Knowledge of Chaitanyam -7 (Jiva ishvara aikyam)

Now that we know sathyam , mithya of vedanta, and we also know jiva chaitanyam, ishvara chaitanyam from previous posts, it is time to communicate the primary pratigna of shAtra, which is to reveal the oneness of jiva and ishvara.

When we say the jiva chaitanya, and ishvara chaitanya are one and the same, it has to be understood by using the right method to understand the meaning of this mahavakya ( sentence communicating oneness of jiva and ishvara)

There are various ways to understand meanings of a sentence.

Let us look at a few sentences.

Direct meaning
Ramu says, " I am hungry , I ate at the hotel next to the temple."
Here the meaning is straightforward.

1.Supplying implied meaning, and also keeping entire direct meaning intact
But next day, I ask you "Where did you go?" and Ramu say "Next to the temple". Here 'I supply' the additional implied meaning that there is a hotel, next to the temple, while keeping the 'next to temple' part intact, and I understand, "that ramu ate at a place next to the temple".

2. replacing entire direct meaning with implied meaning
Then after a few days ramu sees me and says, " I again went to the temple tonight". 
Here , I , knowing that ramu is not so religious, and based on previous conversations, I completely replace the direct meaning, and look at the implied meaning that he 'ate at a hotel near the temple'.

3. keeping half of direct meaning, and replacing other half with implied meaning
Today ramu gives out a secret. He says " You know what, I was saying all these days I went next to the temple, but truth is, temple IS the hotel".
Here now, the meaning is basically that ramu used to go to temple to eat temple prasAdam ( temple food).
This is understood, by keeping the half the direct meaning that ramu DID go to the temple, but remove the direct meaning that temple IS the hotel, but replace it with the meaning that he went there to eat.


To understand the one-ness of jiva and ishvara chaitanyam, shAstra uses the 3rd type of meaning, which is keeping half of the direct meaning, but replacing other half  with an implied meaning.

This is technically called 'lakyartha' (implied meaning) or 'bhaga thyaga lakshyartha' ( 3rd type among implied).

Let us now apply this bhaga thyaga lakshyArtha, to the equation jiva IS ishvara, or jiva chaitanya IS ishvara chaitanya.

The direct meaning which is retained, is chaitanya, and that which is let go off is jivaness and ishvaraness.
This means the attribute of being the owner of the body is let go off for jiva chaitanya, and attribute of being lord of the universe ( maker and material) is let go off for ishvara chaitanya.
What is looked at,  is the truth of this 'ishvara form' and 'jiva form', which is simply chaitanya itself, which is in fact sathyam, which is formless, like our clay in the clay pot and gold in the gold chain , formless, attributeless, limitless, non negatable truth, or sathyam.

The ishvaratvam ( ishvaraness) and jivatvam ( jivaness) is Mithya.

Chaitanyam is satyam. This chaitanyam is you only.

So truly speaking, the truth is that, you are chaitanyam, and you just 'happen' to be playing the role of a jiva. Ishvara happens to be a role.

There is only one chaitanyam, and that is who you are, the non dual chaitanyam, truth of both ishvara and any jiva, is you.

This is the shift, you have to make, from identifying with body mind, which is mithya, you shift identity to your true identity, which is the non dual chaitanyam.

Knowledge of Chaitanyam -6 (Mithya in Vedanta)

Afrer introducing jiva and ishvara chaitanyam, we started to understand how shAstra communicates the oneness of two opposite principles of jiva and ishvara.

We went onto understanding the meaning of the word 'sathyam' in the general wordly way, and then understood in previous post, how vedanta, lends a special meaning to the word sathyam, and sathyam in vedanta, refers to absolute, non negatable, limitless truth.

ShAstra says chaitanyam is this absolute anatham sathyam, or limitless truth, and saying so, we wanted to understand, if chaitanyam is sathyam, then what about the manifold universe of names and forms.

That is where we introduced the word mithya, and said mithya refers to, a degree of reality, that is neither altogether false ( like horn of a hare, that does not even exist for any functional utility), nor as true as sathyam of vedanta, which is a word that can ONLY be used for the non dual cause of the universe, which is ishvara, and ishvara being chaitanyam, means the word sathyam can only be used for chaitanyam.

The question can be, if ishvara is chaitanyam, and he has become this world, why do we even need a new word mithya. Since by definition, it appears sathyam chaitanya became sathyam universe.

This is where we need to add discuss in more detail about the nature of sathyam.

What is the nature of clay in a clay pot, or gold in a bracelet. From the golds point of view, has it become anything other than gold? From golds point of view, there is gold ALONE, it has not undergone any change whatsoever to become a bracelet, it remains GOLD as it is.

Thus if we are to say, if ishvara chaitanyam, were satyam, then ishvara chaitayam, never ever should have desired or created this world out of himself ( as claimed by upanisad), since creation, means change. ShAstra says tad AkAshaH sambhootaH, akAshAt vayuH, vayoh tejaH, etc.
Which means from chaitanyam, came space, from space came air, from air fire, from fire water, from water earth.This means change in name and form.

However if we are to look at chaitanyam as 'sathyam' ( like gold of a bracelet), gold never has any name and form of itself, other than being just gold. Gold does not BECOME the bracelet from its OWN point of view, but the bracelet will say ' I am gold'. Same bracelet if you melt and make it a bangle, bangle will also say ' I am bangle', but if you ask gold, gold will say, well I was , am and will be ONLY gold .

So it appears shastra is contradicting itself. It says chaitanyam is changeless satyam. It also says from chaitanyam universe arose and resolves back into chaitanyam that makes it appear as though chaitanyam undergoes change.

Well shAstra solves this problem, by saying, in truth, or as far as absolute truth is concerned, chaitanyam, never became many, never underwent change, never took up the role of creator, preserver or destroyer, never created the world out of itself, but is was and will simply remain as it is, as chaitanyam.

The ishvartvam, ishvaraness, of chaitanyam, which we call as ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact an incidental FORM or attribute to chaitanyam, like a bracelet is form of gold. So chaitanyam becoming the universe, being the cause for the universe, this causal status is mithya. a dependant reality.

Hence ishvaratvam, or ishvara chaitanyam, is in fact mithya. Same applies to jiva chaitanyam also, jivaness is also mithya.

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.