I can be angry at my lord

 Guru teaches that one can also be angry at the lord.

It is an emotion that is within the order.

It is an emotion that is understandable given the order that is in itself a manifestation of the lord.

Who is this lord, who is all pervasive in and as the orderly manifestation.

The individual thoughts and emotions and desires and likes and dislikes and wants and needs and consciousness are included in this lord. Every other individual is included in this lord.

And the lord of all these individuals is a manifestation of this lord.

This lord, lords over all the individuals and all the entities, and he himself is the existence that lends oneself as 'is' in and through as one and all.

He is non dual.

He is real when we understand himself as trascending the names and forms.

Transcending the names and forms with which he is manifest, he is the unmanifest consciousness, that is sakshi chaitanyam. Manifest as all beings he is the lord.

His manifestation is a miracle, is mithya, like a dream. The fact is that he is manifest.

The fact is that he is ishvara.

I accept him, I need not dismiss him.

Without dismissing there can be non duality when mithya is understood.

Mithya is understood as non dismissive way of resolving him as one and non dual formless being in ones understanding, like resolving pot in clay in ones understanding.

So in my understanding this lord is non dual consciousness alone and nothing else. Isnt that enough. 

negatable and non negateable

 I negate all that I think I am.

So I am this body, the mind, the thoughts, the objects that I know etc. I negate any such understanding as incorrect, based on drk drshya viveka, guided by shastra which brings up this line of enquiry.

However I cannot negate my existence, as throughout the enquiry i exist.

I cannot also negate my nature of being consciousness, as throughout the enquiry, I am negating certain understandings and object confusions, of all of which I am conscious. 

So in the process of this negation itself, I also come to understand the non negatable understanding that I within the enquiry itself understand that I can safely retain, which are the fact of myself being an existent conscious being. 

But beyond this much, drk drshya enquiry does not take me anywhere, there is no other understanding.

There is also no moksha, as there is no purnatvam here, given so much has been negated, and the self doesnt seem to have gained anything, other than now being nothing, but still existent and conscious of being the fact that I am nothing.

But this is where shastra is also saying tvam tat asi, you are that.

When it is said "that" another object should not come into the picture again, since whats the point of taking on now again, what was already negated.

Therefore, here the meaning of 'that' must not include the anatma.

So here , that will need to refer to , sat.

Sat is the cause of anatma.

When we say cause of anatma also, the anatma should and need not be brought in at all.

Because here it is the as though cause. 

As though cause means, same manner as clay is a cause of pot and anything with various forms of clay. 

And even a lump of clay.

It is logically possible and shastra is the pramana, that this is indeed the case.

What shastra has to say about anatma.

Anatma is simply manifestation, and unmanifest cyclically it comes and goes back.

These are its 2 states. 

Both these are not in atma, atma is free from both these states.

Now from the standpoint of truth, anatma in both manifest and unmanifest states, is mithya.

Means it has an as though existence borrowed from I the cause ( which is a non cause or as though cause).

So as though to be a cause is not an issue, as its as though. So as though cause I am, as though maya is, as though jagat is, and as though manifestation, cyclical is, and as though ishvara is, and as though birth and death is.

Because it is as though, I dont have to discuss about it, and because it is as though, I dont have to discuss its effect on me, and because it is as though,  I am not bothered about it, because it is as though, I am can be I am as it is, and when I say sun IS, moon IS, body IS, it as though IS, and that ISness is the nature of I, and I is, and this I is is non negatable, hence satyam, I IS consciousness jnanam, and this I IS pervades everything and hence anantam. Anantam here is a negating word to negate the superimposed limitations due to ignorance.