Sat, Chit, Ananda - a question and article on 'Existence'

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

Namaste Sankarraman ji,

 

The very fact that i do not require anyone else to remind me or

certify that i exist shows that i am aware of my existence. I do

not see any fallacy in this. Our existence is crystal clear to us

that we do not need to make any assumption for this. This is one of

the first things that Acharya Shankara points out in the

Sutrabhashya: I.i.1 - (quote)..Besides, the existence of Brahman is

well known (prasiddhiH) from the fact of Its being the Self of all;

for everyone feels (the word 'pratyeti'= experiences, verb) that his

Self exists and he never feels, 'I do not exist'. Had there been no

general recognition of the existence of the Self, everyone would

have felt, 'i do not exist'. And that Self is Brahman. (End of

quote). The Acharya is pointing out what one actually experiences,

even uninstructed. So, it cannot be said that the awareness that we

exist is a dogmatic one. In most cases this fact is known for the

first time only when it is brought to their attention by the

Shastra. Before that also this experience has been there but not

noticed in particular. When it is brought to our notice, we say 'Ah,

yes, it is true' and nod in affirmation; at least this is what

happened to me. This experience of everyone forms the foundation

for the Vedantic teaching.

I am not aware if I really am presenting Sankara's interpretation very correctly

here, since this is my understanding of Sankara's interpretation of Sat, Chit

and Ananda. I may be wrong and request the scholarly amongst you to kindly guide

me in this front. In the passages below, I am presenting a Buddhist's

understanding of Sankara's interpretations of Sat, Chit and Ananda.

 

First of all, Sat, Chit and Ananda are not gunas. So as far as I understand,

Sat-chit-Ananda does not refer to Saguna Brahman. In fact, according to Sankara,

Saguna Brahman is only an illusion caused by maya. Please correct me if I am

wrong. Therefore, I donot think as one member has posted here, that it would be

appropriate to say Saguna Brahman is Sat-chit-Ananda (SCA).

 

Also, SCA are only terms used by the great saints, or sages to point to the

truth, the Deathless. In the Hindu traditional scriptures, like the Upanishads,

terms such as, Rtam, Atman, Param, Brahman, Satyam, Ekam, Kaivalyam, Adviatam,

Shantam, Shivam, and many many more are used. Paralell to this (although I am

not saying that Buddhism is better or anything of that sort - please don't think

so.) the Buddha used words such as 'The Deathless' (amaran) 'Truth' (sacca),

'Unbinding', (nibbana), 'Wisdom' (panna), 'Bliss' (ananda). According to Sankara

(to clarify and state facts, Sankara does not comment about Buddhism in this

matter) these words are not the qualities of Brahman, they are just pointers to

the unenlightened so that they may know the nature of Brahman. They donot

constitute Brahman, they are the words that point to Brahman. According to

Sankara, Brahman cannot be completely described by any words, so these words

only point to it.

 

I wrote a small paragraph about the interpretation of the word 'satyam' or 'sat'

as existence. I think this interpretation of the word 'satyam' as existence is

not correct. Please let me know if my analysis is wrong. I shall present to you

my understanding.

 

1. Existence applies to entities. Brahman is not an entity. It is beyond the

realm of entities. So it is not appropriate to apply the word existence to

Brahman.

 

2. The arguement that 'I exist' is not the arguement that Sankara uses. He does

not say 'We all know that we exist'. These are in my understanding,

misinterpretations of Sankara's position. Sankara said that the Self is

self-evident. He did not say that we know that 'we exist' or that 'the Self

exists'. If we know it already, then we are all enlightened. When he says, Self

is self-evident, [i think] he only means that the Self can be known only by

oneself. One cannot prove by any means of reason or logic that it exists or does

not exist. If one reads his bhashyas on tarka and vitarka, one can find that

Sankara has the ability to argue just as strongly in favor of a theory of soul

as against it. Therefore, Sankara's statement, 'Sels is self-evident' is not an

assumption, but is something that needs to be realized by us.

 

Now according to Sankara, to make a statement that 'Self does not exist'. is

incorrect, for noone has such an experience. This is a separate statement. One

cannot say that just because noone has the experience 'I donot exist', everyone

knows the Self. This is not true. If this were true, then what is the need for

telling us that we need to know the Self, the nature of the Self etc. Then all

of us are enlightened when we are born itself.

 

[by the way, just FYI, such a contingency has been discussed by the Buddha also

and it is for these kinds of reasons that he refused to answer about 'Do I

exist', 'Is there a Self'. He said that to say that 'There exists a self' is

just as wrong as saying 'There exists no Self'].

 

There is a difference however. Sankara affirms that there IS a self, that needs

to be know, that needs to be realized etc. But he does not claim that we know it

already or that it does not exist altogether. Both these views are wrong.

 

So arguements such as "The fact that I donot have to be reminded that I

exists..." are not conforming to Sankara's view of Advaita Vedanta atleast as I

understand it. Perhaps my understanding is incorrect. Please tell me if I am

wrong.

 

3. Existence is a term that we understand in a particular manner. For us,

something that is existent, must have a proof of existence. There has to be a

means of knowing it's existence, and there also has to be a means of reference

to show that it alone exists and nothing else does (this is required because SCA

alone exists and nothing else does according to scripture). But this is not

possible considering that all that we have known so far is part of the realm of

avidya and hence it is not possible to have any reference to show that this

particular 'entity' is existent and all others aren't. There is no means of

knowing it as it itself is its own means of knowledge. In other words, one

cannot know it, through a secondary source. Then we can't know it unless we know

it directly. This is unlike other objects. For example gold exists. One can take

reference of all other existing materials and show that gold's existence is

similar to the existence of all other materials'. But

in the case of SCA, this is not true. Again, we can have various means of

knowing that gold exists, but it is not possible to know about SCA. Given these

limitations in our understanding of existence, I donot think it is appropriate

to use the term existence for SCA, especially to explain the meaning of Sat.

 

In Sanskrit (and Pali), lots of words can be literally translated to some words

in English. But these English words donot correctly reflect the true meaning of

the word. It is therefore my endeavor to point out to the honorable members that

we may not be able to produce an exact facsimile of the Sanskrit words and hence

words such as Sat, cannot be exactly translated into English. For that matter,

they cannot be translated into any language. These words have not much meaning

even if a lay person were to try to understand them in these languages itself.

Therefore, it is imperative for us to understand the profundity of the

statements and try to analyze it, but at the same time realize that all that is

ineffective since it is beyond existence and non-existence both.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low

rates.