Video 19

Ask Swami with Swami Sarvapriyananda | May 3rd, 2020

[Music] oh lead us from the unreal to the real lead us from darkness unto light lead us from death to immortality home peace peace peace good morning everybody now when i say everybody it just means only i think patrick and doctor tulsi ram and dora and the cameraman giant it's interesting to give a talk to an empty ashram this is without an audience it's like a game of hide and seek i think um for the last 10 months or so i was not here i was away on study leave at harvard divinity school and people were searching where is that fellow server priyananda and now i'm back and now the audience has disappeared i'm searching for where is that audience now a sadhu in haridwar many many years ago i think or 15 years ago i remember he was telling us this that the whole cosmic drama is a game of cosmic hide and seek when we are here in this universe we are searching for god and god is hidden ishwar is hidden we're searching for god where can we find god and when there is pralaya the entire universe is merged back into its causal form or to put it in simple terms when the universe is gone or destroyed in the cosmic cycle we have all disappeared no planets and stars no words no bodies and minds and the jivas are all merged back into the causal state into prakriti we are hidden as it were and god alone exists searching where did those fellows go and again creation will start when he projects us all and and the lord hides himself so cosmic hide and seek it's also interesting that this concept of creation and destruction creation preservation destruction srishti sriti in vedanta it means creation is not something created out of nothing that it was not existing and came into existence not so it was unmanifest it was there all along just as you are all here i know that there are large number of people um who here on the in the united states and other parts of the world and in india uh who are watching but for me they are unmanifest you are all there in an unmanifest form and so that's the idea of of pralaya in in vedanta it's all there but in an unmanifested form and creation is projection from that unmanifest form into a manifest form from object to vector that is srishti and from vekta to object from the manifest to the unmanifest back to the under still there but unmanifest that is prahlaya that is destruction so that is the vedantic concept of creation and destruction over the last several months so much so many questions have come in and they've accumulated and we have not been able to do these ask swami sessions so i thought we should start with an ask swami session by the way a lot of work goes on behind this so there is of course the wonderful i.t team here who are working in spite of all the trouble so they come and they set up this uh live stream and recording facility even your questions which are collected and screened and organized and sent to me there's a team working for that one of them i know she's a er emergency room doctor working in icu with kovid patients all week long day and night struggling in life and death situations and she was up till late last night struggling to finish all of this work and so so much dedication that did all of it and sent it to me so we are grateful to all of these dedicated people who make this possible so many questions have accumulated so only few we have collected i'll take them up one by one and then discuss them as always even if it's not you are not the person who's asked this question these questions are questions for everybody many of these questions are our own questions also so when our answer is being given to a particular question we should all listen attentively because sometimes it happens the person who asked the question may or may not be so benefited you see question may be genuine but unless we are ready for the answer five years later same question one one sadhu said wandering monk in india so you would wander all over india and this particular village he would come to maybe once in five years and there was this gentleman in the village when the talk would be there in the village villagers would gather around him and this gentleman in the village would ask the same question every five years so the question was a genuine question but the answer was not penetrating so we should listen carefully to the answers we'll take them up one by one sometimes you may not have asked the question but the answer is very relevant to you all right the first question is from calvin from toronto calvin writes often explained the atman the real self or consciousness as the subject and it cannot be objectified that anything that is experienced is necessarily an object of experience and cannot be the self that is entirely logical but leaves one in a quandary of how to know the self for by that token it can remain only an inference a concept or an idea in the mind or one must or must one develop some hither to unknown psychic power or grow another mental faculty in order to apprehend it please don't give the clever but entirely useless zen answer stop trying to grasp it that only leaves one in a worse bind okay calvin good question you see i've been noticing many of the questions are becoming at the same time more precise and more difficult so as one understands advaita vedanta these are the questions which show that a deeper and deeper understanding of advaita vedanta is coming the importance of these very precise questions is that if one grasps the question the problem and then one grasps the answer one is one gets a tremendous clarity you are on the very let's put it even in a conservative way let's put it you're on the very verge of realization this is the importance of these questions especially in the path of vijara inquiry so the question the atman is a subject it cannot be objectified but then how to know the self if it's in subject and cannot be objectified how to know the self how can we know it it becomes isn't it only an inference isn't it only a concept an idea is it then some other special faculty of the mind is required to some unique capacity is required to know the self and don't tell me so he's anticipating that i'm going to give this answer to stop trying to grasp it he said you can don't give me he's taking away that answer from me don't give me that answer all right notice reading this question carefully you notice the self is the pure subject there's nothing objective about it one correct second calvin writes then how can you know the self now what is implied here what is implicit here what is an assumption here is that to know something it must be an object if it's not an object it cannot be known knowing means objectifying only objects can be known they are things which can be seen things which can be heard smelled tasted touched things which you can think about intentionally that it your mind thinks about something an object to your mind things which we can remember things which we can desire love hate all are objects and this is the only way of knowing and true this is the only way of knowing that we are accustomed to the story of the 10 friends i've told this earlier but it's specially relevant here this is a very profound story and we shall investigate use that story to investigate this question and find the answer you all know the story the 10 friends they left on a journey and they walked across they crossed a river when they had gone across they suddenly some of them had a doubt did we all cross the river safely or did somebody drown and uh they said let's count and they counted one of them counted one two three four five six seven eight nine oh my god that can't be right one two three four five six seven eight nine of course he was not counting himself he counted the others and he said only nine our tenth person is missing the tenth person must have drowned and the other friend said no no you're not counting correctly each one counted leaving himself out and counting the others so getting only nine and they started crying our our friend has drowned the tenth person is dead ten person has died and then this wise person comes walking past and asks why are you crying my friends oh the tenth person we were ten now there are only nine how do you know that there are nine he must have counted and he saw they were ten so one of them said we counted and we found nine then this person understood what the mistake was and he said the tenth person is there don't worry don't cry it's the guru and the vedanta and the texts which come and tell us that don't cry that the immortal self atman brahman is there though you are not able to find it so at this point it's a it's a teaching it's a it's a matter of faith and believing the text or the guru where is the tenth person is it count and the person one of them counted one two three four five six seven eight nine and this wise man took his hand and turned it around towards himself and said thou art the tenth ten and they found the tenth person one two three four five six seven eight nine ten wonderful and they were so happy the tenth person had been found now this is the story the tenth person obviously is um the atman the real self and the first nine are um they stand for body and prana and the mind and the intellect and the the causal body also the karana sharita all of that the panchakosha if you will if you will or if the if you look at it as the three bodies the physical body stula shadeers the subtle body sukshma sharira and the causal body karana sharira now the question to investigate here is why did did they think that the tenth person was missing because they counted and they found only nine because the the person that one was counting did not count himself why did the person not counting him why did that person not count himself what was the problem the problem was this he expected that just as those nine people one two three four five six seven eight nine nine were there outside countable the tenth person also must be outside why because the nine are like that he has some reason to think that that way everything that he has found so far is an object one two three four five six seven eight nine all are objects so the tenth person should also have been an object but not found does not find hence comes to the wrong conclusion completely wrong conclusion tenth person does not exist because it so happens in spite of those nine being objects the tenth is not an object the tenth is the subject the one who is doing the counting he is used to be to externalizing to objectifying and therefore he thinks the only way something can be counted is if it is an object exactly like the only thing the only way we think something can be known is if it's an object look at the question the self is the subject but then how can we know the self because we have taken it it's deep inside our minds that the self if it's not an object it cannot be known because only the assumption is only objects can be known and there is reason for this assumption because all of that we have known till now are objects by eyes we see form object by ears we hear sound object touch object smell taste objects even thinking even memory even understanding we are thinking about something object mental object so external object mental object even emotion is about something there is an object which we are experiencing sadness about something and the sadness itself is also an object but what are all these objects too we come to jump to the conclusion other than these objects there is nothing when vedanta comes and tells us that no no other than these objects there is a subject a pure subject that means which is not object at all purity here means the non-objective subject so that is the pure subject of pure consciousness when vedanta comes and tells us this we immediately feel it's like those people that when the wise man told them the tenth person is there they thought it's something theoretical where is this tenth person we feel where is this self we have to take it on faith therefore the questioner says calvin says so it is only an inference or a concept or an idea in the mind this is atman brahman is it so it's like saying that when i'm when i'm seeing all this i'm seeing all this with my eyes now the one thing that i'm not seeing are the eyes themselves so what i'm seeing here is this hall the chairs mostly empty tears so this is what i'm seeing but the eyes are not something which i'm seeing as an object out there now does that mean that my eyes are an idea a concept someone might say calvin might say oh but i can see my eyes in the mirror do you really need to see your eyes in the mirror to think that your eyes exist no to know that my eyes exist i only need to see anything the moment i see something i see this camera i see this chair now with my understanding of what's going on i say that not only do i see the camera or the chair but i also know that this camera is here the chair is here but my eyes are also there and eyes are also functioning this knowledge that my eyes are there and functioning is revealed to me simultaneously with my seeing the camera or the chair it is not an idea or a concept it's direct knowledge similarly every experience of the object if you know vedanta from a vedantic perspective through vedantic knowledge you realize every experience of an object whatever the object external object internal object mental object what every experience of an object reveals you as the experiencing shining illumining self not as a concept not as an idea directly if you say it's a concept if it's an idea an idea or a concept to whom to what hume the great philosopher scottish philosopher david hume he made the same same uh mistake he says that when i introspect i have a series of thoughts memories perceptions but i do not find any self he says that several hundred years before hume vidyaranya the great advaitha teacher in the south of india who wrote the panchadashi he replies as it were to the question that hume raises hundreds of years later he says the self is not perceived is not known because it's not an object not because it does not exist he says my dear hume as it were of course you say you do not see the self you do not experience any any self you do not experience any self could be for two reasons one is that there's no self therefore you don't experience it or you're looking in the wrong place you're looking at an object to find the subject you cannot the same mistake that anything that can be known must be an object yes all that we know are objects of knowledge but then who is or who or what is the subject and that is not a concept it's not an idea it's not an inference you know what is an inference um inferences the classic case of an inference in indian logic is that um i see fire and smoke together maybe in the kitchen so i see when there is one there is the smoke is there some it is produced by the fire and therefore i form this relationship in my mind wherever there is smoke there must be fire not the other way around because in your grill or something there might be fire but no smoke but wherever there is smoke there must be fire we form some kind of relationship in our mind now in the distance when we see smoke this is smoke on a hill hilltop now i can see the smoke but i can't see the fire so i infer the presence of fire why because i formed in my mind this relationship in technical sanskrit it's called vyapti wherever there is smoke there is fire now when i see smoke in there on the hilltop i infer there must be fire why by seeing the smoke i'm not seeing the fire but i infer that there is fire now do we do that for the self do we go through this process that wherever i am seeing an object there must be a self so i exist our own existence is directly revealed it's not an inference if you do an inference that who who is the one doing that inference the self is the one doing that inference the self is always there it does not require an inference to reveal the self actually there is a technical reason why inference will not work if you gave this question to a pundit the pandit would immediately say how will you form the vapti vyapti is relationship between one term and the other wherever there is smoke there is fire now you want to infer wherever there is an object there is a self to to do that first you must see the object and the subject together just like at some point you must see fire and smoke together to form the relationship wherever there is smoke there is fire you must see it see both together then later on you see one of them smoke and you infer the other fire but in this case you cannot form a relationship of vyapti between subject and object because you cannot objectify the subject to form the relationship one must see smoke and fire can you ever see object and subject object can be seen but the subject cannot be seen you can never form that kind of uh biati so technically speaking it cannot be an inference the self then the question is then how still it remains how do we grasp it some special faculty is required no special faculty is required in vedanta it's called brahmacaravity or akanda karavriti a flash of intuition about the self yeah when that intuitive faculty or the the by the constant cultivation of this vedantic inquiry with the help of all these vedantic texts the mind drops all objects physical external or internal and in a moment of clarity it sort of turns inwards that thou art thou art the tenth that it's difficult to describe a moment of immense clarity dawns i am that that of course not in the sense of an object it becomes very obvious not a concept not an idea more real than anything else outside more real than external object more real than internal object more real than things of the world more real than thoughts and feelings this self becomes very very evident and once it's done it's done forever it's always available to you in every action in every thought in every experience the self is shining forth without that no thought no action no experience now calvin has said you should not say stop trying to grasp it like the zen master say i will say it but not in the sense calvin thinks when you say stop trying to grasp it the zen master is not telling you to stop your spiritual quest i want to realize the self of course the then buddhist will not talk about the self in this way but i want to realize suppose in vedanta i want to realize the self i want to realize i am brahmana now the master is not telling you to stop that the master is telling you to stop trying to grasp it as an object stop trying to grasp it it means stop trying to find it as an object by the cultivation of vedantic enquiry you begin to see it is the subject of every object in fact it's revealed in every objective experience the keno panishad says in every experience which experience seeing talking right now right now to what is this happening that inward turn finding the tenth that is possible only when you try to stop trying to grasp it outside outside means external object also internal object no object now he says that only leaves one in a words bind it is it can be frustrating you know why it is frustrating it's because we have a deep-seated instinct very natural instinct to think it's an object we may say in vedantic theory yes yes i know it's it's the pure subject it's pure consciousness still i'm thinking of okay i have to find that pure consciousness it is the very pure same subject of pure consciousness or atman which is trying to find itself that habit of trying to objectify that is what creates the frustration in one sense it is extraordinarily simple in another sense it's because of our objective objectifying tendency it becomes extraordinarily difficult one final example and then stop with this question it's like trying to see your face in the mirror you see the reflection in the mirror and once you realize it's it's only a reflection it's not my real face which is here now first that real face which is here once you see the mirror your face in the mirror will you say oh that's a reflection but my real face it's just a concept no it's not a concept it's the reality of which that is the reflection the second question will come all right that's a reflection now how do i see my real face the only way you can see the real face c means what objectify the only way we can objectify the real face is with a mirror that's the only way you can see it but that objectified knowledge is not the highest knowledge the highest knowledge is being that real face being the atman which you are already that knowledge which leads you to stop the efforts to grasp it to objectify it what the zen teacher said that is enlightenment next question deja we just we asks while we agree that all three states dream waking and deep sleep are experienced in consciousness good that you agree why can't we say that they are all real instead of unreal since they are indeed experienced all right good question again all the questions today are difficult but good so first we must understand the question that the taser space asking we are experiencing waking dreaming deep sleep and all the things which are experienced in waking and in dreaming now what is the question this is a question based on the mandukyo punishable in the mandukyo upanishad it is said that the we must find out who we are and who we are the atman has four aspects one is the waking here we are i'm awake this body and through my senses i experience an external universe and then i fall asleep my senses lose contact with an external reality in my mind there are dreams and i inhabit a dream world and then that also the mind falls asleep completely the mind also shuts down and i'm not aware of anything external i'm not aware of anything internal and that's deep sleep that's the third aspect first aspect waking with a waker in the waker's world second aspect dreaming the dreamer and the dream world third aspect deep sleep deep sleep deep sleeper and not the deep sleep world there's no world as such it's the merged the unmanifest yes very good example is what we were talking about at the beginning and like just like the audience is mostly unmanifest here but you're all there similarly the world is there in deep sleep but in an unmanifest form in the blank form all of these come and go and the mandu ku panishad says none of this is your real self the real self is the fourth the theory of which is pure consciousness and existence unlimited awareness being now the what about these three the manduka says they are superimposed they are appearances they are unreal they appear and disappear in consciousness they are not real in themselves so that's where tejaswa is asking the question but we've experienced the waking world we experience dreams so why do we not say that that they are uh real why say they are unreal and now look at the question very carefully it's mentioned two things they are experienced so let's say they are real if you experience something it must be real and they're experienced in consciousness experienced in consciousness that is the key to the answer let us see how first of all experience and reality are not the same thing so the classic example of um the man who sees the rope as a snake bear with me i know immediately you will say that yes that's that's false but the rope is real but let's say just for for the sake of uh our thought experiment that the snake which is mistaken that the rope is mistaken for the snake the not a real snake you see as if you see for a moment so that snake which is seen is not a real snake seeing is not the proof of reality when a person sees water in the desert and does not know it's a mirage and thinks it's water that water illusory water in a sense it is seen but it's not real there are many visual illusions optical illusions where you see certain things the classic example is you look at rail lines and they are parallel but if for our from our perspective they appear to meet at towards the horizon they go like this and meet which they do not we know that so what is appearing is not necessarily real one famous philosopher bradley said what appears is not real the reality never appears so appearance is not the test of reality you might say that yes but false things also appear and real things also appear how will you distinguish what is false and what is real in vedanta the criteria is not experiencing something but the criteria is that there must not be this correction of error what do i mean by this when a person sees a snake mistakenly in a rope there is a correction afterwards oh this is not a snake it's a rope and therefore the person can say that snake was false because it's corrected when the person who thought it was water in the desert runs towards that water and says oh it's not water it is a mirage there is only sand here correction because of that correction you can say that water was false it's a mirage this correction in vedanta is called bada negation correction that which can be corrected is not real you see the false snake is corrected that it's actually a rope so the snake cannot be real that falls water in the mirror in the desert is corrected it's a mirage it's actually sand there is no water there then that water cannot be real so this correction is a sign of falsity and reality must be bad in vedanta definition of realities the absence of correction is reality now how do we know so let's take it this way so we know yes you might say that the snake is a false snake that the rope snake the water is false water but you must admit that the rope is real after all the rope is never corrected the desert is real desert is never corrected you never come i get an experience saying that is not the desert yes until realization realization vedantic realization is that which will tell you that that that this rope is not a rope it's brahman only this desert is not the desert it's brahman only this universe is not a universe it is brahman only i am not this body mind i am brahman so this correction this is enlightenment the universe becomes badhita negated or corrected this is the technical meaning of enlightenment in advaita vedanta it says so are we supposed to take it on faith no let us consider this i said in tejas question he said three states dreaming waking and deep sleep are experienced in consciousness now let us follow this up what does it mean perhaps the correction can happen right now we can all become enlightened the actual audience present here in virtual audience on the net enlightenment through internet so what is the correction here how can we achieve that in consciousness take the dream example the whole of in mando kikarika in the second chapter the whole of the effort of gowda pada in the waitati prakarana is this correction is to show how this act this experienced universe but she's talking about waking dreaming deep sleep this experienced universe is also an appearance so take the dream example in the dream what we see all the people and the events and the places and i myself in my dream i have this body in the dream which i go around and do things and the moment i wake up the whole thing is corrected i wake up and say oh all that was in the dream it was a dream it was not real i saw it but it was not real so see seeing is not the um is not the sign of reality i saw the dream but now i realize it is false because it was a dream it was entirely in the mind our ordinary idea of reality is if something is out there it's real if i imagine it in the mind it's imagination not reality so bill we are joined by bill who is our senior most member he is 95 years old and he had the covet infection and he recovered so that's incredible all right back to reality we're talking about reality and appearance our old subject the the whole thing is in the mind and that's why we say a dream is not real because i imagined it in the mind it has no existence apart from the mind now come to the waking state you might say yes that's why the dream is said to be the contents of the dream are said to be false but the contents of our waking experience are real now notice as stages we said everything in the waking and everything in the dream and everything in deep sleep that the blankness all of it is experienced in consciousness now the criterion of reality i said one criteria of react realities it should not be corrected another criterion of reality is it should exist by itself it should not depend on something else for its existence if all the things that we experience are experienced in consciousness then can we say all those things in the waking all the people and events which we see in the waking and in the dreaming can we say that they exist by themselves or only in the presence of consciousness in consciousness to to claim that something exists by itself and not with the help of something else you must be able to appreciate it by itself the classic example is um we somebody has a nice smile and we have a doubt are they do those teeth really belong to him or are they dentures are they false teeth and we will never know because all the time the person is smiling the teeth are in his mouth now only if you go to his room suddenly maybe late in the night and you knock and he opens the door and he gives you a cute toothless smile and the teeth are sitting there in a little box you realize oh those are dentures the two are separate they are independent separate entities but about the things that we experience waking dreaming deep sleep as they just we said they are never experienced apart from consciousness they are never ex they are incapable of being experienced independently of consciousness then how can we say that those things the contents of those states are independent of consciousness they come with consciousness they appear in consciousness they play around in consciousness and they disappear in consciousness consciousness is aware of their absence aware of their presence and aware of their disappearance there is never a time in fact it's impossible to think about waking dreaming deep sleep without consciousness so are they all phenomena which appear in and through consciousness it seems so if they have no independent existence that's what advaita vedanta means by saying they do not exist apart from consciousness they are not real not real means not it's not that they are not experienced they are experienced the definition of mithyatum falsity is something that is experienced and yet does not exist the snake that you see by mistake yet does not exist the dreams that you see at night yet you realize they don't exist apart from your mind similarly the entirety of our waking dreaming deep sleep experience is experienced but not apart from consciousness so they do not exist by themselves apart from consciousness they exist only in consciousness they are not a second thing apart from consciousness therefore they are not real they appear but they are not reality then what is reality consciousness is reality just as in the dream it's the dreamer's mind which is the reality just as in that false snake it's the rope which is the reality in the mirage water it is that mirage the desert which is the reality similarly in the entire conscious experience of waking dreaming deep sleep it is consciousness which is the reality and that real reality that consciousness you are tattoo mercy or as the manduka would say i am this very self is that is that brahman the ultimate reality or consciousness in which waking dreaming deep sleep appear and now a very crucial point i must mention that before we move on to the next question go back to that criterion of reality which i said satyatvam reality is the absence of correction is this unnegatability you cannot correct it suppose somebody says all right i'm seeing a snake i correct it and i see it's a rope so snake is false and i realize it's really a rope and you are saying swami one day i will be able to correct it and say that um the rope also is not real it is actually consciousness appearing as a rope and consciousness is the reality now what's there to say that after some time it may be possible that consciousness is also corrected and something else becomes the reality why not why can you not say that consciousness can be corrected consciousness can be negated corrected means negated it is not consciousness it is something else such a thing isn't it possible at least theoretically no this is the beauty of it the only thing that cannot be negated the only thing that cannot be corrected is not possible is consciousness even theoretically in principle it is not possible think about it correction negation is always is revealed to experienced by consciousness you the consciousness because of an error in the mind and you saw a snake where it was actually a rope to you the consciousness that snake was corrected into a rope same consciousness realized through the mind oh it's a rope you the consciousness through the dreaming mind you are dreaming that i am in such and such place such things are happening the mind woke up and to you the consciousness it was revealed oh it was a dream now waking to you the consciousness one day it will be revealed that this whole waking dreaming deep sleep is an appearance and disappearance in you you are the unchanging reality but it will never ever happen that the consciousness itself will be negated why not because negation and affirmation only happens to consciousness to negate the consciousness you still need consciousness who will who or what will realize that negation consciousness only so consciousness is not negated it may sound complicated but it's a very simple thing actually and it's a very beautiful elegant conclusion the only thing that cannot be negated in our lives the only thing that is never corrected worlds may be corrected ideology is science even science is always corrected it's called falsifiability even religion god may be corrected that is not exist but awareness consciousness atman brahman thorium same thing that in principle cannot be corrected so logically at least you must say that that must be the ultimate truth so a good question from tejaswe this is a question from pranav kumar if the realization of the atman is an experiential reality then why should there be a logical conflict between various schools of thought like advaita dwayta sankhya buddhism etc does it mean that the realized masters have different experiences if so can we say that there is only one consciousness i take it to mean what prana kumar is asking is that the advaitic conclusion that brahman pure consciousness is the ultimate reality but if that is so then how are there different schools of of philosophy of theology the dwight of vedanta comes and says no no not consciousness alone the ultimate reality is is vishnu or narayana who is the lord of the universe god is the ultimate reality and all of these these words and all they're also real difference is real not non-difference the vishishta dwight the qualified monism comes and says no no it's not that difference is real it's not that identity is real but rather it's an uh qualified identity there is one reality which is god or narayana and all of us all sentient beings and all non-living things stars and planets quarks and quasars all of these are parts of that and organic parts of that reality brahman is the ultimate reality and all sentient beings and incentive matter and energy and time and space are part of this reality advaita vedanta says no difference at all ultimately it is one homogeneous reality existence consciousness place how do you account for this sri ramakrishna's answer which seems to be most acceptable is this all of these approaches dualistic approach non-dualistic approach the sankhya approach even the buddhistic approach and devotional approach all of them are paths about the same ultimate reality but the same ultimate reality is infinite in its nature you cannot say it is only formless it is also with form you cannot say it is only consciousness existence no it's also with with with qualities it can be seen as a personal god who is loving and omnipotent and omniscient and just so it's that ultimate reality admits of infinite dimensions within itself and there's different paths to all the religions you have to think of them as paths this is sri ramakrishna's approach all the different paths they take you to one or the other aspect of this infinite reality what is advaita vedanta's take on this advaita vedanta of course is very clear about it the ultimate reality is existence consciousness bliss now if you ask but then what about all these other masters vishishta dwight advaita and the buddhists are they all false we consider i mean some strict advice would say that oh that's all maya it's false but a more considered answer will be that's all in the viva harika transactional realm where that same brahman with name and form appears as this world appears as us with bodies and minds and appears as a god of this world and that god depending on the name and form it can be conceived of and even experienced as shiva as kali as durga as vishnu as the jehovah of the jews as the father in heaven of the christians or the allah of the muslims so yes it would all be seen as a part of the the transactional empirical reality within the realm of maya a simple way of thinking about it is people think these non-dualists do they believe in god do they believe in temples and and puja and going on pilgrimages shankara says yes we believe in all of that everything that the dualistic religions prescribe is accepted in principle by a non-dualist advaitan only and this is what drives the dualists wild only it is transactional empirical viva harika it is helpful to the realization of the ultimate truth which is that i am brahmana ahmra mahasami this would be the advaitic idea another way of looking at it is this sri ramakrishna gives a very beautiful example you see what suramar krishna would do is whatever you showed him he would be very curious about the world but then he would connect it to something in spiritual life so photography in those days photography was a big yet at a big fuss nowadays you can simply take a selfie those days you have to invite a photographer who will come and set up the camera and you have to pose it's almost like having a painting done and he will throw a black cloth over himself and then take a picture and sri ramakrishna was interested in knowing how it works and they said that there is this photographic plate and silver nitrate is put on it and the light passes through it and impression of the shape is is made imprint is made on it and that is later developed into a photograph so he immediately connected it to dualism and down dualism he says if it's simply glass then just light pure light will stream through it leaving no impression at all that is advaita no form which is just consciousness but he says if you spread the silver nitrate of love on it on that glass a form will be imprinted on it the same light will come but it will leave a form on it a photograph so what is the silver nitrate of love so i love my krishna or my christ or my my gopal my lord shiva or my mother kali and when that same light streams through my mind it leaves an impression in the form which i love so you can say that ultimate reality satchidananda appears to you as kali as krishna as shiva as your ishta devata your chosen ideal and according to advaita then this is what happened to the great masters in different devotional approaches one more point the question about buddhism where they do not talk about god or the forms of god so is it the same thing as what advaita vedante is talking about i just mentioned this there's a lot of discussion um about particular forms of buddhism especially the tibetan buddhism his followers the philosophy of tibetan buddhism the philosophy of advaita they are not the same but they often like mirror images they seem to be pointing towards something similar and one sign of that is both will say no no they are different from us i think that shows a kind of uh anxiety or insecurity that they are talking exactly about what we are talking about the advaitha is keen to dismiss madhyamaka buddhism of nagarjuna and the madhyamaka but when you see how they dismiss each other you can see that they are misconstruing each other in order to dismiss them if you take it in the spirit of their own teachings you will see they are pointing towards more or less the same thing i was at uh in the fall semester at harvard i took a course on indo-tibetan um buddhism philosophy of nagarjuna as it was developed in india kitty and others and then later in tibet by many great teachers in tibetan buddhism so when i entered the class our professor who is a leading authority on this in the world he said swami leave your advice outside it's not about advaitha he knows that immediately he'll try to make connections between advaitha and madhyamaka buddhism so all right the class proceeded one day i had i was walking outside the harvard yard and i saw tibetan lama and i went up to him and he looked at me and he said oh what are you doing here he said i'm studying your tradition at harvard and then he said but you are in advaitan i said yes it's all same he said so the one who is practicing tibetan buddhism this tibetan llama he said to me it's also and you know that those five stanzas written by shankara i said manisha panchakam yes that one five standards on wisdom i use that while teaching tibetan buddhism you see so there is a certain sense in which the practitioners also recognize that both are pointing towards the same reality so we leave it at that we are almost out of time but he had pranav kumar had a second very interesting question and just touch upon it and move on if consciousness pranav are asking if consciousness illumines maya all the animate and inanimate then why does consciousness need the support of maya to realize itself is it not a paradoxical concept if you say consciousness illumines maya and in turn through the use of maya body and mind consciousness is realized so does that mean maya is as real as consciousness so it's a very good question very quickly and a very profound question actually if you say consciousness depends on maya let's use the term prakriti consciousness depends on prakriti and prakriti depends on consciousness how do how the two of them depend on each other consciousness illumines prakriti it reveals nature the entire world is revealed to you because you are consciousness but you become aware of yourself as consciousness only with the help of the world it's like my eyes when i open it my eyes reveal all i can see the world the world is seen by my eyes but what does the world do for my eyes the world proves to me that i have eyes if i don't open my eyes i cannot see the world but i don't even have the conception of having eyes also you see it's like that so consciousness reveals the world and the world manifests consciousness now if you leave it at that as he is asking it becomes sankhya prakriti and purusha two ultimate realities as he says so does that mean maya is as real at consciousness that is sankhya prakriti and some prudusha are both real and both benefit each other one old saying is it's like the lame person and the blind person the blind person can walk can go to different places but can't see anything doesn't know where to go and the lame person can see things but cannot walk cannot go to places and that so to the two take the help of each other and the person who can see the lame person tells the blind person where to go and the blind person carries the lame person so in the same way prakriti is blind no consciousness and consciousness is not capable of action in the world prakriti only can do action the two together form our experience of life that's a very beautiful philosophy but very dualistic sunk here the answer to your question i could have a full lecture on this question actually the answer to your question advaita vedanta is very strict maya or prakriti cannot be a second reality apart from brahman why because brahman is existence if something is apart from existence what happens non-existence maya will become non-existent so maya is not apart from brahman it's not a second reality apart from brahman and is it brahman if it's just brahman itself then why call it maya no brahman is only existence consciousness bliss maya you can in advaita vedanta you can see it as an inexplicable faculty of brahman to project brahman itself as name and form let me repeat that and inexplicable anirachanya faculty or power shakti of brahman to project brahman as this world so it's not really that brahman depends on anything else for projection and self-realization it's its own capacity now this talk of shakthi capacities this is not very advaitic actually if you take the shakthi as a real capacity not different from brahman but as the real capacity of brahman it actually becomes shakta dwayta or kashmiri shaivism and kashmiri shaivaism the pratyavika philosophy where they conceive of the ultimate reality as shiva who is not only consciousness but also self-reflection consciousness which is aware of itself so they call it prakash of martial illumination and self-awareness that self-awareness aspect is given by the vimarsha by shakthi in in kashmir shaibism advaita does all of that but maya has no second reality apart from brahman so the non-duality of brahman is mentioned is maintained non-duality of brahman is maintained why because maya is not a second reality apart from brahman but brahman does not depend on anything other than itself because maya has no existence apart from brahman if that sounds unsatisfactory it's logically very neat kashmiri shaivism is psychologically more satisfactory spiritually more satisfactory may be even but logically troublesome because then it how do you justify the self-reflective capacity vimarsha within brahman within shiva so there's all those issues out there last let us end today with a question from bill davis so bill davis who is usually here but now he's in upstate new york he writes how does advaita understand prayer how does advaita understand prayer how does advaita explain that prayer is effective so first of all question is there prayer in advaitha straight answer yes there is yes there is you will be thinking i hear a butt somewhere first of all yes there is but but the the sense of prayer in advaitha has uh a distinct characteristic of its own first of all in simple they see all the shanti mantras most of the shanti mantras they are prayers often to vedic gods for what let our body be healthier no coronavirus let our minds be alert and pure let us continue with our our life of worship and vedantic enquiry until realization so the prayer is always for the ultimate realization um the face of truth is hidden by the shining disc standing disc of this world name and form so i pray to you lord remove view harassment withdraw your rays shade that burning brilliance so that i who desire realization i who have walked on the path of righteousness i can realize thee it's a prayer in the bhagavad-gita 15th chapter we find tame i worship that primaval being from whom this entire infinite series of action karma has started originated from that being from brahmana i worship that i pray to that so prayer is there the prayer is always for ultimately for knowledge and all the qualities needed for knowledge um this discernment viveka dispassion vairagya the spiritual disciplines and intense desire to be free i pray to the lord that the lord may give me all of that so it is there prayer is there but then you may ask who is prayed praying to whom there the concept of of brahman as gaya brahman and upasiya brahman brahman is the ultimate reality is understood in two ways the guinea brahman is the brahman to be realized and it's always to be realized in the form i am brahman so there no prayer is possible they are the only sense of prayer is that quest for self-realization shankaracharya actually says in the vivek swastha devotion is the quest for the reality of the self now that's a very strange definition of bhakti it will make all the bhaktas annoyed but the devotion is the quest for realizing who am i that's not how most peop devotees understand devotion devotion is love and surrender to god so that's one sense in which gay abraham and brahman to be realized there the devotional relationship is not emphasized but then there's opacity brahman brahman to be worshipped which is the brahman to be worshipped the same brahman with qualities the term is saguna brahman or god so as long as we think of ourselves as these limited beings jiva till that point brahman the ultimate reality is god to us saguna brahman or ishvara and a relationship of prayer is set up certainly one can pray shankaracharya composed so many wonderful hymns what is he praying to he is praying as shankaracharya and teaching us to pray to god in the form of shiva in the form of narayana in the form of devi in whichever form they are all saguna brahman that saccidananda with qualities the god of this universe but the heart of vedanta is not this the heart of vedanta is that that saguna brahman what is it reality what is it in reality that this individual being i what am i in reality and vedantic inquiry shows what i am in reality existence consciousness bliss is the same thing which that's in reality that's our real nature you and god share the fundamental basic real nature of existence consciousness bliss i am that so that's the ultimate focus of advaita vedanta so prayer is definitely a part of advaitic philosophy it is often seen as preliminary as preparatory very good it helps you towards advertising realization but i should also add here suppose somebody says i do not like that theistic approach some people say it requires belief faith prayer always requires belief and faith it's not my way can i go by the path of pure inquiry yes you can that's the uh speciality of advaita vedanta you need not go by this path but prayer is certainly possible in advaita vedanta and highly recommended too so on that prayerful note let us end i pray to sri ramakrishna the holy mother and swami vivekananda may they bless us especially in these very difficult times these are the times when we need spiritual strength and peace and inwardness and calmness remember that which has come must go this too shall pass you as brahman as the witness you have experienced and seen so many things in the past now you are seeing this pandemic and coronavirus and all its ill effects this also shall pass leaving you completely unaffected you we will triumph over this situation by the grace of takurman swamiji om shanti [Music] my [Music] you