sat chit ananda

[Guest guest]

"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

 

Tony O'Clery <aoclery

 

Namaste,

 

Is not Sat Chit Ananda ,Saguna Brahman, considering Ananda, or bliss is

an attribute?

 

Tony.

 

 

Hello Tony. I do not know about Saguna Brahman but there are scholars

and

people with great knowledge on the Advaitin list who can help. You might

wish to refer to such works as the Ashtavakra Gita and the Avadhuta Gita

or

works of Sri Shankra. Sages like Ramana maharshi have expressed the

radical

nondual perspective. It can truly only be grasped through and by one's

own

understanding.

 

 

--------------------

 

Here is my understanding.

 

I discussed some aspects this a month back - Here is the brief summary.

 

Attribute is called VisheshaNa or an adjective which qualifies a noun,

visheshhya.

There are two types of visheshaNa-s - saamaanya visheshaNa and Vishesha

visheshaNa ( for lack of better words, I am using this terminology).

Saamaanya visheshaNa -s are the adjectives that are incidental or

non-essential for the object to be that particular object- taking a

flower as an example - if I say a white flower, whiteness of the flower

is considered as samaanya visheshaNa since flower can remain as flower

without being white. It is a non-essential qualification.

 

There are qualifications which are essential or to be mathematically

precise, necessary qualifications to define that object. This can be

seen more clearly with respect to say, sugar. One can have white sugar

or brown sugar etc. - these white and brown colors are saamaanya

visheshaNa or non-essential qualifications. But there is a necessary or

essential qualification for an object to be sugar, and that is, it

should be sweet. It may look like granular white powder, but if it does

not taste sweet it is not sugar. Hence sweetness becomes an essential

qualification or dharma of sugar.

 

But if we examine further, it is a necessary qualification yet it is

not a sufficient qualification. In mathematical rigor, for a

qualification to be necessary and sufficient, it must fulfill a converse

requirement, i.e. if it is sweet it must be sugar. Since there are

other chemicals which are not sugar but yet taste sweet, sweetness is an

essential or necessary qualification for a sugar but not a sufficient

qualification to exclusively identify sugar.

If there is any qualification, visheshaNa, which fulfills both

necessary and sufficient requirements then it is no more called a

visheshaNa and should be called as LakshaNa. (Some have used saamaanya

LakshaNa and vishesha LakshaNa to differentiate those that are necessary

from those that are necessary and sufficient qualifications). What is

a lakshNa for sugar - If I say C6H12O6 is the lakshNa of sugar, then it

is both necessary and sufficient to define sugar. - Thus LakshaNa

provides a definition for the sugar precisely to differentiate it from

the rest of the objects in the universe. It is no more a qualification

or attribute - since C6H12O6 is sugar and sugar is C6H12O6 and there are

no two ways about it. (In organic chemistry there are compounds which

have the same formula and in such cases one has to define the structure

to remove any ambiguity).

 

VisheshaNaas are guNas that can be recognized by senses - form, color,

taste, smell or touch etc or to be inferred by logic based on

measurements using sensitive instruments - such as chemical structure or

atomic structure etc.

 

Now coming to the central point, sat, chit and ananda are not attributes

as visheshaNa-s that define a visheshya - if they are, then they become

guNas to be reckoned with senses or intellect. Sat chit and ananda is

considered as LakshaNa of Brahman - in the sense that they are necessary

and sufficient to define Brahman.

 

This is the doctrine of Advaita.

 

Bhagavaan Ramaanuja and Madva differ from this assertion. They treat

these as necessary qualifications but not sufficient qualifications for

Brahman like sweentness of the sugar. He, Brahman, becomes saguNa

along with sat chit ananda. Thus He is the locus of infinite auspicious

qualifications as well.

 

To know that these are LakshaNaas - the scriptures, reinforced by

logic, are the only PramaaNaas. Sat, existence is necessary since we

cannot talk about non-existence Brahman. If non-existent Brahman exists

then he becomes existent by the very statement that he exists- if an

existent Brahman becomes non-existent then how will one know that -

there must be a conscious entity to observe existent Brahman becoming

non-existent. That conscious entity must be existent entity in order to

observe the transformation of existent Brahman into non-existent

Brahman. - That existent conscious entity is the chit and sat which is

Brahman. Krishna says - naasato vidyate bhaavo naa bhavo vidyate sataH -

that which is non-existent can never come into existence and that which

exists can never cease to exist -(there were series of discussions on

this sloka few months back) Chandogya says: sadeva souma idam agra

aseet - existence alone was there in the beginning - ekameva advitiiyam

- it is one without a second. .. tad aikshataa - it saw - meaning it is

a conscious existence - There cannot be anything other than existence

since other than existence is only non-existence and we cannot say that

non-existence exists - Uddalaka in fact presents the alternate theory

and then refutes it saying that it is illogical - This is where suunya

vaada is refuted. It is ekameva advitiiyam -it is one without a second

that means it must be infinite since if it is finite then what is there

out side the finiteness - if something is there then it exists and hence

comes under existence itself. Hence existence is anantam, and anantam

is aanandam, since it is limitless as sorrow comes from limitations.

Hence what was there before creation is sat, chit and ananda - here sat

is chit, and chit is ananda and they are not qualifications but

LakshaNaas for Brahman -

 

Obviously the statement is made not from Brahman point but from Jeeva's

or from the point of a seeker. - sattayihi chit, chittayaahyayam -

says Bhagavaan Ramana - sat is indeed chit, and that sat and chit is

indeed I am. I exist and am conscious and no pramaaNa is required to

prove that I am sat and chit as it is a self-evident fact.

 

That brings the aspect of pramaaNa into picture. VisheshaNa-s or

qualifications are noted through pramaaNa or direct sense input -

pratyaksha - white flower or sweet sugar. - Or inferentially

(indirectly through pratyaksha ) - even the C6H12O6 is deduced

inferentially even if one cannot see it directly. Hence for all objects

existence is first established through PramaaNa or means of knowledge.

But that pre-supposes the existence of a conscious entity since to

validate any pramaaNa a conscious existent entity must be there. On the

otherhand to validate the existence of a conscious entity there is no

pramaNa - hence sat and chit are not visheshaNas that can be validated

but LakshaNaas that indicate the self-existent and self-conscious

entity. Hence the scripture is pramaaNa not to establish that I am sat

-chit but I am also anantam or aham brahmaasmi - I am the totality -

confirmed by the sages by their anubhava and providing as a working

hypothesis for me to discover my complete nature.

 

I went a little round about to establish that sat, chit and ananda are

not attributes but LakshaNaas that indicate the nature of Brahman.

This discussion of attribute and attribute-less Brahman has taken lot of

toll in the vedantic discussions - the problem is mind can only grasp

attributes, since unit of the mind is a thought, and locus of a thought

is an object, and there is no object without attributes. From Bhakti

point locus is needed to center devotion, and one brings Iswara as a

locus for devotion, and mind cannot comprehend an Iswara without

attributes. Even Raamaanuja although emphasizes saguNa brahman, if one

goes deep into the nature of that saguNa brahman, His guNas are

described as ananta kalyaaNa guaNa - infinite auspicious qualities -

they are infinite in number wise and each of them is infinite in

quantity wise - neither can be comprehended by ones finite mind since

if it can be comprehended it is not infinite any more! Hence one cannot

really praise the Lord since any thing one says is less than what He is

by the very definition. All one can do is surrender and surrenderence

can only be done at the alter of Love. Hence the emphasis on

saraNaagati in the vishishTaadvaitic tradition.

 

Bhagavaan Shankara goes one step further and defines the Bhakti and

surrenderence in vivekachuuDaamaNI as

swaswaruupaanusandhaanam bhaktirityabhidiiyate|

or

swaatmaanubhava sandhaanam bhatirityapare jaguH|

 

The realization of ones own nature - I am sat - chit and ananda or

ananta is called bhakti.

or realization of one own self , others call it as bhakti.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

> The realization of ones own nature - I am sat - chit and ananda or

> ananta is called bhakti.

> or realization of one own self , others call it as bhakti.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Harsha: Thank you Sadaji for your detailed and thoughtful reply. I hope all is

well in India for you. It was a pleasure hearing your melodious voice on the

tape explaining Sri Ramana's teaching. I am

delighted and grateful to have the company of such people as yourself, Nandaji,

Frankji, Ramji, Moorthyji, Aikyaji and so many other good and wise souls here.

Special thanks to Ramji for providing this forum

and moderating it in such a loving and open way. I bow to all of you and offer

my pranams. Glad to see Jayji here also.

 

Love to all

Harsha