Objects of the world - Chapter 22

The essential purport of Shastras (शास्त्र) is to reveal the Truth that atman (आत्मन्) alone is satyam (सत्यं) and everything else is mithya (मिथ्य) and that atman (आत्मन्) is of the nature of satchitananda (सत्चिदानन्द). The myriad of empirical experiences of a human being though cannot be summarily dismissed with a technical word like mithya (मिथ्य) and they need to be elaborated in greater detail for the assimilation of the Truth to become easier without conflicting empirical experiences diluting the understanding. It is for this reason that Shastras (शास्त्र) talk about what the atman is not also in good detail. Multiple models are used in different Upanishads to explain objects of the world that belong in the realm of anatma (अनात्म) and these should be understood in the right context so one does not get hung up on these details and keeps the essential purport as central to ones learning & understanding of the scriptures.

We had previously defined mithya (मिथ्य) as that which does not have an independent existence or in other words that which depends on something else to exist. Consider a pot made of clay and if one were to remove the clay from the pot then the pot would not have any existence at all. Even while that being the case the pot is available for perception and that way cannot be discounted as non-existent and therefore it is accorded the status of mithya (मिथ्य) or that which has a borrowed existence. In this context, clay becomes the satyam (सत्यं) or that which lends its existence to the pot. The interesting aspect here is that satyam (सत्यं) can never be spatially apart from mithya (मिथ्य) and it is this fact that is at the root of confusing mithya (मिथ्य) to be satyam (सत्यं) and not understanding the true nature of satyam (सत्यं).

Here Adi Shankara begins elaborating on the nature of the Self by negating the gross, subtle and causal bodies as the Self and each of these bodies are elaborated upon in some detail using the models used in Upanishads. The reason for this negation beginning with the body is because it is primarily the body that is mistaken for the Self and even in the body it is the grossest aspect of it that is mistaken strongly still. The body is mistaken for the Self because being mithya (मिथ्य) it is not spatially separate from the Self from which it borrows its existence.