Tag Archives: existence

saccidānanda

Posted on by
1

The Nature of the Absolute

In the vast lexicon of Indian philosophy, few terms are as ubiquitous—and as frequently misunderstood—as saccidānanda (often written as sat-cit-ānanda). Used across classical treatises, prakaraṇa granthas, and modern spiritual discourses, this compound Sanskrit word is routinely translated into English as “Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.” For many contemporary seekers, this rendering conjures up visions of a permanent mystical trance, an everlasting emotional high, or an ecstatic, non-dual “feeling” to be attained through deep meditation.

However, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematised by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a far more precise and intellectually rigorous account. In authentic Vedāntic pedagogy, saccidānanda is not a description of an object, nor is it a promise of unending experiential euphoria. Rather, it functions as a svarūpa-lakṣaṇa—an essential pointer or definition designed to reveal the nature of the unconditioned Self (Ātman / Brahman) by negating our false superimpositions of finitude, inertness, and mortality.

Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 38)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 37

Part 39

Chapter 19 Conversation between Atma and the Mind 

19.07                                                                                                                               An ignorant mind believes that it can improve the status of I, the Atma. The wise person knows that the mind can neither improve Atma nor is there any need for such improvement, for Atma is already complete. Any improvement that occurs in time is destined to disappear with time. Therefore, every improvement in the mind, or brought about by the mind, is mithya. How can a mithya mind improve the real Atma? Therefore, Atma tells the mind to remain quiet and attend to its own welfare. Atma is self-effulgent. It requires no external support, including that of the mind, to shine. Rather, it is the mind that is illumined by Atma.

Continue reading →

Ātman and Brahman

Posted on by

The Pillars of Non-Dual Reality

In the vast and rigorous tradition of Advaita Vedānta, two terms stand as the absolute foundation of all spiritual inquiry: Brahman and Ātman. While these words can initially seem like abstract philosophical markers, they are, in fact, pointers to the most intimate and undeniable truths of our existence. Traditional Advaita, as systematized by the great sage Ādi Śaṅkara in the 8th century, is fundamentally a methodology designed to reveal that these two apparently different entities are, in reality, one and the same.

The core message of this teaching is famously summarized by the dictum: brahma satyam, jaganmithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ—”Brahman is the reality; the world is not in itself real; the individual self is none other than Brahman”. To understand this “Great Equation,” we must first clarify what is meant by these two essential terms through the lens of scriptural testimony (śabda pramāṇa) and Śaṅkara’s commentaries.

Continue reading →

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 13)

Posted on by

Part 12

part 14

Chapter 4 Section 1 (4.1.1 and 4.1.7)
Janaka tells Yajnavalkya that he has learnt from a teacher that fire deity is Brahman. Yajnavalkya says that it is only one aspect of Brahman and there are three more aspects. Organ of speech is its abode; ether is its support, and it should be meditated as intelligence. Organ of speech is intelligence because through organ speech, the meditator knows his relatives, learns different types of knowledge. His speech never deserts him. And people come to him to learn. The dialogue continues in the same pattern.

Continue reading →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 5

Posted on by

Part 4
6.9.1 to 6.9.4 and 6.10.1 to 6.10.3
During sleep, mind is resolved and jiva’s individuality is suspended and therefore he does not know his merger with Brahman during sleep.  Bees collect juices from different flowers and make honey by mixing the juices. In the honey, there is no trace of individual juice. Eastern and western rivers flowing towards east and west respectively merge in ocean and lose their individuality. Similarly, during sleep, at the time of death, and dissolution of a cycle of creation, all the creatures lose their individuality, and they resolve in Brahman. During sleep, the karmAs are in potential form. On becoming awake, they become live and functional. Hence going to sleep does not mean moksha. There are two types of entry of an individual into pure Being:  involuntary and voluntary. In deep sleep, one’s entry is involuntary.  There is no knowledge of the entry, and it is not permanent, and one comes back from that state.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 2)

Posted on by

Part 1

Part 3

Existence inheres every worldly object. Before creation, all the worldly objects are in seed (unmanifest) form in Existence and the creation unfolds gradually. Existence manifests everywhere whereas consciousness is manifested in subtle body only, e.g., mind, intellect. A jiva is a mind-body system and is sentient and has emotions of happiness and sadness. Consciousness (Chit) does not undergo any change as it is present in the mind like a reflection (ChidAbhAsa. It is individual self or individual soul ( jivAtmA).

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part1)

Posted on by

Part 2

In the commentary on Ch Up 6.1.3, ShankarAchArya says that even if a person has studied all the Vedas and knows all other things which are to be known, he indeed remains unfulfilled if he does not know the Self. As the word ‘unfulfilled’ is not explained, let me do. Unfulfilled means unfulfilled desires. Though a particular human desire is finite, there are countless desires and in this sense they are infinite. A person will have to take infinite births to fulfil them, and he will be in bondage forever. Conversely, with Self-knowledge, a person is complete and has no desires or alternatively all desires are subsumed in his ‘completeness’. He is free in the present life and is also free from rebirth.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (conc.)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

13. You then talk about:“the collapse into not-knowing, the profound mystery…”I don’t know (!) what this means – sounds a bit too mystical for me.

– Well, I suppose those words do sound a bit mystical! I’m talking about the huge relief, the liberation, the sense of freedom when the mind’s endless search for something MORE than the present moment dies down, and there is only what is, and nothing more. It’s the “profound mystery” because nothing can be known about it.

OK, I’m happy with ‘relief’ and ‘liberation’ but I would use ‘fascination’ instead of ‘mystery’ – after all, ‘I amThat’. ‘Not-knowing’ is quite misleading.

14. “If anything, I’m saying the exact opposite, that the Mystery could NEVER be contained in ANY belief (especially simplistic neo-advaita beliefs!) ”Words never ‘contain’ the ‘mystery’, but they can be used to point to it. “Everything is here right now” does not provide any pointers that might overcome the essential ignorance.

– Yes, words as pointers….of course.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 33

Posted on by

Part 32

Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
6-9 Tattiriya Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-4 AnuvAka 7 (Pt 2) The universe is made of matter and is essentially inert. But living and non-living beings are found in the universe. It means that there is an outside source of sentiency. This source is Brahman. Consciousness is the nature of Brahman. The consciousness is reflected in the subtle body of a jiva and the latter becomes sentient. Brahman is also the source of happiness. When consciousness is reflected in a calm mind, happiness is felt. Vedanta claims that there is not an iota of happiness in worldly objects. If happiness is the essential nature of an object, it should give happiness to everybody all the time. But it is not so. An object liked by a person may not be liked by another person. And an object liked by a person now may not be liked later.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (part 2)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 1 ***

The Discussion

1. You say: “But the message asks – what reality does this person have in the first place? This isn’t about DENYING that person, or REJECTING that person.”

So are you saying that the person exists or not?

– I see this as a false dichotomy. The mind believes that something has to “exist or not”. But who would know whether a person existed or not? A person?

Without Consciousness, nothing exists. But it seems that this is the usual absolute versus empirical reality problem. Since we are using language and having a dialog, both of us are implicitly assuming the existence of separate persons. You cannot deny this without making nonsense of your position as a teacher and writer. So the answer to your question ‘what reality does the person have’ is that he has an empirical reality. This has to be accepted as a given at the level of the world appearance. The question as to whether this person has an absolute and separate existence is another question entirely.

Continue reading →