Adi Shankaracharya: Hinduism's Greatest Thinker

by Pavan K. Varma

Quite to the contrary, therefore, Shankara’s Brahman is positivity itself, pure being, characterised by existence (sat), consciousness chitta and bliss (ananda): satchittananda. To some this may appear contradictory. If, on the one hand, you say that Brahman is inexpressible and indefinable, how can you then ascribe to it such expressly defined features? Shankara gives a twofold answer. Firstly, these features are inferred from what Brahman is not. It is not non-existent, so it is sat, existence par excellence, unchanging through all the kalas (periods of time); it is not devoid of consciousness, so it is chitta, pure consciousness, the nature of absolute knowledge; and, it is not of the nature of distress, so it is ananda, bliss supreme, the nature of absolute happiness. Secondly, the being of Brahman is experiential, not intellectual. The cognitive process, where the mind intervenes, can teach us intellectually about Brahman, but cannot provide the sublime experiential moment, where thought ceases and intuition takes over. We shall discuss this process in greater detail later, but suffice it to say at this stage that for Shankara, Brahman was absolute plenitude, a fullness that, once experienced, leaves an individual in no doubt about the certainty of its being.

Shankara’s explanation on Brahman and the contradiction, Look at the prefixing with not. That is neti neti Shankara has taken the pains tonexplain so much instead we are more enraptured to divinity and miracles. None of these like satchitananda, tat tvam asi is being told or if it is it is lost in all the ritualism