For a Gnani, this illusion is just a zero.

For a Gnani, this illusion is just a zero. An individual, still groping in the ignorance considers himself to be an integer and goes on adding zero to it. Thus, as that integer becomes then, hundred thousand etc., in the same way, for an ignorant man, this illusion makes the waking appear to be real with all this diversity of name and form. 

Only the Gnani perceives the reality as such. Just as several ornaments are made of gold, the one Atman /consciousness becomes the waking or dream. The ice is made of water in reality ice is noting but water. The Gnani realizes that the all the three states  are mere mirage created out of consciousness. 

What is reality to the person within the world is unreality to the Atman or consciousness the innermost  self. What is truth on the standpoint of Atman is untruth for the ignorant, who is experiencing the duality as reality.

Man and his experience of the world are reality within the waking experience.

Man and his experience of the world are reality within the waking experience. Thus, whatever seen, known, believed and experienced as a person of the world are happenings within the waking experience. 

The world within the waking experience is not unreal but the waking experience is unreal. The waking experience is phenomenal appearance till one gets his enlightenment /wisdom. It is just like a dream, which appears to be real so long as one is asleep but vanishes the moment he wakes up. In the same manner, as long as we are steeped in ignorance, nescience; this waking appears to be real. Soon it sinks into oblivion when one wakes up to and gets firmly establishes in the conviction that the soul is the true self. 

The waking is which is unreal appears to be real, but when the wisdom dawns one becomes aware of the fact that all the three states are unreal on the standpoint of the soul as self.

The ancient peoples of India belong to Vedic religion or Santana Dharma therefore they have nothing to do with the present day Hinduism.

The ancient peoples of India belong to Vedic religion or Santana Dharma therefore they have nothing to do with the present day Hinduism. The ancient peoples of Indus Valley of undivided India  were called as Hindus by muslim invaders. 

Hindu idol or deity or temple is nothing to do with the Vedic religion. . Vedic people ate beef. The Hindu practices of idol worship and temples worships ban on beef eating introduced   many centuries later.

As one peeps into the annals of religious history he finds that the Hinduism which exists today is not a continuation of the Vedic religion, and it has no real historical foundation.  The Hinduism is of a much later origin.

As per the researchers, the two faiths the Hindu belief system has drifted miles away from the Vedic faith so that the two seem to be two distinct faiths. It is not difficult to discover that there is no noticeable continuity of Hinduism from the religion of the Vedas.

The distinctive characteristics of the Hindu belief system cannot be traced in the Vedic literature. Besides, although the Vedas are revered as sacred texts, there are many people in India who do not know what ‘belief in the Vedas’ means. In most cases, the acquaintance of the Hindus with the Vedas is limited to the few hymns that are recited in temples and household liturgies.

Max Müller says: - "The religion of the Veda knows no idols; the worship of idols in India is a secondary formation, a degradation of the more primitive worship of ideal gods."

Hindus are idol worshipers of the large number of Gods and Goddesses whereas in Vedas the God has been described as:-

v  Sakshi (Witness)

v  Chetan (conscious)

v  Nirguna (Without form and properties).

v  Nitya (eternal)

v  Shuddha (pure)

v  Buddha (omniscient)

v   Mukta (unattached).

The nature of the Atman (soul) is:-     

v  Witness

v  Conscious

v  Without form and properties

v  Eternal

v  Pure

v  Omniscient

v  Unattached

Thus it refers to formless and attributeless God, which is the Atman (soul), the innermost self within the false experience. Thus it indicates clearly all the Gods with form and attributes are mere imagination based on the false self.  Thus Atman or soul, the innermost self is God.

The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago followers of Vedism never worshipped idols. Idol worship was started by the followers of Buddhism and Jains.  There is logic to idol worship. Vedas speak of one God that is the supreme self in i.e. Atman or soul but Hinduism indulges in worshiping 60 million Gods.

It indicates clearly all the gods with form and attributes are mere imagination based on the false self.

The Vedas as a body of scripture contain many contradictions and they are fragmentary in nature. For Hindus, scriptures like the Bhagavad-Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Puranas are more attractive and appealing than the Vedas. And also the gods and goddesses they worship differ considerably from the Vedic ones. The collection of hymns called Vedas written in praise of certain deities by poets over several centuries does not seem to have much significance for the Hindus

Yajur Veda says:-

Translation 1

They enter darkness, those who worship natural things (for example air, water, sun, moon, animals, fire, stone, etc).

They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol etc.)

(Yajurved 40:9)

Translation 2

"Deep into shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti's worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent."

(Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith pg 538)

Translation 3.

"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, But those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time."

(Yajur Veda 40:9.)

So, Yajur Veda indicates that:-

They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol etc (Yajurved 40:9)

Those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." (Yajur Veda 40:9.)

 In Vedas the God has been described as:-

Sakshi (Witness), Chetan (conscious), Nirguna (Without form and properties).  Nitya (eternal),Shuddha (pure), Buddha (omniscient), Mukta (unattached).

Thus it clearly indicates the god is without the form and attributes and ever free.  

Vedic gods, hardly have any significance in present day Hindu belief system. The gods and goddesses important to the Hindus of today are Ram, Krishna, Kali, Ganesh, Hanuman, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and the respective consorts of the last three, namely, Saraswathi, Lakshmi and Shakti. None of these deities figured prominently in the Vedic pantheon and some of them are clearly non-Vedic.

The more important religious sects among the Hindus, like Vaishnavism, Saivism and so on, did not have a Vedic origin, but had come into existence in comparatively recent times.

Originally Shiva and the cult of the Mother Goddess belonged to the religion of the Indus (Sindhu) Valley people. Vedic worshiper did not use temples and idols as Hindus of today do. For them, the sacrificial rituals were more important than the temple or idol worship.

The theory of Avatara (‘descend’) of gods which is very important to modern Hinduism is non-Vedic.

The term Avatara (…) is not found in the earlier Vedic texts, and is absent from the older Sanskrit glossaries”. The caste system which is so integral to Hinduism, was also not practiced in the Vedic times.

 There is hardly any evidence of a rigid caste system in the Vedas. It is argued that the purushasukta hymn of the Rig Veda (X.90) which is often referred to in order to give a religious sanction to caste system, was a later interpolation.

The Vedas, however, speak of various classes of people, which appear to have been names of professions, and they were not hereditary.

The very concepts of castes by birth, upper/lower castes, superior/inferior castes, outcastes, untouchables, Dalits, etc. are clearly prohibited by Rig-Veda”.

Avatara (‘descent’) of gods, caste system, were absent in the Vedic religion. Only when the Vedic religion with  its own as a distinct with its own sacred texts, rites, rules of social life, beliefs and practices without inter-linking it with Hinduism the true essence of Vedas will be revealed.

Vedic people did not worship Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

In Yajur Veda – chapter- 32: - God Supreme or Supreme Spirit has no ‘Pratima’ (idol) or material shape. He cannot be seen directly by anyone. He pervades all beings and all directions. Thus,   Idolatry does not find any support from the Vedas.

What God is like? God is formless, timeless and spaceless existence. Thus according to the Vedas God neither has any image nor God resides in any particular idol or statue. God cannot be seen directly by anyone. God pervades all beings and all directions.   

               

Some scholars believe that Lord Krishna has been just a Mahan yogi and not God himself. Hinduism is not Vedic religion or Sanatana Dharma.    Hindus do idol-worship, while Vedas bars idol worship.  The god pervades in everything and everywhere.

To be considered an orthodox Hindu one need only accept the authority of Shruti, however there is no universal agreement among Hindus what constitutes Shruti. Vedantins consider the Vedanta, i.e., the Upanishads as Shruti, but also include the Bhagavad-Gita and Brahma Sutras as authoritative. For some Vaishnavas the Bhagavata Purana is to be considered Veda. Some consider the Tantras are considered Veda. Thus, we find that there is ample scope for different philosophies and practices under the very broad umbrella of Hinduism. And all Hindus indulge in non-Vedic practices barred by the Vedas introduced by the different founders of the different sects of Hinduism.

"Beef was an important part of the Vedic diet. In ancient India, cow-slaughter was considered auspicious on the occasions of some ceremonies. Bride and groom used to sit on the hide of a red ox in front of the ‘Vedi’ (alter).”

Many    scriptures are witnesses to such sacrifices and killings of animals for consumption. References of such commands are replete in Hindu scriptures like Manusmriti, Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmins, Grih sutras, Dharma sutras and others.

This column would not suffice for quoting all such references but a few from different scriptures are imperative to bring home the point and clear the misconceptions:-

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: - When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

Maharishi Yagyavalkya says in Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21):- “I eat beef because it is very soft and delicious.”

Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”

Rigveda (10/85/13) declares:-  “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”

Rigveda (6/17/1) states that: - “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”Vashistha Dharma sutra (11/34) writes:-  “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.”

Swami Vivekananda said:-  “You will be surprised to know that according to ancient Hindu rites and rituals, a man cannot be a good Hindu who does not eat beef”. (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, Vol.3, p. 536).

Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says, “Bajsancyi Samhita sanctifies beef-eating because of its purity”. (Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, page 180)

Sri,  Shankara commentary on Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says : ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen.

The book ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’, published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay and edited by renowned historian R.C.Majumdar (Vol.2, page 578) says: “this is said in the Mahabharat that King Rantidev used to kill two thousand other animals in addition to two thousand cows daily in order to give their meat in charity”.
A great majority of Hindus are not in contact with their religious history therefore, they believe their inherited beliefs as ultimate truth.

The vast ocean of Vedic religion or Santana Dharma was consistently steady and calm for a very long period. It appears that as a consequence of the rage of Buddhist revolution it got suddenly disturbed and flowed down to us in disorder. Even today Vedic religion or Santana Dharma has not recovered from the onslaught of Buddhism and Jainism and is not able to settle in people's heart in its original form in the same old measure.

The Buddhist influence is seen in a great measure in the Vedic philosophy which is followed by the majority of Indians. Thus, it is clear that Vedic religion or Santana Dharma has not retained its original form, but been influenced by other religions has undergone a sea change. Thus the influence of Buddhism on Santana Dharma is extraordinary. Even Kumarila Bhatta, who fought with great heroism for the revival of Vedic religion, was so much influenced by Buddhism that he established for the first time in the country, an atheist Vedic religion or Sanatana Dharma. There is no room for any doubt to assert that the Kumarila Bhatta School was influenced by the atheist Buddhism because the school which is based on the validity of the Vedas and rituals refutes the existence of God.

Sage Sri Sankara endeavored towards establishing Vedic religion overthrowing Buddhism. But even he was not able to avoid the influence of Buddhism. The influence of the revolutionary atmosphere of Buddhism has reappeared in the Advaita of Sage Sri, Sankara. His inability to revive Vedic religion that flourished before the Buddhist revolution in its pure form is discernible.

Many thinkers since his time have said about Sage Sri Sankara that he made use of many important tenets of Buddhism and presented to the people the very Buddhism in the guise of Vedic religion. Though the Vedic religion represented by Sri Sage Sankara is like a conglomeration of many things he deserves the credit of having turned the Hindu mind which was once averse to Vedas -the root of Hinduism, towards the Vedas once again. For this the followers of Vedic religion should be grateful to Sage Sri Sankara.

The brilliance shown by Sage Sri Sankara, a man of wonderful genius, a matchless speaker and an extra-ordinary dialectician is really a great spectacle in history. In his time, there was a severe conflict between Buddhism and the atheist Vedic religion of Kumarila Bhatta. Utilizing this opportunity Sage Sri Sankara intervened in the conflict and making use of some concepts and methodology of both the Kumarila Bhatta school and Buddhism presented a new coalition religion before people.

Sage Sri, Sankara gave an extraordinary charisma to this religion with the help of his methods of logic and style of exposition. Its influence was so much that both the Bhatta School and Buddhism had to flee from India without leaving a trace. The absence, even today, of a single follower of the Kumarila Bhatta school as well as of Buddhism, is a proof enough for the great achievement of Sage Sri Sankara. This indeed is a historical miracle.

One can see in the Vedic religion expounded by Sri Sankara a different version of the Kumarila Bhatta School and Buddhism. That is why the tradition of following Kumarila Bhatta methodology in expounding the Advaita thought at the empirical level gained ground in the Advaita School. Different types of methodology of Buddhism were absorbed into the Advaita thought, of course, under new labels. There is very clear similarity between the Vedic religion of Sri Sankara and Buddhism and the Advaita School have given the world a common message. The essence of both the schools is:-

The entire world which one perceives is illusionary; it is just an appearance of unreality and there is only one indeterminate and attributeless Sat at the root of this world".

The difference between a discussion, a dialogue

The difference between a discussion, a dialogue and an argument is, a discussion is an open exchange of views, a dialogue is a mutual exploration of meaning and an argument is a battle of opinions.

An argument is the meeting of two closed minds. A discussion is only possible when we are open to one another’s ideas. A dialogue will only happen when two parties collaborate to uncover a deeper wisdom and co-create a new understanding.

In an argument two + two = nothing. In a discussion two + two = four. In a dialogue two + two = four. In a dialogue, there is much more listening than talking, in a discussion, there is an equal exchange between friends and in an argument, there is war!

When one argues it means he has an opinion, and at the heart of his opinion is his belief. When one hears, the belief of the other he argues back because he is seeing their belief as a threat to him personally, because he is attached to, and identified with, his belief. So he interpret the others belief as an attack upon him. Before he knows it he is either defending or attacking, which means he is creating fear and aggression, which means he is inflicting suffering upon him self.

Many people come to a conversation ‘armed’ with their opinions, prepared to defend their beliefs, and ready to do battle. However, there is no use of argument based on their accepted opinions in pursuit of truth. Everything has to be verified through deeper inquiry and reasoning before accepting anything as truth. Only un-contradictable truth has to be accepted as truth. The un-contradictable truth is nondual truth.

If one find this hard to do, it is because he believes, he is right and he wants to prove he is right and others are wrong because when he is right he is happy! Being right he feels superior and feeling superior is the best we to avoid the possibility of feeling inferior. So being right and being happy have become synonymous. However, it is not true happiness because in the process of proving his rightness he is tense and even angry that the other is not ‘getting it’ or is not going to acknowledge that ‘he is right’. The possibility of losing the argument becomes the possibility of losing face.

There are those who deliberately look for an argument. They are spoiling for a fight so that they can justify and satisfy their addiction to the accompanying emotions i.e. anxiety, anger and perhaps hate. Like hard drugs, if these emotions are indulged in, they will have to be ‘felt’ every day. Hence the argumentative attitude some have developed.

Thus there is neither witness or witnessed in the realm of ultimate reality or Brahman

 This witness position cannot be taken in the midst of work or activity, because work and activity are part of the mirage. 

This witness position cannot be taken in the midst of work or activity, because the witness is the formless subject and work and activity are happening within the object [which is in the form of universe or mind or waking experience]. The witness is not the body but the witness that witnesses the body and the world together without the physical apparatus.  The formless witness witnesses the dream as whole. Likewise the same witness, witnesses the waking experience as a whole. Thus the witness is within the three states as their formless substance and it is apart from the three states as their formless witness. It is apart because it not an entity or identity within the waking or dream.

 The formless substance and witness of the three states are one in essence therefore the witness[self or formless consciousness]  and witnessed [universe or waking or dream]  are one in essence. That essence is consciousness. Thus there is neither witness or witnessed in the realm of ultimate reality or Brahman.   One becomes aware of this fact; when he indulges in deeper self-search.   

Buddhism says: all things are illusory and noting exists.

Buddhism says: all things are illusory and noting exists. However, Advith avers that it is not so. It says that the universe of course is illusory, but there is Brahman, that exists forming the very substratum of all things.

The doubts rise in seeking mind:

 How could the waking to be illusory?

 One is aware of so many things happening within the waking so could it be illusory?

They raise this question taking that illusion to be something to very real. It is the phenomenal appearance of the world observed from the  standpoint of the ego ,which is the false self within the false experience , and not from that of the soul or consciousness , which is the innermost self.

If the dream is experienced without the physical body, then what is it that experiences the dream?

Mind is in an experience. Mind appears as waking or dream [duality] and disappears as deep sleep [nonduality]. Man and his world are within the waking or dream.  The waking experience is parallel dream. And dream is parallel waking experience.  Thus trying to experience the truth as an individual is total impossibility.  Thus the people who are trying to experience the self as in individual are in hallucination because self is not an individual it is universal. Self which is consciousness pervades in everything and everywhere in all the three states. Thus the people who are expounding knowledge that self can be experienced as an individual are playing with the feelings and sentiments of the people and make them hallucinate and keep them permanently in the grip of hallucination.  The truth has to be mentally traced and grasped, understood assimilated and realized by deeper self-search because it is hidden within the three states but it is beyond the three states.

That is why Sri, Sankara indicated in Viveka Chudamani : - 65. As a treasure hidden underground requires (for its extraction) competent instruction, excavation, the removal of stones and other such things lying above it and (finally) grasping, but never comes out by being (merely) called out by name, so the transparent Truth of the self, which is hidden by Maya and its effects, is to be attained through the instructions of a knower of Brahman, followed by reflection, meditation and so forth, but not through perverted arguments.

66. Therefore the wise should, as in the case of disease and the like, personally strive by all the means in their power to be free from the bondage of repeated births and deaths.

Seeker of truth has to direct realization of the true self, through deeper, inquiry, analysis and reasoning   and avoid losing precious time and effort loosing himself in philosophical studies.

Both modern science and religion offer hypotheses and theories but there is one vital difference--science begins with facts which it collects; religion begins with fancies. Science evolves its hypotheses from such facts, religion from fancies.

Science declares that oxygen combines with hydrogen to give water. And it also declares oxygen is protons or electrons. But in pursuit of truth the whole physical existence [universe or mind] is considered as illusion and science and their inventions, which are based on the physical existence is limited to physical existence. The truth is within but it is beyond the physical existence.  The science demands physical proof.  But the physical proof is part of the illusion. Hence science cannot go beyond physicality because the truth cannot be traced with laboratory conditions.  Deeper Inquiry, analysis and reasoning is required if one wants to push its quest deeply enough.

Common people and primitive minds fall into faulty thinking through their inherited conditioning , such faulty thinking and reasoning  makes them accept the experience of birth, life and death as reality ; taking what one sees through  the senses  as real, taking what is apparent obvious and superficial as true because it is less troublesome.

Many People adopt the attitude that what   they know is truth. And what others say is false. This attitude makes them not to verify anything other then what they know.   One needs to be rational, not merely logical. Logic is has its value only in physical plane.

As one advances towards spiritual plane he sees the logic underlying experience and becomes more rational. His reasoning is two-fold--implicit and explicit.

There is a need of facts of physical proof in scientific invention, whereas in pursuit of truth the proof has to be grasped mentally and realized.  Therefore, the truth is realized only by few who take this mental pursuit.  “Whatever facts revealed, which is un-contradictable has to be accepted as truth.

The truth based on the formless soul/self is worthwhile; without it, one has something else, not truth.  Most people refuse to venture into pursuit of truth; because they do not want to go into the root of things.

The seeker of truth has to study, inquire and reason in the beginning of the pursuit of truth, because it is absolutely necessary in pursuit of truth.

One has to know the true self is not physical but the formless spirit.  The spirit or soul or the self is in the form of consciousness. Consciousness gives one the awareness of the three states. 

The ignorance of the true self is the cause of experiencing the duality as reality.  The ignorance vanishes through realization of the true Self, which is the soul/spirit. 

The true the Self   does not lie in our body, in our brain, or our ego, but it is the essence of the dual and non-dual experiences, which comes and goes as waking dream and deep sleep.

The yearning of the mind for its formless nondual true nature is beyond form, time and space or beyond the experience of the birth, life, death and the world.  The seeker of truth only got preoccupied with practical life within the practical world till now to quench this inner unknown restlessness, not fully comprehending what he seeks.  

The self cannot be experienced as an individual because self is not an individual it is formless and universal.  People think the pundit’s interpretation of Upanishads and get stuck to the idea of experience as a touch stone. One has to realize the self is not form but self is formless consciousness, is prior to any experience. Experience implies duality.  Duality is mere illusion from ultimate standpoint.   In reality experience and experiencer are one in essence. Thus there is no second thing exists other than consciousness.  Hence it is non-dual.

Experience belongs to individuality. And individuality is falsehood. There is neither individual nor his experience in reality. Man and his experience of the world cannot exist without waking experience. Whatever we are discussing, we are discussing within the waking experience. One has to know: whether physical body and the world are within the mind or the mind is within the physical body? The mind, physical body, ego and the world are present only, when the whole experience of the waking or dream is present. And mind is absent, when the waking/dream experience is absent. Thus one has to conclude the mind as the whole waking or dream experience. Thus the mind appears and disappears as waking or dream experience. All your arguments are truth only on the base of the ego, which is the false self, within the false experience [waking]. The individual experiences within the waking are as real as dream.

 Suppose the same subject, if we are discussing in the dream and one asks me the same questions in the dream, then whatever he said in dream becomes unreal, when the waking takes place. Whatever one saying now, he is saying within the waking experience. The waking is unreal on the base of the formless witness, which is Atman. Atman is in the form consciousness.

How does one see various objects, scenes and persons during dreams? If the dream is experienced without the physical body, then what is it that experiences the dream? Therefore, there must be a formless witness of the dream world. This formless witness is the same witness that is witnessed this Waking experience also. Therefore the Waking experience and dream both are witnessed by one and only formless witness of which the seeker is not aware of. Since he considers the physical body [I] as the self or witness and views and judges the world-view on the standpoint of false self, within the false experience. The formless witness can exist with or without the waking or dream. But waking /dream cease to exist, without the formless witness.

The gross Waking experience is merged into the mental experience in the sense that, when it is analysed, it is found to exist inseparably in and as the mind alone. All "spiritual" planes are really mental: those who regard them as different or higher are deceiving themselves. The dream becomes unreal when the waking takes place; similarly the waking becomes unreal when the wisdom dawns. Therefore everything has to be grasped mentally, not argued on the intellectual point of view, which is limited to the false physical entity within the false experience.

The unreal is created out of real, and when one views and judges on the standpoint unreal [ego] then there is duality. When one is able to view and judge on the standpoint of real [Atman/true self] then there is only non -duality. Therefore, when the wisdom dawns then there is neither duality, nor non duality, only reality. This is my views and conviction.

All these confusion will go on, until man thinks, he is an individual and apart from the world, and the world existed prior to him and he is born in it afterwards. Therefore, it is necessary to know the fact the true self is not ego, but the true self is the soul, and stop viewing and judging the world-view on the standpoint of the physical self [ego], and one has to view and judge on the true self [soul/Atman] to realize the fact that, the world along with man is illusion. The formless substance from which the illusion is created is Atman. Thus Atman is Brahman/ultimate reality. Thus no second thing exists on the standpoint of Atman or consciousness as self. Thus there is neither experience nor the experiencer in non-dual reality but only self-awareness.