Chit is Sat

How can chit , self be the reality sat? When I look at an object, the object has its reality "is" and the knower of the object is the "self" which is chit. This chit is not in the object that "is", then how can we say "chit" the knower, is "sat" the known?

This question comes from improper understanding about atma. Atma while is indeed both sat and chit, and atma is indeed the knower, one has to understand that the status of being a knower is not intrinsic to atma. The knower is a status attributed to atma, which is chit as well as sat.

This same atma, alone is the known also, wherein the status of being known object is attributed to atma, or superimposed on atma.

Ok, let it be agreed that the status of knower and known are superimposed upon the same atma , which is chit as well as sat. However I do say I am atma, and this I am is the knower alone, and never the known, then how can we say atma is also sat?

When it is said atma is chit, we have to minus the "knower" status, to be an attribute superimposed on atma, and consider the reality of this atma, which is chit. This resolves the issue of knower being equated to known,it is the reality of knower is what is equated and said to be the same as the reality of the known, knower known duality being mithya having its existence in satyam atma.

Ok, let me consider that the atma in reality is chit, and this chit is not available for objectification. However I do objectify things, which is sat , since I say "object is". If I say object "is" and that isness is sat, which is chit, am I not now saying that this chit is indeed objectified?

When I say the "wall is" the objectification is only for the name and form namely wall, the wall name and form is objectified, and the the one who objectifies is named or called the subject.
However the truth or reality of both subject and object are one and the same reality chit.

Ok, let it be one and the same reality chit. If that is so, then the subject already IS, the object already IS, then what is new , that is taught in vedanta? Vedanta is supposed to reveal brahman as a vastu, how can it reveal a vastu, that is neither subject nor the object, yet exists?

Vedanta does indeed reveal the vastu. The vastu brahman is not known afresj, but it is not as if the vastu is entirely unknown or new also. The fact is that the vastu happens to be self revealing, in the sense, self evident. In every knowledge, or every cognition, brahman is available as the svarupa of the knower, which is chit or chaitanyam. So it is in the buddhi, where the self is recognized as chit, the very svarupa of the knower is chit.
The mahavakya reveals that this chit, which is available in the buddhi for recognition as "I" that same chit, is sat the cause of the jagad. Which means in every cognition, when we say " apple 'is'" it is this same chit, which happens to be the existence referred to by the word "is". This confirms the understanding that the apple, in facr entire  jagad is mithya, with no being of its own, and in fact the being belongs to the non subject, non object , chit.

In that case the is ness of the apple, need not be specified, as with the apple cognition, the cognizer chit already Is, then why do we say apple "is", doesnt that specify another "existence" that belongs to the apple?

No, when I cognize an apple, the cognizer subject is, and the cognized apple is. Here apple and cognizer are name and status which are mithya, and do not have a being of their own. The word 'is' connects the name and form of apple and status of being a cogniser to that which is referred to by 'is' , which is Brahman or atman.

So 'is' 'am' refer to the non dual chaitanyam , atman, self , while knower , apple etc. Refer to the name form function.

Appreciation of the reality as ishvara

The assimilation of atma vidya, involves a certain objectivity.

When you are objective, you see what is, how it is.

When you are not objective, you do not see what is.


To see what is, means to gain knowledge of the reality of what is.

Scientists are trying to come up with the reality of what is, while common people do not see the need to know what is.

We believe that in order for us to consider having lived a good life, we only need material comforts, and some sense of security, whereas, the truth is , one is looking for permanent security, peace, happiness, and a freedom from sense of limitation.

As a mortal human being, one is subject to limitation, and therefore, what one is after, seems to be never attainable.

Now how is this seeking of freedom, and permanency linked to "what is".

The bhagavad gita, looks at two ways to bring in "objectivity" and defines how "objectivity", which is the "seeing of what is" can indeed make oneself achieve freedom, and security, peace and happiness.

The gita, proclaims that the universe is not a soup of matter only, rather there is an intelligent order that is evident. Things do not happen randomly, even scientist will agree, that there is natural phenomenon, a sense of order.

Because there is order only we are able to live. There is a physical order of the environment, a biological order of the human beings and other living things. You take a doctor, a doctor is able to treat a infection, because the infection has a certain order to it. It has a certain cause effect relationship that is common to most humans, hence treatable. How our body works is a matter for study, for doing MBBS, MS and then even PHDs, because it follows a certain order.

So on the one hand there is matter, on the other hand, the matter is put together in a fashion, in a manner that is intelligent.

Veda goes on to talk about this order, in terms of actions and results. Every action leads to a result, and the results of actions have to be related in a cause effect order. This order is called as dharma. And the results of actions are said to be papa and punya.

The order of karma is talked about, it talks about three types of karma, sanchita karma ( the totality of all karmas from previous births), agami karma ( the karma that we are performing fresh), prarabdha karma ( the karma that is fructifying in and as our life now).

The one who is the wielder of the order of karma, is said to be dharma, and this dharma takes the status of being , a conscious being.

Since this universe is put together in an intelligent fashion , there is order, and this order can only reside in a conscious being. Order implies knowledge, knowledge implies a conscious being, implies a presence of consciousness.

This conscious being, who is the order behind the entire universe, the knower of how the universe is put together, the knower of karmaphala, is said to be ishvara, a conscious being.

In fact the material is also ishvara, ishvara is both the maker and material. 

Atma Vidya Q n A

What is the message of vedanta?

Vedanta conveys that "brahma satyam, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiya naparaH"

Brahman is the one reality, the experienced universe is mithya or 'subject to falsification', and the jiva or individual is none other than this brahman.

How can this knowledge be conveyed?

This knowledge is conveyed through the mahavakya, or great statement.

What is a mahavakya?

Any statement in the upanisad and related texts, where the acharyas from the parampara, equate jiva and ishvara is called a mahavakya

What is jiva in a mahavakya?

The jiva refers to the individual with a body mind self complex, who is born of karma

What is ishvara in a mahavakya?

Ishvara refers to the totality of all names and forms and the progenitor of this totality, is ishvara, from whom all the names and forms have come.

Ishvara is abhinna nimitta-upAdana kArana, which means ishvara is both the intellgent cause of the material universe, as well as the materials that make up this universe that we see. So the totality is ishvara, and the individual who is a part of the totality is a jiva.

How can a statement equate the individual and the total, and yet be considered a valid statement?

It is indeed possible to equate jiva and ishvara, by understanding the statement appropriately.

It is not possible to equate a small individual with a limited body - limited strength, limited mind - limited knowledge, as equal to ishvara who is all material, all strength to handle the material ( like krsna lifting govardhana with little finger), and all knowledge that governs and mantains the universe as an order.

An equation of jiva and ishvara is only possible by taking the lakshyartha or implied meaning rather than the direct meanings of jiva and isvara 

What is the lakshyartha or implied meaning of jiva?

It is only in the waking state the jiva says "I am this body". In the dream state, he has a dream body, and in sleep state he is just awareness or consciousness , aware of nothing in particular, and upon waking up says I slept well.

It is established that essentially the body is an incidental addition to who the jiva really is.

Through anvaya-vyatireka, it is seen that awareness or knowerness, i.e "sakshi chaitanyam" is the svarupa of a jiva, while personhood, dreamerhood etc. are incidental and time bound. On the other hand the very nature of jiva awareness, is ever the experiencer consciousness and never the experienced.

Such an awareness is hence not the same as what is "aware of", such as body, mind etc.

Only an object of awareness has attributes, names , forms, is time bound and location bound, as well as subject to arrival and departure.

Awareness on the other hand has no such features. Awareness is simply awareness or chit, and is self existent sat and limitless or anantam.
Hence atma is satchitananta.

Atma is self evident as I, not needing to be known like objects need to be. Self is the very truth of the knower. This is the lakshyartha or implied meaning.

What is the lakshyartha or implied meaning of ishvara ?

Only in the differentiated manifest form ishvara is said to have so many names and forms, materiality etc. The upanisad says that ishvara is brahman, that from which the universe evolved. In brahman, universe was in unmanifest and undifferentiated form. 

This brahman is said to be ishvara.

Even if we take implied meanings, ishvara is brahman from which universe manifests, while jiva is awareness or pure chit. How are both said to be one and same. Since in that case atma is the one that evolves into universe, whereas, we see atma as simply being unchanging awareness or consciousnes? If brahman has manifest into this universe like a seed has become a tree, then the seed is no more present as seed rather is a tree, whereas, atma is very much unchanging consciousness , hence how can atma be brahman that has become manifest?

Atma is indeed brahman, since the nature of manifestation is to be understood. Shastra says that the manifestation is kalpita, or mithya. It is not real . For eg: we say there are gold ornaments like chain bangle etc. however the gold has not undergone any change to become bangle or chain. Same way brahman has not undergone any change to become the manifest universe.

Thus the manifest universe itself is mithya, which means it has no reality of its own. It is just name and form with no reality of its own. The name and form are not intrinsic to brahman, rather they are superimposed on brahman. The genesis or janani of this manifest universe of names and forms is otherwise called maya which is the power of brahman to manifest.This maya sakti is falsified or subject to negation as mithya too.

What is this maya, and how is this subject to negation as mithya?

In the undifferentiated state, when the universe is in pralaya or unmanifest, this state is what we say is brahman with maya shakti. 

This brahman is self existent, and being nimmitta karana has to be  a conscious being as well.

When we say the satchitananta atma is brahman, we understand brahman to be none other than atma, which is unchanging, and which is self existent consciousness. The svarupa of brahman is satchitananta svarupa.

 The whole universe , manifest universe being kalpita or mithya, is having its reality in satyam atma, which is brahman. What makes brahman capable of manifesting the mithya universe from itself is its shakti which is maya, brahmin is called mayin or ishvara.This automatically means that the causal mayin brahman, is also mithya, kalpita alone. Thus the maya shakti powered brahman is the cause, and universe is the effect.The effect which is universe is mithya, and so is the cause which is brahman with maya. A mithya effect can has a mithya cause. The reality of the mithya cause-effect is satyam brahman which is but atma alone.The reality of brahman , is satyam atma, which is neither cause nor effect.

Thus maya is subject to negation , being mithya.

So are we saying that the jiva and ishvara duality is superimposed duality, is mithya, and the reality is one unchanging consciousness principle that is atma alone?

Yes, this is how the mahavakya is to be understood, it reveals the ekatma, which is pure consciousnes as the only reality. The jiva hood and ishvara hood are negated as mithya, and the reality is understood to be the one consciousness/awareness that is atma.

Satyam and Mithya

What does not have a reality of its own is mithya.

We take anything in this jagad, including oneself the knower, it is found to not have a reality of its own, rather its reality is derived from a cause.

Just similar to how ornaments made of gold, derive their reality from gold, and do not have their own reality.

Same way the triad of knower, known and knowledge derive their reality from one cause, which is atma, or chit.

Atma is the truth of the knower, the reality of the knower, The reality of the knower is indeed the one reality, which is the reality of the known as well as the thoughts or knowledge.

This is confirmed from our own experience also. Not only shastra says it, but it is corrobrated by our own experience.

You take a tree, the tree has its reality in wood, wood has its reality in fibrous material, which has its reality in the fibrous elements, which has  its reality in fibrous molecules, which has its reality in atoms and particles, which we can keep going on and on.....

In one name there are many names and forms "namani namAni". The reality of the jagad is self evident atma, the truth of the knower. Atma happens to be the knower w.r.t what is known, and by itself is free from being the knower.

Ishvara is both vyavaharika and paramarthika

The reality of any material is found in another material.

Within one name, there is another name, that is the truth of that name.

For eg: if one takes a carpet, is but jute, jute is but jute fibres, fibre is but the fibrous element, the element is but molecules and atoms, atoms are but particles, particles are but some other name and form. In this way anything that we take, any material, is having its reality in another material name and form.

There is no material with a reality of its own, the reality is a dependent reality, depending on something else for its reality.

So when we say anything, if that thing has no reality of its own, then what is it that we refer to as "is".

The answer to that question, is nothing but "atma". It is atma alone that "is" , whenever we say anything "is" such as 'space is' , 'sky is', 'water is', 'air is', 'fire is' ,' earth is', we refer to atma, as the reality of that.

Atma is self evident, oneself, and has no name and form, neither is objectified or objectifiable either.

It is the truth or reality of the subject, otherwise called as chit.

This chit is independent, cause, it is the cause of space and time itself, with kalpana shakti, and hence is beyond space and time, while space and time are dependent on chit or atma.

This atma alone is called as brahman.

So nothing is away from you, other than you, remote from you, you are the whole, all that Is is yourself.

Restoring ones trust in ishvara

In the gita, bhagavan makes his promise, ananyas chintayanto mam, yoh jana paryupAsate, tesham nityabhiyuktAnAm, yogakshemam vayhAmyaham

Those who constantly meditate upon ishvara as the goal, and as non separate from ones own being, to such bhaktas, lord krishna promises that he himself shall take care of the acquisition and preservation related needs.

This is a promise coming from the lord himself, in the gita.

In spite of this promise, if one spends ones life manipulating situations, and considering that as a goal, the mistake is made, since the person is not having the requisite trust in ishvaras words.

The lack of trust is entrenched in ones childhood, and during adulthood, we have no choice but to discover the infallible. This ishvara is infallible, it is an infallible order, and he making a claim or a promise is infallible in its efficacy and direction and effect. Therefore knowing thus one has to trust this ishvara, meditating on ishvara as the infallible one, there is no need to judge him, as how are we supposed to know what is indeed good for us, thereby it is better to leave to ishvara to decide what is best for us, and that is where he himself takes very good care of the bhaktAs yoga and kshemam.

This much is understood from gita.

Now when one comes across situations, people and experiences, this ishvara is what is experienced, and this what is experienced, ishvara, is non separate from oneself, as all that is here has its being in the self alone. So we can be welcoming to life as it unfolds, life as it unfolds is ishvara, and needs to be understood. Needs to be understood as grace alone. What unfolds is not karma phala, it is just grace. Why, what is needed for the individual alone unfolds, this is the shift from a life of bhokta , to a life of grace. Grace is available for tapping, and one can tap the grace by constant awareness of ishvara in all actions and being. Awareness implies that ones own presence first of all, I am, this presence is to be regarded as the very presence of the lord, then the act of knowing, is to be regarded as the presence of the lord, then the ations being performed are to be regarded as actions of the lord, then the events unfolding, and experiences are the play or leela of the lord. This way everything is absorbed in the lord alone. This is what we call as the lords leela.

Rather than while away ones life in acquisition and preservation, the invitation by the lord is to be a participant in his leela. By considering oneself to be non separate from the lords being.

To a true bhakta, what else would he want.

Being objective

What is objective, has to confirm to what IS.

Unless one is objective, one is subject to likes and dislikes, and the world has the capacity to get the better off the individual who has likes and dislikes.

On the other hand, for the one who is objective with regard to what IS, the objectivity in itself, the frame of mind, wherein one is objective, means that there is no possibility of likes and dislikes having a hold over the individual.

Per the vedas, what IS, is ishvara, hence in order to be objective, one has to know what is, which is ishvara.

Therefore, one has to understand ishvara.

Now this ishvara, in general, people consider god as external to oneself.

But if we look at the vedic definition of ishvara, ishvara is sarvam, idam sarvam ishAvAsyam.

Therefore ishvara includes oneself as well.

When we say oneself, the individual, the individual has a certain order in terms of individuals priorities, attitudes, and psychology.

The individual includes a certain psychological order. This order is not something the individual should consider as external to ishvara, one has to recognize, in order to be objective, the individual has to see ones own thoughts, and psychology to be confirming to a certain order, that is ishvara.

Hence if the individual feels angry, or disappointed, such feelings may come out from the unconscious has to be seen a ishvara, as orderly.

This gives space for the individual to make oneself , to consider oneself as unfolding, every moment, in accordance with the order that is ishvara.

Ones desires, and ones own needs have to be examined in the light of the reality of isvara, in order to be truly objective, one has to understand, ishvara ,all the way one has to understand.

This also includes the confusion around oneself, and a removal of that confusion.

The confusion that one is as good as the body mind, is confusion that plagues the individual, it is nothing but lack of objectivity.

If one looks at the reality of oneself, through the vedanta pramana, unfolded per the vedanta sampradaya , by means of a sadguru, it is clear, that oneself is not the body mind, rather oneself is consciousness.

Consciousness is non limited in terms of space. And also being non limited in terms of time, i.e. unchanging in terms of time, consciousness happens to be sat as well. 'sat' the word denoting, a vastu which is unchanging in terms of time, and chit or consciousness is that vastu.
Also the terms non limited itself indicates ananta, limitlessness. Ananda or happiness is a laksana of ananta, hence atma or the self is said to be of the nature of happiness, satchitananda.

Now this consciousness is manifest as the witness in ones own buddhi, in the individual body mind , in the individual buddhi it is manifest as 'I' the witness, who is generally said to be the thinker, knower, doer etc.

The thinker, doer, knower are nothing but statuses, superimposed on the consciousness, only with respect to the individual body mind, and the fact happens to be that the consciousness is not a doer, not a thinker and so on.

The other question is , with respect to the body mind, and the rest of the universe, what is it? If ishvara is sarvam idam, all that is here, then necessarily ishvara has to include the objects as well. If the subject I, is said to be consciousness available as I, then what is the body mind and so on.

The body mind and the objects of the universe , the vedas say, the cause is none other than consciousness itself. Thus atma is the cause, otherwise known as Brahman.

This atma itself is both the material and intelligent cause for the manifest universe.

Manifest universe includes space, time, and the 5 elements.

And when we say the manifest universe is the karya, then it is non separate from the karya.

Here atma is both nimmitta and upAdana kAranam, therefore, the kArya is also absorbed into atma since the effect is non different from the cause.

Here that atma is satyam, unchanging, whereas the kArya is mithya, it is changing and has its reality in atma which is unchanging.

The kArya is not said to be real, concsiousness alone is real.

There is no dvaitam, there is only advaitam, whether you see in terms of vyavahara as the all pervading cause, or as the parmartha as pure conciousness.

vyavahara is mithya.