The experience of Jnana is available only to the Jivi, for it alone has Ajnana. So it is the Jivi, not the Sakshi, that knows "Aham Brahmaasmi". After the dawn of that knowledge, 'I-ness' will disappear. He becomes Brahmam. Now, who is it that saw? What is it that was seen? What is the sight? In the statement, "I saw", all these are latent, isn't it? But thereafter, to say, "I saw" is meaningless; it is not correct. To say, "I have known" is also wrong; by merely seeing the immutable once, the mutable Jivi cannot be transformed into Sakshi! Seeing the king once, can a beggar be transformed into a monarch? So too, the Jivi who has once seen the Sakshi cannot immediately become the Sakshi. The mutable Jivi cannot realise "Aham Brahmaasmi", without first getting transfused into the Sakshi.

If it is said that the Jivi, who has no idea of its basic substratum, can by reasoning realise that it is Brahmam, how then can it 'declare' so, in so many words? When one has become king, the kingship is recognised by others, not declared by the king himself, isn't it? That is a sign of foolishness or want of intelligence.

Caught up in the coils of change, it is very hard, well nigh impossible, to realise one is just the witness of all this passing show. So the Jivi must first try to practise the attitude of a witness, so that it can succeed in knowings its essential Brahmam nature. Getting a glimpse of the king inside the fort does not help the beggar acquire wealth or power; so too, the Jivi must not only know the Sakshi, (the Sakshi, more ethereal than the sky, beyond the three-fold category of knower, known, and knowledge, eternal, pure, conscious, free, blissful) but must become the Sakshi. Till then, the Jivi continues as Jivi, it cannot become Brahmam.

As a matter of fact, so long as 'I' persists, the state of Sakshi is unattainable. The Sakshi is the inner core of everything, the 'immanent', the embodiment of Sath, Chith and Ananda. There is nothing beyond it or outside it. To say that such Fullness is 'I' is a meaningless expression. It is wrong also to call it the Vision or Sakshathkara.

The Sruthis also did not consider Jiva and Brahma as of the same nature. The more important identity according to the Sruthi is of the Akasa within one pot and the Akasa in another pot. The Akasa in the pot is the same as the Akasa in the pan; the Akasa in the pot is the Akasa that has filled everything everywhere. The Akasa in the pot is the ever-full immanent Akasa. That is the mukhyasamaanaadhikaaranyaaya. The wind in one place is the wind in all places; the sunlight in one place is the sunlight everywhere; the God in one image is the God in all images. This type of identity has to be grasped.