Jumping jack

When the mind jumps from cognition to cognition, it is merely a jumping jack and merely jumping from experience to experience isnt going to find a "brahman" object.

As the jumping jack mind is jumping, who is the knower of the jumping jack mind?
That knower is me, who is changless shining conscious being.

In relation to the mind, I am aware of the mind, it is not that I am a knower, only in relation to the mind am I the knower.

As such I am of the nature of chit, am self existent and have no limits.

I am whole.


It is not the mind, it is me.

The objective world is myself as ishvara, as the author and the material.

The material is me.

Table is me, table is mithya.

Table it exists as a name and form, while I am the reality of the table.I am sat, also, the one who is chit, IS sat.

While using words as a mirrror

While using the words, not this, not this as a mirror for I am, we are not saying that "this" is non existent.
Neither are we eliminating various objects and picking any specific object as the self.

Rather we acknowledge the reality of "idam" or this universe, and when we say not this, we talk about the nature of "this".

We say the nature of this is mithya, which means it is not ultimately real.

And we keep mainitaining that it is the real I, which appears as this, and hence we say this is unreal .

So the real I, we have to know , by removing notions about I.

When we say "about" I, there is an assumption that I, or reality is describable.

But the describer is itself I.

So all these issues we face. We have to use the shastra to see the essential nature of I, which is non negatable. Everything else is subject to change, to negation, can be earmarked as inicidental, and an atttribute.

Everything else is a superimposition.

It is me, but I am not it.

Body is me, but I am not the body.

When I say body is me, seems reasonable, when I say I am not the body, then body doesnt have to go away. With the body being present I can say I am not the body.

I am the consciousness who inhabit the body.

Here again I am the witness of my mind.

Here again I am in fact completely independent of the mind.

So in this manner we slowly see existence of me, indenpedent of objectvive field.

I am independent of the field, the body is a temporary manifestation subject to change.
It again has no existence of its own. In fact it resolves itself in atma, which is not available in this field.

The field arrives from a cause. The causal atma is also unreal.
So the real is non cause atma which is non cause. It happens to be a cause n effect.

Where to place I?

How does one think of "I" becomes paramount for a student of vedanta, who seeks a correction in vision.

I can no more be thought of as remote in any manner.


For eg: when I see a room, I cannot be thought of as being inside the room, or outside the room, or limited by space and objects in the room.

Mere fact that all this "is" indicates my presence, and my presence is not limited.

Now is my presence outside of this experience of the room and its content, including the body mind, no there is no inside outside, as that is also a concept in space and time.

Therefore there is no real placing of the I at all as a matter of fact.

I need not be placed anywhere.

The reason being I being brahman, all that is , places in the I alone.

Room, its contents, places in the I as an effect from the cause, while I "assumes" the status of being the cause that is pervading the effect. Cause effect being a manifestation.

So with that understand, where we place idam, or "this" is where we place "I" as well.

So when we say this "is", that itself is the I, and includes seer also.

So we have seer and seen, both resolve into I.

Both ARE and that areness is I.

So there is only myself, and hence I do not feel the need to place myself anywhere, i being all,


So am I a body, am I a table, am I a fan if I ask, we do have to say yes, this is how I appear, but I am really not a table, really not a fan, really not a room, and really not this body, I am really not the knower in this body.

Then what I am really, I am, thats all, I am consciousness satyam jnanam, what I am not defines what I am. I am not this reality this mithya. I am not required to be objectified.

I am the non negatable reality.

Cosnsciousness, formless non objectifiable, non subject being is me, but now in this transaction reality, I alone appear as the seer and the seen. And I am not oppossed to that in anyway, it doesnt affect me. What is not real cannot affect me.

That it is not real, this knowledge delivers, all the while it is not real, was never real.
Self alone is real.

Discomfort is a result of ignorance

There can be discomfort only if I identify myself with duality which is a dependent reality.
It is not me, I am advaitam.

I am the higher reality that is non dually one.

In fact I am the source of what we call as duality.

I am the seer, and the seen is also me.

From me comes the seen, and the seer is also me.

I myself manifest as what is seen, and as the seer.

Manifestation doesnt put myself in space or time, space and time itself are my manifestation.

I transcend space and time, I cannot say I am outside space, as space itself arises off me.

The words here become limited more and more, really speaking limitless sat chit, are the words there is none other to describe the undersribable describer.


I am all is the sense.

All is me.

But I am independent of all.

It is not a matter of objectification, knowledge via objectification, rather it is knowledge via shabda pramana, using words as a mirror.

Once you use words as a mirror and remove doubts, you can continue your normal routine in transactional reality. Absolutely no change to transactional reality.

You can have umpteen doubts though, you will find it will go away with logic.


When you say, how can matter arise out of me, I am consciousness, we say there is no such rule.

If you say, ok if matter arose out of me, am I separate from matter in terms of space, then we say, it didnt arise as a smoke out of fire, wherein fire and smoke are separate, rather it arose as a tree out of a seed, wherein the seed IS now the tree.

Then if you ask, if that means I have undergone change, we say no, we say the seed state and tree state are mithya.

So I am neither cause nor effect we say.

We resolve the universe into myself as the cause.

Then we say causal status is also mithya, and become free from being the cause also.


We arent left with anything to discuss.

The formless need not be known

When I am in form awareness, which is the waking state, I need not know the formless, since formless I is self evident. It is evident in every cognition.

In every form cognition, the formless is evident already as the truth of the seer.
Formless is evident means what, the reality of the formless self is evident, which is chit or consciousness. It is not self evident as an object, rather has to be noticed, as I am. We generally ignore I am, but when we focus on I am, it isnt as if I am has revealed itself suddenly, it is just that we have now focusing on ourself, using the words as a mirror.

I am is a word that refers myself, and hence serves as a darpana or a mirror, words can serve as mirrors to understand myself.

I am refers to both chit consciousness , and sat existence, these are words that refer to me.
They arent attributes, rather they are word mirrors. Attributes can define something knowable as an object, for the subject we need a mirror, and the mirror here can be any word, such as I am.
Such as sat, such as chit. Chit meaning I am. Sat meaning self existent. We recognize the meaning of these words as referring to me alone.

And which is sat, that transcends or that itself doesnt have any specific name or form.

See we use satchitananda as a word, sat alone isnt a pointing word as the table also IS, but I am not a table.

So we have to say satchit. Satchit is also not enough, as I can take myself to be limited by the body, then I again become the field, and not knower of the field of spacetime.

So satchitanantha is needed. Anantha when we say, the word removes the limitations of sat chit.
Frees me from the limitations of the body, space wise limitation, time wise limitation.

And this is also assimalable logically, I being the unchanging knower of changing states, changing time, and knower of space, it is logically assimilable when we say satchitananda.

Sadhya vastu, I am, satchidananda.

It is not a subject matter for imagination, brahman or atman is not a something to be imagined, as it is evident in every cognition as the very self, seer, the reality of the seer is brahman.

Again, it is not available for objectification.

We say space if formless also, but the formlesseness of atman is not like space as such, since space is objectified, as "that which accomodates" it has a function.

However atma is not available for objectification at all, so there is no possibility of it being a formful entity.

Neither is atma remote , some things we cannot know the form of that, since it is remote to the observer. But such a thing cannot be said to be formless, it is just that the form is remote and has not been objectified yet.

However atma is never available for objectification.

When we say never available for objectification, again we arent referring to a remote non findable object. A remote non findable object lends itself to a possibility of being objectified, and if we say something IS but never has the possibility of being objectified, and is "other " than the subject, then such a thing is unknowable, and what is unknowable is non existent object.

Such is the nature of atman, the pure subject that is never the object, and never available for objectification either.

This creates a problem for the vedantin as he is now cornered as a subject, but the cornering is due to habitual faulty thinking again.

As a subject I am not cornered, what is corenering, its a construct in space. I am not stuck behind the body , as that makes me an object in space, which I am not.

I try to understand myself in the parlance of object, as the mind is used to knowing only objects, hence when one approaches vedanta, the objectifying mentality is strong. There has to be repeated shravanam mananam to loosen the mind of this objectification tendency, WHEN it comes to atma, the objectifier is atma. And not in space or time, so limitless.

I am limitless.


So when it is indeed determined that I am sat chit anantham, there is only one thing left to be done, which is to explain the seer seen duality, in wake of the limitlessness of the seer.

The fact that the seer is not IN space and time, we need to put space and time and objective reality into context.

I transcend space and time, but then how does space and time relate to me, that I need to be clear about.

I have succesfully separated myself cognitively from all that is objectified, however I am not satisfied with just that, I still have two left, the seer and the seen.

Where is advaita is my question?

There has to be a clear understanding here, we can never say that the chit atma, has the exact same degree of reality as the seen or drshya.

If indeed it has the same degree of reality, then we have the problem of one limitless being, coming within the field of the seen. Which is not true.

Also if it isnt within the field of the seen, then we need an understanding of the field of the seen.

I should not keep myself stuck to the field of the seen.

I have to unstick myself from the field of the seen, and then see the field in the right context.

I have to see myself as brahman, and then I have the right context. As brahman I am not even the seer.

When I say brahman I do not merely mean sat chit anantha, I mean the level of reality as satyam, and the status of being a satyam cause.

A satyam cause and a mithya effect.

A satyam cause is what I am, therefore everything resolves in me, the field resolves in me, as a lower order of reality, wherein the field is non separate from me, but I myself am independent of the field as brahman the reality.

I do not have any friction, as the field is not other than me, the field arises out of me, and resolves in me, and as far as i am concerned , I am unchanged, it is a lower order of reality from whose standpoint we talk about the field, and the reality of the knower of the field sits atop a higher order of reality, wherein in fact, the knower isnt even a knower so to say.

He is the knower Only with respect to the field that belongs to the mithya order of reality w.r.t to mithya field there is also a knower and a known also, and the parmartha satyam is not even the knower and of course neither is it the known.

So I see myself cognitively using a word mirror, i see that I am paramartha satyam, while transacting, while being in this relative field which is mithya.

Leela

When I say that I am brahman or ishvara , I should have names and forms, but this me having names and forms I shouldn't think it is only like a blue ball red ball , where blue and red are colors of the ball.  Because even ball is me . So what does me really mean if ballness , skyness, spacenes , time, air, water, fire is all me.  I am one, therefore I being the non dual one, these names of mme, forms of me , indicate formful state.
My formful state is not something to be felt , but it is something evident. And shastra also says brahman is the cause. And I am brahman.
Since I am jnanam, I am actually pure jnanam without name or form just jnanam . And name or form is my vibhuti incidental to me , incidentally I happen to have names and forms. And I manifest then un manifest state I go into , then again I manifest.

But to know me i dont have to know all names and forms, I am formless . I am nameless. I am the one who knows. I am chit. I am self existent. I am non dual hence limitless. These words are mirrors to recognize myself. Formless I am. Nameless I am. I am is available always, but I understand my nature with th3Se words.
Formless I am. Nameless I am. Self existent I am. I am limitless w..r t space , knower of space I am not within space . Chit or consciousness I am. This is the I am. Then name and form comes into fore. I remain myself and happen to have names and forms incidentally . Body I am , where I am my own nature of satchitamamtha yet body attribute k happen to have, attribute in th4 sense when we say body, refers to a knowledge a set of knowledge . Refers to me with some attributes. Simple as that. What is attribute any name or form. If all u know is name and form u r wrong as subject is nameless . Ao with that as the basis I having name and form is object. So object is subject with refer3mce to a particular name and form which has manifest.  I am sarvajna . All knowledge
 Sun kand mountain is knowledge. It is me manifest as sun and mountain one among my many names. One among many names of me. Many forms of me. I kno2 all forms of me. And I myself manifest as the forms . Why due to karmas I am willed. I desire I manifest. I recede back. I am all powerful ishvara. My nature. All power and all kmowledge and who has all forms , total forms infiNite forms. And ability to manifest those names of me forms of me. And recede them. To hide them . To reveal them. I am leela .

Reality of jiva and ishvara

My reality , as jiva is nothing but chit, I am, is chit. I am formless, do not have any attributes, I am not space or time bound, I am pure existence.

The jagad has its reality in ishvara. Which means origin in ishvara.

When we say jagad it includes the inert objects, bodies and the beings enlivening the bodies.

The inert objects do not exist in isolation.

The word inert means, there is absence of expression on part of consciousness, or in fact consciousness is not having any mind, or any activity is not seen.

Even our nails and hair are inert only. It is the body alone that is conscious.


No inert object exists separately, it has no existence of its own, in the sense it is not a second object.

Consciousness is the vastu, and when we say for eg: inert earth, the earthness is an attribute like pot is an attribute to clay.

The earthness entails a certain set of attributes that convey earthness, and the sense organs percieve these attributes to determine "this indeeed is earth". The sense organs themselves are an attribute like pot, an attribute to consciousness.

So nothing is separate from consciousness. Do not exist as a second thing.

It is simply an attributeful consciousness, that is the ishvara.