The name and form, word and meaning , when we say IS, isness refers to consciousness itself, but with name and form, when in reality consciousness is nameless and formless on its own, but when we refer to consciousness with name and form, it does not become namy formy, it remains nameless and formless, the name and form do not stick to it, the name and form has no existence of its own, hence we say consciousness is appearing with name and form, which in itself has no existence of its own, hence name and form is neither existent, nor non existent given it appears with consciousness, not existent, given it has no existence of its own. The resultant learning is that atma in itself is limitless and non dual, while name and form appearing with atma is what makes atma appear as an experience experiencer duality and as an limited experiencer or experience, hence this appearance has to be mithya, as it has no existence of its own, atma is not appearing, atma is not experiencing, but there is a mithya appearance and a mithya experiencer, it is with name and form that atma appears or experiences, so that experiencing and experiencer are mithya, name and form sahita atma, it is not atmas appearance or atmas experience it is the name and forms appearance and experience, that name and form which has no existence of its own, upadhi that is not self existent. So when I see a name and form, and I see myself as seer of name and form, the upadhi is dependent on me for isness, same for experiencer upadhi, so does not exist in me, exists depending on me, has no existence of its own, is as good as non existent hence. It does not exist in me, does not exist separate from me, appears to exist with me as its substratum. Hence, maya cannot be counted as another entity there is no such entity to count other than me.
