On Sat-Chit-Ananda denotation of Brahman

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

After my last posts here, I went about compiling some of their content into a file for my family-friend group. Am attaching the two versions I sent; the second has extra quotes from the Chandogya Upanishad at the end.

I also found the below quora contribution from a "Srividya" (says, follower of Ramana Maharshi). Thought it was succinct and illuminating, connecting Ananda and Ananta. (Don't know if the derivation claim is true). In the attached file, I also gave a quote from the Upaniishad in connection with this.

Quote (Srividya in quora, "follower of Ramana Maharshi")

Ananda is derived from the Sanskrit word 'Ananta' - infinite. Infinite is bliss. Bliss is not the happiness that we know. Bliss is the infinite nature. No boundaries. No limitations.

Limitations/finite always cause misery, because our true nature is Sat (existence) - chit (Consciousness) and Ananda (Infinite nature - Bliss).

Deep within we all are craving to go back to our true nature. Thats why human being is always trying to explore and explore the matter to go beyond the limitations and stay as the Bliss.

Unquote 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Someone did ask me whether the words ananda and ananta are related in Sanskrit. The person Srividya that I quoted says ananda is derived from ananta. Is this true (how would we know?), or is there any other linguistic connection between these words?

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Putran Ji,

I doubt if there is any grammatical relation in general between the words *Ananda* and *ananta*. Of course someone who is knowledgeable in sanskrit can only confirm or deny this. I am a novice.

However there is an association between the two in the context of *Brahman*. Both represent the svarUpa lakshaNa of Brahman. Any number of Bhashya references can be cited. Preference depends upon individual background and understanding. I am citing from Tai Up which in my view brings out the association between these two terms beautifully.

//  स एष आनन्दः - यस्य मात्रा समुद्राम्भस इव विप्रुषः प्रविभक्ताः यत्रैकतां गताः - स एष परमानन्दः स्वाभाविकः, अद्वैतात् ; आनन्दानन्दिनोश्च अविभागोऽत्र ॥ //

//  sa eSha AnandaH - yasya mAtrA samudrAmbhasa iva vipruShaH pravibhaktAH yatraikatAM gatAH - sa eSha paramAnandaH svAbhAvikaH, advaitAt ; AnandAnandinoshcha avibhAgo.atra || //

Translation (Swami Gambhirananda)  //  that supreme Bliss, a particle or a bit of which forms the bliss of this Brahma, in accordance with the Vedic text, “On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live” (Br. IV. iii. 32), is that very Bliss from which all this bliss has separated like spray from the sea and into which it gets united again. It is the natural supreme Bliss, and in It there is no bifurcation of the joy and the enjoyer, since It is non-dual  //.

 Regards

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-puEd3%2B1KHW2Jed%3DTnY8dEfPLHH-tB3P9ah05iCXKKskA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

Thanks for the reference. Can you give the numbering for this verse? I will read the surrounding bhashya.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdN%3D3nUtxq5Q%2BG87Sde7Ne%3D1d939fC5wT7ZKRSHd2kgBzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaskaram Putran Ji,

Numbering scheme in Tai Up is always a problem since different editions follow different numbering scheme. I understand it as the 3rd mantra in the 8th anuvAkka of Chapter 2. Most probably it will be listed as 2-8-3 (2 - viii - iii)  in the RKM edition. What I have cited is from the Bhashya on the Ananda MImAmsa anuvAkka in Ananda Valli, the one where the famous shrOtriyasya chAkAmahatasya appears. You can easily locate it. The Bhashya part I have cited follows immediately after the Bhashya covers the mantra proper.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qpF_8j1-qDv04%3DDkn3e8QUvzf5MH7zDBAfn76CWdty9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

Yes I see it. There is another passage a couple of pages before, starting "Bliss can be studied thus from this point of view ...", that is also very apt to what I had written. I am going to add these quotes to my file. Thanks for pointing out this section.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOnaAFivYngB63-sWbz1K0Nmx4d-nT-wqvYgKsjDAeVpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Attaching the updated file with the Taittiriya Upanishad bhashya quotes, and also another set of practical steps (with disclaimer) before the quote section. 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Putran ji,

Thank you for the wonderful writeup.

Chandogya Upanishad 7.23.1 too says "that which is infinite (bhuma), that is happiness (sukham)". 

Adding on to the broader discussion, there is another general explanation given to Brahman's svarupa designated as sat-chit-ananda, that I heard in one of the discourses. When we say Brahman is “sat chit ananda”, we only describe the foundational expression / perception of Brahman through the shariras or koshas. Brahman as “sat” or “existence” is fundamentally expressed / perceived through the sthula sharira (gross physical body) made up of sense organs and annamaya kosha. Brahman as “chit” or “consciousness” is expressed / perceived through the sukshma sharira (subtle body) made up of antahkarana and pranamaya, manomaya and vijnanamaya koshas. Brahman as “ananda” or “bliss” is expressed / perceived through the karana sharira (causal body) made up of vasanas and anandamaya kosha. Therefore even the sat-chit-ananda svarupa is only experienced at the BMI-V levels. When we transcend BMI-V / shariras / koshas, even the sat-chit-ananda qualities are no longer experienced.

Of course, Sat / Chit / Ananda is more foundational, but I found this explanation quite interesting and appropriate.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pVAjDjjff%2BkvJ9eRLoq6xhZ7%2Bj%2BdK-KVnTqkEyfSCrRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

I think my write-up also aligns with this explanation (though not referring to shariras) because I was careful to mention Ishvara when it comes to these natures as well: "These are the three fundamental aspects of manifest (Saguna) Brahman and each is a pointer to the non-dual (Nirguna) Brahman."; "Sat-nature of Ishvara"; "S+C+A nature underlying Ishvara’s manifestation"; "between sat and asat, it is sat that is indicative of the Reality, Sat, beyond this superimposed duality. Thus we affirm the non-dual unchanging sat nature of what all we see and experience; that is the pointer to Brahman." 

Yes, that verse is included in the write-up in the quotes section. I am not that well-read in the Upanishads but was happy to find so many wonderful passages that seemed to corroborate my writing and understanding. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLd0Dgh4TZggzpK_jqY5vuT9ZdWdU4kwZmFkJtCDFo36KQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Shri Putran ji,

True and in agreement.

Yes, I now saw the Ch Up reference in your article. Somehow I missed both the occasions you referenced this in your article. :)

Thank you!

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-p1AZPky%3DGx9MHkH_-oG_8q_MdysHwTpfsTSBP7BSgO8g%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

The Tai Up. quote is also instructive here.

Quote Tai Up II.viii.1-4

the worldly bliss attains excellence owing to a concurrence of external and internal means. The bliss, thus attained, is being instanced here as an approach to the Bliss that is Brahman; for through this familiar bliss can be approached the Bliss that is comprehensible by an intellect free from objective thought. Even worldly bliss is a particle for the Bliss that is Brahman, which becomes transmuted into impermanent worldly bliss, consequent on knowledge becoming covered up in ignorance, and ignorance becoming successively thicker according as the individuals, starting with Hiranyagarbha, think diversely of this Bliss under the impulsion of the result of their past actions and in conformity with their past contemplations, and under the influence of contact with accessories like objects etc. That very Bliss which is visualized by one who is learned, versed in the Vedas and free from passion, appears diversely as increasing more and more - a hundredfold each time in the planes starting with that of man-Gandharvas till the bliss of Hiranyagarbha, Brahma, is reached -, in accordance with the attenuation of ignorance, desire and action. But when the division of subject and object, created by ignorance is eliminated by enlightenment, there is only the intrinsic all pervading Bliss that is one without a second.

Unquote

Notice that the reference to "worldly bliss" corresponds to the bliss in your explanation. However that bliss is the conditioning via ignorance of the unconditioned Bliss that is one without a second. "In It (the Supreme Bliss) there is no bifurcation of the joy and the enjoyer, since It is non-dual." 

The way I think of this: If we are to refer to that Bliss from any standpoint that affirms a duality between sat, chit, ananda, we have to consider that Bliss to be the non-dual manifest Bliss nature of Ishvara (without superimposition), so as to not associate words and thoughts in connection with our manifest world with Nirguna Brahman. That Bliss of Ishvara conditioned by our ignorance is our worldly bliss. However, once we transcend the "bifurcation" of joy and enjoyer, the standpoint in reference is paramarthika, so the duality between the three natures of sat, chit, ananda is also transcended. The common "apavada-limit" is nirguna Brahman that may therefore be referred/pointed to as/by any of Sat, Chit, Ananda or SCA.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

The way I think of this: If we are to refer to that Bliss from any standpoint that affirms a duality between sat, chit, ananda, we have to consider that Bliss to be the non-dual manifest Bliss nature of Ishvara (without superimposition), so as to not associate words and thoughts in connection with our manifest world with Nirguna Brahman. That Bliss of Ishvara conditioned by our ignorance is our worldly bliss. However, once we transcend the "bifurcation" of joy and enjoyer, the standpoint in reference is paramarthika, so the duality between the three natures of sat, chit, ananda is also transcended. The common "apavada-limit" is nirguna Brahman that may therefore be referred/pointed to as/by any of Sat, Chit, Ananda or SCA.

A question that arises here is whether Ishvara should be understood fundamentally as having three 'gunas' (S+C+A) plus the Maya-shakti to project our universe.

I think at the base level, Ishvara is simply Brahman in conjunction with Maya-shakti and ALL further duality has to be seen as His creation. It does not mean they are two different realities acting together but that the non-dual Reality can only be grasped by us in terms of these two essential dimensions (Existence+Power, Shiva+Shakti, Brahman+Maya). 

Further delineations of manifest Brahman such as S+C+A, even if foundational for us, can be reduced to the projection of Maya. (Or we have to interpret Sat as denoting Brahman and C+A as denoting Maya; which also is unsatisfactory to me since C+A does not seem to include kriya shakti.) 

Now, is it wrong to say that Ishvara can be identified at this secondary level (as S+C+A + (Maya-shakti) or as S+C+A + (Iccha-jnana-kriya shakti))? Of course not. The word Ishvara applies at several levels, including as God, the karmaphaladata, different from jiva and jagat. But at the most basic, He is simply Brahman+Maya or SCA+Maya if we understand SCA in the non-dual pointer sense (and not as S+C+A).

The next level of superimposition is that of the jiva's, due to ajnana, that creates a world of further dualities (like sat vs asat, chit vs achit, sukha vs dukkha). Where the jiva thinks sukha vs dukkha or chaitanya vs jada, the shastra says "No, no. Such dualistic ideas of bliss/consciousness are appearance/conditionings/adhyasa on the inherent Ananda/Chaitanya of Ishvara" (at the secondary level) and ultimately they too are "projections of Maya/adhyasa on Brahman" (at the primary level). Based on my preliminary readings, the Upanishads seem to use either of these approaches to direct us to non-duality. For example, when I read the Chandogya VI.8.4, I understand in the primary sense and when I read the Consciousness passages in VI.2.3-4, I understand in the secondary sense.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

Further delineations of manifest Brahman such as S+C+A, even if foundational for us, can be reduced to the projection of Maya. (Or we have to interpret Sat as denoting Brahman and C+A as denoting Maya; which also is unsatisfactory to me since C+A does not seem to include kriya shakti.) 

 I must be confusing myself. In retrospect, reading VI.2.3-4 in Ch Up, the interpretation of Sat with Brahman and Consciousness with Maya may be in order. "this Existence is conscious because of being the agent of visualization." Sat being associated with consciousness is equivalent having the power of visualization, projection, creation. In that case, Ishvara is Sat-Chaitanya (and by extension, S+(C+A)). We just should not add Maya separately in addition to this notation as if it represents something else.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Putran ji,

You have captured some deeper thoughts here and I am sure it eludes me. Herewith is perhaps more of my tangential freeform self-reflection, inspired by your thoughts. As it is merely my self-reflection, this is not authoritative or completely backed by the scriptures. I welcome members to call out any deviations from the scriptures.

A more fundamental question is what exactly is S, C & A? Are these gunas (qualities) of Nirguna Brahman (Chaitanya)?

(A quick side note, the more I think about Nirguna Brahman, the better synonym Chaitanya seems more appropriate to avoid confusions! Hence heartfelt thanks to Shri Chandramouli ji for advising me on this approach in an earlier email. At that time I felt this was not actually necessary as the Nirguna versus Saguna aspect was directly understood from the context, but the deeper we think about and understand the nuances, it quickly becomes a complex word puzzle. The term Chaitanya, for Nirguna Brahman, and Isvara for Saguna Brahman just simplifies the process significantly. Dhanyosmi Shri Chandramouli ji!)

Now, SCA cannot be gunas of Chaitanya, since Chaitanya is clearly nirguna. In TU bhashya for "satyam jnanam anantam Brahma", Bhagavan Bhashyakara says that these terms, though denoting viseshanas, are actually only lakshanas of Brahman. Same is applicable to SCA. They merely indicate or describe the nature of Chaitanya based on 3 qualities that we are familiar with.

Does it then mean that Chaitanya has these 3 qualities as its very nature? Recently I just read somewhere (and I am trying hard to remember / find out where!) that even these 3 qualities are not what exactly Brahman is, but merely denote the most fundamental manifestation of Brahman that is perceivable by us. Meaning, it is not that Brahman is existence or Brahman is consciousness, but that which is existence is Brahman and that which is consciousness is Brahman. In other words, that which is existence is merely the manifestation of Brahman or that which is consciousness is merely the manifestation of Brahman. Manifestation, here, is not a change, but merely the expression of Brahman's presence. In other words, Brahman expresses as existence, consciousness and bliss in the manifested universe. Though, I need to revisit and review the source once I find it.

What then is the true nature of Brahman? The answer is that it is beyond any and all our sense perceptions, including SCA, but IT IS WHAT IT IS <—> IT IS I <—> I AM THAT I AM and even 'is-ness' or ‘I-ness’ cannot qualify it.

Let’s now attempt to understand Saguna Brahman or Isvara. Clearly Isvara is Brahman conditioned through Maya. Or, Maya is inseparably associated with Isvara. Now, can Maya be considered as the nature of Isvara or a qualifier? Nature (svarupa) is defined as that quality which is inseparable and indistinct from the entity. Without that quality, the entity ceases to exist as is. On the other hand, a qualifier (viseshana) is defined as that quality which is inseparable but distinct from the entity. Maya, as Isvara’s shakti, is inseparable but distinct from Isvara. There is a shaktiman-shakti or possessor-possessed relationship. Hence Maya is Isvara’s viseshana.

A popular expression is Isvara = Brahman + Maya. While this is an oversimplification, this is also fraught with possible confusions. What is Brahman referred to here? Is it Nirguna Brahman or Saguna Brahman or something else? It cannot be Saguna Brahman since Isvara is Saguna Brahman and is on the other side of this equation. If it is said to be Nirguna Brahman, then, how can there be an association with Maya? Advaita breaks into Dvaita then! The only response is that Brahman here only refers to Isvara Sakshi, Brahman with Maya as upadhi. This is not pure Nirguna Brahman. This Isvara Sakshi is the substance / entity - possessor / shaktiman, with Maya being the qualifying attribute / possessed / shakti.

If Maya is the attribute (inseparable but distinct) of Isvara, what is the nature of Isvara? It is here that it is said that the very nature of Isvara, which should be identical to the very nature of Isvara Sakshi, which again would be true indicators of Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without any upadhi) or Chaitanya, is SCA. It is completely acceptable whether we call it as SCA or S+C+A; meaning, whether we treat these as 3 distinct qualities or whether they are taken in complete identity. These qualities, though they transcend Maya, are manifested only through Maya. Thus, our perception of existence, consciousness and bliss is only through Maya. As we transcend Maya, there is no more any distinct perception of these qualities either! It is just Chaitanya alone!

Next question is - what are the various svarupa lakshanas of Brahman? Is it only these 3 (S, C, A) or are there more? At this point, it is perhaps worthwhile to call out that Visishtadvaita has an interesting categorizations of the qualities of Brahman. They have one group of 5 qualities that are called essential nature (svarupa nirupaka dharma) and the rest of the infinite auspicious qualities are the derivative attributes (nirupita svarupa viseshana). The essential nature are said to be satyam, jnanam, anantam, anandam, amalatvam (pure). The rest of all other attributes are part of the derivatives. However, from the Advaita perspective, I believe there are lot more characteristics that denote or indicate the true nature of Brahman; not that they directly describe Brahman. Bhagavan Bhashyakara frequently mentions “nitya shuddha buddha muktha svarupa”. Based on Upanishad vakyas, the following can be termed as svarupa lakshana: existence (sat), real (satya), consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal (nitya), infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), free (mukta), devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata abheda). All these are direct descriptions of the core nature of Isvara & Isvara Sakshi and descriptive indicators of Chaitanya.

Comments and corrections are welcome.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qbxHx4B3sgPgc5U%3DBz2Dd%3D_w40Oq69Ea7AevVuY229SA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

It is a very well written and coherent exposition on these topics. Particularly I found your points on maya (whether svarupa vs viseshana, whether Ishvara is Brahman conditioned through maya vs Maya inseparably associated with Ishvara, whether Brahman+Maya, whether NB or SB or what) all very intriguing, worthy of vichara, and likely invoking differing views. I would add that we should include in the analysis why maya is said to be anirvachaniya or its effects mithya, in connection with some of these types of questions. My mind a bit too lazy right now to do the requisite deep thinking; if possible, will do so later.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLd%2BDNR5PP%2Be8csPMpWcfAUN%2B71RDeLA6t3nGn2aVqVPCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Does it then mean that Chaitanya has these 3 qualities as its very nature? Recently I just read somewhere (and I am trying hard to remember / find out where!) that even these 3 qualities are not what exactly Brahman is, but merely denote the most fundamental manifestation of Brahman that is perceivable by us. Meaning, it is not that Brahman is existence or Brahman is consciousness, but that which is existence is Brahman and that which is consciousness is Brahman. In other words, that which is existence is merely the manifestation of Brahman or that which is consciousness is merely the manifestation of Brahman. Manifestation, here, is not a change, but merely the expression of Brahman's presence. In other words, Brahman expresses as existence, consciousness and bliss in the manifested universe. Though, I need to revisit and review the source once I find it.

 

• I agree with this observation of yours.  Infact this is what I was trying to convey it to Sri Putran prabhuji.  When the shruti says brahman is satyaM jnAnam anantham brahma (vide taittireeya) we should not try to understand it (brahma tattva) through these words.  The best definition shruti opts is neti netyAtma.  (pratishedha vAkya pramANa).  Because it is of the simple fact that this tattva is not accessible to words nor to the mind (yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasa saha). It is the adventure of veda to speak about THAT which is beyond speech and mind and our quest to understand through the mind that which is not accessible to it 😊 Hence it has been said understanding the brahma tattva is not like understanding of ‘gOtva’ by understanding its features like its colour, big horns, tails etc. We should understand it with the stUlArundhati nyAna.  Likewise we should go beyond the words of satyaM jnAnam Anantam brahma to brahman ‘as satyaM jnAnam anantaM’.  We should take their intended meaning (lakshyArtha) not their literal meaning (vAchyArtha).   But nevertheless these terms are there in shruti to withdraw our attention from asatyaM (changing), jada (inert) and sAnta (limited).  But final description of shruti about THIS tattva is : athaH AdeshaH neti neti (not like this), sa yesha neti netyAtma (both can be found in bru.shruti).  In this way brahman is NOT anything that we can imagine and whatever we say with respect to this as ‘like this’ (like SCA, SJA etc.) is with respect to upAdhi only, without which we cannot say it is satyaM, nor Atman nor brahman nor vijnAna ghaNam nor Anandam. 

 

• Sri bhAshyakAra explains this in bru. Shruti itself (quoted earlier to Sri Putran prabhuji) adhyArOpita nAma rUpa karmadvaareNa brahma nirdishyate ‘vijnAnamAnandaM brahma’ ‘vijnAnaghana eva’ ‘brahma’ ‘Atma’ ityevamAdi shabdaiH.   (br.bhAshya 2.3.6).  While explaining this bhAshyakAra clarifies : in the same way animal described positively by words like : there goes the Ox, the white one with horns’ etc. brahman explained by means of superimposed name, form or action by means of words and expressions like : ‘brahman is consciousness and bliss (chaitanyaM/chit and Ananda), it is a solid mass of consciousness, brahman Atman.  When however it is intended to indicate its ‘essential nature itself’ free from all particulars conditioning adjuncts (upAdhi-s) then it is IMPOSSIBLE to define it in ANY particular manner.  And so for that PURPOSE the ONLY MEANS to employ is to point out it by NEGATION. i.e. by calling it ‘neti, neti’ thus by denying all properties attributable. 
•  One can also refer geeta bhAshya of Acharya on sarvataH pANipAdaM shloka as well.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

All negation should land us in the Atma tattva and this Atman is Brahman as per the adhyAsa bhAshya vAkya ? So, in the realization of "Aham BrahmAsmi" there is clear identification with Brahman with no negation any further right?

Appreciate if you could clarify.

dAsoham,
Suresh

---

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 6:58 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Re: On Sat-Chit-Ananda denotation of Brahman

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625012CA7EC810789777E6284002%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Vikram-ji,

I meant "JigyAsAdhikaraNa bhAshya vAkya" (not adhyAsa bhAshya).

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 4:25 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: On Sat-Chit-Ananda denotation of Brahman

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45166FFAD078F3BDBCDD69D2A9072%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Suresh ji,

I am sure others will be able to provide a more apt clarification to your question. Here is my attempt to clarify.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 11:37 AM suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Vikram-ji,

I meant "JigyAsAdhikaraNa bhAshya vAkya" (not adhyAsa bhAshya).

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 4:25 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: On Sat-Chit-Ananda denotation of Brahman

 

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

All negation should land us in the Atma tattva and this Atman is Brahman as per the adhyAsa bhAshya vAkya ? So, in the realization of "Aham BrahmAsmi" there is clear identification with Brahman with no negation any further right?

Appreciate if you could clarify.

Yes; after negating all that can be negated, that which remains is the Atman tattva. This Atman is ‘Brahman’ per Vedanta mahavakya “ayam atma brahma”. This is called as realization or knowledge of oneness of Atman-Brahman (brahma-atman-ekatvam) in Advaita. “Aham Brahmasmi” captures the expression for this first-person direct immediate realization (aparokshanubhuti) of ‘I’ - as the Atman - is the Brahman stated in the Vedas. It is a realization of self-identification, something like - “oh, I am indeed the 10th man!”. But even this particular expression will be auto-negated as one abides in the Self by the Self as the Self. There is no more distinct 'aham' or 'brahma' or 'asmi'. This is not ‘I’ identifying with (or merging into) something else that ‘I’-am currently not. In other words, there is not even an iota of change in the essence of ‘I’ before and after realization.

To explain further - as an intellectual exercise, if one starts to procedurally negate everything that is external or distinct from the negator, in the end all that would remain is the core essence (svarupa) of the negator alone. And this core essence of the negator cannot be negated, as there is nothing else distinct to be negated and the negator cannot self-negate. This core essence is the Chaitanya.

This is the implication of ’neti neti’ or ‘na-iti na-iti’ instruction. This is the essence of Nirvana Shatakam (or Atma Shatkam) stotram. This also is the first point of Shri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings in the book ‘Who am I’.

But, it is important to understand that this Chaitanya has always been the svarupa of the negator even prior to any negation! The essence of the subjective first-person singular ‘I’ or Aham is always this Chaitanya. This Chaitanya is termed as the Self / Atman / Brahman and is the driver of the ‘I’-notion (aham-karam) and all of its experiences. Therefore, one does not actually need to negate everything to arrive at this Chaitanya. Even in the presence of all external and internal distinctions, the svarupa of ‘I’ is the Chaitanya alone. The negation is only required to build the discrimination between the Self and the non-Self. There are several other methods to develop the same discrimination. Three of the other popular methods are - avastha-traya-viveka, pancha-kosha-viveka and drik-drishya-viveka. They all emphasize the point that what we currently identify as the ‘I’ is only a misunderstanding - an error or avidya. By discrimination, we remove the misunderstandings step-by-step or layer-by-layer and finally arrive at ‘He Who Remains”.

prostrations,

Vikram

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reference may be made to Bhashya on Br Up 2-3-6 to understand the scope of the statement ** Not this, not this **. I am copying below a few relevant parts from the Bhashya. I think it is necessary to refer to the Bhashya in toto for a clear picture.

Translation is by Swami Madhavananda.

//  Besides, in order to tell the nature of the Supreme Self, which is the Truth of truth (सत्यस्य सत्यं ), the latter must be told in its entirety //.

//  And impressions being  the particular forms of that truth, these forms of the impressions are being mentioned. These are the forms of this being, that is, of the subtle body that is being discussed. What are they ? //.

//  Having thus completely described the nature of ‘truth,’ the Shruti, in order to ascertain the nature of what has been called ‘the Truth of truth,’  viz., Brahman, begins this : Now therefore—since after ascertaining the nature of ‘truth,’  what remains is the Truth of truth, therefore the nature of that will be next ascertained. Description is a definite statement about Brahman. What is this statement? Not this, not this //.

//  How through these two terms, ‘Not this, not this,’  is it sought to describe the Truth of truth? //.

//  These two negative particles are used in an allinclusive sense, so as to eliminate every specification whatsoever that may occur to us //.

//  Therefore the two negative particles in ‘Not this, not this,’ are used in an all-inclusive sense //.

The PUrva Pakshi raises an objection

//  Well, after buckling to with such ado is it fair to describe Brahman thus ? //.

Reply

//  Yes. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘Not this, not this,’  therefore this is the only description of Brahman. The particle *iti* covers all possible predications that are to be eliminated by the two negative particles, as when we say, 'Every village is beautiful //.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLcKT73j5MM3BA3aGPGTgUvT%2Bd%2BC8V-jjyX4MfJd%3D%3DT0TQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

In the file, I gave 5 steps to helping focusing on the non-dual Sat. The first three of them are as follows:

1. How do we shift our attention from the duality of nama-rupa identifications to the non-duality of Brahman? I give here a possible sequence of mental shifts in our consciousness.

1. “This” Exists (Direct attention to the fact of ‘Being’, Existing, in everything that sprouts to senses and in mind.)
2. “This” is Existence (Unite/Ground Everything in the awareness of Sat/Existence)
3. Existence appears as (all) “this” (nama-rupa). (When attention reverts back to nama-rupa, retain awareness of Sat and look upon the nama-rupa as appearance of Sat) 

An intermediary step can be added that facilitates the transition between A and C, or simply is a bhakti-friendly stop. (Using Brahman instead of Sat/Existence.)

A. "This" Exists (Plural: All this exists. Analogy: Ring exists. Wave exists)

B. "This" exists in Brahman (All this exists in Brahman. Analogy: Ring exists in Gold. Wave exists in Ocean)

C. "This" is Brahman (Analogy: Ring is (nothing but) Gold. Wave is water)

D. (when mind reverses from C back to namarupa) Brahman appears as (all)  'this" (Analogy: Gold appears as (namarupa) ring, bangle etc. Water appears as wave, foam, Ocean)

When we acknowledge the existence of the object and then its existence in Brahman, our mind subtly shifts its attention from the dualities of objects to the non-duality of Brahman, first (B) as the Total Existence containing, supporting, pervading, projecting our object (ala Visishtadvaita), then (C) as the substratum reality. 

thollmelukaalkizhu