Guest guest Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 Philosophers such as Y K Menon for example, said that Sankara said that the goal is attainment of oneness with Sat-Cit-Ananda, or Being, Consciousness, Bliss. These are actually qualities, according to Ramana Maharshi, and therefore attributes and still within illusion. In other words not NirGuna Brahman,... > > snip > > Hi Tony, > > Interesting post. Would you please point out to me > the exact place or quote wherein Ramana says that > sat/chit/ananda 'are' (note you are using the > plural here) considered to be qualities and attributes. > > Thanks, > Durga > Namaste, Ramana always referred to sat-cit-ananda as 'qualities'...I came across in 'Be as you are'. However absolute bliss, consciousness and existence all describe Saguna concept.....NIZ says that one has to go beyond consciousness also..........So that can only mean NirGuna....Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 advaitajnana , " aoclery " <aoclery wrote: > > Philosophers such as Y K Menon for example, said that Sankara said that the > goal is attainment of oneness with Sat-Cit-Ananda, or Being, Consciousness, > Bliss. These are actually qualities, according to Ramana Maharshi, and therefore > attributes and still within illusion. In other words not NirGuna Brahman,... > > > > snip > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > Interesting post. Would you please point out to me > > the exact place or quote wherein Ramana says that > > sat/chit/ananda 'are' (note you are using the > > plural here) considered to be qualities and attributes. > > > > Thanks, > > Durga > > > Namaste, > > Ramana always referred to sat-cit-ananda as 'qualities'...I came across in 'Be > as you are'. However absolute bliss, consciousness and existence all describe > Saguna concept.....NIZ says that one has to go beyond consciousness > also..........So that can only mean NirGuna....Cheers Tony. > Hi Tony, > > It's my understanding that Niz used the two words > 'consciousness' and 'awareness' to denote > two different things. Awareness was the absolute, > and consciousness was perhaps the mind, or maybe what > we would refer to in Vedanta as 'Ishvara.' > > I think he said that Awareness was prior to consciousness > or something of the sort. I would have to try and > look it up, and I wouldn't quite know where to look > anyway, but I remember this question coming up > on some list, and Greg Goode saying Niz used the two > words differently to denote two different things. > > I would still like to see the quote where Ramana > refers to satchitananda as qualities. I'm wondering > if you can find it. > > In Vedanta we say that satchitananda is a lakshana > for Brahman. That means these are not three things > which are qualities of anything. They are words which > all denote only one thing. They are used in the > teaching as pointers to that atma/brahman which > you already are. > > In fact, better words to use are satyam/jnanam/anantam, > and thus avoid the possible confusion which the word > ananda can lead to. > > Satyam existence, jnanam consciousness, anantam limitlessness > because there are not two things which exist absolutely. > > So satyam is jnamnam is limitlessness. Existence is > consciousness/awareness is limitless. This is atma/brahman. > > These three are not qualities or gunas, they are lakshanas, > which help point the mind of the student to recognize atma, > which is existence, which is awareness/consciousness, > which is limitless because in reality that's all that > exists absolutely. > > I don't know where you come up with your ideas, but frankly > you are very often wrong. I think the mistake that you > often make is not understanding the actual meaning of > words used in teaching, but taking the meaning of those > words to point to something in duality. This is a very > common, and normal mistake, and it takes time and teaching to > get the mind to understand the way the words are intended > to be used. > > There were actually many mistakes which you made in the > totality of your post (of which the above is a part), > and I may go back and try address each of them later. > > A person can say, " I am an existent conscious being. " > And what Vedanta tries to enable the student to > recognize directly is that this very existence/ > consciousness, which you take to be a product of > the body, which you take to be the product of the > mind, is in fact atma/brahman. > > Existence/consciousness is not two qualities. > Existence/consciousness is atma/brahman, staring you right > in the face, as it were. > > Taking yourself to be the body/mind, existence/consciousness, > which already is known is taken to be limited. > > Self-knowledge is the recognition that you yourself, > you existence/consciousness, you atma, you brahman are > anantam, not limited by anything, and in fact the only > 'thing' which exists absolutely, and that is also called > nirguna brahman, brahman without qualities, which is > itself existence/consciousness/limitlessness. That's > baseline reality. That's absolute reality. > > Durga > Namaste, To me NirGuna NirVana etc mean what they say....they can only be described in the negative...So if you are positively describing Brahman it can only be Saguna concept....So the positive qualities or lakshanas that are being experienced can only be Saguna...I would also say that awareness is Brahman but again Saguna, as it is a description or qualification.....In CH 1...Ramana talks about qualities etc and much later as well.. I can't find them all but it doesn't matter NirGuna is self defining in the negative...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 how can the experient attain sat-chit-ananda which is inherent as expression of consciousness? -mahesh aoclery <aocleryadvaitajnana Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 1:58:48 AM Sat-Cit-Ananda and Ramana Philosophers such as Y K Menon for example, said that Sankara said that thegoal is attainment of oneness with Sat-Cit-Ananda, or Being, Consciousness,Bliss. These are actually qualities, according to Ramana Maharshi, and thereforeattributes and still within illusion. In other words not NirGuna Brahman,...>> snip>> Hi Tony,>> Interesting post. Would you please point out to me> the exact place or quote wherein Ramana says that> sat/chit/ananda 'are' (note you are using the> plural here) considered to be qualities and attributes.>> Thanks,> Durga>Namaste,Ramana always referred to sat-cit-ananda as 'qualities'. ..I came across in 'Beas you are'. However absolute bliss, consciousness and existence all describeSaguna concept..... NIZ says that one has to go beyond consciousnessalso........ ..So that can only mean NirGuna....Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 advaitajnana , Mahesh Kamat <mv.kamat wrote: > > how can the experient attain sat-chit-ananda which is inherent as expression of consciousness? > -mahesh > > > > ________________________________ > aoclery <aoclery > advaitajnana > Tue, February 16, 2010 1:58:48 AM > Sat-Cit-Ananda and Ramana > >  > Philosophers such as Y K Menon for example, said that Sankara said that the > goal is attainment of oneness with Sat-Cit-Ananda, or Being, Consciousness, > Bliss. These are actually qualities, according to Ramana Maharshi, and therefore > attributes and still within illusion. In other words not NirGuna Brahman,... > > > > snip > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > Interesting post. Would you please point out to me > > the exact place or quote wherein Ramana says that > > sat/chit/ananda 'are' (note you are using the > > plural here) considered to be qualities and attributes. > > > > Thanks, > > Durga > > > Namaste, > > Ramana always referred to sat-cit-ananda as 'qualities'. ..I came across in 'Be > as you are'. However absolute bliss, consciousness and existence all describe > Saguna concept..... NIZ says that one has to go beyond consciousness > also........ ..So that can only mean NirGuna....Cheers Tony. > Namaste Mahesh, That was my position with durga....that sat-cit-andanda is a Saguna Concept....Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 advaitajnana , " aoclery " <aoclery wrote: > > > Namaste Mahesh, > > That was my position with durga....that sat-cit-andanda is a Saguna Concept....> The first statement below is somewhat obscure IMO, but I think > it is clarified by the second (also below). > > " M: Sat-chit-ananda is said to indicate that the Supreme > is not asat (different from unreal), not achit (different from insentient) and not an anananda (different from unhappiness). > Because we are in the phenomenal world we speak of the Self as Sacchidananda. " > > " M.: Sat denotes being beyond sat and asat; Chit beyond chit and achit; Ananda beyond bliss and non-bliss. What is it then? Even if not sat nor asat, It must be admitted to be sat only. Compare the term jnana. It is the state beyond knowledge and ignorance. Yet jnana is not ignorance but knowledge. So also with Sat-chit-ananda " > (end quote) > > When using the 'usual' (dualistic) meaning of the words > sat and asat, (real and unreal), we can think of the 'real' > water of a desert oasis, versus the 'unreal' water of a mirage. > > When using the 'usual' meaning of the words chit and achit, > we can think of sentient beings and those things which are insentient, like an animal, which is sentient, versus a rock, > which is not. > > So what the Maharshi is saying is that the 'sat' of > satchitananda means neither real nor unreal according > the 'usual' or dualistic meaning of the word, but rather is > pointing out that which is ultimately real, that which > undergoes no change or modification, but which always *is.* > > The chit means that which 'illumines' all things. > It is neither sentient nor insentient. Yet it is that because of which all dualistic objects, whether sentient or insentient, > are known. (Because they have 'knowness,' (chit) they can > be known.) > > Ananda really means limitless fullness. What makes me unhappy? Taking myself to be limited and bound. What would make me happy? Recognizing that I am neither limited nor bound, but am in fact > the locus and source of all happiness. > > Further the Maharshi has said " Because we are in the > phenomenal world we speak of the Self as Sacchidananda, " > which to my mind means that when the word is properly understood, when the 'usual' or dualistic meanings of the words, > 'real, consciousness, and happiness' have been 'knocked off' > from the word, then the word can be used as a pointer to > the self, which ever *is* 'sat,' which is consciousness 'chit' > and lights up the mind, which is 'ananda,' limitless > and full. > > The best analogy for this really is the dream, IMO. > The dream is your being, the dream is your consciousness, > the dream is fully yourself. It is possible to recognize > the 'reality' of the dream from within the dream. This > is what Ramana and all those with self-knowledge have done. > > I am the reality of the oasis water of the dream, > and the reality of the mirage water. I am the reality > of the sentient beings and the insentient objects. > I am the reality of the sorrow and joy which the dream > characters experience. I am full, limitless and complete. > I am satchitananda. I am the whole. > > This satchitananda is available to you right here and now. > It is your very own being/consciousness/awareness/which is > limitless and free. > > Taking this satchitananda to be a product of the body and mind, > the mind takes the self to be limited and subject to changing varieties of joy and sorrow. Recognizing one's being as ever free, one knows 'I was never actually bound. I was never subject to changing states of joy and sorrow. I was ever and am ever free.' > > So the quote (and the whole discussion you posted) was very good. > However, Ramana's words are very often obscure IMO, and > I think understanding them is compounded due to self-ignorance, > and thus they can easily be misinterpreted by the reader. > > Just trying to interpret and understand Ramana's words > from within the framework of self-ignorance can > be very confusing, IMO. I did this myself for many many > years, reading voraciously whatever I could get, and > coming away no wiser, and actually more confused, than before. > > Ramana had no teaching methodology, no real way of explaining > very clearly what he meant. *He* knew what he meant. A jnani > will know what he meant. But a person who takes him or > herself to be the body/mind might have trouble understanding > the words, as Ramana didn't have a step by step way of > explaining because he himself was never exposed to this > type of gradual teaching methodology. > > Thus he could inspire. But I don't really know how many > were able to gain self-knowledge through spending time > with him. There were probably some, but I would surmise > they were few, and certainly IMO, all of those who now > claim they are teaching within 'Ramana's' lineage are pretty > much useless IMO, because he actually had no lineage of teaching. > > If I sit with you mostly in silence and give you some meaningful > looks and say few obscure phrases what will you get out of that? Basically you will get whatever your mind projects into that experience. > > What would I get out of it? > Depends on how much I charge :-) > > Ramana was a true jnani. A great mahatma. He was one in > a million, or perhaps one in hundreds of millions, who gained > self-knowledge without having a teacher or teaching. > > Those who sat with him came away truly inspired by his presence. > To my mind, it is sad to think of all the shenanigans going on > now in his name, as some unscrupulous people try to copy what > he did without even understanding who he was, or what it is > that he knew. > > Durga Namaste Durga, Anything that qualifies limits to some extent...so when Ramana said sat-cit-ananda were qualities of The Self he was referring to the Self/Saguna...Ramana very rarely referred to NirGuna or Ajata as most of his audience even some of the non dualists wouldn't comprehend. He only ever reflected the minds of his audience....what else can a Jnani do? So a quality is a qualification hence Saguna...concept.. Ramana has a guru in previous incarnations.......but was ripe in this one.....Ramana mostly only ever talked about Siva the Self.... And saying cit means beyond cit, and sat means beyond sat, and ananda means beyond ananda......leaves one with only NirGuna but it is not necessary to do mental gymnastics....to change positive qualities into negatives neti neti...........When Pilate asked Jesus 'What is truth?'....Jesus kept silent for to introduce words or mind was to qualify it....................Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.