Gist of Vedanta
Gist of Vedanta It is the nature of man to strive for happiness but all the happiness which he can gain by his actions is only of limited duration. The enjoyments of the senses are transient and the senses themselves are worn out by too much enjoyment; further, sin generally accompanies these enjoyments and makes man unhappy beyond comparison. Even if the pleasures of the world are enjoyed as much as their nature permits, if they are as intense, as various and as uninterrupted as possible, yet old age approaches and with it death. And the enjoyments of heaven are in reality not more enviable than these pleasures of senses; they are of the same nature although more unmixed and durable. Moreover they come to an end; for they are gained by actions and as these latter are finite, their effect must also be finite. In one word there is necessarily an end to all those enjoyments and what avails us to strive for pleasure which we know cannot sustain us beyond the moment of enjoyment. It is therefore in the nature of man to look out for an unchangeable, infinite happiness (Ananta Sukha) which must come from a ‘being’ in which there is no change if such a ‘being’ can be found, it is only from Him that man attains an unalterable happiness and if this be so, this ‘being’ must become the sole object of all his aspirations and actions. This ‘being’ is not very far. He resides in your heart. He is the Sakshi Chaitanya who witnesses the activities of your Buddhi. He is the Nirguna Brahman of the Upanishads who is highly eulogised in a variety of ways by the Rishis and seers of the Upanishads. Whatever it be, it is in reality one. There truly exists only one universal Being called Brahman or Paramatman, the Highest Self. This Being is of an absolutely homogeneous nature (Ekarasa). It is a pure Being or pure intelligence (Chaitanya Jnana). Intelligence is not to be predicated of Brahman as its attributes but it constitutes its substance. It is its Svarupa or essence. Brahman is not a thinking being, but thought itself. He is not all-knowing but knowledge itself (self-knowledge). He is not all-powerful but power itself. He is not all-beautiful but beauty itself. He is Bliss itself. Do you see the difference now? That is termed Svarupa or essence of everything. He is absolutely destitute of qualities; whatever qualities or attributes are conceivable, can only be denied of it. But if nothing exists but one absolutely simple Being, whence the appearance of the world by which we ourselves are surrounded and in which we ourselves exist as individual beings? Brahman is associated with certain power called Maya or Avidya to which the appearance of this world is due. Oh how deep, unfathomable and marvellous is this Maya, the inscrutable (Anirvachaniya) power of Brahman! Every human being, though in essence he is really Brahman, does not though instructed grasp the truth I am Brahman but feels convinced, without any instruction, that he is such a person’s son mistaking for the Atman and is only perceived like a stone or pot. Indeed, these worldly-minded persons wander in this miserable Samsara repeatedly deluded by the Maya of Brahman alone. The idea of Brahman, when judged from the viewpoint of intellect, is an abstraction, but it is concretely real for those who have the direct vision to see it (Aparoksha Anubhuti or Sakshatkara). Therefore, the consciousness of the reality of Brahman has boldly been described to be as real as the consciousness of an Amalaka fruit held in one’s palm. Even intellect can grasp only a little of the Truth. Brahman has positive attributes such as Sat-Chit-Ananda, purity, perfection, Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, etc., They are not really attributes. They are all synonymous terms for Truth or Brahman. Sat-Chit-Ananda also is a mental Kalpana. These are the highest qualifications of Brahman which the human intellect can grasp, generally Brahman is described by negation of qualities such as Nirakara, Nirguna, Nirvikalpa, etc. Are we not driven to take the same course ourselves when a blind man asks for a description of light? Have we not to say in such a case that light has neither sound, nor taste, nor form, nor weight, nor resistance, nor can it be known through the process of analysis? Of course it can be seen but what is the use of saying this to one who has no eyes? He may take the statement on trust without understanding in the least what it means, or may altogether disbelieve it, even suspecting in us some abnormality. Does the truth of the fact that a blind man has missed the perfect development of what should be normal about his eye-sight depend for its proof upon the fact that a large number of men are not blind? The very first creature which suddenly groped into the possession of its eye-sight had the right to assert that the light was reality. In the human world there may be very few who have their spiritual eyes open, but in spite of the numerical preponderance of those who cannot see, their want of vision must not be cited as an evidence of the negation of the light. In the Upanishads we find the note of certainty about the spiritual meaning of existence. In the very paradoxical nature of the assertion that we can never know Brahman but can realise Him there lies the strength of conviction that comes from personal experience (Anubhava). The variety of experience is not real, nay even experience itself is nowhere from the point of view of the Absolute. To lead the life wherein the variety of experience does not affect, either our weal or woe, is the highest practical rule of conduct in accordance with the proper aim of existence. The variety of experience creates distinction and sets up false limits where there exists none. Pain and pleasure, good and









