Hinduism 27

Transcript (Not Corrected)

Opening Prayer

ॐ सह नाववतु ।

सह नौ भुनक्तु ।

सह वीर्यं करवावहै ।

तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु ।

मा विद्विषावहै ।

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ।

हरिः ॐ ।

Transliteration (IAST):

Om Saha Nāvavatu

Saha Nau Bhunaktu

Saha Vīryaṃ Karavāvahai

Tejasvi Nāvadhītamastu

Mā Vidviṣāvahai

Om Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ

Hariḥ Om

Translation:

Om, may Brahman protect us both.

May Brahman bestow upon us both the fruit of knowledge.

May we both obtain the energy to acquire knowledge.

May what we both study reveal the truth.

May we cherish no ill feeling toward each other.

Om, peace, peace, peace be unto all.

The Concept of the Self in Hinduism

Introduction: The Importance of Self-Knowledge

We are discussing Hinduism, and today one of the most important topics would be the concept of the self in Hinduism. Why is this topic so very important?

First of all, if we do not have proper knowledge of who we are, we cannot function in this world effectively. We need not only knowledge of our true self, but even considering our body and mind—even if we think we are nothing but the body and mind—if we do not have proper knowledge, then it would be economic disaster. Harley Street, per hour, 100 pounds you have to pay. What does the man do? Go on hearing your babbling, and ultimately he says you have no problem, go home.

Bodily wise, do we have knowledge? No. Sometimes we know our limitations, but we behave as though we do not know. It is very important. A child behaving like a child is called child-like behavior. A grown-up person behaving like a child is called childish behavior. There is a lot of difference between these two. So many old people go to cosmetic surgery and try to behave like young people—disaster.

Mentally, most of us are sleeping. There is a system of training known as Vipassana. You must have heard about it; some of you must have practiced it. There, all that you are asked to do is to sit and observe your breath, later on your thoughts. Astonishing things will come out, but we are blissfully ignorant of all those things.

The Existential Problem

Of course, existential problems are there. However healthy we are, however happy we are, all these things must come to an end sometime or the other, sooner or later. This is a hard fact of life. Death stares us in our face all the time. There is no such guarantee we are going to live for a long, long time to come. It can come at any time.

Every day we hear the news: some tsunami, some floods, some earthquakes, or some terrorists killing. The people who are going to die—do they stop to think, "Today perhaps is my last day?" No, they never come to think. So to know why we have to die and what happens after our death is even more important.

We are frightened of death, I suspect, for two reasons. One reason, of course, we do not know what happens after death, whether we exist or do not exist. Or if we exist, what happens? Fear of the unknown.

But even more important, we know about ourselves quite a good amount to be afraid of after-death life. The amount of mischief that we do in this world when we are alive leaves no doubt what is going to be our fate after death. But in any case, there is a constant struggle, whether we are good people or evil people, rich or poor. Our one hope would be: let me be happy all the time and let me never undergo any type of suffering. This is a fact of life.

The Fundamental Question: Who Am I?

Our scriptures come to our aid. What is the question? Who am I?

If I am this body, then I am constantly changing because the body is changing. If I am the mind, the mind is also constantly changing. Therefore, who am I? Who can answer that question?

Now, knowledge must be got through some means or the other. In this world, we see so many objects, including our own bodies and minds. And to get knowledge of an object, there are certain ways, certain proofs, how we can have knowledge of an object. So I am going to tell you exactly what it is before we come to the discussion.

The Means of Knowledge (Pramāṇa)

The first thing that we see is there are some instruments by which we acquire knowledge. This is called pramāṇa in Sanskrit language. Pramāṇa means the means of acquiring knowledge. Pramā means knowledge—right knowledge. Nobody wants false knowledge.

Every one of us wants right knowledge because we cannot function without right knowledge. Nobody functions through false knowledge. Have you noticed it? Let me illustrate.

Suppose you know a person whom you know is a liar, and he says, "I am your friend." Would you believe him? Would you act as though he is your friend? You would never do that because you know that he is not a truthful person. You know that very well. So you cannot rely upon that knowledge. You rely upon correct knowledge.

What is the correct knowledge? He is a liar. Therefore, you presume that whatever he says is untruth, and that will save you. So all the time we may pretend to be somebody else. We would like to give wrong knowledge about ourselves to others. That is a different question altogether. But we would never like to have wrong knowledge about anything if we can help it.

Our constant effort is to get the right type of knowledge. So we all want right knowledge about everything. Not one single false knowledge we want—not even for one millionth of a second. How to get that knowledge, right knowledge? From morning till evening we are trying to get that kind of knowledge. And people go to any lengths to have that kind of knowledge.

Intelligent people go to consult bhūtas, pretas, piśāchas, astrologers, astronomers, science, dreams—so many things they do, thinking that they are going to get right knowledge. Whether I am going to win the lottery ticket, whether I am going to get elected in the election. They go to God also and take vows. Unfortunately, both the opposing candidates do the same thing. God is in a great dilemma now: whose wishes is he going to make true?

The Quality of Knowledge Depends on the Means

According to Vedanta, certain proofs must be there. The truth that we acquire, the knowledge, the right knowledge that we acquire is correspondent, proportionate to the means that we employ. This is another fact we have to clearly understand.

Supposing you want to see something at a distance and you do not have good eyesight. Then you buy a telescope and you want to see the distant object. How well you are able to see the distant object depends upon the quality of the telescope. Do you see the point now? So if your proof or the means by which you are going to acquire the knowledge is defective, then your knowledge will be very defective knowledge.

The Six Valid Means (Ṣaṭ Pramāṇa)

In this background, ṣaṭ pramāṇa—six valid means of obtaining right knowledge. These are called: pratyakṣa, anumāna, śabda, upamāna, arthāpatti, anupalabdhi.

Very briefly, I will tell you what they are.

1. Pratyakṣa (Direct Perception)

Pratyakṣa means direct perception. You see something, taking for granted that you do not have cataract and you are not seeing in semi-darkness. If the conditions are right, your eyes are right, everything is proper, you are not drunk or anything, everything is fine—then whatever you see, that would be a proper source of knowledge. I am seeing you, you are seeing me. I am hearing you, you are hearing me. Pratyakṣa, direct experience. This is the best means of right knowledge.

2. Anumāna (Inference)

Second is called anumāna. Based upon direct perception, when two things are invariably associated with each other, when there is one thing absent, we infer the other thing by seeing the associated thing. Simple example, classical example first: we see smoke in the hills, distant hills. What do we presume? There must be fire, because fire and smoke are always invariably associated. So this is called anumāna pramāṇa—you infer because two things are invariably associated. That is the condition. Suppose sometimes there is smoke, sometimes there is no smoke, then you cannot rely upon it. So this is called anumāna pramāṇa.

3. Śabda (Scriptural Testimony)

Then there is the third one, most important, is called śabda pramāṇa. Śabda means reliable statements by persons who are absolutely truthful. Scriptures are nothing but the statements of realized souls. That is a point which I will discuss a bit later on, because that doesn't fall under this direct proof. That needs a little bit more discussion. So I will come to that.

4. Upamāna (Comparison)

The fourth one is called upamāna pramāṇa. So what is upamāna? It means comparison. Supposing in my village I see a buffalo. Then I go to UK or USA and I see a bison—a four-footed animal looks almost similar to the buffalo which we used to have at home. Now we say this looks like my buffalo. Pay attention: this bison looks like my buffalo. So the opposite way also—my buffalo looks like this bison.

Now what is it? What is the point of difference? I am seeing the bison now. I am not seeing the buffalo. But by seeing the bison, I am somehow able to connect through comparison and have right understanding about my buffalo which I did not know all these times. "Oh, there are also other animals looking like my buffalo. So they belong to one category, jāti." So I have a bit better understanding about the animal which I frequently saw back at my village many years back, by seeing directly now another animal which is looking similar. This is called comparison.

5. Arthāpatti (Postulation)

Another is called arthāpatti pramāṇa. So what is arthāpatti? It is called postulation. One very interesting example is: suppose there is a truthful person. That person is a very reliable person. He says, "I do not eat at daytime." But he is growing fatter and fatter day by day.

What is the knowledge you get? Since he is not eating by day, he must be eating by night. This is called arthāpatti, postulation. Why is it called postulation? Why can't it be called inference? It is not called inference because there is no invariable connection. If somebody eats at night instead of daytime, there is no such rule that he should get fat. He may, he may not.

And you cannot see any other proof. You cannot see visible sign. But solely we rely upon reason or rationality. If he is not eating by daytime and still he is growing fat, that is the effect. There must be a cause, and that cause is not happening at daytime. So it must be happening at nighttime. This is a valid proof of knowledge, getting knowledge. If we cannot get knowledge through other means, then we have to employ this particular means.

Supposing—not a very elegant example—you have another partner with whom you are doing business. And business is doing very well. But money is not falling into your account. Rather the other person's account is growing. What does it mean? You are not seeing him anything. He is smiling. He is wishing you. He says you are his most dear companion and blah blah blah. And yet you do not see.

So what would be your right understanding? He must be taking away money from your account into his account. This is valid knowledge that you are getting. You can find the proof of that knowledge.

6. Anupalabdhi (Non-Apprehension)

The last, the sixth one, is called anupalabdhi—absence of something. Suppose you have three rooms in your house. You have a book. You know you have a book. And usually you keep it in room A. One day you wanted that book. You go to room A. It is not there. Then you go to room B. It is not there.

What would be the conclusion? The book has not gone out of the house. It is in the house, but it is neither in room A nor in room B. Then it must be in room C, the third, last room. There is no other way. This is called anupalabdhi. We get valid knowledge by this. Wonderful it is.

You know, you go to some place to meet somebody. The person is not there. What would be your conclusion? The person must have gone somewhere else. He is not dead. Based upon that knowledge, you will make plans further what to do. Then you say, "Where could he have gone? What are the usual haunts he visits? Club or a swimming pool, etc." It is a valid means of knowledge.

Five Categories of Objects

Now this is how we obtain knowledge of anything in this world. So in another way of putting, there is also a very beautiful Vedanta which has gone so deep into this matter. All objects must fall under five categories. These are called rūdi, jāti, guṇa, kriyā, sambandha. I will give a brief explanation.

Rūdi (Direct Form)

Rūdi means pratyakṣa. Pratyakṣa means you see something. So any object that you cannot see—not that it does not exist, there are other means. If there is any object which does not fall under these categories, it does not mean such an object or such a thing does not exist. It means it is beyond the proofs, the means that we are employing. I will come to that point when I come to the proof of the Ātman or who we are.

The first is pratyakṣa, means direct perception.

Jāti (Species)

Or sometimes we get knowledge through jāti. Jāti means species. Suppose in your backyard there is a mango tree. And you want to phone to somebody and tell that "I have a wonderful mango tree. It is yielding very sweet mangoes." But the person to whom you are phoning doesn't know what is a mango. He never tasted.

Then you will say, "What is this mango you are talking about?" Then you say, "It is a tree." And that person knows trees. Everywhere there are trees—maybe apple tree, maybe some other tree. Immediately he considers, "Oh, it must be an object like this tree, only it is a different tree." That is a valid means of conveying knowledge, jāti.

Guṇa (Special Quality)

Then guṇa. Guṇa means all the time we employ this guṇa. Guṇa means a special quality which distinguishes an object from other objects. If there are two copies of gospel and if I want one particular copy, then I say, "The gospel with the red cover, please bring. Not with the blue cover or without cover." See, that is the guṇa. Guṇa means a special quality distinguishing that object, sets it apart from all other objects.

This is how you know that person so wonderfully. "Oh, I know that person. We all know that person. Wonderful quality." This sets a good cook, good painter, good speaker. Anybody who has got some special quality—that is one way of acquiring knowledge.

Kriyā (Action)

Then kriyā. Kriyā means, you know, suppose we want to get somebody, ask somebody to come. And we don't know who that person is. Suppose it depends upon your need. You want somebody to sing, so "Could some singer come forward?" Or we are having scarcity of food, we need to prepare some food. "Will some cook come forward?" We don't know the person, but by the kriyā or the action that person is doing, we come to know.

Sambandha (Relationship)

Then there is sambandha. Sambandha means relationship. Suppose in a huge crowd, a child is lost and is crying. The child cannot see his or her mummy or daddy. Then we make a note: "A child having such and such a shirt, will his mother come forward?" Fortunately here, they don't leave the children like that.

Relationship. By the relationship, we also have knowledge. "Oh, you are the mother of so-and-so. You are the child of so-and-so. You are the devotee of so-and-so." This is how we also acquire knowledge. These are the five means: direct perception, then species, special qualities, and the actions we are associated with, and the relationships.

The Special Case of Brahman

Now coming back to our point, one important proof of knowledge is called śraddhā. Unfortunately, God, Brahman, Ātman—you cannot apply any of these things. I am giving a talk on Brahman. "Swami, where is Brahman?" "Here is, here goes Brahman." Can I point out to somebody and say, "Here goes Brahman?" It doesn't belong. You cannot see Brahman. You cannot infer Brahman. You cannot compare Brahman. He is not absent.

The Story of Prahlāda

Prahlāda. Prahlāda's father. You know Prahlāda's story? Prahlāda's father was very angry. "Where is the God you are talking about so much?" What was Prahlāda's reply? "Where is he not?" He is not an object. Because he is not an object, he is everywhere. An object means an object can be only somewhere. These are all limitations. But the subject is everywhere. The knower is everywhere. God is everywhere.

Beyond the Senses

So you cannot see, you cannot hear, you cannot taste, you cannot touch, you cannot find him out through our five sense organs. All these pramāṇas work only through our sense organs, through our body, through our mind. It doesn't work in the case of God or Ātman or Brahman because he is not an object.

Therefore, how do you know? All of us know that we are. Each one of us knows: I am. Is there any doubt? You cannot doubt, because if you doubt, even to doubt, there must be a doubter. You must be there first even to say, "I doubt." We never doubt about our own existence. But we are profoundly ignorant of who we really are. We don't know our nature.

Sometimes we are saying we are babies. Sometimes we are saying we are grown-up people. But what is our nature? What is our true nature? Absolutely, we are profoundly ignorant.

The Example of Rāmakṛṣṇa and Vivekānanda

You cannot ask somebody. In fact, this was what Swami Vivekananda did. He went to say, "Ramakrishna, have you seen God?" What is the question? If you have seen God, now can you also show him to me? What does it mean? "Have you seen a cow?" "Yes, I have seen a cow." "Where is that cow?" "There is a cow. It is grazing there." Can you show God like that to anybody? Because God is not an object. You cannot see God.

That is why Śrī Kṛṣṇa, when Arjuna says, "O Lord, I believe in whatever you say, but I would like to really experience you"—what did Krishna say? "You cannot see me through your ordinary eyes." Eyes means not only eyes. Eyes means five organs of knowledge, five sense organs of knowledge. You cannot experience. Because whatever we experience through the five sense organs, that is not God.

Even if you see God through five sense organs, then that God becomes non-God. Self becomes non-self. In fact, that is what Vedanta is telling all the time. What we call the world is nothing but pure Brahman. But we are unable to have right knowledge because we are seeing through partial, limited instrumentation.

What was the statement we made? A limited instrument, a defective instrument can only give you limited knowledge or defective knowledge.

Divine Vision

So what does the Lord say out of his grace?

दिव्यं ददामि ते चक्षुः पश्य मे योगमैश्वरम् ॥ ११-८॥

'divyaṃ dadāmi te cakṣuḥ paśya me yogamaiśvaram' 11-8

"I will give you divine eyes."

What is divine eyes? Is it specially made glasses in America? What are the divine eyes? "I will remove all your limitations. I will lift you up so that you go beyond the limitations of all your sensory instruments. Therefore, you can see directly or experience directly." That is the meaning of seeing—seeing not as we see, experiencing. What does it mean? It means I become that object. That is the only way of acquiring right type of knowledge.

Śabda Pramāṇa: Scriptural Authority

Now, God doesn't fall, Ātman doesn't fall, Brahman doesn't fall under any of these categories. How to then be sure? How to be sure that such a thing exists? Does God exist?

So what did Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa reply when Swami Vivekananda asked him, "Have you seen God?" What did he say? The first thing he said, "Yes, I have seen God." Then he said that "I can also show you God"—not by ordinary means. He touched. By touch, what was Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa doing? He was effacing the limitation of Swami Vivekananda. That is why Swami Vivekananda felt giddy. He said the whole world seemed to be going wrong. That means he was losing his individuality, ego.

The Paradox of Seeing God

If your ego goes, then who sees? Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was a pun master. Do you know that? Punster. One of the questions was: "So when do I see God?" His answer, typical answer was: "When you remove your eye (I). When your 'I' is destroyed, then you will see God."

Do you see the fun of it? I want to see God, and he tells me when you are destroyed, you will see God. When I am destroyed, where am I to see him? What does it mean? It means this "I" here means I can never die. My real "I" can never die. But my false, limited concept of "I"—that is destroyed. Remove the limitations, you will get the correct vision. And then there will be no difference. Who is God? Who is me? I, God. So nothing will remain. All that remains is one and one only.

The Nature of Scriptural Evidence

So this pramāṇa by which we can know God is called śabda pramāṇa. Śabda means scriptural evidence. Śabda means the statements of reliable people. That is the most beautiful thing. How do we know God exists? Because the scripture tells. What is the scripture? Scripture is a statement, simply a statement of the experience of a realizable soul. "Yes, I have seen God."

What is the nature of this God? Peculiar, you know. Nobody can tell you what God is, because if we tell "God is like this," he must fall under these five categories. But God or Ātman or Brahman, unfortunately, doesn't fall under any of these categories.

Therefore, what is the description they can give you? "Yes, I will tell you about God." "What? Tell me. What is it? What about God?" "He is untellable." "Describe about God." "He is indescribable."

Salutations. Every day we sing this song at Vespers service: "Salutations to you, O Lord. You are beyond mind and speech." How do we know that you exist? That's a point, again, which we will come back to very shortly.

Trusting the Testimony of Realized Souls

But how do we believe these people's statements that they are true? There is no way until we have direct realization of the Self or God or our true nature. We have no proof such a thing exists. But then, how do we rely? We rely because the person who is telling us, he is reliable. Even though we do not understand what he is telling, but we do understand what he says must be true because he is a truthful person. He is truthful. He is a wise person. That is why he is called a wise person.

There are fools who are also truthful. All children are truthful. There was a child, and in the classroom, his teacher asked him, "Boys, do you know where God lives?" Everybody kept quiet. Only one fellow piped out, "Yes, he lives in our toilet." The teacher got puzzled. "Explain yourself." He said, "You know, every morning, I am the first person to get up in my house. I go to the toilet. And five minutes later, my father comes running. And he sees the toilet locked from inside. And he shouts, 'Oh, God, you are still there!'"

Now, children make statements. Was he untruthful? He is very truthful. He believed that God is—from Vedantic point of view, he was absolutely right. Who is there in the toilet? Only God.

Why Ordinary Pramāṇas Don't Apply

So God cannot be pratyakṣa or anumāna or all these six pramāṇas won't work. He never falls into the categories of either direct perception or quality or relationship. All these things don't happen. So we have to rely upon the words of these great souls. How does that faith come in? Śraddhā. How does the śraddhā come in? Because we experience in our life, "This person, he is truthful. But he is not ignorantly truthful. He is very wise."

Characteristics of a Wise Person

Not only wise—how do we know who is a wise person? Here is a fellow who studied all the scriptures in the world, but profoundly unhappy. Here is another person who we consider as illiterate, unlearned, and yet so happy in life, so simple and happy. Who is wise?

Here Sri Ramakrishna used to give an illustration. You know, two friends entered into a garden. One fellow, being a scholarly type, research type, he took out his calculator and started calculating how many trees, how many mango trees, how many apple trees, and how many fruits, how many branches, how much would be the income. The other fellow, not being such a type, he went and made friends with the watchman, climbed—and the watchman told him, "The fruits, the mangoes of this particular tree are very tasty. Can I have some?" He says, "Go and have some." So he climbed and started eating fruits. Who is wiser? Sri Ramakrishna's Story.

Whom do we call wise? A person who is fearless, who is unselfish, who is absolutely happy. I don't believe in a person who is unselfish but profoundly gloomy. I would prefer a person who is very selfish but very happy. That is what you all do, don't you? If two people invite you to dinner—one person is good person, unselfish person, but very morose type, boring; another person is very selfish, very worldly, very clever, but very jolly type—where do you go?

So a wise person must be a very happy person. A happy person alone is a wise person, really speaking. So this person we find. Anybody can be happy or unhappy at particular times, under particular circumstances. But it takes a wise person to be happy under all circumstances. That is a really wise person.

Inferring the Cause from the Effect

So when we look at the life and we are not seeing God, but we are seeing a person who says he has seen God and who is exhibiting these kind of characteristics, then we know 100% surety this person is a truthful person. What he says must be true.

You also apply what is called logic. What is the logic? If this be the effect, there must be a cause. If this person under all circumstances is so truthful, so happy, so serene, so unselfish—if this is the effect, there must be a cause. What is that cause? There must be only one cause. Who can behave like that? Only God can behave like that. Can you imagine a morose God? If God is morose, where is the need for us to worship him?

The Story of the Beggar and the King

There was a beautiful poem by Rabindranath Tagore, Gītāñjali. There was a beggar. One day he was going out. Every day he used to go out, he used to get something, and he used to come back. One day he was going out. Suddenly he saw the king of that country in a golden chariot was passing by. The beggar thought, "Ah, what a good fortune today. Whose face have I seen?" In India we say, you know, our fate depends upon whom we see after getting up in the morning. "I must be very fortunate today because the king—definitely he must be very generous. Being a king, whatever he gives would be a kingly thing."

So he went. As he was joyfully going towards the king, the king also saw him and immediately stopped the chariot, got down from the chariot, and started coming towards the beggar. The beggar was all the more happy. The king came near, and before the beggar could open, the king stretched his hands and said, "So what are you going to give to me?"

The beggar thought, "What is this? I thought he would give me something. He is asking me something." So being a beggar, that is what beggarliness means. He had some grains in his begging bag, and he took out the smallest possible grain that he got and he gave it to the king in his disappointment. The king smiled, thanked him, went back. He didn't give him anything, so it seemed, and got into the chariot and drove off.

The beggar thought, "What an unfortunate day." Then he went back and he poured all that he got that day onto his tabular vessel, and to his great astonishment he found the smallest golden grain was there. Then he understood, "Alas, what a stupid fool I have been. If only I had given all that I had, then I would have got all the golden grain."

It is a beautiful poem, and it is absolutely true. Whatever we give to God or a holy person, it comes back to us in a million, million fold.

Learning from the Realized

This person, he must be behaving this way. There must be a cause, because this is the effect. We see and we get encouragement. That is why again and again, all scriptures—for example Bhagavad Gītā—what are the characteristics of a realized soul? And immediately: sthita prajñasya kā bhāṣā samādhi-sthasya keśava / sthita dhīḥ kim prabhāṣeta kim āsīta vrajeta kim

What is the purpose? So that I can also develop these characteristics, so that if I can show the cause, then the effect also will come. So this is how we have to have reliance upon—we cannot see this truth or untruth of the statements they make until we actually experience, but we can definitely have faith because by seeing God, what happens to people?

Suppose you realize God, then what happens to you? Exactly you exhibit the effects of a God-realized soul. You become free from anxieties, worries. You have no fear of death or illness or sickness. You have no enemies. Everyone is nothing but God, etc.

The Three Aspects of Teaching

So that is called śabda pramāṇa, and śabda pramāṇa means the statements of realized souls. That means that we must have only one way—we must have faith, complete faith in whatever they say. So they tell us three things, why we should realize God.

First they tell us there is God and that is the goal—tattva. Then they tell us why we should realize God. It is called puruṣārtha. Because if we are not inspired, even after knowing, we would not travel that path. Then they will also tell you hita. Hita means the way, how actually to realize.

Summary of the Pramāṇas

So these are the six proofs of acquiring valid or correct knowledge, and out of all these, with regard to any object, five other proofs or means of acquiring knowledge function in this world. But with regard to Ātman or God, there is no way because he is not an object. Therefore the only way is to believe, to have faith in the statements of these God-realized souls. That is called śabda pramāṇa, or in simple words, scriptures.

Or if you are very fortunate to meet a great soul like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Holy Mother, Ramana Maharshi, then fall at their feet, surrender yourself, follow their teachings, and by your own realization you will do.

Direct Experience (Pratyakṣa Anubhūti)

Here there is one point. Even though we have faith in what they say, they themselves tell us that "I can only show you the path. But you will have to tread the path yourself." What is the proof? That you will have direct experience. This is the second principle of Hinduism. What is that? Pratyakṣa anubhūti, sākṣātkāra—direct experience. Not merely faith. Faith is good to encourage you, to inspire you, to show you the right way. But ultimately each one of us has to experience. Then only correct knowledge will come. There is nothing called proxy, by proxy, vicarious. No. Direct experience.

The Nature of Brahman: Saccidānanda

So that is what these six pramāṇas are. Now what are these pramāṇas telling us? As I mentioned earlier, if you study the scriptures: Does God exist? Yes. And what is his nature? Indescribable. That is what they say. If he is indescribable, then how do we know that he exists? He exists, but he cannot be described. He cannot be described because any description is only a limitation. And God is unlimited.

But they give us three certain statements. First I will give you those statements. One statement that they give us is the name for God is sat, cit, and ānanda. Sat means absolute existence or pure existence. Cit means pure knowledge, and ānanda means pure joy. This is a marvelous subject by itself.

We assume, we understand the meaning of saccidānanda, or the famous statement in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad: satyaṃ jñānam anantaṃ brahma. What is the nature of Brahma? Satyam—sat. Jñānam—cit. Anantam here—instead of ānanda, anantam. Anantam means infinity, unlimited by time, space, and causation.

Understanding through Double Negatives

Very briefly, I would like to discuss these three things. When we understand sat—God is sat, God is existence—there is one experience of existence which we call existence, but it is not pure existence. It is a manifestation, very limited manifestation of pure existence. That is why sat, cit, and ānanda have to be understood in a double negative manner.

When the scriptures tell us that God's name is saccidānanda—name means here God is having the nature of saccidānanda—they are not issuing positive statements. They are issuing double negative statements to lead us to the correct knowledge.

Sat: Pure Existence

Very briefly, I will deal with it. Take the first thing. Sat means existence, pure existence. Here is a mic. You see the mic? Does the mic exist? You say yes. The table exists? Yes, table exists, right? This is not existence. This is manifestation of existence. What is the difference? Existence is beyond time, space, and causation, whereas manifestation of existence is within the limits of time, space, and causation.

Let me give you this example. This table, you say there is a table. The moment we use the word "is," that means we are talking about its existence, not realizing we are only talking about the manifestation of its existence, not about its existence.

So manifestation means what? Where was this table 100 years back? Was there this table 100 years back? No. It is there now? Yes. And will it be there, say, after 100 or 1,000 years later? Will it be there? It won't be there. That means it came into existence at a particular point of time. It continues to be so for some time, and it also ends after some time. So it is severely limited by time, space, causation.

Time Limitation

This object as an example. What is the time? It came at a particular point of time. It remains for a particular time. It disappears. This is time limitation. Before that it was not there. After that it won't be there. Right?

Space Limitation

Second, space. Because it is an object, it only occupies this much space. Otherwise you would not have been able to sit there. If this table was occupying there, you won't have space for it. Right? This is severely limited by space—only very limited amount of space.

Causation Limitation

Then causation. What causation? The table doesn't fall from the sky. Somebody has to take an instrument. Somebody means who? A carpenter has to take an instrument, say a scissor and a hammer, and hew it out of rough wood. Do you see the point now?

Every object is limited by time, space, causation. And anything limited by time, space, causation is called sṛṣṭi or creation. And anything that is created is not pure existence.

Beyond Time, Space, and Causation

What is pure existence then? Pure existence is which is unhampered, unlimited by time limit, space limit, causation limit. What does it mean? Suppose you remove time, space, and causation from the table. You remove time, space, and causation of yourself, your body and your mind. Then what is it to make the differentiation between this table and yourself? Is there anything?

Or to put it another way of speaking: When did time start? Foolish questions. When did time start? What do you mean by "when did time start"? So there was a time before time started, right? When did knowledge start? There was a knowledge before knowledge started.

So before I had this knowledge of this table, what did I have? Ignorance of the table. Simple. But you know, you have the knowledge that I am ignorant. See the funny thing. A little bit logic, you know. Don't get too much confused. So you say, "I was not aware, I did not know anything about this table." But you definitely knew you did not know anything about this table. Is it knowledge or ignorance?

So when did knowledge start? That is a foolish question again, because if there is knowledge as a beginning, then only you can say it started at a particular time. You are presuming there was knowledge before knowledge started.

Similarly, causation. When did causation start? That means what? There must be a cause for this causation to start. There must be a carpenter, the cause. So you are presuming there was something before causation. Are you following what I am trying to say?

Before time, space, and causation, there must be something, and we presume that such a thing is there, and then only we issue the statement when, when, when, when, where, how. Vedanta tells, this can be postulated only with regard to any object called created. Created object means before creation what was there? There must be something before creation because you are assuming. Creation means time. That which is something before creation started is called pure existence, pure knowledge, and pure ānanda.

Cit: Pure Knowledge

Very briefly again, knowledge. What do you mean by knowledge? "I know about the table." So you have knowledge of the table. What is the knowledge that you have? It is a manifestation of knowledge, not the real knowledge. You don't have any knowledge about its existence. You only have knowledge of the manifestation of its existence.

For example, a table. As we discussed, this table is a manifestation of existence. You have only knowledge of that table, and that is why you say, "I see a table, there is a table." But that's not pure knowledge. That is only very limited knowledge, limited to this particular object, and then the problems come. You like this table or you don't like this table.

Ānanda: Pure Bliss

That's not ānanda. That is severe limitation of—yes, there are certain things which take it as ānanda. Woodworm, for example. When a woodworm comes to this table, what would be its reaction? Ānanda. You see, it all depends upon what is its effect upon us, what is the effect of this object upon us. Peculiar things happen. I won't go into these details now.

But what I wanted to tell you is there is something called pure existence. So, coming back to our question, if someone asks, "Does God exist?" and if the answer, "Yes, God exists," then we immediately jump to the conclusion God must be one of the objects like a table, a book, a person, a tree, a dog. To prevent that one: "No, God doesn't exist." "Oh, so God doesn't exist." "No, no, it is not that God doesn't exist."

See, it is not that God doesn't exist—not non-existence, not asserting this is existence, but saying not non-existence. That is the meaning of sat. Similar way, that is the meaning of knowledge means pure consciousness. Similarly, ānanda means pure bliss, because there is no friend, there is no enemy, there is no second, I am everything. Or Brahman is everything. If Brahman is everything, that is called ānanda, or it is called ānanda.

Breaking Down Mental Barriers

So you see, double negatives they have to use to break down the barriers created by our mind, and the constituent elements of the mind are time, space, and causation. The moment we use mind, we are using these three filters at the same time.

For example, an accident happened and you came to know. Then you ask that person who informed you there has been an accident: "When did it happen?" We are asking about time point of view. "Where did it happen?" You are asking about the space point of view. "How did it happen?" You are asking from the causation point of view. You are asking same questions, three questions, but with regard to one event. They are three different viewpoints; they are not three different things.

So sat, cit, and ānanda is that which is beyond time, space, and causation. These are not three separate qualities, but three separate ways of trying to know what God is. If there is a God, it is the nature. In other words, this is beyond the categories of mind.

Neti Neti: Not This, Not This

That is why the scriptures are forced to tell "not this, not this"—neti neti. Na iti, na iti. Then if everything is not, then what remains? Because you, who are asking that question, you remain ultimately.

Is God this world? No. Is God my mind? Because if you remove the whole world, then what remains? Your body and mind. Is God the body? My body? No. Is God my mind? No. Then what remains? He who is saying "my, my, my." That reality alone.

Then you see, you won't ask if it is not world, if it is not body, if it is not mind. The moment these three disappear, the questions also disappear, because you know the truth. So there is no need. When there is no problem, there is no solution.

The Nature of the Realized Soul

This is how the scriptures are telling us that God is, he is saccidānanda. His truth is knowledge and he is infinite. He doesn't have any form. He doesn't have any qualities. He is nirguṇa. He doesn't have any action because there is nothing besides him—niṣkriya. He is not having anything to—nirañjana, stainless. There is no stain because there is no stain.

The Story of the Lawyer in Heaven and Hell

One lawyer somehow landed in heaven. So he got bored very soon because there is no court case there. Saints don't quarrel, you see. But his whole life he only argued in the court. He was feeling very bored. So he looked across the border and saw it's a hell, gateway to hell. "Can I visit?" "Yes, yes, you can go."

He went there. What a marvelous thing! People are fighting with each other, killing each other, beating each other, and enjoying, carousing. So he said, "Can I stay here?" "Yes, yes, you can stay here." He remained there. The fellow didn't return.

Here God is getting worried. This fellow went in the morning. It's midnight. He is not returning. So he phoned to the in-charge of hell. "So where is my man?" "This man decided to be with us and not return to you."

God got very angry. "I will sue you." Other man said, "Yes, go ahead. Where are you going to get the lawyers?"

The Silence of Realization

When there is nothing called world—world means objects, outside objects, our body, our mind—then there is nobody to question. There is no problem. So there is no solving the problems. And that is why maunam is the only true sign of knowledge. Maunam doesn't mean keeping quiet. Maunam means experiencing one's own self in our true nature. That is called true maunam.

And when a person experiences such a thing, then he can be talking also. He can be in the market. He can be in a battlefield. It doesn't really matter because he doesn't see anybody else. He is not killing somebody. It is just a līlā.

The Goal: Self-Realization

This is how the Ātman is asserted in Hinduism. And we are that Ātman. Each soul is potentially divine. And unfortunately, we are profoundly ignorant of that fact. That is what is called māyā.

Therefore, the goal of life is mukti. Mukti means get rid of bondage. And this bondage doesn't lie outside. It is our ignorance which is within us. How to get rid of this ignorance? By getting right knowledge. And what is right knowledge? To know that we are the divine.

The Path to Realization

And how do we get? You first of all have faith. Then the scriptures or a great soul, he will tell us three steps: śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana. First you hear about the truth. Then you think about it so that there will be no doubt about it. And lastly, you realize that truth: "I am that."

The Four Mahāvākyas

This beautiful scheme of how to realize it has been put in four sentences by the scriptures. Four sentences. That is why they are called vākya. Vākya means a sentence. But this is not an ordinary sentence. It is a sentence which will liberate us forever. And that is why it is called mahāvākya.

What is that mahāvākya?

The first: Tat tvam asi. The scripture tells us. Thou art That.

Then the person realizes: I am that. Aham brahmāsmi. Me. I am Brahman.

What about everything that I see is Brahman? Prajñānam brahma. I don't see any ignorance anywhere. Consciousness is Brahman.

And then what about the other world? Sarvaṃ khalv idaṃ brahma. Everything is nothing but Brahman.

Conclusion

This is the realization towards which our scriptures are leading. And Hinduism is wonderful in that way. It leads in a crystal-clear manner. And this is how we know the existence of the Ātman.

As I said, it cannot be known as an object. It can be only known through one proof, means. That is from the scriptures. And that is called śabda brahman. Śabda means scriptures, or reliable statements of realized souls.

This is how we come to know. Then the desire is produced to realize such a truth. And the means are to be adopted. Ultimately we are all going to be released from this bondage of the world sooner or later. That's what Hinduism is going to teach us.

Closing Prayer

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः

Om Śānti, Śānti, Śāntih.

Om, peace, peace, peace be unto all.