I recorded this episode a couple of weeks ago while sitting in the middle of a vast courtyard opening out from a cathedral in an old Roman city in western Germany near France and Luxembourg. It was a bright and gently warm Saturday evening. The technical quality is imperfect because I was surrounded by tourists, passersby, and townspeople enjoying the mild weather. There are gaps in the recording when I stopped recording because people began talking near me. The style is informal, unlike my written style, but this approach encourages creative sparks of intuition. Below is an edited version of this podcast episode. There may be still some imperfections in it, despite multiple readings, but that shows that it was not written by AI! It’s a luminous evening in Trier, and I’m sitting on a bench while gazing up at the Dom, or the Cathedral of St. Peter, which lies at the heart of this ancient Roman city in western Germany. The townspeople and tourists are passing the evening in the European manner of promenading through the streets, enjoying ice cream, heading to restaurants, or, sitting, like me, taking in the sunlight after a long winter. The massive Romanesque church rising above me evokes a delightful sense of uplift and exaltation, making my seat here a suitable setting for raising ontological and metaphysical issues. In this essay, I want to write about a number of concepts that are central to the Upaniṣads and Vedānta. I’m not writing as a scholar of the Upaniṣads, an Indologist, or an advocate of a Vedāntic school. Instead, I utilize concepts from the Vedāntic schools to express the contemplative and ontological contemplative vision that I have been articulating in my books. These concepts are old friends, and I have been working with them, meditating upon them, and contemplating their significance since I first began to read the Upaniṣads and the Bhagavad-gītā almost almost sixty years ago. They evoke contemplative, ontological, and mystical intuitions left untapped for me by Latin, Greek, and English terms. The word Brahman has far more resonance for me than the word being, although it is an evocative term in English. This contemplative ontology is based not on the exegesis of a specific philosophical tradition, either in India or in the West but on my own contemplative experience with these concepts. Not merely guided or shaped by reading the Upaniṣads and the study of Vedānta, it has been evoked by the ontological insights coded into their venerable teachings and narratives. We can subject Vedāntic concepts to conceptual analysis, which is a venerable academic approach. But if we approach them contemplatively with a disciplined and purified consciousness, they can evoke a vision of ultimate reality and its attributes. This is the gift of a contemplative metaphysics and a contemplative ontology, which I broached in my last book, Reviving Intellectual Intuition in Metaphysics (Bloomsbury, 2024) and which I plan to expand in a later book called The Generosity of Being. A classic Vedāntic definition of Brahman characterizes it as having the three cardinal features, or attributes, of sat, cit, and ānanda. (In more proper Sanskrit that is saccidānanda.) Although it’s a canonical expression in Vedānta, this formula first appears in the Tejobindu Upaniṣad instead of the earlier classical Upaniṣads. In a later essay, I’ll compare it with an older formulation of Brahman as satyam, jñānam, and anantam, which occurs in the classical Taittirīya Upaniṣad. (In the European Scholastic system, these universal attributes of whatever is or exists would be known as transcendentals.) Sat is being itself and indicates the real and the true. As sat, Brahman is the bedrock reality of whatever subsists or exists. As being itself, nothing subsists or exists outside of sat. Sat grounds and guarantees the truth of true statements and genuine experiences. Sat is Brahman, or being, expressing itself in the ontological hierarchy of physical existence, mental and subtle (prāṇic) experience, and the subsistent hypostases of the formal and ideal realm of the intellect. Cit is usually translated as “consciousness,” but this wan word captures little of the plenitude of experience that occurs in cit. Over the last century and a half starting with Brentano, Western philosophy has asserted that all consciousness is intentional—that every state of consciousness has an intentional object. This conception of consciousness is richer than bare awareness but it introduces an insuperable divide between a mental intention, or representation, and its object, whether internal or external to the mind. On this approach, consciousness is always divided into an intending subject and its mental objects. Consciousness is always about something that a subject intends or points toward mentally. To avoid this necessarily dualistic conception of consciousness, contemporary spiritualities that posit pure, undivided, objectless consciousness as ultimately real replace the word consciousness with awareness. Contrary to Brentano’s intentional consciousness and the rich contents of phenomenological elaborations of consciousness, awareness on this approach is what remains when everything has been eliminated from consciousness except the bare registration of uninflected awareness. But there is far more to consciousness than the mindful registration of events such as my sitting at this table and writing while being surrounded by people. The third term, ānanda, which usually translates as “bliss,” seems the easiest to translate, although there is far more to ānanda than this overused translation suggests. Ānanda is not just ordinary happiness; it’s complete and unsullied bliss. It is supreme happiness. I’ll have more to say about it later. As being itself, or absolute reality, Brahman is the fullness of reality. The Sanskrit word for the fullness of being is pūrṇam, which implies that nothing that subsists or exists stands apart from Brahman. That is the sat aspect or Brahman. The aspect of cit suggests that Brahman is not only the real, or the ontological foundation or bedrock, of what subsists and exists, it is also conscious. It’s aware. These nonduality of Brahman implies that wherever there is being, or sat, there is consciousness, or cit. Conversely, wherever there is consciousness, there is being. These are convertible terms. You can’t have the one without the other. The conception of saccidānanda not only suggests this coincidence of transcendental attributes in Brahman, it necessarily implies them as well. This is an example of a priori metaphysics, which Hume, were he still among us, would cast into the fire. Contrary to Hume, I contend that an a priori metaphysics is what we’re lacking. We’re unable to construct a grounding ontology that unifies the totality of knowledge, being, and existence without recourse to an a priori approach in metaphysics. An a priori metaphysics is not merely grounded in conceptual analysis, nor is it merely a logical operation. Instead, it charts, designates, and symbolizes the fundamental structure of being. Because being precedes and undergirds everything else, an a priori analysis of the concept of being deduces the necessary undergirding structure of whatever subsists ontologically and exists physically as their realizations. This view implies that logic is ontology and that ontology is logic, a view famously associated with Hegel. In a priori metaphysical thinking that has not been stunted by Kantian transcendentalism or by the linguistic turn, the analysis of an ontologically grounding concept like being is also an analysis of a way that being presents itself. Because being as such precedes, or grounds, whatever subsists or exists, it’s impossible to do ontology except as an a priori exercise of the intutive intellect. Ontology and metaphysics are not inductive sciences. They are not empirical. They uncover and articulate the categories that ground experience and that make empirical research possible. Now, to return to ānanda, Brahman’s third cardinal and transcendental attribute. As such ānanda is also convertible with being and consciousness. So, wherever there’s being, there’s not only consciousness, or awareness, there’s also bliss. Conversely, wherever there’s bliss, there’s also consciousness and being. Looked at from the standpoint of ānanda, it’s logical and not at all controversial to hold that, as in the case of sat and cit, wherever there’s bliss, there’s also consciousness and being. But here we hit a sticking point. One might object at this point that an a priori metaphysics that depends upon the analysis of the concept of being, or Brahman, as being constituted of saccidānanda, fails for two reasons. First, the claim that where there is being, there is consciousness fails because we’re not conscious when we sleep. Second, the claim that where there is being, there is bliss fails because no one is always blissful. We live in a world where there is much woe, suffering and misery existing alongside much beauty, truth, and goodness. There’s too much suffering and pain in the world for anyone to countenance an a priori claim that where there is being, there is also bliss. If I were approaching the meaning of saccidānanda from the standpoint of an empirical, or scientific, metaphysics, this would be the place where I would have to abandon that project. There are a number of ways of dealing with these objections. Buddhists claim over against Advaita Vedānta that consciousness is, like everything else, anitya, or impermanent. It comes and goes. When we fall into deep sleep, consciousness disappears. Some consciousness remains while we’re dreaming, but in deep sleep, we’re completely unconscious. The traditional retort of Advaita Vedānta is that when we wake up, we yawn, and happily exclaim, “I slept well and