negatable and non negateable

 I negate all that I think I am.

So I am this body, the mind, the thoughts, the objects that I know etc. I negate any such understanding as incorrect, based on drk drshya viveka, guided by shastra which brings up this line of enquiry.

However I cannot negate my existence, as throughout the enquiry i exist.

I cannot also negate my nature of being consciousness, as throughout the enquiry, I am negating certain understandings and object confusions, of all of which I am conscious. 

So in the process of this negation itself, I also come to understand the non negatable understanding that I within the enquiry itself understand that I can safely retain, which are the fact of myself being an existent conscious being. 

But beyond this much, drk drshya enquiry does not take me anywhere, there is no other understanding.

There is also no moksha, as there is no purnatvam here, given so much has been negated, and the self doesnt seem to have gained anything, other than now being nothing, but still existent and conscious of being the fact that I am nothing.

But this is where shastra is also saying tvam tat asi, you are that.

When it is said "that" another object should not come into the picture again, since whats the point of taking on now again, what was already negated.

Therefore, here the meaning of 'that' must not include the anatma.

So here , that will need to refer to , sat.

Sat is the cause of anatma.

When we say cause of anatma also, the anatma should and need not be brought in at all.

Because here it is the as though cause. 

As though cause means, same manner as clay is a cause of pot and anything with various forms of clay. 

And even a lump of clay.

It is logically possible and shastra is the pramana, that this is indeed the case.

What shastra has to say about anatma.

Anatma is simply manifestation, and unmanifest cyclically it comes and goes back.

These are its 2 states. 

Both these are not in atma, atma is free from both these states.

Now from the standpoint of truth, anatma in both manifest and unmanifest states, is mithya.

Means it has an as though existence borrowed from I the cause ( which is a non cause or as though cause).

So as though to be a cause is not an issue, as its as though. So as though cause I am, as though maya is, as though jagat is, and as though manifestation, cyclical is, and as though ishvara is, and as though birth and death is.

Because it is as though, I dont have to discuss about it, and because it is as though, I dont have to discuss its effect on me, and because it is as though,  I am not bothered about it, because it is as though, I am can be I am as it is, and when I say sun IS, moon IS, body IS, it as though IS, and that ISness is the nature of I, and I is, and this I is is non negatable, hence satyam, I IS consciousness jnanam, and this I IS pervades everything and hence anantam. Anantam here is a negating word to negate the superimposed limitations due to ignorance. 

Maham brahma nirAkuryam Mama brahma nirakarod

Emotions that reject ishvara apparently, but are in fact within the order of ishvara

1. I am lonely

2. I am depressed

3. I am hurt

4. I am sorrowful

In this the mental order is ishvara, and the perceiver is also ishvara.  Ishvara here means the self also, since the perceiver is the self. 

The idea of the vaikunta isvara and the kailasha ishvara, and the formful ishvara in her loka, is ok.

But ishvara is not limited to that form alone.

ALL is ishvara.

That ishvara is now and here, as the very self, as the perciever, and all that is perceived as well.

All that is perceived is given, and ishvara is present as the given and the giver both.

Here the self ishvara is the experiencer.

And same self ishvara is also the manifest as the given, and is the giver as well.

The mind is given as an instrument of knowing. To a knower.

Now keeping the knower and the mind intact, we look at the truth of the knower.

The truth of the knower is consciousness, sAkshi chaitanyam.

Same sAkshi chaitanyam is ishvara. But in ishvaras case upAdhi is not just knower and knowing mind upAdhi, same sAkshi chaitanyam has to be looked at as being sarvajna sarvavid. To be sarvajna sarvavid, means not having a mind like me, but rather all that is here including the devatas and all the knowledge that everyone has, and knowledge that no one has, all knowledge put together, without requiring a mind, simultaneously both knowing and being that, and being transendent as the same time, that is ishvaratvam.

So from my mind I can understand ishvaratvam.

As far as being ishvara is concerned, I look at the fact that I am the sAkshi "chaitanyam", the shuddha chaitanyam, which is in fact ishvara. 

So being the knower of the limited mind, being the sleeper, being the dreamer, being the content of the dream, being the knower of body mind, w.r.t mind, understanding that the mind and body is given, and the knower status also is given, and is in fact ishvara as the given, so within the ishvaratvam is the jivatvam, as a subset, and that totality is the truth of I, is the truth of ishvara, truth of all that is, that way in terms of truth I am the whole, I can say that , while fully keeping my limited identity and ishvaras total identity as it is intact I can keep and safely say tat tvam asi, but understanding the implied meaning to be the reality which is devoid of that name form or status, as the very truth. 

To the individual knower the benefit of knowing the truth is the safety that I am of essence of non destructive reality which is independent and unassociated with all that is, ever free, ever pure and nameless formless and all pervasive. And also not subject to any limitations as such. So it is a kind of puzzle that the limited knower, is actually limitless chaitanyam, who is ishvara. SO that is what is to be understood, the truth of oneself, which is devoid of any name or form, and every name and form has its reality in whom, that indeed is me, and that indeed is ishvara, so its a shifting of focus to the reality of self, instead of limitations ascribed to the self. 

Limitations ascribed to the self, and both kAlyana gunas and alpa gunas are mithya, So like that if I understand myself as the vastu brahman, then the ishvara understanding is different.

Ishvara is first and foremost myself the vastu, and only then the gunas come into focus.

So here you cannot know this brahman, you are this brahman, it is being and not knowing, its a self evident chaitanyam, hence it is the being. 

Self is not against any limitations such as small knower, small mind etc, as self is independent, and transcendental. So from self point of view, smallness is superimposed on self, and also kAlyana gunas are superimposed on self and both superimpositions self does not oppose, and same time self is not affected by both. 

Sarvavid and Sarvajnah

Atma is sarvavid and sarvajnah.

All knowing and all knowledge.

This atma is none other than sAkshi chaitanyam.

In the upAdhi is individual, sAkshi chaitanyam is still 'all' knowing, all referring to "known + unknown".

Is also all knowledge , being the truth or reality of all names and forms that fall under "known + unknown".

The bheda is only in terms of upAdhi, where there is a jivesvara, wherein there is an individual mind, and the knowledge is known limited fashion via mind, 

And parameshvara, where there is total knowledge, all knowing in detail, infinitely all knowing, where thee is no ignorance of any name or form. So only the upAdhi differs, for one and the same reality who is seen from the standpoint of both individual and totality or maya shakti.

Now with my limited knowledge, I undertake actions.

Here the atma is non doer, and not involved and untouched by any action, whereas the body mind and individual ego, are involved in activity, and are the actor.

The actor is both illumined as well as finds its being in atma the non actor. 

Object reality

Any object 'is'.

Here the 'is' is the svarupa of atma, which is jnanam, or pure knowledge.

This pure knowledge manifests in the buddhi as 'I am', is self evident consciousness.

This pure knowledge is self existent, is satyam.

This has no name or form, and is not thinkable.

Any thought, any object has no existence of its own. It gains existence from this atma, which is satyam.

Atma is not behind the mind Behind is another thought.
Every thought 'is', and that is, is the svarupa of self evident consciousness manifest in the mind.

This self evident consciousness has no name or form, is not available for objectification, in every thought, it is not available as another object, rather is the reality of every object, the reality of every object is a non object atma, object gets resolved in atma.

Subject is also atma, subject loses its subject status, as and when object is resolved in atma.

Thereby atma alone remains, as neither subject , nor object, as pure satchitananda atma.

Observer is satyam

Atma the observer is Satyam. Means does not undergo any change, and is available all 3 periods of time , is consciousness.

Time, space etc. are always objects of consciousness. And consciousness is always the subject.

The objects of consciousness are mithya. Mithya is there reality.

Means, has no independent existence.

When we say any object exists, its existence actually is the existence belonging to its cause, which is consciousness. So consciousness is actually the cause as well. And also happens to be the object.

Mahavakya vichara

Self is understood as poornam brahman, by understanding the mahavakya.

mahavakya has 3 parts. tat pada, tvam pada and asi pada.

By understanding the pada artha vakyartha can usually be understood. In certain vakyas lakshyartha has to be taken for understanding. It is commonly used, such as when saying this is that lakshman you see, meaning there are not 2 lakshman, but same person.

Also we say brown has won. etc. to refer to brown horse.

So here tat pada refers to entire prapancha, subject and object and maya shaktivaan consciousness.

Tvam pada refers to individual body mind subject consciousness.

both are one and the same , only if we understand the formful meanings as mithya understanding and formless truth as satyam.

The truth of atma is formless consciousness, can be understood first via drk drshya viveka, and then totally understood via mahavakya as the formless reality which is non dual, which is both purna ishvara and purna as jiva in the scheme of things that is purna. 

Doubts about brahma jnanam

Q: How can matter be consciousness?
consciousness is never an object
consciousness how can it be material given opposite nature

A: We do not say that consciousness is matter. Rather we say that matter is consciousness.
It becomes difficult to understand only when we don't assimilate that matter is not satyam rather is mithya. If matter is mithya , means there is no such thing as matter.

Air, water etc the elements, the elementals, the various objects that we encounter and see as moving and non moving, they do not exist non separate from their cause.

We just need to understand that part.

That matter has it cause as consciousness. Then we can accept matter, as non separate from consciousness.  As not other than consciousness. As not a second entity. Any material entity is not other than the non dual consciousness entity,

The materiality includes name form and various attributes, but the consciousness aspect of the cause is inhibited. We cannot ask where in the effect is the cause, we cannot ask if the cause if embedded or inside the effect, the effect IS the cause. But the attributes differ totally.