Vedantic Understanding and Connotation of God

Swami Sarvapriyananda

I recently watched the video of Swami Sarvapriyananda ( a sanyasi of the Ramakrishna Order and Minister-in-Charge of Vedanta Society), uploaded by Vivekananda Samity IIT Kanpur. He had talked about understanding God and referred Vedanta to define God. Throughout the history of civilization we are trying to figure out God, irrespective of our believe in God or not. How do we call or name God is the phenomenal question in our mind. We haunt for the answer and ended up to blind faith or in sheer vagueness. Let me go straight to the Swami Sarvapriyananda's beautiful and elaborate analysis of Vedanta in terms of defining God.

Brahman the term is used in Vedanta to explain God

 

Photo by Aziz Acharki on Unsplash

 

Through primordial nescience (Maya) is regarded as the cause of the universe - is defined as Saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes), which is a near meaning or equivalent to the term 'God' . The term is used widely in theistic religions. But a higher and more profound conception of Brahman is Nirguna Brahman, the Absolute, Brahman without attributes. In Patanjali's Yoga Aphorism also, the Samadhi is explained as Savitarka Samadhi (intense concentration with deliberation) and Nirvitarka Samadhi (intense concentration without deliberation). The Sutra I 44 explains that

When the object of concentration is a subtle object, two kinds of samadhi, called savichara (refective) and nirvichara (super reflective) may be distinguished in the same manner

Swami Sarvapriyananda emphasizes, in Vedanta , the perfect definition of Brahman would be 'silence'  Maunam Bakhyanam , the teaching in silence is the evocative phrase used by

Shankarachaya

Shankaracharya in his Dakhsinamurthy Stotram. However, this approach can be misunderstood for most of us until we study and understand Vedanta Philosophy.

The definition that is to be considered here is not only far from vague but has also survived as one of the finest and most systematic of all definitions of God across Eastern and Western religions and philosophies. It is also exemplifies a fine balance, in philosophical knowledge, of profundity and clarity, of abstract logic and immediate spiritual experience.

The subject is itself prolonged and sustained argumentative but he tried to make us intellectually understood what is said but also to experimentally satisfy ourselves that it is true.
Three steps have been set for us to approach for understand the unique definition. Such as

• First - we should be able to repeat to ourselves whatever is taught, ensuring a close familiarity with the text itself. Memorization of the original Upanishadic texts is a good way to accomplish this.

• Second - we should try to intellectually grasp it and strive for clarity and comprehension.

• Third - this requires intense focus so that we should be able to feel its actuality and see it as a living reality.

It involves our understanding , step-by-step through reason and logic and feeling. However the question remains - can we experience God in reality and not just in faith or conceptualization? Vedanta declares that this is possible as the self is in essence, identical with God. The definition of God in Vedanta is actually a definition of our true nature (which is always experienced within ourselves).

Reference from the Taittiriya Upanishad 

Taittiriya Upanishad is one of the ten principal Upanishads, is found in Krishna Yayur Veda, The second chapter Brahamananda Valli states Brahmavidapnoti Param (Brahmavit Param Aapnoti) (II I 1). It means that

the knower of Brahman attains the highest

It is a statement in brief of the purport of the whole Upanishad. The idea involved in quoting a Rg-mantra with the words  Tad esa abhyukta - here is a verse uttering that very fact are as

Firstly it is sought to determine the true nature of Brahman through the presentation of a definition that is capable of indicating the totally free intrinsic nature of that very Brahman which was briefly referred to as a knowable entity in the sentence 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' but of which any distinct feature remained undermined.

Secondly the knowledge of the Brahman having been spoken earlier in an indefinite way , it is now sought to make that very Brahman, whose definition is going to be stated, realizable specifically as non-different from one's own indwelling Self.

And lastly the idea is to demonstrate that the attainment of supreme Brahman by a knower of Brahman - which (attainment) is spoken of as the result of realization of Brahman - is really nothing but identity with the Self of all, which is Brahman itself transcending all worldly attributes. Tat , with regard to what has been said by the brahmana portion (of the Upanishad; esa this Rg (mantra) ; is abhyukta . uttered--   

When broken down , it implies that

• There is something called Brahman
• It is possible to know Brahman
• By knowing Brahman we attain 'the highest

        

Definition of Brahman

By now it is clear that to know Brahman and attain the highest we must know the definition of Brahman. The Taittiriya Upanishad have an answer to the question 'What is Brahman?' with this statement

Satyam Jnanamanatam Brahma

 -  Brahman is Reality-knowledge-Infinity - is meant as definition of Brahman.

Sanskrit word Brahman derives from the root Brh meaning 'to swell' , 'expand', 'grow; or 'enlarge' . It simply means that which is vast.  It is not a qualifying word, that is, it does not qualify something else as vast.      
      

Photo by Iker Urteaga on Unsplash

When we just say vast without qualifying it or without it qualifying anything else, we are referring not to something which is vast but vastness or infinity itself. Therefore as we have derived it from its literal meaning, Brahman means infinity or anantam. Anamtam can be broken as na antam . Antam means limit. Na antam would, therefore, refer to the state of limitlessness. Brahman is limitlessness.

Anantam : The Limitless

Before we talk about the significance of limitlessness we need to understand what is limit. In Vedanta, there are three kind of limits. Something is limited or finite if it is bound by
Space (desa)
Time (Kala)
Object-ness (vastu)

If Brahman is truly infinite; Brahman has no limits or is not bound by space, time and object-ness. In Vedantic terms, this expressed as
Desa Pariccheda Sunyam - No limits in terms of space or Omnipresent
Kala Pariccheda Sunyam - No limits in terms of  time or Nityam or Eternal.
Vastu Pariccheda Sunyam - No limits in terms of object-ness or in terms of its relation to other object, hence non-dual.

Swami Sarvapriyananda advises to think carefully here to understand the analogy. All objects, as we perceive them, are located in space and bound by the limits of  their own spatial dimensions. So everything has a limit in terms of  space. This is called Desa Pariccheda. Pariccheda means 'limiting' or 'cutting'. So the way we normally perceive things is as if they are cut apart from each other, separate from each other in their precise locations in space. It is by virtue of this locatedness that we perceive their individuality and this individuality is not only defined by their own attributes but also determined by their inter-relatedness, with other objects surrounding them.
Now, logically, if Brahman is not limited in space, it means that there is no space (or location) where Brahman is not. In other words, Brahman is sarvavyapi or omnipresent. If there are no limits in space for Brahman , it is all pervading.       

Kala Pariccheda means limits in time, the temporal limits of the existence of something. Every object we know of , every entity, has a beginning and end in time. There is time of creation and destruction or birth and death.
The Bhagvad Gita (2.27) says 

jatasya hi dhruba mrtyur dhruvam janma mrtasya ca tasmad apariharye 'rthe na tvam socitum arhasi 

- meaning For one who has taken his birth, death is certain; and for one who is dead, birth is certain. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

In between the birth and death the entity exists. Before birth it did not exist and after death it will not exit. Every entity we know from ant to stars and galaxies, have a beginning and an end.

In the context, let us suppose something does not have any beginning and end. It will mean that it does not have any limitation in time. Then what does it imply? It means that it always remains. If Brahman is unlimited in time, then there was no time that Brahman was not, and there will be no time when Brahman will not be. So, in all three periods of time - past, present and future - Brahman exists. Brahman has no beginning and no end. Now argument may come that a non-existent entity also has neither a beginning nor an end. But the answer is , here we are speaking about Brahman as a positive entity, which has no limitation in time. What would that imply? No time limit or Kala would imply that it is Eternal or Nityam.

Vastu Pariccheda , the final kind of limitation is vastu. Vastu means object. All the things we see in front of us or around us are objects or vastu. One may even extend it to abstract entities such as numbers, which are also objects of some sort. But how are objects a limitation? If we have a book in our hand, then there are many things that it is not. Because it is a book, it is not a table or something else- it is only a book and whatever comes under the connotation of book will be included and whatever is not a book, is excluded from the identity of a book. It is another way of saying, that a thing is only itself and nothing else. This is called Vastu Pariccheda. Every entity has this, for without this there is no identity.

Now, the definition claims that Brahman being anantam, must be Vastu Pariccheda Sunyam, i.e. not limited to being any particular entity. What does such a claim entail? If something is not limited to being any particular vastu, it means that there is no vastu or entity separate from it. No entity separate from Brahman would mean that there is no second entity apart from Brahman. Whatever is, cannot be apart from Brahman. 'No second' translates directly as 'non-dual'. Non-duality is called advaitam in Sanskrit. Hence Brahman is advaitam.

The small term Anantam packs so much meaning!  Brahman or God , which we are defining, is omnipresent, eternal and non-dual (sarvavyapi, nityam, advaitam) . There is no space where Brahman is not, there is no time when it does not exist and there is nothing apart from it.

Satyam : Existence Absolute 

There may be series of  questions arise that we have only defined a concept, but is there really such an infinite entity? Is this not just a philosophical abstraction? Moreover, we have put ourselves in a trap because if we say that Brahman is all pervasive or sarvavyapi, then it must be everywhere. If it is everywhere then it must in front of us. But when we look around, we don't find Brahman. So how can we find Brahman right in front of us? We have said Brahman is nityam. not limited in time. If it is in all periods of time, there it should be here right now. So how can we find Brahman right now? We have also said that Brahman is advaitam, non-dual, and there is no entity apart from Brahman. If Brahman is not different from any object, then we should be able to find Brahman in any object. How do we find this out?
   

If we think carefully, what we see in front of us appears to be real or satyam - it exists. So, a piece of paper exists, a table exists, a human being exists, the planet exists, and so on. The term satyam applies to all these entities. So, the question is, are these ordinary objects or Brahman?

The problem is none of these are anantam. Let's take a piece of paper. Is it limitless in time? Not at all, it has a point of creation and a point in destruction. Is it limitless in terms of object? Again, not at all. There are millions of entities that are different from it. It is not at all non-dual. Yet the Upanishads say that satyam is Brahman, Now we have a consideration. What we normally consider as satyam has limitations. But Upanishads insist that Brahman is both satyam and anantam. How do we resolve this glaring consideration?

Lakshana - the implied meaning

When faced with such language, where two terms are used, whose meaning mutually contradict each other, Vedanta resorts to the use of lakhsana or implied meaning. What is meant by 'implied meaning'?

Photo by Madhu Shesharam on Unsplash

Let us assume that one purchases a mango and then proceeds to eat mango. Point to note that the two different senses in which the word 'mango' is used. First when we say the person purchased the mango, we mean he purchased the whole mango, but next, when we say he ate the mango, we immediately understand that he ate the edible portion of the mango. He obviously did not eat the seed and the skin of the mango. The primary meaning of the word 'mango' is the whole fruit and then depending on the context, we use a secondary or implied meaning, whereby by 'mango' we mean only the edible portion of the fruit. We often use language in this way to our daily usage.

So we all understand that when we mention something, depending upon the situation we sometimes mean the whole entity and sometimes a part of that entity.

There are different types of lakshana, different types of implied meaning. What can we do with the contradictory terms satyam and anantam? What we need here is something that is satyam and at the same time anantam -  something that is real and at the same time limitless. It has to be all-pervading, it must be eternal and there should be nothing that exists apart from it. Let us take a close look at the entities we call satyam, real. Whichever entity we regard as satyam, we acknowledge that it definitely exists. Now, 'Existence' is common to all of them. So we take 'existence' or 'is-ness' . Where do we find this 'existence'?  From each and every experience we have. Everything is experienced as existing. 'Paper is'. Do we feel the paper is not? Then we will not see the paper. When we say, 'paper is' there is a sense of asttitva or existence.

Considering a place having two hundreds chairs made of plastic. By counting the chairs, we get 200 entities. But if we count the plastic, the material from which these two hundred chairs are made, there is only one entity which is plastic. In the same way, whenever we have an experience of anything that exists, that is real, we have two experiences - the thing itself and its existence. The entities are different- paper, book , animals, man, woman etc. are different entities- but 'existence' is common to them all. Can we not regard 'existence' as the reality with the name and form of a paper, book, animals, man, woman and so on?
      
We can think of it as one ocean of existence in which the paper, the book, the animals are all waves. The waves are different, with different forms, but there is one continuous mass of water where these individual waves exist. Would it be correct to say that water is in the wave or the wave is in the water? All waves are nothing but water. Whenever we see the waves, we see waves and water, but more precisely, it is water which appears as the waves. The waves are in the water. According to the Vedantic way of thinking 'existence' is the only reality. Instead of saying, entities have existence. Vedanta would say Existence appears as various entities with different forms and names.

Like water appearing as waves, Existence is appearing as every existing object in the universe. Now this Existence has no limit. Is there any time, is there any space that Existence is not? If we say that space and time are real, then it is. Existence which lends them reality. Existence must be there for any reality to be predicted.             

Thus Existence is not limited to object. Anything that is, must have Existence. Is there any object apart from Existence? Is there any entity apart from Existence? Logically speaking, anything that is separated from Existence immediately becomes non-existent. If we separate Existence from a book, the book will immediately disappear. If we remove the water from a wave, the wave will immediately disappear. Nothing will be left. We need to extend that understanding to the abstract concept of Existence. If we change our way of thinking, we can see that instead of things having existence, it is Existence, that appears as different things.

Existence can be appreciated only with a form and a name. So all these names and forms that religions have come up with are all true as manifestations of Existence or Sat. So Existence Itself has no limitation in time, space and object.

We normally think of Existence as a property. But, Existence cannot be a property. Properties distinguish objects from one another. For example, the property of a white flower distinguishes it from a red flower. But Existence does not differentiate between objects like this. Each and every one of the  objects in the world exists. If we add a supposed property of existence to the description of an object, it does not change anything except to add a redundancy.

Brahman is pure Existence. According to the Bhagavad Gita :
 

nasato vidyate bhavo nabhavo vidyate satah 
ubhayor api drsto 'ntas tv anayos tattva-darsibhih

'The unreal has no existence; the real never ceases to be. The truth about both has been realized by the seers.'

The Gita affirms that, that which is unreal, never comes into existence and that which is real, never goes out of existence. In his commentary on this verse, Shankaracharya says that in all our perceptions, we experience two things as one. We experience the thing (as name and form) and its existence. But, we mistake it as one experience. Actually, there are two experiences. When we say, 'I see a book', Vedanta says, 'No, you are seeing "Book is"'. There is the experience of the name and form of 'book' and also the experience of existence, 'is-ness'.

If we deeply contemplate on existence everywhere, we will feel that we are in an ocean of existence. All the objects around us will appear to be waves in an ocean of existence; chair, table, man, woman, the sky and the earth - these are waves in the ocean of existence. If we contemplate in this manner , we will intuitively feel this ocean of Existence to be our own Existence. Sat or pure Existence is our own existence; the object seems to be out there, but its existence is actually borrowed from us.

I exist.  The whole world is imbued with existence borrowed from me

In Sanskrit, the name for this pure Existence , the 'is-ness' is Sat or pure Existence. All the things we see are names and forms. The book we see is the book name and form plus existence. So, these are compound  entities.

This Sat has no limitation in time, space and object. It is anantam , limitless.

Jnanam : Knowledge Absolute

We can now consider Jnanam, the next term in the definition of Brahman. The Upanishad insists Jnanam Brahma, Knowledge is Brahman. What is meant by knowledge? Any knowledge that we have, any kind of conscious experience that we have is jnanam.

Now is this Jnanam, Brahman? It cannot be  Brahman because all these experiences are definitely not anantam. None of them are all-pervasive. None of these experiences are eternal, none are unlimited in time; these are fleeting experiences that come and go. Every experience is different from every other experience. One sees something and one hears something. These two experiences are distinct from from one another.
There is Vastu Pariccheda
There is Kala Praiccheda
and There is Desa Pariccheda
in each and every jnanam.- so jnanam is not anantam. Yet, the Upanishad insists jnanam  is Brahman, which means it has to be anantam. Again we have a contradiction.       

To resolve this contradiction, we need something in jnanam which is anantam, So we will have to take recourse to an implied meaning , lakshana. What is common to all experiences, all jnanam ?

First, we must understand what happens when we experience anything. Let us take the example of hearing a sound. Sound travels in waves to our ears, where vibrations are converted into nervous  impulses, which then travel to the brain. In the brain, the nervous impulses are somehow converted into mental vrittis which are then illuminated by consciousness. This gives us the first person experience of sound. So jnanam is actually a vritti, a mental modification plus consciousness.
So Jnanam of a thought = vritti (mental modification) about the thought + consciousness.

In Vidyaranya Swami's Panchadasi , we find

the objects of sense knowledge (sound, sight, taste, touch and smell) that are perceived in waking state differ from each other, but consciousness of these is one.

What we see, what we touch, what we smell, and what we hear, are all different from each other. The objects are different from each other, experiences are different from each other, and vrittis too differ from each other, but the consciousness which illumines them all is not different. It is one and the same. That consciousness is unlimited - it is anantam. In what sense is consciousness not limited in space? In all experiences, consciousness must be there. Without consciousness, there can be no experience. With respect to kala or time, consciousness is present at all times and is unlimited in time. In all our waking life, dream life and even in deep sleep, consciousness alone enables all experience. There must be consciousness even in deep sleep, which experiences the blackness and restfulness of deep sleep.

How is consciousness not limited by vastu?
No or object , can be experienced apart from consciousness. As far as experience is concerned, consciousness is non-dual. Consciousness itself is unlimited in space and unlimited by any particular experience of any particular object. So it is

Desha-Kala-Vastu Pariccheda Sunyam

So, it is anantam and fits with definition of anantam Brahma. In Vedanta, this unlimited
consciousness is known as Chit.

Thus, Sat and Chit, pure Existence and pure Consciousness, is Brahman. It is also intimately felt as our own reality. It is what we are. Satyam Jnanam Anantam is Brahman and we are in reality, this very same Brahman.     

Brahman as Infinite Existence Consciousness

We come to the understanding that the definition of Brahman according to the Upanishads is Sat Chit Anantam - unlimited Existence and unlimited Consciousness. At this point, one must also consider, ananda, bliss. It is common to speak of Brahman as Sat-Chit-Ananda - Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. The Taittiriya Upanishad has separately considered the question of Brahman as ananda in some detail, so ananda is not explicitly mentioned in this definition. However, we may note that anantam is itself ananda - limitlessness, infinitude, beyond suffering, is real bliss.
  

Swami Vivekananda

Swami Vivekananda defined Brahman as Existence-Absolute, Knowledge-Absolute and Existence-Absolute. Not that God or Brahman exists, It is Existence Itself. Not that Brahman knows something, It is Knowledge Itself. Not that Brahman is happy, It is Bliss Itself.

Where is Brahman? The question should actually be - where is it not? The question is not, 'How can I experience it?', the question should be 'How can I not experience it?' Swami Ashokananda once said,

If someone asks what is proof of the existence of God? The answer would be that it is foolish question. Every experience proves the existence of this God.

If we learn to see experiences through the lens of this definition, then every experience is God-experience !

The Isha Upanishad proclaims :

One who perceives in the Atman everything , and in the same way Atman in everything , does not hate

When to the man of realization  all beings become the very Self, then what delusion and what sorrow can there be for that seer of oneness?

Conclusion

I see myself in all beings and I see all beings in me. If I am Existence and Consciousness, I must be there in everything. It has to be true otherwise these things would not exist. I am there in every experience. I become one with the universe. This the fulfillment of all human goals and aspirations. This is the attainment of supreme bliss and transcendence of suffering.


As you are still here, I would recommend you to see the Video of Swami Sarvapriyananda , which will take you to the absolute understanding of God.