Question

[Guest guest]

What is the meaning of "sat-chit-anand"

[Guest guest]

>Tribhuvan Pabari <tribhuvan_pabari

>

>What is the meaning of "sat-chit-anand"

>

Ananda means happiness or free from limitations - hence it is infiniteness -

which means the SAT - CHIT that was there is of the nature of infiniteness

and there is nothing whatsoever other than consciousness existence.

 

Hence it is called Brahman also means infiniteness. Everything else is only

an appearance.

 

Scripture says you are that existence consciousness and of the nature of

bliss or happiness.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

_______________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

--- Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda wrote:

>

>

>

> >Tribhuvan Pabari <tribhuvan_pabari

>

> >

> >What is the meaning of "sat-chit-anand"

Post got cut off somewhere - here is the complete post.

 

SAT means existence - existence alone was there before creation says

Upanishad. That which exists can never cease to exists says Krishna -

hence existence which was there before creation exists all the time -

hence it is eternal and satyam or truth.

 

Chit means consciousness - that existence that was there before creation

is not inert type but of the nature of consciousness. Since it is

eternal being SAT, the eternal existence is eternal consciousness.

 

Ananda means happiness or free from limitations - hence it is

infiniteness - which means the SAT - CHIT that was there is of the

nature of infiniteness and there is nothing whatsoever other than

consciousness existence.

 

Hence it is called Brahman also means infiniteness. Everything else is

only an appearance.

 

Scripture says you are that existence consciousness and of the nature of

bliss or happiness.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sadananda,

> SAT means existence - existence alone was there

> before creation says

> Upanishad. That which exists can never cease to

> exists says Krishna -

> hence existence which was there before creation

> exists all the time -

> hence it is eternal and satyam or truth.

 

Thankyou for your post. I agree with you. Yet here is

my further question:

 

When the question is "What is sat-chit-ananda?", why

do we need to drag in a concept of creation and state,

"Before creation, there was only existence."? I may be

wrong, but I thought it may not be needed at all to

answer the question.

 

Here is my understanding of the Upanishad and Sri

Sankara's position on the issue. According to Sri

Sankara, the terms 'sat', 'chit' and 'ananda' donot

separately describe/qualify Brahman - for Brahman, is

anirvacaniya and indescribable/non-qualifiable. But

each of the terms 'sat', 'chit' and 'ananda' are terms

that point to the truth of Brahman. They donot qualify

Brahman. It might be hard to understand how, but I

seem to follow the point to some extent. Please

clarify my understanding if it is wrong anywhere.

>From this I think it is fair to think that Brahman is

not an entity that stands within the scope of

qualification and does not belong to the realm in

which language appropriately applies.

 

Therefore, I think, although I may not be entirely

correct, a question such as "What is sat-chit-ananda?"

does not mean to ask, "What entity is said to be

sat-chit-ananda?", but what these terms mean in

themselves. Besides, I wonder if it is appropriate to

tell a person not knowing the meaning of

sat-chit-ananda that 'Brahman is existence

consciousness and bliss' or that 'Brahman is

permanent' or that 'All is Brahman'.

 

I beleive the question therefore should be answered

explaining the terms sat, chit and ananda, independent

of any other terms.

 

Ananda

=======

 

I donot think it is appropriate to describe Ananda

directly, but instead it is better to describe it in

the Upanishadic tradition of negation. Ananda is 'not

sorrow'. This could be understood properly only if we

can correctly percieve all our worldy experience as

sorrowful. Yet, a complete cessation of all sorrow,

although is incocievable is still a pleasant and an

optimistic thought. The reason for sorrow is the fact

that all of experience is impermanent. That which is

therefore not impermanent is therefore not sorrowful.

That which is impermanent is sorrowful. One who can

identify the impermanent, can identify the sorrowful.

The term bliss is appropriate here, but one must

understand the nature of this bliss as separate from

perhaps 'a blissful sleep' or 'blissful music'. The

difference is impermanence. It is important to

understand Ananda correctly since the path to

enlightenment begins when a person has enough samvega

(ardorous zeal) to 'get rid of' (more appropriately,

to know the nature of sorrow and it's origin) this

world of sorrow, not when a person is only curious to

know Brahman. ('Curiosity of Brahman' is the

misconceived understanding of Brahma-jijnasa).

 

Sat

====

 

It therefore qualifies that, that which is impermanent

is not sat, and that which is not impermanent is sat.

Therefore the translation of existence for 'sat' is

not very appropriate. It is because the term existence

means to mislead one to think that it refers to an

entity. But Brahman is clearly beyond the realm of

entities. Besides, when using the term, existence, one

can have non-existence that may occur at some later

point. For example, a pot that exists now may cease to

exist later. The truth of Brahman is beyond existence

and non-existence. One would not say 'Truth exists',

for there is nothing in it to exist. It only is.

Therefore, it is more appropriate to say that Brahman

is an experience of non-impermanence (although it is

also inappropriate to call it an experience). It is to

be noted that non-impermanence directly implies Ananda

or cessation of sorrow. Therefore they are the same

and directly and independently point to the truth of

Brahman. Neither needs the support of the other.

Therefore instead of bringing concepts of Brahman that

are hard to understand, one can better say, what

constitutes sorrow and, that which is permanent, is

truth.

 

Chit

=====

 

This is hard to understand. But one who knows the

truth of impermanence of all phenomena, or one who is

experiencing it now, can understand that all phenomena

are constantly changing and that all these phenomena

are therefore sorrowful (or composed of the dualities

of sorrow and temporary happiness). One who is aware

of this impermanence ceases to cling to worldly

phenomena. Since he does not cling to these phenomena

he is free from the sorrow arising from them. But what

of the awareness of impermanence itself? Isn't that a

phenomenon. When the seeker ceases to cling to his

notions on impermanence (such as: "The universe is

existent, or non-existent etc.," or that "Impermanence

is dependent origination and that is the root cause of

the Universe." etc., all of which are inappropriate)

and is only purely aware of the truth of the moment,

without qualifying it as even impermanent, that is

when he enters the realm of non-differentiation or

non-duality. He is no longer aware of a thing, but is

only aware. Awareness ceases to rest upon an object

and is only in and of itself. Thus instead of viewing

impermanence as a phenomenon, he views impermanence

itself as only a form of awareness. This may have been

difficult to understand, but it only means to say that

awareness of impermanence is not simple labelling in a

conscious world (as we may say: "Life and death are

impermanent. This body is impermanent etc."), but a

deeply subconscious process of knowledge and wisdom,

born out of non-clinging.

 

If one looks at the above, there is no need for

hearing a term called Brahman or to have any notions

of Creation, to understand sat, chit and Ananda. It is

therefore, perfectly correct of Sri Sankara to say

that Brahman is only 'jnah' - praja or wisdom and to

adopt the view of Ajati vada. Yet, the scripture names

this to make one understand the profundity (The root

brhat in the word Brahman is used to mean 'profound')

of non-dual wisdom. This is the beauty of the

Upanishad - the most profound of wisdom is referred to

in the terms 'sat-chit-ananda'. You need to understand

only one of them to understand the profundity of the

truth. Choose the one you please.

 

-Bhikku Yogi