Unsent Letter #13: Sat-Chit-Ananda

October, 2004

Dear Friend

Why is sat-chit-ananda not the final reality? Because sat-chit-ananda is the manifestation, the reflection of reality, rather than the final reality itself. It is there as long as you are in this body, but what about when the body dies? Then "you" do not remain and sat-chit-ananda is no longer manifest in that form. Of course, there are an infinite number of other forms, so there is no death for sat-chit-ananda. You can think of three levels of "I." "I am a person" is ego. "I am" is knowledge, sat-chit-ananda, which is the seed of duality. "I" is the final reality, which cannot be experienced (who will experience it?)

Sat-chit-ananda is the traditional description of what it is like to experience the reflection of the Self. Consciousness, knowledge, and Brahman are other terms that are used to indicate that state. We may imagine that sat-chit-ananda exists "in itself" somewhere, but that cannot be--sat-chit-ananda can only be experienced in a form. The final reality, of which sat-chit-ananda is the manifest aspect, is formless and stateless, it is beyond the opposites of being and not being, knowledge and ignorance, and joy and sorrow. That reality cannot be known and cannot be experienced. The awareness of one's own existence is itself the fundamental illusion.

You might ask why we bother to make a distinction between final reality and sat-chit-ananda. Surely the unmanifest and its reflection are not separate? This is true, and that is the fundamental teaching of advaita (not-two). However, in our tradition, we use this distinction to point out that any identification with a state, no matter how high, is not real. The manifest consciousness, experienced as "I am," should not be mistaken for its unmanifest source, which is pure subjective "I" without any color of "amness." Everyone is making that mistake, all the time. When the waking state arises in the morning, you may for a time experience the state of just being, without being this or that--consciousness is there but it is not conscious of this or that. Sat-chit-ananda is there, but the "I am a person"-thought has not yet taken hold. That is the closest experience you can have to your own nature. However, it is still just an experience.

You may imagine that you can experience reality, but in fact all experience is indirect, second-hand, a reflection only, because in order for there to be an experience, an "experiencer" must appear. This "experiencer" is the knowledge "I am." It is this constant identification of the Self with the "I am"-knowledge that is the problem of spiritual seeking. Aspirants continue to accumulate more and more knowledge and experience without realizing that knowledge and experience have no relation at all to the reality of their own nature. This is pointed out in many ways in this teaching. Maharaj, for example, spoke disparagingly about"God" and His creation, at the same time pointing out that if you ("I") are not there, God ("I am") cannot appear.

In fact, there is no relation between any experience and the fact of Self-realization, just as there is no relation between time and eternity or light and darkness. They simply cannot exist together. We may make this relation in our thinking, but that is because the human mind is feeble and tends to always divide things into opposites. If you look at sat-chit-ananda, you will see that each of the three component terms has an opposite. Therefore it remains within the realm of duality, of thought, and of experience, and so it is not the final reality.

I hope this is clear,

A.