>>24675635
>. Upon reflection my struggle has been understanding the inherent subjectivity (cit) of pure being (sat) itself. Though perhaps that subjectivity can't be something arises out of the unlimited nature of pure sat, because to whom would it be arising for? That sort of explains it, though not how it got there in the first place .
Technically, Advaita recognizes 'subjectivity' as distinct from what may be termed the "Absolute Subject". Regular subjectivity is relative to the object, it inheres in the intellect of the living being and it arises in that intellect when that intellect is pervaded or illuminated by the light of the Subject. Regular subjectivity is intentional or directed at objects while the Absolute Conciousness of the Subject (Brahman) is utterly non-intentional, non-relational, not directed at anything, The self-disclosure of Itself to Itself self-luminously (reflexively) is not an activity or a relation that inheres in an empty placeholder subject but is instead the non-relational and basic constitutive nature that makes up said Awareness, i.e. Its presence is the same as Its self-disclosure which is equal to or non-different from It being fully present in Itself.
>But if it is then an inherent subject (which I guess "must be" true), as well as the reality itself, then that subjectivity makes it luminous as it experiences being in the absolute purity of sat alone, the experience of which is ananda?
Basically yes, but with the qualification that there is no bifurcation or separation of X experiences Y, the experience of which is bliss, there is no frame of reference like "experiences Y" present, the Awareness abides unalterably in complete unconditioned freedom and purity, which is Bliss itself and not an experience of bliss. The timeless and immutable self-disclosure of this Awareness to itself is not an 'experience' as normally understood and it can only be compared to normal creaturely experiences analogically.
