Video 17

Ask Swami with Swami Sarvapriyananda | June 28th, 2020

[Music] you [Music] Oh assert oma saga Maya Thomas oh ma Jyoti gamma written written gamma shanti shanti shanti Oh leaders from the unreal to the real leaders from darkness unto light leaders from death to immortality all these so I'll request Diane to read out the questions the first question is from Ron Johnny our I have been reading about Vedanta for the last 15 years while the Vedanta teachings resonate with modern psychology and modern physics I've been unable to draw from the teachings for a sociological understanding of the human condition the subject of inquiry is the self but what is its relation to the society while one inhabits the body and this world how our ideas of justice and equality contemplated in Vedanta many explain away the injustice is in the world through notions of Maya or Karma but that seems to me to be lacking compassion and empathy what is this impulse of justice and what is its place in the pursuit of truth how does one grapple with such high philosophy and scriptures that also condone caste or gender based violence must they be seen as individual human actors acting from a place of pain or weakness alone when there are social or cultural basis for them is there something in between the microcosm and the macrocosm the individual and cosmic self that might shed light on a social and political predicaments that our world faces yes that's a very good question actually it relates to suffering as we find it especially in society through the centuries so what does Vedanta have to say about that why they don't alone all spiritual systems are actually about this though you may think that it's about some personal quest for nirvana for enlightenment what about the injustice in society what about poverty and inequalities and gender-based discrimination caste and race based discrimination what about all that what does Madonna have to say about that did they seems to be a disconnect but there actually isn't the whole purpose of Vedanta is to overcome suffering and in suffering Vedanta does not make a discrimination that it has to be only my personal particular kind of suffering and there are other kinds of suffering which we are not dealing with no suffering as a whole the buddha the buddha's case is very clear why did the prince renounce his luxurious life and go over in quest of what the truth or whatever it is but what would be what is the purpose of it what was the goal of it the goal was overcoming suffering and note the prince siddhartha was not in suffering it had a pretty good life actually but he saw the pervasive nature of suffering that everybody suffers all people old age and and sickness and death and that one day it would affect him too so if his quest was to overcome suffering in its most general form and that is the quest of all spirituality the Sankhya system Swami Vivekananda calls it the oldest philosophy of humanity the Sankhya system starts Sankhya sutra Sankyo karika of issuer krishna the first carica the first verse starts with that there is a quest to overcome suffering afflicted by the threefold suffering humanity sets out in a quest for overcoming suffering and very soon noticing that the worldly means of overcoming suffering and not working then there is the quest a spiritual quest for were coming suffering I can't put it any better than that Duke atreya we gotta die Haase top exotic I hate oh this tastes our part our Jade that means when you realize that all the obvious means of overcoming suffering medicine for illness and if you're bored there is TV and if so all the worldly means of overcoming suffering Atlantica Atlantica I can't think of how odd that there is no there is no ultimate solution for suffering in all of these ways then the spiritual quest starts so the spiritual quest in whatever language in whatever mythology sometimes it is in the language of myth and sometimes it's in the highest very sophisticated philosophy but the purpose is always the same to overcome suffering now down to the specific question in a response of eight Vedanta to systemic suffering injustice suffering caused by systemic problems by systemic problems what she has pointed out is for example the in a discrimination based on race persecution based on gender and inequalities gender and poverty so all of these things which are not just personal they are pervasive in society they are problems which have developed over centuries in society and it become endemic to society and religions one must not evade this your sweep it under the carpet religions also have internalized these structures religions are also organizations they are part of society so they also internalize these existing in Justices in society and these things have to be looted out so are we to as she says explain it away as karma or as sin or as Maya or are we to deal with it squarely so vedantic responds to this kind of suffering systemic suffering you find in Swami Vivekananda for example Swami Vivekananda was most severe in his criticism of of caste-based discrimination the discrimination against women he said the downfall of India is due to two great national sins one is the neglect of women and the other is the oppression of the masses he says very clearly so I'm really current there when he was in the West he stoutly defended India and Indian religions against criticism in the West but when he went back to India if you see his lectures from Colombo to Almora when he crossed from the south of India till from Sri Lanka actually started and went to the north of India giving talks all the way up there he was most severe on his own countrymen against superstition against the patriarchy against caste ISM against weakness and so disunity all of these problems lack of education so all of these he took up and he he urged his countrymen to awake and to deal with these problems he says most in his rousing call he says I do not care for the religion which cannot give the hungry man a loaf of bread here or wipe the widows tears and promises heaven afterwards he says I do not care for as for such a religion so he was he was very forthright about this true religion must deal with problems here now if what about systemic oppression caste gender inequalities when you see such things you must deal with it each generation has to face its own challenge in this regard the society is dynamic it's changing so the so the problems that were there in the late 19th century in India are not the problems in 21st century in Manhattan but similar problems are always there there are always the strong who oppress the weak the rich who oppress the poor so swami vivekananda he said a part of religion of a strong an important part of spirituality is to is to fight this so do you have to be activists and social justice warriors to be with on things not necessarily you cannot make a rule about this if you feel called to it you must as I like to say there is no private spirituality private spirituality is no spirituality well by that I mean I will be spiritual I will be peaceful I will meditate and have a peace of mind and I will be enlightened like the Buddha but I don't care about others if they want to be spiritual well and good for them if they don't want to be well devil take the hindmost I don't care about that that kind of attitude towards spirituality it does not take one very far very soon one realizes that one is not even achieving one's own private spiritual goals but by being like that by looking away from society so nowadays if you look the Ramakrishna order for example and and many of the new why just new even the more ancient Vedanta quarters back to the the Shankar Acharya zuv the different Peters in India you find that we are very engaged in India if you look at the Ramakrishna order right now the ashrams are providing relief to those affected by the pandemic to those affected by the super cyclones which hit hit India wherever there is poverty wherever there is great suffering so the monks are there to help suffering humanity to provide food to the hungry to provide education to the ignorant and provide spiritual knowledge to everybody so this has been this is the response of Vedanta to to the systemic kind of injustice and the suffering that it imposes on humor and it's not frozen because it's sort of open architecture with antha if you are reading Vedanta for the last 15 years now bring that knowledge to bear on the problems of society that are apparent to you what does Vedanta say if all beings are one how do I respond to the sufferings of others if they are one with me the way I would respond to my own sufferings that we have to respond to the sufferings of others and not just a private effort when you see that it's built this evil built into the very structure of society because of history maybe it has just crept into society and societies are they are very complex creatures so they degenerate over time and they have to be reformed if you feel that then one must take up one must fight against evil and misery wherever one finds it when you you have to be called to it a note of caution here I am reminded of a humorous incident many many years ago in Swami Sivananda was the president he was the second president of our order it is this was in the 1920s a certain gentleman a devotee used to visit Balu room at and he visited Swami Sivananda and they were having a conversation remember at that time the Mahatma Gandhi was fighting against the British for the independence of India so there was nonviolent struggle going on for Indian independence and lots of young people were giving up their college education their careers and joining the national struggle for freedom and many of the parents were against it so this gentleman was saying to Swami Sivananda look at all the trouble that Mahatma Gandhi is kicking up and these youngsters they're so irresponsible they don't they're not doing the duty and they're not you know completing their studies and they're not taking up jobs and they're just going and joining this national struggle whatever it is it's it's all just so much of a fuss over over nothing soomi she wanna be kept quiet and then a few days later the gentleman visited and there was a young man who had come to become a monk she was passing by and he bowed down to Swami she won and then what walked past and this gentleman looked at that and then he told Swami she won and there you know when the whole country's in an uproar for the fight for national independence is it right for this young man to give up all responsibilities and become a monk and you know join the Ramakrishna order and just meditate and pray it's the height of escapism then Swami Siobhan under couldn't take it anymore he turned to the gentleman he said softly but firmly look Mahatma Gandhi who is immensely busy with the freedom struggle of India but he's happy he's at peace you can clearly see he's at peace and joy and this young man has given up the world he has given up all possibility of worldly enjoyments and his only goal is enlightenment and God realization he's at peace he's happy the only one who's not happy is you you are neither engaged in any great you know national or social cause neither are you engaged in a serious search for self-realization so yes that must be we must take action whatever you're called to do levied on that gives you a wonderful philosophy a framework for that action whether it be enquiry into the self or to overcome to to serve suffering humanity in whatever form you find it which one should we do why not do both why not to both had the best of both worlds Swami Vivekananda's great motto at monomakh short-term charity I Archer for your own liberation and for the welfare of the world so every monk of the order is engaged in meditation in vedantic study and inquiry in devotional practices but also in service service of the the Living God by giving food to the hungry or education the Ignacio needed and spiritual knowledge to everybody so what a wonderful philosophy of life that you reach the highest possible goal in human civilization that we have had is enlightenment and at the same time your life is of immense benefit to all those around you second question is from Jaya s we are taught that body identification ie ignorance of our true nature as Atma is a source of samsara what are some aids to drop body identification once one understands at the intellectual level that one is not the body through study and practice of the sadhana's prescribed so the question is about sadhana spiritual practice that how do we drop this body identification this identification with the body is how is the cause of samsara and the cause of suffering so how do you drop the body identification wouldn't it be nice if I felt ever some kind of glow of consciousness and the miserable body went its own way and I am safe from it first of all you notice in the question that she is asking it is after intellectual conviction I have studied it and I have understood it but how do I reduce the body identification well the first thing is to know that you are not the body is to have clarity in what sense am I not the body the body is there you are experiencing it but if you are experiencing it you're not the body by all the pedantic enquiry the vichara which she says she has already studied and she understands if it's an object just as this clock is an object and nobody says I don't say I am the clock it's a clock it's different from me I'm aware of it but just because I'm aware of it doesn't mean that I am a clock similarly I am aware of the body I can see it I can hear it if my tummy rumbles and I can touch it smell it but it's it's I'm aware of this body very much aware of the presence of the body but that does not mean I am the body immediately the question will come and that oh if if somebody knocks the clock you have no problem but if somebody comes and punches the body then you have a problem it hurts so there is a visceral reaction to what happens to the body the sickness in the body and it's terrible body is tired and diseased and then then we are constantly suffering it's not enough to say I am aware of it so I am NOT it and therefore the problem is solved but notice follow this method a little further we say if somebody punches the body or the but little there's a burn in the body it hurts or disease it's miserable it's it's hurting painful that hurt that pain that misery are we aware of it and answers will be of course most intensely I wish I was not aware of it that's why we take painkillers and anesthesia and all of that when I'm aware of it that's why I'm suffering I'm aware of misery of pain and of tiredness and of all kinds of bodily problems but then it the same thing applies I am NOT the clock because I'm aware of the clock I'm not the body because I'm aware of the body it's an object of awareness not me not the subject similarly on a subtle level the pain the misery the the trouble that the body is causing if I am aware of it then I am NOT it it may sound strange when you put it that way but if you look actually look it begins to make sense then I was first reading this I would pinch myself so don't do any kind of self-harm now that the very dangerous but I would pinch myself and see okay there is the pain now just as I'm aware of the hand I never am i aware of the pain of the hand yes and when you are when you see that somehow miraculously the pain is not so painful it becomes a feeling a neutral feeling pain is a message sent by our nerve receptors that something is going wrong and something needs attention that's all it is so even the pain and the misery if you feel it it's an object it's not you but it's my pain is it did you make it do you own it do you have the papers for it does it obey you no it's an object of awareness which appears like all other objects of awareness follows its own internal logic and disappears so this is the first thing you realize I am NOT the body it is not even my body whatever that means similarly I am NOT the pain the suffering not even it's not even my pain or suffering it is pain or suffering just an object I am not even the thoughts I am aware of the thoughts and therefore I am NOT the thoughts all right will this work to reduce body identification unfortunately no unless one is already a very advanced sadaqa spiritual seeker this kind of logic is soothing it is illuminating it is interesting but day to day life it won't work so I'm as real my Krishna would say when you can just all I can say all you want that I am NOT the body and the Atman but when the thorn pricks and you shout involuntarily ouch so what will help in addition to this knowledge as a foundation for this knowledge in addition as a foundation only because we are weak we are not yet ready that's why as a foundation for this knowledge the sadhanas first of all moral and ethical life immoral life in disciplined life has one terrible consequence it ties us ever more deeply with this limited body and mind moral and ethical life brings the body and mind under discipline unselfish life the more we are concerned with the sufferings and how to help others sufferings of others the welfare of others what can I do for you the less time we have to think about our own little petty problems that's why people who are engaged in great causes they are often very ascetic in their own lifestyle not because they are practicing asceticism because they have no time and they have no energy it could be somebody like same I mentioned the freedom fighters in India mothma gandhi and others or it could be a scientist or a creative person who's so immersed in research or writing a book there is very little time and energy and attention to give to the body and its needs so unselfish life another very powerful aid to reduce body identification is devotion to God immense love of God where the whole mind attention and emotions flow to the beloved my Krishna not my body my Krishna my Rama my divine mother so the attention is not towards the body and meditation in meditation is not possible in the early stages but as we advanced in meditation one loses sight attention moves away from the body from the world outside from the body also and quietens the mind quietens the sensory system you do not take in data from outside the mind quietens down and your attention moves away from the body to the object of your meditation could simply be an awareness meditation it could be a focus on a DAT a DAT with your visualization meditation many different forms of meditation are there but in all the cases of meditation they serve to reduce body identification so these are some of the practices which help us powerful practices which help us to reduce body identification then vedanta works directly you actually it becomes a living realization i am really not the body the sufferings of the body are not my sufferings why should I suffer along with the body and quoting from the Upanishads kheema hamish re romanís and gyrate why should I be fevered along with this feverish body so this kind of honest experience that yes it is like that and the Phillip rings of the body are not my sufferings and that is possible when the mind is prepared by these by the asanas bhagavad-gita says the why Vedanta is not directly effective why don't we directly feel after understanding that I'm not the body mind I don't feel directly feeling this problem is solved I am liberated why not so the Gita says abductor he got here do come they have a fear about purity the unmanly path of the unmanifest path of the attribute list Brahman that I am pure being a pure awareness it sounds cool and sounds very very very philosophically very sophisticated very profound but is difficult look it's very difficult to attain for whom they are what we literally means that those who have bodied those who are embodied but immediately if you think about it that can't be true even the Jeevan Muktha those who are enlightened with a Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda the Holy Mother are the direct disciples many other great jeevan mukta am free while embodied in the body so they also there's also a body whether they would think they are the body or not that's a different thing but we do see that there is a body so why is with antha working for them and not for me so embodied here does not mean just the presence of a body it means identification with the body a strong feeling I am this and this is me technically this is called on your new Yassa Who am I this what is this me it's it is I so this mutual superimposition I on the body and the body on me this is called the house or superimposition and this is that this the technical way of saying identification with the body this prevents Vedanta from working this question is from a BIA H greetings Swamiji I have seen many videos of your lectures on YouTube and they have helped me very much in my spiritual journey as I have been raised as a Muslim I know Islam very well in the Quran Prophet Muhammad has said that he is the best and last Messenger of Allah Buddha shank of shank acharya sri ramakrishna all of them are enlightened so what's the difference between them and the Prophet why has God given such a statement in the Quran please Swamiji I will be really grateful if you can answer my question alright so this is a question from an Islamic perspective where it says that the Prophet Muhammad is the last of the prophets it's called the seal of the prophets so there are no more prophets after the Prophet Muhammad now what does that mean a direct answer first then we'll explore a little more direct answer here is I actually met a gentleman who's and who's very well-versed in the Quran and is a great devotee of sri ramakrishna and in fact he's a monk of our order he's a Muslim from Iraq so he became a monk of our order and a great devotee of sri ramakrishna so asked him how do you reconcile your devotion to Sri Ramakrishna with what the Quran says that the Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet and his answer was oh if that means that statement means the last of the Abrahamic prophets the last of the Abrahamic prophets so that was his answer that does not mean that Sri Ramakrishna's not an avatar or other incarnations cannot come afterwards they can come but that particular lineage of prophets the final one is Prophet Muhammad so that's the meaning now later on I saw that's exactly the interpretation of the Quran itself the Quran itself explains Adam was the first and Muhammad is the last so the Abrahamic prophets comes to an end that a particularly niche comes to Ana now you will see that's an interpretation yes that's an interpretation you have to find your own interpretation the best way of interpreting is first of all trying to interpret within the text itself so the text says the quran says this and what else does the Quran say and which by which you can understand this statement the Quran says Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet and then it says Adam was the first Muhammad is the last oh you put two and two together and say okay in the Abrahamic religions the Prophet Muhammad is the last of that kind of teacher of Prophet so this is the answer a little more general let's step back and take a more synoptic view in every religion since ancient times there have been extraordinary persons you see some religions like Hinduism and Christianity they accept incarnation now I'm not going to make draw fine distinctions between the avatar a concept in in mainstream Hinduism and the incarnation of God a concept in in Christianity there are many many theological differences here we are taking the big picture the wide-angle view of everything so some religions say that God incarnate that avatar in Hinduism many many times the 10-hour towers of Vishnu but not just an avatar there are many many avatars endless avatars Shri Krishna takes Arjuna to this vast and ancient tree and he says look it's a berry tree blackberries and so he asks Arjuna look what do you see at first it seems to be these bunches of blackberries hanging in the tree just look closely and Arjuna sees oh they are all Krishna's every little bit he is a creator a thousands and thousands of Krishna's what it means are there are some K Avatara that means innumerable avatars in the past and they will come in - there are many many more to come in the future and in every every cycle of creation this is the Hindu view in Christianity also the incarnation of God is accepted that Jesus is not just a rabbi is just not another prophet is actually the Son of God and he says I and my father are one in the sense of the Incarnation the Word made flesh but then if Flom does not at all accept that God can ever be incarnated Judaism does not accept God can be incarnated they can be a messiah but it's not literally God who comes in Buddhism you don't have a God at all there's no question of the incarnation of God but the point is in all these religions there are special and unique personalities that's the most general form of the question we can find in Islam Prophet Muhammad is regarded as a human being though a prophet is a Messenger of Allah is a human being will certainly not an incarnation of God and yet even in Islam in in the most Orthodox Islam you'll find the Prophet Muhammad is regarded as a uniquely perfect human being but uniquely perfect special specially commissioned by the Lord so not just like everybody else so there is a uniqueness about the prophets the prophets of Judaism this is a uniqueness about them they were not only very devout just every devout Jew is not a prophet they were uniquely inspired by God so whether it is the avatar of Hinduism or the incarnation in Christianity all the prophets of the other Abrahamic religions or the Buddha concept in Buddhism is a human being but a very unique in a human being everybody can ultimately become a Buddha actually depending on the Hinayana the Theravada and Mahayana and Theravada ultimately everybody can become enlightened achieve both he enlightenment and nerdvana that's called our heart the enlightened in the Mahayana that's only on the way ultimately everybody is a bodhisattva who is like a buddha in a seed farm and ultimately in the long run everybody can actually become a buddha so they can be many buddhist but the buddha is unique so this is the point i'm trying to make there are unique personalities avatara's prophets great masters or buddhas in every religion term there must be these are the founders of religion the great spiritual leaders of humanity the rest of us all others we can we can aspire and we should aspire to become enlightened so the language that he has used that Ramakrishna and Buddha they were enlightened beings they were also enlightened beings no enlightened beings all of us can be and we should be we should try to become enlightened God realization is the goal of human life everybody's a goal but our Dara's everybody cannot be everybody cannot be a prophet nor should we aspire to be that would be madness all right now as I said the textual interpretation is that the last prophet and the seal of the prophets is Prophet Muhammad in the Abrahamic line that's one way of looking at it there are other ways I'll give you some options of looking at it and see what what appeals to you that the after such each such unique Advent when a prophet comes down avatar comes that the Buddha comes there is generally a circle of imitators immediately afterwards and that happens and it happens a lot in India too avatar is rare but India there's a profusion of our tourists so some of them may be genuinely spiritual people whose devotees want them to be avatars I want my guru to be an avatar maybe the Guru never claimed that but the devotees some are not at all genuine some might be fraudulent so to prevent that a clear message has been given the DC the last prophet those will come out afterwards they may be very pious people very spiritual people mystics but don't regard them as as prophets so that might be one interpretation in Christianity for example Jesus says none comes to God except through me comes to the Father except through the son so what does that mean in a narrow way two interpreters as only through Jesus and knowing no other way but you can actually if you look at it carefully it could just mean Jesus as identified with with Brahman with the ultimate reality with as God so none comes to enlightenment none comes to salvation none comes to freedom except through God no by no worldly means by no other means except through God that is true or in a very practical narrow sense they say when Jesus is teaching when the Prophet Muhammad is teaching to the narrow circle of devotees in those days 1400 years ago for the Prophet Mohammed 2,000 years ago more than 2,000 years ago front for Jesus in in that area in that type of a period of time in history and that conjunction of time and space there is no other genuine teacher there is none like that and they know very well who they are so that's expressed as only here only through this Sri Krishna says the same thing in the bhagavad-gita and today in late 19th century Sri Ramakrishna if you look very carefully he says the same thing he says go where you will but what you will know if you will find no genuine religion except what is here what does it mean in this conjunction of time and space at this time the most powerful the most the easiest access to God is through the the current avatar or the incarnation that's what it means this question is from Crewe now P admin being the Poorna has no need to do anything ego being inert cannot be the doer then who is the doer you have taught us that there is no relationship between Atma Purusha and an Atma prakruti then where does prakruti get the power to perform its work does Brahman have power or is Brahman power itself in other words it's an intrinsic quality if it is power what is the need for Brahman to have or be this power when it has no need to do anything so many questions each of them could be a talk yes so once you study Vedanta and with very soon you will come across this question who is the one in delusion who is the doer of actions who is the one who is the who is suffering if I am Brahman I certainly can't be intelligent I certainly can't be the doer of actions I am not born and dying and going through the cycle of birth and death and it can't be the body either because the body is born once and dies and it's it's an object it's it's a machine like all other machines it's it is not going to attain God realization it's it's just a thing so which one the most philosophical form of this question is who is under delusion if I am drum and drum and container delusion and the mind of the body are just inert they're objects they can never be free then who isn't a delusion who is the doer of actions so this question is Shankar Acharya answers this in more than once in the bhagavad-gita the thirteenth chapter and his commentary to the second verse I think Shankar Acharya is faced with this question somebody asked the question then who is in under ignorance meaning thereby if I am Brahman and then who is under ignorance like saying can the son be in darkness impossible who is under under parents shankara's answered there is very interesting I can give you the same answer shankara's answer is who is under ignorance why are you asking the questioner says because I don't know that's why I'm asking then you are under ignorance you just admitted it I don't know you said I did I don't know that means ignorance you don't know so you are under ignorance but I am Brahman but if you know you're Brahman then you're not under ignorance so the thing is the who is under ignorance is paradoxical it can't be an object it can't be Brahman but it's a peculiar mixture of object and subject it is Brahman under the limitation of body mind how can Ramon embodiment it doesn't but it's under the delusion that I am this body and mind and then it becomes a Jeeva in identification with the body mind complex the same realm and becomes a Jeeva becomes or becomes within coats appears to be a diva and does not know itself and therefore things I am in ignorance I must find out who I am what's the whole point of life the goal of life and what is the truth about myself I don't know these things ignorance so the Jeeva the answer direct answer to your question is the Jeeva is under ignorance because then immediately the answer will be but you taught us the G wise Brahman if you know that the question does not matter when Swami said on this side we had the question but not the answer on that side of enlightenment they have the answer but no question so the there is no direct satisfactory answer to this and that's the way it should be if there was a direct satisfactory answer who is under ignorance then it would be a real question with a real answer that means we are really under ignorance but we really are not it's a kind of magical state where we seem to be under delusion but we really are not under delusion we really are Brahman now could you repeat the second quit the second part of the question about prakruti in then where does practically get the power to perform its work does Brahmin have power or is Brahmin power itself if it is power what is the need for Brahmin to have or be this power when it has no need to do anything right let me answer this question in two phases or two stages one from a Sankhya perspective why because you are using the term prakruti where does prakruti get the power to do activities the impulse to act but reap recruit is nature so the sonken perspective is the ultimate reality is that there is nature material nature time space matter energy all of that and our bodies even our minds are part of material nature according to samkhya which is something that would be perfectly acceptable to modern scientists the whole thing body mind everything is part of nature but there is one difference according to samkhya consciousness is not part of nature consciousness is is an independent entity which interacts with nature becomes entangled or appears to become entangled with nature and becomes this Jeeva this body mind complex it it is identified with this but is in its real nature is called purusa Purusha is pure consciousness it's an immortal awareness and there are many such parotias so the answer to the question is that in the sunken system prakruti is capable of acting but has no purpose of its own it's just dead nature dead in the sense it is it is all power but it has no purpose of its own and consciousness has meaning purpose value can give that but it cannot do anything by itself it just shines it just is like light so the example that is given in Sanka is there is a person who can see but his lame can't walk they he sees wherever he wants to go but he can't go there because he's lame and there is a person who can walk around but his blind doesn't know where to go how do then what what happens the answer is the a blind man takes the lame man on his shoulders and the lame man who can see tells the blind man go this way go that way and they both reach their goal together so all activities done by nature but illumined and guided by consciousness this is the answer from Sankhya perspective from the sonken perspective power energy activity dynamism belongs to nature consciousness belongs to a or is the very nature of purusa and that consciousness lends purpose meaning value to the activities of nature what does nature and do for consciousness nature they shape prakruti provides boga up overcome it provides experience in life to consciousness everything that is happening to us is provided to us think of yourself as awareness just as awareness you can have no experience only when awareness shines upon nature pretty that there is a body and a mind and an external world then you can have experience you eat and you drink and you talk and you work and you fight and you love and you are born born means bodies are burned illumined by consciousness you're born and you grow and old die reborn all of that is in nature illumined by consciousness which is identified with the body and mind this is called the whole drama of life is one word in sanskrit bhaga bhaga means experience pleasant unpleasant and then what happens when the soul were embodied soul the tarisha embodied in in a particular subtle body provided by prakruti through the spiritual journey life after life sees its real nature evolves spiritually and then wants freedom from limitation that is called upper varga it's a very ancient word for moksha apavarga freedom freedom from limitation then prakruti provides that also for this embodied soul for 4d purusa brings it to philosophy and spirituality and religion and shows it the path to freedom and prakruti itself provides freedom to pollution purusa gets both vulgar and upper world worldly experience not just one world many worlds experience many lives experience and when the Purusha is ready for it prakruti itself sets the purusa free through a spiritual process all the laws of the meditation everything is part of that experience vedanta the second phase of the answer is Vedanta in Vedanta all power prakruti is identified with brahman why in Vedanta in Advaita Vedanta there's only one reality it's not two realities prakruti and purusa nature and consciousness no consciousness is also existence is a crucial point in Vedanta dueto Vedanta consciousness is also existence JIT is also sucked such if consciousness is existence then the existence that you find in practically prakriti's very existence the existence of the nature of this universe that is also Brahmin or purusa now the word for Purusha eyes becomes Brahman Brahman is existence not only of itself but also they exist it lends existence to the universe so the universe cannot be apart from Brahman no more than a wave can be apart from water or this table can be apart from wood wood lends existence to the table clay lends existence to the pot and go to the golden ornaments similarly Brahman not only humans not only its consciousness not only is aware of prakruti but gives existence to procuracy so prakruti is not apart from raman there it the name now becomes pollution is now called Brahman and prakruti is now called Maya now the question will be he asked but Brahman is ever fulfilled what need does Brahman have of power it doesn't he will therefore seen adwaita vedanta the Maya of aspect of Brahman the power aspect of Brahman is down ultimately in advaitha Vedanta non-dual brah Vedanta the only reality is Brahman not Brahman and Maya Brahman and my eye is called saguna brahman God there you have God and the universe and individual beings then there is a role of power of Shakti Maya is also called Shakti prakruti Shakti Maya same but is that the ultimate reality no the ultimate reality even beyond God the ultimate reality is beyond God a beyond Ishwara jagat Jeeva God universe and individual beyond that underlying that is the one reality called near guna Brahman the absolute so does the absolute have power no so absolute is powerless it is beyond having power because it is absolutely fulfilled it does not need what why do you need power I mean one place one Vivek on the size the presence of power contrary to our understanding the presence of power is a sign of weakness is a sign of limitation I want something I want to cross this river the bird evolves wings to fly across it's a power why because it cannot cross just by you know thinking about it it's it requires some way of crossing it we evolve the power of thinking and working and we build a bridge across it we have this power but that very power shows us the limitation that we need to cross this river there is something yet to be accomplished we are the as yet incomplete and for completion we need power so that existence of power shows shows the lack of completion neither Brahman saguna brahman Ishwara or god or net guna brahman actually needs power they're always fulfilled Saguna brahmanas power for the benefit of the rest of us the jiva's for creating this universe for our benefit not that saguna brahman needs the universe or us or power and it guna brahmand is no question of universe there is no question of the jiva's also there is only one reality so ultimately you are right near guna Brahman is self-fulfilled does not require anything and therefore there is I won't say there is no power power also depends Shakti also depends on it Kuna Brahmin but near guna Brahmin does not need Shakti this question is from tan my s what is the verdant ik approach to the anatman of Buddhism and what was the main logic that Shankar Acharya used to override the Buddhist approach of an Atman big question again yes this is a perennial question when you study Vedanta and you are told that you are the Atman not the body not the mind and this Atman is existence and consciousness and in eternal existence and consciousness and if you have that eternal existence from consciousness then you are not subject to birth and death it does not come and go you're free of death you're free of old age afraid of illness all sufferings one has to realize that now immediately the question will come but the parallel philosophy which developed in in India along with the Atman theories of Hinduism Sankhya talks of a nut man it calls it the purusa yoga talks of the Nachman calls it the purusa the ayah and vaisheshika and mimamsa in Vedanta it all talk of the Atman in Kashmir Shaivism talks of a nut man calls it the Shiva nature and in parallel developed this entire Buddhistic philosophy Jainism also speaks of a nut man but the entire Buddhistic philosophy which says there's no Atman in fact belief in an admin is the is the problem in the Buddhist philosophy seems to be just the opposite here you are asked to believe in and realize that your Atman not body and mind there you said give up all these belief in Atman an apartment see the Buddha but the Buddha teaches that there is no Shosh further there is no eternal self and also teaches that there is it against nihilism would say Hawara that means nothing is there no that is also not the teaching of the Buddha is an eternal eternal self and there is no self no self means kneel ism eternalism analyst reported this way Sasha Ottawa Oh Jade Awad both of these are denied by the Buddhist for the by the Buddha so the an atmosphere of the Buddhists is what they say is it's directed against the empirical self this is the short answer to the whole problem is directed against the empirical self just as in Vedanta it says you are not this particular body and mind you are not the stool of sharira sukshma sharir a car initially you're not the physical body the gross body this you're not the subtle body you're not the causal body i will not define these terms we have already talked about it many times stool Ashok smush car and Asherah double-action Atma you are none of them you are the Atman you are not the physical sheath the so-called food sheet under my Akasha you are not the vital sheet the pranamaya kosha you are not the mental sheet the manoa my Akasha you're not the is sheet of the intellect the big annamaya kosha you're not the sheet of bliss the anandamaya kosha you are the witness of all these five sheets the Atma is Bunch Akash of election a Sakshi witness of this what Buddhism is saying is suppose you just go half way here you are not the physical body subtle body or causal body you are not the five sheets and and nothing more just stop there you will get the Buddhists and astma theory saying exactly what the vedantist is saying denying that we are this body mind complex but this also is denying but they do a very very thorough job of denying that one showing how we cannot be this body mind complex they instead of talking about the three bodies they have a different way of analyzing it in Buddhism there is the punch Iskander the five composites or the five pillars of the quarry the five heaps there is the physical body and there is the the some scar as the memory the mind stuff and there is sensation there is understanding and there is a kind of awareness not the pure consciousness but the awareness which we feel right now which Vedanta would call Judah Abbas or reflected consciousness they call it the big anaconda and they show the Atman the self so called Atman is none of them it can't be any of these and then that's it if you terally realize this you realize the UH not my nature that I am none of this ever-changing bundles a bundle is another English translation of Skanda the five skandhas the five bundles which appeared to be me they are not me what am I don't ask anymore just realize this era emptiness of these that I am these five are empty of self once you realize it that is freedom after all using it is a self which is suffering it needs to be free of suffering I have shown you there is no self which is suffering that suffering is gone and the whole point was to overcome suffering they make you disappear then there is no problem it was your problem you don't exist anymore so far where is the problem problem can't hang in the air this is a very oversimplified way of putting it well the question he asked is how did Shankara refute we Buddhists objections yes and what was the main logic the Shankar Acharya used to override the Buddhist approach of a nama yes Shankar Acharya attacks the Buddhist uh not materi in a number of places especially in his brahma sutra commentary on the brahma sutra and commentary on the breath are in eco punished odd number of places actually Shankar Acharya in many places attacks the Buddhists specifically see there are multiple schools of Buddhism broadly for sovereignty kavaja sheikah began Nevada and makamaka among these the V Gianna vada is pretty close to Vedanta it says that there is no self what we take to be the self the reality is that there is a stream of consciousness so nowadays in literature you speak about stream of consciousness novice but this idea this phrase was used nearly more than 2000 years ago in ancient India of consciousness what they say just like a river flowing millions of droplets of water flowing together like a river there is a stream of consciousness which is flowing and which appears to be a self so the one instant of consciousness arises with its content and then it dies then another instant of consciousness arises with its content and then it dies and then another instant moment-to-moment flashes of consciousness up there and each consciousness each flash of consciousness reveals a particular thing so you have a cup of coffee so you see the coffee flash of consciousness gone there's nothing more one of the flash of consciousness comes up then you smell the coffee another flash of consciousness is the warmth of the coffee then another flash of consciousness is the taste of the coffee now we go a little deeper what they are trying to say is in each of these flashes of consciousness these are cognition instance the in Sanskrit Shaniqua vegara momentary consciousness flash in each of these flashes of consciousness there are two aspects one is eye and the other one is the object so I see the coffee flash of consciousness another one I taste taste of coffee there is a there is a subject element to it and an object element to it and these are separate discreet they're coming and going now it may all sound weird and strange not at all actually if you sit quietly and and watch your inner experiences you will see it seems very much like a stream of of cognitions I hear this I smell that think of this and remember that and want this and suffer this and again hear something and that's how it's going on whole life is just like that a stream of flashes of consciousness absolutely a pretty good description of our a minut granular description of our day-to-day life moment moment life not even day-to-day moment-to-moment life now where does this illusion of a self come according to this began of other Buddhists who I am saying began of other particularly because this is where Shankar Acharya concentrates his most fierce attack that was the question what logic does Shankar use so the Vijayawada Buddhist says in all these flashes of consciousness there is a subjective element and they'd taken taken together these subjective elements taken together give the impression the false impression of a permanent self I flash I flash I flat so I I smell coffee I taste coffee I'd I see the coffee I feel the warmth of the coffee and it gives an impression of these flashes of eyeness that gives an impression of a continuous eye there is no continuous self which feels like there is a continuous self because of just like when the fan is going round and round it looks like a disc but actually these are three blades which are moving very fast and it looks like a disc another classic Buddhist example is the firebrand when you take a like a pinpoint of fire and whirl it around it looks like a shiny or fiery circle when you were a firebrand around but there's no circle it's just one point of fire being being whirled around in a circle so in just flashes of consciousness they give rise to the feeling that there is one permanent awareness there isn't even modern neuroscience it would be something like that after all there literally are flashes of light going on like bursts of electricity all the time thousands millions of those little bursts of electricity almost like what they began about the Buddhists talked about 2,000 years ago and all these know that the stunning thing which they claim is so but there is a cup of coffee outside no those objects in each flash of consciousness they give rise to the illusion that there is a separate object that there is a constant cup of coffee outside there is a thing called coffee and a cup outside no there are only the contents of this consciousness within consciousness pure smell sight sound taste touch and illusion of a cup of coffee that to outside that to a body all the sense of solidity and permanence none of it is real they are all appearances in consciousness they're no more real than the flickering pictures on a movie screen here the screen is inside in consciousness flickering consciousness is the only reality yeah this is a good way of putting began about the Buddhism it's more modern form is prevalent in Tibet they called it the mind only school it speaks for itself and self explanatory mind on the school there is only mind and nothing has mind is the series of consciousness is the mind that's it there's nothing else that's the only reality so if consciousness on your mind only is the reality sounds pretty close to away the Vedanta why would Shankara be mad at them precisely because it's very close to Advaita Vedanta it's not quite a duet of Atlanta and there is a big big difference what is the difference in began about the Buddhism consciousness is momentary it flashes in and out of existence in a continuous stream Advaita Vedanta says consciousness is unchangeable absolutely unchangeable undecaying no question of being born or dying it shines eternally let's put it that way that buddhism began about is didn't deny the began Abad is also recognized that Vedanta is pretty close to their theory in fact one of the last masters in India before the Buddhist philosophy faded away shanterrica had come a la silla at about 1000 AD or so thousand years ago day by that time Advaita Vedanta was pretty well developed and they knew about these things about Vedanta so when they read Vedanta their comment on it was all Papa Radha Vedanta has a small fault others Buddhist schools completely rejected the Hindu school there's a permanent self but when it is presented in the form of non-dual Vedanta that there is an ever-present consciousness and everything else appears in consciousness the buddhists thought a pretty much like us except that these fellows say that consciousness is unchanging and eternal it can't be like that there are certain very subtle reasons why consciousness they say it cannot be continuous and unchanging so it has to be flashes of consciousness that's why they say Vedanta has alpha Peraza alpha parada means a minor fault just a little problem you need to fix that yeah you're one with us and the vedantins also says head Shankar Acharya is particularly annoyed with the vegan body but this is how can Brahma and the pure consciousness be a flickering light so what was the logic many things that Shankar Acharya said let me share a few with you one is this whole concept of flickering instance of consciousness he asks how do you know that once we observe that there are flickering instants of consciousness the question would be who is observing those flickering instants of consciousness notice if consciousness instant one comes and goes it cannot be aware of the next consciousness consciousness instant and the consciousness instant - cannot be aware of the preceding consciousness instant because it's gone already the consciousness instant three has not yet come so the consciousness instant - cannot be aware of the third one and similarly so each discrete flash of consciousness would not be aware of anything preceding it and anything coming after it how would this illusion of us so-called illusion of a self develop if each is an independent flash of little consciousness in fact you are right that the mind is experienced in this way you experience the movement of your mind in this way a series of flashes you just need one more question there to whom or to what are these series of flashes appearing actually you see what's happening here is in the vedantic analysis the Buddhist has not yet completed the drink drishya be vehicles thoroughly it's still a mixture of mind and consciousness there that's why the Buddhist feels the flickering of the mind is the flickering of consciousness flickering of the mind is not the flickering of consciousness mind is always flickering these are called Thrifty's movements of the mind it's always flickering but flickering the flickering of the mind is seen or illumined by what consciousness is it is that consciousness itself flickering no if it was how do you know and the one which knew that would that be flickering so this is one argument it doesn't work deeply Buddhist the flashes of consciousness and there's a very intricate discussion on this but this have their replies and so on are there other arguments yes one big argument which Shankaracharya gives is you are saying that there's nothing outside it's all inside and the feet that it feels outside is an error but here I am and the world is there outside it's an error it's actually all in consciousness here Shankar Acharya uses a strange argument it seems to go against with ant itself he says how does the idea of outside ever appear in dreams you have a feeling that I am walking around in the part the park is outside me I am walking in the park but when you wake up the whole thing is inside you fine but the idea of outside in a dream has come from our waking experience where there really is an outside I am here and the world is there outside so how does this idea of outside come to you or the began abadi buddhists who you who in your waking experience also there is no outside waking dreaming it's all the same because all in consciousness try to appreciate the force of this question of this doubt you are saying there is no outside you the Buddhists are saying there is no outside as such it's all imagined the outside Ness is an error but how can there be an error unless you are experienced it for yourself at some time the Rope is mistaken for the snake because you have experienced the snake then only you see oh this is that's like the snake I saw and this is a snake but even never ever experienced a snake how would you think that the rope is a snake the concept of snake itself wouldn't be there how do you know that how do you why do you make the mistake that the world is outside although it's in consciousness if there were really no outside as you can imagine the Buddhists also will have some answers to this but this is another trust another charge against the Buddhists another objection possible objection adren efficient credit give this objection from an Advaitic perspective would be if there are flashes of consciousness each which its object if there flashes a flash means it comes and goes and before the next one comes there must be an infinitesimal gap it must be a tiny gap then only you can call it a flash one has come gone next another will come in between a tiny gap must be there that's why we call it flash a tiny gap of darkness he says so how will that gap be known between one flash of consciousness one bit of knowledge and the other bit of knowledge between that that is a separating gap how is that known if consciousness is not there and if that consciousness is there then that cannot be flickering consciousness because it saw the first bursts of knowledge then the gap then the next bursts coming this this flickering chain is is coming the presence and absence of knowledge the presence and absence of knowing like deep sleep for example a gap you Buddhists you want to quieten the mind in meditation that quietened mind where there are no more flashes of consciousness what knows that leshner that quiet in mind so there must be consciousness and if you say there is no gap one flash of consciousness next one there is no gap so you if there is no gap then you can't call them flashes of consciousness it must be one continuous consciousness there's no way of escaping this so these are some of the objections now we cannot credit Shankar Acharya alone with these refutations of began about the Buddhism is a vast topic there are books and books written on this before Shankar Acharya there was the great mimamsa purva mimamsa teacher kumarila bhatta who refuted buddhism very thoroughly for example he wrote a book called near Ala Moana wada it's a part of his much bigger book one chapter it's a refutation of the Buddhist idealism of this began of other we are talking about his refutation of that the word neural Amba Nevada means Allah mana means support near near Ala Moana means without support and bhava means the view the view that all our experiences are without support what does it mean our common sense idea is that there is a clock outside and this is the support for my experience of a clock based on this object and having an experience of a clock and seeing a clock holding a clock so this is the alum when a support what is the Buddhist saying there is no clock outside the experience is all that there is and they say there's a slogan Nilo that GU Abhay raha the blue and experience of blue are indistinguishable are identical there's no such thing as a blue thing outside it's just my experience of blueness similarly it's only my experience of a clock like in a dream suppose you experienced a clock you saw a clock in a dream and you woke up you realize there was no such clock actually resolved in your mind all you did was experience a clock without an actual clock outside so nyalam bana wada means that there is no object outside and yet without any support we keep on experiencing and this whole view of the buddhists is critically examined by kumarila bhatta actually he is criticizing a great one of the greatest buddhist philosophers basu Gondo who lived a few centuries before kumarila bhatta so why do you know so much about this I wrote a paper on it at Howard a critical examination of Buddhist idealism actually I discovered a very nice little book it's called Sanskrit debate a slim volume by William Allen curry he as I discovered he was actually is an alumni of of Harvard many many years decades ago he wrote this book was published by Peter lang publishers in 2015 the name of the book is Sanskrit debate it's a very exciting little slim little volume he first explains the whole Buddhist position of Basu bundo that there's no external universe it's all in flashes of consciousness and then he refutes the whole thing when you read through a soup on the precious presentation of a soup under you're convinced the whole thing is a dream and then you read komaraiah's refutation of that you're convinced the whole thing is real and he has written it in a very racy it's like a reading a reading a thriller and a slim volume kumara has arguments very nice arguments for example against the Buddhist idealist against the began a body is how so we are debating you are a Buddhist and Hindu the mimamsikas we are debating proponent and opponent I see the world is real you see the world is an illusion all right if the world is an illusion where is the difference between the words of the proponent and the opponent your opponent whom you are debating must be a figment of your imagination must be within your consciousness there is no real opponent apart from the experiencing consciousness whom are you debating the position of that opponent is your own position is it not so suppose you met a great philosopher in your dreams and you debated fiercely and then you woke up next day you realize oh all those arguments which I gave where my own arguments but the opposing arguments which were given by that philosopher are also my own arguments because there is a part of my own consciousness so where is the difference between your position and mine if everything is part of your consciousness only in one argument he says karma because he's a my mom's like a very important karma is very important so you Buddhist you believe in karma action and its result but if everything is in consciousness then varies the reality of action where is the reality of its results what would one act for it because everything is within oneself what is one acting for why wouldn't one just sit around even in your consciousness just sit around in consciousness and what would be the point of action they've just know nothing apart from consciousness to be gained at all neither action exists apart from consciousness Norris result exists apart from consciousness so on so he has some very nice arguments against in the began a body which Shankar Acharya picked up actually yeah can we take one more question this is from Harsha Raj B I have a two-part question oh here we go is the reflected consciousness the same as pre Mata and can we consider reflected consciousness as an amalgamation of jana maya and ananda maya okay reflected consciousness is in sanskrit Chenab hatha so I am pure consciousness awareness and by the power of Maya mind appears within me within awareness itself and in the mind consciousness it is I the consciousness I'm reflected there so the mind in the mind there is awareness and feels aware and through the mind the awareness is shines upon the senses and through the senses through the body and through the body and the senses it experiences the world which is also a creation of Maya within consciousness so this is the vedantic picture now she's conscious question was is the reflected consciousness same as promote promote promote Amin's nor the one who knows so when they say I'd know a cup of coffee and the knower of the cup of coffee and Parramatta so the reflected consciousness when it uses sense organs like eyes or taste tongue or smell or touch is a knower or it uses the mind to infer is now the knower when it uses the instruments of knowledge so reflected consciousness using the instruments of knowledge is the knower yes pramatta but my answer is yes but I also know that you are going to misunderstand when I say this why the the temptation is to take the take ourselves to be the reflected consciousness you see at a stage when we are unable to know ourselves or the clarity is not there that I am the witness consciousness this is not living truth for me and still very much I feel like the body and mind and I know some theories about pure consciousness and all but I don't really honestly regard myself as pure consciousness the most I can do is think of myself as consciousness as this awareness I feel in the mind that's the most I can do and that's the reflected consciousness of the so the subtlest thing that we're on to speaks about to my knowledge is that reflected consciousness the witness consciousness Atman Brahman seems to be theoretical to me if it was not theoretical I would be an enlightened person you see so the temptation is to take myself to be the reflected consciousness that would be a mistake you are not the reflected consciousness you are that which is being reflected it's like I go out in search of my real face I've been told that I have a real face I have a face and I want to experience my face finally I get a fine mirror shiny mirror and I see my face reflected there and say ah I've got it here is my real face it's so nice and shiny see it's my real face but no it's not your real face it looks exactly like a real face it's a very good likeness of your real face but it's still a reflection your real face is here it's not there the problem is the real face it cannot be seen it cannot be objectified the advantages it's real the reflected face the advantages it can be seen you can see it but the disadvantage is it's not real take the mirror away the reflection is gone turn the mirror around the reflection is gone make the mirror dirty reflection becomes dirty make the mirror concave or convex the deflection becomes grotesque the reflection depends entirely on the mirror it's not real it does not reads not really your real face similarly the the temptation is to take the witness consciously the Dadaab has a reflected consciousness as I you know what the subtle temptation is okay now I've got it I am this reflected consciousness and I have to realize this some Atman Brahman witness consciousness absolute something like that is there I have to find that it's like saying I am this face now there is something called a real face I have to look for that you are not this face you are this only because of this that is appearing you are the witness consciousness because of you the reflected consciousness is appearing you know it is as true it is actually true to say that you the witness consciousness are also the know or the pramatta it is you reflected in the mind which appropriates to itself the functioning of the mind and the senses and then see it says I think I remember I understand I see I hear and smell and taste and touch the pramatta who is that reflected consciousness true but the reflected consciousness is also nothing other than the real consciousness that is the witness consciousness so in one sense indirectly you the witness consciousness the Atman is also the promoter it may go against what you are reading in in Vedanta textbooks but textbooks are have just means to help you to analyze and they label the danger of labeling is unless we already the clear knowledge if you have the clear knowledge your unfortunately or unfortunately are already enlightened and you don't need the textbook but when you need the textbook we are at a stage we are barrier unfortunately not enlightened and we know only part of the truth so that part of the truth which we know we know the mirror and the reflected phase then we try to think that's the reality no the reality is here I the consciousness and being reflected on the mind it's like let me end with this example a very beautiful example the earth at night is illumined by moonlight true or false if there's a moon full moon for example it illumines the Earth's at night moonlight true but also false the sunlight reflected from the moon is illumining the earth even at night it is the sunlight alone which is reflecting which is which we are labeling as moonlight and there's a reason by the label it has moonlight what is the proof suppose the Sun we're not there Sun is not required moonlight is you meaning dirt if the Sun we're not there would the moonlight illumine the earth no it wouldn't in the moon is blocked by the presence by the earth and it does not reflect sunlight notice there will be no moon light also eclipse will be there the moon does not reflect sunlight them so it is even then we call it moon light it is the sunlight only but what is the problem the problem is at night we see only the shining moon we don't see the Sun we don't see the source which is hidden similarly all our activities which are going on seeing hearing smelling tasting thinking understanding all those are going on we say our reflected consciousness that must that's actually nothing it's like the moonlight the real light is you the witness consciousness or Atman which is unlike the Sun at night is not seen it's not obvious there but without that without the Sun there would be no moonlight and no illumination of the earth at night without the witness consciousness there would be no reflected consciousness and no awareness in the mind and no experience of thinking willing doing the the knower pramatta there would be no permit at all so really speaking ultimately pramatta depends on not only reflected consciousness but reflected consciousness also entirely depends upon its source which is the witness consciousness don't be confused by these labels they're meant to help you to understand not to make you stumble over these labels or to grasp at them remember the truth is simple who is the witness consciousness you who is the pramatta or the reflected consciousness you actually and the body and the senses and the world outside ultimately you as Brahman it appears as you you appear as all of these so a homonym has me I am Brahman this is what all these labels and structures and concepts are pointing it's pointing towards you did you have a question bill I will repeat Bill's question yes God how could his question is about Karma bill is asking by the way bill is 96 and he's asking how could four hundred thousand people have died from the virus at the same time as part of their Karma I mean it sounds incredible by the way bill got the virus the corona virus and he recovered yes so thank God you have good karma and you are with us because of your Karma how could they have all have the same karma to get the virus and die more or less at the same time what other explanation can there be a chance random chance and run or randomness is no explanation at all actually it's just saying that we don't know our God because God wanted them to do that God would be a devil so I'm very kindly said I could have designed a better universe sir is God responsible for all the evil of the world or are we responsible at some point so if we are responsible it leads directly to the law of karma see the move if you ask why you are asking a causality question you're asking for why is the grass wet because it rained why did it rain because they were clouds why are there clouds because of evaporation due to the sun's heat so why always you're asking for a cause you need an explanation explanation is always you're asking for a cause you see an effect you ask for a cause you see an effect so many hundred thousands of people are dying of a pandemic you are asking why now there is a material explanation we can give because of the virus because of international travel because of the spread of the of the virus but you say no but many people who survive many people who get the virus and survive another person who doesn't get the virus will gets the virus and does not survive some are old some are young some have pre-existing condition some don't this still remains the question why so karma is the best possible explanation because it is causality itself cause and effect cause and effect cause and effect is at the heart of scientific explanations whether it's the physical sciences or biological sciences medicine or in in sociology in economics its causality just becomes more complex now in moral life good and bad right and wrong should we apply causality is there causality there if you say no causality something physical in this world in society in life in biology in physics only causality and not in our moral life then you would have an exception to the universal rule of causality and if you apply causality to moral life it becomes the law of karma but yes bill is right in one sense it includes an element of faith because cause and effect in science the exact linkage can be found out experimentally observational E but in law of karma what I did in my past Birds if they were past births and how they are causing the suffering in this present but where is the link at least we don't see it we cannot find it so that that much amount of faith is involved in this law of karma of course from an athletic perspective they will dismiss the law of karma they would say virus body illness death all of it appearances to you the consciousness what are you so with that question we will and Oh Shanti Shanti Shanti hurry Hume that sat sri ramakrishna wrapper namaste please stay well I pray to sri ramakrishna the holy mother swami vivekananda to bless all of us and to protect all of us [Music]