Knowledge of Chaitanyam -5 (Sathyam in Vedanta)

In the previous posts, we introduced jiva chaitanya, ishvara chaitanya and raised the question how shAstra can claim oneness of these two opposite principles.
This is where we raised the two fold nature of chaitanyam, which is sathyam and mithya , and started talking about what we mean by sathyam.

Sathyam as we said in the previous post, we understand its general meaning to be that which is true, known through a valid means of knowledge to be true.
We gave examples such as , 'A tree exists outside ramus home'. If I go to Ramus home and check, and I see the tree, the 'sight' reveals, that OK, this is indeed 'true' and that is what we call as 'sathyam'.

However in the vedantic context, vedanta has a pratigna, a vow, that is has to reveal the oneness of ishvara chaitanya and jiva chaitanya. This is indeed the truth, since veda is valid pramAna.

The veda has to use words to communicate this knowledge, and necessarily by design, it has to use the words, that the jignasu,the one who wants to know can understand. Words that are within the understanding of the jignAsu.

Now one such word, we discussed and clarified, is sathyam, however the word sathyam alone is not enough to communicate what veda seeks to convey.

We previously talked about ishvara chaitanyam or consciousness as ishvara, and jiva chaitanyam or consciousness in the form of jiva and we were wondering, how in the world, can veda says that jiva and ishvara are one and the same, inspite of having directly opposite attributes.

That is when we introduced the two fold nature of sathyam and mithya.

Right not we are unfolding the word sathyam.

Now shAstra, has more to say about chaitanyam or consciousness.

Shastra says 'vAchArambanam vikAram nAmadeyam, mrtikka eva satyam'.
This translates to 'Pot exists only in terms of name and form, clay alone is sathyam or truth'.

Hence shAstra now loads the word sathyam, with a special meaning, rather than the general meaning we talked about in the previous post for sathyam.

This is the vedantic meaning, and in fact a more complete meaning given to sathyam, sathyam is not simply true, it has to be in fact THE truth. What do I mean by THE truth.

Here is what it is. In a world of gold ornaments, gold is THE truth, while chain, bracelet, earring and so on are the forms and names of that gold.

In a word of clay objects clay is THE truth, while the pots, and jugs and mugs and so on are the names and forms of clay.

Same way, chaitanyam, says the shAstra is THE truth, while all that exists here, which is essentially ishvara chaitanyam, ishvaras knowledge as multifarious forms and names and objects, of which jiva chaitanya is an amsa ( small part) , that chaitanyam , is not just sathyam, but in fact THE satyam. We can use the word anantham sathyam. Chaitanyam is sathyam in the manner, how clay is the sathyam for all objects made of clay, and gold is sathyam for all objects made of gold.

In case of gold jewels, or clay pots and jugs, while the maker of the jewel, is separate person, in the cause of the jagad, shAstra says
'He desired, He became many'.

That HE or SHE as we know is chaitanyam. So here the chaitanyam is BOTH the maker as well as the material, and chaitanyam is also sathyam, THE truth of the jagad, THE truth of all  that is here, including the jiva chaitanyam , who is an amsA or a part.

Hence sathyam of vedanta, is not simple sathyam, rather is THE sathyam, non negatable sathyam, or in other words anantham sathyam, limitless sathyam.

Hence shAstra loads further meaning to the word sathyam, to now refer to absolute non negatable, limitless 'truth' and not just simple truth.

This chaitanyam, the vastu the , thing, that is chaitanyam, is ekam, is ONE, is non dual, advitiyam, and is also sathyam or truth of all that is here.

Note carefully, the word sathyam here, does not qualify chaitanyam as an adjective, rather reveals the 'reality' of chaitanyam to be 'truth', and not just conventional truth, rather  communicates the knowledge that chaitanyam is 'absolute truth', non negatable, limitless truth, using the example of clay and pots, gold and jewels in order to load meaning.

Now OK, I understood, that sathyam means absolute truth, then what about the jagad, what word , what reality word will you use for all that this chaitanyam has become. What word will you use for chaitanyam as ishvara, as all knowledge, as every object? can we say anrtham? can we say 'false'? NO. Since there is functional utility for this world, it cannot be said to be false.

Therefore shAstra now introduces the word 'mithya', that can be used for jagad.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam -4 (Sathyam)

In previous posts we talked about jiva chaitanya, ishvara chaitanya, and two fold nature of reality.

We ended by saying, sathyam and mithya is the two fold nature.

In this post, we will talk about sathyam.

It is important to understand the kind of word sathyam and mithya is.

There are various words that describe an object.

We can use an adjective. We can say, this flower is a 'red' flower.
An adjective 'differentiates' an object, from rest of the objects of the same species. So an adjective qualifies a noun, and brings out its difference. That is the job of an adjective.

Ramu is a station master. Shamu is an honest station master. The word 'honest' qualifies shamu the station master, and differentiates him from other station masters.

However, there are certain words, which are simply reality words. They also qualify the object, but do not differentiate it. Instead they communicate its reality.

For example if we say, 'hair of a tortoise'. Now we all know that in reality, in the objective reality that we observe, the animal, that we call as tortoise, has no hair. Therefore, hair of a tortoise, is a 'false' object. Another example of 'horn of a hare'. There can be many such examples.

"False" is hence a word that qualifies an object but does not differentiate it from within its species.
In sanskrit we use the word 'anrtham' , the reality word, for 'false'.

In opposition stands the word 'true' or 'sathyam'. A tree, sky and so on, can be said to be true. If an object is said to exist, when known through a valid means of knowledge, it can be said to be 'true' in the general sense.

Hence we now have a nice and straightforward meaning for the word Sathyam.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 3 ( Two Fold Nature of Reality)

In post 1 and post 2 the ishvara chaitanya, and jiva chaitanya was mentioned.

Now what is the svarupa, of this chaitanya?

This is to be known, since earlier, we only said that chaitanya, is sAkshi.
We also talked about ishvara, and said ishvara is also a conscious being, chaitanya svarupa.

Now comes the main part of the teaching of vedanta, which is the oneness of this ishvara chaitanya and jiva chaitanya.

The very valid question put forth by a seeker, is, OK, I agree ishvara is chaitanya svarupa, and jiva is chaitanya svarupa, which means conscious being, or consciousness.

However, if you see ishvaras consciousness, it is qualifed, ishvara is qualified with the MEGA knowledge, with all knowledge, with all power, in fact the entire creation is ishvara.

However, jiva chaitanya, can at best only be called an amsA, a small part, like the little finger in the body, perhaps we can say , jiva chaitanya is a small PART of ishvara chaitanya.

That is the best we can see, then how come, do you say, there is NON DUAL? There is only duality, ishvara and jiva. Both may be conscious principles, both may be consciousness, however That ishvara consciousness is All Glory, but this little jiva consciousness that I am, is nothing in comparison. I am a dependant person, for every small thing I depend on others, or for ishvara, from food down to sleep , I am dependant. How can we then say ishvara and jiva are one and the same?

This is where we stand, at cross roads.

This is where shAstra talks about the nature of reality being "two fold", depending on how we look at it.

This two fold is sathyam and mithya.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 2 (Ishvara)

Chaitanyam means consciousness. This was the understand we gained in previous post 'Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 1 (jiva)'

Now let us look at ishvara.

The upanisad tells us that, he desired, he created, he became all this.
From his own knowledge, he manifest the unmanifest universe into manifestation. The universe is his knowledge, and it cyclically becomes manifest as an organic being, which also non separate from him, and goes back into seed form, which is also his knowledge.

Noe let us look at this HE. This HE, can he be 'material object' ? What is his nature, is it material, or is it consciousness.

We look around universe, there is order, there is water cycle, nitrogen cycle, gravity, nine planets rotating revolving in geometry, human body has so much complexities, that there is specialist doctor for every part.

Certainly for such order to be present, it requires a conscious being.

Upanisad tells us the same thing, that ishvara is satchitAnantha, he is limitless conscious being, who is the cause of existence.

So certainly ishvara is also consciousness.

Ishvara is chaitanyam with the attribute or function of being creator, maintainer and dissolver of entire universe.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam - 1 (jiva)

Chaitanyam means consciousness. For us to understand the meaning of the word, consciousness, we have to rely on knowledge we already have, generally have. Vedanta only takes our current experience and teaches with 'known words'.

So consciousness , when we say, chaitanyam, refers to a known meaning, it is a meaning, which indicates the difference between , myself, the knower, and NOT me, the known.

I know, the rock.
I know, the tree.
I know my body.
I know the book.
I know the laptop.

Here 'I' is 'understood' generally, by even folks not interested in vedanta, it is understood, to be different in terms of quality, from the object that is known.

I, is understood to be knower, capable of knowing, capable of being conscious of another object, capable of being conscious as such, we convert that to a noun, instead of everytime saying the big phrase 'that which is capable of being conscious of another object' we replace the phrase with a noun form, 'awareness' or 'consciousness', or in sanskrit we say 'chaitanyam'.

So this is the way we understand the meaning of the word chaitanyam, referring to myself, who , w.r.t any object, is a sAkshi or witness or knower or awarer, is sAkshi chaitanyam, witness consciousness, knower consciousness, or simply consciousness.

JIva is chaitanyam with the attribute of being the controller of this body mind self complex.

Sarvam brahmamayam

Brahman is unqualified, consciousness or chit, and as jagat kAranam is also 'sat'.

This unqualified chit, is not available for knowledge, as an object, it cannot be available as any object of ones knowledge, since , any object is 'qualified'. Which means it will have some qualfication, to be qualified as an object. Object means qualifications only, when we say 'it is' we have to say something, about 'it'.
So any object, first is qualified as being an 'object' , same time is also having additional qualifications.

Now what is this chit, how is it to be known, if it can never be an object of knowledge.
ShAstra points out, that chit is already known, but not recognized as such, for what it is, which is chit.
It is simply 'I'. I is thought to be 'body', 'mind', 'bodymind', 'subtle body,' 'causal body,' waker', 'dreamer', 'sleeper', 'samadhi I' and so on, which are all 'qualified, attributeful objects'.
But no, that is not I, since I say, my body, my mind and so on, I am not the object, which is objectifiable.
Even when someone scolds me, I, remains unobjectifiable, they look at my body and say, he did this and scold me, but I am not subject to objectification. I cant be called 'subject' also, the body I , is subject with reference to the rose , when it is said, I see rose, but by 'itself' , I is not intrinsically a seer. In deep sleep, in fact in between two thoughts there is a gap, without which thoughts would criss cross,here there is no subject object division, yet I am.

Thus through vedantic enquiry it is revealed as true that, I am indeed the unqualified chit or consciousness, unqualified consciousness, I am.

Now once we have understood this clearly, shastra goes on to say, this chit, is the SATYAM BRAHMA.
This , 'I' is 'sat'.

Now sat means what.Sat is said to be the cause of the universe.
The cause is ontologically satyam. Which means its any so called effect is non different from it, and it itself does not undergo any change to become the effect.
The effect is said to be the jagat, both manifest and unmanifest, also both known and unknown.
Any satyam, from its own standpoint does not undergo any change, in fact does not admit to have become the effect also, it is only from the standpoint of the effect that we call the satyam as cause. From its own standpoint satyam is not even a cause ( eg: clay and pot).

From our own experience, body mind is known, planets, world etc. some parts of universe is known, a lot is unknown and is being explored as we speak. The manifest universe, part of it we know, partly we dont know and we are exploring, in fact in manifest universe, we know only infinitesimally small , and infinitely much of it, we dont know anything about it.
Then there is unmanifest also, that which is not even knowable. Such as a tree which is yet to sprout from its seed, is not knowable, but there may a tree in some mountain, yet unseen. waiting to be known.

ShAstra says, all the objects, which are by nature qualified, in fact being an object is itself a qualification, all of this manifest, unmanifest, known unknown, has brahman or satyam as its cause.

The effect which is whatever is known ( manifest known) , unknown (manifest knowable), and unknowable ( unmanifest unkown), all of it, is an effect.

Effect by nature is non separate from its cause, any pot is non separate from clay, iron instrument is non separate from iron, the jewels are non separate from gold, the shirt is non separate from cloth, same way all qualities, qualifications, name, shape , form, function etc. all this is knowable, unmanifest also, is all non separate from brahman.

So body, if you say, body is brahman, it has qualifications, like being an object called body, being knowable, having a form, being called matter etc. all these are its qualifications, but by becoming qualified, the satyam brahman, qualified and now called as body, does not undergo change, in fact it does not become subject to objectification, hence when I say, ' I objectify this body', I being subject, body being object, the subjectification of I is a qualification for I the chit, the objectification of body is a qualification of chit ( chit is sat) , the 'objectification and subjectification' as verbs in them-self are also qualifications of a verb, this qualification is what we call 'mithya'. This qualification is mithya, is knowledge , is all knowledge. And this all knowledge one is whom we call ishvara.

All this magic is due to ishvara. Ishvara is satchitananda, you are that satchitananda, there is no other chit.

With respect to the samashti (total), chit is qualified and called as parama Ishvara or parameshvara, and with respect to a body mind , sat (or chit) is qualified and called as jiva-Ishvara or jiveshvara.

This satyam brahma, is not available for objectification of course, it is unqualified chit itself, which is you.

Everything else is mithya ontologically, mithya means non separate from sat, its top bottom, inside outside all if it is sat, including its attributes etc, is all sat, the attributes are of satyam, but do not affect or change satyam brahman in any way. So you can pick up a rock, and simply say, I the picker of the rock is brahman, the rock is brahman, the act of picking is brahman, all this ' I pick up a rock' , is a tremendous knowledge, is mithya, ishvara.

Om Sairam. Om satgurave namaH. Om paramAtmane namaH. Om shri gurubhyo namaH.

Relationship between me and god

Breath is the gift from god,
Thougths are gift from god,
Organs of action are a gift from god,
Desire is a gift from god,
Prayer is a gift from god,
Intelligence is a gift from god,
The world is a gift from god,
Every planet and the stars are gift from god,
The sun is a gift from god,
The moon is a gift from god,
Night and day are gifts from god,
In between dawn and dusk are also gift from god,
Air, water and earth are gifts from god,
All living beings are gifts from god,
God is in every thing,
Everything is not other than god,
There is no other thing, other than god.

So when I think of a relationship with god,
I need not seek a new relationship.

As I wake up, I relate in sight.
As I walk, I relate in action,
As I do daily prayers, I relate in prayers,
As I perform my duties, I relate in duties,
As I do punya kAryAs, I relate in punyA,
As I take rest, I relate in rest,
While preparing food, I relate in preparation,
While consuming food, I relate in comsumption,
While donating, I relate in donation,
While dancing or singing, I relate in joy,
While sharing someones pain, I relate in brotherhood,
In every action and inaction I relate,
I am an instrument in his divine leela.


OM.