Known objects , knower, knowledge, are mithya. Mithya is not an object, it is a word covering ones understanding of reality. it is an ontological word. The word indicates the trueness or falseness. There is a 3rd reality word in shastra, called mithya. Mithya means, neither non existent, nor having any existence of its own. If it doesnt have existence of its own, in language we say "lily flower is".Here the word lily is a name and form, and existence is not an adjective of lily.
Rather existence is the svarupa of atma.
So like saying golden chain. Rather it is chainy gold.
So in the object lily, the word 'object' is a form, is a function, is a superimposition, is a adjective.
The word subject is also an adjective. Once the word object, and the name and form, and the color are all taken to be adjectives, then the noun is atma alone. Atma that is nirvisesha, nameless formless atma.
Now with this in mind, when we say "I see the lily".
The knower of lily, the knowledge of sight of lily , the object lily are all adjectives.
The noun is not an object of knowledge, the noun is the reality atma, wherein knower is also an adjective. The adjective is tatastha lakshana. So the recognition can take place of the lily object, the lily object can be, the knower can be, no issues. It is not hiding the atma.
As atma is not an object to be hidden.
Being not an object at all, it cannot be subject to hiding and all. Only ignorance is as though hiding atma.
So atma is not hidden. Atma IS, the reality of atma is to be known. When it is said object IS, is refers to atma that is not an object. So atma is not the object. Subject is a name given to atma again, given the seeing. The vrtti IS, is refers to atma, atma is not the vrtti.
So is across knower, known, knowledge is, ones svarupa.
Anantam jnanam, anantam satyam these words reveal this meaning about atma.
So in every cognition atma is.
In every cognition, atma is the svarupa of the cognition, the svarupa of the knower, the svarupa of the object that IS.
So when it is said cognition IS, the is belongs to atma it is said. When it is said the IS belongs to atma, without withdrawing the entire cognition, letting the cognition be, what IS , has to be reclaimed by the atma. Therefore all you are doing is claiming your ananta svarupa. So my ananta svarupa here refers to my being not away from anything, my being all pervasive. So when I say that object IS, whatever space time it may be in, in that the isness, belongs to the all pervasive me.
In the cognition, the isness belongs to the "me" that is nirvisesha, that doesnt become the cognised, or the cogniser or the cognition.
So in the cognition, in the cognised, the cogniser, the IS belongs to the me, that is not the cognition, cognised or the cogniser. So here I am claiming by brahma svarupa, my ananta svarupa.
Rather existence is the svarupa of atma.
So like saying golden chain. Rather it is chainy gold.
So in the object lily, the word 'object' is a form, is a function, is a superimposition, is a adjective.
The word subject is also an adjective. Once the word object, and the name and form, and the color are all taken to be adjectives, then the noun is atma alone. Atma that is nirvisesha, nameless formless atma.
Now with this in mind, when we say "I see the lily".
The knower of lily, the knowledge of sight of lily , the object lily are all adjectives.
The noun is not an object of knowledge, the noun is the reality atma, wherein knower is also an adjective. The adjective is tatastha lakshana. So the recognition can take place of the lily object, the lily object can be, the knower can be, no issues. It is not hiding the atma.
As atma is not an object to be hidden.
Being not an object at all, it cannot be subject to hiding and all. Only ignorance is as though hiding atma.
So atma is not hidden. Atma IS, the reality of atma is to be known. When it is said object IS, is refers to atma that is not an object. So atma is not the object. Subject is a name given to atma again, given the seeing. The vrtti IS, is refers to atma, atma is not the vrtti.
So is across knower, known, knowledge is, ones svarupa.
Anantam jnanam, anantam satyam these words reveal this meaning about atma.
So in every cognition atma is.
In every cognition, atma is the svarupa of the cognition, the svarupa of the knower, the svarupa of the object that IS.
So when it is said cognition IS, the is belongs to atma it is said. When it is said the IS belongs to atma, without withdrawing the entire cognition, letting the cognition be, what IS , has to be reclaimed by the atma. Therefore all you are doing is claiming your ananta svarupa. So my ananta svarupa here refers to my being not away from anything, my being all pervasive. So when I say that object IS, whatever space time it may be in, in that the isness, belongs to the all pervasive me.
In the cognition, the isness belongs to the "me" that is nirvisesha, that doesnt become the cognised, or the cogniser or the cognition.
So in the cognition, in the cognised, the cogniser, the IS belongs to the me, that is not the cognition, cognised or the cogniser. So here I am claiming by brahma svarupa, my ananta svarupa.
No comments:
Post a Comment