Lord Ganesha

Glories of Ganapathy

Life is led day by day. We do set goals for the future and aspirations , but what is to be done is done on a daily basis. We all wake up with thought and worry for the future ahead and need strength . we not only need strength we look forward to being able to surpass all impediments.
It is our prarabdha that comes to us as impediments. Lord ganesha is the causal Brahman who alone doles out our prarabdha as various impediments sometimes. What is also his glory is his infinite ability to grace us. He alone appears as what seem to be insurmountable obstacles. The same Ganapathy also makes the seemingly insurmountable obstacle most easily surpassable. He makes the impossible, possible with ease. No day should begin, no good action should initiate without invoking the winning grace of lord ganesha. He instills courage, wisdom , strength , takes care of enemies along the way, softens blows , strengthens our armor, and what if at all is there which cannot be achieved when lord ganesha is with us. He is maha Ganapathy, the lord of lords, the cause of the universe.

Difference between satyam and mithya

Subject and Object are mithya

Satyam atma is neither subject nor object

Jadam is mithya

Satyam is jnanam

Mithya jagad is with name and form

Satyam atma has no name or form

Mithya jagad doesn't exist independently, its existence is borrowed from satyam

Satyam atma exists independently

Mithya jagad is subject to arrival and departure, manifest and unmanifest

Satyam atma undergoes no change

Mithya jagad is parinami upadana karanam, undergoes change

Satyam atma is vivarta upadana karanam, undergoing no change

Confusions with sakshi chaitanyam

1. Objectifying sakshi chaitanyam when shastra talks about sakshi chaitanyam

Clarification

• I am chaitanyam, I am sakshi
• I objectify everything
• I reveal all objects
• In my presence alone revelation happens for any object knowledge
• I am unchanging in all periods of time

2. If atma is known as sakshi chaitanyam by just drk drshya viveka, what then is brahma jnanam and need for shabda pramana?

Clarification

• Who is brahman? , only shastra is the pramana for what the word means.
• Satchitananda is brahma svarupam. Svarupa lakshanam. This is from shabda pramana.
• The words together uniquely define only brahman and none other than brahman.
• The word chit, refers to Chaitanyam or consciousness.I only know that I am conciousness, but shastra says consciousness is a word for brahman, but not 'individuals consciousness' rather 'consciousness' alongside sat and ananta.
• Shabda pramana says in the beginning brahman alone is. There is no jagad, brahman alone is.
• This brahman is satchidananda svarupam.
• Satchit I am , as per definition of sakshi chaitanyam. How? Anantam means again, timewise anantam. Sakshi is unchanging consciousness in waking dreaming sleeping, past present future, hence is satchit.

Brahman the cause, is satchitananta, satchit, not limited by space and time. Individual consciousness is understood as satchit. When we say individual and total are one and the same, then we have to take the lakshyartha. Wherein the causal brahman satchitananda, is said to be none other than individual satchit. We minus the upadhi of individual body and total body, and arrive at consciousness , which is sakshi chaitanay. Sakshi chaitanyam not limited by upAdhis of individual etc. Sakshi is a status only with respect to 3 states of waking, dreaming and sleep, and other states.Therefore I is pure chaitanyam.

That I am parabrama which is explained as satchidananda has revelations.It means what I consider myself as, which is body, as karta, as bhokta etc. do not hold fort.Since satchidananda, does not have parts, is not subject to coming and going etc.Then what is the source of all this, where it came from, which made me sakshi with respect to a body. Am I as sakshi inside space, no, but we say space IS. So another set of confusions are there to be resolved with regard to jagad.

Shastra says jagad is mithya.

3.  Mithya is other than atma

Clarification

• Mithya is not a vastu. 
• It is an ontological word revealing the reality of a vastu. 
• A vastu having its being or reality in satyam, is mithya. 
• Such as pot, is. Pot is useful. Pot has its reality in clay, pot is clay. Pot is none other than clay.
• Yet there is a pot, with potness. Name , and,  a form to go with the name.
• Same way , space is the name, spaceness is the form, to go with the name 'space'. Word and meaning. They never exist in isolation. With the name space there is always a form to go with it.  
• Space is mithya means, Space is brahman. Space is atma. 
• So as such nothing is to be understood or known other than brahman. 
• Many other shruti statements corroborate, knowing which all is known, everything is as well known.

Now to look at few other projections due to ignorance.

4. If we say mithya is satyam, such as space is brahman, doesn't brahman become an object.

• Object when we say, we refer to  A. spaceness, name space and spaceness form, and we also refer to B. knowledge of space name and space form.
• The knowledge space name and space form, itself IS. 
• The knowledge implies a knower. The one who knows. The one who knows, himself IS. 
• What IS , is the adhistAnam of space, of space knowledge and of space knower.
• The reality of space. Himself he is space. He himself is the knower of space as well as space knowledge.
• So this object subject, is statuses, reality the vastu is one.
• Object 'is', subject 'is'. What is, is neither object, nor subject, it is reality vastu atma brahman.

5. Atma is underneath object and subject

• "Underneath" when we say, objects alone are underneath or above in terms of space. 
• Now space, objects, knowledge of underneath etc. are all atma with name and form.Name and form like pot and pot form.
• Brahman or atman is. Subject object is brahman. Brahman is neither subject nor object.
• So all the way we understand subject object, is brahman.
• All is brahman

OM

Sarvam khalvidam brahma

OM

All that is here is brahman.

I am that brahman.

This is not something to be noticed or seen carefully.

This is purely nothing other than knowledge.

This knowledge is possible, since the brahman that is being referred to is none other than 'I'.

I is self evident consciousness.

This self evident I is self existent.

This self existent , self evident I is the reality.

I am the reality.

Which means any name form 'is', refers to I 'is'.

I 'is'. Similarly object 'is'. Subject 'is'.

The names and forms the words 'is'.

The space 'is'.

The names and forms in space 'is'.

Experience 'is'.

Universe 'is'. Known , knowable unseen universe 'is'.

I is the reality of all that is.

All that is is sarvam.

Sarvam brahman, which is me.

So every name and form is me.

I am not limited to particular name and form.

Every name form is, is I.

Let this universe be, it is mithya.

Universe is mithya.

Anatma is mithya.

Atma is satyam.

Self evident- Sakshi- Pramata- Brahman

• I am self evident, svataH sidhaH.
• I am sakshi chaitanyam
• I am not an object of knowledge, since I am pramAta, and every object becomes evident to me by means of a pramAna
• I am jnana svarupam (consciousness)
• I am satyamJnanam, I am self existent
• I am ekam, advaitam
• I am nirgunam
• I am nirAkaram

With respect to individual body mind, I am sakshi of all 3 states. But what about with respect to totality?

• I alone am sakshi of srshti, sththi, and laya
• I am the seed which has sprouted and grown into the prapancha
• I am the intelligent cause of this manifestation, I am the unmanifest
• I am the upAdana karanam, the material cause
• I am the srshti karta, the one who put together the jagad in intelligent fashion and intelligent manner
• I am all the devatas, who preside over the various functions
• I am prana, the life force
• I am the reality or truth of the jiva
• I am the reality or truth of guru tattva
• I am the reality of vedas
• I am the reality of the knowledge of the vedas
• I am the reality of the jnani bhakta

I dont need ishvara upAdhi (paramesvara) to claim I am that ishvara, since I am the reality of that mithya ishvara (paramesvara) also. So even with jivesvara upadhi , I am simply the sakshi chaitanyam, I claim I am the Only reality, truth of paramesvara upadhi also, the one and Only ishvara, is I am.

Atma is brahman

• Brahman is the cause of the jagad, and also none other than oneself.
• Oneself is brahman.
• Brahman need not be known, since the self alone is brahman.
• Brahman is not one object, rather both subject and object ( known + unknown) Is brahman alone.
• Brahman is all,all is brahman.
• Brahman the word means unqualified big.
• The words sat, chit ananada, are the svarupa lakshnas of brahman.
• when we say satchitananada, it says that which is "existent , consciousness, limitless" , the three words together, can only indicate brahman alone, and none else.
• For eg: a bird is we can say bird exists, bird is conscious, but we cant say bird is limitless.
• But existence-consciousness-limitless, we can say only to refer to brahman
• Since brahman is not an object we cannot say 'satchitananta' is an adjective describing brahman, neither can we say it is attributes of brahman, since brahman has no attributes.
• Thereby 'satchitananada' is a lakshana.
• A definition.
• A special kind of lakshana, which is svarupa lakshana. 
• Other kind of lakshana, is tatastha lakshana. Such as "brahman is cause of the universe". This is similar to saying the house where crow is sitting is ramus house. The "house where crow sits" is a tatastha lakshana, an incidental definition for ramus house.
• Once ramus house is seen, no need for the incidental definition.
• Similarly, when it is said, tad brahman, jagad kAranam , tvam asi, that brahman, the cause of all that is here, is yourself, then what is brahman is known to be yourself.
• So if it is yourself, then there isnt a necessity for retaining all talk about "jagad kArantvam"
• Moreover it is also said jagad is mithya, thereby kAranatvam or causation is also mithya
• Moreover what one wants is freedom or mukti, what one wants is limitless existence, and knowledge.
• So when it is said 'satchitanantha' is brahman, then those issues are also solved once and for all.
• Brahman is timless existence, and consciousness is brahman, thereby for brahman there is no ignorance. Brahman is consciousness to whom ignorance becomes evident, so it is aware of ignorance also.
• Brahman hence is free from ignorance.
• Free from birth, death, ignorance that is the self which is brahman

Modern Physics and Vedanta - Part 4

P: I wanted to take forward our conversation with regard to space and time. What is space time then, if I only experience it in a discrete manner. This understanding completely challenges assumptions about space and time with regard to modern physics. Physics is based on the understanding that space and time are continous. In the descartian coordinates, we have a continous line, that depicts space and time.

V: It is a fact that we experience continuity. And that we experience time. But let us go into our experience of time. We say that the time is 5 o clock, when it is 5 o clock, isnt it "now", When it becomes 6 o clock that time is still the same "now". Then next day morning also it is still the "now".

So isnt it fair to say that "now" is the truth of time itself? Because almost every unit of time is in the now. The unit of time, the fabric of time, we imagine based on the conditions we experience. When we had bullock carts running we called time as 1950s. Now when we have supersonic jets we call time as 21st century, But all along, there was only the "now" which when associated with the state of the universe that we experience, we term as "time".

P: Hmm, what is this now.

V: As we saw earlier, this now is none other than consciousness.

P: Wow thats astounding. That proves the I am beyond time,a timeless being.

V: It indeed does, thats indeed the message of vedanta. Vedanta says I am timeless and I am the truth of time also.

P: I am the truth of time. It rings true but I dont seem to understand this fully.
I agree that time space, matter can be activated by presence of consciousness. But what is this language you use when you say truth of time.
In fact it is ironic, that we are also in search of something similar as scientists.

We want to find the source of macrocosm and microcosm.

V: Can you explain more what you mean from standpoint of physics.