As mentioned in my last blog, language is a dual phenomenon and cannot be otherwise. In fact “dual” and “phenomenon” is tautological, i.e. an unnecessary repetition as every phenomenon is dual.
Quoting from the blog: Both ‘to know’ and ‘to experience’ are transitive verbs, i.e. they require one or more objects. Logically there is no reason why we need to appreciate one term more than the other. As words, both can indicate dvaita. And both can be stripped of their customary use and be defined in an advaitic sense.
The same is true for other terms. In Advaita Vedanta the words love and gratitude are rather under-represented. One of the reasons may be that they are even more loaded with the notion of transitivity than the word experience. Everyone knows love towards someone, but just ‘love’? What’s that supposed to be? Even more so with gratefulness. Grateful for what?! And prayer or devotion are terms I have come across recently that also seem to be difficult to conceive of as intransitive.
Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda or satyam-j~nAnam-anantam. Sat – existence, pure is-ness – is the common factor of every phenomenon we come across. There is nothing here that does not exist or, putting it the other way around: the common factor of everything that is here is existence, sat. Sat is inseparable from chit, consciousness. Every existent thing exists for us because we know about it or, putting it the other way around: nothing would exist for us if we did not know about it.
Every existent object has the qualities of asti (it is existent), bhAti (it is perceptible) and priya (it is loveable). These terms relate respectively to sat, chit and Ananda because Brahman is reflected by every object. The matter-aspect of an object requires a transitive word. The “Brahman-aspect” requires that we cognitively strip that very word of its transitivity.
In my experience neither love, nor gratitude, nor prayer necessitate an object (even if they may do so grammatically) and none require the identification with (oneself as) a separate identity. If life has become pure knowing and pure experiencing, it has turned into pure love, pure gratitude and pure prayer – including everything, excluding nothing.
Pure love, pure gratitude, pure prayer are nothing but aspects of fullness, pUrNa. Fullness means knowing everything as Self, i.e. knowing oneself as everything – limitlessness. My conclusion:
Pure experiencing equals existence, sat.
Pure knowledge equals consciousness, chit/j~nAnam.
Pure love, pure gratitude, pure prayer equals blissfulness/limitlessness.
So first we need to distinguish ‘experiencing something’ from pure experiencing, ‘knowing something’ from pure knowledge, ‘love for something’ from pure love etc. Yet, once we have made this distinction (but only after that) we can withdraw it because in truth nothing is separate from brahman. mithyA is mithyA only because in its essence it is satya. Any knowledge, any experience, any gratitude, any love, any prayer is nothing but Brahman alone.
photo credits: La-Liana@pixelio.de