[Advaita-l] Sat-cit-ananda OR Sat-cit-aananda

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 5:35 AM Mahadevan Iyer via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Pranams,
>
> 1. Is it wrong to interpret "Saccidānanda" as Sat, Cit & Ananda instead of
> Sat, Cit & Aananda?
>

What difference do you see between the two interpretations, excepting the
extra 'a' which does not add anything to the absence of the extra a?

>
> 2. Saccidānanda is said to be the description of Brahman. If that is true,
> from whose perspective is this being said?
>

Actually Saccidananda is jiva's svarupa as well. Aatman is sat, existence,
chit, consciousness and ananda, bliss.

>
> 3. Does the very idea of Brahman depends upon the perspective of a Jiva?
>

No. Brahman alone exists.

>
> 4. If not, then Why can't Truth be both Non-dual & Dual at the same time?
>

Brahman alone is the Truth, non-dual. Jiva/jivatva is due to ignorance that
Infinite Brahman alone exists. When this truth is known, there is no longer
an entity called jiva.

regards
subbu



> Mahadevan Iyer
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>