There are three ways to express the absolute brahman. Being (sat). Consciousness (cit). And Boundlessness-bliss (ānanda). These are three ways to contemplate on one and the same truth of myself.

Sat is existence in itself. It is the existence aspect of everything. There is nothing outside this existence. There is only one existence. There is no non-being, no non-existence. Everything is that. Sat is that which makes all three times possible (past, present and future). It is independent, unchanging, without division and without properties.

Existence is not a characteristic of anything. And there is not only one existence, there is only existence, sat. Only existence exists. All forms of existence are names, forms or temporary modes of this pure existence (as ocean waves are expressions or forms of water).

Everything and everyone is this existence. No one knows what it is, everyone is it fully. We do not know what existence is, because everything we perceive, are aware of, and therefore can study, are relatively true expressions of this sat.

This existence is equal to consciousness. To say, 'I exist', I need consciousness. To be conscious, I must exist. The Vedas say: Sat and cit, consciousness are synonymous, one substance. But sat is not emptiness. How can we say that? It is the full existence in which everything comes and goes. You are that (tat tvam asi) without any effort and problem. The effort and the problems appear in it.

Sat and cit are also called anānda, bliss, because they are infinite, the only thing that is. In one who realizes that he or she is that, through correct self-knowledge, all kinds of tensions and difficulties fall away, and this enlightened person tastes glimpses of this bliss. The person's experience is, however, a reflection of this bliss. Sat, cit, ānanda is not a discrete experience. After all, experiences appear to sat, cit ānanda. The enlightened person knows that he is sat, knows the status of the person's experiences, but they do not do anything to him, because she or he is not this person. Experiences become like loose cannons in the funny ceremony of life.

The guṇa that plays an important role in self-realization is a derivative of the word sat, namely sattva. It is the revealing quality of māyā. Which means something like 'being sat'. It is a reflection of the light of sat, like moonlight of sunlight. There are people who are sattvic in their psychosomatic constitution, and think that they are enlightened. This is a pitfall. Enlightenment is not a good feeling. You will undoubtedly feel good, but that is precisely what you are not, haha. However, we do need sattva to be clear and balanced enough to understand the truth of ourselves. So we really have to work on controlling the mind, lifestyle, values, devotion, focus etc.

But the sattva in the apparent person is a guṇa and therefore subtle material energy. It is changeable and transient and dependent on sat. This is what we call mithyā, not real and not unreal. As a discrete, independent phenomenon it is not real, it does not exist on its own, because in reality it is sat. This is what we call satya, a word used in Vedānta to distinguish ontologically (theory of being) what is real and what is relatively real. Mithyā is therefore in reality satya. In reality everything is sat, existence itself.

The nuances and differences between sat, satya and sattva must be understood for complete self-knowledge. Sat as absolute self-knowledge. Satya to be able to distinguish sat from what is dependently real (mithyā): everything that is anything, objects. And sattva to use for a harmonious, neutral mind, to understand the freedom of myself (being sat). Then all knowledge may be let go.

Incidentally, you are not a piece of existence, you are the infinite, free, full existence itself. The apparent power of māyā has made a person appear in a world in you, where your identity (tādātmyam) has been reversed. That is why this message sounds so counterintuitive and unnatural.

But if we look at it more closely, our experience does not make sense. You think, yes, what do you actually think? That you are an I, an ego, but you cannot put your finger on it exactly. It has something to do with a connection with this body. And if you are a seeker, you are looking for something outside of you, a dimension, a god. But it is exactly the other way around. You are the attribute-less, property-less whole, call it brahman, god, and what you think you are is just a transient object. This is to be understood, 'to be seen as a seer'. Sat being, existence itself, shining as consciousness, is effortless and actionless.

Language too, the syntax of grammar of māyā and therefore of people, has turned everything upside down, hence the confusion of living beings who think that they are a part of existence, or that they possess a specific existence, because appearance seems to be organized in this way. But no one is a part. Only the whole is. And the whole is not divided in reality either, so I cannot be a part.

When I say: 'My body is', it seems as if the body has an individual existence. But it would be more correct to say: 'Sat, is-ness bodies'. 'The world is', then becomes: 'is-ness worlds'. 'A person exists', then becomes: 'existence persons' (temporary and apparent, not real). Hopefully this is reassuring, because this also applies to tyrants: 'Sat, that which is always still and peaceful, tyrants (even)'. The same goes for saints: 'Saints are not. Is-ness saints'. For suffering, it applies: 'Being seems to suffer, but does not suffer really. Being is pure. It actually applies to everything; it applies to every object: 'a table is' becomes 'being tables'.

Almost all people think exactly the wrong way around. I think I am a person who is looking for the fulfillment of spirituality. It is the other way around: Spirituality (existence in itself) seems to have temporarily appeared in the form of a person. And has apparently lost itself in ignorance. Why do people have a craving for spirituality? They are what they lack, they are themselves.

When one says: ‘I am spiritual’, or ‘She is a spiritual person’, does one mean: Of the spiritual type? Or when one says: ‘I have a spiritual interest’. Yes of course I have a spiritual interest, because I am the spirit! If I were not interested in myself, I might as well stop. But that is the whole point. I cannot stop at all. Everyone is the one infinite spirit, sat cit anānda, in which life and death appear. Existence without beginning or end ‘just is’ (sādhāraṇa). It cannot be divided into different (bedha) types.

For example, if I commit suicide, nothing really changes. There will apparently be a struggle through, in a new life. It is like a computer game that I end prematurely, in the hope that it will go better next time. 'Relieved of its suffering'. Something else is needed for that, which is available here and now: Complete and correct self-knowledge.

There is nothing to give up, that is the whole point. You are all of it forever and ever. That is why Vedānta first explains with the puruṣārthas, the human goals, why a person is a dissatisfied seeker. We are dissatisfied because we think that we are not complete and perfect. And then we search, usually with wrong strategies, which only pump up the misunderstanding because the ego feeds on possessions, desires and fears. The more we search for security, the more unsafe we ​​feel.

Furthermore: Pure existence, existence itself, is intrinsically formless, and has no limit. It is therefore all knowledge, all possibilities. Albeit in a pure form. The pure intelligence, can manifest infinite forms, without changing itself. Because it is unlimited (ananta), it is nothing but cit, pure consciousness.

Being and consciousness are synonyms. One conscious being, brahman. Consciousness is, and being is consciousness. From the perspective of jīva, the living being: To know (to be aware) that I exist, I must first be there. To be there, I must be aware that I am. Being conscious and being conscious cancel each other out in sat.