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

April 4, 2006

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> 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).

Pranams Bhikku Maharaj,

You are right in saying the above. SCA does ot refer to Saguna

Brahman as a member mentioned. Saguna Brahman does not enjoy the

kind of Sat that Brahman is. Nor is it Pure chit as it is vishaya,

an object for cognition. It is not Ananda of the Infinite type.

>The Monk says:

> 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.

Response:

Here again you are right.

>

The Monk:

> 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.

Response:

While the wrod Existence is generally used to translate Sat, the

Bhashyam in the Taittiriya Upanishad, where the word Satyam is used,

says: Satyam = Real. 'Whatever does not deviate from the form in

which it has been once ascertained to be is 'real'; and whatever

deviates from the form in which it has been once ascertained to be

is 'unreal'.' And Shankara goes on to quote the famous Chandogya

(6.1.4) passage: '(All)changing form (vikara) is a name, a creation

of speech; what is called clay is alone real: thus Existence (Sat)

alone is real'. Thus, Satyam = Real and Sat = Existence. This is

the general way translation is made.

Your point that it is not appropriate ....etc. is quite appropriate!

The Gita ch.13. verse: 12 Bhashya portion that concurs with your

view is:... That thing, indeed, which can be perceivd by the senses,

such as a pot, can be an object o consciousness accompanied with the

idea of existence, or an object of consciousness accompanied with

the idea of non-existence. Since, on the other hand,the Knowable (

word Jneyam of this verse) is beyond the reach of the senses and as

such can be known solely through that instrument of knowledge which

is called 'Sabda' (the Word, ie., Revelation), It (Brahman) cannot

be, like a pot, etc., an object of consciousness accompanied with

the idea of either (existence or non-exisistence) and is therefore

not said to be 'sat' or 'asat'.

The Monk says:

> 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.

Response:

Revered Maharaj, in the above there is an inadequate understanding

on your part with regard to the position of Shankara. Let me

explain, rather quote Him:

Shankara raises a question in the context of 'jijnaasaa': Is that

Brahman, again, familiar or unfamiliar? If It be familiar, It need

not be deliberated on for the sake of knowledge. gain, if It be

unfamiliar, It cannot be deliberated on.

He replies: As to that, Brahman does exist as a well-known entity -

eternal, pure, intelligent, free by nature, and all-knowing and all-

powerful. For from the very derivation of the word Brahman, the

ideas of enternality, purity, etc. become obvious, this being in

accord with the root Brmh. Besides, the existence of Brahman is

well known from the fact of its being the Self of all; for everyone

feels 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.

Opponent: If Brahman be well known in the world as the Self, then It

being already known, there arises the difficulty again that It is

not to be deliberated on. (This is your observation too, Maharaj!!)

Vedantin: No, for there is a conflict about Its DISTINCTIVE nature.

Ordinary people as well as the materialists of the Lokayata school

recognize the body alone to be the Self possessed of sentience.

Others hold that the mind is the SElf. Some say that it is merely

momentary consciousness. Others say that is a void. Still others

believe that there is a soul, separate from the body, which

transmigrates and is the agent , karta, and bhokta........Thus there

are many who follow opposite views by depending on ligic; texts and

their semblances. If one accepts any one of these views without

examination, one is liable to be deflected from emancipation and

come to grief. Therefore, starting with the presentation of a

deliberation on Brahman, here is commenced an ascertainment of the

meaning of the texts of the Upanishads with the help of reasoning

not opposed to the Upanishads themselves, for the purpose of leading

to emancipation (through knowledge). End.

The Acharya has said it all. There is no need for my explanation.

I can only wonder in 'awe' the excellent way the Acharya has made

the aspirant feel: Ah ! this is something about me. It concerns

me. The Acharya has pin-pointed to my experience. It is for me.

It is for my emancipation He has so granciously undertaken this

endeavour!!

The Monk says:

> 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

Response:

All this is fine.

Pranams again Maharaj,

subbu

>

> >

>

> New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC

for low, low rates.

>

April 6, 2006

Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi wrote: Dear Members,

Namaste Sankarraman ji,

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.

Dear Yogendra Bikkuji,

I did not mean to suggest in my

contribution on this topic that the fact, " I exist," is a a dogmatic

assumption. On the other hand, what had been weighing in my mind was the

position that the secondless existence of our being, was not available to us in

our present way of looking at life through the pramanas of mind and intellect

vitiated by avidya, hiding our true nature as the aforesaid self-evident truth,

and giving birth to a false world, false in the sense we confound it to be an

independent reality, existing in its own right. You are hundred percent correct

in your averment that neither existence, nor non-existence can be predicated of

the true being in the wisdom of Sankara. Perhaps, as Lakshmana Sarma puts it,

the terms existence, knowledge, and bliss, are to be understood to refer to the

position that the Self is not non-existence, neither is it non-knowledge and

non-bliss. These terms do not exhaust the nature of the Self,

which is nameless, being neither becoming nor being. Surely, we cannot take the

statement, " I exist," as a liberating knowledge. The immediacy of the self is

not present to us in the form of a non-objectified knowledge, and is only a

conjecture. I think too much pre-occupation with this idea does not liberate us.

It is only a pointer. Excuse me for my immaturity in presuming to understand the

profound wisdom of Sankara and Buddha. But, I think, Bhaghavan Ramana has

simplified the position, by his radical observation that only after the rise of

the I thought, all these intellectual descriptions of the reality of the self as

this and that arise. The non-objectified nature of the self is beyond all

categories, being beyond the five kosas. The knowledge or rather perception, " I

exist," can, surely, be not the perception of the kosas, and is available to us

only as a thought, and not the thing-in-intself.

Sankarraman

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

April 7, 2006

Namaste Ganesan Sankarraman,

If the world does not exist on its own right, then is it

correct to say that the world exists only because we perceive it?

The world ceases to appear in the states of dream (svapna) and

deep sleep (sushupti). It is said that Samadhi is sushupti while in

jagrat, but how can that be? How can sushupti and jagrat exist

simultaneously?

So if the world only exists because there is a perceiver, the

direction of the enquiry should be on the nature of the perceiver,

not on the nature of the world, because the latter exists only

because of the former. If so, then what is the nature of the

subject? Is the subject´s nature sat-chit-ananda?

I hope these questions are helpful to others too.

Best regards,

frederico

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

> Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi wrote: Dear Members,