual by definition.

Now where does that leave objects of the world. What about the body then. Body 'is', but there isnt a thing as body, its existence is from the one vastu atma.

But we cant say body is "not" also, there is a transactional truth for body.

So we cant use the word "non existent". Horn of a hare is non existent. But a tree exists, so we dont use the word "anrtam", which means "non existent".

Hence the word to be used here is 'mithya'. It has no direct english equivalent. That is why in english it is unfolded.

When it is explained only it gains a meaning, as its a new word. Rather a meaning is present, that meaning is assigned a word "mithya".

That meaning we apply to our understanding of the jagad. We say jagad mithya, and atma satyam.

I am

Atma jnanam is always there, since I know 'I am'. For that no vedanta and all is required. But we say 'I am body', this is where vedanta walks in.
Body has attributes, and we also say body 'is'.
Vedanta walks in and says body is 'mithya', which means atma that IS, is the adhistanam, devoid of attributes.
So this I am 'is', is consciousness, is existence, but is attributeless, and happens to be the subject also.
And body gains existence from same 'I am', which is what we call mithya srshti. Body means attributes. Attributes are mithya , and "I am" is satyam the adhistanam. This "I am" is the adhistAnam for entire jagad and ishvara also . This I am is brahman , the non dual reality, which alone is the existence in all that "is", such as when we say 'cloud is', 'hill is' , the cloud , hill etc. are names and forms, and the 'is' refers to the atman "I Am' only....

Even the thought "I am" is a reflection on the mind. Without that thought also atman 'is'. or I am. Being the very agent of that thought, being self shining one. If mind is mithya, then the reflection 'I am' thought, that thought is also mithya.

Fruit of enquiry

On constant enquiry using the words of guru and shastra, we find there is no jivatvam attributes in atma, nor any other attributes at all. Atma is real consciousness self existent and not subject to objectification, neither is atma situated in any particular place, place etc. being attribute for space, and belonging to the world of objects.

You see , we recognize atman behind the mind, as the illuminator, but we do not say that 'location" belongs to atma, it rather belongs to mind or thoughts. Thoughts have a location, the illuminator I has no location also. This I in fact illumines the minds of all jivas. All the mind it illumines, or one can say 'I' illumine and and present in every thought of every mind, and in fact when it is said anything 'IS' the Is refers to oneself the atman alone, wherein, the objects attributes, its location etc. are belonging to that object, and the object being mithya.

Is there really two

Is there really two things, when there is seer, and the seen.

Is the seen, and the seer seperated by some boundary, in that case the seer is also one amongst the seen.

You can never find a boundary of separation between what is seen, and the seer yourself.

You can never find the seer behind the seen, outside the seen, inside the seen and so on.

Those attributes that you superimpose, are superimposed on the seer, the truth of the seer alone, and not any other locus for committing the mistake.

The locus of ignorance is atman alone, the locus of jagad is atma, the locus of ishvara is atman.

Owning up to atman and its real nature

Atman is ever the subject and never the object.

This viveka is very essential to remove the confusion sorrounding atma.

Atma is not the body, atma is not any of the thoughts.

Atma is not hiding behind the thoughts, like some hidden object either.

Atman is in fact independent consciousness principle, self existent, self evident, and everything becomes evident in presence of atman.

Atman alone lends presence to body mind complex, to the rest of the jagad.

While the vichara aound atman is taking place in the mind, the atman itself is free from the mind, it is free from any vichara also, it is free from the entire waking world, dream world as well as from sleep.

This completely free atman, alone is what appears as the jagad. 

It appears to have manifest and resolving back into unmanifest, mithya in terms of reality. 

Consciousness atman is satyam, jagad is mithya superimposition on atman. 

This superimposition makes it look like one is playing roles and there is a world to deal with.

In reality I am and there is no world in me. While the world does not exist apart from me, in me there is no world.

Doing principle

We see there is energy and the body mind acts based on energy as well as intelligence.

Everything acts intelligently, thats what we witness.

If everything acts intelligently it must have evolved from an intelligent principle, this principle is what we call as maya.

Maya is the intelligent principle, it does not have an intelligence of its own.
Maya is brahman, and brahman is the intelligent principle, or consciousness is what brahman is.

Since maya is not other than brahman, maya also acts intelligently, and does not exist separate from consciousness.

So matter when we say, it doesnt really exist apart from consciousness as a second entity.

Consciousness alone appears as matter.

Matter for one acts intelligently, because of consciousness.

That is what consciousness does, makes everything act and work intelligently, because it is what renders presence to all that IS.

Every atom also acts in orderly fashion since its presence is essentially consciousness principle.