On the unity of ontology(being), epistemology(consciousness) and soteriology(bliss)

[wundermonk]

Greetings all,

Advaita attempts to define Brahman as sat (being) chit (consciousness) ananda (bliss). Does this mean that Brahman has these as component parts/properties? No, Brahman admits of no heterogeneity in itself. But then, why this tripartite definition?

Here are some of my thoughts on this issue. I would gladly welcome other inputs.

Sat (being) refers to the ontological status of any entity. Does a thing even exist?

Chit (consciousness) and its manifestation as knowledge is related to epistemology. How do I know that something exists?

Ananda (bliss) is the summum bonum of all of us.

The advaitic notion of consciousness and the tripartite definition above unites all these.

What exists (ontology) is only revealed/manifested and known via the mediation of consciousness (epistemology). So, any being other than consciousness depends on consciousness. True knowledge/Jnana of the nature of things leads to the removal of avidya/ignorance leading to consciousness 'resting in itself' which is considered bliss (soteriology). Nothing is as purifying as knowledge.

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh529/wundermonk/438.jpg

So, being, consciousness and bliss are strung together as a non-differentiated unified whole in Brahman/consciousness.

I believe this is, at once, as simple as anything can be. It seems to me that no other conception of God is simpler. :dunno:

Any thoughts/comments/criticism/rebuttals?

[devotee]

Nice effort in a different way (& with different terminology), WM !

OM

[AmIHindu]

Greetings all,

Advaita....
The advaitic notion of consciousness and the tripartite definition above unites all these.

What exists is only revealed/manifested and known via the mediation of consciousness. So, any being other than consciousness depends on consciousness. True knowledge/Jnana of the nature of things leads to the removal of avidya/ignorance leading to consciousness 'resting in itself' which is considered bliss.

Nothing is as purifying as knowledge.

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh529/wundermonk/438.jpg

So, being, consciousness and bliss are strung together as a non-differentiated unified whole in Brahman/consciousness.

Any thoughts/comments/criticism/rebuttals?

Namaste,

On this journey of Spirituality, these Sat Chit and Anand make the Brahman. So if we get the knowledge through Sat and Chit, are we done ??

I am not that far yet on readings so I have a question. There is a concept of शून्य - śūnya (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=shUnya&direction=SE&script=DI&link=yes&beginning=0) - Absolute Zero, where do we meet this zero on this journey ?

[wundermonk]

On this journey of Spirituality, these Sat Chit and Anand make the Brahman. So if we get the knowledge through Sat and Chit, are we done ??

Hello AmIHindu,

I think Jnana is much deeper than simply "knowing" that AhamBrahmAsmi or Tat Tvam Asi, etc. If it were simply knowing these Mahakavyas, someone who transcribes Advaita material on a blog post or at a printing press would immediately be liberated!

"Right knowledge" and discrimination between the self and the non-self would take more practise, I think.

[Satyaban]

A Christian can gain a complete knowledge of Judaism and not be a Jew. I said that but I am sure if it is really suitable because I believe all religions can lead to the absolute so let me try something else. A Capitalist can learn everything about Marxism and not be a Marxist and by the same token a pandit or philosopher can learn very much about Shiavism and not be a devotee of Lord Shiva having all the knowledge and not applying that knowledge is the difference. If one doesn't through yoga break his or her attachments to this world and the obstacles to self realization that knowledge is good for teaching and commenting. So as WunderMonk said and I agree I think knowledge does not produce liberation.

I don't know that Advaita philosophy defines Brahman by satchitananda or describes Brahman as it or as his attributes. You see I believe The Supreme Reality, The Absolute, Shiva to be without attributes, Shiva simply is and what is is Shiva. I believe Satchitananda to be the evolution to Self Realization.

I don't have enough knowledge to fill a small pail but this is what I believe and hope it is not too long until I know.

Preace

[wundermonk]

Hi Satyaban,

Good to see you here. :)

As I see it, in some fundamental sense, God has to be extremely simple/natural/prior. For if God were none of these, God can be "broken" down and analyzed in simpler/more natural/prior terms and that would mean that there would be something more fundamental than God.

So, even while God might be beyond any means of conception, at the same time he should also be most easily accessible.

The most easily accessible thing in the world would be knowledge/consciousness itself, for any thing else presupposes the light of consciousness for its manifestation.

[Satyaban]

Hi Satyaban,

Good to see you here. :)

As I see it, in some fundamental sense, God has to be extremely simple/natural/prior. For if God were none of these, God can be "broken" down and analyzed in simpler/more natural/prior terms and that would mean that there would be something more fundamental than God.

So, even while God might be beyond any means of conception, at the same time he should also be most easily accessible.

The most easily accessible thing in the world would be knowledge/consciousness itself, for any thing else presupposes the light of consciousness for its manifestation.

It is good to see you as well.

Easily accessible? Lord Shiva residing in all being in all the atman being a spark of Shiva our essence being Shiva, easily accessible but unfortunately not always recognized more unfortunate not often heard for the noise we create. God does not need our consciousness and knowledge to exist.

"I am" is our first consciousness. "I am" our recognition of being everything after that is an add-on. Everything that is necessary is known at birth, before birth really and that is what can not be expressed by words, knowledge everything after that knowledge is an add-on much of which creates obstacles to our going back. Like placing sheets of paper between my eye and a source of light which causes it to appear dimmer and dimmer. Do I need to know what direction the atman leaves the body upon death to finally gain liberation, I don't think so. Do I need to know the intricacies of karma, no I don't think so.

Fundamentally, did I need confirmation that Shiva is in my heart, that the reflection of my atman looks the same as everyones, I think so. Did I need to be taught the non-dual nature of Shiva hence the universe, I think so. Did I need to be taught the necessity of meditation for me, absolutely.

Lastly the determinants of rebirth are interesting to discuss whether I know about the effects of karma, gunas etc it will still go on. It is not the reason that I strive everyday, and fail everyday, not to offend Shiva and do right.

Again my knowledge is little but this is what I believe.

The one who has not turned away from wickedness, who has no peace, who is not concentrated, whose mind is restless-he cannot realize the atman, who is known by wisdom.
Krishna Yajur Veda, Katha Upanishad 2.24. ve, 710

Peace

[Satyaban]

Namaste,

On this journey of Spirituality, these Sat Chit and Anand make the Brahman. So if we get the knowledge through Sat and Chit, are we done ??

I am not that far yet on readings so I have a question. There is a concept of शून्य - śūnya (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=shUnya&direction=SE&script=DI&link=yes&beginning=0) - Absolute Zero, where do we meet this zero on this journey ?

If you would give us more information on the concept it would be helpful, is there a theory surrounding it? The term also means empty, hollow, vacant so are your speaking of consciousness being at a state of zero knowledge. There can not be conscious state of zero knowledge can there. Consciousness begins at I am knowledge of itself.

Peace

[AmIHindu]

Consciousness begins at I am knowledge of itself.

Peace

So what is Consciousness and what is knowledge ? What are the differences between them ?

Gratitude,

[Satyaban]

So what is Consciousness and what is knowledge ? What are the differences between them ?

Gratitude,

"I am" is knowledge, consciousness is the first knowledge, conscious knowledge. "I am" is living in the now. "I am" it can not be complicated or intellectualized "I am" just is.
I assume but will make clear the knowledge I speak of is divine knowledge or knowledge of the divine.

I should also repeat this is what I believe, what you believe is probably different.