20 Spirituality Studies 10-1 Spring 2024 they are not real, because ego is just a false awareness of ourself, so whatever seems to exist only in its view must be as unreal as it is. So if there is nothing else for us to know when we know ourself as we actually are, what sort of knowledge is self-knowledge? What will we know ourself to be when we know ourself as we actually are? The answer to such questions is given by Bhagavan in verse 28 of Upadēśa Undiyār: If oneself knows what the nature of oneself is, then beginningless [Sa. anādi], endless [Sa. ananta] and unbroken [Sa. akhaṇḍa] being-awareness-happiness [Sa. sat-citānanda]. [29] “The nature of oneself” (Ta. “taṉādu iyal”) means ourself as we actually are, and what we actually are is what alone actually is, so what this verse implies is that if we know what we actually are, what will then remain alone and what we will know ourself to be is just anādi, ananta, akhaṇḍa sat-citānanda: “beginningless, endless and unbroken being-awareness-happiness”. When brahman, the ultimate reality, which is ourself as we actually are, is described as sat-cit-ānanda (Sa. “being-awareness-happiness”), that does not mean that it is a compound of three things, “being” (Sa. sat), “awareness” (Sa. cit) and “happiness” (Sa. ānanda), because these are not three things but one and the same. Pure “being” (Sa. sat) is itself both pure “awareness” (Sa. cit) and pure “happiness” (Sa. ānanda), because the very nature of pure being is to be aware of itself, and its awareness of itself is infinite happiness. This is why Bhagavan describes it as akhaṇḍa, which means “unbroken”, “unfragmented”, “undivided”, “whole” or “complete”, and therefore implies indivisible, because satcit-ānanda is one indivisible whole. It is also anādi, “beginningless”, because it exists independent of time, since like all other phenomena time seems to exist only in the view of ourself as ego, not in the view of ourself as we actually are, namely sat-cit-ānanda. That is, it is eternal, because it exists not only at all times but whether time appears or not. Since it is not limited in any way by time, space or anything else whatsoever, it is ananta, which means “endless”, “limitless” or “infinite”, so it is infinite, indivisible and eternal, and therefore it is by implication immutable, because change can occur only in time and therefore cannot affect what is timeless. Therefore what we actually are is infinite being, infinite awareness and infinite happiness, which are one and indivisible, so in order to experience ourself as such, we need to investigate ourself and thereby know ourself as we actually are. For those of us who are enamoured by the immense variety of phenomena that seem to exist in waking and dream, a state in which we are eternally aware of nothing other than ourself may seem unappealing, but whatever happiness we seem to derive from any phenomena is an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite happiness that we actually are and that we can experience only by knowing and being what we actually are, free of all the “adjuncts” (Sa. upādhis) that we now mistake ourself to be. 16 How Should We Apply the Mahāvākyas in Practice? In each of the four Vedas there is a “great statement” (Sa. mahāvākya), which asserts jīva-brahma-aikya, the “oneness” (Sa. aikya) of the “soul” (Sa. jīva) and the “ultimate reality” (Sa. brahman), namely prajñānaṁ brahma (Sa. “awareness is brahman”) in the Ṛg Vēda, Aitarēya Upaniṣad 3.3, ahaṁ brahmāsmi (Sa. “I am brahman”) in the Yajur Vēda, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1. 4. 10, tat tvam asi (Sa. “that you are”) in the Sāma Vēda, Chāndōgya Upaniṣad 6. 8. 7, and ayam ātmā brahma (Sa. “this self is brahman”) in the Atharva Vēda, Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 2. The sense in which we as jīva are actually brahman is explained by Bhagavan in verse 24 of Upadēśa Undiyār (cited in section 13), namely that in our essential nature as pure “being” (Sa. sat), bereft of all “adjuncts” (Sa. upādhis), we and “God” (Sa. brahman) are just “one substance” (Ta. poruḷ or Sa. vastu). That is, every jīva (Sa. “soul” or “sentient being”) is aware of its own being or existence as “I am”, and this “I am” is God or brahman. But what is the practical implication of these mahāvākyas? How should we apply in practice the truth conveyed in them? The answer to these questions is implied by Bhagavan in verse 32 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: When the Vedas proclaim ‘That is you’, instead of oneself being, knowing oneself as what, thinking ‘I am that, not this’ is due to non-existence of strength, because that alone is always seated as oneself. [30] “Instead of oneself being, knowing oneself as what” (Ta. “taṉṉai edu eṉḏṟu tāṉ tērndu irādu”), which more literally means “oneself not being, knowing oneself as what”, implies that when we hear the Vedas declare “tat tvam asi” (Sa. “that you are”), which in Tamil is expressed as “adu nī” (Ta. “that is you”), our response should be to investigate what am I and thereby to know and to be what we actually are. That is,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjkyNzgx