Q. If consciousness is all pervasive then can we
conclude that inanimate objects like rocks are also conscious, but to a much
lesser degree.
A. That's a good question, and it shows something a
little subtle. In an inert object (Swamiji points to a plastic bottle with
water in it) - we said, consciousness is all pervasive. So, consciousness
pervades my body, my brain. Consciousness pervades me, this individual. This
individual being that you call Swami Tadatamananda. What about this bottle of
water? Consciousness also pervades this bottle of water.
How could you keep consciousness out of an inert object like
a bottle of water or a rock. But here's the issue. Consciousness is present in
me. Consciousness is present in this bottle of water. Is consciousness more
present in me and less present in the water?
It might seem like that. But take the example of space.
Space is all pervasive. Is space more present in some locations and less
present in other locations? Is space more powerful in some places and less powerful
in some places. That doesn't make sense. Space as a fundamental reality has a
certain uniformity to it. Right? Space is uniform. So, if consciousness is a
uniform fundamental reality, the consciousness in me and the consciousness in
this bottle should be identical. Not more present in me and less present in
the bottle, but equally present in me. Equally present in the bottle.
On the other hand, if you call me, ‘hey Swami’, I'll respond
to you. If you say, ‘hey bottle’, the bottle won't respond to you. That's
not due to the presence or absence of consciousness. It's due to the fact
that this this thing (pointing to himself) has a mind and senses and faculties
and this (pointing to the plastic bottle) doesn't.
So there's a fancy word we you talked about it briefly in
the last class- sentiency. Sentiency describes the ability of an organism to
interact with its environment, to respond to its environment, to be aware of
its environment. Because I have a mind and senses, I am a sentient being.
Because this bottle does not have a mind or senses, it is not a sentient being.
On the other hand, consciousness is equally present in in
both. So important to understand the nature of consciousness.
With that in mind, we spoke before, about ‘at the moment of death’. We've said that
there is an entity that leaves the body at the time of death. And that entity is
not atma. I said atma cannot leave a body at the time of death because
it's all pervasive.
If there is a body of a deceased person, is consciousness
present in that dead body or not? Well, consciousness is all pervasive. How
could you keep consciousness out of the dead body? You can't keep
consciousness out of an inert object. You can't keep consciousness out of even
a dead body. That's what we mean when we say consciousness is all
pervasive.
Q. Happiness, sadness and other emotions are defined in Vedanta
as vriitis, as temporary mental
modifications. Why then is atma specifically defined as anandanda? Could you please clarify the distinction between ananda
as our essential nature and happiness as a mental state?
A. Happiness, sadness, etc. they are vrittis. They come and
go. Ananda is usually translated as bliss. (Swamiji says about “Could you please clarify
the distinction between ananda as our essential nature and happiness as a
mental state?) And that's exactly the right question.
There is a distinction between ananda as your essential
nature and happiness as a transient mental state.
We say atma is sat chit ananda - chit
consciousness, sat- real, unborn, uncreated, unchanging and ananda.
And here we have another one of those bits of confusion
based on a word like ‘soul’. Ananda also gets confused because in English we
conventionally translate it as bliss.
And here's the
problem. We only we generally think of bliss as an experience. Right? You have
a blissful experience when you eat your favorite food, maybe your favorite kind
of ice cream.
You have a blissful experience. That blissful experience
takes place in your mind, right? It does. And being a mental event, that blissful
experience in your mind, is revealed or
observed by consciousness.
So why do we say that consciousness is ananda? Blissful
experience belongs to the mind not atma.
So here we deal with one of the tricky language issues. When
we use the word ananda to describe atma, it is such a problem, that when you
read Sanskrit commentaries on various vedanta texts and scriptures ,a
commentator will say satcitananda – ananta. After the word ananda they'll
add the word ananta. Ananta means limitless.
And the commentator will add the word ananta after the word
ananda to make sure that you know that when we say atma is satcitananda, we're not
saying atma is a blissful experience. We're saying that atma is (pause) - you know the English word bliss only
is used for experience. There's a translation problem here. We could say
there is no English equivalent for ananda.
The Sanskrit word ananda has no exact translation.
Of course, it becomes problematic because in Hindi, you know when you have some
nice food and you enjoy it, you say, "Oh, I enjoyed it so much." So
in Hindi, the word anand is used as an experience in vernacular language.
When the word ananda comes in this technical Sanskrit
expression satchitananda atma in that expression ananda does not mean a
blissful experience. So we can't translate it as bliss. Then what word shall we
translate it as? We don't have an exact word for it. But I can give you some
hints.
When, in meditation when your mind becomes perfectly silent
and consciousness alone remains present, atma alone remains present in deep meditation
-that atma present in
deep meditation is satcitananda.
So what is present in deep meditation? That’s conscious and sat. So, sat-chit -unchanging
consciousness, unborn consciousness, eternal consciousness, is present. And
that eternal consciousness is full, complete, content, perfect. These
are words that come close to the meaning of ananda.
Ananda comes close to the English words fullness, completeness,
perfection, contentment. These words come close. No exact translation but
these words come close.
So that ananda is your true nature. We say atma
swarupa -your swarupa means your
essential nature. Atma
svarupa is ananda. Ananda in the sat-chit-ananda, but ananda in the
sense not in the sense of bliss.
Atma svarupa your true nature is ananda in the sense of
being full, in the sense of being complete, in the sense of being perfect, in
the sense of being utterly beyond any kind of suffering.
So this is a language problem. Ananda in the expression such
an atma ananda does cannot be translated as bliss because in English bliss
is an experience but we're talking not about an experience which belongs to
the mind. We're talking about such ananda atma, the experiencer.
