Experience does not give self knowledge

Experience cannot give knowledge of the self. Per shruti, the self is attributeless, nameless, formless.
Any experience reveals only name, form or attribute of some kind. Hence self knowledge cannot be gained by experience.
In fact shruti negates the very "experiencer" status of the self as mithya.

This being the case, experience has nothing to do with how the self is, hence one needs a different kind of means of knowledge, namely the shruti.

Hence never put the burden of knowing oneself, or judging oneself, on any experience you may have, You are free to have a variety of experience based on your karma,s but that doesnt tell us anything about the self, it has no link to the nature of the changeless self, that is consciousness.

While experience cannot give self knowledge, no experience in itself contradicts self knowledge, in fact every experience proves that the words of the shruti are indeed true. This can be understood by exposure to traditional vedanta, where the guru uses veda as a pramana.

Self, the most intimate, closer than the closest

The self , I, or atman is the most intimate entity. Whatever one does in life, one does for the sake of the self. Hence the effect of ignorance is devastating, since one mistakes oneself, and runs or bases life upon this mistaken notion around oneself.

Thus the urgency of knowing oneself as limitless and self existent assumes not just importance, but a choice less necessity.

If one were to analyse the self using the shruti, which is the valid means of self knowledge, unfolded by a sampradayavid guru, the self is said to be attributeless, pure consciousness, always the subject, i.e. not available as an object, or non object. This self is purnaH or fullness.

The object is the self itself appearing to have attributes. Self itself appearing with name and forms.

By knowing the self as it is, then alone is a person satisfied with oneself, as one is.

The life is a journey towards gaining, assimilating this knowledge, gained from the right means of knowledge and strengthened using logic and experience.

Essence of upanishadic wisdom

Introduction

The Upanishads are the revelatory texts found in the vedas.

The vedas are series of mantras , verses that contain both ritualistic knowledge of means and ends, knowledge of karmas that are not available to direct perception or inference, but importantly also have various mantras and verses, that communicate the nature of reality.

As per the upanisadic knowledge, the reality is non dual, eternal, all pervading, limitless, complete, changeless, and of the nature of awareness or consciousness.

This reality is called “brahman” or “ishvara”, and the individual self, I, is none other than this reality brahman alone.

The upanisad communicates this knowledge , of oneness of the individual self, and the reality that is brahman, in a number of statements, the statements carrying this equation are called as ‘mahavakyas’.

The upanisads have a number of verses containing the mahavakya, and are mostly in the form of a question answer, between a guru and sishya.

A guru is the one who has received and internalized this knowledge of the upanisad, from his guru, in a traditional manner, which means by means of a teaching methodology. The upanisadic verses are not understandable by mere reading, but require teaching. The teaching involves a specific teaching methodology, wherein the teacher makes use of certain tools called as prakriyas which are meant to create the appropriate knowledge and communicate the reality conveyed by the mahavakya ( oneness of individual self and brahman). Hence the guru must be from a traditional parampara or teaching tradition.

A student is one who is interested in spiritual truth, or interested in knowing the reality. There are various levels of readiness for a student to gain this knowledge, a students readiness is called adhikaratvam.

A student maybe a uttama, madhyama or manda adhikari. Highly qualified, medium qualification, low qualification. There are also completely uninterested or unqualified who do not fall under the category of a student.

In order to achieve qualifications, the student has to live a disciplined life guided by values. The student must recognize moksa as a goal, and must understand that this goal is achievable via knowledge gained from guru and upanisad or sastra.

The bhagavad gita, which was taught by lord Krishna to arjuna, in the battlefield of the kurukshetra, is the greatest guide for every spiritual aspirant to gain this qualification, and ultimately this knowledge also.

What is this knowledge?

The upanisad teaches, that all that is here, is one vastu. This vastu is called brahman, or ishvara, or para vastu, parabrahman, paramatma, and so on.

The nature of this vastu is taught. This vastu brahman is :

a.       Limitless

b.      Of the very nature of existence

c.       Of the very nature of consciousness

d.      All pervading

e.      Non dual

f.        Changeless

g.       Attribute less and Formless

The individual self is indeed this brahman. Hence it can be said from standpoint of individual that brahman is :

a.       Non doer

b.      Non receiver of the fruits of actions

c.       Consciousness that happens to be the witness of 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping

d.      Consciousness that is the truth of the subtle, and gross body as well as the causal body

The same brahman from the standpoint of the entire universe is parameshvara, or bhagavan, or maya devi. From total standpoint same brahman is:

a.       Cause of the universe

b.      Existence pervading all objects

c.       Conscious spark in all living beings

d.      Order that governs the entire universe

e.      Intelligence that puts together a functioning universe

f.        The truth of all names and forms, hence essentially it is every name and form

The difference between individual and universal self is only in terms of the bodies being an individual or universal body.

Per the veda, the names and forms are not intrinsic to brahman, rather superimposed on brahman.

This superimposition is not real, it is merely an appearance, such as the appearance  of a snake on a rope, or pearl in an oyster .

Same way due to ignorance of the true self that is attributeless, and partless whole, names, forms, and material attributes are superimposed on the self.

By understanding that the universal self, is attributeless consciousness, which is none other than self evident atma, I , the ignorance of there being an individual self goes away.

Since there is only the universal , non dual brahman, which is oneself, all names and forms are understood as functional reality, that is a superimposed , and not real, or mithya.

Brahman is the truth or satyam, and names and forms laden universe, is none other than brahman appearing to have these attributes, brahman appearing to be the individual and the total. This appearance is not real, and hence as good as non existent, being false.

The doings of a jivanmukta

The jivanmukta is a non doer, as there isnt a second thing, he is beyond action and inaction.

He is the absolute.

He is shiva the absolute.

He alone is, and besides him there isnt a second entity.

This transcendental entity alone is ishvara, as he alone becomes the controller with regard to the shakti maya.

This trancendental entity does without doing, creates without creating, mantains without mantaining, manifests without manifesting.

So all power, all wealth is non separate from the transendental self.

Experience of a mukta

A mukta is free from all experiences, a mukta us unborn, a mukta undergoes no experiences. A mukta is not related to anything that happens in the temporal world. A mukta is asanga.

What happens in the relative world remains relative, the experiences undergone remain experiential, in thier own lower degree of reality.  Remains untrue.

Mukta is non dual, for him there isnt a second thing.

Difference between mithya and non existent

The logical issues with advaita "seem" to arise, when we say THIS or IDAM jagad , or THIS maya jagad, or this jagad which has as its cause the maya shakti non separate from atma, "Doesnt Exist".

When we say "doesnt exist" or "non existent" its a problem, since on the one had we are pointing it out as "this" or "idam" which purports certain existence, while on the other hand we say "non existent".

Hence when we say in english, we need to translate correctly.

What we say is "mithya" which means, "negatable existence".
That which exists, but is negated, once it is negated, the negator, the one who negates, is also to be taken into consideration.

The negator in vedantic sense, doesnt exist. This is since, there is no operation on will in the case of vedanta. It is only a pramana. When the eye comes in contact with the object of perception, seeing happens.
Same way when the shrota comes in contact with mahavakya, knowledge happens and removes ajnana. When ajnana is removed, then mukti is not an event, rather bandha is negated by jnana.

Same way universe is resolved in its cause, and the cause is taken to be the self, then the mahavakya negates the causal status also, leaving the shrota as such as atma.

Thus it is found that there is no real process of mukti at all for the atma.


Hence swami paramarthananda says that the whole pursuit of moksa is negated.

Anirvachaniyam

That which is not present always, in all 3 periods of time, how can that be sat. As we transact in the waking state, we can see how the waking state is present only transactionally, its constantly changing, and there is not object which stays unchanged in all 3 periods of time. And in fact , when we analyse using the shruti, quite clearly this reality resolves in atma the absolute, existence. So that which can be negated, how can that be sat.

So our transactional reality is mithya only, it cannot be sat, it is not totally non existent also, not asat. Hence it is sat asat, anirvachaniyam.