Meaning of life

Sat chit and Ananda  or often stated as sachchidananda has a very frequent appearance in Hindu philosophy and religion.

Sat stands for being (that expresses itself in becoming through maya – sambhavami atm-mayaya  – sat unfolds itself and this unfolding is becoming). The consciousness of sat through becoming – because one can only visualise/see/feel, becoming and not the being – leads to bliss, what was described by Arjuna in hrishyami cha muhurmuhuh. Merely awareness of becoming, without a consciousness of being, may not lead to bliss.

Look at some partial glimpses of this sachchidananda. Darwin became conscious of the being expressing itself through the will to survive – to continue – and in so expressing itself taking to various genotypes and phenotypes. Newton became conscious of the being in expressing itself in balancing. 

Every scientist, every philosopher, attempts to be conscious of the being (by studying its becoming) and whenever he gets a glimpse of the being, he experiences bliss, the bliss that brings out a simple smile on his lips. This smile, howsoever momentary, is bliss. For some, this bliss may be long-lasting and for the others it may be extremely short.

Experiencing that bliss, even for a moment, is the meaning of life. Aspire for that blissful moment.

Satyam chara, dharmam chara

Today I will tell you something about ‘satya’, often translated as ‘truth.’

There are well known instances in which one is likely to be confused. For example, Krishna suggests Yudhishthira to speak a lie to get Drona killed. How can the Lord, who is Himself the embodiment of satya and dharma insist on asking someone to speak a lie?

Satya has in fact two meanings, the one that is in currency (rudha) and the other that may be derived from its etymology : the composition of words - sat + ya.

The current, popular, meaning centres on speaking of a thing as it is (known to the speaker). If a speaker knows that ‘something’ is A, telling to others about that ‘something’ to be B while B is at a deviance from A  is speaking a lie, while telling A about that ‘something’ is truth. In this sense, truth is contingent upon being of that ‘something’, ‘knowing’, ‘others’, and speaking. Knowing is a problematic issue. Knowing ultimately becomes believing. I know of something means I believe that such and such thing is correctly associable with ‘something’. Also, one cannot lie to oneself.

The other meaning is related to sustenance (protection) of being and becoming. I am and I am becoming every moment. You are and you are becoming every moment. There are trees and insects and thunder and rain – the entire society and the ecology and the cosmos – and all of them are becoming every moment, evolving every moment. My thought or action towards supporting and sustaining that unfolding is satya and hindering that unfolding is asatya. That is why satya is dharma and dharma is satya.

Then if my speaking A about ‘something’ goes against the said being and becoming, it is not satya indeed. In this sense, satya is not limited to speaking. If I do not speak, but think or do something that goes for or against the said being and becoming, it would be satya or asatya accordingly. Then, not ‘satyam vada, dharmam chara’, but ‘satyam chara, dharmam chara’, because satya and dharma are the one and the same.

How do I know whether my thought or action would support or arrest the said unfolding?

Our prakriti supports that and vikriti makes us deviate from that knowing. All the vikaras (kama, krodha, etc) are the signs of vikriti. To balance these vikaras is to set ourselves to prakriti. That is why ‘yogah chitta vritti nirodhah’. That is what is said in Gita: sthitadhee – ‘nabhinandati, na dweshti’ neither loves nor hates. “dukheshu anudwigna mana, sukheshu vigata spriha’.

To attain the state of a sthitadhee is difficult, but continued practice may lead us towards that.