sat chit ananda-

[Guest guest]

friends,

what does it mean by sat chit ananda?

 

cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I have endeavoured my best to explain It in my post # 15672. If

interested, please read it.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

advaitin, "vaidyanathiyer

<vaidyanathiyer>" <vaidyanathiyer> wrote:

> friends,

> what does it mean by sat chit ananda?

>

> cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vaidyanathiyer

<vaidyanathiyer>" <vaidyanathiyer> wrote:

> friends,

> what does it mean by sat chit ananda?

>

> cdr bvn

 

Namase,

 

It is another title for Saguna Brahman, or the 'God' concept as

opposed to Nirguna or without concepts or

attributes.......ONS..Tony.IMO

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Thank you, Nairji, for an original explanation in your post #15672 of

sat-cit-Ananda. Let me cite, however, a webpage of mine for a

traditional explanation of sat-cit-Ananda, namely the following page,

entitled 'The three fundamental urges of Man'.

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/22.html

 

praNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy <profvk>"

<profvk> wrote:

> Namaste

>

> Thank you, Nairji, for an original explanation in your post #15672

of

> sat-cit-Ananda. Let me cite, however, a webpage of mine for a

> traditional explanation of sat-cit-Ananda, namely the following

page,

> entitled 'The three fundamental urges of Man'.

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/22.html

>

> praNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

 

Namaste,

 

Very nice page but Sat-Cit-Ananda is simply Saguna Brahman, the

Sakti, the Maya.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

First, I agree with you that the referenced homepage of ProfVK is

indeed is quite comprehensive description of Sat-Cit-Ananda. Second,

it is quite correct for an intellectual perception of Sat-Cit-Ananda

to finger point as a Saguna Brahman. For example we can declare

Sat-cit-Ananda as Shiva or Sakti or any familiar God that we like or

recognize.

 

But if we look carefully ProfVK's homepage (and the appropriate

citations from the Upanishads) that Sat-Cit-Ananda is beyond human

comprehension. By stating Sat-Cit-Ananda as Saguna Brahman, we try to

comprehend Him through intellectual means, limiting our understanding

and the sages of the Upanishads warn us that we should go beyond our

intellect to get the understanding. We have to negate everyone of the

attempted comprehension to get to the Truth! Nirguna is the essence

residue after negation of the 'gunas - names and forms' of Saguna.

 

A careful look at the famous quotation of JK - "Truth is Pathless

Land" would also lead us the fact that "Truth is formless and

nameless." This may explain why he advised his followers to reject

all knowledge (faith based or otherwise) and enquire within.

Mathematically it is impossible for coexistence of 'saguna'

and 'nonduality.' Acceptance of 'saguna' implies duality and

acceptance of 'nonduality' necessarily imply 'nirguna.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Tony O'Clery <aoclery>"

<aoclery> wrote:

>

> Very nice page but Sat-Cit-Ananda is simply Saguna Brahman, the

> Sakti, the Maya.......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

OM

 

 

Vedanta for Beginners

By

 

Sri Swami Sivananda

 

http://www.thedivinelifesociety.org/download/vedbegin.htm#_VPID_8

5. Brahman is distinct from the three bodies and five sheaths

(Koshas). He is the silent witness of the three states. He transcends

the three Gunas and the pairs of opposites. He is an embodiment of

Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is the essence or Swarupa. He is the source or

womb for the mind, Prana, Indriyas, body and this world.

 

 

 

GOD EXISTS

By

SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

http://www.thedivinelifesociety.org/download/god_exists.htm#_VPID_7

5. Arguments On The Existence Of God

 

1. The existence of Brahman is known on the ground of its being the

Self of everyone. For everyone is conscious of the existence of his

Self and never thinks "I am not." If, the existence of the Self were

not known, everyone would think "I am not." And this Self of whose

existence all are conscious is Brahman or God. It is difficult to

define Brahman. But we will have to give a provisional definition.

That is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence, Knowledge, and Bliss Absolute).

 

 

 

 

The Realisation of the Absolute

by

Swami Krishnananda

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_4.html

THE NATURE OF REALITY

Brahman as Existence or Being

Long ago, the Rigveda has proclaimed: "The One Being the wise

diversely speak of." All philosophy proceeds from this, all religion

is based on this. We, moreover, hear such declarations as "Truth,

Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman,Consciousness, Bliss, is

Brahman,All this is, verily, Brahman,This Self is

Brahman,Immortal, Fearless, is Brahman", and the like. And we are

further aware of assertions like "That from which these beings are

born, That by which, after having been born, they live, That into

which they re-enter. and with which they become one,--know That, the

Brahman." Omnipresence omniscience and omnipotence are said to be the

characteristics of God. These serve the purpose of defining the

twofold nature of Brahman, the Reality--its essential nature (Svarupa-

Lakshana) and accidental attribute (Tatastha-Lakshana). The former is

the independent and imperishable truth of Brahman, the latter is its

superimposed dependent quality which is subject to change in the

process of time.

Being is truth in the transcendent sense without reference to

anything else. It does not pay heed to the difficulty of man that he

cannot transcend the limitations of relativistic consciousness and so

naturally takes the value and meaning of the relative order to be the

truth. The highest value of truth is equated with pure being, for non-

being can have no value.

 

"Existence (Being) alone was this in the beginning, one alone without

a second." --Chh. Up., VI. 2. 1.

Brahman is that which is permanent in things that change. It is

without name and form, which two are the characteristic natures of

the world of appearance, and is essentially existence-absolute.

Existence can never change, never perish, though things in which also

it is, perish. Hence existence is the nature of Reality and is

different from the things of form and name. Existence is secondless

and has no external relations or internal differentiations. It is

unlimited by space, time and individuality. It is related to nothing,

for there is nothing second to it. It has nothing similar to it,

nothing dissimilar, for That alone is. The whole universe is a

spiritual unity and is one with the essential Brahman. It has no

difference within or without. Brahman is alike throughout its

structure, and hence the knowledge of the essence of any part of it

is the knowledge of the Whole. The knowledge of the Self is the

knowledge of Brahman. Everything that is, is the one Brahman, the

Real of real, Satyasya Satyam. By knowing it, everything becomes

known. "Just as by the knowledge of a lump of earth, everything that

is made of earth comes to be known, all this modification being

merely a name, a play of speech, the ultimate substratum of it all

being the earth, similarly, when Brahman is known, all is

known.Where there is an apparent duality, there is subject-object-

relation; but where the Atman alone is, how can there be any relation

or interaction of anything with anything else?There is knowledge,

and yet, there is no perception or cognition, for that knowledge is

indestructible, it is unrelated consciousness-mass" (Vide Brih. Up.).

It is the eternal objectless Knower, and everything besides it is a

naught, an appearance, a falsity.

Brahman is Existence which is infinite Consciousness of the

nature of Bliss.

 

"Brahman is Existence, Consciousness, Infinitude." --Taitt. Up., II.

1.

"Brahman is Consciousness, Bliss." --Brih. Up., III. 9. 28.

 

"That which is Infinitude is Bliss and Immortality."--Chh. Up., VII.

23, 24

 

These sentences give the best definition of the highest Reality.

Brahman is Consciousness--Prajnanam Brahma. It is the ultimate

Knower. It is imperceptible, for no one can know the knower, no one

can know That by which everything else is known. "There is no seer

but That, no hearer but That, no thinker but That, no knower but

That." It is the eternal Subject of knowledge, no one knows it as the

object of knowledge. This limitless Self-Consciousness is the only

Reality. The content of this Consciousness is itself. This is the

fullness of perfection and infinitude. "Brahman is Infinite, the

universe is Infinite, from the Infinite proceeds the Infinite, and

after deducting the Infinite from the Infinite, what remains is but

the Infinite." This sentence of the Upanishad seems to pile up

infinities over infinities and arrive at the bewildering conclusion

that after subtracting the Whole from the Whole, the Whole alone

remains. The implied meaning here is the changeless and indivisible

character of the Infinite Reality, in spite of forms appearing to be

created within it. The Infinite is. non-dual. and there can be no

dealings with it.

We read of Sanatkumara leading the thought of Narada from

inadequate conceptions of Truth to more adequate conceptions, until

at last he asserts the supremacy of the Bhuma, the "absolutely

great", the "unlimited", beyond which there is nothing, which

comprehends all, fills all space, and is identical with the Self in

us. This Bhuma is the Essential Brahman where one sees nothing else,

hears nothing else, understands nothing else. It is Bliss and

Immortality, the plenum of felicity. This is the Complete Being.

 

Now, the conception of Reality as constituting being gives rise

simultaneously to the idea of non-being. The Rigveda (X. 129. 1) says

that in the beginning there was neither non-being nor being (na asad

asit, no sad asit). Being was not, because there was no non-being.

Non-being was not, for there was no being. Truth is a super-

intellectual transcendence of the ideas of being and non-being, of

whatever is concerned with the temporal relations of thought, for in

what is Real there is no psychosis of any kind. According to the

Rigveda, even "immortality and death are its shadows". Whatever truly

exists is the Real. It is

 

"the being and the beyond, the expressed and the unexpressed, the

founded and the unfounded, consciousness and unconsciousness, reality

and unreality, the real, and whatever that is." --Taitt. Up., II. 6.

The Brihadaranyaka (II. 3. 1) says that Brahman has two forms, "the

formed and the formless, the mortal and the immortal, the existent

and the moving, the real and the beyond." There is a contrast between

Brahman and the name-and-form world, the former being the beyond, the

inexpressible, the foundationless, the unconscious, the unreal in

relation to the latter which is empirically experienced as the being,

expressible, founded, conscious, real. Logically, attribute or

quality itself becomes an unsound concept when it is extended to the

Absolute. A thing has an attribute only in relation to another thing.

There is no meaning in saying that a substance has an attribute when

that substance alone is said to exist. The nature of a self-existent

absolute principle is indeterminable. Every attribute limits it and

creates a difference in non-difference. Brahman cannot be said to

have any intelligible attribute, for Brahman is the entire existence

and has nothing second to relate itself to. Sat (being) is an idea in

relation to Asat (non-being), Chit (consciousness) in relation to

Jada (inertness), Ananda (bliss) in relation to Duhkha (pain), Ananta

(infinitude) in relation to Alpa (limitedness), Prakasha (light) in

relation to Tamas (darkness). Every qualitative concept involves

relations, and every thought creates a duality. To think Brahman is

to reduce Brahman to the world of experience. Thought is possible

only in an individualised state, but Brahman is not an individual,

and is unapproachable by an individual. Brahman cannot even be

conceived of as light, for it has nothing to shine upon. Not even is

it consciousness, for it is conscious of nothing. Consciousness or

light in the absolute condition cannot be called as consciousness or

light, for such conceptions are dualistic categories. Being as it is

in itself is nothing to the individual. It is not an object of

knowledge. Truth is independent, unrelated, self-existent; but there

is no such thing as an independent, unrelated, self-existent quality.

The only recourse to be taken is to admit the failure of the

intellect in determining the nature of Reality and resort to negative

propositions.

"The Atman is not this, not this."--Brih. Up., IV. 5. 15.

"The Atman is not that which is inwardly conscious, not outwardly

conscious, not bothwise conscious, not a consciousness-mass, not

conscious, not unconscious; it is unseen, unrelated, ungraspable,

indefinable, unthinkable, indeterminable, the essence of the

consciousness of the One Self, the negation of the universe,

peaceful, blissful, non-dual." --Mand. Up., 7.

 

"It is unknown to those who know it. It is known to those who do not

know it." --Kena Up., II. 3.

 

These references depict the absolutely transcendent nature of

Reality. "It is not obtainable by many even to hear of, and even when

heard of it remains unknown to many. Wonderful is the declarer of it!

Blessed is the obtainer of it!" The awe-inspiring Absolute is

described as "soundless, touchless, formless, imperishable,

tasteless, constant, odourless, beginningless, endless, higher than

the high, eternal, by knowing which one is liberated from the mouth

of death." It exists in such a homogeneous and differenceless

condition that "whatever is here, is there also; whatever is there,

is here," and hence the spatial nature of existence with its

concomitant differentiations of time and individuality is overcome in

the indivisible constitutive essence of Brahman. It, therefore, is

and is-not.

Continued

 

Also see:

The Philosophy of the Panchadasi

by

Swami Krishnananda

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/panch_01.html

 

OM

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I am afraid no amount of explanations will satisfy our Tony-Ji

because we, as well as all our sages, have used language to talk

about sat-chit-ananda and, as such, from his perception or point of

view, It is objectified and, therefore, 'saguna'. However, sadly, he

forgets the fact that he is using the same language to express and

emphasize his point of view of 'nirguna' and, therefore, is

relegating It ('nirguna')to the realm of the perceived, which

is 'saguna'. Let us, therefore, close this matter here and now as we

all are fully and logically convinced that the sat-chit-ananda of

advaita is beyond all attributes, One without a second.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_

 

advaitin, "kvashisht <kvashisht>"

<kvashisht quoted several Masters to drive home the point that

sat-chit-ananda of advaita is beyond all attributes

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> I am afraid no amount of explanations will satisfy our Tony-Ji

> because we, as well as all our sages, have used language to talk

> about sat-chit-ananda and, as such, from his perception or point of

> view, It is objectified and, therefore, 'saguna'. However, sadly,

he

> forgets the fact that he is using the same language to express and

> emphasize his point of view of 'nirguna' and, therefore, is

> relegating It ('nirguna')to the realm of the perceived, which

> is 'saguna'. Let us, therefore, close this matter here and now as

we

> all are fully and logically convinced that the sat-chit-ananda of

> advaita is beyond all attributes, One without a second.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste,

 

This is not my position at all!! I go along with the expression

Nirguna because the inexplicable can only be described in the

negative.

Sat-Cit-Ananda is trying to describe the inexplicable with positive

attributes, hence can only be Saguna.

 

It is the minds of the people that do this that I find interesting,

for they cannot let go of the attributes even though they may claim

to be Advaitins. I feel Nirguna and Nirvana is the best attempt

without naming it at all.

 

It is not trying to convince Tonyji, Ramana intimates the same thing,

as referred to in my previous posts. Some cannot let go.

 

Om Namah Sivaya......Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Tonyji,

 

If someone were to ask you "what is Nirguna Brahman?", how would you answer

this question. Would your answer be with words or without words?

 

best regards,

K Kathirasan

>

> Tony O'Clery <aoclery [sMTP:aoclery]

> Monday, January 20, 2003 1:47 AM

> advaitin

> Re: sat chit ananda-

>

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

> <madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

> > Namaste.

> >

> > I am afraid no amount of explanations will satisfy our Tony-Ji

> > because we, as well as all our sages, have used language to talk

> > about sat-chit-ananda and, as such, from his perception or point of

> > view, It is objectified and, therefore, 'saguna'. However, sadly,

> he

> > forgets the fact that he is using the same language to express and

> > emphasize his point of view of 'nirguna' and, therefore, is

> > relegating It ('nirguna')to the realm of the perceived, which

> > is 'saguna'. Let us, therefore, close this matter here and now as

> we

> > all are fully and logically convinced that the sat-chit-ananda of

> > advaita is beyond all attributes, One without a second.

> >

> > Pranams.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

>

> Namaste,

>

> This is not my position at all!! I go along with the expression

> Nirguna because the inexplicable can only be described in the

> negative.

> Sat-Cit-Ananda is trying to describe the inexplicable with positive

> attributes, hence can only be Saguna.

>

> It is the minds of the people that do this that I find interesting,

> for they cannot let go of the attributes even though they may claim

> to be Advaitins. I feel Nirguna and Nirvana is the best attempt

> without naming it at all.

>

> It is not trying to convince Tonyji, Ramana intimates the same thing,

> as referred to in my previous posts. Some cannot let go.

>

> Om Namah Sivaya......Tony.

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I thought I would rather keep quiet. But, I find myself impelled to

write again on this issue.

 

For Tonyji's information, negative is also an attribute and, as

Kathirasan-Ji rightly pointed out, one has to necessarily take

recourse to language to 'describe' negative nirguna!

 

That is why sat-chit-ananda is equated to SILENCE. Yogis remain in

SILENCE realizing they are nothing but SILENCE. There is then nothing

aside form them to 'communicate' to. The word Muni has its origin in

SILENCE (Mouna). Our DakshnAmUrthy prayer by Sankara begins with the

expression ..... MounavAkyA.... I would request Tony-Ji to read the

prayer's interpretations, which I believe are abundandly avilable on

line. Perhaps, Members can suggest appropriate links.

 

There is a very interesting and enlightening anecdote. Sri

Narayanaguru, a renowned, realized saint of Kerala visited Bh. Ramana

Maharshi. They sat face to face for a long time smiling at each

other without uttering a single word and then broke off. This

disappointed the former's disciples, who had naturally expected a lot

of advaitic brainstorming between the two giants. Asked later about

what transpired in the meeting, Sri Narayanaguru replied with a

smile: "Why, of course, we communicated a lot!". That is sat-chit-

ananda, which is SILENCE, not attributeless (to avoid using a

negative) but totally beyond all attributes. The two sages found

absolutely no need to talk because each appreciated the fact that he

himself was the other.

 

The message: Just because the sages have used words, one should not

run into the erroneous conclusion that sat-chit-ananda is an

ecstatic 'experience' to be talked about. The fact that they talked

at all is their choice. Didn't Shri Buddha himself teach his

disciples? Did he say nirvAna cannot be talked about, so please shut

up all of you?

 

Let us, therefore, be able to remain in SILENCE at least on this

issue.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Tonyji,

>

> If someone were to ask you "what is Nirguna Brahman?", how would

you answer

> this question. Would your answer be with words or without words?

>

> best regards,

> K Kathirasan

 

 

Namaste,

 

When Pilate asked Jesus, 'What is Truth?'. Jesus replied with silence.

That is also how I would answer....It is also interesting that the

ancient Hebrews/Israelites believed you couldn't use the name of God,

essentially because there wasn't one.....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair >

> The message: Just because the sages have used words, one should

not

> run into the erroneous conclusion that sat-chit-ananda is an

> ecstatic 'experience' to be talked about. The fact that they

talked

> at all is their choice. Didn't Shri Buddha himself teach his

> disciples? Did he say nirvAna cannot be talked about, so please

shut

> up all of you?

>

> Let us, therefore, be able to remain in SILENCE at least on this

> issue.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste,

 

Only a Sage can recognise another Sage/Jivanmukti.

Sages talked at the level of their audience.

This list is supposed to be for aspiring Advaitins.

Religious trappings and scriptures are only crutches or a guide.

A full pond cannot understand a full lake and so on.

It is all in the mind, all all all all.

The mind doesn't exist.

Creation doesn't exist.

Saguna Brahman doesn't exist.

 

People hang on to comfortable concepts, they are spiritual posessions.

 

Again if you believe in Devas then of course for you there are Devas.

 

Lastly as Sankara says. It is real whilst one is in it.

 

Let us not assume that he is saying it is real..........ONS....Tony.